1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + + +

ORAL COMMENT WEBINAR

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

OCTOBER 15, 2019

+ + + + +

The National Organic Standards Board 

met via web conference, at 1:00 p.m., Harriet Behar, 

Chair, presiding.

PRESENT

HARRIET BEHAR, Chair

STEVE ELA, Vice Chair

SCOTT RICE, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

JESSE BUIE

TOM CHAPMAN

LISA de LIMA

RICK GREENWOOD

DAVE MORTENSEN

EMILY OAKLEY

DAN SEITZ

ASHLEY SWAFFAR
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ALSO PRESENT

PAUL LEWIS, Director, Standards Division

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, Advisory Committee 

 Specialist

DEVON PATTILLO, Materials Specialist, Standards 

 Division

ANGIE PEGUES, Management Analyst
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

1:01 p.m.

MS. ARSENAULT: Welcome to the 

National Organic Standards Board comment webinar. 

We have webinars today from 1:00 to 4:00 and then 

again on Thursday from 1:00 to 4:00.

And I'm going to turn it over to Paul 

Lewis, who will official open the comment webinar 

for the NOSB meeting.

MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Michelle. And 

good afternoon, I am Paul Lewis, Director of the 

Standards Division of the National Organic Program.

I'd like to welcome NOSB members and 

the public to today's NOSB public comment webinar. 

And I appreciate the members participation in this 

call and for all your work serving on the Board 

and preparing for the webinar this week and for 

an upcoming Board meeting next week.

This webinar offers the opportunity of 

the public to provide comments to the Board, as 

part of the Boards upcoming public face-to-face 

meeting that will be next week in Pittsburgh from 
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

October 23rd to 25th. Please consult the NOP 

website for further information about the 

face-to-face meeting.

This meeting, like other meetings of 

the National Organic Standards Board operated under 

the divisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act. I look forward to hearing the comments from 

the public, to assist the Board in preparing the 

recommendations to the USDA in response to NOSB 

work agenda items.

I also want to thank my National Organic 

Programs Standards Division colleagues for all 

their help, both today and behind the scenes to 

bring us today's teleconference and for upcoming 

webinars. Let me close by also thanking Harriet 

Behar, Chair of the NOSB, for all her work serving 

as our chair for this year. Harriet, thank you 

for Chairing the webinar and I turn to you. Thank 

you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Paul. So, I 

wanted to also just reiterate that public comments 

is a very important part of the rulemaking process. 
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And be assured that your comments are very 

important to the NOSB members as they go about 

making their recommendations to the National 

Organic Program.

And lastly, thank you for the time and 

effort that you have given in giving us your 

comments.

As a reminder, I just want to say too 

that registration was required to make comments 

today and on Thursday. And as we move through 

today, everyone will be on mute and Michelle will 

unmute speakers when it's their turn to speak.

I will also announce the next commenter 

and the next person or two who is on deck, so you 

can get ready to give your comments.

There is a timer that will start when 

the speaker begins and will beep after three 

minutes. So, please finish your sentence and then 

let's move on to the next commenter. And so, just 

end when you hear that timer.

Board members will be able to ask 

questions of you, so don't hang up or leave the 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

webinar immediately after your comment because we 

may want to do some follow-up with you. We'll let 

you know when we are finished with your moving on 

to the next.

For new participants who haven't been 

through this before, only National Organic 

Standards Board members are allowed to ask 

questions.

Okay, Michelle, will you then take the 

roll call?

MS. ARSENAULT: Excellent. And I just 

want to add one thing that I forgot to mention. 

Let me open this.

We are recording the Zoom webinar, and 

we also have a transcriptionist on the line with 

us. We are sort of testing out the systems in 

parallel to see how well the recording in Zoom does. 

Just so folks are aware of that.

All right, I'm going to call roll now 

for the Board members. So, Sue Baird, are you on 

the line with us?

Oh my goodness. All right, wait, I am 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

going to have to make sure I unmute you all. Sue 

Baird, I see you but I'm going to allow you to talk. 

Sorry guys while I work out the kinks of this new 

platform.

Sue, I lost you. I did see you on the 

line, Sue. Hmm, I lost Sue.

Okay, I'm going to move on. Harriet, 

I know you're here, would you like to say present?

CHAIR BEHAR: Present, I am here.

MS. ARSENAULT: Thank you. Asa 

Bradman. Let me allow you to talk, Asa. Asa, I 

think you should be, oh, there you go. All right, 

Asa unmute.

Sue, I unmuted you successfully, I 

believe. Nope.

MR. BRADMAN: It's Asa.

MS. ARSENAULT: Ah, there we go. It 

was a little bit of a delay there. Thanks, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

MS. ARSENAULT: Sue, I'm still having 

trouble unmuting your microphone. There, you 

should be unmuted now. Sue, are you there? I'm 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not hearing you if you're talking. All right, 

we'll come back to Sue.

Tom Chapman, are you on the line with 

us? I think you were dialing in on the phone only. 

And I don't see your number off the top of my head 

here. All right, Tom, we're going to come back 

to Tom.

Lisa de Lima. Let's see, Lisa.

MS. DE LIMA: I am here.

MS. ARSENAULT: Hi, Lisa, got you. 

Thank you so much for that.

Steve Ela, let me make sure your mic 

is unmuted.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I am here.

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve, your unmuted.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I'm here.

MS. ARSENAULT: Thanks. Rick 

Greenwood. Rick, let me allow you, unmute your 

mic here. So, Rick, I, oh, there's a little bit 

of a delay here. All right, Rick, your mic should 

be unmuted.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay, I'm here.
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ARSENAULT: I hear you, great. 

How about Dave Mortensen? Dave, I'm unmuting your 

mic. Give me a second here.

MR. MORTENSEN: Did you hear me okay?

MS. ARSENAULT: We got you. Thanks, 

Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, thanks.

MS. ARSENAULT: And, Emily. Let's 

see, Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: I'm here.

MS. ARSENAULT: Oh, we got you, great. 

So you're unmuted, thank you for that.

And Scott, I saw you log on, let me just 

make sure you are unmuted.

MR. SEITZ: This is Scott. Present.

MS. ARSENAULT: Scott, excellent. 

Thank you.

And I believe Harriet, Dan, nope, 

that's on Thursday. Dan, I just saw your name, 

Dan. Let me unmute your mic here. I'm trying to 

unmute your mic here, Dan, just give me a second 

here. A little bit of a delay.
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Michelle, it looks like 

some of the NOSB members are listed in attendees 

and have not been promoted to panelist, so I will 

not be able to see them raise their hands.

MS. ARSENAULT: Okay. I will do that. 

But I still should be able to unmute them. And, 

Sue, so Dan and Sue, I can see you on the line but 

we're not, I'm just not hearing you. So, I'm going 

to count you as here since I see you dialed in. 

Dan and Sue.

And how about Ashley. Ashley, are you 

with us? Ashley, if you are just dialed in on the 

phone, let me find you. All right, Ashley, I am 

--

MS. SWAFFAR: Can you hear me? Hello?

MS. ARSENAULT: I got you. We got you. 

Thank you.

MS. SWAFFAR: Thanks.

MS. ARSENAULT: All right. Okay, and 

then for the record, A-dae Romero-Briones will not 

be with us on the call today. She won't be on the 

webinar.
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I believe everybody else -- ah, Tom. 

Let me go back to Tom here. I'm not seeing Tom 

on the list yet. I know he is traveling and may 

be just dialing in on the phone, so I'll keep an 

eye on that. If he joins us later.

All right, Harriet, I'm going to turn 

it back over to you. And we can get started with 

speakers.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, great. So, first 

up is Maddie Kempner with NOFA Vermont. And after 

her is Linley Dixon with the Real Organic Project. 

So, Maddie, as soon as Michelle unmutes you, you 

can join us.

Michelle, I believe you can see her 

phone number?

MS. KEMPNER: Hello, can you hear me?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, Maddie, go ahead. 

We can, yes, I think you and I were muting and 

unmuting each other.

(Laughter.)

MS. ARSENAULT: Sorry about that.

MS. KEMPNER: Okay.
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ARSENAULT: So go ahead.

MS. KEMPNER: Great, thank you so much. 

My name is Maddie Kempner and I am the policy 

advisory for NOFA Vermont, the Northeast Organic 

Farming Association of Vermont.

I'm giving comments today on behalf of 

NOFA Vermont on Vermont Organic Farmers, which is 

an accreditor certifier representing over 700 

organic farmers and processors.

I really appreciate the opportunity to 

provide comments today. And I also wanted to note 

that VOF Staff will be providing comments in person 

at the Pittsburgh meeting next week, so you'll hear 

more from us then.

And I wanted to comment today 

specifically on excluded methods in organic 

production. And in addition to commenting on the 

excluded methods, vaccines, proposals from the 

livestock committee, I will also be commenting on 

the material subcommittee's proposal. I just want 

to note that since I didn't mention it in my original 

request to comment.
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

At the outset, I just want to state 

while this is not on the NOSB's current work agenda, 

I want to reiterate, for the record, that the 

current regulations prohibit the use of gene 

editing in organic production and that NOFA 

Vermont, VOF, the NOSB, need to continue to vocally 

oppose the inclusion of all forms of genetic 

engineering in organic across the board.

In relation to the materials 

subcommittee's excluded methods proposal we 

support the addition of induced mutagenesis 

developed through in vitro nucleic acid technics 

to the table of excluded methods because this can 

be considered an invasion into the plant genome. 

We feel that it clearly meets the definition of 

genetic engineering based on the criteria provided 

in the NOSB's recommendation starting in 2016.

We also support the proposed addition 

of embryo transfer in livestock to the chart of 

not excluded methods. We, I will say, we've only 

had a few questions over the years about the use 

of embryo transfer on organic farms, but we 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

understand that this process would be approved as 

long we hormones were not used to synchronize the 

animals receiving the transferred embryo.

And I will also note that we haven't 

hadn't producers in the past who are willing to 

undergo this process without the ability to use 

hormones to synchronize estrous, so it hasn't been 

something that our producers have found necessary. 

But we do support allowing it so that if producers 

have alternative methods or means of predicting 

or synchronizing estrous outside of the use of 

hormones, that they can do that.

And then lastly, I wanted to comment 

on the excluded method vaccines proposal. 

Vaccines are a really important tool for organic 

livestock producers and an important component of 

the principle of disease prevention in organic 

production.

So we do support continued, continued 

work on allowing the use of vaccines in organic 

production.

We do currently verify, to the best of 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

our ability, that vaccines used by our producers 

are not produced using excluded methods. So we 

take a fairly strict stance on that and have not 

allowed the use of GE vaccines for our producers.

And we believe that the current 

regulations prohibit the use of GE vaccines unless 

they are on the National List.

So, in the interest of -- we do support 

the proposal to allow excluded method vaccines 

where there are not non-GE vaccines that are 

commercially available.

And in the interest of improving 

consistency across certifiers, certifiers should 

work together to develop safest GE vaccines that 

don't have commercially available equivalents. 

And all --

(Telephonic interference.)

MS. KEMPNER: -- documentation for 

producers for non-GE vaccines is going to be a 

critical component in improving consistency in this 

area.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, anyone have any 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

questions for Maddie?

I have one, Maddie. I'm just wondering 

is this, the livestock vaccine --

MS. KEMPNER: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- proposal, do you feel 

that there is -- that this shows a willingness to 

accept the GMO vaccines in our regulation on GMOs, 

or as a way to promote non-GMO vaccines to be more 

available?

MS. KEMPNER: I would say that this, 

first of all, and what we would support as well, 

is the latter. That this provides an opportunity 

for there to be more available information in terms 

of the GE vaccines, or the vaccines that are 

available that are not produced using excluded 

methods.

And also, to increase and encourage, 

producers of vaccines to develop them not using 

GE methods.

I think if there are (telephonic 

interference) regular search is happening from 

organic producers, to document that vaccines aren't 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

currently available, I think that will trigger, 

hopefully producers of these vaccines to start 

developing them without excluded methods where 

there currently aren't non-GE options.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. And I see 

that Steve has his hand raised. Do you have a 

question, Steve?

VICE CHAIR ELA: I do. I mostly just 

want to make sure, on my screen I can only see about 

eight of the NOSB members, and I want to make sure 

that those that just called in, there may not be, 

that don't have the raise hand functionality have 

a way to ask questions.

Because if Michelle doesn't unmute 

them, they may not be able to get your attention, 

Harriet, so just want to make sure they can --

CHAIR BEHAR: That's true. Okay, I'll 

open up my email on my second screen and so, if 

you want to email me quickly and let me know you 

have a question, then that's one way. And then 

I can read it if Michelle can't figure out a way 

to unmute you.
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: But thank you for that, 

Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Any other questions from 

anyone? I have my email open. Okay, I guess not.

So, next up is Linley Dixon, and after 

her is Charlotte Vallaeys with Consumer Reports. 

So, Linley, hopefully Michelle can unmute you.

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. Linley, I'm not 

finding your name in the list here and I'm not seeing 

-- let me see if I can find your 970 number. I 

hope this is you. I'm going to unmute your mic 

now.

MS. DIXON: It's me.

MS. ARSENAULT: All right, we got you.

MS. DIXON: Thanks, Michelle.

MS. ARSENAULT: Thank you.

MS. DIXON: I'm Linley Dixon, the 

Associate Director of the Real Organic Project. 

We're a farmer-led grassroots effort to keep 

organic standards in line with OFPA.

At the close of our second 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

certification season here we have over 250 farms 

certified for an add on soil grown and pasture 

raised organic label.

The formation of the Real Organic 

Project is a result of major failures of the 

National Organic Program to enforce basic organic 

standards. Which includes livestock grazing 

standards, the origin of livestock rule, real 

outdoor access for poultry and enforcement of the 

soil fertility and crop nutrient management 

practice standard.

These failures effect the foundations 

of what makes organic, organic.

The emergency of alternative 

sustainability labels, that directly compete with 

the organic seals, are a direct result of the 

failures of USDA Organic to remain soil grown and 

pasture raised.

Failure to uphold these basic tenets 

of the law has resulted in severe unfair competition 

under the organic seal. Organic berry farmers are 

being driven out of business by the rapid influx 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of hydroponic berries under the same label. 

Despite extreme differences and cost of production.

Please educate yourself on the 

practices of a five year disposable plastic 

hydroponic blueberry farm.

Likewise, organic dairy farmers have 

actually graze their cows cannot compete with those 

that feed total mixed rations before turning them 

out, bellies full, to "pasture" right next to the 

milking facility. It's not grazing, it's bellies 

are full with TMR and the grass is too short to 

graze on anyway.

ROP is an attempt to restore fair 

competition under the organic seal, under standards 

that follow the principles of OFPA.

Of course, the lifeline we're providing 

to farmers and the organic label will be too late 

for many producers, but hopefully not too late for 

the continued credibility of the word organic.

Grass-fed and pasture labels are 

gaining in popularity because organic isn't 

ensuring pasture. Consumers are becoming more and 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

more aware of the connection between healthy soils 

and nutrition and their looking towards those 

pasture and soil grown claims in OFPA.

Last spring it was the Real Organic 

Project that provided the evidence that certifiers 

were allowing the certification of hydroponic 

production without a three year transaction.

Before we released the evidence that 

we knew what was occurring, the NOP, several times, 

publicly stated that the allowance of herb sites 

prior to certification was hypothetical. The Real 

Organic Project shouldn't know more about what is 

going on than the NOP.

The NOP still has not clarified whether 

or not a three year transition is required for 

hydroponics and greenhouses. Immediate 

conversion of conventional greenhouses to organic 

provides a serious loophole allowing prohibited 

substance use between organic crops continuously.

As NOSB members, please use your 

microphone to help make the Real Organic Project 

completely obsolete by working to endorse the still 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

standing 2020 recommendation and the language in 

OFPA that requires the fostering of soil fertility 

and organic production.

When you travel across the U.S. you come 

to understand how universal soil health is when 

visiting farmers on their farms. It's what organic 

means to organic farmers.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Linley. I 

see Emily has a question.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you, Harriet. 

Linley, I think you brought up an issue that several 

stakeholders that are also still concerned about, 

which is clarification of the NOP memo on this 

year's transition period. With respect to 

greenhouses or other facilities, particularly 

indoor facilities.

And I was wondering if Paul or someone 

on this program is on the call, would be able to 

address that for us?

Is Paul still on the call, Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: Sorry, Emily, hold on 

one second. I am having to mute and unmute people's 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

mics individually and select to find. Sorry, give 

me one second here. There is a lot of 202 numbers 

on here. And I believe this one was Paul.

MR. LEWIS: Hi.

MS. ARSENAULT: Can you say something, 

Paul?

MR. LEWIS: Hi, Emily.

MS. ARSENAULT: We got you.

MR. LEWIS: Can you hear me now? 

Emily, thanks for the question.

At next weeks NOSB meeting, Deputy 

Administrator Chuck will be talking about the memo, 

and in terms of finding any additional 

clarification on the memo per say. So, if you can 

wait until next week in terms of, will she make 

remarks about that, I appreciate it.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

MR. LEWIS: You're welcome.

CHAIR BEHAR: Any other questions from 

the Board?

I just have one comment. Linley, and 

thank you for working with so many committed and 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

passionate organic producers.

Okay, next up we have Charlotte 

Vallaeys and then Andrew Dykstra with WODPA, and 

then after him Peyton McDaniel with Hickory Meadows 

Organic Farm. So, next Charlotte, then Andrew, 

then Peyton.

MS. ARSENAULT: Andrew, I unmuted you 

but, well, I'm going to mute you again and unmute 

you again. Andrew, you should be unmuted now. 

Go ahead and speak and see if we can hear you.

We're not hearing you but it looks like 

your mic is unmuted, on my end. No. Now, if you're 

talking we still can't hear you.

Maybe you want to dial in one of the 

numbers that are on the screen. If you want to 

dial in using your phone instead of using your 

computer. I don't know if you can, so it's 

929-436-2866. I just gave you the east coast 

number. Hopefully that was correct.

CHAIR BEHAR: Michelle, should we go 

to the next one then come back?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. It's up to you. 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

All right, Andrew, we're going to come back to 

you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, so next up would 

be Peyton McDaniel.

MS. ARSENAULT: And I have not seen 

Peyton on the line. Let me see. I have a couple 

maybe just on the phone instead of on the webinar. 

There's two of them.

All right, I have two numbers with an 

area code of 252, so I'm going to unmute both of 

you because I don't know which one belongs to --

MR. MCDANIEL: Hello, this is Peyton 

McDaniel with Hickory Meadows Organic.

MS. ARSENAULT: Hey, Peyton, great. 

We can hear you fine. Thanks.

MR. MCDANIEL: Okay, great. Just, I 

want to say a little bit about myself and our farm.

We grow 600 acres of certified organic 

crop. Being doing so since 2007. Tobacco is a 

major part of operation and we don't feel like it 

can be done without the use of fatty alcohols for 

sucker controls.
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

For starters, it's going to increase 

our labor cost to where we may not even consider 

growing the crop anymore. It may just push us out.

Not to mention, it will increase the 

change of green tobacco sickness with workers. 

These are just a few of the things that we really, 

we really need this in our toolbox as organic 

farmers.

The toolbox is a little limited as it 

is. It's something that we really need. And I 

would request that the NOSB and USDA add fatty 

alcohols to the National List of allowed 

substances. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, are there any 

comments or questions? I see Emily has her hand 

raised. Go ahead, Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. Thank you for 

your comments. I was wondering if you had grown 

tobacco without the use of fatty alcohol before?

MR. MCDANIEL: We have. We did for 

several years. I can't exactly remember the dates 

but I think it was from '07 to somewhere around 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2010, '11, something like that.

And it was very labor intensive. We 

did use some mineral oils and it just, it wasn't 

good for the crop. There was no way around it, 

in my eyes. So, I hope that answers your question.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Any other questions? I 

have one question. How many acres of organic 

tobacco do you grown, Mr. McDaniel?

MR. MCDANIEL: This year we had about 

50 acres.

CHAIR BEHAR: And then do you sell it 

to just one buyer or do you have a variety of buyers?

MR. MCDANIEL: I have two separate 

contracts. Two different buyers.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Okay, Emily, do 

you have your hand raised again?

MS. OAKLEY: I do not.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Then ready to 

move on. Is Andrew back?

Okay, so next up is Jennifer Daniels 

with Jane Iseley up after her. Jennifer are you 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

there? Michelle, can you find her?

MS. ARSENAULT: I am attempting to 

unmute you, Jennifer. Oh, I just had you. There 

we go.

All right, there is a little bit of a 

delay, just give me a second here. I'm attempting 

to unmute you. Hmm, I am not able to unmute you, 

Jennifer, from my end here. Hmm.

Jennifer, for whatever reason I am not 

able to unmute your microphone. Nope. Jennifer, 

try to talk, try to -- no. If you're talking, we 

can't hear you.

All right, we maybe come back to 

Jennifer. Jennifer, if you want to try to dial 

in on the telephone as opposed to using your 

computer, if you're using your computer, I believe 

you are, the numbers are on the screen.

If you're in the east coast time zone 

you can dial 929-436-2866. There's also a west 

coast phone number displayed on the screen, 

669-6833. And the webinar ID Number is 517961383.

And maybe we'll try you again after the 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

next speaker.

CHAIR BEHAR: Do we have Jane Iseley? 

Do you have her? And then after that we can look 

for Andrew, again, from WODPA, and then Jennifer. 

And then next in line after that is Alex Watkins, 

a farmer, you like the farmers.

MS. ISELEY: This is Jane Iseley. 

Hello?

(Simultaneously speaking.)

CHAIR BEHAR: We can hear you. Thank 

you.

MS. ISELEY: I'm sorry, can you hear 

me?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. Jane, we can --

(Telephonic interference.)

MS. ISELEY: -- very much. My name is 

Jane Iseley and I live in Burlington, North 

Carolina.

I am my grandfather's only grandchild 

and so therefore I am the custodian of the family 

farm that's been in the family since 1790. Many 

of those years were spent growing tobacco.
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We have other crops. Strawberries, 

tomatos, pumpkins, and an all-natural herd of 150 

cattle.

The farm has been certified organic, 

or parts of the farm, for 22 years. It started 

with Santa Fe Natural Tobacco then.

We have tried, someone asked about 

other sources of sucker control. We've used 

mineral oil for several years when we started and 

unsuccessfully to the point, if you got hot weather, 

the leaves would drop off. And of course, you sell 

your tobacco by pound so that wasn't good.

I don't know that you all understand 

the process of suckering and what happens. You 

have, on an acre of tobacco, you have about 6,000 

tobacco plants.

They have from 18 to 20 leaves. And 

each of those leaves has an opportunity to grow 

three suckers. A plant wants to make seeds if they 

can. So, you do your math there and 360,000 

opportunities for suckers in an acre of tobacco.

So, you can see where labor, hand labor, 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of breaking those suckers out becomes a problem. 

And of course, if you get lots of suckers, the 

quality of the plant and the weight of the plant 

dissipates.

We had an experienced this season where 

we had a breakdown with our sprayer. It took us 

a little over a week to get the parts and get it 

back working. And we just had a nightmare.

I suspect that a lot of our bottom lines 

are going to be gone to labor this year. That we 

had to put in, in pulling suckers.

Someone mentioned, how about suckers 

on tomatos. They were concerned you can't, you 

know, if you're going to give an opportunity to 

do like this to tobacco growers, what about tomato 

growers.

We understand that rather than 6,000 

plants an acre you're tomatos are growing about 

2,000 plants per acre. And what you do suckering 

tomatos, you work from the bottom of the plant. 

You break off one time.

There's only one opportunity to break 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

off the sucker. You break it off, the bottom three 

suckers. You break it from the bloom down.

So, you're talk about, rather than 

360,000, you're dealing with 6,000, or one and a 

half percent of what you're dealing with. With 

tobacco.

We are a small farm, basically. We 

only grow about 30, we did grow 30 acres of tobacco. 

The tobacco pays the bills.

We do all these other things, but it 

pays the bills. And I wrote 16 payroll checks last 

week.

So, if you take this OTAC away from us, 

you're basically going to put us out of business. 

And I would appreciate it if you consider 

continuing to let us the product. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: I don't see any 

questions. I have one question. What are the 

other crops that you grow in rotation?

MS. ISELEY: We plant fescue and hay 

and oats and cut it, the hay, for our cattle. And 

then bush hog after the first cutting.
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: And so then, what is it 

rotation (telephonic interference) then back to 

tobacco for one year --

MS. ISELEY: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- and then continue --

MS. ISELEY: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- that rotation?

MS. ISELEY: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, sounds good. I 

just want you to know that I have actually helped 

cut tobacco here in Wisconsin.

We don't have much of that left anymore, 

but I understand the culture. And the whole 

community comes together and helps (telephonic 

interference) and that it is a very valuable cash 

crop to help put, family farms, keep them in 

(telephonic interference).

MS. ISELEY: Well, we prime it one leaf 

at a time. So, we prime it four times as opposed 

to cutting it down.

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, okay.

MS. ISELEY: Thank you.
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, you're welcome. 

So, Michelle, do we have Andrew back or Jennifer? 

Michelle, you're on mute.

MS. ARSENAULT: I am on mute. So, all 

right, do you want to go back now or do you want 

until the end?

CHAIR BEHAR: No, I would like to go 

back now because they were scheduled for earlier.

MS. ARSENAULT: Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: Are either of them ready 

to go?

MS. ARSENAULT: Andrew, your mic is 

unmuted, can you try and say something? Maybe we 

can hear you now. Nope.

Let me see. I don't see Andrew as just 

a phone number so. Oh, wait, hold on one second. 

Nope, I don't see Andrew's phone number either. 

Maybe he thought he was dialing in. I also don't 

see the phone number that he registered with.

And Jennifer? Is that right? 

Jennifer. Jennifer, you are also unmuted, can you 

try and say something?
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Jennifer, if you're talking, we can't 

hear you speaking. Jennifer, maybe you, ah. So, 

Jennifer, go ahead and try to speak. Try to say 

something.

MS. DANIELS: This is Jennifer.

MS. ARSENAULT: Hey, we can hear you. 

You're a little faint, so if you could speak up 

that would be great.

MS. DANIELS: Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: Please give your 

comment.

MS. DANIELS: Yes. Okay. My name is 

Jennifer Daniels and the name of our farm is Windy 

Creek Farms. We're located in North Carolina.

And we are also flue cured tobacco 

growers, so just like Jane had mentioned, we crop 

ours one week at a time.

We have been certified organic since 

2014. And we grow tobacco, sweet potatoes, soy 

bean, pickling cucumbers, and bell peppers and 

jalapeño peppers organically.

And fortunately, tobacco was how we 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

transitioned into the organic market because we 

could get a contract therefore, you know, be able 

to borrow money to grow that crop.

Currently, we have 200 acres of 

certified organic farming. Unfortunately, the 

market for organic tobacco has decreased some. 

I think because of another supply issue. And so, 

this year we only had 12 acres of organic tobacco.

But with all this being said, the reason 

I volunteered to call in is because tobacco is still 

very important to our farming operation because 

it is the biggest cash crop as far as per acre, 

being able to make money.

(Operator interruption.)

MS. DANIELS: Okay, I'm not sure what 

that was.

Without the fatty alcohols to be able 

to reduce the amount of suckers that we have to 

remove by hand, it would damage the rest of our 

operation because typically we spend most of our 

hand labor, early spring, working on the cucumbers, 

picking those. And then we move into our peppers 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and then we move into our sweet potatoes.

At the same time, we are also working 

with our tobacco. But we can do most of that 

mechanically, once we have, when we had the use 

of the OTAC.

So, it would change our operation. And 

just talking about, right, not only the time and 

labor that we need to be able to pick our produce, 

it would also, we think it will increase, it will 

take three times as much money to be able to take 

care of that tobacco if we did not have the OTAC.

Now, we were not, we've always had OTAC 

in our arsenal to be able to use, so I don't have 

any experience without it. But I think everyone 

has explained the reasons.

It's not just being able to get rid of 

those suckers, those suckers, the flowers that come 

along with that also attract insects and/or cause 

more issues, those type things.

And the longer you have suckers on a 

plant, the energy goes to produce those suckers, 

which are not harvestable. We cannot make any 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

money off of the suckers, it's on the leaves.

So it actually deteriorates the quality 

of the tobacco leaf. So, we would really, really 

appreciate it if you all would be able to give that, 

let us keep that tool that we have been able to 

use.

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet, if you're 

talking --

CHAIR BEHAR: No, I'm here.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR BEHAR: I don't see any questions 

from the rest of the Board members, so we will move 

--

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet, can I just 

interrupt a second --

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes.

MS. ARSENAULT: -- just to make sure 

Steve doesn't have a question?

I promoted Steve to co-host and his 

raise hand button disappeared. For the rest of 

you Board members, that is also the case. I can 

demote you if you would --
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: I don't have a 

question but I just, I want to let --

MS. ARSENAULT: Okay.

VICE CHAIR ELA: -- you know I was 

looking for raised hands and we can't do that 

anymore.

MS. ARSENAULT: Okay, I'm sorry.

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh.

MS. ARSENAULT: All right, thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. I would like to 

just ask if anyone, take yourself off of my mute, 

any panelist on the Board. If you have any 

questions you'll have to shout them out because 

I can't see you raise your hand anymore.

Is Andrew back, Michelle? If not, 

let's move on to Alex Watkins with Mike Faucette 

on deck. Can you find Alex or Mike?

MS. ARSENAULT: All right, he should 

be unmuted.

MR. WATKINS: Hey, this is Alex. Yes?

MS. ARSENAULT: Alex, we can hear you.

MR. WATKINS: Okay. How you all doing 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

today. Thank you for letting me have the 

opportunity to speak. My name is Alex Watkins and 

I'm from Creedmoor, North Carolina.

And Jane and Jennifer and Peyton done 

a great job of describing the plant to you all. 

I don't see any need for me to elaborate on it 

anymore.

The use of the fatty alcohol is very 

important to us. I currently have 250 acre of 

certified organic land. I have about 70 acres of 

tobacco this year.

I plant 90 acres of wheat, 75 acres of 

soybeans. And the last two years I planted three 

acres of hemp. A new crop we're trying.

We'd really like to try to keep these 

fatty alcohols on if we can. I have a lot of 

experience in the past. I started growing for 

Santa Fe in 2003.

And we used several types of oils, like 

mineral and soybean oils. And Jane was right, we 

have a lot of leaf drop off. And we get paid by 

the pound.
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And when we get winds or heavy rains, 

and we used materials like that, it really put the 

leaves on the ground. And that's a little tough 

for us.

I'd like to ask you to please reconsider 

not removing it if possible. It's very crucial 

to my operation.

This is pretty much all I've done. I'm 

50 years old, it would be very difficult for me 

to try to get a job at my age somewhere.

And I already know, we have a $.55 per 

hour increase in our labor prices for 2020. And 

that would put us, we at $2.25 an hour now, that 

would put us $.55 because it would take $12.80 per 

hour for our migrant help.

And I'd just like to say, you know, 

being certified organic means a whole lot to me. 

It's changed my farming outlook in ways I've never 

thought and it's reconditioned my land.

And it all comes from this opportunity 

to plant tobacco from Santa Fe. I do have two 

contracts with the Japanese also, so I'm selling 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to two companies.

You know, in just a rotation of my small 

grains, my wheat and soybeans and then come back 

with tobacco the third year, has increased my 

yields. When I was a conventional farmer back in 

the 1990s, I mean, my yields now are higher being 

organic on all my commodities and my tobacco then 

they were when I was a conventional farmer.

So, makes me proud to tell people I'm 

an organic farmer. And I'd just like to say, thank 

you for letting me speak today and ask you all to 

please help us stay in business so we can tell 

everyone that being organic, here is the way to 

go now and in the future. For all of us.

And thank you for letting me speak to 

you all today.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you very much. 

Anyone from the Board have comments? Steve, your 

unmuted?

VICE CHAIR ELA: No comment.

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, okay. Thank you 

very much, Alex. And Mike Faucette is next with 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Mike Hocutt on deck. And, Michelle, if you ever 

find Andrew let me know.

MS. ARSENAULT: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: We can hear from Mike 

Faucette.

MR. FAUCETTE: Hello.

MS. ARSENAULT: Mike, oh, there you 

are.

MR. FAUCETTE: How is everybody?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, you're unmuted.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. We can hear 

you, Mike, go ahead.

MR. FAUCETTE: Okay. My name is Mike 

Faucette, this is my son Kyle Faucette. We're a 

long time farming family here in the same area in 

Browns Summit.

One of the farms I farmed, farmed with 

my father, farmed when he was farming. And of 

course, my grandfather.

Anyway, we've been growing organic

tobacco since 2007. We have organic strawberries, 

we grow organic grain and we grow sweet potatoes. 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Just a variety of vegetables we grow organic.

But all of this was started because of 

tobacco. Now it's been growing for Santa Fe since 

2007. And I'm one of the ones that has used 

vegetable oils in the past. And yes, we do have 

a problem with vegetable oil. We've had big 

problems with leaf dropage.

Towards the end of the season bleeding 

back through. So, we definitely need to keep OTAC 

if we're going to keep this farm operation alive.

Organic tobacco saved crop and our 

farm. And it's also kept us viable. And it's been 

a place that my son can come and work and make a 

livelihood for, hopefully, his lifetime and for 

my grandkid's lifetime.

We grow about 250 acres of, well, we 

have about 250 acres of certified organic land. 

We grow somewhere around 50 acres of organic tobacco 

this year.

And I'd like to say, OTAC is a big part 

of our success with tobacco. If you take it away 

from us, I don't believe we'll be able to keep on 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

farming tobacco.

And without tobacco, we can't borrow 

money to operate on. So, if you take OTAC away 

and we loss tobacco, we're probably going to end 

up, my son might go get a job, and me, I'll probably 

have to start selling land off.

So, please, we would appreciate you 

leaving OTAC as a viable product for our operation. 

Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Anyone have 

any questions? Okay, onto --

MS. ARSENAULT: Oh, Ms. Harriet --

CHAIR BEHAR: -- another Mike, Mike 

Hocutt. Yes?

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet, Emily's hand 

is raised.

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, Emily.

MS. ARSENAULT: She does have a 

question.

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, I see you. Go ahead, 

Emily. Mike, don't leave.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. It's actually 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

--

MR. FAUCETTE: Okay.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you, Mike. It's 

actually just, I think a bit, more of a 

clarification.

I don't exactly know the history with 

the certifier allowing this material before it was 

approved by the National Organic Program so I just 

want to clarify that I've heard a couple of 

commenters, not only with the takeaway in material 

that they're already using, but I just want people 

to understand that this is a material that we've 

used prior to being approved, and I'm sure that 

is done in good faith.

I know it was done in good faith by the 

farmers. And I don't understand fully the history 

of the certifier allowing it, if they thought that 

it was a natural material and therefore didn't need 

to be approved.

But it's been determined to be a 

synthetical material and that's why we're going 

through this review process because, to be used 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it would need to be added to the National List. 

So, just from one farmer to another, I'm going to 

help explain a little bit of this process if in 

any way that isn't clear or confusing in any way. 

So, thank you.

MR. FAUCETTE: I'm not sure exactly 

what the question is, but we're -- this chemical 

is a fatty alcohol. And I'm not a chemist so I 

might be wrong, but from what I'm understanding, 

and also have understood, is a fatty alcohol, which 

is nothing but a high concentrated soap. Correct 

me if I'm wrong.

MS. OAKLEY: Well, Jesse, who is 

another NOSB Board member, is the lead on this 

material. But without going into a lot of the 

details, it's not just a purely natural material 

that doesn't need to go through a review, it was 

determined that it does need to go through a review 

as a synthetic.

And, Jesse, I don't know if you want 

to jump in and add any comments to that, or Steve. 

But I just, it's not a question, I just simply 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

wanted to clarify because it seems like folks have 

been using this for a while and wanted to explain 

how it is that we're reviewing it now.

CHAIR BEHAR: Well, I can answer that. 

I believe the National Organic Program determined 

it to be a synthetic and asked us to do a review. 

And then it was, I'm sorry, and then they told 

the certifiers to not allow it anymore and that 

it was deficient. And that's how we begin our 

review.

I'm not sure that Jesse is with us. 

Is he, Michelle?

MR. FAUCETTE: That's not correct.

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, I'm --

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, you are there. Yay, 

hi, Jesse.

MS. ARSENAULT: No, Harriet, I am not 

seeing Jesse on the line with us. That was not 

Jesse.

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh.

MS. ARSENAULT: I'm not seeing Jesse, 

yes.
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh.

MS. ARSENAULT: I'm going to go back 

and double check that.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I can jump in. This 

is Steve. Yes, I think the issue is that it's one 

of those materials that essentially is a soap, but 

some of the manufacture of it say it is a synthetic 

process.

While the fatty alcohols do naturally 

occur, this actual material is a synthetic just 

the way it's manufactured. So, it was one of those 

materials that was on the line, that some certifiers 

thought it was approved as a natural product and 

then upon further review the National Organic 

Program determined that it was actually a 

synthetic.

So, it was kind of in that gray area 

initially and then it was determined to be not fully 

natural but as a synthetic, and that's why we're 

going through the review process.

MR. FAUCETTE: Can I make a comment? 

Am I still on the line?
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, you are. Go ahead. 

Go ahead.

MR. FAUCETTE: One of the problems that 

all organic farmers are having, not just myself, 

is that we get use to products and then all of a 

sudden you all, somebody says it's not available 

for us or we can't use it anymore.

You know, I don't know how we got to 

use it. I'm thankful we did. But it's been two 

or three products over the years that we've been 

able to use and then all of a sudden somebody tells 

us you can't use them. You're changing our 

operation. You know, that always puts a stress 

on a farm.

So I'd appreciate it if you all can see 

a way -- see that to let us keep using this product, 

because it is, it's one of the biggest products 

that keeps us growing organic tobacco. I mean, 

I know it's not food or nothing and it's not being 

used on food, but it really is something that we

desperately need to keep growing.

Thank you and I appreciate your 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

consideration.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, thank you. Okay, 

next up is Kelvin Bass. And after that on deck 

is Jay Willard. 

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet, if you can 

give me a moment. Andrew, we found Andrew. He 

emailed me the number he's calling from.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Do you want to do 

Andrew next or after Kelvin?

MS. ARSENAULT: He is now unmuted. If 

you would like to jump back. And, apologies.

(Laughter.)

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. ARSENAULT: We can hear you, 

Andrew.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So, Kelvin is 

then on Deck with Jay. Go ahead, Andrew. Thank 

you for being patient with us.

MR. DYKSTRA: Maybe if I had hang up 

my other phone. I was on two lines finally. So, 

anyway.

Yeah, this is Andrew Dykstra from 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Washington state, dairy farmer. I was a previous, 

well, a couple of previous, president WODPA. I 

also spoke to you guys last spring here in Seattle. 

I was the one that had said the engines are roaring 

but the transmission's in neutral.

Anyways, I think since then I would give 

you a couple of compliments. I think a few things 

have actually started a little bit in the right 

direction. So the pendulum is starting to swing 

the other way. As a dairy farmer, we've been 

playing under two sets of rules, basically. And 

some of us have been losing. We've been losing 

big time.

I think, for the growth of the organic, 

for people that want to see the organic dairy 

industry to grow, I think what's been happening 

the last few years is going to make it tough for 

it to grow. It's going to actually maybe even 

shrink due to the fact that people, we're not 

playing on the same level playing field.

So, anyway, yes, origin of livestock, 

if you guys don't know about it, I'm very much in 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

favor of it. And then hopefully the comment 

period is not going to drag this out too long.

The other one, pasture enforcement. 

Hopefully there's more things happening there 

behind the scenes I don't know about. Personally, 

last spring I did sign up for one the satellite 

programs. Very interesting. We've seen what we 

can see and learn from that. And maybe this 

afternoon I'm going to sign up for a second one 

and then I'll compare the two to see how they 

actually work.

You can see the second one even asked 

me, how come the ground is so compacted there? 

And I looked at the picture that they had and its 

where I had my temporary fencing. So they can see 

exactly where the ground was more compacted than 

any other places. So, that was kind of cool. 

So, anyways, do you have any questions? 

Yeah, and other than that, I apologize for being 

hard to get a hold of. If you have any questions 

I would be happy to answer them.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Any Board members 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

have questions?

Well, Andrew, you know you do have a 

chance to make comments on that origin of livestock. 

I believe that's open until December 5th or 3rd. 

Something like that.

MR. DYKSTRA: Correct. Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

MR. DYKSTRA: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. And that 

will be anyone could make comments.

Well, next up, then, is Kelvin Bass with 

Bass Plant Farm. Kelvin, are you there?

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet, I think we may 

have skipped a Mike. There were two Mikes in a 

row.

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh. I'm sorry. Okay.

MS. ARSENAULT: No, that's okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: Mike Hocutt.

MS. ARSENAULT: And Mike Hocutt, I am 

not sure this is your -- can you try to talk and 

see if we can hear you? 

Alright, I'm going to unmute a number 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that has your area code.

Mike, go ahead and try to talk.

MR. HOCUTT: This is Mike --

MS. ARSENAULT: Hi, Mike. We're 

having a little trouble hearing you. It's a little 

- it's just a little muffled. Can you try again 

maybe?

No, we're not hearing you. Harriet, 

it seems like Mike is having some audio issues. 

So, Mike, maybe we can come back to you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, so I'll keep 

calling for you, but meanwhile let's go to Kelvin 

Bass.

MR. BASS: Yes, ma'am. Can you hear 

me?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes. Great.

MR. BASS: Okay. Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: Go ahead.

MR. BASS: Okay. I'm actually in the 

tractor, in the field, so I'm going to stop and 

talk to you guys just a minute.

My name is Kelvin Bass and I'm with Bass 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Farm Organics and Bass Plant Farm. We're in 

Nashville, North Carolina. I know I'm at least 

a third generation farmer and third generation 

tobacco farmer. And first generation organic 

farmer.

We have about 350 acres certified 

organic. We grow tobacco, sweet potatoes, 

cucumbers, leeks, soybeans are our crops at this 

time. We're looking for some new crops to add. 

Tobacco is one of the first ones we started with 

organically. And the fatty alcohols are very 

important in our tobacco production.

The alternative chemicals are not 

preferred by the tobacco company because of the 

damage it can do to the crop to lower the quality 

of the crop. And also those products will require 

more hand labor and potential worker exposure to 

the chemicals. And then it just would add to the 

overall chemical -- I mean, labor cost to the crop. 

And which would impact the financial stability 

of that, of the organic tobacco production for us.

And it is a part of our overall crop 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

rotation and one of the crops that we count on for 

income. So it's just important for us to be able 

to keep the fatty alcohols and to be able to produce 

organic tobacco. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, thank you. And I 

see Emily has a question.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. I was 

wondering if you could help me understand a little 

bit the history. It seems like many of the speakers 

are from the North Carolina area and maybe familiar 

with one another, possibly. Also maybe growing 

for the same company. Do you know the history of 

how you all started using fatty alcohol?

MR. BASS: Somewhat. It's always 

been used on the conventional side for years. 

Pretty much as long as I can remember. But I'm 

not sure how it originally got approved. My 

understanding, the original product is called OTAC. 

And it was developed, I think, for the organic 

market. And I think it was developed using 

organic, I think, coconut oil. But I think it was 

developed using organic products, which I think 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

led to it eventually being approved for organic 

use.

I think, as someone mentioned earlier, 

I think the problem or the question that comes in 

has been the synthetics, I guess, which would --

I'm not sure, but I assume that goes back to the 

manufacturing process. And I may not be correct 

there. But that's my understanding in kind of a 

broad overview. Does that answer your question, 

Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, anyone else? 

Okay, are we going back to Mike now, Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, let's try to get 

Mike. Mike, I see a phone number with your same

area code but not quite the number that you 

provided. So I just unmuted that line. So, Mike, 

can you try to talk?

No, that might not be it --

PARTICIPANT: They should've asked me 

that shit because I know it. 

MS. ARSENAULT: Hello, hello. I'm 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sorry, whoever is talking you are not on mute and 

we can all hear you. I'm going to mute that line.

Mike Hocutt, I am not seeing you on the 

list, so we're going to skip by Harriet and I'll 

continue to --

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So, next up is Jay 

Willard. And on deck would be Richard Enoch and 

Matthew Vann.

Jay Willard.

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet, we're not 

finding Jay on our list by name or by phone number. 

Jay, if you are on the line -- he won't be able 

to talk unless I unmute him. So we are not seeing 

Jay. I will check my email.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Do you know how 

to send Michelle an email? I hope you do. 

All right, we're going to move ahead. 

I have marked you and we'll keep calling your name. 

Richard Enoch? Do you have him there, Michelle?

MR. ENOCH: Yes, ma'am.

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, and this is Richard?

MR. ENOCH: Yes, ma'am, this is Angelo, 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Richard Angelo Enoch.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, excellent. Thank 

you. Go ahead.

MR. ENOCH: Hello.

CHAIR BEHAR: Hi. Go ahead.

MS. ARSENAULT: Richard, I think we may 

have lost you. Richard, try to talk again.

MR. ENOCH: Yes.

MS. ARSENAULT: There you go. All 

right, and if you could start by saying your name 

and affiliation for the record.

MR. ENOCH: Okay.

MS. ARSENAULT: Thank you.

MR. ENOCH: My name is Richard Angelo 

Enoch. My farm is Enoch Farm from Mebane, North 

Carolina. I raise around 20 acres of organic 

tobacco. I have around 40 acres certified organic, 

rotate with hay and wheat, and, well, in our area 

we've been having good luck with the OTAC and using 

it on our tobacco. And I have never used mineral 

oil on the crop because we had just started with 

organic in 2015.
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

My grandfather and them used to use 

mineral oil before, and they told me they just hated 

it, how long it -- it would let the leaves fall 

of the -- if you put too much on the crop leaves 

will fall off, damaging the leaves. So when they 

let us use it on the organic it was pretty good. 

I have raised PRC, that's the crop 

between organic and conventional, and we used OTAC 

for about 20 years or more. But I'm just like the 

rest of the farmers with this. If you do away with 

it, it's more time consuming and work and I have 

eight H-2 workers that we working all the time. 

I raise a lot of acres with tobacco and grain and 

it helps me a lot with this OTAC.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Do you have -- is 

that the end of your comments?

MR. ENOCH: Yes, ma'am.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Any questions?

Looks like no questions. I don't see 

Jessie up there, though. 

MR. LEWIS: Harriet this is Paul. 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Could I make just one remark just going back to 

the origin of livestock comment before?

CHAIR BEHAR: Sure.

MR. LEWIS: Yeah, thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Go right ahead.

MR. LEWIS: So I just wanted to mention 

to Harriet, so thank you for talking about in terms 

of we recently re-opened the public comment period 

for the proposed rule, and just remind people that 

the dates, the deadline for submitting a public 

comment is December 2nd, 2019.

So there is an organic NSAR (phonetic) 

that went out. You could also look at 

regulations.gov, that has the rule, excuse me, the 

public comment process. So, you know, this really 

provides an opportunity to re-open public comment 

and it gives people a chance to submit comments 

that did not do so in 2015.

And just to remind people, if you've 

already submitted a comment from 2015 you don't 

need to re-submit it, unless you have new 

information. So just to help in terms of giving 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

people some guidance and direction of that process. 

And thank you, Harriet, for bringing it to our 

attention.

CHAIR BEHAR: Sure, thank you, for 

correcting that I had the wrong date there. I knew 

it was in that first week of December. 

Okay, we are now ready to move forward, 

or go backwards. Is Jay -- Were you able to find 

Jay, Michelle, Willard or Mike Hocutt?

MS. ARSENAULT: We're not seeing Jay.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

MS. ARSENAULT: Let's see. I am going 

to unmute the three numbers we have in that same 

area code. So, let's see. All right, I just 

unmuted one of the 252 numbers. Mike, is that you 

out there? Try to say something.

(No response.)

MS. ARSENAULT: No, not him. All 

right, Harriet, it looks like we have no Mike at 

the moment and no Jay.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, so we're going to 

move forward.
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ARSENAULT: And Matthew Vann --

CHAIR BEHAR: Right, Matthew Vann, 

with Jeff Preddy and Shep Erhart on deck.

MS. ARSENAULT: Matthew, I am unmuting 

you. Give me one moment here. Matthew, try to 

say something. Unmute. I'm unmuting.

MR. VANN: Can you hear me?

MS. ARSENAULT: We can hear you great 

from so far away. Thank you so much.

MR. VANN: Yes. So, thank you for the 

cooperation. As I mentioned, I'm in Zimbabwe right 

now at a tobacco research conference.

So, a little bit about me. My name is 

Matthew Vann. I am a tobacco extension specialist 

and assistant professor at N.C. State University, 

and in my role I lead the tobacco agronomy and 

extension team, again, with extension and research.

So, again, I'm very humbled to 

represent the North Carolina Cooperative Extension 

Service and about 119 family farming operations 

that produce organic tobacco in North Carolina.

So my goal today is to discuss a little 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

bit of the research that we have conducted over 

a two-summer period and talk a little bit about 

some comparisons we've made of fatty alcohol to 

other organic substances that have been proposed 

as possible alternatives for sucker control.

So, in 2018, we compared fatty alcohol 

to four other compounds, the first being pelargonic 

acid, the second being vegetable oil, the third 

being canola oil, and then the fourth being a 

combination of peppermint oil and spearmint oil.

Suffice to say, we had our best sucker 

control, ranging from 98 to 99 percent control, 

with fatty alcohol. Our next best treatment was 

pelargonic acid; our sucker control ranged from 

about 83 to 98 percent control.

However, we had substantial injury with 

pelargonic acid, and I'm aware of at least one 

product that is OMRI-listed with pelargonic acid 

as the active ingredient that has a tobacco label 

from a company known as BioSafe Systems.

So, again, we observed substantial 

injury from pelargonic acid. With vegetable oil, 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

canola oil, and then the combination product of 

peppermint oil and spearmint oil our sucker control 

was generally less than about 35 percent, but we 

did not see any injury.

So, again, we didn't see any major 

sucker control potential from those oil-based 

products. 

In terms of yield, our greatest yield 

was obviously observed with fatty alcohol, again, 

where we have almost complete sucker control and 

then leaf injury that was less than 3 percent. 

We saw our greatest yield achieved in that specific 

treatment. All other treatments were 

significantly lower in terms of yield and value 

per acre when we compared the data on those.

So, flash forward to 2019, again, I 

referenced that we were made aware of a pelargonic 

acid-based product that does have an OMRI listing, 

at least for right now, that does have tobacco on 

the label. We conducted a dose response study, 

and I have the data summarized from one of those 

trial locations. We conducted it at two locations. 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The second will be harvested, I believe, this week 

and will be rated. 

Ultimately, in that study we observed 

that we had a little over 90 percent sucker control 

with fatty alcohol and 2 percent injury.

With our various concentrations of pelargonic acid, 

they ranged from 1 percent to 7 percent in the first 

application, and as we increased the concentration 

we essentially stair-stepped in an upward direction 

our injury and ultimately observed about 75 percent 

injury from pelargonic acid and only about 63 

percent sucker control.

So we can manage to almost obliterate 

and completely kill tobacco plants with the 

pelargonic acid, but we just can't manage to control 

suckers with it.

So, again, you know looking back 

through a lot of the literature, there is not really 

much in the literature in regards to mineral oil 

or other products at this time.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, thank you, and 

thank you for calling in from such a great distance.
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: Harriet, I have a 

question.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, and then Emily has 

one also. Sure, go ahead, Steve, and then Emily.

VICE CHAIR ELA: We had a presentation 

in Seattle from a person, I can't remember his name 

at this point, that said they were in the process 

of developing a natural sucker control agent you 

know, with organically acceptable ingredients as 

an alternative to the fatty alcohols. And I don't 

recall what the product was, and they may not have 

said because I think it was -- my understanding 

is it was in development.

MR. VANN: Okay.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Do you have any 

knowledge of that or information on that?

MR. VANN: No, sir, I do not. The only 

products we have been referenced are organic 

soybean oil, which I think would actually be just 

a raw soybean oil derived from certified organic 

soybeans.

We actually tested that product this 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

year and found extreme injury and very little 

control, at least at the rates we evaluated, and 

then the other would be a -- I guess it is a 

combination of soybean oil and perhaps some 

surfactants. However, that product is registered 

in Brazil at this time, and I do not believe it 

is registered in the United States. So I would 

not be aware of that other product that you 

referenced.

VICE CHAIR ELA: All right. Thank you 

very much.

MR. VANN: Yes. Well, actually, 

Steve, can I come back to one comment?

VICE CHAIR ELA: Sure, yeah.

MR. VANN: So, perhaps, and I don't 

know this, but you may be referring to the 

peppermint oil and spearmint oil product. We were 

approached by a company out of Miami. The company 

was named ExcelAg Corp., and this was in 2018. 

They presented us with this peppermint oil and 

spearmint oil product that, again, was potentially 

in the pipeline, but, as I mentioned before, when 
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we tested it last year we did not achieve really 

any appreciable level of sucker control. 

So that may be the one product. That 

is really the only alternative, new type product 

that we have been approached with. And, again, 

I was told by the company that they are working 

on some formulation issues, but, again, from where 

I stand today, 30 percent sucker control compared 

to 98 or 99 percent sucker control is a lot of ground 

to cover.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, but don't go, 

Emily has a question.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you, Matthew. I 

have two questions. One, could you just re-state 

the name of the OMRI-listed product that did have 

tobacco listed for use, just so I can write that 

down?

MR. VANN: Yes, I can. The product 

name is AXXE, and that is spelled A-X-X-E. And 

I think you can literally Google "AXXE herbicide 

label" and it will take you directly to the company 

website where you can download the actually product 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

label. And on that label you're going to find a 

number of different crops and use patents, one of 

which is tobacco sucker control.

And their recommendations per their 

label were evaluated in field trials by my research 

team this summer, and we ultimately found that the 

sucker control was extremely limited and the injury 

potential was extremely high and we do not believe 

that to be a suitable alternative.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. And then 

could you also just tell me what the impetus for 

the study was? And did it start in 2018?

MR. VANN: Yes. So these studies 

started in 2018 where we specifically were looking 

at alternatives. However, we have evaluated OTAC 

specifically as a fatty alcohol and compared it 

to conventional alcohols for a number of years, 

probably going back to 2011 or 2012. And, again, 

the rationale behind that is it's a new product. 

Obviously, we need to generate data as cooperative 

extension for our commercial farmers.

So, again, it has been evaluated in 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

previous trials and then in 2018 it was to see if 

there was really and truly anything else out there 

just in case, you know, we did lose fatty alcohol, 

what can we recommend to take its place.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you very much.

CHAIR BEHAR: This is Harriet. I'm 

just wondering is that material the material that 

is put out by Sterling Agriculture that you're 

talking about?

MR. VANN: Which material would that 

be?

CHAIR BEHAR: The one that is 

OMRI-listed.

MR. VANN: No, ma'am. I believe it is 

BioSafe Systems. And the address I had was out 

of, I believe, Cary, North Carolina, or Pittsboro, 

North Carolina, if I recall correctly.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yeah, I think we are 

going to have another webinar commenter from 

Sterling Agriculture who would like to talk to a 

natural product, but I think that's going to happen 

tomorrow.
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. VANN: Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: So we will keep moving 

unless there is more questions, which I don't see 

and next --

VICE CHAIR ELA: Harriet --

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, go ahead, Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Could I just ask if 

you have any data that you could submit to the NOSB 

or to Michelle. I know it's from 2018, but some 

of those tables on, you know, the other oils, the 

alternatives for the fatty alcohols, if you would 

have them handy it would be great to have them in 

our public record.

MR. VANN: Absolutely, Steve. And 

just for clarification I have submitted written 

comments to the NOSB via the Federal Register twice 

and those tables and that data are included in those 

as well.

So if I need to re-send them I can 

happily send them directly to Michelle, or if you 

already have access through there, either way is 

fine with me.
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: As you can tell, I 

haven't finished reading all my public comments 

yet, so if they are in the public comments that's 

awesome. I appreciate you putting those in.

MR. VANN: Absolutely.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, anyone else?

(No response.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Thank you, 

and thank you for your written comments as well.

MR. VANN: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Jeff Preddy is up next, 

with Shep Erhart and Amber Pool on deck. Can you 

find those people, Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. Jeff, your mic 

should be unmuted now so you should be able to talk.

MR. PREDDY: Okay. Can you hear me?

MS. ARSENAULT: Great. We can hear 

you great.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes.

MR. PREDDY: You can. Good afternoon. 

My name is Jeff Preddy. My brother and I operate 

Preddy farms and we manage a little over 1,100 acres 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of certified organic crop land located just north 

of Raleigh, North Carolina.

There are 61 different parcels 

scattered around in three counties and almost all 

of it is small fields and a lot of poor soil and 

it's all -- just about every bit of it is rented 

from all farm landowners.

Our main crop is organic flue-cured 

tobacco. We also grow 50 acres of organic sweet 

potatoes and bale about half of our small grain 

cover crops for organic hay.

The three and four year rotation we keep 

requires us to rent so much crop land. In 1998, 

we made the transition to organic tobacco as a way 

to survive in the tobacco long-term. We were 

grateful for the opportunity presented to us from 

the new company that moved into our county. 

Conventional crop production in our region of the 

state was no longer practical as most of the soil 

types we have are suited for tobacco and about the 

only other thing else is septic systems.

I say that because there is no going 
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

back. Organic tobacco is what you keep. It pays 

all the overhead costs, like the housing for the 

labor, the land rent, machinery repairs, and toward 

the other crops. If we don't grow organic tobacco, 

we don't farm. We would not be able to pay 

landowners enough rent for them to keep the land 

out of development.

We are in the middle of the fastest 

growing real estate market in the country. Land 

values have skyrocketed along with property taxes, 

and without the ability to defer those taxes for 

farm use the landowners simply will not keep the 

land and the farming tradition in this area will 

just -- it will just be gone.

You've heard all about the importance 

and the safety of having fatty alcohols available 

for use as an organic input. Forty years ago when 

I went to the grocery stores to buy all the cooking 

oil they had on the shelves I would always get asked 

what are you doing, are you going to have a fish 

fry or something, and, you know, they'd look at 

me crazy when I told them I was putting it on organic 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

tobacco. So I got tired of explaining that process 

at the cash register and just learned to say, yeah, 

I'm having a fish fry. 

So, like I said, there's no going back. 

Labor costs have more than doubled what they were 

20 years ago, along with everything else. The

price that I'm selling my tobacco for in 2019 is 

less than it was in 1998. So that's just my main 

point and I thank you for your time.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, thank you. I 

don't see any questions, except I can't see if Steve 

raises his hand, but he's not saying anything so 

let's move on now to Shep Erhart with Maine Coast 

Sea Vegetables. Can you find him, Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. Shep, your mic 

is on.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. And on deck is 

Amber Pool and George Ibrahim.

MR. ERHART: Am I on now?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes. Is this Shep?

MR. ERHART: Yes, this is Shep.

CHAIR BEHAR: Hi, great. We can hear 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you. Go ahead.

MR. ERHART: Good. It looks like I am 

the first commenter from the seaweed community. 

I hope the Board is ready for a radical change in 

scenery.

I appreciate the Board's concern about 

the sustainability of seaweed harvests worldwide. 

I believe you'll be hearing from other members 

later much more qualified than I am and familiar 

with the science of seaweed, but I'll do my best 

to introduce you to what I know, which is I'm really 

speaking from someone who's been running a small 

company here in the Bar Harbor region for about 

four decades now. And I've been watching closely 

the cycles of the season and I'm watching my 

harvesters return every year to the same beds and 

take a modest amount of seaweed, and from those 

observations I don't believe we have a 

sustainability issue here in Maine.

In fact, in 1993, I helped develop the 

first organic standards for seaweed with OCIA, with 

the intention of engaging harvesters as stewards 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not trying to regulate them. I believe they are 

actually the gatekeepers to sustainability as they 

don't really want to jeopardize their livelihood, 

just given the right information and paid fairly.

So far that's working well, as least 

for my harvesters who harvest very little rockweed, 

to be true about it, honest. We harvest mostly 

kelps and dulse. But as president of the Maine 

Seaweed Council for a decade I got to know some 

of the rockweed companies well here in Maine and 

found that they, too, had been returning to the 

same beds for almost as long, and, obviously, had 

developed sustainable harvesting practices that 

worked well for their harvesters over the decades.

So, yes, it's true, and I'm sure you 

have heard that rockweed landings have been rising 

over this past decade, about 13 percent a year, 

actually. But even the highest year's landings 

as a percent of the estimated total amount of 

rockweed on the coast of Maine is less than 2 

percent.

You know, of course, if all that came 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

from one area we'd definitely have a problem. Is 

this modest amount of harvest having an impact? 

I'm sure it is. Is it destructive to the 

environment? I believe the answer is no, and I'm 

not alone. You'll hear from other members of the 

community. 

And also several years ago the 

Department of Marine Resources convened a group 

of marine scientists, harvesters, and 

conservationists to review all the rockweed harvest 

impact literature and science. Over a two-=year 

period they produced a detailed rockweed management 

plan dividing the coast into sectors and 

establishing a maximum sustainable harvest rate 

of 13 percent per sector and a minimum cutting 

height of 16 inches to ensure sustainable growth.

Oh, I'm hearing a lot of squeaking. 

Am I still on? Can you hear me?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes.

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. That's actually 

the timer marking the end of your comments.

MR. ERHART: Oh, dear. 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

(Simultaneous speaking.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Your three minutes went 

quickly.

MR. ERHART: It did.

CHAIR BEHAR: But I do see a -- yes, 

it did, and thank you for joining us. Emily, you 

had a question?

MS. OAKLEY: Well, I have two. One, 

could you finish your sentence or your thought 

there? And then I'll ask my next question.

MR. ERHART: Well, to sum up, I believe 

that we don't need organic certification to 

maintain our sustainable practice here in Maine. 

And if the NOSB is concerned about sustainable 

harvest in other parts of the world, I would advise 

they proceed with caution because every bioregion, 

every bay, every species is very different, 

obviously. One size does not fit all.

So I think a better solution is to 

perhaps require the use of certified organic only 

when available, as you do with animal and human 

inputs.
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: Well, that's funny that 

I asked you to finish that statement because that 

was actually going to be my question: what are your 

thoughts about requiring organic certification for 

crop fertility inputs, which you answered you don't 

think is necessary in Maine.

But are most of your, or all of your, 

products that you sell certified organic? And if 

so why do you think that's not something that would 

be desirable for crop fertility inputs?

MR. ERHART: Yes. The answer is yes 

to the first; all of our products are certified 

organic. And as I said earlier, I'm using organic 

certification more as educating my harvesters and 

making them responsible, in many ways, for 

sustainability, because I think sustainability is 

very hard to define. The nuances of -- if you're 

going to use a third party, for instance, and there 

are several third party certifiers out there, the 

metrics for sustainability is still, in my opinion, 

underdeveloped and still not reliable.

So that's part of the reason why I think 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

going ahead to try to tie sustainability into 

organic certification, I think it's too early and 

there is still a lot more development of the nuances 

of the metrics of sustainability.

MS. OAKLEY: Harriet, could I do a 

quick follow-up?

CHAIR BEHAR: Go right ahead.

MS. OAKLEY: Yeah, I just want to 

clarify that the Board is not looking at adopting 

any sustainability terminology or standards, 

simply because, as you said, it's an undefined or 

under defined area. And if you are looking at 

sustainability, it's those three tiers, economics, 

social justice, and environmental, and as you know 

our purview would just be the environmental.

So I think we would be looking at 

options, for example, requiring organic 

certification, not to try to address sustainability 

per se, but to address environmental impact and 

to ensure that the harvest is minimizing the 

environmental impact.

So if you want to comment on that you
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

can, or I can just end my comment there. Thank 

you for calling in, Shep, I really appreciate it.

MR. ERHART: Well, I do. 

Environmental impact is equally slippery, as far 

as I am concerned, as sustainability is. Again, 

you know, the metrics, again, are still being 

developed -- for seaweeds, anyhow -- and I think, 

yes, more work can be done, but I think right now 

the scope of the NOP should not include 

environmental impact for this particular input. 

Or, if it's going to, it needs to be included for 

all the inputs, which I think is pretty unrealistic. 

So, that's my two bits.

MS. OAKLEY: Okay. Harriet, just one 

final follow-up. Sorry.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Okay, sorry. Yes, I mean 

we are supposed to ensure that all materials used 

in organic production have limited environmental 

or human health harm. The extent to which we can 

explore that for every non-synthetic material 

that's used is obviously very challenging. And 
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this is really probably one of the first in-depth 

looks that I'm aware of that we are attempting to 

do that. But it is part of our regulations. So 

what we are trying to do is just ensure that we 

are, they are following them. But thank you. I 

really do appreciate your time.

MR. ERHART: I think there will be some 

other commenters who will be more willing to delve 

into the environmental impacts, so I'll leave it 

at that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, thank you. Anyone 

else? Doesn't look like it. 

Amber Pool with CCOF. And then George 

Ibrahim is on deck with Kendra Klein after that. 

Do you have Amber, Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, Amber should be 

unmuted. Amber, can you try to say something so 

we can test your mic?

MS. POOL: Hi. Can you hear me?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yeah, a little faint, 

but go ahead, we can hear you.

MS. POOL: Hi. I'm Amber Pool. I 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

work for CCOF Certification Services in our farm 

department. I appreciate the opportunity to give 

comments to the NOSB Board via this webinar.

Thank you to the Crop Subcommittee for 

your work on reviewing paper pots and other paper 

crop production aids. While CCOF didn't 

previously allow our growers to use the paper chain 

pots that initiated the petition to allow paper 

pots, we are very supportive of the allowance of 

paper products on farms.

We encourage the development of 

regulations to help farmers use less plastics on 

farms and it's important for certifiers to have 

clear and robust regulations to review paper 

inputs, too. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Any questions? I have 

one question.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, go ahead, Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Go ahead, Harriet. 

No, I'll ask mine after yours.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. I guess I was 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

wondering, there are paper pots that have not even 

asked to be approved under organic and they are 

mostly, if not 100 percent, synthetic fibers, 

things like polyesters, that don't break down very 

readily in the soil and can remain for many years.

I'm wondering -- so this is what we have 

been struggling with, is to allow something that 

will break down with little to no negative impact 

on the soil as it's breaking down, or the 

environment, and just wondering how you feel about 

synthetic fibers in the paper pots, because paper 

is not just cellulose these days.

MS. POOL: Correct. And so that's why 

the certifiers would need really clear standards 

to review it. I'm not crazy about any synthetics 

in the paper pots, but from what I understand, and 

it sounds like what you guys understand, too, is 

that you know, it's not 100 percent synthetic-free.

So we just need really clear standards 

of what we can and can't approve, but definitely 

supportive of farmers using less plastic pots on 

farms and plastic materials. So whatever we can 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

do to work towards that would be great.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Go ahead, Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yeah, I guess I had 

a similar question, but, I mean, we're also looking 

for, you know, if -- well, should we allow any 

synthetics or not, synthetic fibers or not? But 

the other question, though, is, you know, should 

we apply like an ANSI standard to biodegradability, 

you know, biodegradation of those fibers? And we 

kind of put that in our discussion document and 

I wondered if you have any thoughts on that.

MS. POOL: It's always hard when our 

regulation references another regulation, because 

that might change, but if that's the best that's 

out there it might be suitable.

And, also, you know, I wouldn't want 

to see, you know, paper pots be allowed if they're, 

you know, 100 percent not synthetic, because we 

know that it's not going to be available for the 

growers out there.

So, whatever we can do to move forward 

to allow some paper use on farms for the paper pots. 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And, yeah, I'm just happy that we're having the 

discussion and I totally understand the 

difficulties. And so, you know, as a certifier, 

you know, we need to be really clear, like, what 

we can and can't allow as far as the percentage 

of synthetic in the material.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Thank you.

MS. POOL: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Next up is 

George Ibrahim and on deck is Kendra Klein and then 

Vanessa Hornai.

Did you find George, Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet, we have not 

found George on the line by name or phone number 

here. And Kendra had a competing conference call 

and was possibly going to be late. And it looks 

like we're just -- I think we're just on time, 

actually, or maybe a little earlier than she 

expected. But I expect her to be with us but I 

told her we would come back around at the end and 

call any names.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. I made a note of 
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that.

MS. ARSENAULT: Okay, great.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So we are on to 

Vanessa Hornai. And then Amber Sciligo with the 

Organic Center. Amber and then Sean Mallet. And 

those would be on deck with Vanessa Hornai next.

MS. ARSENAULT: Vanessa. I am not 

seeing Vanessa either.

CHAIR BEHAR: Do you got the phone 

number there, 630 area code?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, not finding 

Vanessa either. Amber is here because I saw --

CHAIR BEHAR: Amber. And maybe Amber 

you can tell me how to pronounce your name so I 

don't --

MS. ARSENAULT: All right, Amber, give 

me one second, I'm allowing you to talk.

DR. SCILIGO: Hello. Can you hear me?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, we can hear you 

great. Great.

CHAIR BEHAR: How do you pronounce your 

--
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SCILIGO: Sorry my last is pretty 

challenging, but it's easy in that it's a silent 

"C" like the word science, and I'm a scientist, 

so it's an easy thing. So my name is Dr. Amber 

Sciligo. I am the science program manager for the 

Organic Center and I will be submitting comments 

on our organization's behalf.

So, just as some background, the 

Organic Center is a non-profit organization and 

our mission is to convene credible evidence-based 

science on the environmental and health benefits 

of organic food and farming. And we also 

communicate findings to the public.

We are a leading voice in the area of 

scientific research about organic food and farming 

and we cover up-to-date studies on sustainable 

agriculture and health while collaborating with 

academic and governmental institutions to fill 

knowledge gaps.

We thank the Materials Subcommittee for 

this comment period on research priorities and 

support the Subcommittee's proposed 2019 research 
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

priorities, which we believe are in line with the 

needs of the organic industry.

Based on feedback that we have received 

during our own outreach efforts we would also like 

to suggest that the research areas of soil health, 

climate change, and pathogen prevention and 

protection be prioritized in 2019. And I will expand 

on these topics next.

So, with regard to soil health, the 

Organic Center is currently collaborating with 

researchers from the University of Maryland to 

conduct a review of the most current science that 

looks at organic-compliant methods for optimizing 

soil health.

This work is the beginning of a larger 

effort that we believe is needed to not just compare 

soil health on organic and conventional farms but 

to also identify the specific practices that will 

contribute to organic stability to better support 

soil health.

We also need a better understanding of 

the variation that exists when we characterize soil 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

health and the differences in the indicators that 

are used to assess it within the scientific 

literature. We need more research to identify 

science-supported best practices to maintain and 

build soil health in organic systems while also 

accommodating variation that exists in the local 

conditions, such as geography, climate, soil type, 

and crops.

For climate change, climate change is 

very obviously having serious consequences on our 

environment and our public health and we believe 

that food systems are especially vulnerable to 

climate change. We thank NOSB for considering 

climate change as a research priority in 2019 and 

the Organic Center is already engaged in climate 

research to examine specific aspects of organic 

that contribute the greatest benefits to climate 

stability.

Some of these net benefits include 

carbon sequestration in the soil as well as reduced 

energy usage by not using synthetic nitrogen 

fertilizer, which is a huge driver of energy use. 
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

However, we believe additional 

research is needed to pinpoint specific strategies 

that organic farmers can take to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions, increase carbon storage in the 

soils, and respond to current climate challenges 

that are threatening our food security.

And, finally, we thank NOSB for their 

support of research on food safety and recommend 

continued support for research in pathogen 

prevention and protections. We need more 

research, extension, and education to fully 

understand the relationship between on-farm 

biodiversity and food safety and this research must 

be communicated to third party food safety auditors 

and incorporated into their audit. Is that my 

time?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, it is.

MS. ARSENAULT: That was the timer, 

yes. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Any questions?

(No response.)
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you to the Organic 

Center and all of those supporters for the good 

work that you do.

DR. SCILIGO: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Next up is Sean Mallet 

with Cynthia Daley and Jennifer Beretta on deck. 

Do you have Sean?

MS. ARSENAULT: Sean, give me one 

moment. I'm attempting to unmute your mic here. 

Okay, Sean, you should be able to --

MR. MALLETT: Thank you.

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, we can hear you 

great. Thanks.

MR. MALLETT: Thank you. Good 

afternoon. My name is Sean Mallet with Harmony 

Organic Dairy in Twin Falls, Idaho. I'm also a 

past director, vice president, and president of 

the Western Organic Dairy Producers Alliance. My 

wife Stacy and two sons also work on the dairy here 

and we've been certified organic for 13 years. 

Today I would like to talk to you about 

three critical items concerning the organic dairy 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

industry in the U.S.

Number one and top priority is origin 

of livestock final rule finalization and 

implementation. In 2015, the NOP released a 

proposed origin of livestock rule which would close 

unfair loopholes that some organic dairies have 

used to continue to expand their milking herds.

In 2015, over 1,500 comments were 

received and 99 percent of those comments were in 

favor of implementation of the proposed rule. As 

you know, the rule was never finalized and has sat 

on a shelf somewhere gathering dust.

In the meantime, hundreds of millions 

of dollars in actual value have disappeared from 

actual organic dairy farms and actual families. 

The value that has been lost due to the depressed 

farm gate milk prices because of the increased 

supply created mainly by transition animals.

In the last four years, the organic 

dairy market at retail level has been relatively 

flat. So when an increased supply hit due to an 

increased amount of animals due to a lack of a clear 
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and finalized rule milk prices dropped by as much 

as 30 percent on farm, which is well below the cost 

of production.

There is also disparity in the cost of 

raising an organic animal from birth and 

continuously transitioning animals from a 

conventional system. The disparity between a 

last-third-of-gestation animal, a true organic 

animal, and a transitioned animal is $800 per head. 

This begs the question: if you can't raise calves 

and heifers utilizing organic methods should you 

be allowed to milk cows organically? Is the 

operation fully competent to be an organic dairy?

Since 2015, on my farm, I have 

personally lost millions of dollars in equity over 

the last four years. I ask the NOSB to please 

recommend to the NOP the finalization and immediate 

implementation of the proposed origin of livestock 

rule. Consumers expect a final rule, organic 

dairymen expect a final rule, and it will help 

maintain the integrity of the organic seal.

Second, I'd ask that you support the 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

enforcement of grazing requirements. This is 

another area that I would encourage the NOSB to 

ask the NOP to improve. Technology, such as 

satellite imagery to monitor pasture quality and 

cattle movements, exists right now and can be 

implemented in relatively short order. I 

encourage the NOSB and NOP to continue consider 

utilizing this advanced technology. 

Training of inspectors and certifiers 

about how to measure meaningful grazing systems 

on organic dairies is also a major importance. 

Because the consumer expects, and the organic law 

mandates, that appropriate grazing is occurring 

on all organic dairies, proper grazing enforcement 

is critical.

Consistency among certification 

agencies about how grazing requirements are being 

enforced across the country is critical to 

maintaining the organic seal. as well as leveling 

the playing field amongst all organic dairies, 

large and small.

Third and last, regarding the 
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

substances up for review, as an organic dairy farmer 

the welfare of our animals is number one priority. 

I ask that you please leave the few tools and 

treatment options that we have available to use 

in times of illness on the list of approved 

substances.

I would also suggest that a National 

List of approved products, such as the one that 

OMRI uses, be implemented across all certification 

agencies. There are still occasions of one 

certifier allowing substances and another 

certifier won't. This playing field also needs 

to be leveled so that all ACAs are working from 

the same playbook.

I think you for your work and for your 

time.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you for your well-spoken 

comments there. Anyone have any questions? I have a 

question. I'm an organic inspector, and do quite 

a few dairies here in Wisconsin.

And I notice that when young stock are 

also out, are raised organically and are out on 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

pastures, that they are better grazers when they 

grow up and actually are more economically 

beneficial to the operation, because they have 

grown up in an organic system and then, can thrive 

and be highly productive in that system.

Do you find that with your young stock 

too? You think that raising animals organically 

ends up, it's not just to meet the rules, but it 

actually helps you in your operation later? Or 

is that just something I see that isn't really true?

MR. MALLETT: A hundred percent, ma'am. 

As a young animal goes out to grass and develops 

to consume and gain energy from high forage diets, 

that is definitely a benefit to get them on the 

grass early.

And so, yes, we're required, anything 

above six months of age needs to be out grazing 

and adhere to the grazing requirements of the 

National Organic Program. So, I definitely see 

that.

In addition to that, just the added 

movement and exercise that the animals receive at 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a very young age, it's like children growing up 

exercising, they're generally in better health, 

and we've definitely seen that on our farm.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Thank you. All 

right. Next up --

MR. BRADMAN: Harriet --

CHAIR BEHAR: -- is --

MR. BRADMAN: Harriet, I have a 

question.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes? Go ahead.

MR. BRADMAN: It's Asa speaking. I --

CHAIR BEHAR: Hello Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Hi.

CHAIR BEHAR: Go ahead.

MR. BRADMAN: You mentioned that there's 

some certifying agencies that approve one 

treatment, disease treatment, and not another. 

Do you have any specific examples of that?

MR. MALLETT: You know what, I 

apologize, not directly in front of me, but I know 

that it has happened. Just as an example, our 

certifier years ago wouldn't allow a product, but 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it was being used by a couple of Midwestern-based 

certifying agencies. So, I can only give that 

anecdotal evidence at this time, I don't have the 

specific product right in front of me.

MR. BRADMAN: Thanks.

MR. MALLETT: You bet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Anyone else?

MR. RICE: Harriet, this is Scott.

CHAIR BEHAR: Go ahead, Scott.

MR. RICE: Hey, I just wanted to offer, 

on the heels of that comment, when we do have a 

difference in opinion or position on a particular 

material or treatment, that is something that we 

have a process for with the NOP.

And it's important that we -- well, the 

certifiers can work through those and, when 

necessary, work through that sort of thing with 

the NOP.

And we would just encourage you to raise 

that issue when it happens with the certifier, and 

if you're not finding resolution there, to raise 

it to the NOP and we can have that discussion amongst 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

our certifier colleagues and the NOP and come to 

some resolution there. But just wanted to offer 

that there is a process there.

MR. MALLETT: Thank you, Scott.

CHAIR BEHAR: Sorry, any other comments? 

Thank you, again. So, next up is Cynthia Daley 

from CSU in Chico.

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet, it's Michelle.

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, that's Michelle.

MS. ARSENAULT: Cynthia cancelled, so 

she is not on the call. And we are not seeing the 

next several speakers. Jennifer Beretta. We're 

a little ahead of schedule, I have, just to do a 

time check, I have 3:00 Eastern at the moment. 

So, we're a little ahead and sometimes people don't 

dial in until it's their exact time. So, we don't 

see Jennifer. We don't see Carmen. If either any 

-- or Martin.

If any of you guys are on the line, I'm 

not finding your name or phone number, you can email 

me or text me on my work cell, it's 202-997-0115, 

and we'll get you at the end of the comments.
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Has Kendra joined us? 

Kendra Klein?

MS. ARSENAULT: I haven't seen Kendra 

join yet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So, let's --

MS. ARSENAULT: So, how about Jennie 

Landry?

CHAIR BEHAR: Jennie, are you there?

MS. ARSENAULT: I know we're early and, 

unfortunately, that's a hindrance sometimes. 

Jennie, I'm not -- or Marie? Jennie, I think I 

see a same number in your area code, it looks like 

an exchange number, so let me unmute you. Jennie, 

can you talk?

MS. LANDRY: Hello?

MS. ARSENAULT: There we go. Hi, 

Jennie. All right.

MS. LANDRY: Hi.

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet, I'll let you 

take control now.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, go ahead, you can 

speak and give us your three-minute comment.
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. LANDRY: Okay, great. My name is 

Jennie Landry. I represent DSM Nutritional 

Products, the world's global leader in production 

of omega-3, EPA, and DHA based products. DSM 

strongly recommends a relisting of fish oil to the 

National List.

A relisting of fish oil is critical for 

the continued use as a nutritional ingredient in 

organic certified products. This is because 

organic fish oil is not commercially available, 

due to the absence of organic production standards 

for aquaculture.

Fish oil contains omega-3 fatty acids, 

EPA, and DHA that contribute to human health through 

all stages of life. The benefits of omega-3s are 

proven by science spanning decades and are 

supported by many international health 

authorities.

Organic consumers recognize the 

benefits and should have access to value-added 

organic products. It is important for organic food 

manufacturers to remain competitive in the 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

marketplace.

In public comments opposing the 

relisting of fish oil during the sunset review, 

there seems to be concern about the level of 

contaminants and safety of consuming fish oil. 

I will reiterate that fish oil as a nutritional 

ingredient in organic food is 100 percent safe and 

has been proven to be generally recognized as safe 

with no FDA questions.

Fish oil must be manufactured according 

to HACCP principles, where any potential hazards, 

including contaminants, are addressed and 

controlled. Fish oil manufacturing processes 

consist of several refining steps, including 

molecular distillation that uses very high 

temperatures to destroy environmental 

contaminants.

On top of the manufacturing controls, 

DSM carefully selects starting crude oils based 

on a critical evaluation of the supplier's quality 

and safety systems, which are all verified by a 

full spectrum of contaminant testing prior to any 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

introduction into our supply chain.

Finished refined oils are also verified 

to meet the strictest global regulatory limits for 

PCPs and heavy metals, amongst others. All DSM 

fish oils adhere to GOED's fish oil monograph that 

sets limits for industry.

Fish oil for human consumption is a 

byproduct of the fish meal or edible canning 

industries, which would otherwise be treated as 

waste. No fish are caught for the exclusive 

production of oil for use as a nutritional 

ingredient in organic foods.

Fish oil as a human nutritional 

ingredient is a good thing for sustainability 

worldwide, because our industry serves people who 

care about the marine environment and will choose 

products consciously.

This drives our industry to be more 

accountable and set high standards for 

sustainability, as well as implement programs that 

promote and protect our marine environment. A 

strong fish oil industry has a voice to influence 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

our suppliers and fisheries to do the same, which 

can be further strengthened by an annotation 

addressing sustainability for fish oil on the 

National List.

So, in closing, DSM strongly recommends 

relisting the fish oil. I'd like to thank you and 

the NOSB for your time and opportunity to provide 

comment in this webinar.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Any comments 

from Board members? Well, that's surprising. 

Well, I guess I'll just make one comment and that 

is, one of the things that we struggle with is, 

when there is an issue, similar with fish oil where 

heavy metals or other contaminants, when we rely 

on another agency or organization or voluntary type 

of standards, those things can kind of move around 

and maybe change from when we first thought that 

they were acceptable.

And so, we don't want to add a lot of 

extra layers of regulation, but we also want to 

make sure that we protect the organic label and 

seal and make sure that what we are selling under 
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that seal meets all the criteria for the Organic 

Food Production Act.

So, we're struggling with this, in that 

we understand that many consumers would like this 

product, but we also know that we are somewhat 

trusting the other types of certifications or 

voluntary standards for the protection of the 

cleanliness, for lack of a better word, of the 

products.

MS. LANDRY: Right. I guess I'll add 

one comment to that, is that, for fish oil, as a 

-- how it's intended to be in organic products, 

has to be manufactured to any other food ingredient 

standard.

It has to be safe. And our process is 

determined -- and our manufacturing process control 

that as well. I think some of the concerns may 

stem from using supplements at higher doses or even 

concentrated versions of fish oil.

And while DSM products have no safety 

concerns at that level anyways, when used as a 

nutritional ingredient in food, it's 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

nonconcentrated oil, it's natural forms of oil, 

and it's at lower doses than you would take as a 

supplement. So, the fact that -- how it's being 

used in organic food is just also -- gives you extra 

assurances that it's safe for consumption.

CHAIR BEHAR: Any other comments from 

Board members? Okay. Do we have Kendra, 

Jennifer, or Carmen yet, Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: Not that I'm seeing. 

How about if we come back to them at the end?

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Next up, is Marie Burcham 

there, with Cornucopia?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. Marie, we're 

unmuting you. Marie, can you try to say something? 

All right. Marie, I'm going to try to unmute your 

phone instead, let's see here.

MS. BURCHAM: Can you hear me now?

MS. ARSENAULT: Ah, we got you, there 

you are.

MS. BURCHAM: All right. Sorry, I was 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on the phone, because my headset does not give good 

sound quality.

MS. ARSENAULT: We understand. Thanks.

MS. BURCHAM: Sure. My name --

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Marie, you can go 

ahead now.

MS. BURCHAM: Okay, thank you. My name 

is Marie Burcham and I am an attorney and the 

Director of Domestic Policy for the Cornucopia 

Institute.

We stand by the fact that the organic 

label isn't just about substitution of inputs. 

The rules and regulations make that clear, but the 

industry has moved away from this holistic 

practice.

We urge the NOSB to continue to work 

towards organic rules and regulations that support 

economic justice for family farmers, livestock, 

animal welfare, and environmental stewardship. 

Families rely on the organic label to provide 

transparency in how their food was produced.

Where some individuals choose organics 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

because it supports principles, others use the 

organic label out of necessity due to health issues. 

The organic label promises consistency in 

livestock treatment, sustainability, and lower 

toxic inputs for these consumers.

Right now, many certified organic 

producers are not meeting that promise. For 

example, when the Organic Livestock and Poultry 

Practices production rule was discarded, it was 

clear that the NOP was rubber-stamping industrial 

poultry production.

These confinement-based poultry 

businesses are breaking the current organic rules 

because, at a basic level, every bird does not have 

access to the outdoors. We urge the NOSB to 

continue to push these issues and be the mouthpiece 

of the public.

Under the organic rules and 

regulations, poultry often receive poor treatment. 

Despite the withdrawal of the OLPP, a rulemaking 

in this area is still appropriate and needed in 

this industry. NOSB can also do their part and 
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

push for better livestock policies that emphasize 

time spent outdoors for every individual animal.

Cornucopia also wants to see fair 

competition under the organic seal. That means 

that there must be uniform application of OFPA and 

the organic rules and regulations. Right now, 

there is significant inconsistency among the 

accredited certifiers that makes this fair 

competition impossible.

One of the glaring instances of this 

inconsistency is how hydroponics has been 

approached. There are no rules regarding organic 

hydroponics. But even without these rules, some 

certifiers disregard or continue to disregard 

transition times and other issues that are already 

in the rule.

We look forward to hearing an NOP 

clarification on the hydroponic issue transition 

times at the meeting, but the problem of 

inconsistent application of organic rules still 

needs to be cured overall.

Family farmers, the lifeblood of the 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic industry, are losing their farms in record 

numbers. This is particularly true of 

family-scale dairies and others in the organic 

livestock industry.

We urge the NOSB to act on these issues 

to the extent they can. For example, we support 

the 2010 recommendation and requirements to foster 

soil fertility in both livestock and crop 

production. Where there is inconsistent 

application of organic rules, guidance or 

rulemaking may be necessary and we support that.

Cornucopia has also submitted written 

comments that we hope the NOSB will consider moving 

forward. We are looking forward to seeing the 

products of your hard work in the coming years. 

Thank you so much for your time and dedication to 

this public process. We appreciate it.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Okay, thank you. 

Any -- I see Ashley has a question. Go ahead 

Ashley. I think you're still on mute, Ashley.

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet, I'm unmuting 

her. Let me --
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, okay.

MS. ARSENAULT: She said she's on her 

phone now, let me find her phone. Ashley, I'm not 

seeing your phone in my list here. There you are, 

got you. All right, I'm unmuting you. Okay.

MS. SWAFFAR: Hi, can you hear me?

MS. ARSENAULT: We can hear you, now, 

great.

MS. SWAFFAR: So great. All right. 

Marie, thank you so much for your comments. Thank 

you for bringing up OLPP again, many of us are still 

passionate about seeing that rulemaking come 

forward. I have some questions on your written 

comments, in regards to methionine.

MS. BURCHAM: Sure.

MS. SWAFFAR: You had said in here that 

many family-scale organic poultry farms do not 

supplement with synthetic methionine at all, could 

you elaborate more on that and tell me how many, 

what size, more details on that statement?

MS. BURCHAM: Yes. So, this is just 

information we received from our farmer members 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and just farmers in general that we converse with 

all the time as part of our work at Cornucopia 

Institute.

And I would say the scale of farmer that 

is not supplementing any is on the smaller side. 

So, around 200 to 500 birds, for broilers, and 

around that size for laying hens as well, maybe 

scaling up a little bit more depending on their 

practices.

And the big difference we see with these 

farms is they have excellent outdoor foraging 

opportunities. So, we're talking pasture 

rotation, the animals are always on good 

vegetation.

We have some farmers who let their --

run their poultry through their spent vegetable 

fields, for example, and they're digging up a lot 

of invertebrates and have other food sources. And 

all of these farmers have categorically said they

do not need synthetic methionine. They are able 

to maintain the same level of production and it's 

just not something that they need at all.
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And for the larger farms we've spoken 

to, a lot of them are very interested in decreasing 

what they do use, and they use less than the maximum 

allowed. And they're looking into alternatives 

like black soldier fly larvae and other things that 

would supply that methionine.

And they do think that it's not 

necessary at the level it's currently allowed. 

And those larger farmers have by and large been 

open with us, saying that they would be okay with 

lowering that amount, or hopefully having more 

research into alternatives, because we do think 

that there are alternatives on the market that are 

just not being utilized right now.

So, that's what we've seen. Just in 

general, we feel that the methionine is being used 

to boost production unnaturally. It is an 

essential amino acid, but if they're actually out 

there foraging outdoors, as they should be under 

the organic label, it's not necessary.

MS. SWAFFAR: Great. I've got some 

followups. Harriet, is that okay, can I followup 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on some questions?

CHAIR BEHAR: Absolutely, go ahead.

MS. SWAFFAR: Okay. So, those farms 

that you talked about that don't need any 

methionine, that are out foraging in a 

pasture-based model, where are those farms located 

and what happens in the winter?

MS. BURCHAM: Yes. So, a lot of the 

broiler farms of that size do not produce during 

winter. So, they only raise broilers during the 

seasons that they can be outdoors.

But of course, hens, what usually 

happens is they bring -- they either -- they do 

their crop cull in fall or before winter, if they 

need to, or they cull their flock as needed. And 

then, over-winter birds indoors or, honestly, keep 

them with access to outdoors year round.

So, I have some producers I know of in 

the Pacific Northwest and the West Coast that are 

able to have them with legitimate outdoor access 

year round.

Those folks that I mentioned that run 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

their birds on their spent vegetable crops, if 

they're a diversified farm, that's what they do 

in the winter. They run not necessarily on rotated 

pasture, but they run it on their weeds and their 

dead organic vegetable crops. And they generally 

do pretty well on that it seems, from what we've 

been hearing.

So, I've seen this going on all over 

the country. We've had farmers in the Midwest, 

Wisconsin comes to mind. I could get a list of 

farmers that we see being able to do this, if that 

would be helpful.

But again, these are smaller scale 

farms, so they're a little bit more adaptable, I 

feel, than an industrial sized operation with 

200,000 birds. There's just no way you can have 

legitimate outdoor access if you have a gigantic 

barn with 200,000 birds.

We don't feel that's organic or 

represents organic because individual animals 

cannot get outside if you have that many birds in 

a barn that side.
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SWAFFAR: Great, okay. So --

MS. BURCHAM: Does that help?

MS. SWAFFAR: Well, I mean, your comment 

there made me kind of realize that we would have 

only production in certain periods of the year and 

in certain parts of the country, if we eliminated 

methionine from the diet, and that makes me very 

nervous.

But my next question is, you stated in 

there that methionine is not needed, because the 

European Union doesn't allow synthetic methionine. 

Are you aware that they allow five percent of their 

poultry diet to come from non-organic sources? 

So, possibly GMO crops, crops with herbicides that 

have actual higher naturally occurring methionine 

in them.

MS. BURCHAM: Yes, I am aware of that. 

And one of the big questions is, alternatives are 

available as well. So, I realize that that is the 

case, but you're not going to get enough methionine 

from, say, feeding corn, which is higher methionine 

at only five percent, even if you're feeding 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

conventional corn. Like, conventional corn 

doesn't have more methionine than organic corn.

MS. SWAFFAR: Well, they've got 

potato gluten meals and some of those things that 

we don't have in the United States as an organic 

opportunity.

MS. BURCHAM: Right. But, again, I 

don't think that that is going to make up for 

everything. The European Union has much more 

robust standards, as far as how much outdoor access 

these birds are getting, and I think that makes 

up a lot of the difference. And they also are 

utilizing more methods, such as insect meal and 

things like that as well.

MS. SWAFFAR: Thank you for your 

comments.

MS. BURCHAM: Sure.

CHAIR BEHAR: Anyone else? I have a 

question. So, are these smaller scale operations 

grinding and mixing their own feeds? Because I 

don't know of any organic chicken feed that's 

available by the bag that does not contain 
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

methionine.

So, they may not be adding methionine, 

but I believe they probably, if they're buying any 

chicken feed, then they're probably getting 

methionine in it. So, they would have to be 

basically raising all of their or quite a bit of 

their own grains and grinding it and mixing it 

themselves.

MS. BURCHAM: We do have some farmers 

that speak to us that are raising the majority, 

if not all, of their cereals, and even soy, to feed 

to their poultry. But we do have folks using mixes 

from feed mills where they're not getting the 

methionine in the mix.

And I've been told that they request 

it without the methionine, because it's cheaper 

for them, or they had an option to -- because there's 

usually -- they're smaller feed mills, it sounds 

like, and they just have that option. And I would 

like --

CHAIR BEHAR: Anyone else?

MS. BURCHAM: -- to add that, we do know 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

some more mid-sized poultry operations that do 

supplement methionine, but at less than the allowed 

level, and that they're very interested in the 

research for alternatives. Because, again, they 

feel that there are alternatives out there that 

have not been fully explored by the industry, and 

that needs to happen.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

MS. BURCHAM: Thank you very much.

CHAIR BEHAR: Anyone else on the Board 

with questions? I guess not. So, next up, we have 

Ryan Mensonides, VP of WODPA.

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, and Ryan, you 

should be unmuted now. Can you try to speak, so 

we can hear you? We're not hearing you, Ryan. 

Let's try -- I see you on my list.

MR. MENSONIDES: Can you hear me?

MS. ARSENAULT: Ah, we got you, there 

you are, thanks.

MR. MENSONIDES: All right. Sorry, I 

wasn't --

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes.
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MENSONIDES: -- quite sure, I've 

never used this application. Okay. You can --

MS. ARSENAULT: Nor have I.

MR. MENSONIDES: -- hear me okay? I'm 

on speaker.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, we can hear you great.

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes.

MR. MENSONIDES: Okay. I'm just 

calling in on the topic of the origin of livestock, 

this will be my second time commenting since last 

year's NOSB meeting. I have just three quick key 

points.

The first one is, I would like this rule 

implemented as it is written up currently, with 

the appropriations bill that went through both the 

House and Senate, I don't want any changes.

We worked really hard with producers 

and processors and advocate groups and the 

consensus across the board is that this rule will 

make a significant impact on our industry. Three 

reasons why I think, or two anyways, that I think 

it's important.
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Number one, I'm a mid-size producer 

and, basically, there's a couple states and 

different regulatory groups that have allowed the 

abuse of this rule, as it stands currently. And 

it makes it a very unlevel playing field for myself 

and several of my other organic dairy farmers in 

my community.

Specifically in the fact that it costs 

us a significant amount more to raise our heifers 

organically and those that are transitioning them 

right now, as it stands, in my opinion, in blatant 

disrespect for the rule and the intent, have an 

advantage of somewhere between $800 and $1,000 per 

animal to get them to milking. That's a very 

expensive difference and we just can't compete.

The other thing is, it has also led to 

the influx of a tremendous amount of oversupply 

of milk in the organic market, which has impacted 

my profitability.

I've seen my equity drop about 35 to 

39 percent in my cattle because of the oversupply 

of milk and making my cattle less valuable. And 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I've seen a 36 percent pay drop in the last two 

years because of the oversupply of milk, which is 

in huge part because of the transition of these 

animals.

I just would like to see the integrity 

held up in our industry. Our consumers are getting 

confused, there's a lot of bad news out there, and 

this is one way that we can regulate our industry 

and put more confidence back to our consumer by 

implementing this rule and governing ourselves in 

a better way.

And essentially, making it a level 

playing field, which will in effect reduce the 

oversupply of milk, which will allow our prices 

to go up, which will make me more profitable and 

the ability to stay in business and provide for 

the consumers that believe in what I am doing, as 

opposed to the people that have been breaking the 

rules.

I think that's all I have. If you guys 

have some questions, I'm glad to answer. Hopefully 

you heard that and I'm not muted.
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: No, we heard you loud and 

clear.

MR. MENSONIDES: Okay, I thought maybe 

I was talking to myself for like ten minutes.

CHAIR BEHAR: No. Are there any 

comments from the Board, or questions? Well, I 

want to say thank you for the hard work that it 

is to be an organic dairy farmer. I know that it's 

long hours and a lot of, you've got to have a lot 

of skills to be a good dairy farmer, so thank you 

for what you're doing.

MR. MENSONIDES: Can I make one more 

comment, I left out, if that's okay? And I 

appreciate that by the way, thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Very quick, yes.

MR. MENSONIDES: Very quick --

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, very quick, please.

MR. MENSONIDES: We need this 

implemented immediately, we need no delay time on 

this. It's been delayed for five years already. 

So, I just want to reiterate that it needs to be 

put in place immediately. And that's what we tried 
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to get through in appropriation bills as well. 

So, thank you for your guys' time and what you do 

and hearing me today, I appreciate it.

CHAIR BEHAR: You're very welcome. 

Okay.

MR. MENSONIDES: Have a good --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Yeah thanks. Do we have 

Kendra, Carmen, or Martin, Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: I am not seeing -- I went 

back to the top of the list, actually. So, Andrew, 

I have one phone number in the same area code, I'm 

going to unmute this 360 number and see if it's 

Andrew. Is that -- are you on the line, can you 

say something?

MR. DYKSTRA: This is Andrew.

MS. ARSENAULT: Andrew.

MR. DYKSTRA: No, I'm --

MS. ARSENAULT: Sorry, we skipped over 

you, because we couldn't hear you before, but we 

can hear you now.

MR. DYKSTRA: Yes. No, I did my -- I 
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

made my comments from my cell phone, so I'm in good 

shape.

MS. ARSENAULT: Oh, I'm so sorry.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. DYKSTRA: You let me talk twice.

CHAIR BEHAR: I had a check next to his 

name.

MS. ARSENAULT: Oh, I'm so sorry. I had 

the wrong notation here. Okay, thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Mike Hocutt and Jay 

Willard, we didn't have them.

MS. ARSENAULT: No Jay. Not seeing Jay.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Kendra, do you see 

Kendra Klein?

MS. ARSENAULT: Oh, Kendra's here.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

MS. ARSENAULT: One second, we're 

unmuting Kendra's line.

MS. KLEIN: Hi.

MS. ARSENAULT: Kendra?

MS. KLEIN: Yes.

MS. ARSENAULT: There we go, we can hear 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you.

CHAIR BEHAR: We can hear you great, 

thank you.

MS. KLEIN: Great. I'm hearing some 

feedback, so apologies if you also are hearing that. 

Thanks so much and thank you for fitting me here 

at the end of the stack. I want to start off by 

saying thank you to the NOSB's members and your 

commitment to the organic standards program.

I am a Senior Staff Scientist at Friends 

of the Earth. We are a national environmental 

organization, with over 1.9 million members and 

supporters. And I really briefly just wanted to 

make a comment on excluded methods and one related 

to soil health.

So, in terms of excluded methods, 

Friends of the Earth applauds the work of the NOSB 

to ensure that genetic engineering methods involved 

in in vitro nucleic acid techniques be considered 

excluded methods.

We recommend that induced mutagenesis 

that comes from gene editing and other in vitro 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

techniques be considered in excluded methods. And 

we also support adding embryo transfer in livestock 

to the list of excluded methods, specifically when 

the embryo transfer is produced using in vitro 

nucleic acid techniques.

On the issue of soil health and climate 

change, I just want to note, as we all know, there's 

growing interest in soil carbon sequestration and 

a lot of momentum around that at the state and 

federal level.

And there's a growing body of research 

that shows us that the agricultural methods that 

are the heart of organic production, like cover 

cropping, composting, can increase soil carbon.

I also want to call out, Friends of the 

Earth recently published a research brief showing 

that many of the pesticides that are allowed in 

conventional and prohibited in organic undermine 

soil health, they disrupt soil communities, and, 

therefore, undermine the goals of soil carbon 

sequestration. So, just to say that, again, 

organic has a leg up in terms of soil health and 
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

regeneration of the soil and soil carbon.

So, Friends of the Earth recommends 

that the NOSB add an item to its work agenda that 

focuses on identifying and strengthening organic 

practices for climate mitigation, adaptation, and 

carbon sequestration. And that's it, very 

briefly. Happy to answer any questions.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Any questions 

from Board members? I guess not. Thank you so 

much, Kendra. Okay. So, we're going to go back 

and see, who are we looking for here? We did 

Jennie. Carmen and Martin? Carmen Fernholz?

MS. ARSENAULT: We're not --

CHAIR BEHAR: Hello, Carmen? Carmen is 

a man, by the way, I know him quite well.

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. We're not seeing 

Carmen on the line, Harriet. I'm not finding him, 

his number or his name. Carmen, if you're on the 

line and you want to email or text me, to 

202-997-0115, maybe you're calling in from a number 

you didn't send to me. You can also chat in the 

Zoom window if you're in front of your computer.
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Hard to know what the 

weather might be, he could be out harvesting crops. 

Martin Lydgate Driggs from NOFA Massachusetts, 

can you find him?

MS. ARSENAULT: We did not find Martin 

either. Not seeing --

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

MS. ARSENAULT: -- his name or area code.

CHAIR BEHAR: Then, I think we are just 

about on time here, correct? Pretty close?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. Yes, pretty, 

pretty close here. A couple minutes early, maybe. 

All right. There are a couple of other folks that 

we skipped over, Harriet, do you want to --

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, there was Vanessa 

Hornai, right?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Vanessa Hornai? Well, 

you said Cynthia Daley, she cancelled. Vanessa?

MS. ARSENAULT: No, I'm not seeing 

Vanessa either. I just want to double-check again. 

Vanessa. 
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: George Ibrahim?

MS. ARSENAULT: No George.

CHAIR BEHAR: Then, you said look for 

Mike Hocutt and Jay Willard?

MS. ARSENAULT: Right. All right. It 

doesn't look like any of those folks are on the 

line with us.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, I think that was 

everyone. With all my checks and X's and dots. 

Okay. Well, I guess, with that, we could adjourn. 

Except to say that we will be doing another 

webinar, similar to this one, but with different 

participants, except the Board members will be 

there. And that's on this coming Thursday, just 

two days from now, same date, same place. I mean, 

same time, same place.

MS. ARSENAULT: Great, thank you, 

Harriet. Thank you, everyone.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Good-bye, have a 

good rest of your afternoon.

MS. ARSENAULT: Thank you, we'll talk 

to you guys on Thursday.
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 3:35 p.m.)
1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + + +

ORAL COMMENT WEBINAR

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

OCTOBER 17, 2019

+ + + + +

The National Organic Standards Board 

met via web conference, at 1:00 p.m., Harriet Behar, 

Chair, presiding.

PRESENT

HARRIET BEHAR, Chair

STEVE ELA, Vice Chair

SCOTT RICE, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

JESSE BUIE

TOM CHAPMAN

LISA de LIMA

RICK GREENWOOD

DAVE MORTENSEN

EMILY OAKLEY

DAN SEITZ

ASHLEY SWAFFAR
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ALSO PRESENT

PAUL LEWIS, Director, Standards Division

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, Advisory Committee

Specialist

DEVON PATTILLO, Materials Specialist, Standards

Division

ANGIE PEGUES, Management Analyst

PUBLIC COMMENTERS

JO ANN BAUMGARTNER, Wild Farm Alliance

COLEHOUR BONDERA, Kanalani Ohana Farm

JANE DeMARCHI, ASTA

BOB DURST, Simple Organic Solutions

STEVEN ETKA, National Organic Coalition

LISA GERMO

CALEB GOOSSEN, Maine Organic Farmers & Gardeners

Association

AUSTIN HAROLD, Northwest Horticultural Council

EDWARD MALTBY, NODPA

ROBERT MORSE, Atlantic Laboratories Inc.

WILLIAM SELKIRK, Sterling Agriculture Inc.

ANGELA SCHRIVER, Schriver Organics & Schriver

Farms

DANIELLE QUIST, International Dairy Foods

Association

SAM WELSCH, OneCert Inc.
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

1:02 p.m.

MS. ARSENAULT: So we're going to 

officially open the meeting with Paul Lewis, the 

Director of Standards Division.

MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Michelle, and 

good afternoon. I'm Paul Lewis, Director of 

Standards Division in the National Organic Program, 

and I want to again welcome members of the Board 

and the public to today's National Organic 

Standards Board public comment webinar. And 

welcome again to our webinar this afternoon that 

we previously had on Tuesday.

And I appreciate everyone's 

participation and all your work serving on the 

Board. This webinar, like Tuesday, offers the 

opportunity for the public to provide comments to 

the Board as part of the upcoming face-to-face 

meeting scheduled for next week, October 23rd, 25th 

in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Feel free to consult 

the NOP website for information about that meeting.

This meeting, today's meeting like all 
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

meetings of the National Organics Standards Board 

operate under the provisions of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. And I look forward to 

hearing comments from the public today, so it's 

just the Board preparing their recommendations 

yesterday in response to NOSB regular agenda items.

I also want to thank my colleagues, the 

NOP, and the Standards Division for all of the help 

behind the scenes, and all the success to help us 

for today's teleconference and webinar.

Before I turn to Harriet to lead us in 

today's webinar, I would also acknowledge the 

outstanding service of some of the parting NOSB 

members. Harriet Behar, Lisa de Lima, Tom Chapman, 

and Ashley Swaffar. This will be their last NOSB 

webinar serving as a member of the Board. Next 

week will be their last service on the Board at 

a public face-to-face meeting.

On a personal note, I want to thank 

Harriet, Lisa, Tom and Ashley for your service on 

the Board. I enjoyed working and also learning 

with you, and I appreciate your valued insights 
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and recommendations for us in the production and 

the processing of organic products.

While I know next week we'll have an 

opportunity to work together, I want to use this 

forum today to kind of share with you personally, 

thank you, and wish you all the best in your ongoing 

journey and your future endeavors. Harriet, the 

floor is yours.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Paul, and 

ditto. I enjoyed working with you and all the many 

earnest discussions that we had. It's been a 

learning experience for me as well, and it's always 

good to kind of get down and really go through the 

details as we will be going through with the public 

commenters today.

I wanted to mention that we'll be 

recording the webinar today, and we also have a 

transcriptionist on the call who will be doing a 

transcription that will become part of the 

permanent public record for public comments on the 

Fall 2019 NOSB meeting.

And I believe that Michelle is working 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the mics on mute and unmute, and so she will unmute 

you when it's your turn to speak. I want to remind 

everyone that registration was required in order 

to comment today, and I will be announcing the next 

commenter, and then also the next person or two 

who are on deck so you can prepare yourselves to 

be ready to comment.

There will be a timer started when you 

begin to speak, and it will beep at three minutes. 

So we would appreciate it if you would end your 

sentence then, and then stay on the line because 

there may be questions from the National Organic 

Standards Board members who would like to get 

further information on your topic.

Only National Organic Standards Board 

members are allowed to ask questions. Board 

members, please indicate if you have questions by 

raising your hands in the computer program, or if 

you're just on the phone, just let me know if you 

want to ask a question and you'll be able to speak. 

Michelle, would you like to take roll call now?

MS. ARSENAULT: All right. Thank you 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for waiting while I unmute myself there. I think 

we're still working on unmuting a couple of the 

Board members who were having difficulties getting 

on, and we have a couple on the phone. So let's 

see, Sue Baird, are you with us?

Sue, I'm going to unmute your mic. You 

can talk now. Sue, we're not hearing you, but I 

see you on the line. Skipping over. Harriet, 

you're with us obviously?

CHAIR BEHAR: I am still here. Yes, 

I am.

MS. ARSENAULT: All right. Asa 

Bradman. Asa, did you make it? There you are, 

I see you.

MR. BRADMAN: Can you hear me?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, we can hear you. 

And I just made you a panelist as well, just so 

you know. Jesse Buie, I know you're on the line 

because you were before me I think.

MR. BUIE: I'm here.

MS. ARSENAULT: Thank you, sir. Tom 

Chapman's going to be a little bit late; he's on 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a plane. Lisa de Lima, are you on the line with 

us?

Lisa de Lima, are you -- if you're talking, you 

may possibly be on mute. Let me see here. I see 

your number. Let me unmute you.

MS. de LIMA: Yes, I'm here.

MS. ARSENAULT: There we go. We're 

having a mute-unmute battle here in the office. 

All right, I got you. Steve Ela? Make sure you're 

unmuted. Steve --

VICE CHAIR ELA: Hi.

MS. ARSENAULT: There you go. We've 

got you. Thanks, Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Okay, yes.

MS. ARSENAULT: Rick Greenwood. 

Rick, were you able to get the link working for 

you? I don't see -- there we go. Make sure it's 

the right Rick. Rick, I just unmuted you.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, I'm here.

MS. ARSENAULT: Excellent, all right. 

And Dave Mortensen is going to be joining us late. 

He had a conflict early on. Emily Oakley, I know 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you're here. I saw your name down there.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, I'm present. 

MS. ARSENAULT: Excellent. Thank 

you, Emily. Scott Rice, we heard Scott earlier.

MR. RICE: Yes, present.

MS. ARSENAULT: Excellent, thank you. 

A'dae Romero Briones will not be with us today. 

A'dae had a family medical emergency and is not 

going to be on the call. Dan Seitz? I think Dan 

is also going to arrive a little bit late to the 

call. Thank you all for waiting while I search 

my memory for that email.

And Ashley Swaffar, are you out there? 

Let me make sure your mic is unmuted, Ashley. 

You are not unmuted. There you go. You should 

be unmuted.

MS. SWAFFAR: I'm here.

MS. ARSENAULT: Okay, great. All 

right. So Harriet, currently we have -- we should 

have 11 staff -- 11 Board members -- 10 Board members 

on the call with us at the moment which is quorum. 

And I'm expecting a few to join us a little bit 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

later. And Harriet, if you're talking, you are 

on mute.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, I have the same 

number, 10 NOSB members, which are -- three of them 

joining us a little late.

MS. ARSENAULT: I'm getting a little 

feedback here. So we're going to watch people's 

mics and mute and unmute as necessary. We would 

also appreciate it if you guys can keep yourselves 

on mute until your name is called to speak, and 

that way we will minimize background noise and make 

everything go more smoothly. All right, Harriet, 

it's all yours.

CHAIR BEHAR: Sounds good. I just 

wanted to also say how important public comment 

is to the members of the National Organic Program 

as we work through our decision-making process for 

both rule making and guidance, which materials are 

on or off the national list.

And I want to thank all the commenters 

for all the time and effort you have put into your 

comments. Just be assured that they are very 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

important to us. So I would like to start first 

with Ed Maltby of NODPA, and Steve Etka of the 

National Organic Coalition is on deck with Dick 

Atlee after that. Ed, are you there? We are not 

seeing Ed on the line. Let me just double check 

a couple --

MR. MALTBY: Hello?

CHAIR BEHAR: Hello. Excellent.

MR. MALTBY: I'm here, I'm there, 

somewhere.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, we can hear you.

MR. MALTBY: Okay. I'd like to start 

by thanking all members of the NOSB for their 

service, their dedication, and above all, their 

patience. I can only imagine the long hours of 

deliberations. And for those leaving to go to 

greener and more relaxed pastures, then a special 

thank you to those people.

Just to prove that some recommendations 

of the NOSB do actually get put into force, we are 

urging the USDA to finalize the Origin of Livestock 

proposed rule, the 2015 rule, as soon as possible 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

after the 60-day comment period with immediate 

implementation of the regulation that would require 

that all operations raise their animals organically 

from the last third of gestation outside of the 

one provision that allows for a one-time transition 

of a whole herd into organic production.

And that would also include the fact 

that you can't take organic calves and take them 

out of organic operations and then pull them back 

in when they're reared. So it has to be continuous 

organic production.

The dairy pasture rule enforcement is 

gaining some traction, and I want to congratulate 

the NOP on their significant progress. It seems 

that you're having to teach certifiers all over 

again exactly what the regulation says.

The regulation that we helped put in 

force in 2010 was a very open and transparent and 

long process, and there should be no excuse or 

reason why those within the certification process 

have any doubts about exactly what needs to be done, 

and how it's supposed to be done, and how it's 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

supposed to be recorded.

Once dairy enforcement falls short, 

then large operations will continue to deny their 

animals meaningful access to pasture, and are not 

complying with the many different parts of the 

regulations that make the holistic integrity of 

the organic rule.

Gene editing, it's somewhat absurd that 

we should think about putting gene editing into 

any organic regulation. It is a form of genetic 

engineering that the NOSB has repeatedly determined 

is clearly excluded in organic by the very 

definition of the words.

Any future to effort to allow products 

of genetic engineering into certified organic 

products will be met with the full force of the 

organic community defending the very basic nature 

of organic.

The newer genetic engineering 

techniques are still not needed in organic, and 

are not wanted by producers; definitely not by 

consumers and retailers.
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The NOSB has already reviewed with 

numerous opportunities for public commenting, gene 

editing methods and techniques, and recommended 

that they remain excluded methods.

And moving on to vaccines in organic 

livestock production, once again for organic 

producers, they are an essential tool in their 

toolbox, and we need every opportunity to be able 

to use that. A lot of well-established organic 

operations do not, in fact, need vaccines as they 

developed their own immunity in their own 

situations and on their own farms.

We support the change proposed by the 

subcommittee --

MS. ARSENAULT: This is Michelle. I'm 

sorry, that was the timer. I'm not sure that you 

heard it very well, but your time is up.

MR. MALTBY: Okay. Sorry, I didn't 

hear anything.

MS. ARSENAULT: That's okay. I 

realize we didn't test the timer to make sure 

everybody could hear it. So we'll make sure it's 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

louder next time. Harriet, are you -- I think 

you're unmuted.

CHAIR BEHAR: I'm here. I don't see 

any hands, but Ed, I do have a question for you. 

Can you speak in a short way to the economic impact 

of certified organic dairy operations if the origin 

of livestock rule is not implemented in a speedy 

manner?

MR. MALTBY: Yes. As most people 

understand, the organic dairy has gone through a 

massive cut in pay price and an overwhelming surplus 

that has forced many organic dairies out of 

business.

And one of the major causes for that 

is that there is no consistent enforcement of the 

origin of livestock. We've had large-scale 

transitions of conventional heifers and cows, and 

even complete herds on a continuous basis, which 

has upset the great basic nature of supply and 

forced the (inaudible due to telephonic 

interference) hope that that rule will be 

implemented quickly.
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

There will be many, many more organic 

dairies that will not be able to survive. And also 

we do not in any way want to cause a lack of integrity 

with consumers if they find out that organic milk 

-- a large amount of organic milk is coming from 

animals which have been conventional only in the 

last year.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Thank you. 

Anyone else on the Board have a question?

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet, Ashley has a 

question, and we are having trouble unmuting her 

mic.

MS. SWAFFAR: Can you hear me?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, we can hear you 

now. Thanks, Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes, I just want to hear 

the finishing part of your statement about 

vaccines, what your stance is on that. Could you 

finish your statement?

MR. MALTBY: Yes. The DNOP should 

develop a list of which veterinary vaccines have 

not been produced using excluded methods. And then 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this list can be published and made available to 

all certifiers, and so we'll have consistent 

implementation of the regulation yet again, and 

which will enable producers to know exactly where 

they stand with their certifiers, and it will stop 

the common practice of certifier shopping.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Ashley. Any 

followup? You okay?

MS. SWAFFAR: I'm good. I just wanted 

to hear the rest of the statement. Thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet, if I could 

interrupt one second. This is Michelle. We're 

going to test the timer to make sure everybody can 

hear it. Apologies for not doing it sooner.

(Timer beeping.)

CHAIR BEHAR: I could hear it. I hope 

everyone else can.

MS. ARSENAULT: Is it faint or can you 

hear it pretty well?

CHAIR BEHAR: Kind of faint. It's not 

as loud as it was on Tuesday.
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ARSENAULT: All right. Good to 

know. We'll work on that. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next up is Steve 

Etka with the National Organic Coalition, and after 

him is Dick Atlee, general public. Steve, you can 

start.

MR. ETKA: Okay. Good afternoon. I 

am Steve Etka with the National Organic Coalition. 

NOC urges NOSB to continue to track NOP progress 

in addressing organic fraud, both domestically and 

internationally.

Relevant to those efforts, the 2018 

Farm Bill includes new authorities for the NOP to 

address organic import fraud through a rule-making 

expected later this year, but also through the 

establishment of an interagency working group to 

ensure that USDA and Customs and Border Protection, 

the lead inspection agency at U.S. Ports of Entry, 

are coordinating efforts to crack down on 

fraudulent organic imports.

There are a whole host of casts that 

we are encouraging USDA and CBP to address through 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this working group, including but not limited to 

the need for more specific -- more organic-specific 

harmonized task codes.

The International Trade Commission to 

better track the value and quantity of organic 

imports; plans to update CBP's automated 

import/export tracking system to build 

organic-specific prompts and questions called 

message sets into the system; examining NOP's 

authority or lack thereof over uncertified entities 

engaging in fraud, as well as operations that have 

surrendered their certificates in order to 

circumvent enforcement; collaboration on 

strategies with regard to organic product that has 

been fumigated at the port of entry because of test 

problems to make sure the product is not labeled 

and sold as organic; and lastly, updating the 

Memorandum of Understanding between AMS, APHIS and 

CBP to address procedures for handing organic 

imports.

In addition to the organic farm bill 

provisions, there are some important organic wins 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to the appropriations process as well. In recent 

years, NOC and our other D.C. partners have been 

successful on getting Congress to increase funding 

for the NOP, and additional increases are slated 

for 2020 as well.

Also both the House and Senate FY2020 

agriculture appropriations bills require USDA to 

finalize the origin of livestock rule for dairy 

animals within 180 days of enactment to close the 

loophole that has been allowing some organic 

dairies to bring conventional cows into their 

operation on a continuous basis after managing them 

as organic for just one year.

NOC strongly supports this 

appropriation provision and lobbied for it. The 

180-day deadline is a moving target, however, 

because Congress has not yet finalized the 2020 

appropriations bill.

In the meantime, it sends a very clear 

message that Congress intends UDSA to finalize the 

origin of livestock rule ASAP, and UDSA has 

announced their intention to do so.
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We look forward to working with USDA 

and the NOSB in support of promulgation of a final 

origin of livestock rule as expeditiously as 

possible.

And we also in closing want to thank 

the NOSB for all your service, and particularly 

those folks who are retiring off the Board after 

this meeting. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Steve. Any 

questions from NOSB Board members?

I wanted to ask you a couple questions, 

Steve. I know you do some work on Capitol Hill. 

It seems that across the aisle we have kind of 

universal support for organic agriculture that we 

have organic farmers and processors in every state. 

Do you think that Congress is paying attention 

to this rule-making and would like to see it move 

forward?

MR. ETKA: Harriet, are you asking 

about origin of livestock rule-making or organic 

import fraud rule-making?

CHAIR BEHAR: I would say both. 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Michelle, I think that you are --

MS. ARSENAULT: Yep, yep, yep. Sorry, 

Harriet. I just accidentally muted Steve's line. 

Sorry, Steve.

MR. ETKA: So I would answer you, 

Harriet, in both cases with regard to the origin 

of livestock rule and the organic import fraud rule, 

that we're expecting out of NOP shortly, there has 

been broad bipartisan support on both of those 

things, evidenced both by provisions in the farm 

bill that have bipartisan support on the import 

fraud issue, and then provisions in the 

appropriations process -- both in the House and 

the Senate -- that require USDA to finalize the 

origin of livestock rules. In both cases, both 

Republicans and Democrats were supportive of those 

efforts.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Thank you. 

Okay, next up is Dick Atlee. Michelle, do you have 

him? And then after that, Linda Coleman on deck, 

with Lisa Germo after her.

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet, where -- I'm 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not seeing Dick Atlee. Dick, if you're on the line 

with us, you should be able to unmute yourself to 

speak. We only have one 207 area code, and several 

speakers have that area code, so I'm not sure that 

one belongs to Dick.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, is Linda Coleman 

there?

MS. ARSENAULT: Linda, are you on the 

line with us? You can unmute your own line if you 

are. No Linda either? We're going to come back 

around.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. ARSENAULT: Lisa Germo? Lisa's on 

the line with us. We're unmuting your line, Lisa.

MS. GERMO: I am here. Can you hear 

me?

MS. ARSENAULT: We can hear you, 

excellent.

MS. GERMO: Perfect. I'm going to set 

my own alarm here for three minutes because I don't 

think I'm going to hear that little beep.

Hello. My name is Lisa Germo. First 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of all, I want to thank the NOSB for having me speak 

on here and listening to me. I'm a mother and a 

consumer of the organic seal. I am opposing the 

genetic engineering under the organic seal.

We already have excluded methods that 

are here for regulation, and I think that should 

include all old and new technology. For me, as 

a consumer, I pick and choose my food wisely.

To throw genetic engineering under the 

organic seal would actually hurt the organic seal 

because when the regular consumers find out this 

is under there, I think consumers will choose not 

to buy any product that has the organic seal label 

on this.

And just like the first speaker, I think 

that if genetic engineering does fall under the 

organic seal, it will be met with force. I also 

think that the trust of the people, the consumer, 

will be lost for the organic seal. And who knows 

that the organic seal might be lost all together

in itself.

Adding any GM food to the organic seal 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

undermines the American people who choose to eat 

clean organic food, and it weakens the integrity 

of the organic seal.

So I'm urging that we not do this. We've 

been here before. It doesn't make sense. We have 

rules and regulations already, and I would love 

to be a supporter of the organic seal as I choose 

my food wisely. And thank you very much for letting 

me speak.

CHAIR BEHAR: You're welcome. Thank 

you for taking the time to come and speak to us. 

Any questions from Board members? I don't see 

any. Thank you very much. Next, has Dick Atlee 

or Linda Coleman arrived?

I'm going to take that as a no, and move 

forward to Robert Morse is next with Atlantic 

Laboratories, and William Selkirk on deck after 

that. And after him, JoAnn Baumgartner who I 

understand is out in Utah somewhere. So next is 

Robert Morse, and then William Selkirk.

MS. ARSENAULT: Robert, if you're 

there, you should be unmuted, we hope, 207.
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORSE: Hello. Okay, this is 

Robert Morse. Can you hear me?

MS. ARSENAULT: I can hear you, and 

Robert, I have your video cued up so hopefully I 

can get it to play and to share it with everyone 

who's on the webinar with us.

MR. MORSE: Okay. Can I just 

introduce myself first?

MS. ARSENAULT: Absolutely. I'm 

going to hand it back to Harriet. So I just wanted 

her to know that you do have a video, so thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Go right ahead.

MR. MORSE: Okay. I'm Robert Morse. 

I'm President and Founder of the 48-year-old 

seaweed processing company, Atlantic Laboratories, 

Inc. and North American Kelp located in Waldoboro, 

Maine.

And you're about to see, those who are 

able to see the video, you'll see a bay that I've 

been harvesting for 48 years, and I would like to 

entertain questions. This is in regards to the 

fact that the Board is entertaining some kind of 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

regulations on harvesting of seaweed, so please 

play the video.

MS. ARSENAULT: Can you guys see the 

video screen? I want to make sure I'm sharing the 

right screen with you before I start the video.

MR. MORSE: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes.

MS. ARSENAULT: Okay, excellent.

(Video played.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Michelle, was 

that a full three minutes?

MR. MORSE: It should be two minutes, 

59 seconds.

CHAIR BEHAR: Was that at three 

minutes?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. The video was 

two minutes and 59 seconds long.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. I do see Emily has 

her hand raised.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. Yes, thank 

you for your video and for your testimony. And 

I had a question which is that I know North American 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Kelp has certified organic kelp we know for 

livestock use. And I wanted to ask if you are aware 

that what we're discussing is the possibility of 

requiring certified organic status for seaweed 

that's harvested for crop fertility input, so for 

fertilizer use.

And I'm wondering since you do have 

kelp, you know, that's certified organic right now 

for livestock use, what would be or would there 

be any challenges to requiring organic 

certification for the seaweed that you harvest for 

crop fertility input use or fertilizer use?

MR. MORSE: Well, I'm totally against 

it. We're not -- the rules that were set up for 

harvesting seaweed based on the land, not on the 

ocean. The rules were done for Iceland where 

there's nobody living there. It's the size of a 

continent island.

And Coastal Maine, there's so many 

restrictions on harvesting on the organics that 

half of our harvest is organic and the other half 

isn't. So if you were to take and put all our 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

fertilizer under that requirement, you know, I'm 

not sure what we'd do with the company. Whether 

we take it away from organic, the animal and put 

it to that, or how we would handle it.

But, you know, the sea is one big body 

of water, and it moves around. And the rule is 

you put a line in the water, and you say that this 

is organic on this side, and it isn't on the other 

one. It's living in the same water.

It's kind of -- I think if you do 

anything, you might want to address the aquatic 

aspect of growing plants and do analysis on them 

instead of trying to divide an ocean that's 

constantly circulating.

Our harvest is a cultivation. We only 

take the tops of the plant, and it grows back from 

the tip. So we're one of the few fisheries that 

don't take the whole organism.

And that's what you saw in some of the 

pictures. That bay is the first bay I harvested 

back in '71, and we continually harvest it today. 

Before that, it was harvested back in the 1850s 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in a commercial fertilizer operation. They dried 

seaweed in a rotary drum, wood-fire dry it, and 

then they sent it to Connecticut for the tobacco 

growers.

And we currently dehydrate in a 

wood-fired rotary drum, so it's like Back to the 

Future. It's a loaded question, Emily, but thank 

you for asking. You were on one of our boats about 

two years ago if I recall, right?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, that is correct. 

Could I just ask a quick follow-up then?

MR. MORSE: You can do whatever you 

want.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, you can.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. So if half of 

your harvest is certified organic for livestock, 

can you help me understand what the barrier would 

be to certifying the rest of the harvest as organic?

MR. MORSE: In how many seconds?

MS. OAKLEY: I don't know.

MR. MORSE: The rules are such that now 

they're telling us we can't even tow our nets into 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the ocean after we harvest from a spot. That we 

can't even tow the nets in the same water that 

surrounds the seaweed, so it's just getting too 

costly.

You know, I've got a $500,000 vessel 

now that we're constructing to be able to carry 

the nets according to the organic regulations. 

There's only so much that we can economically afford 

to do and still put a product out that, you know, 

the market isn't that hot with all the dairies going 

down.

So we also offer a conventional animal 

feed supplement which is selling quite well as well. 

And our growth is in the biological pesticide 

market. We have new fungicide and pesticide 

seaweed-based products hitting the market here this 

fall.

So I don't know. We'd like to stay in 

the program. But if the barriers keep crawling 

up and the costs keep crawling up, I'm not sure 

the market can afford it. And there is -- well, 

I won't get into that part of it on the phone call. 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But we have a lot of imports coming in, let's put 

it that way, that aren't looked at.

MS. OAKLEY: Uh-huh. So is the 

problem that you're -- am I understanding that the 

cost to certify organic, the seaweed that you 

harvest for livestock feed is high enough, that 

if you are required to do the same for the fertility 

input, that wouldn't be economically viable? That 

the cost of certification or the practices --

MR. MORSE: Well, I'm just not sure 

that we would, you know, we might just go with the 

biopesticide and go in the biological market which 

is growing fast, and abandon the organic market.

I'm not sure, we'll have to see. We 

keep working with the certifiers, and we seem to 

have a pretty good understanding, and then 

something else happens and they want something else 

done. It's just not definitive.

I mean, you've got a two-sentence 

paragraph that's regulating seaweed harvesting. 

We have 15 species on the coast of Maine that are 

commercially harvested, and we've got two sentences 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

out of the program that regulates it all.

And then there's all these decisions 

that are being made. We don't see them in writing, 

but they grab something else from outside the 

program. I read the program and I don't see where 

certification of a fertilizer. Do you certify 

manure inputs?

MS. OAKLEY: No, no. It's not 

something that is required. Right now there is 

no requirement that crop fertility input be 

certified organic. And this is only one aspect 

that we were exploring at the best of all means, 

of addressing any potential environmental concern. 

But no, it's certainly not --

MR. MORSE: I can understand that, Ms. 

Oakley. The complaint that you have down there 

is from a Mrs. Sealey, who is a non-credentialed 

seaweed scientist who's an activist.

I mean, she burned herself out up here 

in Maine, and now she's I guess been down your way 

for four years. And they always want us to prove 

a negative that what we're doing doesn't affect 
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

anything, rather than show us the problem.

I mean I don't even know what we're 

supposed to be defending ourselves against in this 

complaint. I'm a member of OTA, and I got on the 

board for them and talked. And they said, what 

are we supposed to defend ourselves on?

The seaweed in this program coming in 

from 15 different countries, four provinces, East 

and West Coasts of the United States, multiple 

states. We're regulated here by our State 

Department of Marine Resources. We're one of the 

least, you know, fisheries that have no violations.

It seems like the state asked us to, 

and how are you as a program going to take over 

management of all these seaweed resources and 

different harvesting species, where, you know, we 

have experts in the state. We have a psychology 

department at the University of Maine --

MS. OAKLEY: Sir, can I disrupt you 

just really quickly because I just want to clarify 

one thing, and then I'll turn it back over to 

Harriet, which is just to help you understand that 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the Board isn't looking at this because of any 

single individual's interest or testimony before 

the Board.

It's something that came up during the 

2015 sunset review, and that was over a host of 

seaweed products and materials and handling craft 

and livestock, and the Board got a technical review 

on the subject at that time. But we've received 

a tremendous amount of testimony along the spectrum 

of this issue. Certainly from those who feel that 

things are adequate regulated as they are, versus 

some who wish to see more regulation of the 

industry.

So just to make it clear that there 

isn't any single individual that is propelling this 

discussion. It's a much broader issue that the 

Board is looking at. And Harriet, I'm done. Thank 

you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. And Steve Ela has 

a question.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes, I'll just -- I 

don't want to take up a lot of time, but I am curious. 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

You know, we've received a lot of testimony over 

this last several years about, you know, the 

sustainability of the Maine system, and I don't 

have any doubts about that.

I guess one, and I think you alluded 

to it, that there are a number of products that 

come not from Maine or not from regulated fisheries. 

And so I guess -- but yes, the organic industry 

does use those products.

So do you have any thoughts just very 

quickly of how the NOSB might help protect the 

environment in those non-regulated areas?

MR. MORSE: I didn't say they were 

non-regulated. I just said there was -- I don't 

know. I'm trying to defend the seaweed harvest, 

so I really don't want to start going and exposing 

certain things that I've actually done.

I've spent over $13,000 complaining or 

putting in complaints to the NOP on imports, and 

then there's nothing ever done. So I mean you can 

go -- I guess you can to look at our, if there's 

a complaint department. It's not you folks. I'm 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not a bureaucrat, so I don't know all these 

different things.

It's not NOSB, but the NOP I've put 

complaints in since 2013, with nothing being done. 

I've spent thousands of dollars doing it, so I'm 

done.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. I guess we can do 

a little research on that. So this is Harriet 

again, and I sit in the environmentalist seat on 

the Board. And so I think maybe I'll be able to 

get some answers to my environmental impact 

questions from the panel that we'll be having 

in-person in Pittsburgh.

But I have somewhat of a concern of the 

-- I understand there's no by-catch, but the habitat 

for a lot of the smaller kind of feed animals and 

even the kelp itself. And I just wonder about the 

health of the fishery when there's significant kelp 

harvest going on in an area.

I'm not asking you necessarily your 

opinion of that, but just wondering if there are 

-- if there have been studies of this that I could 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

then look to to get some answers.

MR. MORSE: I believe you're going to 

have some scientists down there on your panel. 

I've seen some lists of things. I'm not sure who 

they're going to be. But if you look at the coast 

of Maine, we have over 150,000 acres of intertidal 

zone of which 70,000 acres is rockweed habitat.

There's anywhere between 1.2 and 3 

million standing tons of rockweed on the coast of 

Maine. There's approximately 10,000 to 14,000 

tons harvested a year. There's a turnover rate 

every year as the plant matures. At 10 years, if 

it lives 10 years, 10 percent comes off the rock. 

You have storms.

I'm on a landline plugged into the wall 

at the moment. We just had a northeaster come 

through last night. And we lose between 20 and 

30 percent of the standing resource to storms, and 

then we have ice in the winter. So the amount we 

harvest compared to what naturally comes off. And 

when we harvest it, we're leaving -- we have the 

highest cutting height in the world at 16 inches.
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

You go and look at the rocks in those 

videos, some of those areas were just harvested 

less than 12 months ago. It's not a complete 

harvest. It's a spot harvest, and so there's 

plenty of weed left behind for anything that needs 

cover and that type of thing.

I mean there was a -- we were accused 

once of destroying periwinkles when we harvested. 

There's a study by Tufts University and the Bigelow 

Lab, and they found that a year after we harvested, 

they had 314 percent more periwinkles in that area 

we harvested than were there before.

That's because you open up the 

sunlight, and then the green algae grows 

underneath, and that's what they eat. So, this 

is a huge, you know, it's a huge question.

But I mean we've got them working on 

this bay that I just showed you. There's eight

sites on this bay right now. University of Maine 

is doing birds and what you just alluded to, 

Harriet, the micro -- I don't even know what they 

are -- little organisms that grow in the bottoms 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of the seaweed and stuff. So that study should 

come out in the next year or so.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, great.

MR. MORSE: I'm only one of eight 

sites. They have eight sites up and down the coast, 

and that video you saw, it's got eight sites in 

it.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, great. Well, we 

need to move on. I thank you for your comments 

and for the nice video.

MR. MORSE: Yes. Thank you very much.

CHAIR BEHAR: Next up is William --

you're welcome. Next up is William Selkirk, with 

Jo Ann Baumgartner on deck. William, are you 

there?

MR. SELKIRK: Yes, I am. I hope you 

can hear me well.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes. We can hear you. 

Go ahead.

MR. SELKIRK: Very good. Thank you. 

Well, first I want to thank the NOSB Board members 

and support team for allowing me to speak and share 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

some ideas.

I am VP of Research with Sterling Ag, 

and about a year ago, give or take, we learned of 

the synthetic fatty alcohols for organic tobacco 

suckers, and we began researching other alternative 

organic methods to be able to have the same 

efficacy.

And during case studies, we found that 

we could do so, and we could do so while it may 

cost a wee bit more, the cost break for overall 

is a little bit less. So we've had good efficacy 

results.

And I'm asking the committee to 

consider not allowing synthetic fatty acids to be 

used in the suckering treatment of organic tobacco 

production.

We have -- every one of our ingredients 

in our formula is on the allowable list. I am happy 

to add that we have received preliminary approval 

of the formula itself from VOF as they are made 

with organic products.

And it actually might be possibly --
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I haven't had time to research this -- possibly 

the first time a test site for organic cultural 

use in itself was a certified organic product.

We also want to point out in the paper 

that we submitted, that the plant suckers to the 

EPA are considered a pest, hence the term pesticide 

rather than herbicide.

All of our entire ingredient list 

consists of rosemary essential oil, citric acid 

from oranges, malic acid from apples, and certified 

organic potassium liquid soap using medium-chain 

triglycerides, which are effective in tobacco 

sucker control.

I'll follow up on the last statement 

and then open it up. In order to allow this new 

product to be substituted for synthetic fatty 

acids, I asked the Board to consider voting to allow 

the use of soap in organic agriculture to include 

sucker control.

And this small change would allow 

current synthetic fatty alcohols to sunset, and 

the certified organic one to be used in the future 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

instead. And so we've been very successful with 

our efficacy, and every ingredient is on the organic 

approved list.

Now, I will open it up and see if there 

are any questions. That's basically the Reader's 

Digest of our research.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, Steve has a 

question.

MR. SELKIRK: Hi, Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Hi. Thanks for your 

comments, and I remember -- I can't remember if 

it was you personally that testified at the Seattle 

meeting -- but could you list those ingredients 

again? And also, we had a speaker from Extension 

Service that had done a number of -- on our previous 

webinar on Tuesday -- a number of efficacy trials.

And at least from his trials, rosemary 

oil was not a real effective material in terms of 

his lecturing. And so I'd like to follow-up on 

how your product might be different from some of 

those materials that you have tested for efficacy.

MR. SELKIRK: Very good question. And 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

he is absolutely correct. Our C8 and C10 is derived 

from multichain triglycerides that is used to 

produce the soap, and we were using 40 C.F.R. 152.25 

table one and two, which is the list of active and 

inert ingredients that are allowed for pesticide 

use that are exempt from EPA registration.

So we derived our soap which is on the 

inert side. Our soap actually is where the 

triglycerides, the multi-chain triglycerides 

C8/C10 are. The rosemary essential oil, while it 

is considered an inactive ingredient from the U.S. 

EPA, it is nonetheless in there as a preservative 

for bacterial control.

So he would be correct. That, in and 

of itself, would not have much efficacy as the 

rosemary essential oil to the reduction of tobacco 

suckers.

VICE CHAIR ELA: May I ask a follow-up? 

I guess I would -- I'm -- and forgive my fuzziness 

on the chemistry, I guess. So the fatty alcohols 

that are up for approval by us now, if I remember 

right, are the C8/C10 chain links. And so my 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

understanding that your process is a non-synthetic 

process to get to those triglycerides?

MR. SELKIRK: That is correct, yes. 

Yes, sir. We use the saponification method, and 

it's so unique that we have a provisional patent 

that went into a formal patent because of the way 

we've done this.

But we've had -- we're using no 

synthetic approaches to this, and even the malic 

acid is derived from apples -- certified organic 

apples.

And of course the chemistry is 

interesting. You know, in the conventional 

tobacco world, we have maleic acid which is a 

double-chain carboxylic acid. Citric acid is a 

di-carboxylic acid or single-chain, and malic acid 

derived from apples is a single-chain.

By putting the two together, we 

actually -- certified organic you know from 

permutation processes, we're actually able to 

provide that double-chain efficacy of malic acid 

without using -- maleic acid by using those two 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

together that are organically approved.

MR. BUIE: Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, yes. Rick, is 

that you?

MR. BUIE: No, this is Jesse.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Go ahead, Jesse.

MR. BUIE: So I just wanted to ask 

again, have comparative studies with this compound 

and fatty alcohol been published yet? It seemed 

like you mentioned some kind of studies.

MR. SELKIRK: They've not been 

published yet. We're just now finishing up our 

seasonal work on them, so they have not been 

published yet. But we will probably publishing 

to academia. Academia will be our first place to 

post our research.

MR. BUIE: Oh, okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: Any other questions? Go 

ahead, Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: You said you'd 

received initial approval for this, and I can't 

think of who you said, but when given the P&O, 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

getting things on the market always takes more time 

than we think. When would you anticipate that this 

would be available? What growing season would you 

product be available for?

MR. SELKIRK: If approved, we could 

actually get it out here into the 2020 market 

starting March 1st.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Emily has a 

question.

MS. OAKLEY: I didn't understand your 

-- it felt like the line was cutting off. Did you 

say who you're waiting for approval from?

MR. SELKIRK: Oh, from your Board, 

Emily. Because this is a pesticide, and even 

though EPA says, you know, it's waived for their 

registration purposes based on the ingredients we 

use and how we use them. We would be asking the 

Board to consider, you know, adding -- because it's 

a saponification method, or soap, add this to the 

approved list.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So we would 

probably need to have a petition for reviewing a 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

new soap or for a different use? But we can talk 

to you about that outside the webinar. Yes, I 

guess.

My question to you would also be, you 

know, the field trials. We really have heard a 

lot from the organic tobacco growers that they 

absolutely need something for sucker control. And 

many things have been tried, but the fatty alcohols 

is the only thing that worked.

So we have to take that into account 

as well. But if you've got something coming down, 

you know, the pike, we would be very interested. 

And I'm wondering if you would be willing to share 

the ingredients in your product, or are they 

proprietary?

MR. SELKIRK: No, no. We have at this 

moment patent protection, so we would have no 

problem with sharing the full ingredient list if 

that helps you make a determination or decision.

CHAIR BEHAR: So maybe you can send 

that off to Michelle, and she can share that with 

us. Okay. I'm going to move on -- thank you --
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to the next speaker, Jo Ann Baumgartner. Thank 

you very much.

Jo Ann Baumgartner is next, with Steven 

Sprinkle and Angela Schriver on deck. Go ahead, 

Jo Ann.

MS. BAUMGARTNER: Hi. This is Jo Ann. 

Can you hear me?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes.

MS. BAUMGARTNER: Okay, yes, Jo Ann 

Baumgartner with the Wild Farm Alliance. And over 

the years it's been great that the NOSB has weighed 

in on biodiversity conservation issues.

I wanted to start by sharing with you 

that last week we held two successful biodiversity 

conservation trainings for organic inspectors with 

IOIA and CCOF. And during the training, a 

red-shouldered hawk swooped down to catch and eat 

a mouse right in front of us, showing how important 

biodiversity is to the organic farm.

But what I really wanted to talk about 

today is protective native ecosystems. We want 

to underscore how critical it is for the NOP to 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

adopt the NOSB's recommendations for that.

This will change and make it hard to 

burn the Amazon forest one day and become certified 

the next. To remind the NOP, this was unanimous 

NOSB recommendation and approximately 1,000 public 

comments were in support.

Also, when the NOP publishes the rule 

change, they need to publish native ecosystems 

guidance that explains how farmers and certifiers 

will determine whether a piece of land contains 

a native ecosystem or not.

Currently, we are working with partners 

on identifying the best tools and techniques to 

include in the guidance, and we will keep you 

updated as our work progresses.

Secondly, we are not in support of gene 

editing. And lastly, we urge the NOSB to recommend 

a rule change that requires all marine vegetation 

used in organic production be certified to a wild 

crop harvesting practice standard.

Rockweed and other algae are part of 

a functioning ecosystem that supports many 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organisms including birds. Coastal shore birds 

have lost one-third of their population since 1970. 

There are many reasons for that, including habitat 

loss, declining fisheries, and climate change.

While the NOP is not currently 

responsible for certifying crop inputs, in this 

particular situation, this change needs to remain. 

The good news is that there are certifiers and 

inspectors already using 205, 207 to certify marine 

algae for human food, livestock feed, and crops' 

input ingredients.

These examples can be used to move 

forward this rule change, but NOP should also work 

on publishing marine material guidance. Thank 

you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. I see Emily 

has a question.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you, Harriet, and 

thank you, Jo Ann. The first is a question for 

the program as they are able to answer Jo Ann's 

question regarding rulemaking for the needed 

ecosystem documents and proposal that we passed 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

last year, if there is any update on if and when 

that might happen, and then I have a question for 

Jo Ann after the program answers that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Will Paul or maybe Devon 

be able to speak to that?

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet, we are 

looking to unmute that line, give me one moment. 

And Harriet, while I have you, Ashley also has a 

question.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

CHAIR BEHAR: When Paul's done, 

Ashley, you can speak next.

MR. LEWIS: Great. So thanks for 

posing that question, Emily. As you know, we have 

a number of rulemaking initiatives that we're 

focusing on right now especially in terms of 

strengthening organic enforcement, so we're aware 

of these recommendations.

Obviously, we're studying them and we 

don't have any further response at this time.

CHAIR BEHAR: Go ahead, Ashley.

MS. ARSENAULT: Ashley, are you able 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to unmute your own line? Let's see if we can unmute 

you. All right, Ashley's muted. Let me -- we're 

looking, we're looking. There we go. All the way 

down at the bottom.

MS. SWAFFAR: My question is for the 

last commenter, not this one. Sorry.

MS. ARSENAULT: Sorry about that, 

Ashley.

MS. OAKLEY: Harriet, could I ask the 

other question which was for Jo Ann?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, go ahead. Go ahead 

Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you, Jo Ann, for 

your comments and I was wondering, there's been, 

as you've heard today, some concerns about creating 

regulations or requiring organic certification for 

seed we've used in organic production, and I'm 

wondering if you think that guidance could be 

developed for this topic and similarly, that you're 

recommending that guidance be created for the 

needed ecosystem proposal.

MS. BAUMGARTNER: Well, yeah, if I 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

think fits the -- it may work. It would certainly 

help if we went in that direction. I mean, with 

birds declining at such a rapid rate as a coastal 

species, it's really concerning that marine algae 

harvests are part of that problem and if the NOP 

is, you know, implicit in that, then that's a 

problem to the integrity of the label.

And so any way that we can move that 

forward to show that we're doing as best we can, 

I think would be a positive step.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, thank you, and 

Ashley, try to speak -- I can't see you in the lists 

to have you raise your hand, so feel free to speak 

up. I'm sorry I didn't see you to call on you for 

the last speaker.

MS. ARSENAULT: I'm sorry about that. 

Ashley is just on the phone, Harriet, so you will 

not see her in that list. She's in the phone 

listing.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next up is Steve 

Sprinkel, and then Angela Schriver and Danielle 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Quist on deck. Steve, can you find Steve, 

Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: Hello? Harriet, can 

you hear me?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, I can hear you, 

Michelle. Can you find Steve?

MS. ARSENAULT: We have not found 

Steve. So, Harriet, just so you know the 

Department's just pushed an update and my computer 

is restarting at the moment so I had to give over 

control of the webinar to a coworker. So hopefully 

everything is working on your end for everyone else 

on the webinar.

So we did not see Steve in the phone 

list or the webinar list. Steve, if you're there --

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

MS. ARSENAULT: Sorry. Steve, if 

you're there, you should be able to unmute your 

own line. Maybe you're calling in from a different 

number than you provided? All right, Harriet. 

I think it's --

CHAIR BEHAR: I'm keeping track. 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Angela Schriver, is she there, and then Danielle 

Quist is on deck.

MS. SCHRIVER: Yes, this is Angela 

Schriver. Hello?

CHAIR BEHAR: Great, go ahead. Yes, 

I can hear you. Go ahead.

MS. SCHRIVER: All right. My name is 

Angela Schriver and my husband --

(Pause.)

CHAIR BEHAR: I think we just lost you. 

Angela?

MS. SCHRIVER: I'm unmuted again, 

sorry. Thank you. I'll pick up where I left off.

So my husband and I have a rowcrop farm 

in Northeast Ohio. We have a split operation with 

approximately 200 acres certified organic and 200 

acres conventional.

We had been in conventional farming for 

over 15 years and we chose to transition to organic 

for financial reasons as there's a much higher 

premium for grain and we were desperate to keep 

our farm in existence.
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

However, through our three years of 

transition and two years of being certified 

organic, we've developed a deep appreciation and 

respect for organic agriculture and the 

sustainability that comes with it.

It has become something we believe in 

with all of our hearts. It's completely changed 

us as consumers, farmers, and people. We research, 

we brainstorm, and we problem solve and it's the 

most fun we've had in our lives. We believe 

strongly that the organic standards need to be 

upheld. It's a voluntary program. We make a 

choice to participate in it.

It's a lifestyle change and it's not 

for everyone. When you make exceptions such as 

the livestock origin standards or the GE content 

and the things that have been discussed Tuesday 

and today, you water down the standards and that 

hurts everyone.

That hurts consumers that believe in 

the organic label, it hurts farmers that believe 

in it, and it hurts the bottom line.
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I don't want to say that we participate 

in the almost but not quite organic certification 

label. I want to say we participate in the organic 

certification label.

And I think it's okay if my family can't 

pull weeds on 100 acres of organic food-grade 

soybeans because we can pull weeds on 20 acres, 

and it's okay if organic birds can't be produced 

during winter months on a large scale, and it's 

okay if you can't pinch off hundreds of acres of 

tobacco suckers.

You find every farm and farmer can 

figure out what they can do to their extent and 

if they claim it's impossible or claim that they 

can't keep their farm and they need those 

exceptions, I would want you to consider three 

things about humans.

They have affinity to what's familiar 

and they don't like change. They tend to like the 

path of least resistance, the easiest way. And 

they are extremely creative and have amazing 

ingenuity.
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We will all find a way to accomplish 

what we need to and what we want to. You do not 

have to compromise the integrity of the label to 

ensure that's possible.

And just as a side note, since we're 

grain farmers, I very much expect a proposal rule 

on the import fraud in grain because that is 

something that is personally an issue with us, and 

thank you for your time and your dedication to the 

organic label.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you very much. So 

I have a question from Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: I just wanted to thank you 

for your articulate comments and for speaking out 

as a farmer, and especially in terms of addressing 

the issue that we are creatures of habit, but that 

we want to maintain the rule as it is rather than 

allowing materials or processes that undermine it, 

so thank you for speaking to that.

MS. SCHRIVER: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next -- thank 

you. Next up is Danielle Quist with Caleb Goossen 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and Christy Kerbs on deck.

Danielle, can you unmute yourself? 

Angie, can you see them?

MS. PEGUES: I'm looking through it 

right now. I do not see Danielle on here. 

Danielle, if you're on you can unmute yourself. 

If you're on a cell phone you can unmute yourself 

with --

CHAIR BEHAR: Star six and star seven 

is mute and unmute.

MS. PEGUES: Yeah, star six and star 

seven are mute and unmute. I'm just going to go 

through and unmute everybody.

I apologize in advance for not having 

this done yet. I didn't want any of the background 

noises to interfere with anything.

CHAIR BEHAR: Is Caleb Goossen on the 

line?

MR. GOOSSEN: Yes, I am.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

MR. GOOSSEN: Can you hear me?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, and we'll go back, 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

too, and ask for Danielle afterwards, so go ahead, 

Caleb.

MR. GOOSSEN: Okay. I'm Caleb 

Goossen, Crop and Conservation Specialist for Maine 

Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, which 

has over 6,000 members and over 450 certified 

organic farms.

I would like to thank the Crop 

Subcommittee for their consideration and excellent 

discussion of paper as a production aid, i.e., paper 

pots.

I am here to voice my support for the 

proposed listing of virgin or recycled paper as 

a production aid. I've heard from many of the 

farmers I work with that paper pots should be 

allowed in organic production and have not heard 

from any farmer hoping to exclude them from 

inorganic production.

While prior listings for paper were 

well intentioned in forbidding virgin paper fibers, 

reevaluation of that blanket ban seems appropriate 

at this time.
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

New and refined applications of paper 

products are showing significant potential for 

replacing or offsetting plastic usage in crop 

production. Virgin paper fiber may allow for the 

displacement of synthetic additives in finished 

paper products, the content of which will always 

be difficult to quantify in recycled paper.

Additionally, though the listing for 

paper as mulch lies elsewhere in 205.601(b), I'm 

advocating that a similar in-depth reconsideration 

of virgin paper fiber allowance be considered.

I have become recently made aware of 

a 100 percent bio-based, biodegradable paper mulch 

film which is in later stages of development and 

product refinement. It relies upon virgin paper 

fibers, however.

That may be considered a small price 

to pay for a truly bio-based, biodegradable mulch 

film product with similar production 

characteristics to plastic mulch films, should it 

makes its way to market.

And if I still have time, I was not 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

intending to make this comment. However, in 

regards to sea vegetables as a crop fertility input, 

I can understand ecological concerns. I just don't 

understand why requiring they be certified organic 

is the best way to address ecological concerns 

versus an annotation or in perhaps another manner. 

Thanks again for the time.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily, go ahead.

MS. OAKLEY: Thanks, Caleb. I 

actually was been wondering if I could ask you a 

question about sea vegetables and seaweed, so since 

you brought it up I will.

I heard your point, but I think the 

reason that we have listed organic certification 

is that, one, it's a tool that's already at our 

disposal and one that people are familiar with and 

as you know one that certifiers are currently using.

And, two, although we've looked at 

annotations of the possibility, I fail to 

understand how an annotation would be verified and 

enforced. The only thing I can imagine is an 

affidavit situation because without certification, 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

who would actually go out and verify and monitor 

that the practices are being done according to the 

annotation. Do you have any thoughts on that?

MR. GOOSSEN: I guess I would defer to 

the NOSB and others in terms of how to best verify 

that those procedures are being done. My concern 

lies more upon what else is being opened with that 

listing.

There are many other crop fertility 

inputs that are not required to be organic that 

may have even greater ecological inputs and I don't 

know that the NOSB is really wanting to open up 

that can of worms and sort of, you know, opening 

up the idea that manure be investigated.

Just one example, wood ash. Where did 

that, or what happened to the trees that were burned 

to create that wood ash? I feel like the list is 

much greater than I can come up with off the top 

of my head right now.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. I have a question 

and that's about the paper pots. As we've learned 

that paper is not just cellulose based, that there 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are significant amounts of various types of 

synthetic fibers, some more biodegradable than 

others.

And I'm wondering, I think that's 

somewhat where we are struggling on the Crop 

Subcommittee is the type and percentage of 

synthetic.

In the paper pots there are some that 

are just about 100 percent synthetic fibers so they 

can remain integral for years, like, for the nursing 

industry, for instance. So we were just kind of 

wondering how you feel about synthetic fibers and 

should we have some sort of annotation limiting 

the type and percentage in the paper pots.

MR. GOOSSEN: I do feel that it would 

be appropriate to limit the percentage. I'm not 

feeling that I'm qualified to suggest what that 

limit should be.

I would look for a preponderance of the 

paper pots being utilized in organic production 

currently and I believe most of them are at a lower 

percentage of synthetic materials and, ideally, 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as I was trying to speak to, hopefully they will 

be able to replace those synthetic fibers with 

virgin paper fibers.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Okay, I 

don't think Ashley has a question. She's the only 

one I can't see. Next up is Christy Kerbs and on 

deck is Sam Welsch and Harold Austin.

So Christy, are you there? Angie, can 

you find Christy? She's a 425 area code and Angie, 

you're on mute.

MS. PEGUES: Give me one moment. No, 

I'm not seeing Christy.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Sam Welsch? 

He's a 402 area code.

MS. PEGUES: He is unmuted, or not. 

It's not letting me unmute him for whatever reason. 

It may be because we were trying to go back and 

forth, but he should be able to unmute himself.

CHAIR BEHAR: Sam, if you're on the 

line --

MR. WELSCH: Okay. Can you hear me 

now?
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, we can. Hello, 

Sam.

MR. WELSCH: Hi, Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, you can start 

speaking now.

MR. WELSCH: All right. Well, thank 

you everybody for all your time. I wish I could 

be a speed talker so I could get through everything 

I would like to say.

Regarding paper pots as was just 

discussed, paper is not just cellulose, and in fact, 

there are 100 percent synthetic papers now on the 

market. We are just also recently beginning to 

see research on the previously unknown effects of 

microplastics on microorganisms.

So I would urge you to look at to the 

extent possible to only allow natural fibers and 

polymers in paper pots and prohibit synthetic 

fibers and polymers. I'll just keep moving through 

my list here.

Ion exchange is a chemical process. 

I know that's something that's been coming up and 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it's used for many things, some which we have no 

problem with in terms of water treatment, but when 

it comes to creating and refining products, it is 

a chemical process.

The term ion exchange means that there 

are ions that are being taken out and put in to 

the products. A substance is often dissolved in 

a solution, ions are removed, the remaining 

substance is precipitated from the solution, and 

the result is a substance that is not the same as 

the initial substance. There was a chemical 

change.

This occurs with many types of products 

but I'm especially concerned that the result of 

this is that non-agricultural substances as defined 

by the regulations are now being in some cases 

certified organic, which creates a kind of logical 

inconsistency.

How can something that's required to 

be put on the National List to be included in a 

product also be certified organic, and I know some 

things may be misidentified like natural flavors.
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

When we get an affidavit that a flavor 

is natural it only means that the flavor components 

of that product comply with the FDA's definition 

of natural which does not match entirely the USDA's 

definition of natural in the organic regulations.

And there are thousands of these flavor 

components that may be derived from plant or animal 

materials but they are so refined and extracted 

that the identity of the agricultural product from 

which they're made is completely unrecognizable.

Vanillin would be one example. It does 

not come from vanilla beans, it comes from cellulose 

as one example. It comes from other substances, 

too. So these flavor extracts are certainly not 

agricultural, and do we really want to see things 

like organic benzaldehyde being certified? Sorry, 

I wasn't --

CHAIR BEHAR: That's okay.

MR. WELSCH: Go ahead.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yeah, Sam, you reached 

your three minutes and I just want to say that we 

are looking at ion exchange and we were requested 
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

by the National Organic Program that the NOSB look 

at that process. So thank you for bringing that 

up and be aware that it's on our radar.

Steve, you have a question for Sam?

VICE CHAIR ELA: I do, and coming back 

to your comments on paper pots, Sam, and the cross 

committee has certainly struggled with that issue 

of do we include synthetic fibers or not.

It feels like at this point that 

probably paper pots can't be made without some small 

amount of synthetic fibers and so we're hesitant 

to put an annotation that says there can be no 

synthetic fibers.

However, we don't know where the limits 

are on that, so it's certainly something we're 

wrestling with. Would you -- if we linked the 

synthetic fibers similar to the biodegradable mulch 

listing that's linked to custom entry standards 

requiring biodegradation, what are your thoughts 

on that? Making sure if there are synthetics they 

have to be biodegradable.

MR. WELSCH: It seems to me that what 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I've understood is that even biodegradable plastics 

or so-called biodegradable plastics end up just 

breaking down into microplastics, that it doesn't

really biodegrade at the molecular level and there 

are effects on microorganisms in the soil when that 

happens.

My preference would be if you'd have 

an annotation that says 100 percent natural fibers 

must be used when they're commercially available 

and I suspect that somebody will be creative with 

the big influx of hemp that is being grown in this 

country.

That somebody's going to figure out how 

to make the right kind of paper for paper pots from 

hemp fibers which are much more durable than 

cellulose and are used to replace plastic or 

synthetic fibers in many uses including fiberglass.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Thank you. I see 

Tom and then Emily have questions. Go ahead, Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: Can you hear me?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, we can hear you. 

Thank you, Tom.
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CHAPMAN: Great. Hey, Sam, I 

didn't understand your last points. Were you 

suggesting that products made with certified 

organic inputs that were processed to the standards 

under reliable practices in the standards not be 

allowed as organic based on the complexity of their 

name?

MR. WELSCH: I was suggesting that when 

you start certifying non-agricultural products you 

create a situation where the USDA, because the 

organic regulations are for agricultural products, 

that when complaints have been sent in about people 

calling non-agricultural products organic, there's 

no enforcement that can take place, so that's one 

aspect of --

MR. CHAPMAN: Can you give me an 

example of that?

MR. WELSCH: Well, there's plenty in 

cosmetics and soap products for example.

MR. CHAPMAN: I'm hearing no one 

enforcement, but I just read an article about a 

$1.76 million dollar settlement with the FTC about 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

fraudulent organic cosmetics.

MR. WELSCH: Yeah, that was FTC not 

USDA and that may be why it was FTC that was doing 

that investigation.

MR. CHAPMAN: So your concern is that 

the USDA doesn't have enforcement authority, but 

other agencies having that doesn't negate that 

concern?

MR. WELSCH: It certainly does not 

eliminate it. You know, part of the problem is 

it's hard to get consistency on how that would be 

done and if the NOP doesn't feel like it has 

enforcement authority, we're not going to get 

guidance from them on how to do it consistently.

I'm not sure how to explain it carefully 

but the non-organic substances, you know, it's like 

certification is for organic products and when you 

start certifying non-organic substances, you're 

creating a complication that you're starting to 

certify these fractions or isolates that are

individual molecules -- or you have the potential 

for doing that -- that really don't sound very 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic when you have the name of them followed 

by the word organic and I think that's very damaging 

to the organic brand because it implies a certain 

affinity to natural substances.

And obviously you can only use natural 

substances and you can only use synthetics that 

are put on the National List to make these products, 

but you can have things that end up being synthetics 

that are derived from agricultural products that 

could potentially be certified if we don't make 

a clear line and say that organic certification 

should only be applied to agricultural substances 

not non-agricultural substances or synthetic 

substances that are derived from agricultural 

substances.

MR. CHAPMAN: Let me ask one last 

follow up if I can because I'm still confused. 

You said it wasn't about the name, but then you 

just said the name again. We don't want organic 

associated with some of these names.

And I guess that's some of the confusion 

I have is that, let's take glycerin as an example, 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

where we just recommended adding it to 606 because 

one selection method we get fermentation and then 

a couple others using steam and pressure to produce 

organic glycerin from organic agricultural inputs, 

where other processes can be quite synthetic.

They can be produced from fossil fuels. 

They can be produced from agricultural inputs but 

through synthetic processes. So there's multiple 

ways to make a finished product and you're saying 

just because one of those ways is synthetic we 

shouldn't allow the organic versions to exist. 

Is that --

MR. WELSCH: Well, I probably misspoke 

that I mean it's both about the name and the 

impression it gives, as well as about what's the 

effect of that. Glycerin's a great example because 

it can be made from an agricultural substance but 

glycerin is made through a chemical reaction.

And as soon as you allow things that 

seem to be somewhat benign or less concerning like 

glycerin to be certified organic, you open it up 

to all kinds of other synthetic and 
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

non-agricultural substances that could also be made 

through similar methods.

And you could end up with a situation 

where you have a substance that cannot be allowed 

in an organic product because it's not on the 

National List, but then somebody certifies it and 

what's its status at that point?

It's a synthetic or it's 

non-agricultural. Can it be allowed or not? Is 

it allowed because somebody got it certified even 

though if it was not certified it couldn't be 

allowed? Those things are some kind of logical 

inconsistencies when you start allowing things that 

would otherwise have to be put on the National List 

to be used in an organic product.

You also have products that are made 

from organic substances and then combined with 

chemicals on the National List that result in things 

that are synthetic preservatives and those are 

currently being marketed because they're made from 

fermentation products as a cultured wheat starch, 

for example, rather than labeling it as a 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

preservative, which it actually is.

So it's kind of opening the door to all 

kinds of things that are not yet seen in the market. 

It's like opening the door to things that we really 

don't to have certified organic.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Emily, you have 

a question?

MS. OAKLEY: I do. This is to go back 

to the paper pots issue. So the Crop Subcommittee 

has spent a tremendous amount of time discussing 

this topic and, like you, we certainly don't want 

to have a tremendous number of synthetic fibers 

in these materials and have explored the 

possibility of 100 percent natural products.

But what we're struggling with is not 

creating a listing that is more strict than the 

current paper listing in terms of synthetic fibers 

and, I'll also add, adhesives.

So I was wondering what your thoughts 

were on how we address the existing listing in terms 

of the synthetic fibers and adhesives that are in 

paper that are currently used and the paper pots 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

situation. Do you have any thoughts on that?

MR. WELSCH: I think it might be good 

to revisit the current listing based on information 

that we have today. The paper that was in use 20 

years ago is not the same as what's in use today, 

so what was added to the Natural List before was 

different.

I'd also urge you to separate this 

listing from any other listing. I see this all 

the time in certification that when we start to 

base our decision on previous decisions, we start 

to move away from compliance with the regulation.

So rather than using the other listing 

for paper as your reference point, use the 

regulations and the law as the reference point for 

this listing, and if that makes it inconsistent 

with the previous listing, then you may need to 

go back and revisit that one, as well.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

MR. WELSCH: Yeah, people are 

innovative so if you make strict requirements, 

someone will come up with a solution that meets 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that stricter requirement.

MS. OAKLEY: I appreciate your 

feedback. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Sam.

MR. WELSCH: Thank you, everyone.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, thank you. Next up 

is Harold Austin, with Jennifer Wasieleski on deck. 

And I'm just wondering if Michelle or Angie, or 

both of you, can look to see if Dick Atlee, Linda 

Coleman, Steven Sprinkel, Danielle Quist, or 

Christy Kerbs have shown up. Those are the people 

who, so we could do them after Harold, if you can 

find them. So Harold, can you unmute yourself?

MS. ARSENAULT: I believe I can unmute 

you, Harold. Harold, if you're talking I can't 

hear you. Oh, there's a throwback to the old days, 

Harold. Harold, I'm having trouble unmuting you 

on my end but I see you there. Nope. I'm having 

difficulties. I'm needing Harold's mic kicked in.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

MS. ARSENAULT: What's the issue?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yeah, sometimes there's 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a little bit of a delay, Harold. So if you click 

on it and we still can't hear you, just wait a little 

moment and keep talking.

MS. ARSENAULT: Nope.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, so that's not 

working. All right. Well, add him to the list. 

We will come back to you. Harold, you are not 

forgotten.

Jennifer Wasieleski from Kerry 

Ingredients, are you there?

MS. ARSENAULT: I didn't see Jennifer 

on the line with us. I've been looking for her.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next up then is 

Jane DeMarchi, with Bob Durst on deck. Any luck 

with Jane DeMarchi from ASTA? Okay. That's a lot 

of scratching that I hear. Bob Durst, are you 

there? Can you see Bob Durst, Michelle?

MS. DeMARCHI: Hello? This is Jane 

DeMarchi. I'm sorry. I don't know, it didn't 

unmute for some reason. Can you hear me?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, we can.

MS. DeMARCHI: Okay.
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Go ahead and you can 

start speaking now. Thank you very much.

MS. DeMARCHI: Thank you. So my 

name's Jane DeMarchi. I'm with the American Seed 

Trade Association. ASTA represents over 700 

member companies involved in seed production, 

distribution, plant breeding around North America 

and our members produce row crops, vegetables, 

grasses, cover crops.

And we would like to provide comments 

on the Materials Subcommittee proposal related to 

the instruction to certifiers. And just as a 

reminder on these comments, if a producer follows 

the production practices laid out in the organic 

production system's plan required for NOP, only 

the intentional use of a product produced by an 

excluded method would prevent that seed or another 

organism from being certified as organic.

So we appreciate the significant 

changes that NOSB has made to the genetic integrity 

proposal, but we do continue to oppose what could 

turn into a de facto requirement for testing of 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

seed in the National Organic Program, and we 

continue feel the issues are best resolved in the 

marketplace.

As I believe all of you are aware, the 

Organic Seed Alliance conducted a seed company 

survey on advantageous presence which was focused 

on current testing conducted by seed companies for 

the presence of GE or GMO traits.

And, you know, some of our feedback is 

that seed companies should not be required to 

provide information on levels of GE or GMO presence 

for genetic events or constructs for which there 

are no commercially available tests.

We would also suggest that under 

Recommendation 1(a) that the wording is changed 

so it would read producers who are growing crops 

from seed or planting stock that could be subject 

to genetic engineering presence in that seed or 

planting stock can contact their seed supplier to 

obtain information regarding the levels of GE 

presence in that seed.

Also, as you guys are aware, in that 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

survey it noted that most companies are willing 

to provide detectable levels to customers upon 

request, but right now very few do make request. 

And also that report indicated that advantageous 

presence is not in fact a widespread problem.

We continue to feel that the 

information sharing around testing is best solved 

in the market, based on the market needs. And just 

as a reminder, testing is not regularly done in 

some crops where there is very low adoption of GE 

or GMO technology, as an example, squash or 

potatoes.

Lastly, we support the idea of forming 

a task force for more conversation around these 

issues and would even suggest that that get extended 

beyond just seed suppliers, to go further into the 

value chain to look at advantageous presence along 

the full organic value chain.

I have a little time remaining. I just 

wanted to make a comment also on the excluded method 

determinations.

We're continued to be worried that some 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of the proposed methods on the excluded method list 

are really vital components of current plant 

breeding and really enable plant breeders and 

growers to address evolving threads from pests and 

diseases which are continuing to evolve rapidly 

due to things like climate change.

And in particular, we're quite 

concerned about the intention to potentially 

include double haploid technology as an excluded 

method in the future. And in the current proposal 

we are concerned about the induced mutagenesis 

proposal because these changes to the current 

processes are not distinguishable from those that 

would occur in traditional plant breeding. And 

for that reason we do not think that they should 

be excluded.

And with that, I am done with my 

comments.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Well, I have kind 

of a question although it might be more of a comment. 

And that is we've heard a lot from the farmer 

community. Do they really want this transparency 
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in the possible presence of genetic engineering 

in seeds that they purchase?

Because they have a market that they're 

trying to meet with the crop that they are growing 

from that seed, and if they're trying to meet a 

point-one percent market and the seed that they 

buy is point-two percent, then they are already 

never going to make that market.

And so maybe they shouldn't sign that 

contract. And I think each farmer has a different 

level that they would meet for their own use, and 

it could even be tied to price.

So perhaps a farmer was going to feed 

that crop to their own livestock and they're not 

trying to meet a contract for that crop at the end 

of the season. You know, a little bit more presence 

would maybe not be an issue for them, maybe it would. 

So we were trying to have transparency and that's 

why that was in the name of the document.

So I understand there's many issues but 

we're hoping that as farmers would be told that 

this testing is being done and that they can ask. 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Because many farmers were unaware of that, that 

they could be asking their seed producers for those 

levels.

Maybe it will become even easier for 

the seed companies to put it in the catalogue, on 

the tag, and have it be more transparent. Because 

right now there is somewhat of a burden that the 

farmers have to call and ask the question.

So I guess I'm just kind of, I know that 

right now you're not getting a lot of questions, 

but I actually think you will start getting more 

as it becomes more known in the farming community 

that this testing is being done.

So I'm not really sure you can respond 

to my comments or --

MS. DeMARCHI: Well, no, I mean, I 

think that's one of the benefits of the survey that 

the Organic Seed Alliance did is. I think what 

you can see there is 80 percent of the companies 

that were surveyed are willing to provide that 

information. So I think raising awareness that 

that type of information is available to farmers, 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that seems to be a reasonable approach.

I think that there is some concern that 

if everybody all of a sudden goes to asking for 

the information, that is a shift, and companies 

will need to address that.

But you rightly pointed out that 

there's different needs in the marketplace and I 

think this is why we keep going back to the idea 

that it really is between the seed seller and the 

seed buyer to try and determine what is the level 

of information that is actually required.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. I don't see any 

other questions.

MR. MORTENSEN: Harriet, this is Dave. 

Can you hear me?

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, Dave, okay. Dave 

Mortensen, go ahead.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thanks, Harriet. 

Thanks for your comments, Jane. 

You know, I think I am reiterating what 

Harriet just said, but the goal of our work is to 

help folks to better understand what they're 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

working with. And I would submit that the reason 

there aren't that many people asking for the 

information is that I would be fairly certain most 

folks are assuming there isn't contamination in 

the seed that they're buying.

And insofar as making the information 

available, if you are to be inundated with so many 

people asking, this would be a simple case, in my 

view, of just providing additional information.

It could be web-based information on 

the cultivars that are being handled by a seed sales 

company in the way that many larger seed companies 

would have such information available on cultivar 

performance or sensitivity to a range and practices 

that the farmer might choose to perform.

So it feels manageable to me, so that's 

just reacting to a couple of your comments there.

MS. DeMARCHI: So I think what mean to 

say is that a company could commit that their 

products -- their intention is to meet a certain 

level. Is that what you're saying?

MR. MORTENSEN: It is to say that they 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

would be meeting levels and making the information 

available to folks, that what level of purity exists 

in the germ plasm that they're selling.

And obviously to the point that you made 

earlier about requiring folks or strongly 

suggesting that they do something where a test is 

unavailable. We certainly are not wanting folks 

to do that, which would be impossible to do.

But where the test would be available, 

the test results would be available on the seed.

MS. DeMARCHI: Yeah, well, I think that 

you'll notice that there are some companies in the 

organic market that are actually proactively 

marketing the levels that they are selling, so we're 

seeing some of that in the marketplace.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, thank you.

MS. DeMARCHI: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Next up is Bob Durst and 

then Colehour Bondera, and then we will go back 

to the people we have missed. Is Bob Durst there? 

Can anybody find Bob?
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet, I did not find 

Bob. Bob, if you are on the line with us you can 

unmute your own line. I'm not seeing his name or 

anyone from that area code in the phone list, 

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Colehour, how are 

the Hawaiian breezes? Are you there?

MS. ARSENAULT: Let me make sure 

Colehour is unmuted.

CHAIR BEHAR: Aloha, Colehour.

MS. ARSENAULT: We just lost 

Colehour --

MR. BONDERA: -- hear me?

MS. ARSENAULT: There we go. We've 

got you, Colehour.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yep.

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, go ahead, 

Colehour.

CHAIR BEHAR: Hello.

MR. BONDERA: Very good. Thank you. 

I wanted to start by saying thank you to you, 

Harriet, for making this all happen, and Michelle, 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

thank you for the logistical help. I appreciate 

all of your time and energy.

So I want to make three relatively 

simple points, in my opinion, but I think they're 

important. The first one really is that for me 

it comes down to the concept of sunsets, which is 

not a fun concept for the NOSB or the NOP. But 

it means that things go away. And I really, 

honestly think that even though habits are hard 

to break. Like we've already heard, and it's true, 

that non-organic celery needs to be removed from 

our lists of being allowed. Even though it's been 

allowed for over a decade, I think that it's not 

necessary for our nitrates and organic meat in terms 

of us recognizing that organic and conventional 

aren't the same.

We don't need to be trying to do the 

same things with everything, and I feel exactly 

the same. Honestly, after spending a lot of time 

as an NOSB member working on it, regarding relisting 

of synthetic methylamine, I think that we simply 

need to -- if sunset doesn't any longer exist, as 
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

meaning going away, the sun setting, then we need 

to put a date on it for it to go away.

So that's my first point. My second 

point is really a broader point which I kind of 

made in my written testimony, but I think it's very 

important for reiterating and exemplifying.

And I can go on and give a brief example, 

because I think that the concept of GEs and genetic 

engineering and all of this being allowed in 

organics, I think the NOP needs to prioritize 

putting forth what we have already said as an 

entity, as an advisory entity.

And, you know, on this island, my wife, 

in the early 2000s, outside of the organic topic 

but because of the organic topic, we went as a family 

actually around the island, when GE papayas had 

been introduced on this island in Hawaii because 

it's an isolated space, that's why they did it, 

and guess what, from random samples that we randomly 

took as a family, us and our two little children, 

we randomly took papaya samples around the island 

from wild and farmed places. Fifty percent were 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

GE, and it wasn't because people had planted it. 

It's because the way that pollination occurs is 

through every means you can imagine with GE papayas, 

every single way you can imagine.

And the reality is you can't get rid 

of it once it's there and it contaminates everything 

in all of the organic and conventional producers 

who don't want it.

My final point is we need to really 

recognize, and I think I listened to some of this 

testimony today and I was really impressed with 

somebody who I have never met, and then I'll find 

out that I do meet but I'm bad with names. But 

Angela Schriver, who said some really important 

things, I think, to you all in terms of the fact 

that organic farmers aren't generally into 

compromising and just getting rid of things. We 

need to keep our integrity.

Look, I'm not being paid by anybody 

right now, except for, guess what, I'm being not 

paid by my farm work which I need to be coffee 

harvesting right now, so I'm getting the opposite 
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of getting paid by testifying to you.

But I think it's critical for you all 

to listen and recognize that we need to stay 

together and stay strong as a foundation so that 

we can actually have something that actually means 

organic, versus everything is organic unless 25 

hoops were jumped through to make it not organic.

And so, I think that I really request 

of all of you to recognize that the common 

foundation we need to hold and stand firm with it 

together, and, even though I'm not necessarily your 

last testifier and I know where you're all at in 

terms of listening to testimony and hearing all 

of this, I think that that's where we need to be 

building from and working from. 

So I will just close by saying what I 

said at the beginning which is, thank you and we 

organic farmers aren't going to go away. We're 

still here and still wanting organic to mean 

organic.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Colehour. 

And I think you're so well coming from -- to the 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

beauty of a functioning organic system in an 

agricultural setting is really something that I 

very much enjoy seeing when I'm an organic inspector 

out there visiting farms, and so much my own farm 

when I see things, when I see my soil improving, 

I see my insect control improve, when I increase 

my beneficial insect habitat, and all those things. 

So I understand what you're saying.

I see Steve has a question for you.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Pardon my ignorance 

on Hawaiian agriculture and papayas. I remember 

talking to a papaya grower a few years ago who noted 

that the GE papayas were introduced to prevent some 

kind of disease, which I can't remember what, I'm 

embarrassed to say, but --

MR. BONDERA: Ringspot virus, that's 

fine.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Ringspot, yep. And 

so I mean, obviously, there are papayas surviving 

that are not GE. How, organically, do you deal 

with ringspot virus?

MR. BONDERA: You don't have to, except 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for have any organic supplier or producer would 

have said to the Cornell professor who came to --

(Inaudible due to telephonic 

interference)

CHAIR BEHAR: We kind of lost you 

there, Colehour. Can you repeat that?

MR. BONDERA: Oh, can you hear me now?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes.

MR. BONDERA: Apologies. Like it was 

said, when the GE papayas was brought here it's 

like we're going to save the industry, and the truth 

is that all that you need to do to save the industry 

is, guess what, you don't monocrop papaya varieties 

and you don't monocrop papayas. And that's the 

simple solution for not having to deal with the 

transmission of the ringspot virus between papayas, 

which is the question, because it's only 

susceptible to certain varieties and it's only 

susceptible in monocultural growing conditions.

And so that's how organic papaya 

producers and conventional papaya producers were 

getting around that originally when they brought 
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it in, and still to this day. There's not really 

an issue.

It's just, the issue is if you want to 

switch it over to a conventional practice where 

you're doing thousands of acres of monoculture. 

You're going to have these disease and pest problems 

that you can't eradicate without, you know, using 

this other approach.

And that goes back to my original 

comment which was -- not original comment, but my 

comment, that what we need in the organic industry 

is not be trying to replicate the path that 

conventional agriculture has gone down, because 

it's not going to be healthy or balanced for the 

system at all.

And there's plenty of papayas growing 

that are not GE, so --

VICE CHAIR ELA: Thank you very much. 

It's something I've wondered about for a number 

of years, so I appreciate your ecosystem approach. 

That's great.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. I don't see any 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

other questions.

MR. BRADMAN: Harriet, I have a 

question.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes? Okay, Asa, go 

ahead.

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah, your comments on 

the celery. I think that refers to celery powder, 

and I think that's something all of us have concerns 

about. And the handling committee actually voted 

unanimously not to remove it.

I think that was based on, essentially, 

can we develop an organic source -- and actually 

there's been a commitment now from substantial 

firms to support development of organic celery for 

processing.

I wonder how you feel about that, and 

then of course there's a related issue that has 

been raised about the potential health impacts of 

nitrates and nitrites from any source.

But if there were an organic celery, 

is that the kind of sunset that you're looking for, 

to push towards?
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BONDERA: Yeah, and I think that, 

I mean, your comment isn't off base, and I think 

that people recognize that they have to do it, but 

my understanding has been -- I don't grow celery 

or actually cure meat, either so this is a little 

out of my personal experience.

But my understanding is that 

organically grown celery doesn't have high enough 

levels of nitrate to be used in curing meat, and 

so maybe that can be increased over time, like 

you're suggesting.

But what I was trying to get at is, you 

know, we need as an organic industry to stop saying 

we're going to do everything exactly the same as 

the way it's done and what do we need to do that, 

versus can we use a different psychology and say 

maybe we aren't going to be doing every single 

thing.

Maybe that's okay. We don't need to 

just make it conventional just because we can't 

figure out how to do it organic. So does the 

potential development of an organic celery that 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

would function make sense?

Possibly. But then, like you just 

brought up, are the health ramifications, 

environmental and health ramifications, are they 

going to be dealt with anyway, or are we going to 

be still ignoring those components of nitrates 

being used in food.

MR. BRADMAN: Right, and I think --

MR. BONDERA: I don't know that one's 

going to solve the other, is my point.

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah, and one of the 

challenges that comes up on the Board is that if 

we accept something that, you know, is kind of part 

of the five percent that's not organic, does that 

then facilitate production of more organic products 

that of course hopefully is truly organic in the 

sense that we're all concerned about.

MR. BONDERA: Well, and I'll repeat 

what I quoted was just, I don't know who I'm quoting 

it from, but it's true. Habits are really hard 

to break and now we're in it. The conventional 

celery has been permitted since '07 or something.
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So it's been a lot of years where now, 

you know, it's just like with the synthetic 

methylamine in question. It's like how can we get 

out of this gulch that we've dug ourselves.

And I think that that's one of our hard 

issues and I don't think there's a simple answer, 

but I do think that the answer has to be thinking 

about what are we trying to be building upon. And 

if we're going to have a foundation that can't hold 

us, we're not going to stand up.

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah, thank you. I 

appreciate the comments. It's a long way to 

Pittsburgh from Hawaii, so I'm glad we have this 

format.

MR. BONDERA: Aloha. Yeah, I know. 

I can't make this meeting because of that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Steve, did you 

already ask your question? Your hand's still 

raised, so I was just wondering.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I did. I'm sorry, I 

didn't get it lowered. Faux pas, I'm sorry.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Okay, so 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Michelle.

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, ma'am?

CHAIR BEHAR: I'm going to go 

backwards. Bob Durst, or Jennifer Wasieleski?

MS. ARSENAULT: Bob is on the line, but 

first let me mute Mike.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. ARSENAULT: So I've been

momentarily skipped over. Danielle is here, 

Harold is here, and Bob is here. And apologies 

to you guys for not being able to get you unmuted. 

So Bob, you should be able to talk now. Let's 

see. Say something and let's see if we can hear 

you. Nope, not yet. Okay, try now.

MR. DURST: Okay.

MS. ARSENAULT: There you go. We got 

you.

MR. DURST: Okay. This is Bob Durst 

with Simple Organic Solutions, and I signed up for 

the call early on because I expected that the NOSB 

meeting this time was going to, at least initially, 

address the ion exchange issue. It looks like 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that's been pushed back, but I'll still comment 

on it, that this is something that I'm glad you're 

looking at and I'm looking forward to further 

discussions about it.

But I think that the proposals that NOP 

put out to restrict this in short order is 

short-sighted and definitely needs to be looked 

at and a time frame for this seriously reviewed, 

because of the impact that this is going to have 

on the wide usage of these materials.

And I have no problem with them being 

reviewed, but because these technologies and 

materials have been in use for a long time, widely 

used in organics and in the water treatment 

facilities that are making water that are going 

into organic products.

We need to have time to go through the 

proper TAP reviews and petition process, et cetera, 

to make sure that these things aren't just cut off 

before that review happens.

And so we'll certainly address this 

later on when this comes up probably in the April 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

meeting. But that's the gist of the comment that 

I had, although I will point out a couple things.

Earlier in the call there were a number 

of people talking about fraud, and I know that 

that's happening, and almost exclusively people 

were talking about fraud with international 

products coming in.

But don't forget that there's also a 

lot of domestic fraud going on. I've had a couple 

of clients that have lost millions of dollars to 

misbranded product coming from the domestic market, 

and that definitely needs to be addressed also. 

So don't forget to look at those. That's it.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Thank you, Bob. 

I don't see any questions, and then you said that 

Danielle Quist is available, Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yep, Danielle is on the 

line with us and I'll make sure she is unmuted now.

MS. QUIST: Can you hear me?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yep, we can hear you, 

Danielle.

CHAIR BEHAR: Great.
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. QUIST: Wonderful, wonderful. 

Thank you for fixing whatever issues you were having 

before.

Good afternoon. My name is Danielle 

Quist. This is my first time speaking to everybody 

here. I am presenting today on behalf of the 

International Dairy Foods Association.

I really do want to thank the Board for 

this opportunity to talk about initiatives of great 

importance to our IDFA members. We take organic 

milk and process it into just wonderful organic 

dairy products.

So today I wanted to talk to you a little 

bit about this upcoming review for dairy cultures. 

It is my understanding that the subcommittee would 

like to combine dairy cultures with microorganisms.

And I hope that the Board can appreciate 

how central dairy culture ingredients are to 

organic dairy producers. They are critically 

necessary for any kind of cultured dairy product, 

any kind of hard cheeses and cottage and other 

spoilable cheeses, buttermilks, yogurts, cultured 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

butter, just huge segments of the dairy industry. 

My understanding is that our organic members 

really do strongly oppose any recommendation to 

combine dairy cultures with microorganisms on the 

National List, particularly in the context of 

sunset review.

They support keeping the listing 

separate. And I think part of the problem is that 

with such a need for the Board during this sunset 

review, is whether to maintain dairy cultures as 

a category of materials, not whether the categories 

should be combined with others. More efficiencies 

would reduce redundancies. And if a material is 

redundant, that poses in the way of different 

questions what we seem to require under the sunset 

review evaluation criteria.

So whether you're looking at yeast, 

whether you're looking at dairy cultures or other 

microorganism, merits of the separate or a combined 

listing, we think that there's a better process 

for that, whether it's an efficient system with 

criteria, it really gives full opportunity for the 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

public to comment.

We also oppose this condemnation 

because dairy cultures, they are a subset of 

microorganisms. They really serve a very unique 

and technical and functional purpose from other 

microorganisms. It really sets them far apart.

Therefore, we really don't think that 

there's a redundancy there and they should maintain 

their separate listing. These unique and 

technical functional purposes, it's because of 

that, combining them under the larger umbrella of 

microorganisms would be a problem.

For our dairy members, they believe 

that their customers know the term dairy culture. 

They've become used to the term. It appears on 

the product's ingredient statement. So worse than 

the word microorganisms on a product, say a package 

of yogurt, in lieu of dairy cultures will cause 

a lot of confusion from customers who are looking 

to understand what is in their organic ingredients.

And I'll stop there. I heard the 

buzzer. Thank you very much. I very much 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

appreciate your time.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, Steve, you have a 

question.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yeah --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

VICE CHAIR ELA: I mean, I don't know 

of any reason that if dairy cultures are combined 

with microorganisms -- and I could be wrong, I guess 

I'm not a regulator -- that they still couldn't 

be listed as dairy cultures on the label, they would 

just be part of a larger allowed grouping than on 

the National List and it would mean that we wouldn't 

have to do two sunset reviews. I mean, obviously, 

any of the microorganisms, I think the argument 

can be made, they all have unique and functional 

properties that are very different from each other. 

And I certainly don't dispute that the dairy 

cultures have those unique and functional 

attributes, as well, and I guess I hear and I accept 

your reservations about combining them.

But if they were combined, what would 

actually be the negative to your people? What 
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

would go away?

MS. QUIST: So, well, you said if 

they're still allowed to put the word dairy cultures 

on the product itself, the ingredient statement, 

a lot of consumers look to see -- look onto the 

organic list to see products, and if they don't 

see dairy cultures they may assume that, well, dairy 

cultures is not an organic ingredient, it can't 

be on the product and they would have to find that 

underneath the larger umbrella of microorganisms.

And a lot of our organic processors are 

very concerned about transparency. So changing, 

not changing the labels of food in the category 

could be seen by their customers as a lack of 

transparency when their goal is complete 

transparency on the label.

MR. CHAPMAN: So this is Tom. My 

questions are really a follow up to Steve's in that 

I'm still trying to fully understand the impact. 

Already there's a common practice to label, say, 

each specific type of culture, lactobacillus, 

whatever, and those aren't listed on the National 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

List as the general term dairy cultures.

So it's clear that you can use whatever 

terminology to accurately describe the ingredients 

used in the product, regardless of how it's listed 

on the National List. And there's already listings 

that are not appearing on the National List that 

are used by dairy companies.

So, to get back to Steve's point, what 

wouldn't be available today if we remove dairy 

cultures but kept microorganisms? What dairy 

products would go away?

MS. QUIST: I think there's just a 

feeling that dairy cultures is a separate and unique 

microorganism, much like yeast is, and I think 

there's a process issue here. 

I think a lot of our members felt like 

this was not -- they didn't think that if the word 

dairy cultures was taken away, it would be because 

it was for cause, there was some reason to do so. 

It has to do with a listing on the List, not for 

reorganizing the list or combining with other 

ingredients.
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I think that you're going to hear 

at the actual meeting later in the month from some 

of our members who are going to speak about, 

particularly to their brand, what problems with 

moving dairy cultures from the List could cause 

for them in particular and I would encourage you 

to ask them those specific questions.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah, I will. And so, 

to quickly follow up, you cited yeast as a similar 

classification, but the reason behind having yeast 

as a separate classification is because we require 

organic yeast usage in certain applications.

So would you be met with the same stress 

by which we're looking at requiring organic dairy 

culture usage in certain situations?

MS. QUIST: I think that would be a 

question for the individual brands and the products 

and the individual ingredients that they use.

MR. CHAPMAN: Okay. Thank you.

MS. QUIST: Thank you very much.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Thank you. Any 

other questions? I think we're good. Is Jennifer 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Wasieleski with Kerry Ingredients here?

MS. ARSENAULT: Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes?

MS. ARSENAULT: I have not found anyone 

else but Harold is on the line waiting patiently.

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, good. Okay. 

Harold?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Can we hear you?

MR. AUSTIN: Good afternoon. Can you 

hear me?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yeah, we can. Thank 

you.

MR. AUSTIN: All right, and thanks for 

finally getting around to me and solving the 

problems. I appreciate it.

My name's Harold Austin. I am an 

organic consumer, a former member of the NOSB and 

I am the current Chair of the Northwest 

Horticultural Council's Science Advisory 

Committee, and their Organics Subcommittee Chair, 

as well.
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Thank you all for the opportunity to 

provide oral comment to the full Board. The 

Pacific Northwest forms a combined total in excess 

of 35,000 acres of organic apples, pears, and 

cherries producing over 90 percent of all the fresh 

organic apples grown in the continental United 

States.

I've already provided written comments 

on the importance to our industry that the following 

materials have. For crops, hydrogen peroxide, 

horticultural oils, pheromones, potassium 

bicarbonate, and magnesium sulfate. For handling, 

activated charcoal, hydrogen peroxide, and 

peracetic acid. 

These materials are also important to 

our organic wine, grape, and blueberry industries 

and farming practices, as well.

I also would like to state my support 

for those other materials currently under sunset 

review for both the handling and Crop 

Subcommittees. I know how important that these 

are to our many organic stakeholders in their 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

day-to-day operations.

Organic stakeholders have built their 

systems plans with many of these materials that 

you will be discussing at your meeting as an 

intricate part of their plan. How? Because prior 

members of the NOSB allow them access to these 

materials.

Why? Because there was a need that 

they felt justified their addition to the National 

List. If that need still exists and there is not 

a proven and sustainable organic alternative 

material or a new process in place to replace it, 

then that specific material should be allowed to 

stay on a National List until it has been proven 

to no longer be needed or there is a true and 

legitimate rationale for its removal.

I'd also like to give my support in the 

proposed changes to the NOSB policy and procedure 

manual. Well done, guys. 

Livestock subcommittee, I'd like to 

give my support for the continued listing of 

L-methylamine. This is a material that is critical 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for flock health, and a material that I think, at 

least for the time being, should continue to be 

relisted.

Finally, for your verbal update that 

you'll be giving at the meeting on sanitizing 

materials. It is of critical importance that we 

maintain as broad a spectrum of sanitizers for use 

in both crop and handling operations as possible.

Pathogen control and resistant 

management are the two biggest concerns that we 

must consider when using any of these materials 

in our organic operations because the options we 

have are so few.

Flexibility and how these materials may 

be utilized is also important because the factors 

that determine that may change from time to time 

depending on the situation and other contributing 

factors.

I firmly believe that the current 

system of sunset review is adequate to deal with 

these materials, and to try to create a new process 

for the NOSB may prove to have unintended 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

consequences to the stakeholder's ability to 

continue to use these materials as they've been 

doing.

Thus putting not only the organic 

stakeholder operation at risk, but potentially 

creating a serious concern for food safety 

compliance.

And I would like to give my utmost 

thanks and appreciation to Harriet, to Tom, to 

Ashley, and Lisa for your dedication and your time 

on the Board and your service to our organic 

community.

Thank you all for all of the time that 

you've given to our community.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Harold. Any 

questions? Steve, I saw that your hand's up but 

I think that's from the previous speaker.

MR. CHAPMAN: I just had a quick 

statement. I thank Harold for his service as the 

last handling member to sunset ops, prior to myself. 

It shows how hard it is, all of us who've spent 

all this time that we turn to other handling members 
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that haven't been able to return.

But thank you, Harold, for your service 

and, of course, thank you to the rest as I kind 

of lead to our sun setting off with me at the end 

of this meeting.

MR. AUSTIN: Thanks, Tom.

MR. MORTENSEN: I had a question. 

This is Dave Mortensen.

MR. AUSTIN: Hi, Dave.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, I was -- and I'm 

not challenging what you're saying here. I'm 

actually asking for some clarification on a point 

that has come up over the course of the past several 

meetings.

Could you, with respect to the 

sanitizers and the resistance management, could 

you give us some examples of what organisms are 

arising as a threat that could be evolved through 

existence to other sanitizers, whether it were 

adding an additional compound mix for an integrated 

approach to suppressing the resistant strain?
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. AUSTIN: Well, part of my comment 

on that is looking at both from the crop's 

perspective as well as our process and our handling 

side of the business.

We're dealing with various pathogens, 

with Listeria and E. Coli. Out in the fields, we're 

dealing with the fungi like powdery mildew, fire 

blight. Where we've learned in the past that a 

lot of the pesticides that we use, if we continue 

to use those over repetitive applications and over 

several years, we immediately begin to show 

resistance building up to them.

Because we have so few tools in our 

toolbox and because we do use some of these 

materials in the field as well as in our handling 

process, we want to make sure we've got the ability 

to take and rotate the material so that we're 

ensuring that we're not going to take an established 

resistance building up on it.

And the other part of that is using them 

in the different parts of, let's say, in our 

processing facility, our handling facility. We're 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

going to use those in different points of contact, 

some in our packing line, some in our storage, some 

on the pre-dump, the post-dump, the dry packing 

line.

So there's going to be different points 

of contact where pathogen control is going to be 

of concern. And so having different compounds so 

that we're not relying consistently on a single 

material is important to us to make sure that we 

don't get into a resistance management scenario, 

to where we have resistance beginning to establish 

itself.

So it's really looking to be more in 

a preventative approach. If we ever get to where 

we're truly having to try to deal with something 

that's developing a resistance, organically, I 

think it's going to be too late if we allow ourselves 

to get to that point.

And that's, I think, the thing that 

we're trying to avoid, is to not get there.

MR. MORTENSEN: Okay, because we spent 

some time doing some background work to identify 
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

cases where resistant organisms had been identified 

and tied to certain sanitizing practices and 

weren't able to identify any.

I'm not arguing that a preventative 

approach isn't why, but I was just curious to know 

if you in practice knew of cases where organisms 

had developed resistance to a suite of practices, 

but it sounds like that's not the case.

MR. AUSTIN: To my knowledge, I'm not 

aware of that. And I can check within our industry 

and see if there is anything that we're aware of, 

and I'd be happy to take and share that with the 

Crop Subcommittee.

MR. MORTENSEN: That would be great. 

Thank you, Harold.

MR. AUSTIN: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Todd, did you 

have a question, or is your hand just still up?

MR. CHAPMAN: From my last one, just 

still up from my last one.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Any other 

questions out there? Michelle, any other people? 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Last call for Jennifer Wasieleski, Christy Kerbs, 

Steven Sprinkel, Linda Coleman, and Dick Atlee.

MS. ARSENAULT: Nope. I haven't seen 

any of the folks on the line, I don't think.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. No? Well, I'd 

say that was -- I know we're getting done just a 

little bit early, but plenty of good questions and 

I appreciate everyone, the NOSB members, the 

commenters, and all those people who are just 

lurking and listening.

So for those of you who will see us in 

person in Pittsburgh next week, looking forward 

to seeing you then. And other than that, I guess 

we will say that this meeting is adjourned.

MS. ARSENAULT: Great. Thank you, 

everyone. Thank you, Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: You're welcome. 

Bye-bye.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 3:28 p.m.)
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + + +

FALL 2019 MEETING

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

OCTOBER 23, 2019

+ + + + +

The Board met in the Philadelphia 

Ballroom at the Doubletree Hotel & Suites 

Pittsburgh City Center, One Bigelow Square, 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania at 8:30 a.m., Harriet 

Behar, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT

HARRIET BEHAR, Chair

STEVE ELA, Vice Chair

SCOTT RICE, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

JESSE BUIE

TOM CHAPMAN

LISA de LIMA

RICK GREENWOOD

DAVE MORTENSEN

EMILY OAKLEY

DAN SEITZ

ASHLEY SWAFFAR
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

STAFF PRESENT

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, NOSB Advisory Board 

Specialist, National Organic Program

PAUL LEWIS, Ph.D., Director, Standards Division, 

National Organic Program

DEVON PATTILLO, Materials Specialist, 

National Organic Program

JENNIFER TUCKER, Ph.D., Deputy Administrator,

National Organic Program

MARINE MATERIALS PANEL

CHRIS GRIGSBY, Maine Organic Farmers and

Gardeners Association

NICHOLE PRICE, Ph.D., Bigelow Laboratory for

Ocean Sciences

ALLISON SCHMIDT, Ph.D., Dalhousie University

RAUL UGARTE, Ph.D., Acadian Seaplants

PUBLIC COMMENTERS

CHRISTIE BADGER, NOC

JEN BERKEBILE, Pennsylvania Certified Organic

ROLAND CARGILL, Fair Products Inc.

BILLY CARTER, Carter Farms

DAVE CHAPMAN, Real Organic Project;

Long Wind Farm

WILLIAM COLLINS, North Carolina State University

MEGAN DeBATES, Organic Trade Association

NICOLE DEHNE, Vermont Organic Farmers LLC

JACKIE DeMINTER, MOSA

JAKE DUNEVANT, JTI Tobacco International

LOREN FISHER, North Carolina State University

DAVID GOULD, FoodChain ID

JAYDEE HANSON, Center for Food Safety

TOM HARDING, Lehigh Valley Organic Growers Inc.

KIKI HUBBARD, Organic Seed Alliance

STANLEY HUGHES, Pine Knot Farms

MARK KASTEL, Organic Eye

PHIL LaROCCA, CCOF; LaRocca Vineyards

ROLAND McREYNOLDS, Carolina Farm Stewardship 

Association

KATE MENDENHALL, Organic Farmers Association

JOHANNA MIRENDA, Organic Trade Association

PETER NELL, CCOF
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

KELLY PEPPER, Texas Organic Cotton Marketing 

Cooperative

CINDY PHILLIPS, Hemp Analytics

CHRIS PIERCE, Heritage Poultry Management 

Services Inc.

ANNE ROSS, The Cornucopia Institute

ALICE RUNDE, National Organic Coalition

GEORGE SEAVER, Ocean Organics Corp.

TERRY SHISTAR, Beyond Pesticides

AIMEE SIMPSON, PCC Community Markets

KYLA SMITH, Pennsylvania Certified Organic

FAYLENE WHITAKER, Whitaker Farms

GWENDOLYN WYARD, Organic Trade Association

JAMES YODER

ABBY YOUNGBLOOD, National Organic Coalition
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CONTENTS

Call to Order/Intros/Secretary's Report ....... 5

NOSB Report .................................. 10

USDA and Agricultural Marketing Service,

National Organic Program Update .............. 24

Marine Materials Panel ...................... 102

Public Comments ............................. 196

Adjourn ..................................... 452
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

8:31 a.m.

DR. TUCKER: I am now officially opening 

the Fall 2019 National Organic Standards Board 

Meeting.

My name is Jennifer Tucker. I'm the 

Deputy Administrator of the National Organic 

Program, part of USDA's Agricultural Marketing 

Service or AMS.

I will serve as USDA's designated 

federal officer for the meeting.

First, thank you all for being here and 

for making the trip to Pittsburgh. I'm going to 

start by introducing the USDA team.

So first, next to me is Dr. Paul Lewis, 

our Standards Division Director. Paul's team has 

had a very, very productive year and will be sharing 

some of that work here today.

Also supporting the meeting is Devon 

Pattillo over here. Our Agricultural Marketing 

Specialist extraordinaire. He is an amazing 

policy analyst.
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

There are a number of other USDA folks 

who are here to meet you today. Joining us for 

the first time is the new AMS Chief of Staff, Anna 

Osterlind.

Anna previously served in USDA's Office 

of the Secretary as a policy and congressional 

advisor.

Anna is terrific to work with and we 

are really, really happy that she could be here 

with us.

From NOP we also have David Glasgow. 

Where's David? Okay, great.

David joined us also at the spring 

meeting and a couple of previous ones as well. 

He is NOP's Associate Deputy Administrator and is 

a wonderful partner in running the Program.

We also have our latest addition to the 

NOP management team, Jon Veley. Jon, stand up.

Jon came to us from Customs and Border 

Protection where he did a lot of work in stakeholder 

management and training with respect to CBP's 

import system, the Automated Commercial 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Environment which we will talk about later today.

Jon grew up on a dairy farm in upstate 

New York and is doing a beautiful job bridging our 

world and CBP's world. Thank you, Jon.

And then next we have Robert Yang. 

Robert is our Assistant Director of Accreditation. 

He's doing a great job driving many of our 

accreditation system changes as we implement 

continuous improvement projects and move to more 

risk-based oversight systems.

Robert's going to be available to meet 

with any certifiers and farmers in the audience 

over the next couple of days as well.

And as always, to close USDA 

introductions let's give a big round of applause 

for Michelle Arsenault, our Advisory Board 

Specialist.

(Applause)

DR. TUCKER: Michelle not only keeps 

our world spinning here, she has also earned a lot 

of praise from other AMS programs over the past 

year for helping other advisory boards across the 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

agency get started and to run as smoothly as 

possible. So Michelle, thank you for all your 

work.

Now, I want to thank the National 

Organic Standards Board who devote themselves to 

the organic community every day and in a multitude 

of ways.

There are 13 members here. We have one 

vacancy from when Eric Schwartz left earlier this 

year for another position and A-dae had to miss 

the meeting for family reasons.

For reference, with 13 voting members 

here the number of decisive votes needed to send 

a recommendation to the Program is 9. So nine votes 

are needed to advance a recommendation to the 

Program.

Here is a quick overview of our 

three-day agenda.

This morning we'll hear an NOSB update, 

I'll provide an NOP update and then we'll have a 

marine materials panel at the request of the board.

The rest of the day will be dedicated 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to public comments. 

Tomorrow we'll continue public 

comments and then turn to the subcommittees. This 

will continue into Friday.

Friday afternoon we'll wrap things up 

with board officer elections and recognitions, and 

remarks by our outgoing board members.

To close I'd like to give a special 

thank you to Harriet, the chair of the board and 

this meeting. Let's give her a round of applause 

in advance of a great meeting.

(Applause)

DR. TUCKER: And now Harriet, I turn 

it over to you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Jenny. And 

welcome, everyone, to the 56th publicly attended 

National Organic Standards Board meeting in 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania where I saw peak fall 

colors as I flew over the beautiful rolling hills 

of farmland and forests of western Pennsylvania.

I would also like to thank the National 

Organic Program staff that we work directly with. 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Jenny, David, Paul, Devon and of course our 

fearless herder Michelle for the support and 

guidance they give to the work of this board.

And I'd like now for Scott to give the 

secretary's report.

MR. RICE: Thank you, Harriet. Madam 

Chair, the summary notes of the spring 2019 biannual 

meeting in Seattle have been distributed to the 

board members. 

I ask now are there any corrections or 

comments on those notes. None noted.

CHAIR BEHAR: So then they have been 

approved by the board. Thank you, Scott.

I would like to thank all the members 

of this board for the dedication to the important 

work we do, their commitment to presenting 

viewpoints based upon the stakeholder seats that 

they hold as well as their thoughtful discussions 

in the almost weekly NOSB subcommittee meetings 

they participate in.

I want to especially thank the NOSB 

subcommittee chairs all of whom prepare 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

subcommittee agendas, lead those meetings and 

shepherd proposals from a thought to a written 

reality.

I especially want to thank Asa, Steve, 

Sue, Emily, Scott and Rick. It's really been a 

pleasure working with you and even sometimes 

nudging you.

I would like each of the NOSB members 

to introduce themselves now starting with Steve 

to my left.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I'm Steve Ela, Ela 

Family Farms, Hotchkiss, Colorado. I sit in the 

farmer's seat.

MR. RICE: Scott Rice with the 

Washington State Department of Agriculture Organic 

Program. I sit in the certifier's seat.

MS. OAKLEY: Emily Oakley, Oaks, 

Oklahoma, Three Springs Farm. I sit in a farmer 

seat.

MR. BUIE: Jesse Buie, Ole Brook 

Organics. I sit in the organic producer seat.

MS. BAIRD: Sue Baird in Missouri. I 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

represent special interests and I manage the 

Missouri Organic Association among other things.

MR. GREENWOOD: Rick Greenwood. I sit 

in the environmental seat from UCLA and also am 

a certified organic avocado grower.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley?

MS. SWAFFAR: Ashley Swaffar. I sit 

in a producer seat. I have a small mixed vegetable 

farm in Arkansas and I work for a pastured organic 

egg producer. And this is my 10th and final 

meeting.

MR. CHAPMAN: Tom Chapman. I work for 

Clif Bar & Company and I'm from Emeryville, 

California.

MS. DE LIMA: Lisa de Lima. I'm in the 

retailer seat. I work for Mom's Organic Market 

based out of Maryland.

DR. SEITZ: Dan Seitz. I'm in a public 

member seat. I work for the Council on 

Naturopathic Medical Education and I live in Great 

Barrington, Massachusetts.

MR. MORTENSEN: Good morning, I'm Dave 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Mortensen and I sit in the scientist seat. I'm 

the professor and chair of the Agriculture, 

Nutrition and Food Systems Department at the 

University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire.

MR. BRADMAN: Asa Bradman. I'm at UC 

Berkeley and I sit in the environment and 

conservation resources seat.

CHAIR BEHAR: And I am Harriet Behar. 

I sit in an environmentalist seat on the board 

and my organic roots go deep.

My farm has been certified organic 

since 1989, growing vegetables, bedding plants, 

medicinal and culinary herbs, small grains and I 

have a small commercial operation of laying hens 

and honeybees as a few people in the audience who 

buy the eggs from our chickens.

I've been an organic inspector since 

1992 and an organic advocate before that. For the 

past two decades I've been an organic educator with 

the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education

Service, the International Organic Inspectors 

Association and currently I work with the 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

University of Wisconsin in Madison.

In 1989 I helped start Organic Valley, 

the largest organic farmer cooperative in the 

United States, and I was a grower member of that 

cooperative for 30 years.

I serve on boards and I'm active in 

numerous local and national environmental 

organizations, and I gain great satisfaction from 

seeing the biodiversity of plants, animals, fish, 

birds, reptiles, insects and more increase on my 

216 acres as my husband Aaron Brin -- hi, Aaron 

-- and I control invasive species, reintroduce 

native ecosystems and improve the spring-fed 

streams that have natural reproduction of an 

endemic brook trout.

We really enjoy creating habitat for 

those endangered and at-risk birds, plants and 

animals.

On my own farm and with the hundreds 

of organic farmers I interact with annually both 

as an inspector and educator I see the many benefits 

of organic agriculture it has on local, regional 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and global ecosystems, the economic security it 

provides to individual families and larger rural 

communities. 

I also visit with numerous organic 

handlers from seed producers, input suppliers as 

well as all types of human and livestock food 

processing.

And they provide the needed tools and 

markets that keep farmers in business as well as 

choosing those organic ingredients and processes 

that lessen the use of toxic materials in their 

facilities and lessen those negative impacts these 

unneeded materials have in our lives.

While there are many different 

viewpoints and needs of the various stakeholders 

which results in lively conversations within the 

NOSB and with all of you we all share the same desire 

to protect the value and meaning of the organic 

label in the marketplace.

Participating in organic certification 

is a conscious and voluntary act.

I understand the National Organic 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Program works within the constraints of the larger 

U.S. government political processes and slow is 

the work of rulemaking.

But I do see organics at a crossroads 

where many issues need immediate attention and 

solutions.

The NOSB does their work with their 

recommendations based on extensive public input 

illustrating the need and support for both the work 

on an issue as well as that final recommendation.

Too many of our recommendations are in 

limbo and as time passes the need for those 

recommendations to be implemented becomes more and 

more urgent.

Examples are numerous. A 

recommendation to protect native ecosystems from 

destruction and then immediate organic 

certification has not been implemented.

How many of those thousands of acres 

in the newly burned Amazon will be approved for 

organic crop production which would have been 

prevented by that recommendation?
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The ongoing problems of fraudulent 

organic grain both domestic and imported continues 

to bring great pain to organic grain producers even 

though I know the NOP is working on that problem.

The long delayed implementation of the 

origin of livestock recommendation has resulted 

in great financial stress for those dairy 

operations that are doing the right thing and 

currently meet that rule.

We are looking forward to a speedy 

resolution to that issue.

The lack of consistent and strict 

implementation of the pasture regulation ignores 

the thought that the organic rule is scale neutral.

Instead it tends to support and 

encourage large-scale dairy operations to the 

detriment of the small and mid-size operation that 

actually pasture their animals in a significant 

way.

The NOP accreditation program is not 

as robust as it needs to be in bringing consistency 

and trust to certification.
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

With the NOP recognizing that there are 

many organic cows not meeting the pasture rule and 

that there have been use of herbicides under 

landscape cloth on organic land.

These two issues were not caught during 

the certifier audits.

There are many issues with hydroponic 

operations, but the NOP has not allowed the NOSB 

to work on this issue.

Our vote in Jacksonville did not have

the required two-thirds vote to be considered 

decisive, illustrating there is still work to be 

done to truly address this issue.

At this meeting there were tens of 

thousands of public comments stating that 

hydroponic operations should not carry the organic 

seal.

This issue, even though the NOP wishes 

it so, is not going away and it will keep coming 

up.

Lastly, how can sodium nitrate remain 

on the National List without going through the 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

five-year sunset process as mandated by the Organic 

Food and Production Act.

The organic community will keep talking 

about these issues and more until they are solved.

We are passionate and tenacious and I 

think the USDA knows that.

We need the NOP to make official the 

definitions and list of specific technologies 

considered to be excluded methods under the organic 

rule.

While it is clear that gene editing is 

not allowed under the current rule, the NOSB has 

been having continuing dialogue about specific 

methods since 2016 and has unanimously voted to 

exclude the long list of methods including gene 

editing such as CRISPR at each meeting.

We have also found methods to not be 

excluded, illustrating that our dialogue is 

thoughtful and comprehensive.

More than 10,000 members of the public 

took the time to provide comments for this meeting 

against gene editing, and it is clear that the 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

greater organic community is united in their 

opposition to the allowance of genetic engineering 

under the organic label.

One of my favorite musicians, Joni 

Mitchell, wrote a song with the refrain you don't 

know what you've got till it's gone.

We cannot let the promise of organic 

get lost in confusing and ineffective regulatory 

oversight.

We have all experienced and know the 

effect of human-caused climate change with weather 

events becoming more extreme and negatively 

affecting agricultural production of all types.

A recent study has determined that 

North America has lost 30 percent of the volume 

of its birds since 1970. Thirty percent.

Ecosystems of all types are in collapse 

with hundreds if not thousands of species in danger 

of extinction.

Our quality of life, our livelihoods 

and our very futures are at stake.

Organic agriculture provides concrete 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

solutions to these many environmental crises. 

The carbon we sequester in our sod crops 

and our cover crops can slow climate change, and 

as more farmers around the world adopt organic 

production methods can even work to heal the damage 

humans have caused.

Our reliance in organic on naturally 

based inputs instead of fossil fuel-based chemicals 

illustrates organic is a viable and productive way 

of farming.

Our dismissal that toxic materials and 

genetic engineering have no place on our land or 

in our food offers a practical and proven pathway

to healthier practices for the production of food 

and fiber that support other forms of life rather 

than endangering them.

Organic agriculture can feed the world. 

In fact, we must be the path of the agricultural 

future if we plan to have a future at all.

Nature can be resilient, and with 

understanding the cause of the problems, many times 

related to industrial agriculture and reliance on 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

farm chemicals, organic agriculture can turn things 

around.

The steep decline of monarch 

butterflies over the past decade has raised 

awareness in North America that we need to do 

something.

And homeowners as well as large 

landowners have planted milkweeds, the prime forage 

for reproducing monarch caterpillars.

We've seen a promising increase in the 

number of monarchs this past year. I brought 

monarch butterflies for each of you to take home. 

You can display them here on your computer, in 

your hair, on your clothes. Let's see a room full 

of monarch butterflies.

This is a hopeful symbol that organic 

provides so many answers that result in a resilient 

and healthy future for ourselves and our planet.

We must keep improving the 

implementation and meaning of our organic 

regulations.

We cannot take shortcuts. We cannot 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ignore the difficult issues. We cannot let those 

that are powerful overtake the organic label for 

their own economic gain.

The NOP must seek out, listen and learn 

from those who are doing the right thing on their 

farms and in their handling operations.

I understood it is difficult to take 

a complex system like organics and put it into a 

regulation that has no loopholes and mandates 

certifiers and operators to be consistently good 

to excellent in their regulatory implementation.

We all have to be committed to the path 

of organic integrity and continue our work, however 

difficult, to do what needs to be done.

I have no doubt the public will keep 

the pressure on the NOP and the NOSB and in return 

the will of the organic community will be heard 

and hopefully acted upon in a timely way. Thank 

you.

(Applause)

DR. TUCKER: And I turn this over now 

to Jennifer Tucker of the NOP.
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. TUCKER: Okay. Good morning 

again. Good to see you all here in Pittsburgh.

I have an update presentation from the 

National Organic Program.

This one is -- sort of settle in. It's 

going to take a bit because we have a lot to cover. 

There's been a lot of action over the last several 

months so let's get started.

First we'll test the clicker. And 

there we go.

So I like to start by acknowledging all 

of the certified farms and businesses in the 

audience. 

So if you are a certified organic farm 

or business stand up and wave so we can see who 

you are. Let's give them all a hand.

(Applause)

DR. TUCKER: Thank you very much for 

being here. There are almost 1,600 certified 

organic farms and businesses in Pennsylvania. And 

you can learn all about them in the Organic 

Integrity Database.
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And so here's an overview of our agenda 

this morning. There's a lot happening and I want 

to let you all know how we are investing our time 

and talent.

The organic market continues to grow 

and continues to become more complex. The 

additional resources given to the Program over the 

last couple of years are being directed to making 

sure that where organic grows we can go.

This means new rules, expanded 

partnerships and more people. So we're going to 

start by going over our goals and priorities.

Okay. So here are our overarching four 

goals. And these remain the same. We launched 

these about a year ago and they are working well 

for us in organizing our priorities and guiding 

our projects. 

So strong organic control systems, farm 

to market traceability, robust enforcement, and 

we're continuing to support the standards and 

collaborate with the community.

Let's look at our specific goals and 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

priorities for FY 2020. So we just started a new 

fiscal year, so we've just begun FY 2020.

And here are the key areas that we are 

focusing on.

In the area of rulemaking I will be 

talking about the Strengthening Organic 

Enforcement proposed rule later on in the 

presentation.

The origin of livestock public comment 

period is reopening on a way to a final rule.

And then we have National List rules 

that we continue to churn out.

Enforcement always continues to be a 

top priority. This include complaint reviews and 

investigations focusing on livestock compliance, 

grain fraud, imports and surveillance around the 

world.

Import certificates. We have given 

money to Customs and Border Protection to build 

an organic import certificate into existing import 

certificates. The system. We'll talk a bit more 

later in the presentation.
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Next we need to design data analysis 

and reporting tools.

International arrangements. We are 

continuing to oversee and negotiate equivalency 

arrangements and enforce our existing recognition 

agreements.

Federal partnerships. We've deepened 

a number of federal partnerships this year. We'll 

continue to do so.

Certifier and other partner training. 

This includes face to face training, new courses 

and our Organic Integrity Learning Center and other 

ways of engaging with different partners.

We're going to be launching our 

non-compliance library and certifier portal to 

facilitate more rapid communication and risk-based 

oversight with certifiers, and we're continuing 

to build our organization. 

We've hired additional auditors, 

accreditation managers and enforcement 

specialists, and we'll continue to do so in the 

coming year.
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, during my dry run of this 

presentation back at home the team encouraged me 

to actually breathe during these transition slides, 

to take a break and highlight that we're moving 

to a next topic.

So let's all do that together. We're 

going to breathe twice together. In and out. In 

and out.

Okay, so that's nice. Let's keep 

going. Okay.

Let's focus on enforcement here. 

There are three primary emphasis points in our 

enforcement efforts, process and then also in 

domain and focus.

Complaint investigations, market 

surveillance and coordination with federal 

enforcement agencies. Those are three very 

different approaches to enforcement.

We've really been able to broaden that 

toolkit over the last year.

In terms of the sectors that we're 

focusing on, we're focusing on imports, livestock 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

compliance and grain and oilseed handling. So I'm 

going to talk about each of those in turn here.

First, let's talk about imports. The 

tools that help us in import oversight also help 

us in domestic oversight. So I'm going to walk 

through these areas.

Last meeting I told you about some 

farm-level yield analysis studies that we were just 

starting.

And those have ended up being a very, 

very valuable tool for surveilling but also taking 

enforcement action.

As some of you may know we suspended 

the Turkey office of Control Union this spring. 

So we suspended them because that office was unable 

to demonstrate its ability to remain in compliance.

And one of the ways we were able to 

gather the evidence to support a suspension was 

through this farm-level yield analysis, looking 

at farm-level data.

We looked at OSPs from across the 

region, looked at certificates, looked at in/out 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

balances, looked at mass balances, really looked 

at what the farm could actually generate.

And what we found in some areas was the 

Lake Wobegon effect where everybody was above 

average.

And so that supported some very robust 

enforcement actions. And I'll show some of the 

outcomes in a few minutes here.

We also are using more extensive trade 

data trend analysis. We've hired an agriculture 

economist who is very good at using public data 

to help us know where to go next as organic grows 

around the world.

That allows to be in new places before 

the market really takes hold there. And so there 

was some news coverage earlier this year about some 

investigations happening, for example, in South 

America country.

We were there long before the work 

became public there. And we will continue to do 

so. 

So we don't always share where we're 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

going next because there's a lot of power in that 

surveillance, but the trend data has been very 

useful informing that work.

We've also continued our country 

commodity studies where we learn a lot about the 

dynamics of a particular commodity in the trading 

environment in a particular country.

That's giving us new ways of 

interacting with governments and with on the ground 

foreign ag service employees who really understand 

the agricultural environment again helps with both 

enforcement and surveillance efforts.

And then finally, ship-specific 

surveillance. There are a lot of ships that come 

to the United States carrying organic product.

I want to stay on this topic for a little 

bit because often we'll get emails in from folks 

saying well, a shipment of beans is coming in and 

what are you going to do about it.

Or a shipment of grains is coming in 

and why aren't you going to stop it.

So there was a particular instance that 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

happened earlier this year of a ship that came to 

the Carolinas. And there was a lot of interest 

in that ship because there were grains on that ship 

that had come from operations that were certified 

by Control Union Turkey. 

And Control Union Turkey right around 

that time lost its certification. And so it came 

to us saying well, why aren't you stopping this 

ship because all of those operations, or a lot of 

those operations may have been, may have been 

certified by Control Union Turkey.

And so I wanted to comment that when 

a certifier loses its accreditation, and there have 

been a few of these either through surrenders or 

through suspensions the operations under those 

accreditations that are certified by that entity, 

they do maintain their certification. 

They remain certified in good standing. 

They must apply for a new certifier within 60 days.

But there's nothing in the regulations 

that stops certification when a certifier is 

suspended. Operations maintain certification 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

until they are suspended or surrender.

So there's been a lot of activity since 

the Control Union Turkey suspension and all of those 

operations are either exiting the market, a lot 

of them are exiting the market, or they've applied 

for other certifications.

But that's where our effort is best 

placed is overseeing what's happening on the ground 

in those countries to take enforcement actions.

By the time the ship gets here that's 

not where our priority can be. That's where the 

certifiers have done testing already of ships that 

come to the United States.

There's been a directive through the 

Black Sea region. The oversight of the supply 

chains themselves is strong.

We are focusing on the ground to see 

what's happening and that's where our greatest 

enforcement tradeoff has been.

Okay, let's move onto livestock 

compliance which has been a continuing and even 

increasing focus for us.
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So last year we started the dairy 

compliance program and we are heightening that, 

increasing that this year and next.

So unannounced visits have continued 

across the United States. We use risk-based 

criteria to select those visits, and risk-based 

factors are things like size, complexity, market 

impact, and a history of either past complaints 

or non-compliance issues.

And so those unannounced visits are 

continuing. 

We are also doing investigations. 

Those investigations can actually be with 

businesses outside the announced visits as well. 

So that's a bit of an overlapping Venn diagram, 

but those investigations have led to both certifier 

and operation adverse actions.

We have recently released a course in 

the Organic Integrity Learning Center, a training 

on dairy compliance.

A number of folks have already 

completed that. They're reporting that it's 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

taking between two and three hours to complete that 

training.

So it is a comprehensive view of the 

regulatory framework around livestock focusing on 

dairy.

There are more than 1,500 people that 

have been registered for that course.

The origin of livestock rule, part of 

rulemaking. The comment period has been reopened. 

That is a step to be able to move to a final rule. 

Comment period closes December 2.

Now let's turn to grain and oilseed 

fraud which is a continuing focus that has also 

increased over the last year.

Grain fraud is a multimillion dollar 

problem and it likely affects everyone in this room.

So organic grains and feed stocks have 

very high price premiums, making it a natural 

candidate for fraud.

They are handled as bulk commodities 

making them hard to trace. They've got long shelf 

lives. They store in open containers and they 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

often have long supply chains.

And so we have both import challenges 

and domestic challenges here. 

So import challenges are in the form 

of high volumes from the Black Sea, Argentina and 

India.

And then domestic challenges, we are 

seeing processors that are representing 

non-organic product as organic.

And so our number of investigations and 

surveillance in this area are increasing, and I 

would say to everyone in the room buyer beware.

Be aware of your supply chains, be 

protecting your supply chains because ultimately 

that impacts all of us.

Now there are many, many hands beyond 

NOP that are supporting us in all of this work.

And so USDA Office of Inspector General 

has become a central actor in our work. We work 

with Foreign Agriculture Service both in accessing 

their data, public data, and also boots on the 

ground. They have desk officers in countries 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

around the world and we are connecting with them 

more frequently for enforcement and surveillance 

actions.

We work closely with foreign 

governments under equivalency and recognition 

arrangements. 

And we work with other federal agencies 

such as Customs and Border Protection, Department 

of Justice through the Inspector General's Office, 

and FTC, Federal Trade Commission.

Certifiers are a vital partner for us. 

And while we oversee them, we also work closely 

with them as partners to oversee the market.

California State Organic Program is a 

very important partner in enforcement, as is the 

public.

We get hundreds of complaints per year. 

Many of them come from the public. Many come from 

competitors who are worried about what their 

competition is doing.

The public is a very important voice 

in the enforcement process.
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We have been moving to more risk-based 

control system oversight mechanisms.

So we used to focus on this idea of 

annual certification inspections and unannounced 

visits and random checks.

For a long time the public wasn't really 

aware that every organic farm around the world is 

inspected every year.

I think that we have corrected that. 

People have a better understanding of how organic 

farms are overseen.

In this new world that's simply not 

enough. We have longer, complex supply chains 

where you have farms and aggregators and processors 

and brokers and shippers and wholesalers and 

retailers all the way to the consumer.

And so that really requires a new 

approach. Certifier information sharing has 

improved significantly over the years.

Certifiers are calling each other to 

check on supply chains, to check data, make sure 

operations that they're certifying are in good 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

standing and haven't been suspended or in trouble 

with another certifier.

That information sharing is speeding 

fraud detection and it is moving along 

investigations faster.

It also helps us in surveillance. New 

surveillance tools like supply chain monitoring, 

mass balance checks and targeted visits in 

high-risk areas and activities.

So let's look at some outcomes over the 

last few months. 

More than 275 operations have lost 

certification in the Black Sea region. That's a 

result of a lot of work over the last couple of 

years.

But the count of operations that have 

lost certification is now above 275.

There have been some high-profile 

criminal and appeals cases that are acting as 

deterrents.

We have a number of suspensions and 

settlement agreements that ensure sound systems.
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And certifiers are actively improving 

around the world. More denials of certification 

and more adverse actions.

So in fact our appeals count this year 

shot up. It's interesting to see how different 

parts of the system impact each other.

And so we had the highest incoming 

appeals count ever this year. And I think it's 

because certifiers have been issuing more proposed 

adverse actions, more proposed suspensions, more 

proposed revocations.

The compliance and enforcement team 

completed 412 investigations this year and resolved 

more than 250 inquiries.

A lot of what comes into compliance and 

enforcement isn't actually a complaint, it's an 

inquiry. And so we separate those out now as part 

of our risk-based work which means that this past 

year our C&E team had over 600 customers that they 

resolved cases with.

So let's take a look at those 

complaints. This is a graph of the complaints 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

completed by fiscal year. 

And so the number of complaints that 

have been completed by fiscal year.

And you can see in the last couple of 

years there's been particularly a breakout between 

the complaints and the inquiries. 

But the number continues to go up. So 

the team completed almost 700 of these incoming 

complaints -- almost 700 of these complaints in 

total this year. So the number keeps coming up.

We've been lucky to get additional 

resources to support us in that work and it means 

that cases are resolved more quickly and using a 

risk-based triaging approach.

So, I want to talk a bit about 

continuous improvement when it comes to oversight 

and enforcement.

And so this is a graphic that we are 

using to help us sort of map out initiatives and 

projects in enforcement efforts.

On the left side of the chart you have 

scale. And so the bottom is operation level action 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and then at the top is broad-based industry level 

action.

On the bottom you have two categories, 

capability development which is really getting us 

all smarter on how to oversee and enforce the 

market, and then you have actual enforcement. And 

so taking an adverse action against an operation.

Those are two very different activities 

with different expectations of evidence. 

So let's talk about the evidence side, 

the right side. At the certifier level we issue 

certifier non-compliances, settlement agreements, 

suspensions. At the operation level there are also 

non-compliances, settlements, suspensions and 

revocations.

We also issue civil penalties and there 

have been some cases that have involved prison time.

This bottom right quadrant requires a 

lot of evidence. It takes a lot of evidence to 

get somebody out of the game.

And there's nothing more discouraging 

for the team to work on a case for a long time and 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

just not have the smoking gun, just not have it.

And so that has led to a positive 

feedback loop on the information side. And so as 

we learn we issue tools, training programs, 

webinars, enforcement updates, and then regional 

directives that help us gather more information.

So by training certifiers on how to do 

import oversight better they are able to help us 

find those smoking guns.

The regional directives that we did in 

the Black Sea region had a very large impact in 

the fact that there are now more than 275 operations 

that are out of the game.

It's also increased the number of 

denials of certification as operations seek new 

certifiers after the Control Union Turkey exit.

And so having better capability among 

certifiers worldwide leads to more evidence, more 

smoking guns that allows for more enforcement 

action. So that becomes sort of a virtuous circle 

over time.

In the upper right you'll see there's 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

no color. Country commodity activities. 

We often get asked well, why don't you 

just -- why don't you just stop grains coming in 

from the Black Sea region. And it's a fair 

question, why don't you just stop that.

The reality is that in the Organic Food 

and Production Act and USDA regulations Congress 

has not given that type of authority. And so there 

is no authority within the act to stop incoming 

imports from a region or for a specific commodity. 

Everything is at the operation level.

And so that's where I think this chart 

is helpful in laying out what we control and how 

we continuously improve, and what some of the open 

areas may be.

Okay, now we all get to breathe again. 

So we're going to just take a couple of breaths 

and then we're going to talk about the strengthening 

enforcement proposed rule. So, in. Okay.

Okay, we're going to now talk about the 

strengthening organic enforcement proposed rule.

And so a big theme throughout this 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

presentation is the increased complexity of supply 

chains. As organic has grown so has that 

complexity.

And so we have worked on a proposed 

rule. It has been shaped by the Farm Bill. It 

has been shaped by program experience over a long 

time, shaped by stakeholder feedback and shaped 

by a number of National Organic Standards Board 

recommendations.

This proposed rule will be a 

game-changer. So for those who don't think we've 

been doing enough rulemaking this will cover an 

awful lot of ground. It's going to fundamentally 

transform the regulations in the area of compliance 

and oversight to respond to the changes in the 

market over the last several years.

Let's take a look at what is in this 

rule. So there are two kind of layers here that 

I'm going to run through.

Here are the three big buckets of 

provisions in the rule.

First, there will be fewer exemptions. 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We will be increasing the number of handler 

certifications. So for the loophole where 

uncertified handlers don't need to be certified 

if they're not directly handling product, that 

loophole will be closed. They will all need to 

be certified. This is usually where somebody 

claps. 

(Applause)

DR. TUCKER: Thank you. Second, 

import certificates. We will be implementing 

electronic certificates for all imports.

This is an interesting project in that 

we need to co-evolve the rule. So the proposed 

rule requiring this import certificate, but also 

evolve the technology.

And so we are marrying rulemaking with 

technology development in an agile, iterative way.

So as we are working on the proposed 

rule for electronic certificates we're also working 

with CBP to actually build the import certificate.

So once all of this gets finalized we'll 

have tooling available and ready to go to start 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the process faster. So that's been an interesting 

kind of co-evolving project.

And then the third bucket is a number 

of provisions related to enhanced oversight which 

means strengthening accreditation and 

certification oversight.

Now that third box I'm going to go into 

a little bit more detail here on the next slide.

These areas are loosely grouped into 

three categories. Robust inspections. 

Unannounced inspections are not actually in the 

regulation. So certifiers do them and they follow 

the instruction on them, but they really need to 

be codified within the regulations themselves.

We will have requirements related to 

inspector training and qualifications. Trace back 

and mass balance audits will be required. Those 

are things we had really hoped certifiers were doing 

and needs to be codified in the regs.

Grower groups. Grower groups continue 

to be an area of risk in the international market. 

When we're out doing our accreditation audits we 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

see problems in this area. So we'll be 

implementing the board's recommendations in that 

area.

Second group is confirming organic 

status. We're looking at non-retail labeling, 

standardized organic certificates, data reporting 

and certifier information sharing.

And then finally, certifier oversight. 

We'll have a 90-day notification of any new 

satellite office.

We will codify our processes for 

equivalency reviews and we will make updates to 

the adverse action and appeals process. 

So all of this is a preview to help you 

sort of plan out your thinking for commenting on 

the proposed rule.

So the proposed rule will be published 

we hope sometime in late 2019. Let's go to next 

steps. So late 2019.

The comment period will be about 60 days 

and all businesses that are affected are encouraged 

to submit comments. So here are some best 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

practices for that.

Describe your concern and the impact. 

So if there's part of the rule that you think needs 

comment describe exactly what the concern is and 

what the impact of that concern would be.

It's always helpful to have you provide 

alternative solutions. So if there's a better way 

of doing it that will have the same impact or will 

be more sound and sensible we want to hear about 

it.

And then it's also very helpful to have 

you respond to questions that are in the rule. 

The rule will contain a number of questions and 

so the more responses we get to those the better 

the final rule will be.

All comments will be public and 

viewable at regulations.gov so look for an Organic 

Insider announcing that rule later this year.

I mentioned the sort of co-evolution 

of the technology. So I just want to very briefly 

touch on this.

Organic is entering a world that 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

already is very well established with import 

oversight.

Customs and Border Protection has a 

responsibility for all imports. They've been 

doing this for a long, long time.

They have a system already, the 

Automated Commercial Environment.

And so our job is really to figure out 

how to layer the organic world into that preexisting 

sort of ecosystem of oversight.

So we need to figure out how to get the 

data and the approvals into the right system. So 

that will impact operations, will impact 

certifiers.

We need to learn and use existing import 

filing processes. That data import process then 

leads to the import certificate itself which will 

be handled by ACE, the commercial environment.

That work is happening right now. They 

are building as we speak.

Then we need to figure out how to get 

the data out of it. So AMS already has some good 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

tools for data reporting out of ACE. ACE itself 

has some reporting mechanisms.

So how do we analyze and visualize that 

data so that we can then take action. So we have 

reporting and trends, how will it inform 

investigations and how will it inform our 

risk-based surveillance.

I think we're going to have a much 

better sense of what's actually coming into the 

country once we have all of this data.

And it could profoundly change how we 

do surveillance and where we choose to focus as 

a community.

Okay, breathing again. Okay. Next we 

are moving to NOP, organization update.

So, we are growing. With additional 

resources have come the ability to expand the 

organization.

So I'd like to give a bit of a glance 

at what the organization is looking like, or what 

the organization is that we're evolving towards 

here.
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And so here's a current very sort of 

high-level org chart here. And so you have David 

and me at the Program level.

And then we have split accreditation 

and international activities. So the artist 

formerly known as AIA has been split.

We now have a group for international 

activities because overseeing equivalency 

arrangements and recognition arrangements, it 

really is fundamentally different from 

accreditation and there's just too much work for 

one division.

So international activities is being 

headed by Cheri Courtney.

And then we have a new group 

specifically focused on this trade systems work. 

So you already met John this morning. John's in 

charge of that work.

Paul continues to lead standards. And 

then in the bottom middle we have Robert Yang who 

I introduced this morning. Robert is the Assistant 

Director of Accreditation. 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

That group has further subdivided into 

a pool of accreditation managers and a pool of 

dedicated auditors. And so we will recruit for 

the accreditation director position. In the 

meantime Robert's doing a great job with that.

And then Betsy continues to lead our 

compliance and enforcement group which also 

continues to grow. So we'll continue to get more 

help in for Betsy.

We are hiring. So we sent out an 

Organic Insider recently saying that we were going 

to be putting some announcements out there in the 

world.

There will be multiple positions that 

will come out this fall including a National List 

manager, auditors, accreditation managers and more 

compliance and enforcement specialists.

On the screen you see Tanesha who is 

one of our new livestock specialists and Gustavo 

who is our agricultural economic specialist. He's 

fabulous at mining ACE for all the data it's got.

And so if you're interested those jobs 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

will be announced in USAJobs. They aren't open 

for very long and so spread the word that people 

should set up searches. And often they have funky 

job titles, like agricultural marketing 

specialist, or compliance officer.

So for folks that you think might be 

interested in federal public service please spread 

the word.

So, as we grow I wanted to spend a bit 

of time talking about how we avoid conflict of 

interest.

We committed to providing this update 

in response to our 2018 ANSI peer review. The ANSI 

team when they were onsite noted that we didn't 

explicitly talk about conflict of interest much 

in our quality manual.

That was interesting because this 

happened when Ruihong Gao was our Acting Deputy 

Administrator before I got the job.

And she reacted to that ANSI feedback 

pretty strongly. She said oh my goodness, do you 

have any idea how many rules and regulations we 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

have to follow here as federal employees.

There are rules for everything we do 

to avoid conflicts of interest. 

The auditor's response was taken a 

little bit aback and he said well, actually, no, 

we have no idea what those rules are.

And so we talked about all the rules 

that we need to follow for conflict of interest. 

And ANSI said, you know, we're going 

to bet that your stakeholders don't know about any 

of this. 

And so we're going to recommend that 

you share all of those things that you take for 

granted in the Program.

So my sharing these things today with 

you is a direct outcome of that ANSI peer review.

And so it starts with recruiting and 

hiring. I just said we're going to be hiring to 

bring folks in.

That process and one of the reasons it 

takes so long to get an announcement out the door 

is that Office of Personnel Management rules drive 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the entire recruiting process. There are many 

layers of rules and regulations that relate to that.

And in fact, human resources screens 

all candidates before NOP even receives a list of 

qualified people. So we only receive a list of 

candidates once they have been screened and often 

we don't even know who applied that didn't make 

that, what's called a certificate.

Once they're in the door all federal 

employees take an oath of office and commit to 

avoiding conflicts of interest.

Employees are all based by ethics rules 

and codes of conduct.

Then when it comes to certifier and 

enforcement case assignments no NOP staff member 

is assigned to cases or certifiers that they used 

to work with.

The ISO standard for this is one 

accreditation audit cycle. So people can't 

oversee an organization for at least one audit 

cycle.

In practice for us -- it's a three-year 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

minimum, but in practice it lasts a lot longer. 

We have folks who have worked with us for years 

who have never worked with a certifier or a business 

they were previously associated with.

I do want to comment that sometimes we 

get feedback of oh gosh, are you sure you should 

be hiring people from certifiers or from 

operations.

And for me the answer is yes. These 

are folks who have an intimate knowledge of what 

happens in the field and they have purposely 

selected into public service because they want to 

oversee the system and make it better.

They are incredibly devoted and 

dedicated to the organic community and they walk 

in knowing what to look for on the ground.

They've chosen federal service. They 

have chosen to enforce the regulations. And we 

are very proud to have them with us.

Let's now move onto appeals. Appeals 

of NOP-issued adverse action. So when we issue 

a proposed suspension or revocation.
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Those appeals are always decided by 

people outside the Program.

In contracting the number of rules and 

regulations associated with contracting is 

stunning.

So if you are ever bored one Saturday 

night go read the Federal Acquisition Regulations. 

We are bound to those regulations for everything 

we do and they prohibit conflict of interest.

All contract staff reviews and signs 

non-disclosures to ensure confidentiality and 

conflict of interest declarations.

Finally, we get questions about 

certifiers themselves. Well gosh, certifiers get 

paid by the businesses that they oversee. Isn't 

that an inherent conflict of interest.

And it's a fair question. And so let's 

talk about how we manage that conflict of interest.

NOP reviews certifier adverse action 

processes to make sure that certifiers are 

appropriately overseeing and taking adverse 

actions against operations when necessary.
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We have issued non-compliances to 

certifiers when needed. So one risk area is if 

a certifier hasn't issued any notices of proposed 

suspensions or proposed revocations we look at that 

during their audit.

We also check for and have issued 

non-compliances when there is a perceived or actual 

conflict of interest across certifier staff and 

leaders.

I would note that one way we know the 

system works is that 415 operations have been 

suspended or revoked since the beginning of this 

year.

So the system established by Congress 

is working because certifiers essentially fired 

their clients more than 400 times over the last 

10 months. That's more than one a day.

Okay. Last section. We are almost 

done. Final breathing opportunity before we 

complete the last inning. In and out.

Let's start with National List updates. 

We recently published a sunset 2019 -- sunset 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

renewal. So that's available in a Federal Register 

located near you.

National List proposed rule responding 

to October 2018 NOSB recommendations opened for 

public comment and that public comment period is 

open until December 17. So if you are a business 

that could be impacted by those recommendations 

the public comment process is very important.

National List final rule in response 

to April 2018 NOSB recommendations was published 

today. So that's actually 18 months which was our 

new target, 18 months between the time we get 

recommendations and the time of a final rule 

publication. So congratulations Paul and the 

standards team.

We also recently issued a biodegradable 

mulch study. I want to pause over this for a 

second.

This study reviews policy and 

scientific issues associated with bio-based mulch 

film in organic agriculture. 

It's designed to assist the board in 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

its continuing work on this agenda item.

I wanted to highlight it here to 

encourage the board to continue its work on this 

item.

Right now we have a National List item 

that no one can functionally use. When I'm out 

there talking with farmers and I ask them what is 

really important to you, what do you want us to 

know this topic comes up constantly.

This is an area that people have a lot 

of interest in. Many of these folks as Harriet 

talked about earlier are very interested in the 

environment and this is an awful lot of plastic 

going into landfills. So I encourage the board 

to continue its work on this topic.

A brief plug for the Organic Integrity 

Learning Center. I mentioned earlier we now have 

more than 1,500 users with accounts. 

And with the exception of dairy which 

just launched in the last couple of weeks every 

lesson in the learning center has had more than 

200 completions where people have completed the 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

lesson and completed the assessment at the end of 

the lesson. And so 200 unique completions of every 

lesson.

A coming upgrade will be to introduce 

course certificates. We've gotten a good amount 

of feedback from inspectors saying I need a piece 

of paper. I finished the course and this was my 

grade.

Blackboard is the system this is built 

on and it was more around the courses for university 

environments where the university actually issues 

the transcript.

But when we upgrade Blackboard we'll 

be able to provide that piece of paper for a course 

which our inspectors have said will be very helpful.

Upcoming courses will be an advanced 

investigations course to increase certifier 

consistency in conducting investigations, a fraud 

prevention course we're doing jointly with OTA, 

a certification administration course to help 

certifiers improve their systems.

We're doing a course with OMRI on 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

material reviews and we are wrapping up a tools 

for traceability course on mass balance and 

traceback audits.

So you can sign up. Any member of the 

public can sign up. All courses are free. You 

can send an email to our team and they will set 

you up with an account.

Okay, let's talk about gene editing. 

A lot of public comments for this NOSB focused 

on gene editing in organic agriculture.

And so we want to reiterate that the 

excluded methods definition of the organic 

regulations is pretty broad. It does not allow 

for gene editing. It is understood broadly to be 

prohibited.

USDA does encourage robust dialogue on

the role of new technologies and innovations. In 

fact, that dialogue is happening at this meeting 

with a number of items that the board is discussing, 

particularly with respect to livestock vaccines.

So let's just continue the 

conversation. Changing the definition of excluded 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

methods is not currently on the USDA regulatory 

agenda.

And then finally containers. So since 

the last meeting USDA issued a memo, it was issued 

in June 2019 that upheld existing USDA regulations 

for organic container systems.

That memo was successful in increasing 

consistency across certifiers where there had been 

some inconsistency and misinterpretation.

So certifiers evaluate land use history 

for compliance with the regulations, and just to 

make sure we say it prohibited substances are not 

allowed in organic production.

And so now I am going to turn it over 

to the board for any questions that you may have.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Jenny, that 

was very comprehensive and I'm glad to see all the 

things that you're doing, especially more staff. 

I think that will really help. Thank you.

DR. TUCKER: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: I see Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you, Jenny, and I 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

appreciate the Programs issuing the memo that 

clarified the three-year transition regarding 

containers.

And I know that you're aware that 

there's still some confusion within the community 

as to whether or not that memo applies to every 

operation regardless of where or how they're 

growing.

And so I was wanting to ask the question 

is that memo intended for every single certified 

organic producer. Are there any exceptions that 

the NOP is allowing to the three-year transition?

DR. TUCKER: So the memo upheld the 

regulation. So I think if an operation has a 

question about compliance it needs to contact its 

certifier.

The regulations are clear about the use 

of prohibited substances on land. And so all 

container systems must meet regulatory 

requirements related to that prohibited substance 

use.

In the public-private partnership 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

certifiers make a lot of decisions all the time 

where they're applying the regulations to 

site-specific conditions and that is a range of 

production environments, a range of different 

environments.

And then we monitor the certifiers to 

make sure that their decision-making is correct.

We believe that the memo resolved a lot 

of confusion out there. When we're talking to 

certifiers about -- and operations there were a 

lot of questions that were answered by the memo 

and they appear satisfied.

I would say that confusion and 

disagreement are different. And so we hear when 

folks come to us and they say they're confused it's 

actually that they disagree with a determination.

And so I'm very confused about this is 

one way of saying I disagree with this.

We hold that the memo was successful 

in eliminating inconsistency and actually at this 

point the greatest inconsistency we see is with 

certifiers that are choosing not to certify certain 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

types of operations, so not developing the 

administrative capacity to certify those 

operations.

And so where there's inconsistency and 

confusion that's where it most likely lies.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily, a follow-up?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, can I have a 

follow-up to that? 

So, I am confused and it's not because 

I disagree. I am genuinely unclear if that memo 

includes greenhouses, for example, or indoor 

facilities.

And we discussed this on the executive 

call at length, although it was a call that I think 

you weren't able to be on.

And at the time it was my understanding 

from the Program's response that yes, this memo 

was intended to cover every single type of 

operation, not just exclusive to containers, but 

also to greenhouses, or indoor facilities, or any 

other possible conceivable place where someone 

might grow food.
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So I know I brought that up again on 

another executive call and the second time I asked 

that the answer seemed a little less clear to me.

So I guess my question is, for example, 

if I were a greenhouse -- I know you don't like 

hypotheticals and I don't mean to do that, but this 

is where the confusion lies -- could I get certified 

organic, grow my crop, take out my crop from the 

greenhouse, transition out of organic and spray 

with prohibited substances for a couple of weeks, 

re-transition back into organic a month later, grow 

my crop and do the same thing every year.

DR. TUCKER: I would say that that's 

something that -- the regulations apply to 

everybody. You're talking about prohibited 

substances being used in an organic system and 

prohibited substances are not allowed in organic 

agriculture.

And so I would say that that operation 

needs to read the regulations and that certifier 

probably needs to talk to that operation.

And so I think again if an operation 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

has questions about the practices that they can 

use and can't use they need to talk to their 

certifier.

We will continue to monitor certifiers 

for consistency. And we do that across the 

practice standards.

We're keeping an eye on how -- and 

materials for that matter. So how are certifiers 

interpreting and applying regulations.

When a certifier makes a bad call, if 

they allow something that's against the regulations 

they'll get a non-compliance and we'll have to 

correct that.

If we see broad disagreement like 

sometimes we do with materials. Paper pots is a 

good example.

When there is broad disagreement on a 

topic then we will either do a training, or a policy 

statement in order to get everybody in alignment 

which is what we did in this case.

So if we see the need for more 

consistency or that there is broad confusion then 
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we will take some type of policy action. That would 

come out in the Organic Insider.

I would say for individual operators 

who are confused about their particular operation 

they should talk to their certifier.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley, and then Dave.

MS. SWAFFAR: So I just want to say 

thank you for some movement on origin of livestock, 

but I would like to know the Program's rationale 

maybe for why you did a proposed rule instead of 

a final rule on origin of livestock.

DR. TUCKER: Yes. So let me explain 

what happened because for those who aren't sort 

of embedded in the rulemaking process this can be 

a little confusing. So I appreciate the question.

There was a proposed rule for origin 

of livestock in 2015. What this public comment 

period did was simply reopen the public comment 

process for that rule.

So there has been no new proposed rule. 

All we did was reopen the docket for the 2015 

proposed rule.
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And the reason for doing that is that 

if you look at the evolution of organic over time 

it's grown a lot since 2015.

There's different structures within 

the dairy market. There is more operations. And 

so over four years there are a lot of operations, 

a lot of farmers who didn't maybe have an 

opportunity to comment on the 2015 rule because 

they weren't in business yet.

And so by reopening that public comment 

period we get to hear from anybody who entered the 

market who needs an opportunity to comment before 

moving to a final rule.

So reopening this public comment simply 

provides one more opportunity for people to have 

their voice be heard before moving to a final rule.

So the impact of a second public comment 

period is to help us move expeditiously to a final 

rule.

MS. SWAFFAR: And how long till we get 

a final rule?

DR. TUCKER: Rapidly. This is I said 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in our priorities that strengthening organic 

enforcement would come out later this year.

As soon as public comment closes for 

origin of livestock we will be moving ahead on that 

project.

MS. SWAFFAR: And I'm sure you're aware 

of all the appropriations bills and how origin of 

livestock is tied to that.

Do you feel that the department can move 

in that 180-day time period?

DR. TUCKER: You know, I don't 

speculate on standards and I don't speculate on 

clearance timelines. So I've learned my lesson 

on both of those items. So I would not want to 

speculate.

I can say that the administration has 

voiced support for this rule and would like to move 

it forward. 

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave, and then Scott.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, I wanted to thank 

the NOP for the work that you're doing particularly 

on the international grain trade.
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I know two years ago or two and a half 

years ago there were a series of meetings where 

there was a great deal of discussion and some very 

significant steps have been taken.

So in light of the invested time by our 

stakeholders, the board and the NOP I thank you 

for that.

I'd like to just take a couple of 

minutes to state a reflection and then raise a 

question about the gene editing CRISPR bullet point 

that read something to the effect, a robust 

discussion about the technologies will continue 

or something like that. The third bullet.

I am getting older. I have worked at 

three universities and probably two-thirds of my 

work as a researcher was in farm fields.

In farm fields and the delta of 

Mississippi, the Piedmont of North Carolina, 

eastern Nebraska and western Iowa, central 

Pennsylvania, northern Virginia, now in New 

Hampshire.

And after all of that work and the work 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of so many other farmers and researchers and USDA 

agency folks that I've interacted with I have 

realized that we have a diversity of philosophies 

in the farming community.

And I think diversity in thought is a 

valued characteristic of our culture and society 

in agriculture.

And I think we should embrace it rather 

than move toward some common, shared set of 

practices or views where we all hold all things 

equal because it isn't that way out in the fields 

across the United States.

I've seen the genetically modified crop 

phenomena unfold during the course of my career. 

In 1996 the first genetically modified soybean, 

glyphosate resistant, Roundup resistant soybean 

came online.

I spent the last 11 years of my life, 

probably one-third of my time fighting against 

widespread adoption of these crops after the USDA 

and the EPA promised that it would only unfold in 

soybean.
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Then within a year or two it was corn, 

and within a year or two it was alfalfa, and then 

the next year it was sugar beets, and yada yada 

yada.

Ninety-six percent of the soybean were 

genetically modified last summer.

All of these practices have exerted 

pressure on the organic community, both through 

the integrity of the seed that the farmers are 

producing for the consumers to eat, but also the 

unintended consequences sadly of the herbicides, 

that we have now doubled the amount of herbicides 

we've used on the backs of genetically modified 

soybean that further threatens organic farmers' 

ability to grow broad-leaf crops of any kinds, 

particularly in matrices, agroecological matrices 

where corn and soy are commonly produced.

It's clear from the many comments that 

we received that organic consumers and organic 

farmers do not want genetically modified practices 

as any part of their production system, end of 

story.
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I don't think that we should be 

encouraging or suggesting that we need robust 

dialogue.

This point has come up every year 

actually while I've been on the board that we should 

open our minds, let's have some biotech folks from 

USDA come in and talk with the board about some 

of the new technologies that exist.

The biggest concern in addition to the 

many that we've received as board members to read 

prior to this meeting that I have is the slippery 

slope that I've observed over the 30 years I've 

been doing the work that I do.

First it's soybean. Then it's soybean 

and corn. Then it's soybean, corn and alfalfa. 

Oh, then we need more herbicides because of the 

crops we've transformed.

First we'll allow a little bit of 

hydroponic, and then oh my goodness, we can't deny 

hydroponic farmers that are doing organic 

hydroponic because they've invested in it. It's 

a slippery slope.
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

If we allow continued discussion and 

then consideration of gene editing I think this 

is just one more example of where we get ourselves 

into trouble and compromise the policy-setting that 

we're charged to do.

Two months ago I was sitting in a room 

something like this in the Netherlands where 

they're not wanting to go into CRISPR for 

conventional agriculture.

And I sat for two days and listened to 

the arguments. So I just am concerned that when 

we put statements like that on the board and then 

we're saying we shouldn't be spending more time 

on further defining what is a hydroponic production 

practice, or a potted plant practice that it really 

undermines my confidence that we can stay true to 

the organic practices and principles that we were 

assigned to address as board members.

(Applause)

DR. TUCKER: Thank you for the comment. 

MR. MORTENSEN: So why would we put 

that bulleted statement on the slide then? That's 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the question.

DR. TUCKER: I would say that the 

dialogue is already underway, initiated by the 

board.

There are a number -- you've had a 

number of proposals related to different excluded 

methods. Harriet mentioned that right up front 

in terms of evaluating different technologies.

You're evaluating a proposal today on 

vaccines.

We have not asked the board to work on 

anything on this. This is -- the board has 

initiated this.

And so this robust dialogue is what you 

are already doing that the board has initiated.

CHAIR BEHAR: I'd just like to just 

clarify that.

So the NOP does recognize that our 

robust dialogue, our recommendations on declaring 

certain -- you know, the lists that we are building 

on the excluded methods will become kind of an 

internal and external part of what is considered 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to be excluded within the NOP.

So we are already having that robust 

dialogue.

DR. TUCKER: You've been having that 

robust dialogue for quite some time. I don't 

imagine that anybody would walk into this room and 

not call this robust, right? This is a robust 

process and it appears to be well -- it has been 

an ongoing discussion.

CHAIR BEHAR: We have seen over time 

that the National Organic Program may choose not 

to accept our recommendations. So I think there's 

some concern that we are having the dialogue, but 

perhaps within the NOP maybe not all of the things 

that we are considering excluded are at that level 

with the NOP as well.

DR. TUCKER: When we get 

recommendations from the board we need to 

prioritize what we move ahead with at any given 

time.

Right now our priorities are around 

enforcement, strengthening organic enforcement 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

proposed rule. 

We are moving National List rules 

faster through the system. Eighteen months to a 

final rule ain't bad.

And overall we have implemented 92 

percent of the board's recommendations, within the 

practice standards category that's 85 percent have 

been implemented.

We have to pick priorities on what to 

move forward with and that drives what we do next.

CHAIR BEHAR: Scott.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you then. I 

guess I will just say that I will hope that we adhere 

to, you know, not be bringing things back up where 

we've already set through the discussion document 

process, where we've been very clear and consistent 

in what we're saying is allowable and not allowable.

Because listening and trying to read 

into these bulleted statements what is exactly 

meant by that is not clear to me.

And I do want to be clear that as a board 

member and a Crops Subcommittee member that gene 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

editing is clearly off the table as are the other 

practices that we worked hard on that document to 

detail.

DR. TUCKER: This is the robust 

dialogue. And we always appreciate the 

recommendations.

CHAIR BEHAR: Scott was next, and then 

Tom.

MR. RICE: Thanks, Jenny. I have a 

question on the strengthening organic enforcement 

rulemaking and just the process, or the 60-day 

comment period.

In conversations with some in the 

community, I know with as you describe -- I don't 

know if it was a big deal or in some ways just, 

you know, it's significant.

And 60 days at the end of the year as 

we roll into holidays gives some people stress that 

that's not enough time and perhaps -- as much as 

we would like to see the rule, having it arrive 

at Thanksgiving and Christmastime is stressful.

So wondering if it does come out at that 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

time if USDA is open to extending that, or allowing 

for a greater period? Just want to hear your 

thoughts on that.

DR. TUCKER: Thanks for the question. 

So, we all want to move this rule quickly forward, 

right. 

In fact, there was a provision in the 

Farm Bill on the exempt handler part. And so we 

are accountable to Congress as well on this 

particular item.

So I would -- 60 days is the standard 

window for comments. 

We would like to move this rule along. 

I think we all do as you just said.

Often when we issue a rule if people 

feel like they need more time then they submit a 

public comment requesting more time and explaining 

why they need more time. And so that's an official 

submittal to the document requesting more time as 

a public comment.

The department then evaluates those 

requests, the explanation of why more time is needed 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and how many people feel that way.

Again, we'd encourage that if folks can 

comment within the time period that's always best. 

We want to move this along.

If enough people say we need more time 

then the department will consider that, and have 

considered that in the past.

CHAIR BEHAR: We do have a little bit 

of a history. The final rule was given out in 

Christmas, the organic livestock and poultry 

practices was right around Christmas. So we have 

somewhat of a history of kind of right there in 

the holiday season.

A lot of organic advocates out there 

reading under the Christmas tree. Tom, you're 

next.

MR. CHAPMAN: I have a semi-statement 

and then two questions.

So the first one's on the gene editing. 

I appreciated the second bullet point that made 

it extremely clear about gene editing.

And then my semi-statement I guess is 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I somewhat disagree with my colleague Dave about 

the robust dialogue.

I am happy to engage in robust dialogues 

on virtually any subject. And I just encourage 

the Program to recognize that there is a forum for 

that dialogue. That dialogue is the NOSB. I'm 

taking from your comments, Jenny, that you 

recognize that. I hope that gets shared up the 

chain.

Those robust dialogues as you've said 

already are occurring. You can see it in the 

livestock proposals. You can see it in the several 

proposals coming out of the Materials Committee. 

So just a strong emphasis that there 

is a forum. There's no need to change. If there's 

interested parties there's a format and a 

methodology for them to come forward with and I 

hope that gets shared with interested parties.

And even inquiries, if it comes from 

the legislative branch or other sides. That's the 

kind of statement.
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Two quick questions. One I think will 

be easy for you.

I recently spoke at an industry panel 

and I got just swamped with questions about organic 

hemp, organic CBD. 

And I know there's a policy out there 

on industrial hemp from the NOP and I was hoping 

you could comment a bit in light of the 2018 Farm 

Bill what's the steps, or procedures, or what should 

we expect from that policy. What's the future 

here? How can I help answer those questions for 

those folks?

DR. TUCKER: Thanks for that question. 

There is an interim final rule on hemp 

that will be coming out from our agency. So 

Agricultural Marketing Service is the lead agency 

for regulations related to hemp.

That will establish the hemp program 

called for in the Farm Bill. 

And so the best advice for organic farms 

and businesses is to closely monitor that work and 

stay connected with their state organizations that 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are pursuing their approach to hemp. And that will 

vary state to state.

So organic folks need to be very plugged 

into the broader hemp effort happening in their 

own state.

So the policy memo for folks who aren't 

familiar with that, a few years ago there was a 

statement of principles related to hemp. That was 

after the last Farm Bill. So after the 2014 Farm 

Bill.

And there was enough questions on well, 

what did that statement of principles mean for 

organic that we issued a policy memo pointing to 

that statement of principles.

So those statement of principles have 

not been withdrawn and therefore we have not 

withdrawn our policy memo.

The fear was if we withdrew the policy 

memo that given sort of the pent-up demand for hemp 

that organic farmers would say oh well gosh, the 

policy memo's gone so we can kind of do what we 

want to do.
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And so we left the policy memo in place 

because they were grounded on the statement of 

principles which is also in place.

We would assume that once the hemp 

program is established those statement of 

principles will eventually become overcome by 

events and that we would withdraw the policy memo 

at that point in time.

But we encourage any organic producers 

and handlers interested in this topic to closely 

monitor what's happening in their states.

Certifiers will also need to be aware 

of state-level differences in hemp programs so when 

they're certifying they are aware of those 

distinctions.

MR. CHAPMAN: Great.

DR. TUCKER: And keep an eye out for 

the rule.

MR. CHAPMAN: Great. And then my last 

question was about the increased enforcement 

rulemaking.

You made a statement on there that got 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

applause about all handlers need to be certified. 

Handlers is a very large term.

And I still assume there's some 

exceptions there in handlers. And maybe I'm wrong, 

so you know, transit and some other folks like that.

But I guess can you explain -- do you 

have a bit more detail about what you mean by all 

handlers? Does it include, say, folks that don't 

take physical possession, but take financial 

possession? That's just a very broad term right 

now --

DR. TUCKER: Understood.

MR. CHAPMAN: -- in how the loophole 

is getting closed.

DR. TUCKER: And I would take that as 

an invitation to advertise the rule. When the rule 

comes out make sure you read that section to make 

sure it is clear who is covered and who isn't 

covered.

We can say right now that businesses 

may not be affected. So it becomes easier to talk 

about who is still outside.
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So businesses may not be affected if 

they are only a retailer, or only a carrier that 

only transports products, or only provides storage. 

So those are areas in the rule.

If you're only transporting, only 

providing storage and are a retailer only.

But otherwise most doors are going to 

be closed.

What we will invite comments on is is 

that clear. As we've been working on the rule and 

we've been talking about the rule we've been trying 

to reach out to communities we haven't talked to 

before like importers and some of these uncertified 

handlers who aren't really in the system.

And you start getting some worried 

looks around the room like oh, actually I should 

probably be certified right now. And they have 

been working under the exemption when really they 

really shouldn't have been.

I think it's very important when people 

are commenting on the rule to make sure that those 

lines are as clear as possible in terms of who's 
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in and who's out.

MR. CHAPMAN: Quick follow-up on the 

storage and the transport. Is there any 

delineation about the packaging of it or anything 

like that?

I mean, when you think of storage and 

transit there's some storage facilities that have 

unpacked goods versus packed goods, or transit that 

-- a hay trailer, or a bulk tanker of syrup, or 

a bulk tanker, a bulk ship with grain in it is 

significantly different than a dry van with packed 

consumer goods.

Is there a delineation about packaging 

at all, or is it just storage and transit?

DR. TUCKER: The rule covers -- it's 

less about sort of the type of business and more 

about the business activity. So what is that 

business actually doing.

Hay is one that -- that question comes 

up a lot. And so when you are reading the rule 

-- my advice is if you're reading the rule write 

down all the scenarios like that, like you just 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

listed out that you're interested in reading the 

rule and saying does it cover it, does it not cover 

it.

And that would be a really good sort 

of checklist. So before you read the rule write 

down all the possible scenarios that you would want 

the rule to address. Then read the rule and see 

if it addresses those scenarios.

So, the rule is the place to go to read 

all of those. It does take into account the bulk 

handling document that's in the handbook.

It is designed to cover that document 

as well so eventually that would get withdrawn.

MR. CHAPMAN: Okay, thank you.

DR. TUCKER: Good questions.

I Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: A couple of things. 

The first thing is I really -- obviously our 

stakeholders have been very busy responding to our 

very large packet over the last 30 days.

But I just want to reiterate the 

importance of commenting on these rules. If you 
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

like them to put those likes in because it's very 

easy for a couple of negative comments to overwhelm 

the whole community that likes something that 

didn't actually say that.

DR. TUCKER: That didn't say they liked 

it.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes. So I just --

even though we're very busy with comments. And 

I'm the worst about that. I tell all of you I think 

that's exceedingly important for all the work that 

we have done and you have done in this open dialogue 

to then honor that and try and get it over the finish 

line.

And I also just want to say that I 

appreciate the Program's work on this go-around 

to actually have a full 30-day comment period. 

I know it took some work on the committees as well 

to get things early, but watching how much Michelle 

and Devon work through all the things we send them 

looking for editing comments and making sure 

they're publishable, and then for the Program to 

get that out I just want to commend you on that.
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I think we heard very positive 

feedback from the stakeholders on that so good job.

DR. TUCKER: Big kudos to Michelle on 

that. She does an awful lot of heavy lifting. 

Devon and Michelle are sort of the dynamic duo over 

there so thanks to you both.

(Applause)

CHAIR BEHAR: Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Just a quick comment, 

Jenny, about storage.

I did some food borne illness 

investigations on a facility where they had a 

pesticide company come in and spray and it got on 

the product.

So I think storage is a tricky area 

because of how they handle rodent control and 

everything else.

So I just -- a word of caution. There's 

storage and storage.

DR. TUCKER: That's the exact kind of 

comment that when this proposed rule comes out we 

want to hear about is those different kinds of 
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

scenarios.

If there is a carve-out or you think 

that we are not taking a risk-based approach that's 

the exact type of thing that the proposed rule is 

designed to elicit comments on.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, I just have one 

other comment myself. I don't see anyone else on 

the board.

Just want to thank you for moving 

faster. But as you could tell we have a lot of 

issues.

And as someone who interacts a lot with 

farmers and with handlers there are people who are 

leaving organic because of things that have not 

been put in place.

And there's a frustration and I think 

well-founded out in the world especially with the 

origin of livestock that -- and it wasn't your fault 

or whatever, but that was -- did go to final rule 

and really should have come out three years ago 

instead of now we're going -- it will be six or 

seven till we see something that can really rectify 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the situation.

And I'm very pleased too with the more 

enforcement and the training. I think we keep 

moving down that path, that would really help.

But again, the producers like to see 

kind of concrete things that they can point to and 

say we need to follow that rule, everyone needs 

to follow that rule. 

So maybe that's more on Paul's plate 

to just keep encouraging and putting more people 

in the standards division as well to get those

changes.

Because as I said in the spring, we are 

a young program. And organic is changing. And 

we are finding all the loopholes that we had in 

the original rule, and we're trying to build a 

better regulation that's more practical and more 

able to be enforced and verified.

And so we need to be continually 

improving, not just on the farms and in the 

processors, but in those regulations.

DR. TUCKER: Thank you for the comment. 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Extending from that we now have sort of three rules 

that are either open for comment right now or will 

be opening, strengthening organic enforcement, 

origin of livestock and the proposed rule for 

National List.

I would say we've gotten comments 

through this presentation on at least two of those.

So just to note that we will add a note 

to the dockets for each of those rules referring 

back to this meeting so that any comments that were 

made on the rule will also be sort of cross-linked 

to those documents.

So if you make a comment on origin of 

livestock you can still make one in the docket, 

but don't feel like you have to repeat it twice 

if you commented here.

CHAIR BEHAR: And lastly, will your 

slideshow be up on the website?

DR. TUCKER: Yes. I think we 

generally post that on the web. They have to make 

it accessible for people with disabilities and then 

I believe it goes up on this meeting page.
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So if you type in "NOSB meeting 

Pittsburgh" it usually is a day, a day or so.

CHAIR BEHAR: Anyone else? Okay. 

We're ahead by 10 minutes. So we will do a 

15-minute break, coming back at 10:20. And we will 

start up with the marine materials panel.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 10:06 a.m. and resumed at 

10:26 a.m.)

DR. TUCKER: Okay. As we're coming 

back from break I wanted to reopen the session with 

happy news. Congratulation update from the 

National Organic Program.

There have been a couple of times where 

at this meeting we have announced our employee of 

the quarter.

Employees of the quarter, that's our 

highest award within the Program. Every quarter 

an NOP staff member is acknowledged for great work 

during that quarter.

Devon received one once here and before 

that Lisa Brines we acknowledged in this format.
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And so today I am pleased to provide 

another one of those employee of the quarter because 

he's here. And it's for Robert Yang.

(Applause)

CHAIR BEHAR: So, as I mentioned 

earlier Robert is our Assistant Director of 

Accreditation and he has just been fabulous in 

deploying a lot of our new tooling.

We have software that helps us run the 

accreditation program and he has been visionary 

in thinking about how to exercise that tooling in 

the best way to be in the right places at the right 

time.

He was a huge player in bringing in our 

new audit team. And so he's just done a fabulous 

job.

So the employee of the quarter gets a 

-- we call it the roving trophy. And so the 

employee of the quarter gets to keep this for a 

quarter and then they pass it to the next person.

And it's gotten a little chipped 

because one of our winners dropped it. So Robert 
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

gets that.

And then Robert also gets a certificate 

of appreciation for being employee of the quarter 

which he shall display proudly in his office, right?

And then he'll get the choice of an NOP 

suitcase or a clock that says employee of the 

quarter. So again, Robert, congratulations and 

thank you for all you do.

(Applause)

MR. CHAPMAN: Point of order. 

Congratulations, Robert. But was it Devon who 

chipped the --

(Laughter)

DR. TUCKER: It was chipped before 

Devon got it. Present company excluded. And so 

now I'll turn it back to Harriet. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, thank you, and 

thank you, Robert, for all the work you do for us.

Okay, we are now going to have a marine 

materials panel. As all of you in the audience 

who have read our docket for the past few meetings 

we are reviewing marine materials used as an input 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in crop production and if there are issues that 

we need to address in those materials. 

And so who best to have people who know 

the issue and can help us out.

So I'm going to read the bios for all 

four of you starting with who will start and then 

to the end.

So first we will have Dr. Raul Ugarte, 

a harvester for Acadian Seaplants. Originally 

from Chile, Dr. Ugarte began his studies at the 

University of Concepcion.

He continued his scientific training 

with post-graduate studies at Dalhousie University 

in Nova Scotia, Canada, culminating with a Ph.D. 

in marine biology in 1994.

In 1995 Dr. Ugarte joined Acadian 

Seaplants, Ltd., where he began collaborations with 

the government scientists on the development of 

a sustainable management plan for the harvest of 

Ascophyllum nodosum in Atlantic Canada.

In his current role as senior manager 

of resource science Raul works with a global team 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of marine scientists studying the effect of the 

harvest on algal habitats and has authored numerous 

scientific publications on this topic plus the 30 

years that he has been working with the seaweeds.

Second up will be Chris Grigsby, a 

certifier with the Maine Organic Farmers and 

Gardeners Association, MOFGA, in Maine.

Chris was born and raised in Maine. 

After college he settled in the Portland, Maine 

area, working for seafood and produce distributors 

purchasing and operational management. 

Before relocating to the mid-coast with 

his wife and son and beginning work as general 

manager at the Belfast Co-Op, Maine's oldest and 

largest retail food co-op. And they have great 

scallops there I can tell you.

Moving back to wholesale, Chris was 

hired as director of operations for a local and 

organic food distributor serving northern New 

England.

He became the director of MOFGA 

certification services in December 2016. 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Chris and his family own a small 

certified organic wild blueberry operation in 

Appleton, Maine.

And next will be tag teamers Allison 

Schmidt and Nichole Price.

Dr. Allison Schmidt is a scientist with 

Dalhousie University. Dr. Allison Schmidt is a 

senior instructor in biology at Dalhousie 

University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Her research focused on human impacts 

on coastal vegetative ecosystems. She has worked 

extensively with kelp, rockweed and seagrass 

ecosystems in Atlantic Canada to explore how 

finfish aquiculture, seaweed harvesting, invasive 

species and eutrophication affect the communities 

associated with structure-forming vegetation and 

the ecosystem services they provide.

The ecosystem services of interest 

include habitat and nursery provision as well as 

carbon storage.

Allison is currently writing reviews 

on the global extent of these services in all 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

coastal vegetative ecosystems. Somewhat complex.

Dr. Nichole Price is a scientist at 

Bigelow Marine Laboratories. Nichole Price is a 

senior research scientist and director of the 

Center for Seafood Solutions at Bigelow Laboratory 

for Ocean Scientists in East Boothbay, Maine.

Nichole's research and partnerships 

with NOAA, the Nature Conservancy, the U.S. 

Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service have taken her scuba diving around the globe 

on coral reefs in Africa, Asia and across remote 

islands in the Central and South Pacific.

Can I be in your luggage?

Recently she has focused her work in 

southern California and the Gulf of Maine where 

she partners closely with the members of seaweed 

and shellfish industries to develop remediation 

strategies for ocean acidification, nutrient 

loading, and low oxygen conditions, and exploring 

novel uses for marine produced seaweed.

Nichole earned her Ph.D. in marine 

ecology at the University of California Santa 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Barbara and became an institutional postdoctoral 

fellow, then project scientist at Scripps 

Institution of Oceanography before moving to Maine.

Very august group of speakers. So we 

will start first with Raul and we will let -- Emily, 

we will let the speakers all speak and then we'll 

ask questions of the full panel.

Go ahead, Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: And there's a timer in 

front of you that will go yellow at 11 minutes and 

then red when your time has come up.

And for the two of you that are tag 

teaming, that will be ameliorated or augmented for 

your double time. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Dr. Ugarte.

DR. UGARTE: Thank you very much for 

this opportunity. Today I'm going to focus my 

presentation on one particular seaweed, 

Ascophyllum nodosum. It's an intertidal seaweed. 

So it's exposed to the environment twice a day 

at least.

This is the seaweed that the company 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is harvesting, and this is the reason why we are 

here indeed.

So, Ascophyllum has been harvested for 

more than 60 years in Canada sustainable and 

provides 550 direct jobs, particularly in rural 

communities in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

And we recognize that the seaweed is 

also habitat. And the habitat is basically 

composed by the biomass and the plant length and 

plant density that is there.

We have a team, a global team of 

scientists and biologists and technicians 

everywhere we harvest, in Europe and here in North 

America.

And we have been studying the seaweed 

for more than 24 years. 

Basically the Ascophyllum dynamic, it 

means the growth, how the seaweed dies, how the 

seaweed reiterates after the harvest.

So we have quite an extensive database 

on that area.

And we have published some of these 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

issues. So I hope I can today respond to some of 

the questions posed by the committee and also to 

clarify some misinformation that has been given 

by the public regarding to the harvest.

So, the first question is are 

government regulatory structures in place to ensure 

habitat protection from over-harvesting of marine 

algae. The short answer is yes.

In Canada we have -- this resource is 

managed under the Ocean Act that was implemented 

in 1997 which promotes an ecosystem approach.

An ecosystem approach basically says 

that the seaweed cannot be harvested until the 

maximum sustainable yield. It has to be managed 

in a way that you cannot make changes in the 

structure of the resource from one year to the next.

You harvest the seaweed, but that 

effect has to be replaced around the following year.

So, how do we do that? The resourcing 

in Canada is spaced along the shore in leases and 

the government gives leases to different companies. 

And within those leases we have small 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

management unit or harvesting sector. The idea 

of that is just you don't concentrate the harvest 

in one particular spot, but you spread the harvest 

along the shore in very small units according to 

what the seaweed is, the abundance of biomass in 

each one of those sectors. This is called 

area-based management.

There are more than 400 sectors between 

Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Also we have regulation on the 

harvesting tool. In Canada we have it with the 

boat and especially the seine rake. And that rake 

cut the top of the plant, trim the top of the plant 

basically leaving quite an abundant biomass, a 

number of shoots to reiterate for the rest of the 

plant for the following year.

Also there is a minimum cutting height, 

that it has to be over 12 centimeters.

Part of the ecosystem approach, we have 

a restricted area, the area where we cannot go. 

We have MPAs, marine protected area.

We have exclusion areas. We have a 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

special managed area where we cannot go during 

certain time of the year to protect this area for 

ducks, for birds that are nesting, et cetera. And 

that has been published already.

If the company wants to harvest they 

have to present a management plan. You can see 

here that the plan consists in putting a budget 

for every single sector they are going to harvest 

and when it's done you have the calculated biomass.

And at the end of the harvest season 

they have to present a management report, a 

harvesting report. So the government controls 

that.

The same approach was taken in Maine. 

So saying that in Maine there is no regulation 

is not true.

The second question, who should make 

the biomass survey. Ideally the government, but 

just in our leases here we have more than 4,000 

kilometers of intertidal.

And in order to get information for 

appropriate management you need thousands and 
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

thousands of data to minimize the bioavailability 

of data along the shore. The resource, it's not 

the same along the shore so you have to be measuring 

the resource all over the shore in order to get 

proper information.

So we sent our team to the shore for 

five months from June to October and they basically 

are every single time that the tide allows 

collecting samples. We collect more than 10,000 

samples annually in terms of biomass, plant length 

and plant density. Okay.

So the government at the end audit the 

survey. They have companies that allow -- with 

specialists, statisticians and biologists that 

check whether our survey was done properly.

Now, another question is there is an 

efficient method to measure biomass. Yes, there 

are. But those methods are different depending 

on the seaweed. I'm going to explain here what 

we do in Ascophyllum.

You cannot apply these methods to a 

seaweed like kelp that are subtidal. So this is 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for intertidal seaweed like Ascophyllum.

The first thing you have to do is look 

at area photograph of satellite or drones, and we 

use all those methods, to determine the area first 

covered by the resource. So you use this area 

photograph in low tide.

And then computer program allows you 

to calculate the area covered by the resource.

But the other part of the calculation 

is around two things. You have to go to the field 

and measure every single sector in the field. 

I mean, you have to measure the biomass, 

the plant length and plant density. And all that 

information then is integrated into a GIS program. 

A GIS is basically a program that is consisting 

of maps, a computer program where you can overlap 

layers of information. And that is very useful 

for this kind of management.

So you can see here an example with the 

lease, with the sector where you have the total 

biomass and then you have in the sector what is 

allowed to harvest every year below 25 percent.
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Now, I have here some comment here that 

in Nova Scotia there is no longer those old forests 

of Ascophyllum because they have been 

over-harvested.

Also there are some other comments that 

the Ascophyllum can live 100 years. So I'm going 

to show you here why that is not true.

Our research shows that biomass --

Ascophyllum can grow 42 percent of the biomass, 

new biomass.

I mean, you look at an area, a sector 

at the end of the year and the biomass that you 

see there, 42 percent is new. It's generated 

during the particular season.

Now, what happened with the biomass? 

I mean, the plant cannot hold the biomass. 

Physically it cannot do it because in the wintertime 

you have effect of the storms that take part of 

the biomass out. 

So it's a cycle of growing seaweed, 

growing biomass, and leaving biomass at the end 

of the winter.
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

In addition, this is not every year, 

but it's very often that we have this event. This 

is ice damage event. And I have seen four major 

damage events while working with the company.

And those damage events can be 

devastating. They can clean the shore as you can 

see here where you lose more than 95 percent of 

the biomass there, just leaving some remaining of 

the holdfast and part of the shoot of the plant. 

And it has been published already.

But you look at six years later the 

resource comes back. 

So, this is the kind of situation that 

happens along the shore. That situation cannot 

allow for a plant to survive for a long, long time. 

There's always being renewal.

So, basically when you look at the 

shore, I'm going to show Lobster Bay as an example 

because Lobster Bay has been harvested for 60 years.

And this is the data that you see with 

long plant in one side of the graph and short plant 

in the other side.
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So this is what you see in the rockweed 

bed. Long plant are the canopy and the short plant 

is the understory. 

But you have to get an average of 

everything. That way you have an average of 88.4 

there. And you look at the number of samples. 

We take thousands of samples to determine that 

structure.

So in plant length -- so what does the 

harvester do? You compare two years, 2017, 2018 

and you don't see significant difference in the 

plant length from one year to the next after they've 

been harvested.

If you look at 20 years, look at 1988 

and 2018, 20 years apart, plant length is exactly 

the same 20 years later. So the harvest has not 

made any modification on the structure there if 

we consider the plant length.

You look at biomass. Twenty years ago 

it was 10.1kg per square meter. Twenty years later 

22, 20.8kg per square meter.

So the reason why this change has not 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

happened with the harvest is because we harvest 

less than the annual growth. 

And also there is a compensatory 

mechanism, an interesting effect that happens with 

the harvest.

If you look here the graph shows the 

growth in areas that have been permanently closed 

versus areas that have been harvested for a long, 

long time and you see that the annual growth is 

flatter in areas that have been harvested.

So you increase the productivity in 

areas that have been harvested depending on how 

you harvest and the way we do it.

Also you increase the absorption of 

carbon in those areas.

So this is what you see there. When 

you look at the shoreline this sector has been 

harvested every year. And the canopy is there.

So there have been studies done on 

harvest impact. There are studies on fish done 

in New Brunswick, three-year studies on fish.

There have been studies on eider ducks 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

by the University of New Brunswick. There have 

been studies done in invertebrates by the 

University of Maine, by Dr. Brian Beal.

None of those studies have shown any 

impact by the way we harvest seaweed on those 

organisms.

So, as a conclusion there are reviews 

and studies that have shown that Ascophyllum is 

very resilient and it's a very dynamic seaweed.

It's not the old forest that some people 

claim is there.

There are regulations in place to 

maintain the structure of the resource and the 

habitat. It's a precautionary approach. 

And there is no evidence from studies 

that the harvest is impacting the associated fauna. 

Thank you very much.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So next up is 

Chris Grigsby. And thank you for all the photos. 

That's very helpful.

MR. GRIGSBY: Well, thanks, everyone 

for the opportunity. I appreciate that. My 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

presentation has a lot less pictures. I tend to 

be a little bit wordy I guess with slides so I 

apologize for that.

At any rate, so based on the 

introduction there from Harriet I think folks know 

sort of where we're located.

We are an accredited certifier, USDA, 

so we can certify I guess anywhere in the country 

if we chose or wherever, but we don't. We pretty 

much stick in Maine which is just fine with all 

of us that are there.

But at any rate, I wanted to -- so I 

submitted written questions to the committee in 

terms of our responses for this present meeting.

But I chose to focus my presentation 

on sort of what we do currently for organic 

certification just because that does seem to be 

sort of the crux of the conversation with the NOSB 

as far as whether to require aquatic plant extracts 

for crop inputs to be certified organic.

So I just wanted to give everybody a 

sense of kind of what we do with the regulations 
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and the guidance that we have currently.

So I wanted to just sort of -- again, 

a lot of folks may know this, but just bring in 

some historical references and kind of a how we 

got here type of scenario.

So in 2011 the NOP issued guidance, Wild 

Crop Harvesting Guidance which basically then sort 

of stated that wild crop harvesting of species from 

terrestrial or aquatic areas can be certified as 

organic. Kelp or seaweed are included there.

And then a couple of years later NOP 

5027, the Use of Kelp in Organic Livestock Feed. 

This is really sort of where MOFGA certification, 

we had our first application from a seaweed 

harvester that was getting into the livestock feed 

supplement game.

And so just a couple of excerpted pieces 

from 5027. The NOP recognizes there is 

inconsistency in the use of organic kelp in organic 

livestock feed due to lack of guidance and confusion 

regarding the agricultural status of kelp.

And then it goes on to further state 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that because it's listed in 205.606 the NOP

considers kelp an agricultural product and 

therefore kelp must be certified organic to be 

included in livestock feed.

So we didn't actively engage. We were 

sort of dragged into it.

In the response to comments 5027-1, 

changes requested but not made. I just wanted to 

sort of highlight this just because we are still 

sort of in the same scenario that we were when this 

guidance was issued which is that the NOP notes 

that additional training for certifiers on the 

topic of wild crop harvesting will be considered 

in the future.

I think that that's something that we 

have submitted in comments previously that would 

be fantastic to sort of see something like that.

I think that we are trying to do a lot 

with a little and doing our best.

So the other piece that we always have 

to keep in mind as accredited certifiers is the 

terms of accreditation.
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I just wanted to highlight a couple of 

the points that are in the terms of accreditation 

sheet that we all sign off on and do our best with.

Should we accept the certification 

decisions made by another certifying agent, 

accreditor accepted by USDA.

And we also cannot require as a 

condition of certification that any client comply 

with any production or handling practice other than 

those required by the USDA organic regulations.

Okay, so a little bit of a MOFGA story 

here. We first certified kelp under the wild crop 

standard in 2013.

We currently have six operations that 

are certified to the wild crop standard for kelp.

And when we received an application in 

2013 that sort of started the ball rolling and we 

utilized another accredited certifier, OCIA, who 

had published standards for wild crop seaweed in 

2006.

And so we basically, based on the terms 

of accreditation we accepted that by the other 
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

certifier.

And so we utilized those same buffer 

setbacks which you can see here, 20 miles from a 

nuclear facility. Maine no longer has a nuclear 

facility. 

Three miles from commercial 

boat-building, three miles from industrial waste 

discharge, three miles from any city or town sewage 

discharge, three miles from any major harbor or 

thoroughfare, three quarter mile from small harbor. 

We define small harbor as having 

moorings up to 20 boats. That was something that 

we actually added fairly recently because we had 

some questions from certified operations about 

that.

Three quarters of a mile from minor 

waste water treatment facilities, and a quarter 

mile from any overboard discharge areas.

And then there's a note in there about 

sort of beds location, prevailing winds, currents, 

and testing, tissue testing is a possibility to 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sort of help to determine those things.

This is a little bit of an excerpt from 

our Sea Vegetable OSP Supplement just in terms of 

these are the types of questions that we're asking 

applicants and certified operations which they sort 

of update, renew. We inspect and verify against 

that part of their OSP.

So a description of the natural 

environment, list of any rare, endangered 

terrestrial or aquatic plants, describe the methods 

used to prevent negative impact to the harvest area, 

monitoring procedures used to verify lack of impact 

on the aquatic ecosystem water quality and 

biodiversity.

How do harvest practices ensure the 

health sustained growth and long-term viability 

of the wild crops.

Approximately what percent of the wild 

crop is harvested at each harvest.

Training, frequency of training. 

Procedures in place to prevent contamination and 

then record-keeping systems for wild crop area 
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

management, monitoring, harvest and sales.

And I would say that that last point 

is something that we have been addressing and have 

been focusing our inspectors to dive a little deeper 

on over the past couple of years.

So in terms of the reviewer's role, the 

desk audit that's performed both with applicants 

and renewing clients.

So we utilize GIS and Google Earth 

mapping of our buffers based on Maine's Department 

of Marine Resources and Department of Environmental 

Protection data sets to determine site eligibility 

for organic harvest. So that's sort of the first 

point.

And then we follow that up with physical 

onsite inspection.

And those data sets are great. It's 

fantastic. They overlay right in there and we get 

a really good picture of where the waste water 

treatment plants are, overboard discharge, active 

harbors, et cetera.

And then sector maps are now 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

consistent. So the Department of Marine Resources 

has adopted the sector mapping as Raul mentioned 

they have in Canada as well.

And so there's now clearly defined 

sector maps for all harvest areas along the coast 

of Maine.

And so when an applicant or renewing 

client submits either -- their harvest areas they 

give us GPS coordinates. 

We're able to plug those in. And then 

that's the same sector and coordinates that they 

use to submit landing records to the Department 

of Marine Resources as required.

So in terms of the wild crop standard 

207 we do our very best to determine what that is 

without going above and beyond our accreditation 

requirements.

And so without NOP regulations and 

definitions specific to that we actually turned 

to the folks in Maine that are doing really a pretty 

good job we feel like in terms of the monitoring, 

the training.
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The Maine Seaweed Council issued 

Harvester's Guidelines to Maine Seaweeds where they 

go through specie by specie and sort of try to give 

some framework to sort of amount harvested, 

percentage per year, those types of things. And 

that's all available online as well.

And so specifically to Ascophyllum 

nodosum the suggestion is 17 percent per year, or 

50 percent over three years.

So that's our general -- again, we're 

not doing specific biomass assessments. But when 

our inspectors do go out there they're going to 

go out there, they're going to go out on the boat, 

they're going to view a harvest taking place, 

whether it's by hand or mechanical which is tide 

dependent. 

So it does present some challenges in 

terms of being creative about those sort of things.

And then we also ask them to go and view 

selected harvest areas from the prior year for 

compliance. And then we shift those locations over 

time.
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Maine has over 5,200 miles of coastline 

I think so clearly we're not getting to every 

particular spot every year.

So I just wanted to shift a little bit. 

So that's generally sort of where we're at in terms 

of our certification of the livestock feed or human 

consumption components.

And then I just wanted to shift briefly 

in the minute and a half I have here, just listing 

out some of our comments to the NOSB over time.

So we definitely support stricter 

measurements. We don't feel like certification 

may be the right way to go just because we don't 

really feel like the certification components are 

where they need to be either.

So we suggested development of an 

annotation for 601(j)(1) which may be able to sort 

of specifically tie back to the wild crop standard.

We definitely support NOSB and NOP 

developing aquatic plant standards. We think that 

would be a good thing both for the work that we 

do as well as the consumers and stakeholders out 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

there.

We do worry that the requirement of --

requiring certification for aquatic plant extracts 

for crop inputs would push all harvesters to sort 

of what we consider the pristine areas based on 

the buffer setbacks.

And so we kind of worry about 

over-harvesting and also Maine does not have leases 

for rockweed. So it's really sort of handshake 

agreements between harvesters.

And so that may present some challenges 

as well.

This past spring we -- in our comments 

we offered more for the board to consider in terms 

of what Maine is doing.

So there was a legislative act in LD 

585 in Maine that required a fishery management 

plan for rockweed. 

And so that was completed and issued 

in January 2014.

I believe -- and again, that sort of 

set up the -- what we have at this point as far 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as sustainability of the harvesting specifically.

There was also a component of that work 

that -- there was a working group that I believe 

was developed to look at the ecosystem as a whole 

and impacts of harvesting.

But I believe at least from what I heard 

I think that there was -- it was a bit politically 

charged and I believe the working group disbanded 

without really doing much at that point. But I 

think that those are great things.

And I would just also mention briefly 

that there is a lot of research happening in Maine 

now at this point.

There's -- the University of Maine and 

the Maine Sea Grant, they have a project going which 

is conserving rockweed animal systems for 

sustainable harvest.

One of their stated goals is to 

understand the role of rockweed and rocky 

intertidal invertebrate bird food webs in light 

of harvesting. And so again we encourage all of 

that work.
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I believe that's it. I just I guess 

-- oh, I think I'm over time. There's a red light 

on. 

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, good job. So now 

I'm just going to open this to Allison and Nichole. 

And do you have a slideshow? Michelle is shaking 

yes. Okay.

DR. PRICE: All right. Before we get 

started I just wanted to give a little further 

introduction to myself.

I'm currently serving -- my name's 

Nichole Price. I'm also serving on the Maine 

Seaweed Fisheries Advisory Council.

And I've just been appointed to the 

Science and Tech Subcommittee of the Maine Climate 

Change Council as well. And I'll hand it over to 

Allison to get started.

DR. SCHMIDT: Yes. So, what we wanted 

to do is -- I'm Allison Schmidt -- is to give you 

a little bit of background to give you some context 

on our recommendations and what I guess the answers 

to our questions that you put out to scientists.
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So we wanted to start off kind of back 

to the basics as to what really is macroalgae.

And it really consists of large green, 

red and brown species of seaweed. And there's 

thousands of species around the world not all of 

which are economically viable for harvesting.

And they're similar to land plants 

because they do photosynthesize and they are 

foundation species for a lot of communities and 

ecosystems.

And they are what we call ecosystem 

engineers because they form a three-dimensional 

structure similar to trees or meadows.

And we often use that kind of language 

to refer to these ecosystems. So for example, kelp 

forests, or rockweed beds, or meadows of seagrass. 

So those are -- we tend to use what we know to 

describe things that are harder to see.

And the main difference that there are 

from terrestrial plants is that they don't have 

a root system to absorb nutrients from the sediment, 

or from the rocks. And they don't have a vascular 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

system.

Because they live in a fluid 

environment they're able to actually absorb and 

exchange what they need from the water directly. 

So they don't, like terrestrial plants, take

things up from the soil.

So there are a number of species that 

are harvested and they form -- different species 

in temperate versus tropical areas.

And they fall into a number of different 

groups. 

So we've got canopy-forming species. 

So those are the ones that we tend to refer to 

as forests.

Coralline species which create this 

calcium carbonate shell as part of their structure.

And then blooming species which tend 

to -- are more ephemeral. So they're kind of 

annual. So they create these large blooms and then 

they die back.

And then we have understory species. 

So those are the ones that would grow underneath 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the canopy of whatever large seaweed there is.

And you can see that we do harvest a 

lot more in the temperate zone than we do in the 

tropical areas.

And the species on the slides are 

organized by whichever grouping they fall into, 

whether it's red, green, or brown.

So we do need to make a distinction 

between tropical and temperate ecosystems.

So in tropical ecosystems algae tend 

to be more of a problem in terms of when they have 

-- they occur in great abundance because they 

compete with corals.

Corals are the main structure-forming 

species in the tropics. And so when algae do 

colonize and take over it actually simplifies the 

ecosystem and decreases the three-dimensional 

architecture.

Whereas in temperate ecosystems we 

don't have coral reefs and these algae are actually 

the main structure-forming organisms in the 

ecosystem. So they're extremely important.
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So the impacts of harvesting in these 

two different types of ecosystems are going to be 

somewhat different. 

Similar but also with some differences 

in terms of the scale of the impact.

So another important piece is to 

understand how they do actually attach and grow.

So most species are attached to rocks, 

specifically with a holdfast. And it can be either 

branching or discoid as you can see in the top two 

photos.

But there are some species that are free 

floating in the water column and we'll talk about 

those as well.

But all of them grow from a meristem. 

So it's a point on the plant where the tissue starts 

to grow.

And there's an apical meristem which 

is on the tip of the plant, or what we call a basal 

meristem which is in the second photo on the bottom 

where it's closer to where the stipe is. So what 

we would call like the stem of the plant.
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So where those plants grow from do have 

an impact on how it can be harvested. So most 

species that have a discoid holdfast, they can grow 

new blades from the holdfast if it's left behind.

And species with a branching holdfast, 

they will not regrow new blades if the holdfast 

is the only thing that's left behind.

 You have to actually leave the growing 

tissue behind, the meristem. So you would have 

to cut further up on the plant. 

So recovery of those particular species 

would depend on new plants growing up from 

juveniles.

DR. PRICE: So macroalgal growth is 

undergoing a series of change.

This is some data captured just this 

year using NASA satellites Terra and Aqua to 

describe the extent of the Great Atlantic Sargassum 

Belt.

This sargassum bloom has been going on 

for a long time, but in 2011 there was a turning 

point where the bloom started vastly becoming 
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

expanded in size and extent.

It's now about 8,850km long and it 

represents the world's largest macroalgal bloom. 

And these kinds of blooms may become the new 

normal.

And it is an opportunity for 

innovation, thinking about what can happen with 

this biomass.

DR. SCHMIDT: Sorry, I was just going 

to jump in. This is a free floating form of 

seaweed.

DR. PRICE: So free floating meaning 

it gets washed up on the shores and actually removal 

of that large amount of biomass is a problem that 

is dealt with by several countries.

The attached species though can provide 

several different ecosystem functions and 

services.

They do provide that 3D structure which 

is essential habitat and food for many species 

including commercially important species like 

lobster, cod, kelp bass and rockfish.
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But these systems shouldn't be viewed 

the same way as coral reefs. They're extremely 

dynamic in space and time.

Natural disturbances such as storms and 

ice scour can dislodge the holdfasts. Herbivory 

itself can create barren landscapes. Urchin 

barrens are part of a dynamic system both on the 

west and the east coast of the U.S.

And many kelps grow very fast, but are 

short-lived.

Other important ecosystem functions 

and services include those that come along with 

primary productivity.

In particular, carbon capture, 

nitrogen and phosphorus capture and exchange.

There can be active transport onshore 

or to deeper beds as detritus or senescent material 

from the kelp forest gets delivered to either of 

those.

And CO2 can be released back into the

system as part of the decomposition process.

Just to remind everyone how important 
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the presence of large concentrations of carbon 

dioxide is to marine systems this is what causes 

ocean acidification.

And it's the global atmospheric carbon 

getting absorbed by the oceans that is causing this 

process on a large scale, but there are other 

processes on smaller scales and coastal systems 

that exacerbate ocean acidification.

And so this ecosystem function of 

storing or transporting carbon is really relevant 

to this global problem.

So they perform both primary and 

secondary productivity. But the detritus that is 

produced and delivered to especially beach systems 

can subsidize those systems in terms of providing 

structure and organic material in those systems 

as well.

Canopy-forming species also buffer 

wave action in storms. 

But the scale or impact or relative 

importance of these ecosystem functions and 

services really depends on the macroalgal species, 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

frond size and morphology, the standing stock 

that's present.

If you have a very tiny patch of forest 

versus an extensive coastline those impacts are 

different.

The architecture and distribution of 

those patches of forest and the connectivity 

between them.

I think it's important to take all of 

this context, all of these concerns about wild 

harvest in the context of the greater picture of 

what's happening with aquiculture for kelp and 

other species not only in the U.S. but across the 

globe.

So aquiculture production of brown 

algae is 18 times greater than wild harvest. And 

the total aquiculture production of all species, 

reds and greens included, is 28 times greater than 

wild harvest.

And over the past 80 years or so we've 

moved from nearly 100 percent wild harvest to less 

than 4 percent wild harvest.
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Aquiculture is growing at a rate of on 

average about 8 percent per year since the nineteen 

seventies. And seven new countries including the 

U.S. have started seaweed farming since 2010.

So this is a graphic that I'm sorry the 

writing is small, but that black line going across 

is potato production.

And if aquiculture continues to rise 

the faded green line shows that by the year 2050 

aquiculture production of seaweed might produce 

the same biomass as potato production worldwide.

And if the subsidies to research and 

innovation in seaweed aquiculture continue and 

developments improve to create a 10 percent greater 

yield than we can currently see then you might 

expect for aquiculture of seaweed to even exceed 

that of potatoes. 

Just as a note the Department of Energy 

ARPA-E MARINER Program has contributed something 

like $25 to $40 million to research on seaweed 

aquiculture alone.

I also wanted -- we wanted to talk a 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

little bit too about the differences in harvesting 

techniques across these different guilds of 

species.

So Allison mentioned the coralline 

algae deposit, the calcium carbonate. This means 

like corals they grow extremely slowly, on the order 

of millimeters per year.

And it's difficult to cultivate. I 

don't know of anyone doing that.

But many fleshy species grow to a 

harvestable size in less than a year and suspension 

culture techniques are becoming available for 

these.

DR. SCHMIDT: So we wanted to focus 

some of the harvesting effects on the 

canopy-forming species because those tend to be 

the ones that have the most research done on them.

So some of the effects are reducing the 

standing stock. So Dr. Ugarte did mention about 

the truncation, or the changes in the size 

structure.

And I have a few graphs on the slide 
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that show the changes in size structure. In the 

column on the lefthand side you see pre-harvesting 

situation with the top graph being length and the 

bottom graph being circumference.

And the lefthand side of the graph is 

smaller sized plants, and then the right-hand side 

would be large plants.

And you can see sites that have been 

harvested in blue and unharvested in red.

What you see in the pre-harvest is 

there's a peak kind of, they kind of -- both 

distributions peak around the same.

But then when you harvest them, so in 

the graphs on the right-hand side you have the shift 

in the peak in both the length and circumference 

to be smaller plants. So their length is shorter 

and their circumference is smaller.

And that's important because that then 

affects the three-dimensional architecture of the 

habitat which could influence the species living 

there.

So the fronds that are harvested have, 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

like I said, smaller average size. And that means 

that there's less large, old and voluminous fronds.

And if you think about a forest this 

would essentially be cutting the forest from trees 

down to something like blades of grass.

So they would change the structure, 

maybe not completely down to blades of grass, but 

it does change the structure of the ecosystem.

So as a result you get bushier plants, 

especially in things like rockweed. And you can 

see some images on the slide here.

The one on the very far right in the 

background you can see a tall unharvested plant 

and in the front you can see a harvested plant. 

You can see the cut tips of it.

So this was taken after they did the 

cutter rig harvesting. And you can see there's 

some harvesting where there is sometimes some 

impact on the holdfast because, I mean, you're in 

a boat. You're moving up and down with the waves 

and it's sometimes harder to control just how deep 

it goes. 
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But those are some of the underwater 

views of the impact of harvesting.

And this -- you can also have an 

increase or a decrease in the number of individuals. 

This depends on the species.

So I don't want to focus just on 

rockweed in this talk. We want to talk more broadly 

than that.

So sometimes in the case of rockweed 

you'll have more individuals come up. And in other 

times you'll have less individuals come back.

You do have a decrease in the number 

of juveniles, especially in situations of kelp 

beds. And we'll look at a case study in a little 

bit because you have increased competition, or 

you're actually removing the reproductive organs 

depending on the time of year that you're actually 

harvesting the seaweed.

And we've seen some of that impact in 

species such as Chondrus crispus.

And the recovery time depends on the 

harvest methods. And it can be from months to 
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

decades.

If you clearcut something it can be 

decades, and if you're just cutting tips then it 

may only be months before you have a recovery.

So, this -- how harvesting can affect 

the ecosystem overall rather than just the actual 

resource itself is you can have increased 

patchiness and that can alter the species 

distribution, so the associated species and their 

interactions.

You can have bycatch, so epiphytes and 

slow-moving animals. You change the habitat 

architecture which can lead to an impoverished 

community. I have a diagram there on the 

right-hand side that shows changes in a kelp forest 

not necessarily due to harvesting, other stressors, 

but the result is the same where you have a different 

community depending on what the resulting change 

is.

And that talks about shifts in the 

foundation species. So if you harvest the kelp 

and then kelp doesn't come back, but instead you 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

have something else come back then that will shift 

the species that live there.

And you may have associated declines 

in biodiversity not only in that ecosystem, but 

then adjacent ones because you no longer have a 

source population feeding into these other 

ecosystems.

And you can also have decreased 

epiphyte communities that are attached to the 

canopy-forming species because you're actually 

removing them when you're harvesting because 

they're part of the bycatch.

DR. PRICE: So to continue along this 

theme about harvesting effects on ecosystem 

services there can be this initial decrease in 

habitat provision for breeding, spawning, nursery 

and other important roles for commercially 

important fisheries and initial decrease in 

productivity.

But as Dr. Ugarte pointed out earlier 

in some cases the seaweeds recover. The growth

rates may actually be stimulated.
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So to go back to the metaphor that 

Allison gave, when you mow a lawn it can be 

stimulated to grow back.

These are some results from a 

preliminary study that I conducted over the past 

couple of years looking at a simulated harvest area 

next to Bigelow and a non-harvest area.

And what we measured was the ability 

for the individuals in those areas to absorb carbon 

dioxide and thus change seawater pH in the months 

following the harvest.

So this first month of May was when the 

harvest occurred. And then as you move on until 

about five months post-harvest you actually see 

evidence of increased productivity rates of the 

harvested or clipped individuals as opposed to the 

individuals that were not clipped.

So there needs to be a balanced view 

about what we want as ecosystem services from these 

forests and beds, and whether carbon capture is 

an important part of that consideration.

I'm going to walk through another case 
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

study of Macrocystis pyrifera. So that previous 

set of preliminary data was from rockweed, but we 

wanted to give you a taste for what other species 

are getting harvested out there and the impacts.

So giant kelp covers a large portion 

of the Pacific coast of North America. And this 

study followed artisanal harvesting practices. 

So there was a swimmer on the surface of the water 

that was clipping the tips of the fronds that were 

available. So it was very much a labor by a couple 

of individuals to get this done.

And it was over a small area, just 

0.09km of the coastline.

But they did different levels of 

removal and looked at biomass recovery at 3 weeks 

post-harvest and at 10 weeks post-harvest. So it 

was a short and small study.

Growth rate was lower in the harvested 

sites, but it was also evident that it was very 

negatively affected by increased sea surface 

temperature.

And so one important piece to consider 
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in all of these questions that have been posed to 

us is what role does global change and ocean change 

play in the ability for these systems to recover 

or their relative impact.

They did detect that juvenile density 

decreased with higher harvest intensity which was 

more than 60 percent removal, but they did not find 

any effect on fish abundance and they did not 

examine the other invertebrate or epiphytic species 

that were part of that system.

And again, temperature is an important 

factor in the recover of Macrocystis pyrifera, 

otherwise known as giant kelp in these systems.

DR. SCHMIDT: So a second case study 

that we wanted to talk about is looking at a trawl 

harvest of Laminaria hyperborea which is a kelp 

species that's found in Europe, in northern Europe.

It covers about 9,000km of the West 

Atlantic coast of Europe. And what they did is 

they, like I said, they did some trawl survey 

tracks.

And you can see in the images on the 
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

slide in the foreground of the photo on the left 

you've got recovering kelp blades and in the 

background you have the unharvested kelp growing 

much taller.

And you can see they drag one of these 

giant hooks, that's the photo on the right, through 

the kelp bed and it essentially collects everything 

including the holdfast.

It does leave some juveniles behind, 

but any of the large plants get collected. 

This was a rare study in that they 

actually monitored post-harvesting for four years. 

So they looked a little bit longer term at the 

results.

And what they saw is that canopy height 

after two years was only 30 percent the initial 

height. So it was 70 percent shorter still.

But that it had grown to about 70 

percent the initial height after four years.

The density almost doubled one year. 

So the number of individual plants there doubled 

almost one year post-harvest.
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And that was because it left behind the 

juveniles and they had the opportunity to grow up 

because they no longer had the adults shading them. 

So there was quite a big recovery in terms of number 

of individuals.

But that had the impact of actually 

decreasing the amount of juveniles then that were 

left behind on the bottom.

So that means if you were to go back 

and harvest again you're not going to have that 

regrowth happening because those juveniles are not 

there. Well, there's only 30 percent of what had 

originally been there after four years.

So even after four years length of time 

the reproduction of those kelps was not sufficient 

to restock that understory.

And the plant age decreased from 10 

years old to 6 years old. And that was because 

obviously all these young plants were growing up.

And you can see that in the photos. 

You can see the change in age based on the rings 

because they're like trees. You can count their 
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

age by looking at the tree rings of the growth.

And then the mass of the individuals 

was 50 percent lower than the initial mass of the 

bed even four years after harvest.

So even though these plants are 

recovering and you have a huge increase in density 

they're not actually as heavy or as large as the 

original plants were.

There was also a 65 percent decline in 

the epiphyte weight. So they were measuring the 

amount of organisms that were colonizing these 

blades and that was still 65 percent less four years 

after harvest. So it's taking a long time for these 

species to come back and recover and recolonize 

this area.

Even though the canopy biomass when you 

looked at it at a bed scale, the canopy biomass 

was similar pre-harvest to four years post-harvest. 

But all of these other changes in structure were 

happening.

They did look at one other species which 

was sea urchins and there was no effect on their 
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

abundance. But they didn't look at any of the other 

invertebrates or fish species associated with these 

ecosystems. So that's one piece that is missing, 

to see how they would be affected.

So, one of the things that we were --

as we were working through we were thinking about 

the questions that you had asked us, and thinking 

about the best approaches to take with respect to 

seaweeds on kind of a broad scale.

One of the key pieces of information 

that's really needed is baseline biomass 

assessments to be able to manage the natural 

resource.

We would recommend minimum cutting 

heights and minimal holdfast removal. And methods 

of harvest should be the most efficient at meeting 

whatever those minimum cutting heights are or 

holdfast requirements are.

So essentially if you want to keep the 

holdfast in place you don't want to be doing any 

trawling, for example.

And also minimize bottom disturbance 
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

which would again limit the trawling option.

We also would recommend conservative 

quotas on the amount of biomass that's removed 

within a bed. And this needs to be based on 

evidence of impact. And we'll talk a bit more about 

that in a moment.

And it may require specific guidelines 

for particular guilds. So again looking at

coralline algae versus canopy species.

You're probably going to have to -- it's 

not going to be enough to say it's going to be 17 

percent removal for all species of algae.

It's going to have to be divided into 

the different kinds of algae that are there, that 

are being harvested.

DR. PRICE: So, Dr. Ugarte went over 

some standing stock assessment methods. And I just 

want to review again quickly because I see that 

we're over time some of the newer methods that are 

getting developed that are really interesting.

So there's the field-based biomass 

measurements that are the bread and butter. There 
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are potential uses of environmental DNA. So you 

can take a water sample over a bed and from the 

gene copy number in that water sample determine 

the biomass of the species that's present in that 

area.

These methods are really new and still 

need to be validated, but they're exciting.

And then there are remote sensing 

abilities for canopy-forming species, intertidal 

species and subtidal species.

So there's a paper that just came out 

this year that goes through kind of a decision tree 

of when you might want to use one of these types 

of remote sensing, be they acoustic or optics to 

survey for biomass.

But I wanted to mention in addition to 

this graphic there's also hyperspectral which is 

another level above multispectral imagery that can 

potentially give you information not only about 

the biomass of particular species in a system, but 

what reproductive state they're in and also maybe 

some information about their relative productivity 
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

level.

So there are new tools out there that 

can help achieve these management goals.

So, for some of the ecobased management 

ideas that we reviewed in our review of the primary 

literature and agree on is that maintenance of 

closed areas is instrumental for baseline 

assessments of functions and services, that 

seasonal closures are important for algal growth 

and reproduction as well as reproduction or other 

processes of dependent species, that fallow periods 

allow recovery of biomass, 3D structure and other 

ecosystem services like carbon capture.

Spatial management should be practiced 

to facilitate connectivity. By that we mean that 

this sector-based management approach is a great 

way to ensure that certain areas are not 

over-harvested, and that there are like hopping 

islands ways for individual species to transport 

and be distributed among those different beds or 

forests.

And we really wanted to stress that it's 
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

important to note that there are U.S. wild harvest 

companies that self-regulate and follow these 

management practices voluntarily.

So to some degree it's also beholden 

to the purchaser of those products to understand 

from whom they are buying and what practices those 

companies follow.

And we will stop there, but we do have 

short answers to each of the questions that the 

panel has asked that we could review as needed. 

Thank you.

(Applause)

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, thank you. Yes, 

that's excellent.

Okay, so we have time for questions. 

I know I took quite a few notes, from the board 

for our panelists.

Emily, I'm not surprised.

MS. OAKLEY: Well, I have a lot of 

questions obviously some of which I'll probably 

have to ask at lunch with some of you guys.

But I'll wait to ask some of my 
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

questions. I wanted to just give everybody a 

chance if they're not too bashful to jump in first.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: I was -- often the case 

studies or examples that you would lift up were 

species specific, one species.

In reading through the material that 

we've been reviewing over the last year I have often 

wondered if you look out into a forest, a 

terrestrial forest you would see many species.

The photograph that Raul showed of the 

rockweed did look like close to a monoculture. 

I don't know.

So, to what extent when you're 

harvesting Laminaria or Ascophyllum are we 

harvesting a monoculture, or we're harvesting a 

diverse community of species?

A lot of your pen and ink illustrations 

tended to show a community that's diverse with many 

species.

DR. UGARTE: Well, the difference 

between tropical and temperate areas is that 
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

seaweed in temperate areas tend to form 

monocultures. That's why you have this harvesting 

activity, because you have a lot of biomass of a 

single species there.

Now, there is no question that there 

are other species living there as we all recognize.

So the point here is how you harvest, 

how much you harvest and what effect you exert on 

those organisms that are there.

So, the point is whether that impact 

is acceptable or not. This is the question.

But normally companies harvest as a 

monoculture because this is what you have there. 

Ninety something percent of the biomass is just 

the pure species that is there in terms of seaweed.

DR. SCHMIDT: So you also have -- so 

what you normally see, so like the photo that he 

showed with the rockweed bed is you see the dominant 

species which is rockweed.

But you do have understory species. 

And that's the same with kelp. You'll have a 

dominant species of kelp that is the main 
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

structure-forming part, and then you have 

understory species that are lesser -- well, either 

smaller or they grow up afterwards, or they're 

adapted to live as understory species.

So when we look at a larger scale you 

don't necessarily see all of those details even 

though in the pen and ink drawings it emphasizes 

a little bit more that there's more structure than 

just the one species.

DR. PRICE: I would say to follow up 

too you brought up the tropical species and the 

diversity in tropical systems.

When I first read over this report and 

noticed that dictyosphaeria cavernosa was among 

the wild harvested species for fertilizer I was 

shocked because I collect that species for 

experiments.

It's really hard to get at and it's 

sparse unless it's undergone a bloom. In that case 

you also have a monoculture mat of a singular 

species that is easier to harvest.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve. Anyone else 
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

raising hands? Asa, okay.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I guess one of the --

from public comments and previous things. I'm 

certainly not a marine expert coming from Colorado, 

but it strikes me that Maine, Canada, Nova Scotia, 

I mean that the harvest standards are -- I mean 

there's a lot of time and work that's gone into 

that. Regulated, monitored.

One of the big concerns I have as a 

farmer who buys occasionally seaweed products is 

that while that area is well regulated. We get 

these products from around the world.

And I think that's something this board 

has to deal with to not ignore that one highly 

regulated area or really well done area that we 

say oh good, we don't have a problem, when worldwide 

we may have a huge problem.

And so I'm very curious, I mean and 

certainly the wild harvest standards are one way 

of addressing that. We've got a lot of feedback 

that probably the industry doesn't want that.

But if we don't have that how do we 
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

address international equivalencies and standards 

in terms of really protecting what are very valuable 

resources?

DR. SCHMIDT: One of the 

recommendations that I saw in a recent paper that 

was just published about ecosystem-based 

management of wild seaweed harvesting would be to 

use the Marine, what is it, the MAC.

It's -- sorry, I didn't get the acronym. 

But there's an international -- the MSC. So they 

actually certify fish as sustainably harvested.

So it's an international standard 

that's created for fish, but they've also now moved 

into seaweed and seaweed harvesting to try to 

certify those.

So that would potentially be one avenue 

is to look at getting international products 

certified by the MSC standards for seaweed 

harvesting and seaweed aquiculture. That could 

be one route.

DR. PRICE: The ASC and MSC released 

a joint set of standards for both aquiculture and 
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

wild harvested seaweed species.

DR. UGARTE: That's correct. That 

organization is just starting the certification 

of seaweed.

And we totally agree with that kind of 

approach to certify products. Indeed our company 

is implementing the same approach that we have in 

Canada in every country that we go, in Ireland and 

in Scotland. 

So we have exactly the same area-based 

management, implementation rates and other kind 

of regulation. 

CHAIR BEHAR: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: I had a question for 

Chris. I'm curious how you establish the buffers 

for the -- I think that was a wild crop criteria.

And then you mentioned you require 

testing. And I wasn't quite clear if that was if 

it was less than the buffer, or in general.

And I'm curious about what has been 

tested for and has there ever been a level of concern 

for any of the things that have been tested for 
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

contaminants.

MR. GRIGSBY: So your first question 

about the buffer establishments. So we, OCIA had 

already developed those I think through work with 

a fellow named Shep Erhart who owns Maine Coast 

Sea Vegetables in Hancock, Maine. 

And I think that that work had begun 

maybe in the nineties.

And so we just sort of felt like that 

was sort of the best thing that we could see.

And there was already -- it was in place 

and it was already -- Maine Coast Sea Vegetables 

is certified by OCIA and so we just sort of took 

that as really the best point that we had.

And we do apply those same buffer 

setbacks also to cultivated. So line-grown kelp 

and things like that. And so we utilize the same 

buffer setbacks for cultivated as well as wild.

And in terms of the testing, again a 

lot of times it's industry led. The industry and 

certain companies will sort of do their own testing 

for heavy metals and other pollutants and things 
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of that nature.

So we really sort of stick with the 

pesticide residue through our random sampling. 

We include seaweed in that program. 

So we haven't -- up to this point to 

my knowledge we have not had any issues where there 

were concerns kind of around the buffers, although 

we do get pushback from time to time from harvesters 

around the sort of scenario of you're telling me 

that if I'm harvesting 20 feet inside the buffer 

zone it's not certifiable, but 20 feet outside it 

is.

So again I think lack of clarity around 

that in terms of the requirements is an issue.

MR. BRADMAN: Does the testing ever 

include like anti-fouling agents that are used on 

ships or boats?

MR. GRIGSBY: Not at this point, no. 

No. Part of the organic system plan is sort of 

the post-harvest handling component. And so I 

think that in most cases we don't feel there is 

a risk to sort of boat contaminations and things 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

like that.

Like a lot of people will use methods 

to separate the harvested product from the 

components of the boat specifically.

MR. BRADMAN: Thanks.

DR. PRICE: If I could jump in on that 

question. Sometimes people do test for copper in 

the tissue of seaweed which would be indicative 

of anti-fouling. Paints and things.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. I just want to 

jump in because it kind of follows a little bit.

Is it too difficult or not an issue to 

kind of track the usual ocean currents? Because 

three miles away, I know that there are some areas 

that would get infiltration more than others. Or 

is that just too difficult to track? In the 

certification when you're saying a certain buffer 

size.

MR. GRIGSBY: Yes, I would say there's 

difficulty there. 

I think for the most part the harvesters 

are just kind of maintaining -- they're not really 
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

pushing up against sort of those buffers. 

A lot of times they will just factor 

that in to their harvesting scenarios.

And I'd also add too that the Department 

of Environmental Protection and Marine Resources, 

there are websites available to the harvesters and 

for the most part in a lot of the responses to the 

monitoring questions that we ask folks will utilize 

that and check that on a sometimes daily or weekly 

basis where there are reports of spills, or other 

potential closures and things like that that may 

occur throughout the harvest season.

DR. PRICE: Yes, it's really expensive 

and difficult to model accurately ocean 

circulation.

There will be places along the 

coastline where researchers have invested lots of 

time and equipment in building really well 

validated models.

But there are more areas that do not 

have that kind of modeling available than there 

are areas that do.
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So perhaps over time that kind of 

information may be more accessible, but it's very 

difficult.

CHAIR BEHAR: I'm just going to ask 

because I know you have a long list so I'm not going 

to do my long list.

When you say that harvesters have a 

handshake agreement between who harvests what area. 

Especially if we have a voluntary 

aspect where one harvests and then nobody comes 

back in for whatever, six months or a year.

If it's just a handshake, or you have 

some rogue person out there who's not paying 

attention. How are we really monitoring that those 

areas are allowed to regrow? In the time frame 

that we're considering to be regenerative and 

sustainable.

DR. UGARTE: I think you're referring 

to areas that are not under management. All our 

areas in Canada are under management, and the areas 

that we harvest in Maine as well. So there is no 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

handshake in the harvest. We tell the harvester 

where to go.

Now, there are situations -- until 

recently the resource in Maine belonged to the state 

of Maine. 

And now after the court case the 

resource belong to private owners.

It's much more difficult, the 

management now, because before we were dealing with 

sector. Now we have to deal with individual 

owners.

We ask permission. We talk to them, 

a permission. They say yes, you can harvest here.

We are applying exactly the same 

approach in each one of the small parts now -- it's 

complicated, but we are doing that right now because 

it's the only way to continue harvesting in those 

areas that we have been authorized.

And they are a very small unit. So we 

have to be very careful what we do there.

CHAIR BEHAR: And my last question kind 

of follows up, but it has another issue.
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

If we look at doing an annotation how 

do we address the so many different seaweeds and 

the different unique needs of them including 

different regions that they're grown and harvested 

in an annotation that isn't as long as our current 

regulation?

MR. GRIGSBY: Well, I think that there 

would need to be additional guidance offered as 

well in addition to the annotation.

I think that you hit on the point of 

the difficulty of this specifically. Yes. I 

think that annotations have worked for other 

portions of the National List, some effectively, 

some not so much in terms of still leaving a gap 

in terms of consistency and interpretation.

So yes, I guess it's that do you require 

certification and set the precedent, or do you work 

with the National List and work with the annotation 

system.

And I wanted to just loop back if I can 

to your previous question. Raul mentioned in 

Canada and in Maine, at least in Cobscook Bay there 
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is a management plan where the Department of Marine 

Resources issues lease areas that are specific to 

that harvester.

But the rest of the coast of Maine is 

not under that same management. And so that's what 

I was referring to with sort of the handshake 

agreements.

And I would also mention just sort of 

winter storms and ice scouring as well can also 

be in effect.

And so it is difficult to point blame 

on who did what. The Department of Marine 

Resources, they do receive complaints that they 

will follow up and investigate on as part of their 

jurisdiction in terms of somebody else potentially 

harvesting in an area that had been managed by a 

harvester for some time.

I mean, in a lot of cases some of these 

harvesters have been harvesting in these areas for 

30-40 years.

CHAIR BEHAR: Great. I'll turn it 

over to Emily now.
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SCHMIDT: Can I actually jump in 

on answering that question as well?

So one of the thoughts that Nichole and 

I had discussed around -- I think it kind of comes 

back to this idea of definition of kind of what 

does sustain mean and how would that look.

What we had talked about was looking 

at if you could define it as sustaining the biomass 

that would probably be broad enough to cover 

whatever species is being harvested.

I'm assuming not all of the species are 

being harvested here in the United States, right. 

They're probably not harvesting 75 different 

species or whatever the list was.

And then as -- you could talk about 

biomass because that is a good metric for 

understanding the abundance of other dependent 

organisms.

So if you have a high biomass you're 

likely going to have a high abundance of other 

dependent organisms. 

So it is a good way of kind of saying 
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

hey, this is representative of the ecosystem.

And then you could specify -- I don't 

exactly know how the government structure works 

here in terms of the regulations and everything, 

but you could then create rules for the different 

groups or different species similar to what we've 

done in Atlantic Canada where in New Brunswick they 

have one set of rules and then in Nova Scotia they 

have a different set of rules, but they all kind 

of are under the one umbrella legislation of the 

federal government.

So that could be one way of approaching 

that. 

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you, Harriet. And 

thank you guys to all of you for taking the time 

out of your busy lives to present to us on this 

really complicated and controversial topic.

So I have a question for each of you. 

And you actually just touched on my last question, 

but I'll come back to that issue of how do you create 

guidelines that could be effective across species 
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and geographic regions.

So my first question is for Raul. 

We've heard a lot about ice scouring specifically 

with Ascophyllum nodosum as an example of the 

species being removed. 

But isn't that a natural ecological 

process that's occurring as opposed to something 

that is human intervention in terms of harvesting?

Is it really fair to use that example, 

I guess, in terms of removal and the impact that 

it has on the ecosystem?

DR. UGARTE: I don't know if I can 

answer your question well. Is ice occurring, ice 

damage.

MS. OAKLEY: People are saying well, 

we're already getting removal of rockweed from 

natural events.

DR. UGARTE: Okay. So you think that 

it could be a community effect?

MS. OAKLEY: That's my question. 

Because that's a natural process. Rockweed 

developed and evolved in concert with those weather 
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

events although of course they are changing as --

DR. UGARTE: That is a good question 

indeed, whether this is a community effect or not.

But we have shown here that we don't 

make changes in the structure of the resource. 

Even though the harvest has been going on for 64 

years.

Those events happen all the time. But 

Mother Nature recovers the resource quite quickly. 

I mean, I show you that in six years after the 

total devastation there is a recovery there.

Now, the key in the harvest, in the 

management is just to operate under the level of 

natural variation.

And you have to consider ice damage as 

a part of natural variation.

So what happens in those areas that have 

been scoured. We basically close the areas until 

they recover totally. So you reduce your harvest.

So you work with those events. That 

way you need very extensive monitoring along the 

shore.
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

You have to make sure that you are not 

over harvesting because the biomass was depleted 

by a storm or by ice damage. This is key in the 

monitoring and the level of sampling.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. So just a 

quick follow-up for you too then.

You were talking about biomass as a 

measure of recovery. And I know that Allison and 

Nichole talked on this too.

But you just sort of approached this. 

Is biomass sufficient to measure recovery in terms 

of other dependent species that rely on the seaweed 

that you're harvesting?

And so I was wondering if you could 

speak to that a little bit in terms of --

DR. UGARTE: Yes, of course. That's 

not the only parameter. We already show that we 

measure length plant and also the density. 

And we have shown that those -- with 

the harvest as we do it there, that depravation 

rate you don't produce changes in length or biomass.

I have heard a lot that the management 
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in Canada is only focused on biomass. That's not 

true. 

The system as it's practiced considers 

also plant length and plant density. And we have 

shown that we haven't changed in years those 

parameters.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

DR. PRICE: If we could jump in 

quickly.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

DR. PRICE: Allison and I had this 

debate even over breakfast this morning. And one 

other thing if we had gotten through all the slides 

we would recommend is also an intermittent sampling 

of architecture which is what Raul is hinting at 

there.

But I would point out that even some 

of these remote sensing options that we talked 

about, some of the optical ones, you can develop 

algorithms to look for architecture from those 

processes as well.

So I guess my point is that there are 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on the ground methods, or even aerial methods to 

maybe reduce expense and effort that could get you 

these data.

DR. UGARTE: I would like to add a 

little bit more. That is a very good idea indeed 

and we are starting to do that already.

So we are using LiDAR in drones. So 

we are developing that kind of pattern that you 

have along the shore in terms of habitat 

degradation. So if you want to talk to us we are 

pleased to talk to you about it.

MS. OAKLEY: So this is a question for 

Chris. Oh sorry, Allison, were you going to say 

something?

DR. SCHMIDT: I was. I was just going 

to say that the importance of also monitoring the 

architecture is because -- so the abundance of 

species, associated species can be linked to the 

biomass of the resource. But the diversity and 

composition of the community is linked to the 

architecture.

So they are two important pieces to 
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

monitor and that's why Nichole and I would recommend 

monitoring both. 

But the architecture I think could be 

monitored maybe more intermittently than the 

biomass. I think that would be something that 

would have to be monitored quite regularly to make 

sure that that's being -- that it's being accounted 

for.

CHAIR BEHAR: Just to give you a time 

check we have about 10 minutes left. And Steve 

wants to ask a question.

MS. OAKLEY: Okay. They'll be super 

sort of quick. I only asked sort of one.

All right. So this is a question for 

Chris because we've grappled with ways that we might 

try to address any potential environmental impact 

of harvesting seaweed and looked at as everyone 

knows certification and annotation, as has been 

suggested by some the possibility of adopting third 

party standards.

But I don't think we really have the 

regulatory authority to require something like 
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that.

And an annotation has come up by quite 

a few. But this is the same question I asked on 

the webinar.

I don't understand who would monitor 

and enforce an annotation which is what has brought 

us constantly back to certification because it's 

the tool that we have at our disposal that we know 

someone will actually go out on the boats at least 

once a year, will speak with the harvester, will 

look at their management plan.

Whereas an annotation, I don't know who 

would do that. Do you have any thoughts on that?

MR. GRIGSBY: Not specifically, 

unfortunately. I think that that is a similar 

challenge that we've in our discussions at MOFGA 

have come to as well is just that there -- the 

enforcement mechanism for that I think is a 

challenge.

I think that fortunately with the 

industry and the companies that we deal with 

directly there does seem to be a lot of voluntary 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

management approaches.

But I think that the question that Steve 

asked earlier about the worldwide harvesting 

components. I mean that is a question for us as 

well.

I think we feel pretty good about at 

least the oversight in Maine both voluntary as well 

as from the governmental agencies.

Yes, I think that that is a very large 

question just given the amount that's harvested 

annually worldwide compared to what is harvested 

in Maine and even eastern Canada I think pales in 

comparison.

So I guess I don't know how that would 

be approached on a worldwide global level.

MS. OAKLEY: Okay. I'll just do one 

more question. So this is for both Nichole and 

Allison.

So we've heard some comments saying 

that we are putting the cart before us. For 

example, that we're assuming that by harvesting 

seaweed there is an environmental impact.
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And my response to that has been that 

yes, if you remove a wild native species from a 

wild native ecosystem especially in large 

quantities there will be an impact just as -- it 

doesn't matter what the ecosystem is. It will have 

an impact.

And our role here is to determine what 

is that impact and how can we mitigate against 

negative impacts in keeping with our standards.

So, my question for you is do you think 

that if we were to ask the National Organic Program 

to develop a task force of scientists that we could 

come up with guidance either species-specific, 

maybe triaging those at first that are most widely 

used, and then moving from there that would be 

meaningful and that would allow for assessment that 

we are following the standards of limited 

environmental impact.

DR. PRICE: It's a great question and 

the study that Chris mentioned earlier that's 

already happening in Maine that looks at harvested 

and unharvested areas and control spots in 
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

replication along the whole coastline is an example 

of such a task force program that could allow you 

to generate some generalizable impacts.

But we do agree that it needs to be a 

species-specific assessment. And at the very 

least we need to understand biomass assessments 

for these resources because we don't know if what 

is being removed is the equivalent of taking an 

ice cube out of the Arctic region, or is it the 

total deforestation that you can see in the Amazon. 

What scale are we talking about here in terms of 

removal? We have to know the answer to that 

question.

DR. SCHMIDT: I also think that if you 

were to create a task force that would look at the 

species by species basis, that that would be a good 

approach to really try to understand what's out 

there already like she was saying in terms of 

biomass so that then we could or you could prevent 

the serial depletion of resources that we tend to 

see in scenarios where we don't have enough 

information about the resource and then just go 
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

out and harvest it anyway.

So I think that that would be a good 

idea to do that on a species by species basis. 

Like you said maybe start with the ones that are 

most harvested and then go from there.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I was struck by your 

data on aquiculture production of brown algae. 

Where you said 18 times greater than wild harvest.

Most of our questions have dealt with 

the wild harvest. But I mean where you said you 

think wild harvest may be less than 1 percent in 

10 years.

Certainly we know with aquiculture of 

farmed salmon and some of these other species we 

potentially see some very deleterious 

environmental effects.

And so I would very much like to hear 

-- I mean if it's going to be almost the whole 

harvest maybe we're chasing down the wrong road 

here with talking about wild harvest.

I'm totally unfamiliar with 
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

aquiculture of seaweeds. Is it positive? Is it 

negative? Can you give some sense of what that 

means?

DR. PRICE: I can share with the panel 

a tech memo that I was a co-author on that we 

submitted to NOAA that is entitled something like 

Ecosystem Services of Seaweed Aquiculture. 

That runs through one by one the 

positive and negative ecosystem impacts of seaweed 

aquiculture in tropical and temperate ecosystems.

But that is a large discussion. I'm 

not sure that we can answer all of those questions 

in the time remaining.

There are both to be experienced from 

seaweed aquiculture and on the balance it may be

more positive than negative.

DR. UGARTE: Can I add a little bit 

about that?

Yes, aquiculture is an alternative, no 

question about that, for growing seaweed.

But there are seaweeds that you cannot 

grow in aquiculture and that is Ascophyllum.
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Ascophyllum, the properties that you 

get from that seaweed and use on the crops, it's 

because Ascophyllum is exposed to the intertidal, 

all these environments.

Due to the stresses Ascophyllum 

suffered, what creates the compound to allow the 

seaweed to defend itself from those stressors.

So you are not going to get that growing 

Ascophyllum as an aquiculture, in aquiculture 

system. That's impossible.

So you're going to lose the seaweed if 

you only go to an aquiculture approach.

And I would like also to mention if you 

have seen in the aquiculture within China I would 

like you to see in a photograph the impact that 

producing in -- because it had to be cultivated 

in shallow areas.

So I would like to see what is your 

opinion of the lobster harvesters on occupying 

those areas.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I appreciate -- I mean 

that was part of my follow-up question. I mean 
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

would say that we as a board need to -- should we 

be focusing more on the aquiculture?

I mean, you just said here's a species 

that aquiculture isn't really going to -- it's not 

going to be the same.

I mean, I'd say we would focus most of 

our attention on wild harvest and I wonder if we're 

just -- we need to be really focusing more attention 

on the aquiculture standards.

Do you have thoughts of which way --

I mean, given limited time, limited resources, 

limited brain power where do we -- where we put 

our time?

DR. PRICE: I would say that the price 

point required to keep aquiculture practices 

salient or solvent is higher than what folks are 

willing to pay now for a fertilizer product.

And we are not there yet where 

aquiculture species would be sold for fertilizer. 

It may be a byproduct of leftover parts, but for 

now that is an expensive product that is sold for 

human consumption for the most part.
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SCHMIDT: I would agree. I think 

just based on what Raul said in terms of some species 

can't be aquicultured, I think that there will --

even though wild harvest will only become 1 percent 

that just probably means that aquiculture itself 

has grown so much.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the 

wild harvest itself will decline that much.

I think there will always be space for 

a wild harvest so I think that that needs to still 

be considered.

CHAIR BEHAR: I have one quick question 

and then I go back to Emily. We have lunch coming 

up.

When you were talking about the free 

floating algae bloom and you were saying this is 

the new normal.

Is this like an effect of climate 

change? Is there actually a harvest of seaweed 

that could do something to mitigate the negative 

aspects and maybe seaweed could be a way to bring 

more balance to the marine environment, seaweed 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

harvest? Can you speak to that?

DR. PRICE: I'll give my spiel, but I 

know that Allison has some examples too.

I think there's potential for that, 

yes. There's a study that came out I think last 

year from the UK looking at deep water reservoirs 

of carbon and using that same environmental DNA 

process I described and discovered that those 

systems are subsidized to a much larger degree than 

was previously expected by detritus of macroalgae.

And so there's a precedent for burying 

carbon in the form of kind of spent or senescent 

algae in deep water systems.

And removal of carbon and nitrogen 

phosphorus bound in those seaweeds to terrestrial 

systems, while that does not change the global 

carbon cycle it does remove that carbon from that 

space of water in that time.

So there's a couple of mitigation 

opportunities that might be interesting to 

consider.

DR. SCHMIDT: So from what I understand 
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the reason why there's the big macroalgal bloom 

is sadly because of the deforestation of the Amazon 

rainforest and all of the nutrients from the farming 

and the deforestation running into the ocean. 

And that has caused the massive bloom 

that has been starting, has happened since 2011.

It's a huge problem for tourism in the 

Caribbean, a massive problem. So there could be 

potential opportunity there to harvest some of 

those free floating seaweeds for production as 

fertilizer.

But I don't think that there has been 

anyone who has taken up on that opportunity as of 

yet.

I know that Mexico right now is just 

essentially trying to figure out what the heck 

they're going to do with it and building ATV parks 

with it.

There's definitely opportunity there 

for someone who has the equipment to do it.

DR. UGARTE: I can add a little bit 

because we have been approached by those countries 
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

there on how to utilize the seaweed.

One of the problems that you have with 

this kind of situation is that the industry requires 

constant supply. You cannot just get all the 

biomass at once that happens with this bloom.

So you cannot handle that amount of 

biomass at the ride to the shore because it 

decompose very quickly. So this is a big challenge 

for utilizing that resource that is fantastic, but 

it's difficult to handle.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily, would you like to 

wrap it up?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes. So, I was just going 

to say yes, we are at time, but I know that Allison 

and Nichole, I just want to make it clear for the 

audience didn't meet until this morning but 

graciously agreed to work together via Google Docs 

I think to put their presentation together so that 

there was an overlap. And so met through this 

process.

And you didn't get to finish your final 

slides of recommendations which are sort of a huge 
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

key part of why we wanted to hear from you.

So I just wanted to confirm with 

Michelle that those will eventually be up on the 

website. And so stakeholders and certainly the 

board can go look at those to get more details about 

what you have recommended. And we will be doing 

that.

So thank you guys so much for taking 

your time and sharing your expertise and traveling 

from very far.

It is a huge commitment to volunteer 

time that you gave us and I am extremely grateful 

for it. So thank you very much.

(Applause)

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Okay, we 

will recess now and still come back at 1:30 p.m. 

for lunch.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 12:07 p.m. and resumed at 

1:33 p.m.)

CHAIR BEHAR: So we are going to move 

now to the public comment portion of this meeting.
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Public input is an essential part of 

the NOSB decision-making process. And be assured 

if you can't tell already that we do listen and 

depend on your ideas and suggestions.

Before I move on to public comment I 

have some ground rules and information.

The National Organic Standards Board 

conflict of interest policy can be found in our 

policy and procedures manual.

Prior to this meeting and every public 

meeting a spreadsheet of all the proposals and 

discussion documents is distributed to the board 

members.

They are then asked to declare any 

conflicts of interest in writing to the NOP. At 

this time no conflicts of interest were disclosed 

and in the interest of public transparency I ask 

now if any of the board members have any conflicts 

of interest on any of the items that are up for 

vote or discussion at this meeting.

Seeing none we will move on now. This 

conflict of interest policy covers the entire 
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

meeting and we will not ask that information again 

before each subcommittee discussion.

We have already held two public comment 

sessions in webinar conference calls typed format 

for the fall 2019 meeting.

All persons wishing to provide public 

comment sign up prior to the meeting and speaking 

slots are assigned on a first come basis.

When we hit our limit we put people on 

a wait list in case there are cancellations.

Comments are limited to one per person 

for each NOSB meeting. So if you spoke on the 

webinar then you cannot speak in person here.

We'll take as many written comments as 

you want to give us and sometimes we do get buried.

Proxies are not allowed. If we call 

your name and you're not in the room we'll try to 

come back to you if time allows.

We're going to try to have everyone 

who's on the schedule for today speak today to be 

respectful of your travel schedules.

We may end up cutting into some breaks 
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

or go a little bit late if we run long.

For board members and members of the 

public if you have to talk to someone next to you 

please take that conversation outside.

Everyone, board members and the public, 

please silence your cell phones and your computers 

now so that we can clearly hear the speakers who 

are providing comment without distractions.

You are allowed to take photos, but 

please do it in a way that does not disturb the 

speaker or the board and stay behind the table and 

the tapes there.

Each speaker has three minutes and 

there is a three-color timer up on the podium. 

It starts green when you start to speak, and then 

it goes to yellow when you have one minute left, 

and then to red when you're done.

There's also a clock in front of you 

that's a countdown clock. When the red light comes 

on and the beep starts you can finish that sentence, 

but please refrain from taking more time from that.

We have many speakers to listen to and 
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

only a limited amount of time.

We ask that commenters start with their 

name and their affiliation at the beginning of their 

public comment.

If a board member has a question about 

the affiliation of a speaker please hold that 

question until the end of the speaker's comment.

Once the commenter has completed their 

three minutes I will then ask the board members 

if they have questions for that individual speaker.

Individuals providing public comment 

to the board are asked to refrain from public 

attacks that might impugn the character of any 

individual.

If I hear that type of speech I will 

interrupt you and ask you to refrain from that 

activity.

If you have PowerPoints to provide to 

Michelle please get them to her before your turn 

at the podium, like a long time before your turn 

at the podium.

And also please adjust the microphone 
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to your height and speak directly into it so we 

can all hear you.

I will call on the person who is to speak 

and then I will announce who's on deck. The on 

deck person will sit next to Michelle and please 

feel free to take one of the butterflies on the 

table and actually even during break you can go 

get your butterfly.

And there's some ribbon there and a 

scissors. So if you want to hang it around your 

neck you can do that too.

Okay. And Michelle, do you have 

anything to add to that?

MS. ARSENAULT: Just in case anyone 

notices this little microphone that's on the 

podium, that belongs to the transcriptionist. So 

you are being recorded by the transcriptionist. 

So don't worry about that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So first up is 

Jackie DeMinter with Aimee Simpson on deck. Your 

name and affiliation, please. Even though I know 

it.
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. DEMINTER: Good afternoon. My 

name is Jackie DeMinter, certification policy 

manager at MOSA. 

We certify about 2,150 organic 

operations throughout the United States. I will 

be commenting on vaccines, paper pots and embryo 

transfer.

But first let me thank you for your 

service and hard work. All of us in this room are 

on the same team with the same overarching goals 

and MOSA appreciates the work you do to strengthen 

the organic standards and uphold the seal we can 

all trust.

We also appreciate the work of the NOP, 

most recently with their Organic Dairy Compliance 

Learning Center course, but also for the move 

forward with the origin of livestock regulation

though we'd hoped for a final rule.

The dairy compliance course is 

exceptionally well done and articulate and it 

clears up a question we've heard among certifiers.

Can allowed temporary confinement 
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

reduce days grazed below 120 days. The NOP's 

answer is resoundingly clear throughout the course. 

No. One hundred twenty days grazed on pasture 

is the regulatory minimum.

Thank you from all of the dairies MOSA 

certifies and from our staff for this absolute 

clarity. 

I'll take a moment to summarize some 

of the key points that Dr. Tucker makes in her 

presentation. 

Lesson two gives the clarification that 

120 is not the target, it's the minimum. Declaring 

a selected 120 days is the pasture season is not 

compliant. 

Temporary confinement does not affect 

the grazing season.

In lesson three the NOP said the NOP 

expects that certifiers are enforcing 120 days 

grazing on pasture as an absolute minimum for 

ruminant livestock.

And if an operation is dropping below 

120 days due to temporary confinement then the 
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

certifier should issue a notice of non-compliance.

An operation with a grazing season of 

120 days that removes cattle from pasture due to 

inclement weather for 3 days is not compliant since 

the regulatory minimum for grazing was not 

maintained, even though the reason for confinement 

is permissible.

The NOP makes it clear that for no 

reason may operations drop below 120 days. Thank 

you.

Moving onto NOSB documents. Vaccines. 

We encourage the NOSB to give the NOP a final 

recommendation with a full set of resources for 

the recommended review process including a sample 

organic search form and a form for documenting GMO 

status.

Paper pots. We continue to support the 

listing of paper for use as a plant production aid.

Please recommend listing with review 

criteria that is attainable for the products on 

the market.

Certifiers can use some common sense 
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

when it comes to approval of paper that is entirely 

made of synthetic fibers as you've discussed.

We have not had this concern during 

review of any paper product we've looked at.

And last, we agree that embryo transfer 

is not an excluded method and that hormones should 

not be used with the recipient organic animal.

Again, thank you for your work and the 

opportunity to comment. I am happy to answer any 

questions you have.

CHAIR BEHAR: Jackie, I have struggled 

with the embryo transfer as far as not having 

hormones in the donor animal. 

And I understand that the rule that we 

refer to is organic from last third of gestation. 

And of course that donor animal would have been 

providing that embryo way before that last third 

of gestation.

But there are some epigenetic effects 

meaning that there can be some negative impacts 

on the offspring that have come from those hormones 

that cause super-ovulation in the donor animal.
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I just wondered if you had discussed 

any of that and if that affected your 

decision-making at all.

MS. DEMINTER: No, we have not 

discussed that and I don't know that it would affect 

our decision-making at all because of the last third 

of gestation.

And we can see embryo transfer in beef 

herds just the same today and it would be completely 

allowed. And there wouldn't be that regulatory 

requirement.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I have -- on the paper 

pots comment. Obviously we got to this situation 

because of some sort of fiber inconsistencies, and 

then you just stated that you think certifiers could 

easily see the difference between a synthetic paper 

pot with lots of synthetics versus not.

That confuses me a little bit. At what 

point do we cross too much synthetic fiber in a 

paper pot? Because they definitely have some. 

And we are very -- obviously by our questions we're 
201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not wanting to make an annotation that is like the 

biodegradable mulch, yet we also don't -- we know 

there are fully synthetic pots out there depending 

on the manufacturer.

So we're trying to get feedback where 

is that line.

MS. DEMINTER: My comment is referring 

to Harriet's discussion on the webinar comments 

about the 100 percent synthetic fiber-based paper 

pots.

I definitely think that we see the 

majority of the -- all products that we've looked 

at are primarily paper and the synthetic fibers 

are such a minute content.

I don't have an opinion on how much 

synthetic fiber should be allowed, but I would like 

to see a recommendation that would enable the 

products that are currently on the market and being 

used by our organic certified operations to 

continue to be used.

That is what I would base as like the 

goal. Whether or not there are 100 percent 
202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

synthetic fibers in the pots is kind of confusing 

because cellulose itself isn't necessarily 

natural. 

So when you say synthetic paper, paper 

is synthetic. 

If we were to see non-biodegradable 

pots that were claiming to be paper I think we'd 

be able to determine that pretty quickly.

We want to see paper. That's 

ultimately what we are looking for.

VICE CHAIR ELA: So I guess my concern 

is that in the age where we're talking a lot about

microplastics and the environment, and these fibers 

probably -- if they are non-biodegradable would 

probably fall in that category because the paper 

would fall apart and you'd have this little teeny 

plastic fiber potentially.

I mean I think that's where my head at 

least coming back to biodegradable standards that 

they at least have to be biodegradable if they're 

a non-paper fiber.

And certainly the Ellipot people are 
203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

saying that cellulose-based synthetic fibers which 

are not paper but come from cellulose, that that's 

kind of important to them.

So we're just trying to wrestle with 

that. The discussion document was really to get 

feedback from the stakeholder community of what 

-- where our comfort level is. Thank you.

MS. DEMINTER: Definitely leave it to 

those manufacturers to discuss the 

biodegradability of their products. 

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Jackie. Oh, 

sorry. Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: So Jackie, on your other 

one on vaccines it seemed like your hesitation was 

that we didn't give you the tools and the resources 

for verification in this document.

Do you think that's something that 

could be coming from the ACA as a best practice 

document? 

MS. DEMINTER: It could be. I just 

think that we need -- in order to move forward with 

a more robust review process we've got to be able 
204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to have those resources.

And it could be developed at a number 

of locations. But your job as the NOSB is to give 

the NOP a really robust recommendation, at least 

we think so.

And we would hope that you would give 

them a full set of tools that they could then move 

forward with to implement a standard or a rule.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes and no. I mean, we 

do provide recommendations, but not always the 

tools to get there.

MS. DEMINTER: Very true.

CHAIR BEHAR: I guess I'd just like to 

respond to that in that many times when we try to 

have more uniform documentation, OSPs, field 

history sheets, certifiers are very tied to the 

work that they've done for building their own 

documentation.

And so we're a little bit hesitant to 

offer something and just figure that most people 

are going to go forward making it to fit in with 

the rest of their current system.
205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We'll see. Maybe through our 

discussion I could add some things to the cover 

sheet with ideas for what needs to be in that 

commercial availability review.

MS. DEMINTER: It would be helpful.

CHAIR BEHAR: Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: I have a question. It's 

a little off topic from your presentation, but in 

2017 MOSA noted that you certify hydroponic

production systems.

And I'm wondering if since then -- I 

know there's an interest in standards related to 

that.

I've wondered if since then MOSA has 

made any attempt to develop standards, or has there 

been internal discussion about what would be 

appropriate.

Looking at your website and some of the 

featured production farms or systems I'm wondering 

if you have any comment on that.

MS. DEMINTER: MOSA did work with an 

unsanctioned ACA working group. A group of us 
206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

certifiers got together and worked out a best 

practice document.

So for the certification of hydroponic 

operations. And we have fully implemented all of 

those best practices and then some of our own 

policy-making.

But we have a very robust and thorough 

set of policies for the certification of hydroponic 

or aquaponic operations.

Did that answer your question?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes. Have you ever 

submitted those best practice standards perhaps 

as comments to NOSB?

MS. DEMINTER: I believe the ACA best 

practice document -- well, the non-sanctioned ACA 

best practice document to be correct was submitted.

It is I believe available -- I'm kind 

of looking around because I wasn't the leader of 

the group, but I believe that we would be absolutely 

happy to share that as a set of standards that 

certifiers, at least some of us have aligned to.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay, thank you. I'll 
207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

look for that. Thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Jackie. 

Aimee Simpson up next, with James Yoder on deck. 

There's also chocolate over there especially later 

on in the afternoon you might need it. And you 

can thank Christie Badger for badgering us to bring 

chocolate.

MS. SIMPSON: Hello. My name is Aimee 

Simpson and I am the director of advocacy and 

product sustainability at PCC Community Markets, 

a certified organic retailer and the nation's 

largest food market cooperative.

I'm going to take a minute, maybe two 

of my precious three to talk about a new rule 

recently issued from the USDA, but it does not 

concern organic, at least not directly.

The national bioengineered food 

disclosure standard. As most of you know this new 

regulation was issued in December of 2018 and its 

alleged purpose is to finally mandate GE and GMO 

food labeling.

Sounds pretty straightforward. Of 
208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

course in speaking to a group who knows far better 

than most that the words "straightforward" and 

"regulations" do not often go in the same sentence.

I'm not going to get into the 

disappointing gaps and problems with this 

regulation of which there are plenty.

What I want to share is this. These 

are the slides showing what a food manufacturer 

and retailer such as PCC must evaluate in 

determining what foods should be labeled.

Here's the first, and another, and 

another, and another. We are a retailer who 

believes in transparency and we want to label GE 

products. 

But after many hours of analysis, legal 

consultation and internal deliberations here was 

our takeaway on how we could fulfill our obligation 

while also providing the most amount of assurances 

for our consumers.

Organic. Organic is the only 

exemption provided in the statute that allows food 

producers to skip the majority of this process, 
209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

but more importantly organic offers the clear line 

in the sand for our consumers. No GE, no gene 

editing, no exceptions.

It is this clear line that is yet 

another reason we support the important work of 

the NOSB in evaluating excluded methods and 

providing transparency on all facets of GE 

materials.

And if this is the robust dialogue then 

we support the continuation of that. But because 

there has been inconsistent messaging on the 

conversation as noted by Under Secretary Ibach we 

feel it is still necessary to emphasize that any 

dilution of this clear line is not to be part of 

the conversation.

We continue to support the clear 

existing standard of no GE in organic. Because 

when the lines are not clear the integrity and value 

of organic label becomes diluted which brings me 

to an issue where the line has become muddled and 

is impacting our ability to communicate the 

benefits of organic to consumers and lawmakers on 
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a critical issue of our time.

Climate change and regenerative 

farming. When I get questions like these, do you 

consider regenerative farming practices as 

criteria. Are there any indicators I can look for 

as a consumer to help me choose producers who are 

farming in a carbon sequestering way.

Any producers who you feel are leading the way. 

The clear line is not there. While I 

want to offer an unqualified response of organic, 

organic, organic, unfortunately there are too many 

exceptions to be able to sing the organic program's 

praises, especially concerning hydroponic and 

other container production.

This is an exception that is leaving 

organic behind where consumers and lawmakers are 

finally taking interest in how to address 

agricultural environmental impacts and where most 

organic producers should be leading the way and 

rewarded for their efforts over the past three 

decades and beyond.

We thank you for your work to keep 
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

defining the clear line that is organic concerning 

GE, but please know that for consumers and retailers 

it is imperative that you keep working to clarify 

where the line is updated. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Aimee. Emily 

has a question.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you for your 

comments on marine materials. Are you the right 

person to ask a question?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes. 

MS. OAKLEY: So it seems that you are 

supporting organic certification of crop fertility 

inputs, but also would like to see guidance expanded 

beyond that to include the current uses of livestock 

in human consumption. Is that correct?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes. Our position on 

this is the fact that there is really no difference 

between what is being allowed on the inputs and 

then what is also being marketed to consumers as 

organic seaweed in the form of edible seaweed 

snacks.

And so I feel that -- we feel that if 
212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

there's going to be a label on one that organic 

should have those standards in place.

And that because of what we learned 

especially after today they are one and the same.

So if we're going to be standing up for 

environmentally protective and ecosensitive and 

protective harvesting methods, or aquiculture 

growing methods, that that should be consistent 

across the board.

And we do not feel that it is the same 

as, say, soil amendments but it's more in line with 

GE corn and animal feeds.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dan.

DR. SEITZ: Aimee, as a member of a food 

co-op board of directors and being something of 

a grocery store junkie -- I probably go there two 

times a day -- I don't think I hear more comments 

about anything than whether we carry food that's 

free of GMOs.

And we have a food policy and sometimes 

people pull me aside and say how do you know that 

that particular product is free of GMOs.
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

On the flight here on Alaska Airlines 

I saw that they had non-GMO turkey. I sometimes 

have seen non-GMO verified water.

So it's certainly out there now I think 

in the broader context.

I've never had a chance -- we're a very 

small co-op -- to actually survey our customers. 

And I'm wondering if you have taken 

steps at PCC -- see, I don't know if I got the right 

number of C's -- has actually done studies about 

how important that is to your consumers as a core 

aspect of the products you carry and the organic 

standard.

MS. SIMPSON: We have not done a study 

on it, but I can tell you that I mean in probably 

a month we get at least five questions coming into 

our department on GE in some facet.

Mainly the emphasis being we don't want 

to see it in our products. We're concerned about 

even it being in compostable plastics. It's across 

the board that it's a very important issue to our 

members and so that's why it's also very important 
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for us to have a very clear standard that we can 

point to because the rest of it is not entirely 

clear.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Aimee.

MS. SIMPSON: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: James Yoder is next, and 

Christie Badger on deck.

MR. YODER: I'm James Yoder, a dairy 

farmer from Apple Creek, Ohio with Clover Meadow 

Farm.

So I have three different subjects I'd 

like to touch on.

The first one, I strongly support the 

proposed rule on origin of livestock and urge the 

NOP to publish a final rule as quickly as possible 

to prevent the continuous conversion of 

conventional dairy animals in organic herds.

The second, as a dairy farmer who 

experienced three pipelines across my property I 

would like to see the NOP give guidance to 

certifiers that they can use when pipelines cross 

organic farms, or when there is drilling for gas 
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and oil on organic farms.

Things to note would be equipment 

cleaning, storing equipment off property 

overnight, and organic inspector not hired by the 

pipeline company to monitor activity and shut down 

work in wet weather, erosion control and 

precautionary steps to avoid compaction, and also 

tillage practices that improve the soil and 

minimize erosion.

And the third one would be as a dairy 

farmer I would also recommend increasing the 30 

percent pasture rule for dairy and beef to at least 

50 percent.

As a dairy farmer myself and talking 

to other farmers the 30 percent is very easily 

achieved. Across the board I've never talked to 

anybody that had a problem whatsoever achieving 

that.

And upping that, that would only help 

strengthen the organic label. When a consumer 

thinks organic they're thinking about cows on 

pasture.
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So I can answer any questions you have.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Have you personally 

experienced problems with oil and gas 

infrastructure on your own farm, or do you know 

of farmers in your area that have?

MR. YODER: Yes. I have experienced 

it myself with two different companies crossing 

my farm.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave and Dan.

MR. MORTENSEN: In addition to the 

really helpful suggestions about how we -- what 

would be the things to focus on if we were to pursue 

this, how has such development affected your and 

your neighbors' farming operations when it does 

go through?

MR. YODER: So, I would say compaction 

is a huge issue. When working on the easement two 

years later the soil, it gets rock hard on easement. 

Off easement no problem whatsoever. So soil 

compaction is a huge issue.

Erosion control, we had a huge washout, 
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

lost tons of topsoil, washed down into the creek 

and went down into the creek. I'd say those two 

would be one of the biggest issues. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: So Dan and then Sue.

DR. SEITZ: So just to -- actually a 

follow-up on Dave's question. I don't know if 

you've had a chance to calculate the actual dollar 

amount due to these types of disruptions to your 

land.

And also has the development forced on 

your land in any way endangered your organic 

certification?

MR. YODER: It did endanger my 

certification. But in the agreement we had organic 

impact mitigation from OFA that we put into the 

agreement as preventive measures. That helped a 

lot.

I think it would help more if the NOP 

came out with a rule and we could use guidance from 

them.

But as far as affecting my 

certification, I didn't lose my certification but 
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

there's always endangerments.

DR. SEITZ: And if you have any 

ballpark figure of what it may have cost you to 

self-mitigate the problems?

MR. YODER: Just off the top of my head 

it's -- it run, I don't know, ten, fifteen, twenty 

thousand dollars.

DR. SEITZ: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Sue and then Ashley.

MS. BAIRD: Just a clarification, what 

you said. You said that you were working the 

easement. Is that still -- was that considered 

to be part of your organic operation, or is that 

an easement that they now own?

And I ask that because I've done 

inspections and it turned out that they were --

it was against the railroad. 

And they were actually -- they had set 

their fences back into the easement which really 

wasn't theirs. They were just -- so I'm just asking 

the question.

MR. YODER: Right. So they don't 
219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

actually own the property. They have a right of 

way that they come in onto.

So when I was referring to working, we 

have like pigtail posts with the electric fence. 

I stick them in the ground so I can -- when sticking 

them in on the right of way I have to use a hammer 

and hammer them in. Off easement I don't even have 

to step on them. They sink right in there.

MS. BAIRD: -- if you will actually 

continue to farm something that they own.

MR. YODER: No.

MS. BAIRD: So I guess I have to repeat 

that. I was just wondering if you were -- I still 

didn't turn it on. Okay, thank you.

I was wondering if you were farming 

something that was considered to be their legal 

easement.

MR. YODER: No.

MS. BAIRD: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley and then Asa.

MS. SWAFFAR: So I just want to say 

thank you so much for coming and taking time away 
220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

from your farm to give us testimony.

Do you feel that if you didn't have that 

mitigation document that your certifier provided 

you that you would have a greater potential for 

the utility company to come and contaminate your 

fields?

MR. YODER: Absolutely. Yes.

MS. SWAFFAR: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: I just wanted to ask the 

Program, maybe we should speak to the question of 

NOP guidance on this issue and the work agenda 

request on this issue.

DR. TUCKER: I think the Program is 

going to wait until after all the public comments. 

There are a lot of people who are waiting and a 

waiting list so we're going to let everyone give 

their comments. Then we'll give a summary right 

before the break.

MR. BRADMAN: So I do have a question 

then related to this.

What kind of forum for information or 
221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

education do you think would help farmers to respond 

to and address situations where there's unwanted 

or maybe not even necessarily unwanted energy 

infrastructure development on their farms?

MR. YODER: So, the mitigation plan we 

used from OFA was very helpful. I'd say talking 

to them, using that mitigation plan and adding 

stuff. 

Legal, lawyers also helped give 

information about what you can and cannot do if 

that answers your question.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: So I live in Wisconsin 

which is right next to Minnesota where that 

mitigation plan kind of started and was very aware.

And I know of numerous people in my area 

that are using it. But I also know there's other 

places in the country that don't have access to 

that.

And I believe at the NOC meeting people 

were talking about the gas pipeline people or energy 

infrastructure, could be overhead electric lines.
222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

They're trying to get you to give them 

their easement. And they have a plan. And so it's 

always nice to have some information so you are 

prepared to say I'm okay with giving you this 

easement, but here's the list of things that you 

need to do when you're on my land.

MR. YODER: Right.

CHAIR BEHAR: And thank you also for 

coming. I'm sure this was somewhat of a burden.

MR. YODER: You're welcome. Thank 

you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Christie Badger 

is next. I hope you got some chocolate. And Dave 

Chapman on deck.

MS. BADGER: Okay. Hi, good 

afternoon. My name is Christie Badger and I'm 

speaking on behalf of the National Organic 

Coalition.

Thank you for your service on this board 

and for your commitment to organic integrity, and 

a huge thank you to all of you that worked really 

hard to get your materials published for a full 
223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

30-day comment period. I really appreciate it.

I'd like to make comments on protecting 

transparency, accountability and public process, 

peer review, iodine and fenbendazole use in 

poultry.

In the interest of protecting 

transparency, accountability and the public 

process NOC requests that the NOP provide 

transparency regarding NOSB work agenda items that 

have been removed from the work agenda without 

explanation.

In addition, the NOSB should request 

that the NOP provide an update on all previous 

recommendations made and a rationale for the lack 

of NOP action on those recommendations.

USDA has exerted undue and 

inappropriate influence on the recommendations of 

the NOSB by prohibiting the board from advancing 

recommendations that were inconvenient in some way 

for the agency.

We urge the board to reject the undue 

and inappropriate influence of the USDA that denies 
224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the NOSB and the public their due rules in setting 

organic policy.

Peer review. NOC urges the NOSB to 

call on the USDA National Organic Program to make 

public the results of all peer review audits.

The peer review process under the 

Organic Food and Production Act, National Organic 

Program procedures and the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act requires disclosure of the full peer 

review report.

In its detailed document published in 

2016 the NOP clearly outlines that the peer review 

panel report will be posted to the NOP website.

However, according to a letter dated 

October 22, 2019 from Dr. Tucker to the National 

Organic Coalition that NOP has, quote, 

"intentionally decided not to release the full 

report," end quote.

This is not acceptable. Integrity of 

the label requires transparency at all levels.

Iodine. NOC agrees with the comments 

that iodine is important as a teat dip. However, 
225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it's time for the organic standards to catch up 

with what industry already requires. No NPEs and 

iodophors.

We encourage the subcommittee to add 

a work agenda item for an annotation to prohibit 

the use of NPE forms and iodophors in organic 

production. 

Fenbendazole used in poultry. NOC 

opposes the use of fenbendazole in poultry as 

proposed.

CHAIR BEHAR: Would you please finish 

your sentence?

MS. BADGER: The NOSB cannot rely on 

a 2015 TR covering parasiticide used in mammalian 

livestock to support a decision to allow the use 

of fenbendazole in poultry.

We recognize that fenbendazole is 

already permitted under restrictive conditions for 

other livestock species and it is permitted with 

a withholding period as appropriate for each class 

based on the residue present in the organic product, 

whether it be wool or milk.
226

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Residues of fenbendazole will be 

present in eggs and this requires a withholding 

period as consumers of organic products expect 

there will be no chemical residue in their organic 

foods.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: So I have two questions. 

First on the iodine. We did talk about that in 

subcommittee on doing the annotation.

One of the questions we put forward was 

is there enough supply without NPEs. And I didn't 

really see a whole lot of that in the comments.

So that would be very helpful to us on 

the board is to know if we put that annotation 

forward that dairy producers can find the teat dips 

available in quantity. 

So if we can get that information to 

us then that helps us decide whether to move forward 

with that annotation.

MS. BADGER: I'll just let you know, 

Ashley, and we can get some more detailed 

information on that.
227

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We did reach out to NODPA, WODPA, 

certifiers and some industry folks. And they all 

told us across the board that -- like the certifiers 

responded our producers are already required this 

on the whole by their milk companies.

They're finding it fine. But we can 

look for that. Thank you.

MS. SWAFFAR: And then on the 

fenbendazole. The other species that currently 

are allowed to use fenbendazole have a withholding 

time and that's set forward by FDA.

There's no withholding time from the 

FDA for eggs. And how should we go about that as 

an NOSB when the science says that it's safe? How 

should we approach a withholding time if we do?

MS. BADGER: I think there are other 

products -- I'm going to yell Terry Shistar, help 

me. 

But from my memory there are other 

products that have no withholding period. For 

example, I'm falling short. Terry, help me. It's 

to help animals with pain. Thank you.
228

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But we still require a withholding 

period on milk after use.

MS. SWAFFAR: Based on what science?

MS. BADGER: I'm sorry, but the NOP 

does.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes, but I'm just saying 

there's no like actual science there that says that 

that's the correct withholding time. So how can 

we --

MS. BADGER: I'm not sure. I'd have 

to look into that more, what it was based on. I

will --

CHAIR BEHAR: I was in the room when 

it was voted upon however many years ago. There 

was known residue to a certain amount of days and 

so the NOSB went beyond that just for safety's sake 

to make sure that there was no residue in the meat. 

So they went beyond what the FDA 

requirement was for safety. So it was somewhat 

arbitrary, but it was meant to give a buffer beyond 

the current withholding. Emily.
229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: So in that spirit if there 

are known residues in eggs -- I'm not on the 

Livestock Committee -- how would you address trying 

to determine if there should be a withholding period 

and how long it should be for eggs?

MS. BADGER: There are residues in 

eggs.

MS. OAKLEY: I meant to say that. Did 

I say not? I meant to say there are. My brain 

just had a little switch, but there are residues. 

Sorry.

MS. SWAFFAR: I think that's more of 

a subcommittee discussion question, not for public 

comment.

CHAIR BEHAR: And just to note the 

Livestock Subcommittee did request a TR for 

fenbendazole in poultry to help us through this 

question.

MS. BADGER: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: So you were clairvoyant. 

Okay. Next up is Dave Chapman with Megan DeBates 

on deck.
230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CHAPMAN: I'm Dave Chapman, Long 

Wind Farm and the Real Organic Project. Hello, 

friends.

I want to bring up a few things I'm 

concerned about. In the recent hearings where 

Under Secretary Ibach was asked why the NOP hasn't 

acted on the last 20 NOSB recommendations he avoided 

the question twice and the third time he replied 

that he was looking forward to choosing new NOSB 

members.

And I thought that was a very ominous 

thing. So use your time well. Keep working to 

protect organic even after you've left this board. 

You have a microphone, please use it. You're 

meant to represent us, the organic community, not 

the USDA.

Five years ago, maybe six now the USDA 

lectured the NOSB. None of you were on the board 

at that time. But they put the previous 15 people 

in a room and told them that they must walk the 

line. And I'm asking you please don't walk the 

line.
231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The question on the use of prohibited 

pesticides in greenhouses, tunnels, warehouses and 

shipping containers is an important one.

I still don't understand the 

clarification this morning. I tried. I don't 

think it's complicated. 

I've talked to a number of people who 

also didn't understand the clarification. It's 

a simple question. Does the three-year 

requirement on transition include these indoor food 

production facilities. And I hope that could get 

cleared up today.

I'm also concerned by Jenny's comment 

this morning, Dr. Tucker's comment that certifiers 

who are unwilling to certify hydroponic will be 

brought into line.

This is not a settled issue and I think 

trying to force it into being one is not going to 

be a good direction to go.

In organic certification the largest 

hydroponic producers insist that they are not 

hydroponic. The largest CAFO producers insist 
232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that they are not confinement operations. 

We know that this is not true. The 

question is what do we do about it. Do we quietly 

surrender the soul of organic?

So ending on a positive note for Phil 

LaRocca because I promised I would I'm very excited 

about the growth of real organic farming in America.

Millions of people are hungry for the 

amazing food that we are growing so let us celebrate 

that wonderful movement. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily has a question.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes, Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Well, this is a question 

for the Program. Sorry. I won't ask it again.

Since there is still confusion on the 

greenhouse or indoor facility question and I still 

didn't understand myself from this morning are 

greenhouses required to go through the three-year 

transition period for those facilities and the land 

that they're on?

DR. TUCKER: I'm going to stick with 

what I said earlier and at the end of the public 
233

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

comment period I'll be happy to say something on 

that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dan, or Dave first? 

Dave, and then Dan.

MR. MORTENSEN: Dave, this is I think 

the third meeting I've heard you ask folks on the 

board and probably people in the room to exercise 

their voice given the position that they hold.

Could you give us two or three examples 

of what you're thinking about?

MR. CHAPMAN: As I've been involved in 

these conversations for the last five or six years 

I have felt a constant pressure not to speak out 

for fear of damaging the organic brand.

And it has been my belief that not 

speaking out will do greater damage than being 

silent. That being silent will do greater damage 

than speaking out.

We need to be talking about these 

issues. We need to welcome -- I can't remember 

the phrase this morning -- a brisk dialogue.

It needs to be public and we need to 
234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

be able to disagree with each other. I think that 

these are big issues.

So examples of people who have spoken 

out, well, Jacksonville was a great example. We 

had over 60 farmers who came to the meeting. I 

couldn't get any farmers to come to this meeting. 

But we got 60 farmers that time.

Many of them were former NOSB members 

and I think we had a couple of former chairs too.

And they did speak out. And they did 

not sway very many people, but certainly they 

represented a large slice of the organic community.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dan.

DR. SEITZ: So Dave, I definitely agree 

with you that the organic law really doesn't provide 

a basis for hydroponics.

But we now have a situation where that 

is being allowed. And we heard from one certifier 

that certifiers have come together to develop best 

practices in that area.

The NOSB hasn't addressed this issue. 

And I'm just curious from your standpoint of 
235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

looking at the hydroponic industry what are you 

seeing as disturbing practices potentially because 

we don't yet have a set of standards for even 

regulating the hydroponic industry.

And I don't know if that's something 

that you've looked at or not. What might be some 

of the outliers in terms of practices out there 

for lack of standards?

MR. CHAPMAN: I think obviously 

practices like the use of glyphosate before putting 

the pots down was a strong example that I brought 

up not to this group but in public. And that's 

been ended and that's wonderful.

My goal is not to reform the hydroponic 

container standards. My goal is to remove them. 

I don't think they belong in organic. I think 

hydroponic production is just fine. They should 

come up with a label.

I guess, I honestly, Dan, I'm the wrong 

person to ask about that because I just don't think 

it belongs any more than CAFO egg production does 

not belong in organic.
236

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So if we try and think what would be 

better CAFO egg production I think we're missing 

the question. 

DR. SEITZ: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: I just have a question. 

How many producers are Real Organic Project 

certified?

MR. CHAPMAN: Real Organic Project is 

about 200 right now. We're growing quickly. I 

think we will hit 400 by April.

CHAIR BEHAR: And everyone has to be 

NOP certified before they get --

MR. CHAPMAN: Absolutely. And just to 

say the good news, more good news for Phil is we've 

brought at least two farms back into USDA 

certification that had left in dismay. And they're 

now certified again because they wanted to get 

certified with the Real Organic Project.

So we can say that we are working 

together to build up the Program which is the 

intention. We're not trying to destroy the NOP, 

we're trying to bring it back home.
237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. And I enjoy 

those farmer videos, especially when it's people 

I know and like.

MR. CHAPMAN: Well, in a week or two 

we should have Jesse's out. Thank you very much.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Next up is 

Megan DeBates with George Seaver on deck.

MS. DEBATES: Hi, I'm Megan DeBates of 

the Organic Trade Association. 

So first I want to comment on origin 

of livestock. OTA worked to get language secured 

in the House and Senate appropriations bills 

directing a final rule.

We are pleased to see action on this 

by the National Organic Program. Since the 

proposed rule originally was published in 2015 any 

final rule should be immediately effective and 

implemented.

The final rule must also include the 

policy in the original proposed rule from 2015 that 

limits the allowance for transitioning dairy 

animals to organic milk production as a one-time 
238

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

event.

I also want to comment on the 

enforcement rulemaking. So again OTA and other 

stakeholders in this room spent nearly three years 

working with Congress on the provisions in the Farm 

Bill related to enforcement and oversight.

A 60-day comment period over the 

holidays is not sufficient. It is important to 

get this piece of the Farm Bill implemented 

promptly, but we also need to make sure we get it 

right.

This will also likely be the largest 

rulemaking issued by NOP since the organic 

regulations were first implemented in 2002.

So stakeholders should have sufficient 

time to prepare substantive comments.

 We plan to request an extension because 

we believe at least 90 days will be necessary. 

And lastly on continuous improvement. 

We recognize the important work the NOSB does to 

come up with recommendations for organic standards.

A large majority of the challenges we 
239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

struggle with are a result of not having standards. 

And for many of those same challenges we have NOSB 

recommendations to address them.

However, organic is unique in that it 

is a voluntary regulatory program and it should 

be treated differently by the federal government 

than the lengthy process that mandatory regulations 

go through.

We are working with Congress on 

bipartisan legislation to address this issue and 

we look forward to elevating the great work that 

the NOSB does as well as the National Organic 

Program by improving the process by which organic 

standards move forward. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Megan. Next 

up, George Seaver and on deck is Terry Shistar.

MR. SEAVER: Hi. My name is George 

Seaver. I've been processing rockweed on the coast 

of Maine for 42 years.

Hearing the discussions this morning 

I'm going to go off script which is a bad idea, 

but we heard a lot about a lot of different seaweeds.
240

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And rockweed, Ascophyllum, is the one 

that I personally have been involved in. And it's 

worth mentioning that the two basic things that 

happen to harvested rockweed are you can dehydrate 

it into a meal which is either in a fertilizer or 

a feed supplement, or you can do a liquid extract 

of it.

The amount of seaweed you need to make 

liquid extracts is much, much less than granular. 

That's just important background I think.

Some additional perspective. We've 

heard anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 miles of Maine 

coast. Only a relatively small fraction of that 

coastline is a good place to harvest commercially 

for logistical reasons or whatever it is, 

distances. But it's a small percentage of the 

coast that actually is good to harvest on.

Around 2004, however, after decades of 

commercial harvesting a lady raised a reasonable 

question. Is commercial rockweed harvesting 

damaging to the coastal ecosystem.

She presented it as a question but 
241

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

framed it more like a conclusion. And we've been 

in a difficult debate ever since on the coast of 

Maine.

At the time several rockweed processing 

businesses had been confidently returning to the 

same ledges for decades, literally decades.

It was well established that the beds 

were more than capable of producing the needed 

rockweed.

Our people in the water were 

knowledgeable of the areas that we were visiting 

and while focused on the rockweed were aware of 

the areas and knew that there were no changes going 

on.

During the years since she first raised 

those concerns her position in public presentations 

have continued to confidently assert still with 

no supporting evidence that the ecosystem would 

soon crash if we continued to harvest seaweed. 

Again, very problematic from a business of a 

commercial endeavor.

The total commercial harvest is 
242

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

calculated to be about 2 percent of the standing 

biomass. And in contrast to the message often 

presented the total harvest for Maine waters has 

grown quite slowly in the past 40 years.

Rockweed harvest data has been required 

by the Department of Marine Resources since about 

2008.

The average increase per year has been 

about 13 percent. And it's pretty consistent, 13 

percent.

While there have been ecological 

changes due to ocean acidification, rising sea 

temperatures, rising sea levels, invasive algae, 

fish, shellfish, increasing populations of seals, 

eagles and other climax predators and the rise and 

fall of other fish stocks there have been no 

discernible or asserted changes that could 

logically be associated with harvesting rockweed.

I would love to answer questions 

because I've got another quarter page that I'd love 

to cover.

CHAIR BEHAR: Sue, and then Emily.
243

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: I like to see quantifiable 

and you're telling me that you're sure there's no 

changes. So how are you quantifying that there 

are no changes?

MR. SEAVER: Probably the best way 

because you're obviously right. It is -- my 

background is engineering. It's impossible to 

prove a negative. So no one can prove that there's 

been no changes.

So the best yardstick we have is the 

Department of Marine Resources is monitoring all 

of the interdependent fisheries.

Acknowledging that human beings have 

an impact on the planet the impacts that matter 

the most are the ones that affect our immediate 

lives first with no doubt.

So with respect to all the other 

fisheries there's been nothing even remotely 

apparent.

And again it's very important to get 

this whole thing in perspective. It's a very small 

percentage of the coast that's even harvestable.
244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So with respect to the total ecosystem, 

the total coastal ecosystem and the fact that 

harvesting is hard work so you don't do it unless 

it's easy you go to the areas where there's the 

most seaweed, and you probably know about them 

because you were there three years ago.

And at that you're interfering or 

impacting just a very small bit of the coast. So 

the impossibility of proving a negative, long 

answer. The impossibility of proving a negative 

is part one.

The other thing we do have as a matter 

of fact, and it's on a slide that you're not seeing, 

is there's one particular company in mid-coast 

Maine that has been harvesting for 40 years. They 

make a horse feed supplement.

And they know where they've harvested. 

They've got extremely good records, 40 years of 

records of where they've harvested and where they 

haven't.

And there are people going back to those 

areas so they can compare all the other life bits, 
245

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

critters they're often called, other related 

organic material, living things. I'm trying to 

get a category here.

We have this really incredible database 

if we wanted to do it, and we have some people doing 

it already where we can go to areas that have never 

been harvested and compare them to areas that have 

been harvested regularly for 40 years.

Well, we've tried to get more people 

to do it but we haven't -- it's going to be 

expensive.

There's some private researchers are 

doing it associated with the University of Maine. 

The University of Maine has got a lot of really 

good people. 

And we aren't doing this thing like 

outlaws. We've been working closely with the DMR 

for years.

I was going to refer to the letter we've 

got from the Department of Marine Resources that 

I just asked for a few days ago about the nature 

of the complaints they've received in the last 40 
246

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

years.

They had records for the last two years 

handy. They gave me two years' worth of 

information.

There were 32 complaints from people 

about harvesting. Thirty of them were people who 

didn't really want to see anybody harvesting, just 

territorial feelings.

Two of them were about over-harvesting, 

and one of the two was actually over-harvesting. 

The other one was not found to be over-harvesting.

And the one that was found to be 

over-harvesting, or mis-harvesting, there was a 

machine that was set wrong and they fixed it. So 

it's being observed and being acted on and being 

fixed.

It's all being regulated and managed. 

And again, it's almost a trivial percent of the 

resource at this point.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you for coming to 

speak to us. It seems from your testimony both 
247

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

written and oral that you are supportive of the 

current rockweed harvesting methods.

So I'm wondering if you feel that 

organic certification is a viable option. Would 

it just codify the good practices that growers are 

already using? 

And do you feel that it's a viable 

option?

MR. SEAVER: You're now going to learn 

my ignorance of this process. 

If what you're saying is should seaweed 

extract be -- is that an appropriate input to 

organic production the answer would be yes.

If you're asking do we have to know the 

history of where that seaweed has been while it 

was still in the water that's a whole different 

thing.

It's another tidbit of perspective 

here. We make biostimulants, liquid extracts that 

go on agricultural crops. Typically the 

application per year is about a gallon per acre. 

That's 10 pounds. And this is after it's been 
248

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

through a heating extraction process.

So the impact to the earth, to those 

acres from the liquid extract is -- you can hardly 

compare it to fertilizers.

MS. OAKLEY: So I'll just clarify. 

The discussion isn't about whether or not to remove 

seaweeds as a use for crop fertility inputs, but 

whether or not to try to find a means of verifying 

minimal or limited environmental harm in the 

harvesting of them.

And so we've explored different 

options. Requiring organic certification of the 

harvested seaweed. 

So you as the processor would receive 

certified organic harvested seaweed. And you 

would receive a certificate from the harvester or 

the harvesting company that contracted with the 

harvesters and then would put that into your 

product.

MR. SEAVER: It could be done. It 

would be something we've never needed to do.

We've never tried to sell organic 
249

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

seaweed meal. That's where that is normally a 

factor which goes out in hundreds of pounds per 

acre.

The liquid extracts makes -- could be 

done, but it would just be -- it almost seems 

irrelevant at the application rates. And it's the 

same seaweed floating in the same bay.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Oh, I'm 

sorry.

MS. BAIRD: I wanted to follow up. You 

said there were 30 complaints and 1 of them was 

found to be -- but 30 complaints on what number 

of harvesters or harvested product was out there?

I want to know if there's 30 complaints 

was there only 32 harvesters, or were there 600 

harvesters? That means nothing without some 

context.

MR. SEAVER: Okay. There's about 100 

seaweed licenses. We get all of our products 

through four people with boots and machetes and 

hand harvested, just again for perspective.

The complaints that the Department of 
250

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Marine Resources received are from landowners about 

somebody and we don't know who, I don't know who, 

harvesting there.

They might have been harvesting with 

a machine. They might have been harvesting with 

a rake. But the complaints, the point of the --

and there's a letter from the Department of Marine 

Resources that's in the system now.

The complaints were that somebody was 

harvesting it all because there's this territorial 

about whose seaweed is it. You've heard some other 

--

MS. BAIRD: So are you saying then that 

the complaints were somebody was trespassing on 

their land to harvest?

MR. SEAVER: No.

MS. BAIRD: No. Because that's what 

it sounds like.

MR. SEAVER: It's a big question. 

There was this court case -- since 1820, and I could 

read you the statute, the people of the state of 

Maine have been the owners of the rockweed and the 
251

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

intertidal zone for the purpose of fishing, fowling 

and navigating. This is what King George thought 

was a good idea.

Recently in spite of what is currently 

on the books in Maine law there was a ruling that's 

quite in contrast with what's still on the books 

as a law about who actually owns the seaweed and 

what it means to own the intertidal zone.

So during that time period there were 

people who thought they were trespassing. Right 

now if someone complains half of the legislature 

will think they were trespassing and half will not. 

So I would answer not trespassing, but 

interfering with the view. There's a 

gentrification process on the coast of Maine that 

would make old guys get mad.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you for that 

clarification.

CHAIR BEHAR: We're going to move on. 

MR. SEAVER: Can of worms.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Yes. So we 
252

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are 20 minutes behind. Just thought I'd let 

everybody know. 

Terry Shistar is next with Kiki Hubbard 

on deck.

MS. SHISTAR: Okay. My name is Terry 

Shistar and I'm on the board of directors of Beyond 

Pesticides.

As you probably know we have a new 

project focusing on organic integrity. Board 

members with expertise in many areas guide us in 

efforts to promote organic practices.

We've submitted comments on all of the 

issues before the board at this meeting.

A few days ago I work up around 3 o'clock 

in a dream set in a landscape of ecological 

collapse. That's all I remember about the dream, 

but a message was running through my head and I 

couldn't sleep until I wrote it down.

In a world in which agriculture focuses 

on a few profitable genotypes of a few species it's 

increasingly the responsibility of organic 

producers to maintain the diversity both cultivated 
253

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and wild that's needed to sustain life on Earth.

I fell asleep again wondering how to 

work that into my three minutes in Pittsburgh. 

Here it is.

Just as the agricultural economy is 

structured by big business to limit the choices 

of organic producers, the NOSB exists within an 

agency that is promoting a get big or get out 

monocultural view of the world.

The authors of OFPA foresaw this 

problem and gave the NOSB broad authority to provide 

USDA with leadership and guidance in understanding 

what organic means and ensuring that the National 

Organic Program protects and promotes the organic 

vision which is perhaps our best chance for 

preserving biodiversity.

The NOSB represents the organic 

community. You're responsible for upholding 

integrity in the face of political pressures on 

USDA.

You must maintain consumer confidence 

in the organic label.
254

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

In order to do so you must maintain 

control over the NOSB work agenda. You must ensure 

that the diversity of your opinions comes out of 

subcommittee by making use of minority positions.

You must ensure continuous improvement 

by addressing difficult issues like hydroponics 

and container production, contaminated inputs, 

excluded methods terminology, fermentation 

products, marine materials, sanitizers and inert 

ingredients.

You need to speak up when USDA fails 

to base its National List on NOSB recommendations 

or fails to complete the process by following 

through with regulations.

We've submitted specific comments in 

writing, but don't forget. Take celery powder out 

of organic meat. The need for synthetic methionine 

as a result of choices regarding breeds, stocking 

rates, both density and group size, and outdoor 

access.

Increasingly consumers are turning to 

eggs and meat produced in pastured poultry systems 
255

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

which require fewer synthetic inputs.

There have also been advances in the 

use of insects, specifically black soldier fly 

larvae as a source of natural methionine. Thank 

you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley is thinking about 

a question. 

MS. SWAFFAR: Hi Terry. Thank you for 

your comments. They are very detailed and we do 

appreciate the work that you put into them.

I do have a question on methionine. 

Surprise. So you had put in there that methionine 

is not necessary because the European Union doesn't 

allow for methionine. Kind of saying like that's 

the reason why we shouldn't have it either.

But they are also struggling there and 

they only require 95 percent of their diet to be 

of organic grains and the other 5 percent is to 

make up for the shortage that they cannot get in 

their diets from synthetic methionine.

MS. SHISTAR: It's not to make up for 

synthetic methionine, right? That's not specified 
256

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in the regulations.

MS. SWAFFAR: That's what poultry 

folks say. And that's still allowed till the end 

of 2020.

Do you -- would you like to see 

something like that? If we were to do away with 

synthetic methionine and allow 5 percent 

non-organic.

MS. SHISTAR: You know, I think that 

if the poultry practices were similar to those in 

Europe where poultry got 23 and a half square feet 

per bird when they were outside and there was an 

emphasis on smaller birds that took longer to reach 

maturity and so forth.

I think that after adopting those then 

we could talk about whether there was a need for 

synthetic methionine, or using other kinds of feed 

materials.

But I think that until we get to that 

position it's premature to talk about that.

MS. SWAFFAR: So we still need it until 

we get to that position? Is that what you're 
257

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

saying?

MS. SHISTAR: No, that's not what I'm 

saying.

MS. SWAFFAR: The 23-24 square foot 

outdoor area. What do you -- if a bird had that 

much area and you think that they could get their 

methionine from the outdoors what do we do in the 

winter? What do we do in areas of the country where 

it snows a lot and there's no bugs, no grass?

MS. SHISTAR: You know, if there are 

areas, if there are places, if there are conditions 

in which synthetic methionine is actually necessary 

then you can annotate the listing of synthetic 

methionine to be restricted to just those times.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Terry. Next 

up is Kiki Hubbard with Jaydee Hanson on deck.

MS. HUBBARD: Good afternoon. My name 

is Kiki Hubbard and I'm the director of advocacy 

for Organic Seed Alliance.

I want to thank the board and the NOP 

for all your hard work and for your commitment to 

this important public process.
258

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Today my comments will touch on two 

agenda items, excluded methods and genetic 

integrity. 

On the topic of excluded methods we very 

much appreciate the NOP statements this morning 

underscoring that gene editing is indeed an 

excluded method.

And we're happy to hear that there is 

no plan to change the excluded methods definition. 

We should consider this case closed and move on 

to other methods in need of discussion.

On the topic of genetic integrity we 

can all agree that this continues to be a problem 

that is complicated and a risk that can't be 

ignored.

As discussed at the spring meeting in 

Seattle OSA committed to conducting a survey of 

companies supplying organic field corn seed to 

better understand the benefits, practicality and 

potential pitfalls of the subcommittee's previous 

approach to fostering transparency.

Our response rate was very good. The 
259

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

seed suppliers responding represent seed planted 

to more than 70 percent of organic field corn 

acreage.

We collected a lot of data. And I want 

to run through just a few takeaways. You all have 

the full set of data in the comments.

One important finding is that the seed 

companies we contacted understand well the 

importance of genetic integrity to the organic 

customers, saying that it's extremely important 

or very important to offer hybrid seed corn with 

no or very low levels of GE Mt.

And the vast majority of these 

companies, 86 percent are also providing detectable 

level information upon request to these growers 

though the vast majority of companies we contacted 

did relay serious concerns with the 2018 proposal 

that we asked them about.

And we believe this is because 

currently requests for detectable level 

information currently makes up a small percentage 

of their customer base with 92 percent of companies 
260

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

responding saying that requests make up between 

5 and 20 percent of their sales.

Companies are spending considerable 

amounts of money on testing as you can see on this 

slide, and most say that their business has been 

financially harmed due to contamination, but that 

they have no recourse for recouping these losses.

What we were most excited to see in this 

survey is that most of the companies responding 

are willing to share testing data with an 

independent body of experts under a non-disclosure 

agreement to help the organic industry better 

understand the state of contamination to inform 

what, if any, policy solutions are available to 

us right now.

So that's why we encourage swift action 

on NOSB's ongoing request for a USDA task force 

or some independent third party body of experts 

to collect this comprehensive baseline data in a 

way that is systematic, scientific, to help us 

inform this area of policy.

Our survey shows that most seed 
261

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

companies are ready to cooperate in this effort. 

Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Kiki, you mentioned 

that companies, 86 percent are willing to share 

the data if asked about the data, and that a small 

fraction it sounds like, 20 percent of the farmers 

are asking for the data if I understood your report 

there.

Why would a company not want to share 

the data? And why would it be that it would only 

be shared upon request?

Like if they have the data and farmers 

are buying their seed and planting it and selling 

the harvested crop what would be the reason not 

to just openly share the data with the farmer? 

I'm curious what the companies are saying.

MS. HUBBARD: So it's a great question 

and the context in which we asked the question is 

really important.

And per the proposal from 2018 we asked 

what, if any, negative impacts would result if all 
262

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic field corn growers were required to 

document detectable levels of the seed they're 

purchasing and planting.

So it's that moving from 5 to 20 percent 

of requests, or providing it to 5 to 20 percent 

of their customer base to 100 percent, that seems 

to be the problem.

And the problems they communicated, 

just reporting on the data. We for the record are 

not a seed trade association. 

But per our survey findings the 

concerns are that more than half of the companies 

responding say that such a policy if implemented 

at this time would result in higher production costs 

which would be passed on to organic growers in the 

form of higher seed prices.

We already know that's a deterrent for 

some organic seed sourcing even though it's not 

an allowable reason to source conventional 

untreated seed. But that price would be passed 

along per the seed companies' comments.

Furthermore these seed companies, 
263

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

again more than half of them reported that they 

would likely invest fewer dollars in organic seed 

production because it's more expensive.

And in that way the organic seed 

companies responding to the survey indicated that 

they felt they would be put at a disadvantage, 

especially compared to -- a disadvantage to the 

largest genetic suppliers supplying conventional 

untreated seed. Again, at least in hybrid field 

corn seed.

So it's that disadvantage to organic 

seed companies, potentially seeing fewer organic 

seed varieties in the marketplace at a time when 

we need more choice in organic seed, more genetic 

diversity.

This is also an organic integrity 

issue, the availability of organic seed.

All of those findings indicate to us 

that we just need to take a step back from that 

current approach that the Materials Subcommittee 

was headed in and ensure first and foremost that 

all affected stakeholders are at the table.
264

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And seed companies or organic seed 

companies in particular were conspicuously absent 

from these conversations in identifying policy 

solutions. So that is why we conducted the survey. 

And moving forward I just think there's 

a real opportunity to bring together these seed 

companies with the customers they're serving, with

organic farmers who absolutely need to be at the 

table. They absolutely deserve this information.

And perhaps with certifiers too to 

figure out the best path forward.

The last thing I'll say is I've seen 

a dramatic shift over the last decade in seed 

companies being willing to talk about contamination 

and to share information about contamination and 

to share that information with their customers. 

So I think we need to take advantage of that.

A lot of the companies I actually talk 

to, this survey was conducted electronically, but 

I did talk to some of the companies to give them 

a heads up it was coming.

And all the companies I talked to said 
265

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

hey, have the NOSB call us. We want to be part 

of the conversation.

And so I think there's a lot of 

potential moving forward in bringing them to the 

table as well as really pushing for that 

comprehensive baseline data set.

MR. MORTENSEN: I will just say that 

we did speak to seed companies. We didn't do a 

comprehensive survey, but it wasn't as though we 

were doing it in a sort of closet.

MS. HUBBARD: Fair enough.

MR. MORTENSEN: And I'm still 

personally not clear, and I support the idea of 

a task force by the way. I think it's a great idea, 

bringing the farmers and the seed companies 

together with folks from here and elsewhere.

But I still don't see where -- if 86 

percent of the stuff has already been tested and 

the data is available I'm struggling to see where 

such a high cost comes in with just sharing the 

data on a tag, on a bag. But I'm not seeing that.

MS. HUBBARD: It's more complicated 
266

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

than it might seem. 

CHAIR BEHAR: Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Would the organic seed 

companies rather see this expanded to do non-GMO 

seeds and/or conventional seeds as opposed to just 

targeting organic?

MS. HUBBARD: I did not ask -- we did 

not ask that question. We did not ask that 

question. 

I believe any policy proposals moving 

forward should apply to both organic and 

conventional untreated seed.

We are absolutely not opposed -- Dave, 

if I can come back to your comment -- to exploring 

the feasibility of mandatary labeling down the 

road.

At this time again according to what 

we found and the context of moving from 5 to 20 

percent of requests to 100 that seems to be an issue 

in terms of capacity and production costs.

But we are not opposed to moving in that 

direction by any means.
267

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: I have a question. So 

you have here that their businesses have been 

financially harmed due to GE traits found in 

advantageous presence.

And of course we know that farmers are 

also being damaged financially and more from 

cross-pollination that they didn't ask for or want.

So I'm just kind of wondering if there's 

been any discussion within the seed world of how 

-- what recourse might look like.

Because a lot of times it's kind of hard 

to get to where you want to be if you don't have 

a vision of what you want it to look like.

MS. HUBBARD: There have not been 

recent conversations. The most recent 

conversation that involved members of the seed 

trade was the AC21 work on biotechnology under the 

previous administration. Harriet, there hasn't 

been discussion as to what repairing that harm would 

look like.

CHAIR BEHAR: Do you know if any of them 

have moved away from doing organic seed production 
268

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

because of having GE contamination? Even though 

that wouldn't take away their certification, but 

that they became frustrated.

MS. HUBBARD: We did not ask that 

question. I have spoken with seed companies in 

the past who have, yes.

And those losses come in the form of 

really a commitment to protecting, wanting to 

protect the integrity of organic and conventional 

untreated seed by redirecting lots that exceed an 

internal threshold they have to a less lucrative 

market, to the conventional seed market and taking 

a big financial hit both in terms of production 

costs and then of course the premium price they 

can get.

And so that on top of the testing costs. 

There's just a lot of risk right now especially 

for certified organic seed production. 

Absolutely does not -- I don't want to 

minimize at all the financial loss to farmers who 

are also being harmed.

To that end I think it's important that 
269

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

data collection includes the entire value chain 

and not just seed because we know that's not the 

only route of contamination.

If you dig deep into the data you'll 

also see at what levels they're finding 

consistently.

I think we can feel pretty encouraged 

by the level of integrity being sold right now.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily, quick.

MS. OAKLEY: Quick question. In 

reading your comments on the genetic integrity 

transparency of seed grown on organic land 

instructions to certifiers proposal it was not 100 

percent clear to me exactly what position you were 

taking on that.

MS. HUBBARD: Sorry. We are 

supportive in this new direction. We appreciate 

the pivot to just -- yes, take this time to bring 

all the stakeholders together to consider a path 

toward perhaps labine (phonetic), perhaps other 

solutions available to us.

We are supportive of the instruction 
270

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to certifiers. We did provide some suggested 

changes and want to be clear that our survey results 

only apply to hybrid field corn seed companies we 

don't know. And this applies to all crops with 

an at-risk -- that are at risk because of a GE 

counterpart.

Therefore that data can't be applied 

-- or it can't be assumed that companies are testing 

for all these crops, be it soybeans, alfalfa, yellow 

squash.

But yes, we are supportive of providing 

the information. Farmers should absolutely be 

encouraged and they should be told that this 

information is available for them.

In a way transparency does exist per 

our findings. And if we want to move in a different 

direction that might be more efficient in some 

people's view then we should talk about that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, thank you, Kiki. 

Next up is Jaydee Hanson. Jaydee, there you are. 

And Nicole Dehne on deck.

And don't forget your butterflies. Or 
271

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you can get one at a break.

MR. HANSON: Okay, I'm Jaydee Hanson 

with the Center for Food Safety. I'm happy to be 

here to present a few comments to you.

Thank you all for your work and your 

patience going through all of this.

On excluded methods the -- at the center 

we distinguish between induced mutagenesis arising 

from environmental stress such as heat, cold, 

radiation from induced directed mutagenesis that 

comes from genetic engineering or other forms of 

in vitro DNA and RNA manipulation.

I'd note that some of the people that 

want to do gene edited crops and animals say that 

what they're doing is just like mutagenesis and 

even more precise.

We disagree and believe that this needs 

to stay an excluded method, and that directed 

mutagenesis between the gene editing and other in 

vitro methods should be excluded and all forms of 

directed mutagenesis should be considered excluded 

methods.
272

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

However, we would support future robust 

conversation on other kinds of mutagenesis.

Embryo transfer in livestock. Embryo 

transfer as typically practiced. This is not an 

economic conflict of interest I have, but I come 

from a long line of angus breeders on both sides 

of the family.

And one of my cousins is a practitioner 

of embryo transfer.

The embryo transfer as it is practiced 

requires the cow that is the source of eggs to be 

used to create the embryos to receive high levels 

of hormones to produce super ovulation that results 

in a large number of eggs.

Once the eggs are fertilized, made into 

embryos, the recipient cows are stimulated with 

additional hormones to make them ready to receive 

the embryos.

CFS does not think that organic 

consumers support cows being stimulated with 

additional hormones to make them produce eggs and 

then additional hormones to allow the surrogate 
273

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

cows to receive the embryos.

This violates the expectations of 

consumers that hormones are not used in organic 

agriculture.

Embryo transfer that relies on hormones 

to stimulate the ovaries of cows should be 

considered excluded.

We would allow embryo transfers that 

do not require additional hormones to be injected 

into either donor or surrogate cows. Such 

transfers would be in keeping with the spirit of 

organic agriculture.

We're also concerned that the largest 

embryo transfer company, Trans Ova, has bought 

ViaGen, the only cattle cloning company in the 

United States and raises my concerns at least --

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Jaydee. I 

think you've reached time.

MR. HANSON: Okay. I would urge you 

to read our comments on vaccines. We're against 

GMO vaccines and think you have tools to deal with 

that.
274

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, thank you.

MR. HANSON: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Any questions? Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Pardon my ignorance 

on some of this, but I'm a little confused when 

you say you're okay with mutagenesis including 

radiation. I mean, given that irradiation is not 

okay, but natural radiation is.

MR. HANSON: I would say that we need 

more of a conversation on that. And that's my last 

comments that we support future comments on other 

kinds of induced mutagenesis.

If it were up to me personally I would 

have us go back and look at mutagenesis that comes 

from irradiating organisms that was -- some of those 

varieties were grandfathered in.

And it was not carefully looked at when 

we started the National Organic Program. 

We can do that. I wasn't of the opinion 

that today was the day to do that. I argued for 

it, but I got argued down.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, thank you. Thank 
275

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you, Jaydee. Next up is Nicole Dehne with Phil 

LaRocca who will probably have something positive 

to say.

MS. DEHNE: Good afternoon. My name 

is Nicole Dehne. I'm the certification director 

for Vermont Organic Farmers, LLC, the certification 

program owned by NOFA Vermont.

We represent over 800 organic producers 

in the state of Vermont. I would like to thank 

the NOSB for all of your hard work and for the 

opportunity to give comment today on a number of 

agenda items.

We agree with the subcommittee's 

emphasis on the importance of vaccines to organic 

livestock producers, and that vaccines complement 

the important organic principle of disease 

prevention.

We believe that the current regulations 

prohibit the use of vaccines produced with excluded 

methods unless they are on the National List.

Currently VOF reviews all the vaccines 

used by our producers to determine if those vaccines 
276

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

have been produced with excluded methods.

We have not found that the livestock 

producers we certify, beef, pork, small poultry 

operations and dairy, have needed a vaccine 

produced with excluded methods.

However, we don't certify large poultry 

or pork operations, and we understand that there 

may be vaccines needed by livestock producers in 

other parts of the country that are not needed in 

Vermont.

Therefore we support the change 

proposed by the subcommittee to allow the use of 

vaccines made from excluded methods when 

alternatives are not commercially available.

The subcommittee's document does a 

great job in listing resources available for 

certifiers to begin to determine whether vaccines 

are genetically modified.

Certifier consistency is vital to the 

success of our industry. In the name of this 

consistency we believe that certifiers should work 

together and with the NOP to develop affidavits 
277

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and resources to determine whether a vaccine is 

produced using excluded methods.

In addition the subcommittee gives 

examples of how certifiers and producers might 

apply commercial availability of vaccines. That's 

a helpful resource. 

Documenting this search for vaccines 

will also need to be verified. We suggest that 

documentation of commercial availability could 

include statements from a veterinarian, statements 

from suppliers of vaccines and so forth.

In conclusion we urge the NOSB to pass 

this proposal so that the industry can move forward 

and improve consistency amongst certifiers and 

organic producers regarding which vaccines are 

allowed for use.

We would also like to thank Jenny Tucker 

and the Program for confirming this morning that 

gene editing is a form of genetic engineering that 

is clearly prohibited.

We would also like to encourage the NOSB 

to continue their work on evaluating and defining 
278

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

new and existing techniques for genetic 

modification.

In addition, we would like to see the 

2016 NOSB recommendation on excluded methods be 

formally adopted by the NOP and implemented through 

guidance.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Any 

comments? Thank you. I loved everything you 

said.

MS. DEHNE: Oh good. I'll take a 

chocolate.

CHAIR BEHAR: Next up is Phil LaRocca 

with Peter --

MR. LaROCCA: I think one of my 

positive things is I will be very quick with my 

comments.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Peter Nell is on 

deck.

MR. LaROCCA: My name is Phil LaRocca. 

I'm going on my 43rd year as a commercial organic 

farmer. I also stand as the chairman of the board 

for CCOF. I sit on the California Organic Aquatic 
279

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Advisory Board and recently I am chairing a 

subcommittee called Cal Organic where we're trying 

to put together some standards for organic 

cannabis.

First of all I'd like to start off by 

saying I really hope that we get the origin of 

livestock through the way we as the organic 

community want it to be.

Basically yesterday attending the NOC 

meeting two words came to mind that really struck 

me and that I felt I should comment on. 

And then Jenny and Harriet both 

addressed those words today. And by the way, 

another positive, ladies. I thought both your 

introductions were quite stellar. Thank you.

Anyway, the first word on that is 

integrity. You've got to have integrity in the 

organic industry and the total organic movement.

We are lost without it. We have to have 

integrity if we want to produce as farmers healthy 

food. We have to have integrity in the organic 

system so that we can make a healthy environment.
280

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And we have to have integrity for our 

own economic system in our organic industry.

 And I have to look back several years 

ago. We did a study at CCOF who was buying organic 

and why.

And in that study it said -- back then 

too there was roughly 30 percent more to buy organic 

over conventional. And by God, everyone said yes, 

I am willing to pay the 30 percent for organic goods.

But a little anecdote was by God, it 

had better be organic. Again, back to the 

integrity factor.

The second word that got me was 

enforcement. We need enforcement from this board. 

We need enforcement for the rules that you people 

pass.

We need enforcement for the livestock 

and poultry pasture rules. We also need 

enforcement to know where we're going.

We need enforcement for people that are 

trying to tamper with the integrity of what organic 

is about.
281

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We as an entire community, as an entire 

social group have to keep integrity and enforcement 

on our plate.

But you are the face of the industry 

right now so you really have that pressure to make 

sure that we maintain integrity and that we maintain 

enforcement. Thank you. Positive, quick.

CHAIR BEHAR: Any questions? Thank 

you, Phil. Okay, next up is Peter Nell, and Mark 

Kastel is on deck.

MR. NELL: I promise, even though my 

laptop covers the timer that I will be on time.

So hello, my name is Peter Nell. I work 

for California Certified Organic Farmers, CCOF. 

CCOF represents over 4,000 certified organic 

farmers, processor handlers, businesses at the 

local, state and federal level.

I'll be commenting today on the 

Materials Subcommittee's discussion document on 

marine materials in organic crop production.

First, I'd like to thank the Materials 

Subcommittee for continuing to engage with 
282

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

stakeholders on this topic. I know a lot of that 

is the leadership of Emily. Thanks, Emily.

By keeping the discussion document for 

this entire year we have the continued opportunity 

to hash out these important details.

I would also like to thank the experts 

on this morning's panel. They did an excellent 

job explaining nuances with seaweed harvesting, 

the science, certification of marine materials, 

et cetera. 

And next I'd like to talk about an 

alternative. As you all know CCOF does not support 

the certification of marine materials to the wild 

crop standards for organic crop inputs.

We would suggest that NOSB consider 

instead whether to prohibit specific species or 

regions that are at risk of over-harvesting or 

habitat degradation from use in organic production.

It seems to me there's been a lot of 

discussion on specific species today and I think 

the board should take a look at that seriously.

For example, if a task force of 
283

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

scientific experts were to find that seaweed, some 

specific seaweed harvested in the Monterey Bay 

right outside of CCOF's office was causing habitat 

degradation, prohibit that.

Let's not look for a blanket solution. 

Let's target real world actual risk and ensure 

that our environment is kept safe.

Should the board move forward towards 

requiring organic certification of marine 

materials I'd like to point out that extensive 

guidance would be necessary.

I believe it was Chris earlier also 

expressed that. That would likely need an 

implementation period.

And I would be remiss to say that that 

implementation period should consider the organic 

farmers that are using these products on their farm 

and take that into consideration.

Other than that I think I covered it 

and I am 30 seconds down. Oops.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you so much for 
284

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

continuing to comment on this topic. And I really 

appreciate it.

And I was -- I have a question, two 

questions.

One is you mentioned if as a last resort 

which would not be your preference organic 

certification were required of marine material 

inputs a 10-year phase-in period should be adopted.

Would you explore anything shorter than 

that?

MR. NELL: Sure, absolutely. I think 

if the science can back it up there's justification.

I believe in our comments we did say 

10-year previously. That was kind of a ballpark. 

If the board were to determine that a 

shorter implementation period was adequate then 

absolutely that would work. CCOF, our members, 

we would figure it out. The organic community has 

figured things out before. We're doers so we do 

it.

MS. OAKLEY: So then my final question 

is have you reached out to producers who use these 
285

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

products to share with them some of what the board 

is looking at and ask if they have an opinion about 

how we should move forward on this?

MR. NELL: Yes. We do outreach, 

general outreach to our members. As a farmer 

yourself I'm sure you know getting farmers to do 

things sometimes especially if they're very wonky 

can be difficult.

And yes, absolutely. Should the 

committee move forward on a recommendation that 

would have the significant impact we would 

certainly do a lot more outreach and press the issue 

with our members.

I believe in our spring comment I broke 

out a rough number of how many members of ours use 

inputs that are sourced from marine materials.

I can't remember the number off the top 

of my head, but it's a good amount.

CHAIR BEHAR: Sue.

MS. BAIRD: You said that you did not 

support certification, but you suggested that 

perhaps we just target areas that might be 
286

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

negatively impacted and do something about that.

How do we do that if this is the national 

program?

MR. NELL: Could the board not prohibit 

let's say through an annotation a geographical 

area?

MS. BAIRD: No. I mean, I'm asking you 

how you would suggest that.

MR. NELL: Well, I guess in my 

response to that is a suggestion that the board 

should continue to look at, you know, if not 

certification consider annotation which I know you 

all are talking about.

What avenues through annotation are 

possible.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, thank you. Thank 

you for your tenacity and continuing to make 

comments.

Next up is Mark Kastel with Tom Harding 

on deck.

MR. KASTEL: Thank you. Hello. My 

name is Mark Kastel. I am director of Organic Eye, 
287

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a focused project of Beyond Pesticides.

2019 marks 30 years since my 

certification as an organic farmer pre-USDA. 

Prior to that my focus was as a corporate and 

governmental watchdog for over a decade helping 

farmers launch Organic Valley, Blue River Organics 

among other business enterprises.

Who owns the organic label? We all do. 

Stakeholders and lobbyists have to do more than 

just cheerleading the NOP and they need to pressure 

more enforcement rather than rulemaking.

No new rules were needed to assure 

grazing of all ruminants since the law clearly 

stated they all had to have access to pasture, and 

the only time you could temporarily confine them 

was if you met four criteria delineated clearly 

in the law.

The USDA ran out the clock and we still 

have organic factories producing milk, milking cows 

three and four times a day in the desert at fanciful 

stocking levels.

No new rules were needed to assure 
288

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

outdoor access for poultry. The law clearly states 

that all organic livestock must have access to the 

outdoors.

Even if you think that a porch with a 

concrete floor and screen walls constitutes the, 

quote, "outdoors," if only 1 to 3 percent of the 

birds in a building with 190,000 chickens in it 

could fit into that outdoor space, 97 percent of 

them are being illegally confined.

No new rules were needed to ban 

hydroponic container growing. OFPA, not the 

regulations, and you can't change OFPA one way or 

another, clearly states that to obtain organic 

certification your initial OSP must state how you 

are going to maintain or improve soil fertility.

How do you do that, folks, without soil?

So, the law already requires that once 

you convert a distinct herd to organic management 

and production and you're certified all cattle must 

be managed organically from the last third of 

gestation.

These violations of the spirit and 
289

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

letter of the law are destroying the market and 

societal value of organics.

The USDA currently and historically 

lacks the will to enforce the law. See something, 

say something. 

Please contact Organic Eye in full 

confidence. Let's make the arc of organic bend 

towards justice.

And in closing let me just say that 

celery powder, folks, has no business being in 

organics. And I personally don't care if it was 

produced with conventional nitrogen or somehow they 

jazz it up and do it organically. It's a 

carcinogen.

Organics is supposed to be the last 

bastion of food safety for families that want to 

opt out of the conventional food market.

In terms of biological impacts on the 

human body there is no difference between celery 

powder, celery juice and synthetic nitrates. 

They're all preservatives and they're all 

carcinogenic.
290

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And one of the criteria as you folks 

well know in terms of listing or re-listing 

something on the National List is its impact on 

human health. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Any 

questions from the board? Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: So I've been reading 

these comments on celery powder, but I noticed we 

didn't get any comments on yeast and IARC classifies 

alcoholic beverages as a carcinogen list 1.

I'm curious to know why we're focusing 

on meat products and also not on alcoholic products. 

MR. KASTEL: Are you somehow comparing 

alcoholic beverages which people are -- the common 

denominator for organic consumers tends to be level 

of education.

MR. CHAPMAN: I'm comparing IARC level 

1 products that can be made from agricultural 

sources.

MR. KASTEL: Okay. So, this is on the 

list. It's clear that the mandate for this board 

is to evaluate environmental impacts, human health 
291

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

impacts, compatibility with organics and 

essentiality.

You can produce processed organic meat 

and freeze it and market it safely. The reason 

that you put preservatives in there -- first of 

all, if you look historically at why we preserved 

meats it's because -- that predated commercial 

refrigeration.

So it was a safety issue. The only way 

you could consume any meat was to somehow preserve 

it. The same reason we make yogurt and ferment 

vegetables.

You don't need to add preservatives to 

those meat products. They can be kept frozen. 

For commercial reasons, and I am 

sympathetic to that because I work for farmers who 

want to sell more organic meat and we all want to 

see the market grow.

It's a convenience. All those 

processed meat products come into the retailer 

frozen, or at least the vast preponderance of them 

do.
292

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And then they thaw them out when they 

put the hot dogs in the cooler. That's for 

convenience so you can take them right home and 

throw them on the grill.

So it will potentially have an impact 

on sales, but it won't eliminate the availability 

of processed organic meat products.

MR. CHAPMAN: I guess I'm seeing that 

I can have frozen pork loin instead of ham, but 

I still don't get how from a carcinogen perspective 

why processed meat products are being called out 

and alcoholic beverages are not.

MR. KASTEL: I think you're trying to 

change the subject, Tom. I'm here talking about 

celery powder. 

You folks have to go to sleep at night. 

Right now there are petitions from two other NGOs 

to change the labeling on all preserved meats 

because it's a sham.

To suggest that you can put on the label 

no nitrates or no nitrites, or you can put on the 

label uncured when this material has the same 
293

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

functionality as --

MR. CHAPMAN: That's not organic. 

That's not our area of responsibility. That's a 

FSA --

MR. KASTEL: No, that's not your area. 

What I'm saying is what organic labeling is, and 

people come to organics because they believe in 

organics.

And it's the Cliff's Notes version of 

doing their food research. 

I want you folks to vote one way or 

another and go home and think about the mom or the 

dad who's buying their kids some kind of preserved 

meat product that they might put in their lunch 

pail and understand that there is firm published 

science that indicates this material is 

carcinogenic in nature. That shouldn't be an 

organic food.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Lisa had a 

comment or a question.

MS. DE LIMA: I just want to clarify. 

To my knowledge as a retailer we don't get any 
294

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of those products in frozen and slack them out. 

What you referred to has hot dogs and you said all 

those products come in frozen and the retailer 

slacks them out anyway.

Slacks them out, takes them from frozen 

to cold. I just want to clarify that at least for 

our 20 stores none of that product works that way.

And my second point is I do agree that 

I think sales would decrease as you pointed out.

From my experience in the last 20 years 

anytime we have tried to sell a frozen meat product 

it just doesn't sell. Consumers don't buy it that 

way.

So I feel like in the long term if we 

went down that route what would happen to those 

farmers is not that they'd be selling a little less 

out of the freezer, I just think they wouldn't be 

selling at all.

MR. KASTEL: Okay. First of all I work 

with manufacturers. Those products are frozen. 

If your distributor thaws them before you get them 

and puts them in a refrigerated compartment instead 
295

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of a freezer I can't control that. I'm not aware 

of that.

There might be some that are 

legitimately not frozen first. 

Henrik Ibsen, the Norwegian playwright 

wrote a play once entitled An Enemy of the People. 

And an economically disadvantaged 

village looked to these hot springs to be their 

economic salvation.

And the town doctor found that they were 

contaminated with the tailings from the closed mine 

with heavy metals and toxins.

And he said thank God we figured this 

out before we went to market. 

Folks, the number one consideration is 

safety and the integrity of the organic label. 

We will lose more in general by not prohibiting 

materials that are becoming wider and wider in terms 

of the knowledge of their deleterious impacts on 

human health than we will by losing those sales.

It becomes incumbent upon all of us as 

a community. But you're on the front line Lisa 
296

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as a retailer to educate those consumers with the 

signage, with the newsletter articles that that's 

where you find safe organic meat is in the freezer. 

And you'd have to either do a little bit of 

planning, or stick them in the microwave before 

you barbecue them.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Mark.

MR. KASTEL: Thank you, Harriet. 

Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR BEHAR: Tom Harding is next with 

Bill Collins on deck.

MR. HARDING: Good afternoon and thank 

you very much. I want to thank all of you on the 

NOSB and the NOP for all the good work you do.

I represent Green Act Supply who is the 

petitioner for fatty alcohols to be used in organic 

tobacco crops.

As you know we have resubmitted a new 

petition and it's been approved and we really 

appreciate the opportunity to take it forward.

It's very important that you recognize 

since we submitted our first petition -- I should 
297

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

say our third because we revised it a number of 

times -- that the EPA has reclassified this 

material, fatty alcohols, which is used both in 

-- all kinds of things, but including food, that 

it's now placed it on the biochemical list.

Whereas it is a safer, one of the safer 

chemical parts. Biochemicals, naturally 

occurring. Non-toxic mode of action and safe 

history of exposure to humans.

These are really important things. 

Fatty alcohols for us to be placed on the National 

List is really important to our family farmers. 

And you're going to hear from many of them in a 

few minutes and also from the universities who 

support this work for many, many years.

I wanted to address briefly the 

minority position which I really respect and 

appreciate.

When we submitted the first petition 

for fatty alcohols we requested that tomatoes and 

tomato grafting be added to the list.

We were informed immediately by the 
298

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

NOP, rightfully so, that because our EPA label was 

not complete therefore we had to remove tomatoes 

and tomato grafting.

That work continues to go. In fact 

there's 3 million tomato plants grafted in 

California right now that are using fatty alcohols.

So I wanted to make sure that -- and 

the other thing that's really important is that 

when we were requested to remove it we weren't given 

a choice because of that.

And that's really important, that you 

have to have approved labels to do this work.

The other thing that's really important 

is we have done a number of field trials.

You have in the petition the field 

trials that we did at North Carolina State not only 

one year, but again this year.

We also did those at Yunnan 

Agricultural University, the College of Tobacco 

Sciences. 

We took your advice. We looked at 

other options, all kinds of other materials and 
299

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

they were clearly evaluated. 

And hands down, both from the grower 

standpoint and from the research scientist 

standpoint nothing compares to fatty alcohols in 

all of the ranges and therefore it is the best 

choice.

I'll give you some examples. There are 

no detrimental chemical interactions with fatty 

alcohols and other materials. Proven to be safe 

and effective for humans and therefore our workers 

and all that the plant touches.

It controls suckers and that's a really 

important part in commercial growing today. Why? 

Well, because suckers do one thing. They reduce 

the size of the plant itself, particularly the leaf, 

and therefore if you know anything about what we're 

doing here it's the leaf that we sell.

The higher quality, the larger the 

leaf, the more pounds we get, the better off the 

farmer is.

Without the availability of alcohols 

we would be in trouble.
300

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I wanted to say thank you very much. 

I hope you will vote yes for this petition to put 

fatty alcohols on the National List. And by the 

way, my monarch is saying please vote yes and I 

want to thank you again.

CHAIR BEHAR: Any questions from the 

board? 

MR. HARDING: Any questions?

CHAIR BEHAR: I don't see any. Thank 

you, Tom.

MR. HARDING: Well, the experts are 

following me.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So, Bill Collins 

is next with Faylene Whitaker on deck.

MR. COLLINS: I will have some 

assistance to do what I want to do. 

I'm William Collins. I'm a retired 

professor from NC State University. I was a 

tobacco extension specialist for 20 years and I 

taught a course on tobacco technology.

And I had two hours on sucker control 

in there, but we're going to add here to the three 
301

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

minutes.

I've worked all my professional career 

since 1966 some with sucker control except a few 

years and have a big interest in it.

So what I want to do is through showing 

you how do we get to the problem of controlling 

suckers and what it means to control suckers in 

tobacco and also give you information on how you 

can sustain it from a sound agronomic environmental 

and economic viewpoint.

Now, tobacco plants come out of the 

greenhouse as many horticultural plants might be. 

And it goes to the field about 10 days after the 

last frost-free period regardless of what area in 

the United States you may grow it in.

And we grow it at six to eight thousand 

plants per acre in the culture that we are familiar 

with.

And the plant undergoes vegetative 

growth for the next 60 days. So, the first 30 days 

more or less is development of roots, and then the 

next 60 days it puts on leaves, up to 20-25 leaves 
302

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

per plant.

Then, Rowan, if you'd just hold up that 

plant, that beautiful flower right there that we 

had trouble getting on the airplane. Anyway, they 

top it and that's when the fun begins.

So the plant tries to reproduce another 

way and at each leaf axle where there can be 20 

to 25. It has the potential of producing three 

suckers, three suckers.

And they must be controlled or you can't 

grow tobacco the way we're doing it.

Now, what we have is the potential to 

have 60,000 suckers per acre and it must be 

controlled.

And in organic production the only way 

to do it that we know that's practical at all is 

with fatty alcohols. And we've had a lot of 

experience in just doing that.

You could do it with this. And one of 

the reasons I'm here today, as a child I came from 

a tobacco farm, I helped do this, pulling these 

suckers.
303

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And it's prohibitive now. The average 

cost of labor according to our economic people in 

our department on the university they're publishing 

is right at $20 per hour of labor.

So it can't be. And it costs more if 

they remove them by hand than it would be if they 

used some other way of doing it.

So the use of alcohol is the only 

feasible practical control of suckers in organic 

produced tobacco and it's the mainstay for growers 

who are expanding organic production in other 

crops.

Mr. Carter will come up behind me 

sometime and he was one of the pioneers in this 

area, and he's expanded to others. 

But I think he will tell you that the 

profits we're able to get from organic tobacco 

production help subsidize us and get it off the 

floor.

So I would like to end by saying -- oh, 

I'm down to two.

CHAIR BEHAR: I think you've reached 
304

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

your time. I have one quick question.

MR. COLLINS: Good.

CHAIR BEHAR: And that is how is it 

sprayed in the field? Is it kind of a blanket 

sprayer? Is it somehow --

MR. COLLINS: It is a directed sprayer. 

We have three nozzles over the roll mechanically 

and it's sprayed.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

MR. COLLINS: And I might answer, I 

volunteer. They say I volunteer in court cases, 

but I'll tell you there's another way of doing this. 

You can do it with some things called vegetable 

oil, but you cannot spray them. You cannot spray 

them. 

They have to be put on by hand because 

if it were put on the leaves it would blister them 

and also it ends up in the wrappings of the tobacco 

cigarette. So it's a no-no.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Steve had a 

question.

VICE CHAIR ELA: When you're hand 
305

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

de-suckering what are the incidences with the farm 

workers of tobacco poisoning or nicotine poisoning? 

How often does that happen?

MR. COLLINS: How often does nicotine 

poisoning?

VICE CHAIR ELA: From the farm workers.

MR. COLLINS: It wouldn't be that much 

at the time of suckering. The nicotine portion 

occurs later in the game, that is when they're 

harvesting.

And about 70 percent of our tobacco, 

and it's increasing, is being harvested by machines 

so people don't put their hands on it.

And we have learned some things to do. 

If tobacco is harvested when it's dry that's less 

of a problem.

But I admit to you it is a significant 

problem with people who have not worked around 

tobacco who are working. 

And some of the H-2A workers may not 

have been around tobacco. If they're tobacco users 

it doesn't have any consequence.
306

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Could you give me a little 

clarity on the $20 per hour for labor figure that 

you were stating? Because I didn't understand 

exactly what that pertained to.

MR. COLLINS: Well, most of our workers 

in tobacco now are H-2A, most or all of them.

And you have a certain fee that comes 

in that's somewhere in the $11 to $12 range.

But they also have to pay to get them 

here. They have to pay a fee of like $1,000 or 

so. And they also have to provide housing and a 

whole lot of other things.

So our economist, Dr. Blake Brown and 

so forth, they say it's right at $20 an hour. It's 

terrible. We don't make that sort of profit off 

tobacco.

Other questions or comments?

CHAIR BEHAR: No, that's it. Thank 

you.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Faylene Whitaker 
307

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

with Billy Carter on deck. And we're still at about 

20-25 minutes behind.

MS. WHITAKER: I am Faylene Whitaker, 

a partner of Whitaker Farms and Golden Knob Organic 

Farms in Climax, North Carolina. 

We have three generations on our farm 

where we grow both conventional and organic crops. 

We grow organic tobacco, hemp, corn, soybeans and 

wheat.

We also grow conventional crops of 

tomatoes, strawberries, vegetables and greenhouse 

crops.

I'm here today to ask for your support 

for the use of fatty alcohols in pertaining to the 

production of organic tobacco.

I am not a scientist, don't claim to 

be, and not a chemist. So I can only relate to 

how this product applies to my farm and other farms 

growing organic tobacco.

I know that protecting organic tobacco 

is not on the top of everyone's radar screen to 

protect. I understand that.
308

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

However, I do believe that it is a safer 

product than conventional tobacco due to the 

limited pesticides we can use on the product.

Fatty alcohols have not been shown to 

have an adverse effect on either humans or soils 

in all the studies I have read.

Please allow me to explain why this 

product is important to me as a farmer.

We only grow about 100 acres of organic 

tobacco. But this has allowed us to convert over 

900 acres to other organic crops, for the production 

of other organic crops.

Due to the crop rotations it has also 

allowed us to improve soil and water quality, and 

without this production of organic crops we would 

not continue to grow some of the other organic crops 

due to the cost of inputs and labor associated with 

those crops in our area.

We need the approval of fatty alcohols 

for sucker control in our organic tobacco.

This product keeps our workers from 

having to be too exposed to as much green tobacco 
309

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

which is high in nicotine during the growing season 

when sucker growth must be removed every week.

Also when there are tender suckers on 

the plant it causes the buildup of insects that 

we must then use more insecticides to protect the 

plant.

We have been growing organic tobacco 

for eight years and have been able to use fatty 

alcohols under our certifier for all this time.

We have had no incident of sickness from 

the green tobacco during this time because our 

workers have not had to be actively handling the

tobacco.

They have been in the fields doing other 

work such as hoeing and weeding which is necessary 

in the organic production.

We as farmers believe in this product 

and that it is a safe product. We use it weekly 

once the tobacco starts budding for about 6 to 10 

weeks.

We need this product to stay in organic 

production where inputs and labor are higher than 
310

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

conventional costs.

I know for our farm it is essential for 

us to stay in the organic production. 

Whether we want to admit it or not 

everything in business comes down to the economics 

and the farms are businesses.

We're in the business of farming 

because we love what we do. But it also must make 

money for us to continue to feed and clothe our 

families and hopefully keep passing this farm down 

for generations to come.

I would like to urge you to approve 

fatty alcohols. Thank you for your time and 

attendance. I'll take any questions.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Okay, next 

up is Billy Carter, and then Stanley Hughes, and 

then we will take a break.

MR. CARTER: Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak. My name is Billy Carter. 

I'm an organic farmer in Eagle Springs, North 

Carolina.

On our farm we grow tobacco, sweet 
311

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

potatoes, field corn, hemp and small grain 

organically. Our first parcel was certified in 

1998 and we currently have over 1,400 acres in 

certified organic production.

So fatty alcohols allow us to 

effectively deal with controlling sucker growth. 

Effectively controlling sucker growth allows for 

reductions in pests because they are less attracted 

to tobacco that is free of suckers.

Also we realize more efficient use of 

our fertilizers because we do not overcompensate 

just to account for sucker growth.

And it would be very difficult for us 

to grow tobacco more than just a small quantity 

if any at all if we did not have an effective sucker 

control material.

My history of growing organic tobacco 

predates the introduction of fatty alcohols. And 

I have used both soybean and mineral oils as sucker 

control materials and both of those materials 

proved to be woefully inadequate but equally 

detrimental is that application involves many hours 
312

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of nasty, grueling work for my employees.

It also created the ceiling to further 

expansion in terms of more acres because of the 

limitation of labor.

But with the use of fatty alcohols we've 

achieved much higher yields of better quality 

tobacco, and more importantly we have removed our 

workers from a job that was inherently dangerous 

because of the great length of time it required 

in the field daily during the hottest parts of the 

summer to hand apply those inputs.

So we value our employees, many of whom 

have been with us in excess of 20 years. And to 

a man without fail whenever we no longer were using 

the mineral oil or soybean oil they expressed great 

relief. They were so glad to be rid of that 

particular job.

So we've been able to expand our organic 

acreage rapidly because we do have tobacco as an 

underpinning for doing that.

It allows us to have these other crops 

in organic rotation.
313

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And while we would still have some 

organic production without growing tobacco I assume 

that it would probably be on a much smaller scale.

And without fail in the conversations 

that I have with other organic tobacco growers 

that's the same sentiment that's expressed is there 

is a conclusion that has not been reached as to 

whether they would continue to grow organically 

at all.

The introduction of the use of fatty 

alcohols into organic tobacco production 

absolutely has been the underpinning of the rapid 

growth of certified organic acres within our state.

So again, just let me take the 

opportunity to thank you for the time that you 

commit to the very important work that this board 

does.

And I'd like to ask you to consider my 

and the other folks' request to permit fatty 

alcohols as an allowed substance in organic tobacco 

production. Thank you for your time.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Dave.
314

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: Billy, I was wondering 

if you could tell -- I don't know, maybe others 

don't know.

What is the market for organic tobacco? 

I used to work in North Carolina and I've seen 

it traded for conventional tobacco. But what is 

the market and where is it sold?

MR. CARTER: There's really one 

primary opportunity to market organic tobacco 

consistently and that's with Santa Fe Natural 

Tobacco.

And most organic tobacco growers are 

in a contractual arrangement with those folks. 

And it's a significant premium that they pay just 

as is the case with other organic crops. 

They're paying you for the risk 

involved and the commitment you've made to go 

through the certification process. 

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: So after the webinar I was 

actually looking up OTAC a little bit on the 

internet. 
315

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And it seems -- like you mentioned the 

Santa Fe buying company. It seemed that this 

material was actually developed by the Santa Fe 

company in concert with its manufacturer. Is that 

correct?

MR. CARTER: Yes, I would think that 

would be a fairly accurate statement. The 

manufacturer already had the capacity to do that.

And I think the situation was that Santa 

Fe Natural encouraged them to explore the 

opportunity to use all the natural inputs and try 

to get it to be utilized as an organic input.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. 

MR. CARTER: You're welcome. Thank 

you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Stanley Hughes is next 

and on deck is a break.

MR. HUGHES: Good afternoon. I thank 

the board for hearing our plea about trying to get 

this fatty alcohol approved.

My name is Stanley Hughes. I'm a small 

farmer in Orange County from North Carolina. And 
316

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I've been farming all my life.

I made small farm of the year with A&T 

2004, A&T State University. And 2013 with Carolina 

Farm Stewardship Association.

And my plea is that we get this fatty 

alcohol approved because without that -- I've been 

certified since 1996. I was one of the first 

growers when they brought the Program to Oxford, 

North Carolina.

And if it hadn't been for that I would 

be totally out of farming because the price of 

things got so ridiculous I couldn't farm.

Having organic tobacco helps me have 

a decent labor force and other crop rotations such 

as other vegetables I grow like hemp. Well, hemp 

is not a vegetable but I've grown some hemp and 

collards, kales, sweet potatoes, field tomatoes, 

and some beans for the fresh market. So I do that.

We've had our family farm for years. 

We're at least over 100 years old. I'm the third 

generation.

Before then I have tried -- when I was 
317

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

coming up as a boy we used to have to hand sucker 

tobacco.

Well, then the conventional market at 

one time you could hand apply bayol oil and that 

wasn't working so they come up with other chemicals.

But like then after the organic program 

come in we came back using mineral oil. And that 

was time-consuming and the quality of the tobacco 

wasn't as well. And if you used too much it would 

just like kill the stalk.

And the fatty alcohol make a better 

quality, just a cleaner process of using the 

tobacco.

I don't think there's no harm in -- for 

using it. Nobody gets sick or anything. So I'm 

just well pleased with it and I hope the board will 

approve it.

And I really thank you for your time 

for listening to us to hear our cry. But that's 

what we need to do, continue to have a good 

successful organic program in tobacco. Because 

without that there's going to be a lot of jobs lost 
318

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in the state of North Carolina and equipment. 

Prices are going to drop. There's going to be a 

lot of farmers out of business.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Steve.

MR. HUGHES: Thank you.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I just want to say, 

Stanley, and we say this to most of the farmers, 

but to all of you that traveled up here thank you 

for making the time to come and give us comments 

directly.

As a farmer myself I know it takes time 

and effort to be away from the farm so thank you 

to all the farmers that came.

MR. HUGHES: All right. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, with that we will 

take a break. It is 3:47 everyone. Be back here 

at 4 o'clock.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 3:48 p.m. and resumed at 

4:01 p.m.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So next up is Jen 

Berkebile with Kyla Smith on deck. Is Jen in the 
319

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

room yet? We don't have all of our board members 

so we're just going to wait just a little bit.

Okay, we're going to get started. 

Thank you, Jen.

MS. BERKEBILE: Good afternoon. My 

name is Jen Berkebile, materials program manager 

at Pennsylvania Certified Organic.

We certify over 1,600 organic 

operations throughout the U.S. Today I'll be 

commenting on paper and vaccines.

I appreciate the Crops Subcommittee's 

work on the topic of paper for use as a crop 

production aid. 

Regarding synthetic content I've heard 

during public comments the distinction made between 

cellulose and synthetic fibers.

I do want to caution the subcommittee 

about making this distinction and limiting 

synthetic fibers.

Cellulose itself is frequently 

synthetic which I think has already come up. The 

technical report for newspaper states that 
320

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

virtually all paper production involves the sulfite 

or alkalite extraction of cellulose from wood which 

would render it synthetic. 

So any limit on synthetic fibers may 

unintentionally limit cellulose.

PCO has concerns about whether the 

proposed limit to synthetic polymers, 

biodegradability standards and biobased content 

requirements can possibly be met.

We don't really want to see another 

listing like the one for biodegradable biobased 

mulch.

For that reason PCO supports the 

listing of virgin or recycled paper without colored 

or glossy inks.

Now, onto the proposal for the use of 

excluded method vaccines in organic livestock 

production. Thank you to the Livestock Committee 

for the work on this.

I'm approaching this topic with two 

lenses. On the one hand the allowance of vaccines 

produced by excluded methods is a source of 
321

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

inconsistency among certifiers which is a 

disservice to organic producers.

I would very much like to see all 

certifiers on the same page.

On the other hand I want to strongly 

advocate for the availability of vaccines for our 

producers.

Prevention of medical issues is an 

important tenet of organic livestock production 

and vaccines are absolutely vital to this.

PCO's concern is that a burdensome 

commercial availability restriction will 

discourage producers from using vaccines.

For that reason I request more guidance 

and technical resources on the entire process of 

determining commercial availability of an 

equivalent non-GMO vaccine including roles and 

responsibilities.

Some certifiers have had success 

determining the GE status of vaccines, but none 

have had to work through the complicated steps of 

determining what vaccines are equivalent and/or 
322

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

whether non-GMO vaccines are commercially 

available for the producer, or determining the 

producer's compliance with this.

This will be difficult if not 

impossible for the client to demonstrate alone as 

vaccines are not labeled with GE information.

And it will be difficult even for 

certifiers who do not have the technical livestock 

medical knowledge to assess whether or not vaccines 

are equivalent.

Is it possible for the NOP to work with 

APHIS for vaccines labeled something like non-GMO 

for organic production.

I do material review and I know how 

difficult this annotation will be both for 

certifiers and operators to verify without more 

guidance from the NOSB and NOP.

Thank you, really, all of you for your 

time and dedication on the board and your work on 

these issues.

We appreciate the role that every one 

of you plays in supporting and moving forward the 
323

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic industry.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Same question for you 

as earlier. If we just annotate paper pots to say 

no colored or glossy inks just like the newspaper

listing it really, it doesn't limit the amount of 

plastic, other synthetic fibers in those pots.

I mean, we know that roughly -- at this 

point there's a necessity for 15 to 20 percent from 

what manufacturers have told us.

But I don't think as a grower that I'd 

want 50 percent or as a board member.

So if we don't annotate with some 

limitation it seems like we leave the door open 

for any amount of undesirable synthetic fiber.

So I guess I'd like your feedback on 

that. We've had a number of people say just 

annotate it simply, but I don't think that really 

solves the problem.

MS. BERKEBILE: Right. I do 

understand your concerns. I do think it's up to 

the board to determine if there is a level above 
324

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

which synthetic polymer content is harmful to human 

health or the environment.

And so I would just advise that that 

level is verifiable, that it's possible for 

certifiers to verify.

And I would advocate for the allowance 

of paper pots that are on the market. So a level 

that allows those that are currently on the market. 

I don't know if that's helpful.

VICE CHAIR ELA: One thing we did not 

address were adhesives. We kind of kicked that 

can down the road.

But that's another one. Most people 

said we should allow adhesives, they're already 

in paper. Well, that's a quagmire if you read the 

TR because the TR didn't even go down that road.

Any thoughts on how we should -- if we 

should just leave that one untouched, or?

MS. BERKEBILE: That's an interesting 

question. Of the two annotations that were 

proposed you're right, I don't think either of those 

addresses adhesives.
325

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The ACA materials working group met and 

they came up with a different annotation proposal 

which lists paper pots in the hopes that that 

listing would encompass the adhesives that are in 

paper pots.

But again that doesn't give any sort 

of limits, upper limits on those adhesives or what 

they are really. So I would leave that up to the 

board.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: I think Scott was first.

MR. RICE: Either way. I had a 

question on vaccines. Harriet mentioned earlier 

to address some of the concerns about lack of 

guidance or resources. Putting something in the 

cover sheet. Is that something that you would be 

comfortable with and still have us move forward?

MS. BERKEBILE: Yes, I think so. Yes.

MR. RICE: Not knowing what that says.

MS. BERKEBILE: Right. That's the 

question. But I think so, yes.

I do appreciate that you had said that, 
326

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Harriet.

MR. RICE: And I had one, it's not 

really a follow-up. It's a different question. 

But real quick.

I saw in your comments you also said 

that about half of the tobacco producers that you 

certify don't use fatty alcohols, but peanut oil 

and avenger.

Was curious to hear a little bit more 

about the effectiveness of that if you're aware.

MS. BERKEBILE: I don't know that I can 

speak to that very well. We don't have very many 

tobacco producers, maybe 20.

I haven't heard that those methods are 

or aren't effective. 

MR. RICE: Okay, thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: So my question is about 

vaccine. The same that I asked Jackie. Would you 

be comfortable with the ACA developing some type 

of best practice or developing that list? Do you 

think that would alleviate concerns?
327

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BERKEBILE: Two things about that. 

I think that would be great. I do think the ACA 

developing best practices is helpful.

But of course we can't require members 

to adopt that. So if we develop any sort of 

guidance on who is doing what, whose roles and 

responsibilities are what, that doesn't have to 

be adopted by our members.

And our members are primarily 

certifiers in the U.S. So I don't know that we 

would have the knowledge of other countries' 

vaccines and be able to kind of develop a list for 

other countries.

And then it wouldn't be available for 

certifiers in other countries necessarily if 

they're not a member of the ACA.

CHAIR BEHAR: Did anyone, you or 

someone else at PCO look through the links that 

were in the proposal? Did you find those items 

confusing or difficult to identify the GMO vaccine 

there and which ones? Was that difficult to 

navigate?
328

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BERKEBILE: Well, it's my 

understanding with the APHIS list -- so it's my 

understanding that list is a fairly complete list 

of vaccines in the United States.

And I think there is an annotation for 

in the product code perhaps for recombinant 

vaccines which would be produced with an excluded 

method and for DNA vaccines or called something 

like that which would be considered an excluded 

method.

But I think anything that is not 

annotated as those would be -- we would have to 

verify essentially. So I don't think that 

information is there. I think we'd have to get 

that from the manufacturer.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MS. BERKEBILE: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next up is Kyla 

Smith. And I wanted to just mention to everyone 

that there is a reception tomorrow night being 

sponsored by CROPP Cooperative, Danone North 

America, Heritage Poultry Management, Maple Hill 
329

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Creamery, Phillips Mushrooms, Ohio Ecological Food 

and Farming, OTA, Rodale, Stonyfield and Wigle 

Whiskey.

And the cards are out there. And I was 

told it's walking distance. So that will be 

tomorrow night, Thursday, and you can look for the 

information outside. Thank you, Kyla.

MS. SMITH: Yes. Okay. Good 

afternoon. My name's Kyla Smith. I am the interim 

co-executive director and certification director 

at Pennsylvania Certified Organic. PCO certifies 

around 1,600 operations throughout the U.S. I'll 

be commenting on vaccines and adding to my colleague 

Jen's comments that she just made.

But first I'd like to welcome you all 

to Pennsylvania. It's my home state so I'm glad 

to have you. 

Thank you all for your hard work and 

especially to the outgoing board members. Your 

dedication and commitment is off the charts.

So as Harriet just mentioned please 

join us tomorrow night for the reception. We'll 
330

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

be celebrating organic successes experienced here 

in Pennsylvania and throughout the world. 

And now onto vaccines. So I'm 

acknowledging that PCO has a fair amount of unease 

on this proposal because it will be a big change 

to our process and change is hard.

Commercial availability has been part 

of the organic regulations in the context of seed 

and 606 material since the rule was published.

We've had 17 years to bat these around 

and as many of us in this room know all too well 

that the debate on clarifying enforcement of the 

seed guidance only just concluded at the spring 

meeting.

With that history in mind PCO 

encourages our community to ensure that certifiers 

and operators have the resources that we need on 

the front end of the process so that we aren't here 

17 years later trying to figure out inconsistencies 

of enforcement.

So let's set us up for success now. 

And this could look like a bunch of different 
331

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

things. An NOP guidance document similar to the 

seed guidance. An ACA best practices document.

Training sessions at certifier 

training or in the Organic Learning Center.

There will certainly be parallels that 

we can draw from on the application of commercial 

availability of seed. 

However, there are also differences, 

the biggest being that an operator on their own 

can determine if a seed is organic or not organic 

and apply commercial availability.

Whereas with vaccines it would be hard 

if not impossible for them to do so on their own 

as vaccines aren't labeled with that information.

It seems as though an operator will 

always need to consult with either their certifier 

or another third party such as their vet to 

determine compliance with this restriction. Or 

they may just not choose to use vaccines at all.

So we're hoping that the following can 

be addressed prior or in conjunction to the rule 

change.
332

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

One, define roles and responsibilities 

for commercial availability assessment between the 

certified operator, the certifier and third parties 

such as vets.

Training around how to determine 

equivalency and efficacy.

Questions we have are will 

manufacturers disclose this information to us and 

if not, would our review just default to GMO and 

initiate the commercial availability.

Does state regulatory compliance with 

a certain type of vaccine fit into quantity, quality 

and form, and if so, where.

And we want to make sure that we can 

support operators so they just don't avoid using 

vaccines if they feel that the commercial 

availability restriction is too burdensome.

So it feels like this won't be 

insurmountable, but it still feels like we're 

pushing the ball uphill. So, thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: Rick.

DR. SEITZ: Does your organization 
333

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

keep a database of vaccines and ones that are known 

to be GMOs, or ones that are not GMO so people you 

certify can check with you?

MS. SMITH: We currently don't review 

for GMO right now.

DR. SEITZ: Okay. What I was thinking 

of, usually since I'm certified I go to my certifier 

to find things out.

I was just wondering if it wouldn't be 

starting that process to be ready for it where they 

could call up and see what's available.

MS. SMITH: Sure. I think that the 

certifiers now that are reviewing for GMO, the 

commercial availability doesn't come into play 

here. So it's just allowed or prohibited.

And so the commercial availability 

clause will just add another layer. And I think 

it's going to be just a challenge.

We can certainly provide a list of these 

are all the ones that are allowed. And so that 

would be easy if a producer would choose to go that 

route.
334

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But they might say oh, yes, but my 

neighbor said that this one is better. So then 

they're going to have to figure out if that one's 

GE or not. And they're not going to be able to 

tell.

So then we're going to have to contact 

the manufacturer to figure that out and whether 

or not it's equivalent or not and if it's --

DR. SEITZ: Well, I was just wondering 

when you go to do your annual certification how 

you close that loop when you're looking at materials 

as inputs to see they're still certified. 

MS. SMITH: That's part of our process. 

It's just a little bit different than anything 

that's currently part of the regulations.

DR. SEITZ: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. That's it. 

Okay. Chris Pierce is next, and Johanna Mirenda 

is on deck.

MR. PIERCE: Good afternoon. My name 

is Chris Pierce. I've spoken to this group many 

times over the last many years.
335

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I serve as president of Heritage 

Poultry Management Services and we are based in 

Annville, Pennsylvania so thanks for coming to 

Pennsylvania.

Our primary business focus is to 

support small family egg farms with detailed flock 

management services which include flock health, 

certification compliance, food safety and the 

overall production support.

Our customer base currently includes 

over 50 certified organic egg and poulet farms all 

located in Pennsylvania.

So my comments this afternoon are in 

support of our organic poultry farmers and their 

flocks based on the significant amount of knowledge 

and expertise my team at Heritage has.

There's three areas this afternoon I'd 

like to share my thoughts on. All of the organic 

egg farms that we work with are following much of 

the OLPP, the organic livestock and poultry 

practice rule that has yet to be implemented because 

it's the right thing to do. We have implemented 
336

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

many of those practices with the strong focus of 

hens being outside to support both the integrity 

of the organic program and for the strong consumer 

expectations that that's the kind of farms they 

expect their organic eggs to come from.

So over the past many years many of our 

organic farmers have experienced increased bird 

health issues that are impacted by the increased 

free range exposure.

A critical part of our organic 

management plan is to put practices in place to 

limit the risk factors.

Included in our management process is 

a toolbox. We all talk about this toolbox. And 

that we need to meet the needs and the challenges 

that each farm will face.

With exposure of worms and parasites 

that our hens have in the free range we've seen 

increased challenges with hens infected with round 

and cecal worms.

Currently the natural remedies are not 

satisfactory in helping the hens resolve the worm 
337

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

issue which greatly impacts the hen's ability to 

absorb their nutrients and is a poultry and welfare 

issue.

Think about this. Think about the 

experience you have is when you crack open some 

eggs for breakfast, lunch, or dinner and there's 

a worm in that egg.

Now, that might not have happened to 

you, but it does happen. And it is a real turnoff.

It would be to me and I love eggs. Like 

I am Mr. Egg. But that would be a turnoff to me.

So that's the kind of thing that I'm 

asking the NOSB to approve adding fenbendazole to 

the National List for use in organic poultry 

production.

We also provide services, just as a 

background, to conventionally fed free range farms, 

and we have had firsthand experience in using 

fenbendazole and very successful in elimination 

on a rather quick time frame of helping the flocks 

deal with the worm issues.

I also want to share my support of the 
338

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

NOSB's fall 2019 proposal on vaccines from excluded 

methods which is a critical part of the process 

and the inclusion of the rule to use vaccines from 

excluded methods based on commercial availability. 

Wow, I'm almost out of time. On behalf 

of the organic egg farmers whose layer flocks are 

considered long life flocks there's three types 

of vaccines that are excluded methods, salmonella, 

E. coli, and ILT.

Food safety regulations for us to sell 

any eggs in the state of California we must 

vaccinate with some alternative produced vaccines 

to sell eggs in the state of California.

I didn't finish anything, but hopefully 

you have some questions for me.

CHAIR BEHAR: I'd like to ask two 

questions. Do you think the proposal is requiring 

GMO vaccines to not be allowed? Is that the way 

you're reading it?

MR. PIERCE: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Because we did get a lot 

of public comments that said that.
339

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. PIERCE: And I've read through it, 

but I'm not like Ph.D. level. 

(Simultaneous speaking)

MR. PIERCE: The part that I'm looking 

at is we need the tools to use if the organic 

approved tool isn't there.

An example, a little bit further. So 

California passed CDFA. So in order to sell eggs 

in the state of California there's a requirement 

that we have to have two live vaccinated for 

salmonella and one killed. 

And that's all of our farms. All of 

our organic farms are on that program because we 

don't know whose eggs are going to be going to that 

state.

And with national distribution that 

distribution center may cover Nevada, Arizona and 

California. So retailer world, they want to make 

sure all their eggs that they get meet that 

requirement because they don't want to get in 

trouble for having eggs go to the wrong place.

CHAIR BEHAR: So are you aware the 
340

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

proposal allows you to use genetically modified 

vaccines if there's no commercially available 

alternative?

MR. PIERCE: I do understand that. 

The key is to make sure -- a vaccine is not a vaccine. 

These may not be comparable, equal.

CHAIR BEHAR: Right. So we'll work 

that out.

The other question I have is about do 

any of your producers either -- have they set up 

their henhouses or could they set up their henhouses 

to have rotated pastures so that the chickens would 

not continually reinfect themselves with 

parasites?

MR. PIERCE: Sure. Unfortunately the 

farmers that we work with are fixed houses. So 

they're not mobile houses that they're able to 

rotate paddocks.

And I understand where you're going. 

Most of our farms have anywhere from 2 to 5 square 

foot. I know it's not the 20 or something we were 

talking about, that Europe has a higher standard.
341

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But that 2 to 5 foot, it varies from 

farm to farm. They don't have the ability to rotate 

paddocks.

As well as the challenge of having the 

land that would meet the three-year requirement 

if we expanded the space.

CHAIR BEHAR: I have seen one or two 

that when they were built they were set up to have 

an east -- one side and then the other side. And 

so they could kind of rotate over a two to 

three-month period.

MR. PIERCE: And the folks that we 

have, they're not the large size that Mark Kastel 

-- our largest farm is 20,000 hens which is the 

size that's needed for that to be the farmer's 

full-time job versus a hobby when they come home 

from their other job.

CHAIR BEHAR: And I've visited farms 

of that size or bigger as an organic inspector. 

And one more question.

How many times during the life of a 

flock do you think the fenbendazole would need to 
342

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

be used?

MR. PIERCE: Good question. Not every 

flock will need it -- a flock rotation is on a farm 

around 14-15 months. It's not every year, or every 

flock.

I will say in Pennsylvania the last two 

years have been significant rainfalls. So the 

water table has risen and we believe that's also 

part of the issues that we're dealing with with 

these ancient diseases, black head, fowl cholera, 

worms, all kinds of stuff we're saying that we 

didn't see when we confined our birds in the barns 

because they didn't have that exposure.

But with the water levels raising. If 

it's dry next year we probably won't need it as 

much. But if it's a wet year we may.

To answer your question it may not be 

every year, but it may be once in a flock if it 

is needed.

CHAIR BEHAR: So, it wouldn't be two, 

three, four times in a flock.

MR. PIERCE: No, I don't see it -- as 
343

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

needed. But I don't anticipate that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Thank you. 

Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: You said that your largest 

producer had 20,000 birds.

MR. PIERCE: In one barn and they have 

two barns at the most. So it's 40.

MS. OAKLEY: So 10,000 birds per barn? 

MR. PIERCE: Two. Twenty thousand per 

barn. So the farms we work with would have no more 

than two barns on a farm, and each barn would have 

20,000 hens.

MS. OAKLEY: So what's the square 

footage of a barn?

MR. PIERCE: It's 46 by 530. And that 

includes the nest space. The humane farm animal 

care's density of 1.2 square foot.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

MR. PIERCE: Sure.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dan.

DR. SEITZ: Do you know how long 

fenbendazole persists in eggs after a flock is 
344

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sprayed and they lay eggs?

MR. PIERCE: That's a great question. 

I don't know that. I do know there's some people 

here from the manufacturer that are sharing I think 

tomorrow or Friday, Dan. I don't have the detail 

with that.

And it's actually run in the water. 

It's a water-based application.

DR. SEITZ: And when your conventional 

producers use that is there a period of time that 

they destroy the eggs because there's concern that 

that may persist in the eggs?

MR. PIERCE: No. The way it's 

labeled, the way that FDA has permitted it there's 

no withdrawal period needed for using that product 

in live hens.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: So in the vaccine 

document do you feel like there's anything missing 

that we didn't address that would prohibit you from 

using a specific vaccine, whether it be state, 

federal, customer mandated, anything like that 
345

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that's missing out of the?

MR. PIERCE: Nothing comes to mind 

except my worry is for the certifier, that they 

do have a method of knowing what is allowed -- what's 

excluded and what's not excluded methods.

And then helping them understand why 

this is necessary. So what do we need to do as 

a certified farm to prove to the certifier that 

this is a necessary vaccine. This chocolate is 

not the same as this chocolate because this one 

is made with this percentage of cocoa versus the 

other one. That it's not always equal. Just 

because it has the same name, a salmonella vaccine, 

doesn't mean it's the same vaccine.

MS. SWAFFAR: Right. And that was 

part of what we tried to say in our commercial 

availability in the document was it has to be 

available in the same form, quality and quantity. 

Quality was our main sticking factor there.

CHAIR BEHAR: And the way it would be 

-- some vaccines producers prefer it in the water. 

Some prefer it as an aerosol. There's a variety.
346

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Nobody's out there individually using 

a syringe on 20,000 chickens.

So I have one other question also and 

that is when you're deciding on a vaccine are you 

working with a veterinarian? Who are you working 

with to make that decision?

MR. PIERCE: We are. In our area we 

have a PADL, Pennsylvania Animal Diagnostic Lab. 

So we have three different laboratories that have 

extension -- poultry veterinarians. We're pretty 

fortunate. That will help us determine what is 

the best vaccination program.

Because if you're to -- on my farms 

there may be different needs based on that region, 

exposure. We have a lot of poultry in Pennsylvania 

with turkeys, broilers, ducks. So there's a lot 

of cross contamination with other vaccination 

programs. But yes, we do work with veterinarians. 

CHAIR BEHAR: Because that was 

something we didn't put in the document, but we 

could put in the cover letter that -- a letter from 

a veterinarian that said that this non-GMO 
347

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

equivalent was not really equivalent from a 

veterinarian.

But I think not just somebody who sells 

vaccines. It would have to be a disinterested 

objective third party.

MR. PIERCE: And Harriet, we're 

fortunate that we do have a strong extension 

veterinarian ability.

I don't know if there's going to be 

regions of the country that may not have that. 

So I just want to help you consider that.

There may be some pockets -- not 

everybody has 20,000 hens. There's going to be 

some that are certified with less of course.

CHAIR BEHAR: Right. We're not 

hearing really a need for this so much from the 

smaller flocks. So I think anyone of that size 

would most likely be working with some 

veterinarian, or have someone that they can go to.

MS. SWAFFAR: We do inject chickens. 

We do. With needles. And eye drops. There's 

multiple methods that everybody does. 
348

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We do eye drops. We do shots. We do 

aerosols. We do water.

CHAIR BEHAR: Anyone else? You really 

grab 20,000 chickens and hit them with a syringe?

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes.

MR. PIERCE: And there's certain 

applications that are going to give the immunity, 

the protection. 

So if we're injecting a bird it's very 

expensive. There's handling and labor. But 

that's going to be the most effective way to get 

the immunity to the bird for the vaccine to take.

And there's certain ages. You can't 

give it at any age. I don't always compare children 

to animals, but there's certain regimens that we 

need to follow at certain life cycle parts.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. 

MR. PIERCE: Thanks again for 

everything that each of you are doing.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Johanna Mirenda 

is next. Don't forget your butterflies. And 

Roland McReynolds is on deck. And after him is 
349

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Loren Fisher. Thank you, Johanna. 

MS. MIRENDA: Hi, I'm Jo Mirenda with 

the Organic Trade Association and I'll be 

commenting on the topics of marine materials, paper 

pots and vaccines.

OTA's comments on marine materials --

on the marine materials discussion document were 

informed by a new member task force comprised of 

organic industry stakeholders across the seaweed 

supply chain.

We took a deep dive into the NOSB 

discussion record on this subject and identified 

a further need for science-based environmental 

impact data that is representative of the countries 

across the globe where seaweeds are harvested, and 

information about environmental impacts that are 

currently being regulated by legal frameworks in 

these countries outside of the NOP standards.

We encourage the board to continue 

seeking information to fill these data gaps as a 

matter of principle for proper development of a 

policy decision that would ultimately impact all 
350

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

seaweeds harvested globally and used as inputs on 

NOP certified farms across the globe.

We also encourage the board to explore 

additional opportunities for continuous 

improvement and sustainable sourcing of inputs used 

in organic production.

On paper pots regarding the Crop 

Subcommittee decision to expand the scope of review 

beyond paper chain pots we agree with this expansion 

to the extent that it helps you make efficient use 

of your time and resources to review generic paper 

planting or seeding aids that are similar to the 

petitioned material.

But we feel that the scope should be 

limited to only planting and seeding aids that are 

left to degrade in the soil so that it's a manageable 

scope of review and practical for review under the 

OFPA criteria particularly for evaluating 

environmental impacts.

And for vaccines we support the 

Livestock Subcommittee's efforts to clarify and 

implement the one narrow exception to the 
351

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

prohibition on excluded methods and that's GMO 

vaccines that currently exists in the NOP 

regulations.

The proposal is effective to add 

further scrutiny and tighter restrictions on GMO 

vaccines than what is currently being done under 

current practices.

It codifies the preference for non-GMO 

versions. It ensures that producers have timely 

access to necessary vaccines for preventive 

healthcare.

And it ensures that certifiers reach 

consistent determinations about which vaccines are 

allowed and that producers have a level playing 

field in accessing vaccines.

To uphold these principles during 

rulemaking we have identified outstanding issues 

that NOP could address with certifiers for 

effective and consistent implementation of your 

recommendation.

Our full written comments on these and 

other topics were submitted through the generous 
352

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

35-day comment period. And that's an extra 13 days 

from the last meeting so thank you for hearing the 

call from the public for a bit more time, and thank 

you all for your time and service.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve?

VICE CHAIR ELA: You can probably guess 

my question on paper. Any thoughts on, I mean, 

likewise you guys said just leave the annotation 

similar to the newspaper, but it leaves the door 

open, and I don't want to leave the door open. 

Do you have any thoughts of how we, I 

mean, we kind of threw out alternative annotative 

with -- I can never say that word, biodegradation. 

And, you know, some, wanting to try and make sure 

that these actually, you know, that we control what 

they are and don't get ourselves into trouble. 

We recognize we don't want the 

biodegradable mulch issue and we're very aware of 

that. But -- because it would be much easier to 

say naturally based fibers, but we're not going 

there. Any thoughts on how we could limit it 

without being too restrictive?
353

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. MIRENDA: So the OTA did not take 

a position on those specific annotations, so I 

apologize, I can't give you a fully representative 

answer. 

But in general, annotations are a great 

way to characterize your intent of what materials 

you have reviewed to the OTA criteria and are 

intending to allow under the listing. That's what 

the old, existing paper annotations were missing, 

is that full characterization through annotation. 

So at this point, I don't think there's 

an opposition to adding in some criteria around 

biodegradation, provided that you're limiting your 

scope only to the production aids that degrade in 

the soil. I don't think it makes sense for tents, 

collars. But an annotation that ensures that the 

synthetic materials that you're approving are 

degrading in a manner consistent with environmental 

principles would be appropriate. 

The challenge maybe with the ASTM 

standards is that we haven't fully tested them with 

the bio-based mulch scenario, so I don't know if 
354

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we have good track records on whether that 

annotation is the right one. But I think the 

direction of putting some parameters around 

biodegradability is an appropriate path.

VICE CHAIR ELA: As a followup to that, 

I did appreciate your comments about planting aids 

versus things that aren't meant to biodegrade. 

I think that was a great insight, and it's like 

oh, that's a good point.

On the other hand, I also think a lot 

of those paper products that are not meant to 

biodegrade are not always removed. And I guess 

I don't know what the certifiers do in terms of 

making sure when a collar is put on or a paper cap. 

I don't know, Scott, do you have any 

insight onto that? Are those, I mean, how often 

are those removed and how often are they left in 

the field? So I guess I'm not sure that, I 

appreciate the distinction, because I think it's 

important. But I also see those things not always 

removed, and I don't see any requirement that 

they're removed necessarily.
355

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: I note though beyond 

that, the Organic Produce Wholesalers Coalition 

had photographs and very fancy, you know, comments, 

you know, twist ties, and there's numerous other 

things that never even come in contact with the 

soil at all. 

So I think, you know, we can make that 

distinction that those things would not be 

included, even though they could be considered made 

partially or fully from paper.

But Dave had a question.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, Joe, on the first 

subject that you addressed, marine materials. I 

think the Board's in agreement with your statement 

that we believe that science-based data should 

guide, you know, guidelines on marine materials. 

It's also the case that, and Allison went into 

quite a bit of detail over the lunch hour, that 

we make decisions and policy in the absence of a 

complete data set often.

And so we take expert opinion and 

perspectives. Some of these marine environments 
356

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are much more deeply studied than other marine 

environments from which the algae are harvested. 

And even in some of the most studied ones, the 

understanding of the impact on, for example, the 

cod fishery, continues to be very unclear. So then 

we're left to ask what, what is our best knowledge 

inform our thinking about certain practices. 

So I guess I would just say we agree 

that science-based data should inform, but we don't 

always have all the data we would like to have when 

we make those decisions. And in my view shouldn't 

be thinking we should wait until we have every last 

bit of data, because we will regret having gone 

down a path way too far before we have that data.

MS. MIRENDA: I will recharacterize 

that then to say that our industry needs to see 

enough data to identify the appropriate solution, 

whether it's organic certification or an annotation 

or other options. Just enough to make sure we 

choose the right solution.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Thanks for your comments 
357

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and thanks for hosting the task force. And we'd 

asked to hear from industry and we -- this is the 

first meeting when we've really heard quite a bit 

from industry. So thank you for helping to 

facilitate that. 

And as I had mentioned to you before, 

there is some of that impact data in the 2016 TR. 

Some of that can be referenced through previous 

discussion documents. 

And then we receive, as a matter of 

public record on the public comments, suggestions 

for peer-reviewed articles. But what I would note 

is that we might receive a peer-reviewed article 

stating one position, and another stating a very 

different position. 

So to some extent, it's very hard to 

even achieve what you're asking for us, because 

I could find certain journals and peer-reviewed 

articles that would present one position, and 

others that would present another. So I hear what 

you're saying, we will work on that. 

But I also think we have to, as I stated 
358

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

with the panel, take some degree of the assumption 

that when you are removing a wild, native species 

from a wild, native ecosystem, that there is an 

impact. And our goal is to try to mitigate that 

and determine what extent of the impact there is. 

And of course, that's going to vary by 

species and geographic area and harvest method and 

harvester, all of those complexities. But I don't 

think we want to start with the principle that there 

is no impact, because there certainly, I think, 

is. 

MS. MIRENDA: Absolutely. And I don't 

mean to characterize our position as needing more 

data because we don't think there's a problem. 

It's truly about understanding the issue on a global 

scale, because these policy recommendations have 

a global impact.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Next up is 

Roland McReynolds. And on deck is Loren Fisher, 

and after him is Kelly Pepper.

MR. MCREYNOLDS: Madame Chair, members 
359

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of the Board, thank you very much for the 

opportunity to speak with you here today, and thank 

you for your service to the organic community, 

especially those of you who are going off the Board 

this year.

My name is Roland McReynolds. I am the 

Executive Director with the Carolina Farm 

Stewardship Association, which is a 40-year-old 

farmer member organization working to build a 

sustainable agriculture system in North and South 

Carolina that is based on organic agriculture and 

local food. 

I'm here to speak in support of the Crop 

Subcommittee recommendation that you add fatty 

alcohols to the National List as an allowed 

synthetic substance for sucker control in the 

production of organic tobacco. 

Over the April meeting and this meeting 

combined, you've received about 40 written and oral 

comments from organic farmers in support of the 

petition. There are about 220 organic tobacco 

farms in the United States, and this spring, people 
360

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

representing 169 of those family farms signed a 

petition in support of the fatty alcohols petition. 

The average tobacco acreage of these 

organic family farms is 39 acres. These are the 

mid-scale family farms that are fast disappearing 

in America today, and for whom organic agriculture 

represents a promise of economic fairness and 

environmental stewardship.

You've received comments from NC State 

University faculty documenting their research that 

there is no non-synthetic material available that 

provides adequate sucker control in organic 

tobacco. You've heard from farmers themselves 

that their experience confirms that research, and 

that removing 60,000 suckers per acre by hand is 

economically unfeasible and dangerous for farm 

workers.

Organic tobacco is a critical part of 

the system of sustainable agriculture across the 

Carolinas and Virginia. The crop is well suited 

to our climate and soils, it is beneficial to crop 
361

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

rotations, and it contributes to the 

diversification of these farms. 

Organic tobacco has converted 

thousands of acres to organic crop rotations in 

the Carolinas. And these farmers have become the 

backbone of the organic food supply in our region. 

The crops these farmers grow in 

rotation with their tobacco have made our region 

the leader in organic sweet potato production, 

helped launch North Carolina into the top 10 of 

states in the value of organic production, and 

fueled a market for locally milled and locally 

consumed organic cereal grains. All this has been 

made possible by the availability of fatty alcohols 

for sucker control in organic tobacco.

These farmers have relied in good faith 

on this product for the last 10 years, originally 

based on an understanding that it was not synthetic. 

It is essential not only for them, but for the 

organic food system in the Carolinas. And 

providing organic farmers access to tools to allow 
362

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

them to foster the cycling of resources, promote 

ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity 

while earning a fair return on their labors is a 

fundamental concept of organic certification.

Fatty alcohols is exactly such a tool. 

They fully meet the criteria for approval under 

both Section 6517(c) and 6518(m) of the Organic 

Foods Production Act, and for these reasons, 

Carolina Farm Stewardship Association urges you 

to add fatty alcohols for sucker control in organic 

tobacco to the National List. 

Thank you, and I'm glad to answer any 

questions.

CHAIR BEHAR: Jesse and then Steve.

MR. BUIE: This is somewhat of an 

aside. The original petition that was presented 

was like 700 pages. Can you give us an update? 

Because fatty alcohol was also used for tomatoes 

and some other plants. Can you give us an update 

on that status of that approval?

MR. MCREYNOLDS: Well, I think what was 

-- I cannot. And I think what was being referred 
363

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to was strictly a research use of fatty alcohols 

in tomato grafting. But I do not have information 

about EPA registration of those for any other use.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I'm curious, 

obviously you've noted, heard from a significant 

percentage of the growers that grow tobacco. But 

it's quite regional, and I've, you know, I've been 

surprised that we haven't heard from growers in 

Kentucky and, you know, some of these other states 

as much. Any thoughts as to why that is?

MR. MCREYNOLDS: Two things. There 

were, people among the 169 people who signed the 

petition included tobacco farmers in Tennessee and 

Kentucky.

Number two, those states just aren't 

as lucky to have Carolina Farm Stewardship 

Association there to organize them and get their 

voices heard.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Anyone else? I have a 

question.

MR. MCREYNOLDS: Yes.
364

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: And we discussed this on 

the telephone.

MR. MCREYNOLDS: Right.

CHAIR BEHAR: Do you see any irony in 

approving a material that is actually on the 

prohibited list of materials to use as an input, 

not as a food or inhaled, but as an input in organic, 

that this is facilitating the growing of a material 

that we prohibit?

MR. MCREYNOLDS: Facilitating the 

growing of a material that you prohibit?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yeah, we don't allow 

tobacco dust, it's on the prohibited. But you 

know, as a crop input.

MR. MCREYNOLDS: Well, tobacco is a 

legal crop and it is legal to be sold, and it is

legal to be certified. And it was being grown when 

OFPA was being passed. And when the regulations 

were being written, the people who writing the 

regulations knew there were farmers growing organic 

tobacco. So we're talking here about a material 

that is used in growing that crop, and the material 
365

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

meets the OFPA standards.

CHAIR BEHAR: Just wondering about the 

irony. But you're a very forceful advocate, so 

thank you for your work. And thank you.

Oh, Tom, go ahead.

MR. CHAPMAN: I'm confused, the people 

you represent, are they growing tobacco for tobacco 

dust, or tobacco for other uses?

MR. MCREYNOLDS: For other uses. They 

are not using it for tobacco dust.

MR. CHAPMAN: Thanks for clarifying 

that.

MR. MCREYNOLDS: Thank you for 

clarifying that.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah, I didn't quite 

understand the relevance.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yeah, but you never know 

where it might end up. Thank you.

MR. MCREYNOLDS: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, next up is Loren 

Fisher, then Kelly Pepper, and after that Abby 

Youngblood.
366

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. FISHER: Thank you very much for 

your time. My name is Loren Fisher, I'm a Professor 

of Crop and Soil Science at NC State University. 

Twenty-two years working in tobacco. I think I 

started in 1997 in tobacco research and extension 

as an agronomist.

I'm proud to say that production of 

organic tobacco has resulted in an increase, a 

significant increase in total acres of organic 

farmland in several states, and I consider North 

Carolina an emerging leader in organic farming. 

And I'm convinced that the ability to 

produce organic tobacco and the rotational crops 

that go along with it have played an essential role 

in expansion of organic acres in North Carolina 

and other tobacco-producing states.

As you've heard today, and I agree, use 

of fatty alcohols is essential for producing 

organic tobacco. The flower of the tobacco plant 

is removed as a normal production practice to allow 

the plant to focus energy in production of leaf 

instead of seed, and it also contributes to desired 
367

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

physical and chemical characteristics of a 

marketable leaf.

The cultural practice of flower removal 

in tobacco is unique for a plant production system. 

Flower removal results in sucker growth from each 

leaf axle, as you heard from Dr. Collins, as the 

plant continues to divert resources in an attempt 

to produce seed.

As you've heard from others also, a 

typical tobacco plant has 20-24 leaves and up to 

three potential suckers per leaf axle. Quick math 

will tell you that equates to about 60 percent 

potential suckers per plant, and sucker growth in 

each leaf axle is not expressed all at one time, 

yet over a eight to ten week period after the flower 

is removed.

Hand removal of suckers would not only 

be laborious beyond reason, but would expose labor 

to additional hazards and could result in a 

significant increase for risk of incidents and the 

spread of at least two diseases that come to mind 

that affect tobacco.
368

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Development of products to control 

suckers in the 1950s is considered to be the single 

most important innovation that has allowed tobacco 

to be continued to be produced in a modern 

agricultural production system, likened to 

mechanical harvesting developments in other crops. 

And in fact, I would guess that sucker control 

products would be considered more important to the 

tobacco farmer than a mechanical harvester.

We have conducted research at NC State 

to evaluate numerous other potential products for 

use in organic tobacco production for sucker 

control, and none have provided control at a level 

that would significantly even noticeably reduce 

the intensive labor requirements to hand-remove 

suckers. A summary of that work has been submitted 

for your review in the record, and I am here to 

answer questions if you have any at this point. 

Thank you for your time.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve.

MR. FISHER: Yes, sir.

VICE CHAIR ELA: We had a, I think on 
369

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the, it was on the webinar, as well as I believe 

it was in the written record from Sterling 

Agriculture about a natural product. It's a little 

unclear, I mean, you know, it was there. But I 

mean, it sounds like it was also soaps and rosemary 

oil, citric acid from what I gathered.

MR. FISHER: Right.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Do you -- have you seen 

that? Do you have any thoughts on it?

MR. FISHER: I did see that record. 

It's not one I'm familiar with and not one certainly 

we tested. You know we've -- I brought the list 

of the ones we have, if -- so paraconic acid, 

vegetable oil, canola oil, spearmint oil, and 

peppermint oil are the ones that most recently we've 

tested. Obviously others in the past, but not that 

one in particular.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Do you know if it's 

possible to isolate or develop those, the fatty 

soaps, the C-8, the C-10 chain, without non, 

non-synthetically?

MR. MCREYNOLDS: That's a very good 
370

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

question. I'm not a chemist, but it's my 

understanding that's not possible.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Thanks.

MR. FISHER: Thank you. Good 

questions, though.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: Steve, a point to that. 

Wouldn't we have to expand the annotation for that 

soap for it to be allowed in organic use? I believe 

that was what the commenter was trying to get, that 

I tried to ask that question.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Say that again.

MS. SWAFFAR: Wouldn't we have to 

expand the use of that soap to that, was that the 

commenter that?

VICE CHAIR ELA: Well, I think he said 

it was an all natural, certified organic product. 

That's the question. I mean, and he submitted 

some additional information, which it's still a 

question. I just -- I don't think there's, well, 

we can talk about it tomorrow, it's part of the 

public, but it's an unclear.
371

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Thank you very 

much.

MR. FISHER: Thank you very much. 

Thank you all for your time.

CHAIR BEHAR: Kelly Pepper is next, 

with Abby Youngblood on deck. Don't forget your 

butterflies.

MR. PEPPER: To begin, I want to thank 

the Board for your countless hours of service to 

the organic community. I'm Kelly Pepper, Manager 

of the Texas Organic Marketing Co-op in Lubbock, 

TX.

Our members have historically produced 

a large majority of the organic cotton grown in 

the U.S. I'm here today because it is essential 

for U.S. organic cotton production that you renew 

the inclusion of hydrogen chloride for delinting 

cotton planting seed on the National List.

The original petition for hydrogen 

chloride was filed by a cooperative back in 2002 

because its use is critical to our farmers being 

able to grow organic cotton on a commercial scale. 
372

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Through the years, we've detailed to the Board 

possible new delinting methods that we hoped would 

eliminate the need for the use of hydrogen chloride, 

but currently there's still no commercially 

available alternative.

We continue to monitor the research on 

mechanical delinting. But at this time, it has 

run up against some obstacles that have stalled 

its advancement. Unfortunately, with only 

25-30,000 acres of organic cotton in the U.S., 

there's not a great incentive for investment in 

the research to overcome these obstacles or to 

develop an alternative method. Therefore, we urge 

you to renew the inclusion of hydrogen chloride 

on the National List.

In closing, I'll leave you with this: 

it takes approximately one ounce of hydrogen 

chloride to delint the seed for an acre of organic 

cotton, and that's neutralized with calcium 

carbonate. But if that acre reverts to GMO cotton, 

six to eight pounds of active ingredients of 

pesticides and 100 to 500 pounds of chemical 
373

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

fertilizer will be applied.

Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley first, and then 

Steve.

MS. SWAFFAR: So you said there's 

25-35,000 acres of cotton in the U.S. What percent 

of that do you represent, your co-op?

MR. PEPPER: Somewhere 50-60 percent 

at this time. There's been, historically we've been 

85 or 90, but there's been some growth outside of 

our co-op in the last couple of years.

MS. SWAFFAR: And sorry, followup 

question, without this material, what would happen?

MR. PEPPER: I don't think there'd be 

any organic cotton.

MS. SWAFFAR: Great, thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I'm curious what 

obstacles you've run up against. I mean, some of, 

I mean, we've reached out, I'm confident that what 

you're saying is true. But I'm, just from a future 

research needs and our research priorities, it 
374

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sounded like it was hopeful in the mechanical, but 

what walls have we hit?

MR. PEPPER: Well, two things that have 

been, have come up in the last year or so. One, 

the delinting serves as a fungicide. So the seed 

companies don't have an alternative if they don't 

have that to take care of that aspect.

The other is if they produce seed in 

the southern hemisphere and are trying to bring 

it to the northern hemisphere, the acid kicks it 

out of, I can't think of the word, but anyway. 

The other thing, I think there are some 

people that really would hate to see delinting 

available at every gin in cotton country. It would 

vastly increase their problem of policing their 

patents. And the seed companies are who we need 

to pull this through on a commercial scale for 

widespread cotton seed use. So I don't know that 

they really want to see it happen.

CHAIR BEHAR: I want to thank you, too, 

for your detailed written comments. And I have 

been to Lubbock, TX, and I believe I've been to 
375

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Laurea Pepper. I'm not sure she -- how she's 

related to you.

MR. PEPPER: My sister-in-law.

CHAIR BEHAR: Sister-in-law, and I've 

seen how chemically intensive conventional cotton 

is. And so it's very important to keep organic 

cotton out there. So thank you.

MR. PEPPER: Well, thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Abby Youngblood is right 

now, and Alice Runde is on deck, with Anne Ross 

after that.

MS. YOUNGBLOOD: Hi, I'm Abby 

Youngblood, Executive Director at the National 

Organic Coalition, and I want to thank the Board 

for the tireless work that you do to protect the 

integrity of the organic seal.

Soil health is at the heart of organic 

farming. Research has shown that if the standard 

practices used by organic farmers to maintain and 

improve soils were implemented globally, it would 

increase soil organic carbon pools by an estimated 

two billion tons per year, the equivalent of 12 
376

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

percent of the total annual greenhouse gas 

emissions worldwide.

Organic regulations require that 

organic farmers feed the soil, not the plant. In 

the spirit of continuous improvement, the National 

Organic Coalition is asking that the NOSB give more 

scrutiny to the use of highly soluble nutrients 

in organic. Highly soluble nutrients should be 

regulated by being added to the list of prohibited 

naturals with an annotation to limit their use.

We request that the NOSB add this as 

a work agenda item to ensure that soil building 

and carbon sequestration processes are the heart 

of organic production. 

Gene editing is a form of genetic 

engineering that has always been prohibited by the 

organic regulations. Thank you, Dr. Tucker, for 

clarifying today that this is the National Organic 

Program's position. Organic farmers and consumers 

do not want GMOs, and any future effort to allow 

products of genetic engineering will be met with 

massive opposition. The organic community is 
377

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

united on this issue.

The NOSB has already reviewed, with 

numerous opportunities for public comment, gene 

editing techniques and recommended unanimously 

that they remain prohibited in organic.

We urge the NOP to implement the NOSB's 

2016 excluded methods recommendation through 

guidance as soon as possible. This board must 

continue to have the ability to evaluate and clarify 

for certifiers and organic stakeholders which 

genetic methods are allowed and which should be 

prohibited under the organic regulations based on 

the excluded methods definition, as well as the 

criteria laid out in the NOSB's 2016 

recommendation.

NOC supports the proposal to add 

induced mutagenesis developed by use of in vitro 

nucleic acid techniques as an excluded method, and 

we also support the addition of embryo transfer 

or embryo rescue in animals to the table of not 

excluded methods where there is no use of hormones 

in either the recipient or the donor animals.
378

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Finally, we appreciate leadership from 

Deputy Administrator Jenny Tucker and 

communicating and engaging with the organic 

community. And your participation in pre-NOSB 

meetings over the past year in Seattle and St. Paul 

demonstrates your commitment to listening to and 

working with a broad range of stakeholders on the 

issues that are top of mind.

We encourage the NOP to continue this 

engagement with stakeholder groups to facilitate 

problem solving, collaboration, and mutual trust. 

Thank you, Board members, for considering these 

comments.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Abby. No 

questions. Oh, I'm sorry, Asa has a question.

MR. BRADMAN: I wanted to bring the 

discussion back a little bit to your comments on 

celery powder. And I don't want to sound snarky, 

but yesterday your -- at that NOC coalition meeting, 

there was handing out, you know, meat sticks that 

are both cured with celery powder. 

(Laughter.)
379

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. YOUNGBLOOD: Yes.

MR. BRADMAN: And I wasn't sure if that 

was intentional or not, or if it was kind of an 

endorsement. And you know, I think this speaks 

to kind of some of the issues. You know, I totally

agree that the labeling as uncured for use of celery 

powder substitute for nitrate is inappropriate. 

There's also food safety benefits to using, you 

know, the celery powder materials.

And I guess the question is, I mean, 

I think the message we heard earlier is that these 

products shouldn't exist. And if there's no 

alternative. It seems, from what I can see, there 

was basically sodium chloride, salt, or nitrates. 

I haven't seen alternatives to this. There's a 

long, you know, decades, centuries, history of 

using, you know, nitrate products in meat curing.

And I'm just curious, is there any room 

here for, you know, what room for discussion there 

is. And I think we'll also hear that there's going 

to be more research on organic celery as a source 

for celery powder. 
380

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But again, there's this larger issue 

of processed foods. And I think many of us have 

kind of a, you know, a certain resistence to the 

idea of organic processed foods, you know. Ergo, 

the we don't want an organic Twinkie. So thanks.

So I am curious to hear your response 

and comments.

MS. YOUNGBLOOD: Yeah, and I may want 

to get back to you after talking with some of our 

coalition members about the issue, because I 

haven't been intimately involved in those 

conversations. But I do understand that it's NOC's 

position that we want to see organic celery powder 

used rather than conventional. And that some of 

our members, Consumer Reports has been kind of 

leading the charge to do something that's not at 

the level of this board but at the FDA level to 

get at that issue you were talking about, about 

the labeling of something as uncured. So that's 

kind of a separate issue, but related to what we're 

talking about.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave.
381

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: Abby, thank you for the 

NOC document that you and your colleagues prepared. 

I wonder if you could just take a minute or minute 

and a half to walk us through why it's so important 

from NOC's perspective that we implement through 

guidance the 2016 recommendation, as opposed to 

leaving it a recommendation that's not been 

implemented through guidance. What's the 

advantage?

MS. YOUNGBLOOD: Right, and I think one 

thing that's important to say at the outset of that 

conversation is the determinations made by the 

Board on genetic methods are based on the existing 

definition of excluded methods in the regulations. 

And that guidance document, after 

several issues came before the Board that were 

issues that just weren't clear, there was further 

examination of which genetic methods were excluded 

and which were not. And so that 2016 

recommendation really clears up that confusion that 

had existed before then, and it was the result of 
382

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

years and years of work and public input from 

stakeholder groups.

And so I think it's already been said 

by many folks throughout the day today that we just 

need that clarity from one certified to the next 

as to which techniques are excluded and which are 

not. 

And so gene editing is one of I believe 

ten or eleven that are on the terminology chart 

as excluded. And those exclusions are based on 

the existing regulations, but also that deeper dive 

that the Board took to kind of clarify. 

And it's also important to note, as 

Harriet stated, that there are, I think it's three 

methods that have been determined as not excluded. 

So that clarity is also critically important. 

And for organic plant breeders, they need to also 

know where that line is and what's not excluded 

so they can continue to do the work that they're 

doing to develop seeds that are adapted for organic 

systems.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thanks, Abby.
383

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Abby. Alice 

Runde, Anne Ross on deck, and after that Roland 

Cargill.

MS. RUNDE: Good afternoon. Thank 

you. My name is Alice Runde, I'm the Coalition 

Manager for the National Organic Coalition. My 

comments today pertain to sanitization materials, 

rules around their enforcement, enforcement of 

dairy rules, the strengthening organic enforcement 

rule, and the under-representation of farmers of 

color in the organic movement.

NOC urges the NOSB to continue to pursue 

an assessment of cleaning and sanitization 

materials using organic crop, livestock, and 

handling. Every time the NOSB receives a petition 

for the new sanitizer -- for a new sanitizer, we 

are reminded of the value of an assessment tool 

that would aid the NOSB in determining which 

materials should be added to the National List.

Furthermore, this assessment may help 

identify areas where there are gaps in necessary 

sanitizers or disinfectants which aid in the 
384

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

promotion of food safety. Take a Dr. Tucker big 

breath here.

(Laughter.)

MS. RUNDE: In regards to the dairy 

sector, first, NOC strongly supports the immediate 

implementation of the origin of livestock 

rulemaking for which there was -- there is broad 

support from the organic community, and a fall 2018 

unanimous resolution from the NOSB. And we really 

appreciate the work that has been done in that 

direction.

Secondly, in some cases, as mentioned 

this morning, dairy enforcement is still falling 

short, and some large operations continue to not 

comply with parts of the organic regulations that 

pertain to the management and care of organic dairy 

livestock, such as denying their animals meaningful 

access to pasture.

NOC urges the NOP to bring bad actors 

in the dairy sector and their certifying agents 

into compliance or exclude them from the Program.

We appreciate the work the NOSB is doing 
385

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on import fraud and recommend the NOSB continue 

that work to ensure that the USDA is taking 

necessary actions to reduce imports of fraudulent 

grains and in other areas where there is a risk 

of fraud in the organic supply chain. A sustained 

focus on this issue from the NOSB and the organic 

community is essential to address this 

multidimensional challenge.

NOC is encouraged that the NOP is 

planning on publishing the strengthening organic 

enforcement proposed rules this fall. NOC 

supports the requirement for electronic import 

certificates for all imports, closing loopholes 

in supply chain traceability by requiring 

additional handlers and brokers to become 

certified, requiring more frequent unannounced 

inspections for operations in regions where 

increased risk has been identified, and making 

product and acres reporting mandatory for 

certifiers.

Finally, the 2012 Act census and the 

2017 Act census data shows that people of color 
386

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are under-represented in the organic movement. 

We recognize that the organic movement and organic 

certification has not been equal across racial 

groups. 

Systematic racism has kept our movement 

from reaching its full potential. The organic 

movement can only be stronger and better positioned 

to meet future challenges if it represents diverse 

participation.

NOC encourages the NOSB to prioritize 

research into barriers to participation in organic 

certification for farmers of color and a lot more. 

Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Jesse, you have a 

question?

MR. BUIE: No, just a comment. I 

appreciate that sensitivity. And I'd also like 

to add that the solution to that is kind of 

multifaceted. So it is -- it's not straightforward 

just one side.

MS. RUNDE: Yes.

MR. BUIE: And so you know, I'm looking 
387

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

forward to us, you know, doing a little more work 

into that, so --

MS. RUNDE: Great.

CHAIR BEHAR: Tom was next, and then 

Emily.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah, on your last topic 

of under-represented populations in organic 

farming, thank you for bringing that up. It's 

clearly an issue as you look around this room. 

I'm curious to know what activities NOC or NOC 

members have done in this area as well to start 

addressing this issue.

MS. RUNDE: So six months ago we 

started a racial equity committee, which is not 

very diverse. But we're asking ourselves these 

questions, right, like what are we doing to work 

towards a more broader movement. We all agree that 

our values as organic should be diversity, right. 

A monoculture -- we're against monocultures, as 

we were talking about yesterday.

So we have a racial equity committee 

that is discussing these questions of what do we 
388

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

do next. Like what is our position as mostly white, 

middle class people who were born in the U.S., what 

is our role in this, and how do we diversify and 

become more representative of who we should be 

representing.

MR. CHAPMAN: Thank you. Keep me 

apprised personally as I sunset off this board. 

I'm really interested in this subject, and I'm 

interested in seeing how even industry can 

contribute to it.

MS. RUNDE: Great.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Yeah, and speaking of 

members sunsetting off the Board, I hope that the 

Secretary of Agriculture will appoint diverse 

members to the Board and that we continue to have 

and increase the representation of diverse 

stakeholders on this board. 

The room doesn't also represent the 

consumers that I see at the farmers market or my 

CSA. So I think we want to be sure that this board 

and the room in general represent the widest 
389

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

stakeholders within the organic community.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Oh, Sue, 

sorry.

MS. BAIRD: Just a comment, and I'm not 

sure this is totally pertinent, but the work that 

I'm doing teaching organic agriculture in prisons, 

many times they are downtown, urban, young black 

men, and I see lives changed. But I also hear from 

those same young men, I call home and I tell my 

family I'm going to be a farmer, and families say 

to them, you're going back to slavery. Yeah.

And so I think it's a multifaceted 

issue, not just from old white woman side, but also 

from the diverse population side. And yet I see 

lives totally changed and communities changed when 

these young men go back to their communities and 

teach them that they don't have to be on the streets 

selling drugs and pimping and whatever they're 

doing that ended them up into prison. So I applaud 

this issue, and yeah, I'd like to stay involved 

with that as well. Thank you.

MS. RUNDE: Great. Thank you.
390

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Anne Ross, 

and then Roland Cargill on deck, with Alan Lewis 

after that.

MS. ROSS: Good afternoon, my name is 

Anne Ross. I am the Director of International 

Policy for the Cornucopia Institute. I'd like to 

say a few words here about import fraud.

First, there are a lot of people here 

who've worked hard on this issue, and their efforts 

should be recognized and appreciated. 

Since I started looking into import 

fraud, I've considered myself an advocate for 

organic grain farmers. It's my job to ask 

questions and to keep pushing, and I'm really trying 

to understand a few things so all of us can figure 

out how to address these issues.

Let's say that a ship is coming in 

loaded with organic grain. The importing 

companies and/or the producers are certified. But 

their certifier was recently suspended, let's say 

in Europe. There is no question that European 

authorities determined the certifier wasn't 
391

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

following the law. 

Assume the ship is now at a U.S. port. 

I would genuinely like to know what is required 

to get our inspectors and agency officials out there 

to look at the paperwork, test, ask questions, do 

whatever needs to be done to make sure the cargo 

is organic.

I don't know of any regulatory standard 

that requires near-absolute proof of wrongdoing 

to initiate an investigation. In fact, the NOP 

has wide discretion to order inspections. I 

understand that operations remain certified for 

a period of time when their certifier is suspended. 

But who is looking at those operations that 

continue business when their certifier certainly 

wasn't?

These operations are continuing to push 

product out into the marketplace. Are we relying 

on the next certifier to investigate 

retrospectively? I don't think that happens. I'm 

really trying to understand where enforcement is 

at this critical stage.
392

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Second, I'm going to say this again. 

The crooks are still crafty. Importers are 

creative in using certain import codes to avoid 

detection, changing shipping routes, and 

misrepresenting where grain was grown. We've got 

to make sure we have an accurate account of what's 

actually coming in so we can determine if imports 

from a certain region are really down.

We've got to make sure we have a handle 

on the trading practices of related companies, 

these companies essentially buying and selling to 

themselves. These are large, multinational 

companies in control of entire supply chains.

Finally, in thinking about what I would 

say here today, I asked a friend of mine, an organic 

grain farmer, what he'd like you to know. He said, 

I'm still worried. I feel like everybody is tired 

of hearing about this, that it's a tired topic. 

Well, I'm tired, but I'm still at it.

To sum it up, this issue isn't going 

away, this is not done. Our farmers aren't 

resting, and neither can we. Thank everybody here 
393

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for all of your work. Any questions?

CHAIR BEHAR: I just encourage you, 

when the rulemaking on enforcement comes out, 

looking forward to your scrutiny on that and helping 

us with that. 

MS. ROSS: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Next up is Roland 

Cargill, with Alan Lewis on deck and David Gould 

after that.

MR. CARGILL: Good afternoon, my name 

is Roland Cargill, I'm with Fair Products. How 

you all holding up?

(Laughter.)

MR. CARGILL: It's been a long day, 

hasn't it? You've had to process a lot of 

information today, and so I'm going to wish you 

every success in your decisionmaking.

Today, I'm going to focus my comments 

on the support of the fatty alcohol approval by 

the Board and for its use on organic tobacco, as 

well as the inclusion on the National List. 

As you know, the Board had utilized 
394

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

seven criteria to evaluate the fatty alcohols. 

Six of seven of these criteria have undergone a 

thorough and comprehensive review and are published 

in the technical review report. And the evaluation 

is very favorable for and supports fatty alcohols.

The seventh criteria, which was 

compatibility with sustainable agriculture and 

organic agriculture, was not addressed in the 

technical review, but was the reason for denial 

of the previous petition. This denial was done 

without any rationale or reasoning for the 

decision. 

But fortunately, subsequently the NOSB 

Crop Subcommittee, in their July report of this 

year, clearly reported that the fatty alcohols are 

compatible with sustainable agriculture. 

Therefore, we're now on the same page, and on this 

important point. And I'd like to see the Board 

to move forward in the approval of the fatty 

alcohols for organic tobacco and the addition to 

the National List.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the 
395

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

EPA has recently reclassified fatty alcohols to 

biochemicals, based on the following criteria: 

they're naturally occurring, they're nontoxic, 

they have a nontoxic mode of action, and they have 

a safe history of exposure to humans. So the fatty 

alcohols are no longer grouped with traditional 

pesticide, but are now grouped with natural 

products and microbial products. 

And this reclassification is 

consistent with the criteria that's been evaluated 

in the technical review. So I wish you all success 

in your decision, and I respectfully ask for your 

support in approving the fatty alcohols. Thank 

you. I'll entertain any questions.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MR. MORTENSEN: Harriet, I just have 

one quick one.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

MR. CARGILL: Speak up a little bit.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, I will. Thank 

you, Roland. Like Steve, Steve Ela, I wanted to, 

as others did, thank you and your colleagues for 
396

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

getting up here today and for all the comments on 

the public comment. 

I did want to be sure that you and your 

colleagues understood that when we're looking at 

decisions and reviewing these materials, we do it 

with the data that we have, coming back to the data 

discussion that we had earlier, and we did not have 

very much. 

So as the Board has asked for more 

efficacy data, for example, you know, that helps 

us to make informed decisions. If we don't have 

that data, then we're just saying, oh, maybe this 

might work well. 

So to your credit, but it wasn't 

something that we had initially. So if there was 

a sense that we weren't being evenhanded early, 

we had much less to review and have a lot more to 

review now to inform the decision process.

MR. CARGILL: I think the 

reclassification by EPA is very important. It was 

done, and I have -- for those of you who have not 

seen the written comments, I have included that 
397

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

up over that document. And it's the letter, the 

official letter by EPA, as well as with my 

long-winded comments that I weren't able to make 

today. But all the details are in those reports.

All right, thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Is Alan Lewis 

here? Alan had to leave. So let's move on to David 

Gould. After that is Jake Dunevant.

Thank you. Hi, David.

MR. GOULD: Hi. Thank you very much 

for hearing me and thank you all for your very 

important and diligent and interested service to 

all these very complex subjects.

My name is David Gould. I'm the Global 

Head of Sustainability Programs for FoodChain ID. 

We operate a number of programs, one of which is 

the accredited certifying agent BioAgricert. We 

certify about 1,000 operations to the NOP and about 

another 12,000 globally to other regimes around 

the world.

And I'm here to talk to you about 

integrity of seed, planting stock, and other 
398

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

genetic resources, livestock breeds, or 

potentially anything else that may be involved in 

organic systems. 

And in particular, I want to address 

the new and growing wave of gene edited varieties 

and similarly created varieties that were recently 

recommended as newly excluded methods under the 

NOP. And we strongly agree with those NOSB 

recommendations and the prevailing sentiment 

expressed in this room today by USDA, that these 

are indeed excluded methods and we reiterate that 

non-GMO is a critical organic differentiator in 

the marketplace.

But even if we keep all -- stay in 

agreement about that, that these new methods are 

excluded, we have to be aware, they're still 

happening outside of us. And I speak here today 

really from one of our other core competencies, 

which is namely in GMO detection, risk assessment, 

analysis, and control.

Our company was actually the first to 

develop GMO detection techniques, back in the early 
399

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1990s, and we keep staying abreast of the 

technologies and the methods for this. We operate 

a number of non-GMO verification type of programs 

around the world and we keep serving the organic 

sector in this way.

NOP guidance on seeds recently, 

guidance 5029 said that it was important that if 

non-organic varieties were going to be used, they 

had to be documented as not being from excluded 

methods.

Well, in order to make that 

documentation meaningful, we need to have some 

concrete tools to do that, and that means, really, 

that we need to be able to test for them.

In order to be able to test for them, 

it means that we need very basic information about, 

one, enough transparency about what the exact 

changes are in these novel genomes, the techniques 

used to create them, and what full disclosure on 

any of the known phenotypic changes are.

And two, access to the actual genetic 

material, so that it can be tested, again, compared 
400

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to the reference genome, so that we can know whether 

it's actually present or not. If we have these 

things, these things will be detectable.

So, even if no organic operations use 

these GMOs, if they're only used by operations 

outside the NOP, I would suggest that it's within 

the NOSB's purview on this topic to recommend to 

USDA the necessary tools that the certifiers, the 

operators, and their service provides, and USDA 

itself can have to make sure that they do the job 

to the best of their abilities and protect the 

organic seal. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: I'm not seeing any 

questions. Go ahead, Dan.

DR. SEITZ: So, what you're mentioning 

is a type of transparency around these substances, 

what are the current blocks to that transparency?

MR. GOULD: Well, there is some 

resistence among the biotech sector to not be fully 

transparent about what they're actually creating. 

These are proprietary genomes.

There's also a lot of -- especially with 
401

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the new national bioengineered food disclosure 

standard, we actually get a variety of inquiries 

through our program, saying that this is a non-GMO 

according to that rule, therefore, you guys should 

certify this or verify this as non-GMO. We don't 

go there.

But that's -- really, in the biotech 

sector, in the laboratory sector, there's a heavy 

debate about how much information should be 

available. And it really will be a, more than NOP 

discussion about the divulgence of this kind of 

information.

DR. SEITZ: So, are there currently 

legal impediments to that? I mean, are there laws 

that protect these companies from divulging this, 

or would the USDA have the authority somehow to 

seek that information out?

MR. GOULD: I think the USDA would have 

the authority, just -- the discussion is still 

underway. So, the time to be proactive on this 

is now, before it becomes a problem.

CHAIR BEHAR: I agree with you very 
402

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

much, I think it's always a good idea to get ahead 

of the issue, rather than try to solve it later.

So, but there have been some 

discussions amongst different genetic testing 

organizations, that they say that they're 

developing methods, but it certainly would be 

easier if they weren't kind of playing hunt, in 

-- needle in the haystack kind of thing, and find 

that genetic material themselves and then, create 

that baseline for testing. It would be better if 

it was transparent, I absolutely agree.

MR. GOULD: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, 

there are some people who say that, for instance, 

that not everything will be detectable or it will 

be identical to what happens in nature, so you won't 

be able to tell the difference. But the more that 

discussion has gone on, the more it's been -- it's 

becoming more and more commonly understood that 

that is actually not the case, that these will be 

detectable, that they are different qualitatively 

from the naturally occurring analog of it.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you for bringing 
403

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that issue up to us.

MR. GOULD: Thank you for hearing me.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next up, Jake 

Dunevant, with Cindy Phillips, Kate Mendenhall, 

and Gwendolyn Wyard rounding out the day.

MR. DUNEVANT: Good afternoon, my name 

is Jake Dunevant and I work for JTI Tobacco Company. 

And I'm also here to talk about the importance 

of fatty alcohols, from a company standpoint.

The last couple months that all these 

reviews have been going on, I've been getting a 

lot of questions from growers, asking what's the 

alternative, what can I use if I don't have this?

And I don't really have an answer for them.

And that's just, I mean, like Loren 

Fisher and all them state -- they really emphasize 

that we test a lot of other things and none of them 

have the effectiveness as fatty alcohols.

And I really don't -- I've heard a lot 

of them say this, and from personal experience, 

I don't think that anybody -- a lot of people are 

going to continue to grow organic tobacco if they 
404

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

don't have this material. And that's -- if there's 

any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them.

CHAIR BEHAR: I guess no questions, 

thank you.

MR. DUNEVANT: All right, thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Cindy Phillips, Kate 

Mendenhall, Gwendolyn Wyard, in that order.

MS. PHILLIPS: Hi, I'm the CEO and 

founder of Hemp Analytics. It's a startup tech 

company in the hemp industry. I'm also a Research 

Scholar at the University of Maryland Business 

School.

And I'm here to ask the USDA Organics 

Board help in hemp. So, there has been seized loads 

across the country, law enforcement officers can't 

tell the difference between legal hemp and illegal 

marijuana.

Our company has developed a track and 

trace technology that allows us to track plant 

material back to the original lot and the GPS 

locations of that lot. We have this chemical 

barcode that is sprayed onto the plant, that becomes 
405

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a tamper-proof label once it dries.

There's permutations of the 

biochemical barcode that won't pass organic 

certification, but there's permutations that 

would. We need help from the USDA organic board 

on developing further research, about how to set 

up further experiments on creating permutations 

of the chemical barcode that would pass organic 

certification.

And then, we're integrating this into 

blockchain technology to protect against fraud. 

And we need to know the total number of chemical 

barcode permutations that would pass organic 

certification, to put into our model.

The biggest barrier blocks to setting 

up our models is government responses and feedback. 

We need feedback from all levels of government 

officials, local, state, and federal, to develop 

the parameters, conditions, and rules of the model, 

so that we can simulate real world conditions of 

fraud cases.

So, I'm here asking for both logistical 
406

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

help from the USDA on getting responses from other 

government officials, and collaboration on setting 

up further research projects that further develops 

the chemical barcode. And then, scale wise, we 

can scale this technology to address organic, 

what's more at heart with the organic board.

So, I know that people have been 

switching non-organic material or plants with 

organic plants, and with this barcode technology, 

you're able to stop that fraud, because you're able 

to track the plant material in a realtime data 

ledger.

But like I said, we need the 

government's help to get this technology to the 

marketplace and that is really our biggest barrier. 

Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Any questions? Doesn't 

look like it. Okay. No? No questions?

MS. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry, did you have 

questions for me?

CHAIR BEHAR: No.

MS. PHILLIPS: So, would I be able to 
407

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

get any help from the USDA organics board in 

developing further research projects on the 

chemical barcode or any sort of logistical support?

CHAIR BEHAR: Well, we're still 

waiting -- we did have a discussion earlier about 

that, with the latest Farm Bill, we're still waiting 

for the USDA to kind of come up to speed with the 

allowance, federally.

So, right now, there are people at the 

state level, I believe in California, they're 

looking into kind of approving organic hemp. But 

because it's not federally approved currently, as 

a crop, that we as a federal board cannot really 

work on hemp or marijuana --

MS. PHILLIPS: Hemp is --

CHAIR BEHAR: -- or whatever.

MS. PHILLIPS: -- federally legalized 

with the Farm Bill.

CHAIR BEHAR: No, but the USDA has not 

caught up in their regulatory --

MS. PHILLIPS: Right, okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- to do anything. 
408

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We're kind of --

MS. PHILLIPS: So, I think --

CHAIR BEHAR: We're kind of in a limbo 

land right now, ourselves. So, until they came 

out with a regulatory framework to allow it as a 

federally approved crop, it's harder for us to deal 

with. Maybe Scott knows more.

MR. RICE: I think it's -- as you noted, 

it's federally legal crop, but the way in which 

it can be marketed using the organic label has had 

additional requirements around it, and that is what 

is being worked out through USDA rulemaking.

MS. PHILLIPS: So, let's set aside the 

hemp thing, we need to get permutations of the 

chemical barcode that would pass the organic 

certification, because it's going to take three 

years on our part to bring this technology to the 

marketplace anyways, and by then, I'm sure the USDA 

can figure out what protocols that you're going 

to have in place.

But at that time, the market is full 

of farmers who care about having organic 
409

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

certification. So, if you want to coordinate 

together on bringing this technology to the market, 

and also developing good protocols, then please 

get back with me.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes. So, there are 

research dollars -- this Board reviews materials 

for use. So, if you had something that you wanted 

to use in organic, I encourage you to go to our 

website, the USDA National Organic Program website, 

and there is a petition process for a generic 

material.

And then -- that's the kind of process 

that we go through in what type of materials are 

allowed in organic. We don't really have a way 

to help fund or provide you with help in researching

items, we look at items that are already ready to 

go.

MS. PHILLIPS: Okay, thank you.

MR. MORTENSEN: Harriet, another --

just another quick thought. The Small Business 

Initiative Research Competitive Grants Program, 

it sounds like a good fit --
410

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. PHILLIPS: I just --

MR. MORTENSEN: -- for that.

MS. PHILLIPS: -- applied to that 

today, actually.

MR. MORTENSEN: Okay, good.

MS. PHILLIPS: Thank you.

MR. MORTENSEN: Great.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Cindy. Kate 

Mendenhall, on deck. Don't forget your 

butterflies. And Gwendolyn Wyard, on deck.

MS. MENDENHALL: Thank you, Members of 

the National Organic Standards Board, for the 

opportunity to speak before you today. My name 

is Kate Mendenhall. I'm the Director of the 

Organic Farmers Association, and I'm also an Iowa 

organic farmer.

OFA is led and controlled by domestic 

certified organic farmers and only certified 

organic farmers determine our policies, using a 

grassroots process. We believe organic farmers 

were instrumental in creating our successful 

organic market, and must be leaders in directing 
411

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

its future.

Organic Farmers Association greatly 

supports the work of the NOSB and finds your role 

crucial to maintain integrity in the USDA organic 

label. We also support NOSB recommendations 

moving forward to rulemaking or guidance in a timely 

manner.

We appreciate the NOSB's 2018 

resolution to move origin of livestock standards 

quickly to a final rule, and the USDA's recent 

decision not to issue a second rule. We are 

concerned that the number of comments coming in 

might delay the process, and we ask that the USDA 

work to move to an immediate implementation of a 

final rule.

We are also hearing from farmers that 

they still see a lack of oversight on pasture rule 

compliance. We appreciate the increased dairy 

oversight effort, and we need to see more.

Last month, we sent a letter to the 

Secretary of Agriculture in response to 

Undersecretary Ibach's July statement expressing 
412

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

interest in a dialogue about gene editing in 

organic. Seventy-eight organic organizations 

joined OFA to clearly communicate our unified 

opposition.

We thank Dr. Tucker for confirming that 

gene editing has always been prohibited in organic 

agriculture. The organic community is not 

interested in a dialogue about gene editing. We 

do encourage robust dialogue about the numerous 

critical issues organic farmers are facing, 

protecting farmers from genetic and pesticide 

contamination, protecting farmers from import 

fraud, et cetera.

Organic Farmers Association continues 

to oppose the certification of hydroponic 

operations, a position passed by 90 percent of our 

certified organic farmer members nationwide, and 

in each of our six geographic regions.

We are concerned about the consequences 

to the integrity of the organic label as a result 

of the USDA and NOSB moving forward to allow organic 

hydroponics without clarity on how it complies with 
413

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

OFPA and standards for this type of production 

system.

At the spring NOSB meeting, there was 

much conversation regarding whether container 

farms needed to comply with the same three-year 

transition as soil-based farms. Organic Farmers 

Association was pleased to receive NOP 

clarification for certifiers on transition time 

for container systems after the application of a 

prohibited substance. However, it did leave some 

ambiguity about how greenhouse production fits in. 

Is a three-year transition needed for a container 

system inside a greenhouse after application of 

a prohibited substance?

It is important that the organic 

standards are clear and equitable across growing 

systems so that certifiers are implementing and 

enforcing the standards uniformly. If ambiguity 

is present, the NOP must provide clarity. Thank 

you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. I have Dan.

DR. SEITZ: Just, if hydroponics 
414

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

continues as an acceptable organic method, are 

there certain crops that you think will disappear 

from soil production? Because of a difficult 

competitive environment?

MS. MENDENHALL: I don't think that 

there has been an economic assessment of that, but 

I still encourage the NOSB to show evidence that 

hydroponic operations comply with OFPA.

And we continue to hear from farmers 

a strong opposition to it, and I think that the 

comments submitted, which actually were not 

solicited by us, to the NOSB, show that there still 

is a lot of concern about that. And just in the 

short while, I think, since that conversation 

started, we've seen some interesting and 

questionable practices being implemented. So, 

there really needs to be a lot more conversation. 

We asked at the last NOSB meeting that moratorium 

be put on any new hydroponic operations until there 

can be more discussion and a real vetted process.

DR. SEITZ: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Kate.
415

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. MENDENHALL: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Gwendolyn is our last 

speaker. And then, Jenny will have some comments.

MS. WYARD: Okay. Well, good 

afternoon. Gwendolyn Wyard with the Organic Trade 

Association, and 95 percent of what I'm wearing 

is organic cotton.

(Applause.)

MS. WYARD: All right. Well, I 

thought I would be a little bit more illustrative 

in my comments this round, because I think we can 

all use a little bit more color this time of day. 

My first topic is celery powder.

And I'm excited to announce that after 

four years of work and two previous submissions 

to USDA's Research and Extension Initiative Grant 

Program, we've finally been awarded just shy of 

$2 million to develop an organic alternative to 

natural celery powder. That's $1 short, Tom said 

he was going to put that up.

So, celery powder continues to be the 

only natural form of nitrate available for curing 
416

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

meat, such as bacon, ham, sausage, and hot dogs. 

Love them or hate them, eat them or avoid them, 

removing celery powder from the National List 

doesn't take the celery powder out of organic 

processed meat, it does remove those products from 

the store shelves altogether. It eliminates 

consumer choice and it will negatively impact the 

already struggling organic livestock sector.

The research underway is focused on 

developing an alternative that is compatible with 

organic production systems, compatible with 

organic principles. So, please retain celery 

powder on the National List and give us the 

opportunity to develop an organic choice.

On to dairy cultures, we understand 

that the intent of this proposal is to eliminate 

redundancies, and we think that's great, but the 

sunset vote is not the place to get this done. 

We recommend a separate recommendation, if you're 

going to take that approach.

Furthermore, we've also heard from some 

of our member companies that, right now, dairy 
417

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

cultures on the National List can easily be 

cross-referenced with how they appear on the 

ingredient statement of a product. And this is 

important to those ingredient label consumers. 

So, from this perspective, we encourage NOSB to 

join us in our support for food label literacy and 

food label transparency, and retain dairy cultures 

on the National List as a separate listing.

And then, finally, on genetic integrity 

of seed, we have an ongoing request for NOSB to 

please focus on recommendation for guidance on GE 

testing.

Ironically, after years of discussing 

genetic integrity and the need to keep GMOs out 

of organic, NOP's guidance on residue testing is 

out of date and it's completely void of procedures 

and criteria specific to GE testing.

Advising the Secretary on residue 

testing is one of the seven NOSB duties, explicitly 

defined by the OFPA, and NOP clarified that GE 

testing does in fact fall under the residue testing 

requirements. So, please add this to your work 
418

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

agenda.

And then, finally, I want to thank 

Ashley, Tom, Lisa, and Harriet for your absolutely 

outstanding service. I've put together some 

cartoons that made me think of each of you. Feel 

free to ask me why I decided to assign you to these 

various cartoons. 

I've got a couple seconds here, so I'll 

start with Ashley. Either way you look at it, my 

friend, we're plucked. Just maybe it's obvious 

with all of the work that you've done on the 

livestock issues. And I'll stop there. Thank 

you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Well, I think the Crops, 

or maybe it would be the Certification 

Subcommittee, might talk about improving the 

residue testing policy memo.

MR. RICE: Sorry, I thought we were 

talking about comics, you caught me off guard.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR BEHAR: I was. Well, I --

MR. RICE: I was trying to make the 
419

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

connection there. Yes, we could look at doing 

that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley?

MS. SWAFFAR: so, I don't want my other 

sunsetting Board Members to feel left out, could 

you please explain each of those?

MS. WYARD: Well, Tom there, crawling 

across the desert, organic water, organic water. 

I just recall, I think it was April of 2016, Tom 

had 80 slides on revisions to the policy and 

procedures manual. So, I looked at that and I think 

Tom would have been saying, organic beer, organic 

beer. But that's -- I just, that effort was amazing 

and I thought of you there.

And then, this last one, again, maybe 

this is obvious to some, but we've got Lisa and 

Harriet sitting there and Lisa looks over to Harriet 

and she says, do you ever think about just chucking 

all of this and just retreating to a life of mindless 

consumerism? I think that would never happen with 

you two, because of your dedication, so, some 

sarcasm there.
420

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Well, with the advent of 

Amazon, I have a little bit more opportunity to 

be a consumer, but most of the time, at the end 

of the dead-end road, not much comes my way.

DR. BRADMAN: So, I have a question, 

just about your comments about celery powder and 

if any of the group members of OTA have commented 

about concerns about health issues related to 

nitrates and nitrosamines, and what their 

dependence is on this product and are there 

alternatives, not just in terms of other vegetable 

juices that have nitrates, but are there other 

products besides salt, for example, that might help 

address processed meats?

MS. WYARD: So, I'll start with the 

research part of it, and I think you heard quite 

a bit on the research from the panel and April and 

the Organic Center gave their comments on the 

webinar. But certainly, what we are looking at 

is a number of different vegetables that could be 

used, so not just celery, but I think Swiss chard 

at this point is probably the most promising.
421

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But again, it is the nitrate that we're 

after. So, despite what vegetable we're looking 

at, it is the nitrate that we're looking at, that 

gets converted to nitrite. But we are looking at 

levels, in terms of how it's grown. We certainly 

don't want to just revert to input substitution. 

Our goal is -- I mean, if we wanted to create celery 

powder, organic celery powder that had the levels 

that were needed, we could increase the amount of 

fertilizer, we could just go with a straight input 

substitution.

But we really want to look at how this 

could be compatible with organic principles, how 

we can look at ways to not need as much of the 

nitrite. And that's also -- I mean, there's really 

-- I think there's already quite a bit of data out 

there that shows that less nitrate is used with 

celery powder.

And then, there's also a number of 

different combinations, vitamin C, ascorbic acid, 

tocopherols, that reduces the development of 

nitrosamines. So, we are absolutely committed to 
422

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

making this, not only as compatible with organic 

production as possible, but also organic handling. 

So, a number of different factors that we'll be 

looking at there. 

The health concerns are, I mean, 

they're important to, I hope, everybody. We've 

been aware of the concerns with red meat and 

processed meat for many, many, many years. We're 

not going to -- I'm not going to stand up here and 

defend processed meat or red meat or nitrates or 

nitrites. At the end of the day -- I'm not trying 

to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.

At the end of the day, we're dealing 

with nitrites. And the World Health Organization, 

in 2015, categorized red processed meat -- or, 

processed meat as a category one carcinogen, that 

is true. I think that this is a matter of food 

education and we all need to be educated on our 

choices. I am not going to eat, and I hope that, 

if we are all educated, we are not going to be eating 

a hot dog a day or seven pieces of bacon a day, 

which is what it would take, according to the 
423

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

research, to increase your risk of cancer by one 

percent over a lifetime.

This is a food choice issue. We, as 

a National Organic Standards Board, as an organic 

community, do we decide what consumers can have 

access to, in terms of is it organic or not? Are 

we going to take these products away saying, you 

shouldn't eat these products? Or do we educate 

on healthy choices and provide everybody with a 

choice of organic or not organic?

I think what we hear from our members 

is that it's important to them to be able to create 

the best source and process as possible, so that 

if a person chooses to eat organic bacon, to eat 

organic hot dogs, they do that as an educated 

shopper and they have the opportunity to support 

the organic livestock sector, they have the 

opportunity to have organic celery powder or Swiss 

chard, instead of the natural forms.

I agree, I think that there's work to 

be done on the labeling, that's not an organic 

issue, it's an FSIS issue. The requirement to say 
424

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

uncured if you're using celery powder, I think that 

our member companies have concerns about that too. 

I think that there's been efforts to get that 

changed, so that a consumer isn't looking at 

uncured, no added nitrates or nitrites. More 

information to help consumer choice is definitely 

what we're in support of. Did I answer all your 

questions?

DR. BRADMAN: Yes, thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily, go ahead.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, I think you just 

brought up an interesting point. I mean, it is 

about food choices and it isn't our job to tell 

people what to eat, but it is our job to review 

materials that are synthetic, that then are allowed 

for use in organic and for organic labeling.

So, I think that is the difficulty that 

we're struggling with when we review these 

materials. It's not that we are, I think, 

necessarily trying to take away consumers' choices, 

but we're also trying to do due diligence to the 

synthetics that we do allow, and do they represent 
425

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

what organic consumers expect from the label?

MS. WYARD: Yes, I think, this is a 

point that Tom was trying to make earlier too, 

celery powder is not carcinogenic. Red processed 

meat -- or, processed meat, that's what's 

categorized as carcinogenic. So, yeast is to 

celery powder as processed meat is to alcohol. 

Alcohol is the concern, processed meat is the 

concern.

In terms of the purview of the Board 

and reviewing these materials and evaluating them 

to the OFPA criteria, nitrates, in and of 

themselves, are not necessarily the issue. Once 

they are put into the meat and you put heat on there 

and they create the nitrosamines, it's the 

nitrosamines that are actually the carcinogenic 

compound that we're interested in and we're 

concerned about.

CHAIR BEHAR: Tom? Ashley, do you 

have your hand up? She's a halfway, maybe. Okay, 

Tom, next.

MR. CHAPMAN: I actually had a dairy 
426

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

culture question, but I just want to make a 

clarification, though, that celery powder is a 606 

item, it is a agricultural input, not a synthetic 

input. Just making sure we make that clear. 

Unlike yeast --

MS. WYARD: Thank you.

MR. CHAPMAN: -- which is on the -- it's 

on the non-synthetic list.

MS. WYARD: Right, that's a good point, 

but I think it's just, it's something that we have 

to acknowledge.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes. Onto the dairy 

cultures, though. I liked your slide, it had 

slightly different pictures than in your comments. 

But as I was looking at -- you made a couple points 

on the dairy cultures item, I'm just focusing on 

the one about the labeling. And I noticed dairy 

cultures wasn't on any of those labels, can you 

speak a little bit to that? 

I mean, if I was a consumer, I see a 

list of culture strains that span half the 

ingredient panel, that is not the actual item. 
427

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, it seems like that -- I keep hearing that 

complaint, that complaint came up from Dairy Foods 

Association, I'm just trying to -- I'm having a 

hard time understanding it, so can you help me 

understand it a bit more?

MS. WYARD: Sure. Well, in these 

examples up here, live yogurt cultures, live 

cultures, these are all dairy products. So, I 

guess, if you're a consumer and you're holding a 

dairy product and it says live cultures, those are 

cultures for dairy products and it's much more clear 

than if it said microorganisms.

I think that just having its own place 

on the National List, it's a lot easier. I mean,

I think probably there's a -- you're not going to 

find hundreds of consumers going up and down the 

store aisle with the National List in one hand and 

a dairy culture in the other, right?

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.

MS. WYARD: But we have heard from our 

member companies that their customers, there's 

actually a growing number of consumers, shoppers, 
428

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that are reading ingredient statements and they're 

looking at the National List and it's easier to 

cross-reference that. So, maintaining a separate 

listing, where we can manage that group, that subset 

of microorganisms, is a lot easier.

And I think, really the point is just 

the precedent that it sets, that this is fine, make 

it a separate recommendation. We think this is 

analogous to annotations, creating annotations 

during the sunset review process, which is not 

allowed. We don't think it's a very clean process, 

a separate recommendation should be there.

I would love to support food label 

transparency and literacy, though, and get people 

up and down the aisle reading food labels and 

looking at the National List and being able to 

cross-reference, that would be awesome.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley?

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes. So, I don't sit in 

a Handling seat, so I feel like I'm a little of 

the average consumer here and nowhere does that 

say dairy cultures.
429

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And if I had the National List in front 

of me that said dairy cultures, it says live 

cultures, live yogurt cultures, cultured milk. 

Would there be any product that would go away if 

we delisted dairy cultures, or would any product 

label have to change?

MS. WYARD: With the listing of 

microorganisms, as a broad category listing, that 

should cover dairy cultures. I would hope that 

all of the information gets transferred over to 

that listing and that the whole history of dairy 

cultures and everything could be found under the 

listing of microorganisms.

So, it wouldn't impact dairy cultures 

the way that you're suggesting or asking about with 

your first question. And then, no, it wouldn't 

change ingredient statements.

CHAIR BEHAR: I guess the only thing 

I would say is that, when a dairy processor is buying 

a culture, it says culture on the name. So, during 

certification or whatever, I mean, eventually, it's 

understood that it's a microorganism, but it's the 
430

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

kind of nomenclature that's used out there.

MS. WYARD: It's the basic food 

industry nomenclature. Anybody that is in the food 

processing, food science world knows that. And 

from an R&D perspective, anybody that's working 

in a company that's making these products, they're 

going to recognize dairy cultures. It's very 

clear, it's right there. They would see 

microorganisms and might have to go ask some people, 

does that include dairy cultures? It's just really 

clear, so I don't see what the big deal is to just, 

don't break it, leave it, don't touch it.

If you're doing it to eliminate work 

for NOSB, I don't think there's that much work 

involved. We ought to be thinking about shoppers, 

we need to be thinking about the people out there 

making products. Just leave it alone.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve?

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes. I mean, I'm the 

lead on that. And I get that, but it makes no sense 

to me to have the -- the writeup is exactly the 

same for both things. So, I guess it's not a lot 
431

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

more work, because you just copy one to the other. 

On the other hand, it makes no sense for me to 

have two things that are the same on the list. 

That is confusing to me.

And as far as the process goes, I guess 

I hear, yes, we could ask for a work agenda item, 

we could then go through the process and spend two 

years going down that road, but if it is a redundant 

listing, it's a redundant listing.

It's not like we're annotating 

differently, we're not -- I mean, like I say, the 

listings are the same, except one's dairy culture 

and one's microorganisms. So, I hear the 

process-oriented comments, but I am having a hard 

time wrapping my head around, we're not really 

changing anything.

MS. WYARD: Yes, I think a separate 

recommendation is just a cleaner approach and we 

just wanted to bring up the potential precedent 

this could set.

And just in terms of keeping a really 

tight ship, how difficult is it to make a separate 
432

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

recommendation to get the same job done, rather 

than bringing it under sunset, which is a different 

kind of evaluation? The evaluation is whether or 

not these substances on the National List should 

be renewed according to OFPA criteria? It's just 

not a clean fit. So, just recommending a different 

process, rather than the sunset process.

CHAIR BEHAR: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Gwen, I apologize for my 

ignorance, but would there be any other product 

that a dairy culture would be used in a nondairy 

final product, as microorganisms might be? I'm 

thinking about lactose intolerant people. If it 

was just labeled microorganisms, would a diary 

culture be used in another product? Does that make 

sense, the question I'm asking?

MS. WYARD: No.

MS. BAIRD: No?

(Laughter.)

MS. BAIRD: Okay. So, the answer is 

no? Or the answer, it doesn't make sense?

MS. WYARD: The question is, would a 
433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

dairy culture be used in a nondairy culture product?

MS. BAIRD: Correct.

MS. WYARD: Yes, there are 

microorganisms that are used for dairy cultures 

that are also used in other products, they wouldn't 

be labeled a dairy culture, they would probably 

just be labeled as --

MS. BAIRD: Microorganisms.

MS. WYARD: -- live cultures.

MS. BAIRD: So, would there be a 

possibility then, if it were labeled as 

microorganism and used in a nondairy product, that 

somebody might have a potential allergen to it?

MS. WYARD: They would have to declare 

that otherwise, I think --

MS. BAIRD: They would have to declare 

it otherwise, okay, thank you.

MS. WYARD: -- in terms of the allergen 

labeling requirements.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. We are now 25 

minutes over. I know Ashley has got one more, but 

we still are going to get a little wrap-up from 
434

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Jenny at the end.

MS. WYARD: I'm sure the ladies and the 

gentleman -- everybody in the gallery had no idea 

that dairy cultures would be between them and a 

cocktail.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR BEHAR: All right. Ashley, and 

you'll be the last one.

MS. SWAFFAR: So, I hear what you're 

saying about, it's not a clean process to do this 

at sunset. But when we ask to put things on our 

work agenda, it's normally for annotation purposes, 

and I think that would actually set a worse 

precedent to have something put on our work agenda 

to remove it.

MS. WYARD: Fair enough. I think just 

document everything really well. I think one of 

our concerns is just that the history of dairy 

cultures and all the decision making could get lost 

in the shuffle. So, I think if all of the 

information is easily found and shoppers and 

everybody out there are going to have to contend 
435

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

with one broad category listing of microorganisms.

But I stand by our comments, we think 

that it's preferable to have a separate listing. 

It allows for us to manage annotations separately, 

should there be one. They're really their own 

unique category of cultures and we believe they 

have earned and should continue to have their own 

listing.

CHAIR BEHAR: Well, as the person who 

put it on the list, many years ago, I voted to move 

it -- to take it off. That was when I worked at 

Organic Valley. Okay.

MS. WYARD: Thank you, everyone.

CHAIR BEHAR: I think we are done with 

public comment, but before Jenny speaks, I just 

want to say, tomorrow morning, we will start at 

8:30 and Bill Wolf, with Colleen O'Brien on deck. 

So, just ready for tomorrow, but now to Jenny.

DR. TUCKER: Just a couple of closing 

comments. First, let us all give a round of 

applause to our public commenters today, particular 

the farmers who came so far.
436

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

(Applause.)

DR. TUCKER: This public comment 

process is such a vital part of the participation 

and we value every single one of you, so thank you 

all for coming.

I was asked a couple of times if the 

presentation, NOP update presentation, would be 

posted. It is already up, so the web team was very 

efficient. If you go to the meeting page, you'll 

be able to download the presentation from this 

morning.

I wanted to acknowledge the comments 

on strengthening organic enforcement comment 

period, that 60 days may not be quite enough time, 

given the scope of the rule. We listen for the 

themes that come out of the meeting, that is one 

that was very, very clear.

So, the rule hasn't been released yet, 

so it may be, just given the number of people who 

have expressed interest in that, we might be able 

to start with a longer people, rather than making 

folks request that extension. So, that's an item 
437

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we will take back.

There were a couple of comments on the 

origin of livestock public comment period and 

moving to a final rule. And again, for folks who 

aren't around rulemaking a lot, I did want to just 

mention or reiterate that a final rule is always 

grounded in the proposed rule.

And so, the proposed rule for 2015 that 

has been reopened for public comment, that is the 

foundation, that is the basis for any final rule 

that would be issued. We are just seeking sort 

of a final round of comments, but that's how 

rulemaking works. And so, even though there's some 

time between them, but the process remains the same, 

that the proposed rule is the foundation for the 

final rule.

So, my final comment is around imports. 

I appreciate the number of comments emphasizing 

the importance of that. I think the proposed rule 

that will come out will have a lot to say on that.

I did want to clarify, this morning, 

I was focusing on what we're doing in-country on 
438

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

yield analysis as a direct path to enforcement. 

I did want to emphasize, we do look at ships when 

they come.

When a ship is coming and there is 

reason to wonder about it, we do have a strong 

relationship with Customs and Border Protection. 

We are now able to access ACE reports. And so, 

I think we are looking at a tighter and a deeper 

level. Ships, it's just not always the front door 

to enforcement, because every time we've done that 

it has led back to certified farms, every single 

time.

And so -- but I didn't want folks to 

be under the impression that we weren't even 

checking, we are checking and certifiers are doing 

testing. We are confirming that traceability. 

So, just a quick comment on that import work.

Again, thank you so much for the 

thoughtfulness of all the comments today, we 

genuinely appreciate hearing from all of you, and 

have a good evening.

CHAIR BEHAR: I have one question, 
439

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Jenny. Would you like to speak a little bit about 

energy infrastructure? We did have a few comments 

on that.

DR. TUCKER: Yes. So, there were --

thank you. There were a couple of comments on the 

energy infrastructure. The Board had asked for 

a work agenda item on that. And at the moment, 

we are not going to move forward with that work 

agenda item. There are too many other, right now, 

high priority items on the agenda.

And there are a lot of local, 

community-based solutions and existing 

organizations that can support that work. That 

it really starts stretching the limits of our 

authority in that area. And so, we heard from folks 

who have experienced challenges on the ground with 

these.

We would encourage other organizations 

across the organic community to bring those voices 

together, to join to create those best practices 

that can help farmers that are facing those issues 

on the farm.
440

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

There are many areas where the 

community can best support itself in helping 

farmers face those on-the-ground challenges. So, 

for right now, we will not be moving forward with 

that work agenda item.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Everyone, thank 

you for a long day, but a good day, and see you 

bright and early tomorrow at 8:30 a.m.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 6:03 p.m.)
1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + + +

FALL 2019 MEETING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

OCTOBER 24, 2019

+ + + + +

The Board met in the Philadelphia 

Ballroom at the Doubletree Hotel & Suites 

Pittsburgh City Center, One Bigelow Square, 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania at 8:30 a.m., Harriet 

Behar, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT

HARRIET BEHAR, Chair

STEVE ELA, Vice Chair

SCOTT RICE, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

JESSE BUIE

TOM CHAPMAN

LISA de LIMA

RICK GREENWOOD

DAVE MORTENSEN

EMILY OAKLEY

DAN SEITZ

ASHLEY SWAFFAR
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

STAFF PRESENT

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, NOSB Advisory Board

Specialist, National Organic Program

PAUL LEWIS, Ph.D., Director, Standards Division,

National Organic Program

DEVON PATTILLO, Materials Specialist,

National Organic Program

JENNIFER TUCKER, Ph.D., Deputy Administrator,

National Organic Program

PUBLIC COMMENTERS

JULIA BARTON, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm

Association

ALECIA BOCK, AgriSystems International

MARY CAPEHART, Organic Valley

DAVE CARTER, Crystal Springs Consulting Inc.

ELI CHANDLER, Thorvin Inc.

MEAGAN COLLINS, Accredited Certifiers

Association

LYNN COODY, Organic Produce Wholesalers

Coalition

DAIN CRAVER, Bossig

MIKE CROSTER, CROPP Cooperative

ELIJAH DEAN, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm

Association

JEFFERSON DEAN, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm

Association

MIKE DILL, Organically Grown Company

JAY FELDMAN, Beyond Pesticides

DAVID FERMAN, Brighthouse Organics

LEE FRANKEL, Coalition for Sustainable Organics

CHRIS GRIGSBY, MOFGA Certification Services

ROBIN HADLOCK SEELEY, Ph.D.,

University of New Hampshire

MICHAEL HANSEN, Consumer Reports

JOHN HENDRICKSON, Small Farm Works

DAVID HILTZ, Acadian Seaplants Ltd.

TINA JENSEN AUGUSTINE, Organic Materials Review 

Institute

GARTH KAHL, Independent Organic Services Inc.

PAT KERRIGAN, Organic Consumers Association

AMALIE LIPSTREU, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm

Association
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

SANDY MAYS, Wolf DiMatteo + Associates

PEGGY MIARS, Organic Materials Review Institute

DAVID MOORE, Neudorff

BLAYNE MOZISEK, D.V.M., Merck Animal Health

EMILY MUSGRAVE, Driscoll's Inc.

COLLEEN O'BRIEN, Oregon Tilth Certified Organic

TASHA OLSON, Fiberstar Inc.

MARISOL OVIEDO, Northwest Horticultural Council

BJARNE PEDERSEN, Ellepot A/S

ERNIE PETERSON, Cashton Farm Supply

HARRY RICE, Global Organization for EPA and DHA

Omega-3s

BETH ROTA, Quality Certification Services

MARGARET SCOLES, International Organic

Inspectors Association

BRIAN SHEVRIN, Vermont Organic Farmers

JILL SMITH, Western Organic Dairy Producers

Alliance

MICHELLE SMOLARSKI, International Food Additives

Council

DAVID SUCHOFF, North Carolina State University

LESLIE TOUZEAU, Quality Certification Services

STEVE WALKER, MOSA

DAVID WILL, Chino Valley Ranchers;

Methionine Task Force

DIANE WILSON, Nature's One

BILL WOLF, Wolf DiMatteo + Associates;

Thorvin Inc.
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

Public Comments, (Cont'd) ..................... 5

Handling Subcommittee

Topics:

2021 sunset substances review:

Acids, Citric ............................... 340

Acids, Lactic ............................... 346

Calcium chloride ............................ 348

Dairy cultures .............................. 350

Enzymes ..................................... 367

L-Malic acid ................................ 370

Magnesium sulfate ........................... 374

Microorganisms .............................. 377

Perlite ..................................... 385

Potassium iodide ............................ 387

Yeast ....................................... 389

Activated charcoal .......................... 394

Alginic Acid ................................ 397

Ascorbic acid ............................... 408

Calcium citrate ............................. 411

Ferrous sulfate ............................. 414

Hydrogen peroxide ........................... 417

Nutrient vitamins and minerals .............. 419

Peracetic acid .............................. 424

Potassium citrate ........................... 429

Potassium phosphate ......................... 431

Sodium acid pyrophosphate ................... 437

Sodium citrate .............................. 443

Tocopherols ................................. 446

Celery powder ............................... 451

Fish oil .................................... 485

Gelatin ..................................... 493

Orange pulp, dried .......................... 498

Seaweed, Pacific kombu ...................... 513

Seaweed, Wakame (Undaria pinnatifida) ....... 516

Adjourn ..................................... 527
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

8:31 a.m.

CHAIR BEHAR: Welcome to the second day 

of the 56th National Organic Standards Board 

in-person meeting. And the meetings go on and on. 

Okay, so we are continuing today with public 

comment, and then in the afternoon we will start 

our subcommittee meetings with the Handling 

Subcommittee.

So starting first, I see him already 

on deck, and of course I think there's butterflies 

out there still for everyone. And anyone can come 

up even during break or whatever and get their 

butterfly.

Bill Wolf is first with Colleen O'Brien 

and then Beth Rota on deck after that. Welcome, 

Bill.

MR. WOLF: Good morning. I'm Bill 

Wolf with both Wolf DiMatteo and Associates, a 

leading organic consultancy, and Thorvin Kelp. 

My seaweed company, Thorvin, only uses and produces 

certified organic marine algae and would benefit 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

from your proposal to require certification of all 

marine algae used in organic crop production.

However, we do not support this 

approach. Adding individual annotations to the 

National List or requiring that input sources be 

certified is not a sustainable path, or in the best 

interests of the organic community.

So first of all, I really want to thank 

you for delving so deeply into the sustainability 

of harvesting marine materials. I'll amplify on 

the written comments and articles that we 

submitted.

I have been pursuing the sustainable 

harvest of seaweeds, encouraging farming practices 

that earthworms love, and increasing organic 

acreage worldwide for 48 years. Observing what 

earthworms like is a powerful tool for choosing 

inputs. These earthworms are actually from my 

organic farm. And they love kelp meal. And they 

run away from sodium nitrate.

So what does that mean? How do we 

address that? For over four decades I've used and 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

recommended seaweeds and liquid foliar extracts, 

soluble powders, and liquids, and seen a change 

in crops. It's extremely efficient, requiring 

only a few ounces per acre to improve yield and 

quality.

So, more important, seaweed is a 

renewable resource and unlike many other farming 

inputs. Now that you have done this deep dive on 

marine materials, I ask that you take a more 

strategic approach to studying inputs.

Why not take a step back and prioritize 

which inputs most need to be reviewed for their 

life cycle impacts? Examples include 

non-renewables like rock phosphate, and diesel 

fuel, and byproducts that encourage pesticide use 

like GMO cotton seed meal.

So finally, we agree that seaweed 

harvests must ---

CHAIR BEHAR: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: What do you have in your 

bucket?

(Laughter.)
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. WOLF: This is actually some 

earthworms from my earthworm farm, from my organic 

farm. And they're not real happy right now. This 

bucket's pretty happy. This bucket, I spread a 

little sodium nitrate on the left side, they ran 

over to the right side, so I put a little kelp in 

there. So they're a good measurement of what's 

going on.

MS. BAIRD: Can I have follow-up?

CHAIR BEHAR: Go ahead.

MS. BAIRD: Yes. So can you explain 

to me how kelp meal helps the soil and earthworms?

MR. WOLF: Well, kelp meal is a little 

different than the liquid seaweed that you're 

actually discussing on the National List, on 601. 

Kelp meal is a great mineralizer, and improves 

soil health and fertility, and is almost like a 

worm food and trigger for all kinds of biological 

activity.

For decades, I've had people call it 

the fairy dust of farming where, literally, a few 

ounces, one pound per 100 square feet has a huge 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

impact. So you're not talking about huge volumes 

of material.

So when you get into harvesting marine 

materials and looking at basically collecting the 

nutrients that are in the brine of the ocean, you 

know, it's an incredible nutrient brine of every 

element on the earth's crust, collecting them and 

bringing them back from having been washed out of 

depleted soils, you're re-mineralizing.

And you're creating really healthy 

nutrient-dense crops which was one of the primary 

goals of organic production. So, I mean, when I 

grow crops like my dill and parsley, you can smell 

it from a couple feet away.

MS. BAIRD: What's the different 

action in the liquid and the meal?

MR. WOLF: Well, the meal is really a 

conditioner, a total overall of 60 minerals 

mineralizing the soil. The extract is a 

biostimulant. And it's primarily applied foliar, 

or in a drip system, or in irrigation. And there 

are about literally hundreds of products that are 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

using this type of material in blends with fish 

and seaweed, or just straight seaweed formulations.

And this is an extract that, literally, 

that's enough to spray over an acre. This is enough 

powder to spray about, almost two acres. So you're 

not, that's one of the interesting things about 

the whole conversation about marine materials where 

you've been drilling down to tonnage, and impacts, 

and what not. The organic farming segment of usage 

of marine materials is quite small.

And when we're talking about, like, the 

tap, the tap that talked about the tonnage, or the 

information that was presented yesterday about 

tonnage, those were total tonnages. And none of 

the cultivated seaweed is going into agriculture, 

to my knowledge.

So you drill down, and you start talking 

about, let's say, some of the figures you heard 

were 20,000 wet tons of seaweed out of a biomass 

of perhaps even a million wet tons of what's growing 

and 400,000 wet tons that's being broken away every 

year. Of that 20,000 wet tons of harvest, probably 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

less than 3,000 wet tons is coming into organic 

agriculture.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you for your 

comments. And that actually pertains to what I 

was going to discuss which is it's very difficult 

to find data on harvested yields used in crop 

fertility inputs on a global scale. Even the FAO 

has a hard time coming up with sound or even remotely 

close figures.

But I just want to reiterate, as I said 

yesterday, that the work on this material is not 

to remove the use of seaweeds for farmers. But 

as you said, farmers do rely on them on a very wide 

level.

So it is, I think, as you looked at the 

triage of activities that the NOSB can look at, 

it is an important issue for us to explore, simply 

because it is such a widely used material. So we 

do have a responsibility to do our due diligence 

on something that is so essential for growers.

MR. WOLF: Will you also consider 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

looking at different options for addressing all 

inputs? Is that ---

MS. OAKLEY: You mean, like, your 

suggestion that we do the, apply commercial 

availability across all categories? Is that what 

you mean?

MR. WOLF: Yes. Taking a look at 

basically prioritizing all the different kinds of 

things that our organic farming does.

My goal in life is to encourage more 

acreage. So I don't want to create a situation, 

I don't want to encourage you to create more 

regulation that restricts organic farming input 

so that we have less acreage conversion.

I mean, the fact is that most of the 

fraud that happened with grain happened because 

we didn't produce enough organic grain here which 

is a much longer story of why. But that led to 

the problems we have now.

And we do restrict organic farming more 

than I think we need to. So if you start looking 

at all inputs, I think you need to look at it from 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

all the criteria on the National List which includes 

encouraging organic farming and encouraging 

earthworms.

And my only objection was that seaweed 

is probably the least impactful compared to mined 

minerals and sodium nitrate.

MS. OAKLEY: I think, I mean, I think 

this is, I don't want to take too much of our time, 

but I think, you know, what we determine as most 

impactful would vary greatly just by everyone in 

this room. And it's a difficult thing to 

determine. But I think just because we've explored 

one area doesn't mean that we shouldn't also explore 

others. I think we should do our due diligence.

But as an organic farmer, I mean, I make 

my full time living from growing organic vegetables 

and fruits. It's certainly not my interest 

whatsoever to reduce the number of organic farmers 

in the US. And so I don't see this work as relating 

to that in any way.

MR. WOLF: Well, yes, I mean, if you 

said oh, we're going to prohibit diesel fuel, and 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we all had to farm with horses, that would be very 

cool, but it ain't going to happen. And it wouldn't 

be good for acreage. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Bill. Next 

up, Coleen O'Brien and Beth Rota on deck.

MS. O'BRIEN: Good morning. My name 

is Colleen O'Brien. I'm Oregon Tilth's Farm and 

Livestock Technical Specialist. Oregon Tilth 

provided written comments addressing many of the 

topics on the agenda for this meeting. And we thank 

the NOSB for their work to continuously improve 

the National Organic Program and respond to changes 

in the organic industry.

A recent evolution in the organic 

industry has prompted the comments I'm going to 

share with you today. In the wake of the 2018 Farm 

Bill legalizing hemp cultivation at the federal 

level, Oregon Tilth has seen a marked increase in 

applications from hemp growers nationwide. We are 

excited to see strong interest in organic 

certification at the onset of the US's commercial 

hemp industry.
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Our work with these operations has 

brought about its own unique challenges, 

particularly when it comes to the plants and 

planting stock used in hemp production.

Due to the reproductive nature of the 

crop, hemp is commonly propagated through cloning 

in which a piece of the parent plant is taken, rooted 

out, and grown into a start. Tissue culture can 

also be used to produce planting stock for hemp.

Hemp starts are typically produced at 

uncertified operations which may use prohibited 

substances such as rooting hormones. An organic 

producer purchases the starts as non-organic 

planting stock after a commercial availability 

search fails to find any organic hemp starts.

How certifiers should evaluate these 

non-organically produced clones and tissue 

cultured hemp starts has been the subject of debate 

amongst ACAs. The organic regulations state that 

an organic operation may use non-organic planting 

stock after a failed commercial availability search 

and only when the planting stock is untreated or 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

treated with materials allowed per the National 

List.

NOP guidance 5029 states that 

substances used by a planting stock purveyor prior 

to the harvest of their non-organic planting stock 

for sale and use in organic production are not 

considered treatment.

What is unclear is when substances such 

as rooting hormones or tissue culture media used 

by uncertified operators to produce that 

non-organic planting stock are subject for review 

by certifiers for compliance.

The use of harvest as a differentiating 

activity breaks down when considering planting 

stock produced by these kinds of propagation 

methods. This has led to an inconsistent approach 

between certifiers when reviewing and approving 

the use of non-organic planting stock for hemp 

production.

We appreciate the NOSB's recent work 

on strengthening the organic seed guidance and 

recommendations to revise NOP 5029 to address 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ongoing concerns around organic seed sourcing. 

However, the NOP's guidance still falls short when 

it comes to assessing the compliance of non-organic 

planting stock and achieving a consistent approach 

among certifiers.

We request that the NOSB make 

additional recommendations to clarify when 

treatments and inputs used on non-organic planting 

stock should be reviewed by certifiers. This would 

also provide an opportunity to consider additional 

areas where the NOP guidance can be further 

strengthened to encourage the use and production 

of organic planting stock. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: I have a question.

MS. O'BRIEN: Sure.

CHAIR BEHAR: How come you don't 

consider the hemp plant an annual seedling versus 

planting stock? Because looking at the definition 

of annual seedling, it's a crop that ---

MS. O'BRIEN: Is started from seed. 

And that's the problem here. These are not started 

from seed. They're started from a plant tissue. 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And so unfortunately, we cannot classify them as 

an annual seedling. We'd like to.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve?

VICE CHAIR ELA: So just run me through 

that again. Okay, I know the process. So it 

really is whether those rooting hormones and the 

tissue culture media are prohibited substances or 

not. I mean, I'm just trying to get it cemented 

in my head exactly what the tension is.

MS. O'BRIEN: Right. At what point do 

we need to start looking at inputs used on 

non-organic planting stock? Is it the moment the 

planting stock is purchased and used by the organic 

operation, or should we be looking farther back?

You know, with seeds it's a little more 

clear. We've gotten much clearer guidance on how 

to look at non-organic seed and seed treatments 

but not so much with planting stock.

VICE CHAIR ELA: So just to follow-up, 

I mean, like, putting it in perspective. It'd be 

a perennial like an apple tree but kind of the same 

deal. I mean, most of those root stocks are clonal, 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you know, produced in stool beds in non-organic 

situations most of the time. You do it every year, 

and that's good.

MS. O'BRIEN: Yes. The hemp is grown 

as an annual, even though it, you know, it could 

be a perennial.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I mean, good question. 

Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Scott?

MR. RICE: Thanks Colleen. You 

mentioned improving the guidance. Do you see NOSB 

as instrumental in that? Or is that something that 

could come directly from NOP, sort of potentially 

quicker in some cases?

MS. O'BRIEN: Yes. I mean, it could 

be quicker. But I think editing that guidance, 

5029, would be a good step to make it a lot more 

clear. Because it is focused pretty heavily on 

looking at seeds and seed treatments. So if you 

could add more focus to planting stock that would 

be really helpful.

MR. RICE: Thanks.
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: I'm wondering too, at 

some point when the most recent Farm Bill moves 

through regulatory approval of hemp as a federally 

approved crop, it might be worthwhile for the NOP, 

NOSB to do some kind of task force to understand 

all the various issues with hemp.

Because we've had a few hemp questions, 

and we understand that there's unique aspects to 

the propagation and preparation of this crop for 

market.

So that might be something to put on 

the agenda for the future once we have more clarity 

for the federal program, the National Organic 

Program, how it would deal with it. Right now, 

we're kind of in limbo land until we get that final 

approval at the federal level.

MS. O'BRIEN: Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve?

VICE CHAIR ELA: So strawberries would 

be a great, I mean, that's an annual, starting to 

be produced clonally, not always enough organic 

strawberry starts available from my understanding. 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So wouldn't that be the same situation? And how 

do certifiers handle that?

MS. O'BRIEN: It varies, it definitely 

varies. And that's the problem, that we are 

inconsistent at the moment.

CHAIR BEHAR: I seem to remember that 

we did kind of work on this in the strengthening 

organic seed guidance. We talked about some 

planting stock issues. But I'm a little fuzzy 

right now to be able to quote that to you. But 

we could look back. Yes, I think there was some 

addressing of planting stock in that. So I'd have 

to look back and see what I wrote. Thank you.

Okay, next up is Beth Rota with Dave 

Carter and then Blayne Mozisek after that. Thank 

you, Beth.

MS. ROTA: Thanks, good morning. And 

thanks to all the members of the NOSB. Your work 

is really important to ensure that the organic label 

will continue to have meaning and value for organic 

producers and consumers.

My name is Beth Rota. I'm the Policy 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and QA Manager for Quality Certification Services, 

and I appreciate this opportunity to share the 

perspective of my agency as we work towards the 

same goals.

QCS currently certifies over 1,200 

operations to the USDA NOP, US and worldwide. In 

preparation for these comments, we reached out to 

our producers for feedback. And when I called our 

certified poultry operations about fenbendazole, 

they just wanted to talk about vaccines.

So that's what I'm going to talk about 

mostly this morning. Now, vaccines are critical 

to organic livestock producers to prevent illness. 

And at first glance, the commercial availability 

clause for non-GMO vaccines seems like an easy fix 

to the vaccine question.

We support this over the other options 

presented in the proposal but think there is more 

work to be done to make it feasible. Commercial 

availability is a complex approach, even for 

organic seeds. But there's no certified label 

claim or registration process to easily determine 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

which vaccines are produced without excluded 

methods.

Many organic producers lack the 

technical expertise to evaluate that a vaccine is 

GMO, or what is equivalent, and will heavily rely 

on their certifiers to make that determination. 

We need to confront the technical realities of 

commercial availability for vaccines together and 

not leave that burden to certifiers alone.

Vaccine production methods are often 

not transparent and are guarded by manufacturers. 

Couple that with rapidly changing technology and 

inconsistent terminology across agencies such as 

the FDA, APHIS, and NOP, the resources provided 

in the discussion document are a helpful starting 

point, but they're not comprehensive.

And we're in favor of the creation of 

a publicly available and up to date list of non-GMO 

vaccines, but it's unclear who should be 

responsible for maintaining the list and financing 

its upkeep.

We also need to address the question 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of vaccine equivalency to ensure that producers 

lacking technical expertise are not unfairly 

disadvantaged. And we think it's reasonable to 

allow documentation of commercial availability to 

come from veterinarians.

Concerning paper, we support the 

proposed listing at 205.601(o) as virgin or 

recycled paper without colored or glossy inks. This 

comprehensive listing includes paper for all crop 

production aid purposes including paper pots, seed 

tapes, collars, hot tape.

And we recognize that some paper 

production aids, such as paper tape pots, may 

contain ingredients that are not typically part 

of paper, as detailed in the technical evaluation 

report. But we believe this annotation would 

effectively prohibit the additional synthetic 

ingredients.

We are not in favor of a maximum 

synthetic polymer content or minimum bio-based 

contents, how they exceed existing requirements. 

But some parameters for biodegradability may be 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

appropriate. But maybe we could work out those 

kinks later after getting it on the National List.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve?

VICE CHAIR ELA: Okay, same question 

as yesterday.

MS. ROTA: Okay.

VICE CHAIR ELA: So given, okay, we 

don't want to have biodegradable mulch issue where 

we have an impossible situation.

MS. ROTA: Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I think the committee 

understands that. We don't want that either.

MS. ROTA: Right.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Conversely, we don't 

want to leave the door wide open to, since the paper 

pots are manufacturing paper for the pot --

MS. ROTA: Right.

VICE CHAIR ELA: -- unlike newspaper 

that's recycled, I don't think we want to leave 

open the door for, you know, anything goes.

MS. ROTA: Right.

VICE CHAIR ELA: So let's say we, you 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

know, current standard is that we allow some 

synthetic in the pot to give it integrity. How 

do we limit that from being, you know, 100 percent 

synthetic or, you know, with non-cellulose fibers.

MS. ROTA: Well, I mean, paper is a 

synthetic material, and so we're not looking at 

other materials on the National List as to what 

percentage of them are synthetic. It is a 

synthetic material, and we've addressed that, and 

the concerns with that, and still determined that 

it meets OFPA criteria.

So I'm not sure that setting a 

percentage of synthetic material is really feasible 

or, like, it's just going to create a big paperwork 

burden for enforcement of that as well.

VICE CHAIR ELA: So if I were a 

manufacturer, and wanted to put plastic fibers, 

non-cellulose based, let's say 50 percent in the 

pot, and they could be long, thin strands that 

would not show up easily in the soil, would look 

like they biodegrade --

MS. ROTA: I see.
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: VICE CHAIR ELA: --

you know, we would be allowing microplastics in 

soil. And they would disappear, but they wouldn't 

degrade. But, you know, with the listing you 

propose, that would be allowed.

MS. ROTA: Well, I think with, and I'm 

not a technical expert on paper production, but 

we're talking about ingredients that are part of 

paper, not ingredients that are separate from 

paper, not additional plastics that aren't part 

of paper.

VICE CHAIR ELA: But the annotation you 

propose could allow that. Because we're allowing 

virgin materials to be used to make the pots. 

So I think the committee's wrestling with how do 

we keep the genie in the bottle but still have a 

genie with the bottle.

MS. ROTA: Right. I don't know, 

honestly.

(Laughter.)

MS. ROTA: I wish I did. And that may 

be a question for, you know, the paper pot 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

manufacturers and to look at what the content is 

of the products on the market right now, and that 

are used by producers.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: I just want to throw out 

there that you can buy synthetic paper on Amazon 

and recycle it.

CHAIR BEHAR: So that's really our 

conundrum, is non-cellulose based fibers in the 

paper pots. And there are what's called paper pots 

that are 100 percent synthetic fibers, mostly for 

the nursery industry, so they don't degrade for 

two, three years. And so we really would not like 

to see those used, especially with annual crops. 

Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Well, I'm just on Amazon 

right now. So Xerox has Revolution Premium Never 

Tear is an exceptional synthetic paper for 

unmatched durability. I won't read anymore, but 

just putting it out there that there are synthetic 

papers that are purely synthetic that are in the 

stream of production right now and could be recycled 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and already used in our current listings.

MS. ROTA: Could those be addressed 

though with biodegradability and, you know, be 

looking at what rate of biodegradability is going 

to, for different types of materials for cellulose 

fibers or non-cellulose fibers?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes. I mean, I think that 

would then require an additional exploration of 

the paper listing which I'm not saying we shouldn't 

do. Because the supplemental newspaper TR 

definitely raised a lot of concern. And we didn't 

delve deeply into that in the most recent newspaper, 

Sunset. I mean, we did, but it was just a limited 

time. But it is definitely something that the 

subcommittee has discussed.

MS. ROTA: I'm just wondering if we 

shouldn't, you know, producers are already using 

paper pots. And we've allowed that extension of 

that while we work through these details and getting 

the National List updated to make it clear that 

we can have those materials, other paper materials, 

not just for compost, feed stock, and mulch. But 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

can we work out some of these?

There's a lot of really important 

questions that you guys are grappling with. 

They're really technical. I don't know all the 

answers, but can we, we need time to really make 

the best decisions on that. And can we get the 

National List updated, and then continue working 

on that, and come back to it?

CHAIR BEHAR: Sue and then Steve.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you for your comments 

on vaccines. We're going to take a deep breath, 

as Jim said. We're going to talk vaccines now.

MS. ROTA: Okay.

MS. BAIRD: Yes, this has been an 

issue. We, who have been in the certification 

business forever, know there are some that 

interpret vaccines by 105(e), isn't it, because 

it has to be on the National List. There are some 

who interpret it, 603 says vaccines are allowed. 

So different certifiers, and sometimes the same 

certifiers, at different times in their 

certification actions, have interpreted this 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

differently.

I confess, I wanted to be an ostrich 

and say let's just don't even bring this out here, 

right. Because now it's out in public which it 

was going to be anyway.

MS. ROTA: Yes.

MS. BAIRD: So what do we do with it? 

It's a huge issue, and without vaccines we will 

lose the small amount of organic livestock 

production that we have. Vaccines are our only 

preventative measure to prevent diseases. Because 

once they get diseases, there's not a whole lot 

we can do as organic livestock producers.

So we've really struggled with this. 

The best in between solution we could think of 

was to go with the commercial viability, 

availability. And I understand exactly what 

you're saying. It's going to be hard to verify 

those things.

There are some lists that's been 

brought to our attention, the FSIS documents and 

stuff that might list, and we say it might, because 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we're not actually inherently sure that they're 

going to list all of them, or at least by our 

interpretation of what excluded methods are.

And I'm talking instead of asking a 

question. I guess what I'm asking is if you're 

not wanting this, are you asking us to wait instead 

of moving on this discussion now?

MS. ROTA: I think that there's a lot 

of technical details to be worked out. You know, 

I mean, you hit the nail on the head. Like, the 

NOP's excluded methods definition is not a 

consistent definition for vaccine manufacturers, 

or FDA, or APHIS.

And so we need to work on, like, make 

the resources available. And I'm not sure how to 

do that, me as a certifier with a few hundred poultry 

operations. Like, I don't know that we ourselves 

have the resources. But collectively, as a 

community, can we come up with expertise and 

resources to help? I mean, producers aren't going 

to be able to find this information on their own 

--
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: Oh, no.

MS. ROTA: -- like they can with seeds. 

And so I'm just saying, like, if we go this route, 

we need to make sure that we have the information 

and the resources available so we don't get just 

buried in the process of trying to evaluate things.

CHAIR BEHAR: Follow-up?

PARTICIPANT: I'm good.

MS. BAIRD: So are you advocating then 

that we put a wait period on it or at least a period 

to bring the certifiers the education they need 

to be able to regulate this?

MS. ROTA: That would be helpful.

CHAIR BEHAR: And are you aware that, 

I think it's two or three vaccines right now that 

are not available in a non-GMO, and that's all there 

is?

MS. ROTA: Yes. We're aware of that 

for some of the poultry vaccines.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, so how come that 

is so difficult to track? If there's only three 

right now, and by the time this gets implemented, 
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

if we pass it, that'll be another 18 months to two 

years or longer. So we would have those years to 

work on a system.

MS. ROTA: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: And we did have other 

certifiers who discussed that they could work on 

this together through an ACA. And the NOSB could 

also keep working on providing more information.

The urgency that the NOSB felt was the 

inconsistency right now out there in interpretation 

and trying to make it clear that just allowing GMO 

vaccines carte blanche, which is also being done, 

ones where there is a GMO, a non-GMO equivalent, 

that we felt that it was really time to kind of 

bring that consistency to the operators.

MS. ROTA: I don't disagree with you 

on any of those points, Harriet. The point I wanted 

to make is I think we need to be fully cognizant 

of what the challenges are and that we can't just 

say this is a certifier responsibility. We have 

to work together to figure out how to implement 

this. And it's great. We have time. Let's 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

continue working together and find a way.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Scott?

MR. RICE: So I guess just to clarify, 

would you be comfortable moving forward with this 

recommendation knowing that it's a year and a half, 

or two, or more, as Harriet said, while we work 

together to bring those resources together and at 

least have the groundwork laid moving towards it.

MS. ROTA: Yes, as long as there's the 

commitment from the NOSB, from the NOP, to work 

together with certifiers.

CHAIR BEHAR: Great, thank you.

Okay, next up is Dave Carter, always 

wearing his nice hat, and after that, Blayne Mozisek 

with Leslie Touzeau after that. I'm sure I'm 

mangling some people's names. I'm sorry.

MR. CARTER: All right, good morning, 

Madam Chair and members of the Board. I'm Dave 

Carter, National Bison Association, Crystal 

Springs Consulting, and an alumni of this 

auspicious group.

From personal experience, I do want to 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

thank all of you for what you do for the organic 

community. And for those of you that this is your 

last meeting, rest assured there will come the time 

you don't wake up in the middle of the night thinking 

about regulations and petitions. There is life 

after NOSB.

I've been working with the folks at 

Merck for the last decade or so. I was involved 

with the original petition to bring fenbendazole 

to this Board. And I think that it really 

demonstrates the commitment of the NOSB to making 

sure that materials are compatible with organic 

principles. The fact that fenbendazole was able 

to come on cleared the way to get something else 

off the board that many of us were concerned about 

because of its environmental impacts.

Now we're here to talk about expanding 

or annotating it for flocks. And when you think 

about it, from the beginning of the organic 

standards, there's been the push to get animals 

out of confinement, out of buildings, out on 

pasture.
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I think the expectation of the 

organic community and consumers as well is that 

makes for happier, healthier animals. And that 

interaction between the animals and the soil is 

so important to what we consider the organic 

principles.

The challenge though is that the more 

we move those animals outside the more we increase 

their exposure to parasites, and particularly 

internal parasites as being the challenge.

And so as we encourage producers, and 

if we're ever going to move forward to get the animal 

welfare standards through, we need to make sure 

that the producers have the resources they need 

to be able to handle those emergency situations.

And fenbendazole is clearly the most 

compatible. It's been demonstrated that its 

effect on the environment, on dung beetles and 

earthworms, does make it the most compatible 

system.

The thing that I think is also important 

is the need to have these kinds of resources, 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

particularly for smaller producers. You know, one 

of the things when we talk about the need to address, 

use other management techniques to address the 

problem, and a lot of it is rotating animals around 

pasture and the like, well, the organic standards 

are pretty clear about the time that we want animals 

outside and on pasture.

But when it comes to parasites, the 

important thing is, the time that they're off the 

pasture, you're able to break that cycle. And 

smaller producers with limited land bases sometimes 

have greater hurdles in doing that.

We run our bison on 7,800 acres with 

16 inches of moisture. Rotating animals isn't a 

problem. But if you're a smaller producer, it is. 

So those are the things that we think are very 

important.

I will just refer, as my time is running 

out, that the most extensive study was done in 

Denmark on pastured poultry. And clearly, the 

conclusion they wound up with is that they need 

to have these type of resources for those flocks 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to stay healthy and those farmers to stay 

economically viable. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: I'm just wondering if 

you could just clarify or give your thoughts about 

other practices or the influence of stocking rate 

and moving animals from one paddock to another as 

a way of keeping the parasite load and exposure 

down for the poultry flock?

MR. CARTER: Well, to me it's not so 

much the stocking rate as it is the time to do that. 

And, you know, that's what our experience in 

managing for parasites is. You've got to have the 

animals off of that pasture for a long enough period 

to break that cycle.

There isn't any strict formula, because 

it's dependent on soil, and climate, and 

vegetation, and from one year when you've got a 

lot of rain to another year when you don't.

You know, my experience, and most of 

my experience with parasite control is with 

four-footed critters. But, you know, yes, if 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you're in the West, where it's an arid climate, 

not so much of a problem.

Wherein you're in these types of 

climates, or you get more down to the southeast 

where I call it more of a petri dish, then it's 

just a real hurdle, in that difficulty and 

breaking that cycle is harder.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: So my question builds on 

Dave's question. One of my concerns is that, when 

you introduce a new medication to deal with a 

current problem, what you're really doing is 

perhaps facilitating a situation where you have 

less than optimal practices in place. And then 

you can perpetuate those practices.

So we did hear, for instance, that the 

way that some of these hen houses are designed, 

you can't rotate the pasture. The square footage 

available is very small.

So one of my concerns as a consumer is, 

okay, so we'll use a medication to deal with a 

situation where perhaps investment in different 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

facilities or smaller flocks, the idea being that 

our job is not to maximize the most financially 

economical practice, necessarily.

So I think it's a little bit of a, I'm 

sorry, chicken-and-egg situation here. But maybe, 

without these types of medications, and perhaps 

revisiting some of the cultural practices, you can 

solve the problem to at least a reasonable extent.

MR. CARTER: Well, and I agree with you 

to an extent. Because I think one of the important 

things in organic principles and practices is 

preventative measures are the most important. 

But, you know, having corrective emergency measures 

are sometimes needed.

And the petition that we have in there, 

this is for an emergency treatment. It's not for 

routine use, which are clearly prohibited. We 

don't want to see, you know, if somebody's using 

it on every flock, that to me is not an emergency 

treatment. There's something that you need to take 

a look at.

But you've got such a variation in 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

factors. Again, if you've got a really rainy 

season and exceptionally warm and, you know, with 

climate change we're going to see more of this 

variability, that you're going to have these issues 

crop up. And then you have an animal welfare issue, 

you know, that you don't, internal parasites are 

not pretty on animals and to their health.

And so to at least have a resource that 

they can draw on and say, okay, we've corrected 

this problem, now what are the preventive, what 

do we need to do in our management practices, I 

think that's something that the certifiers, you 

know, can work with the farmers on. This is not 

a, you're not using this as an emergency treatment. 

There's something wrong with your management 

practices.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley?

MS. SWAFFAR: I like how you just look 

at me.

(Laughter.)

MS. SWAFFAR: So, Dave, a little bit 

about, I know you were the petitioner of this 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

product. And obviously you petitioned it for a 

reason. Were you seeing the need from the poultry 

industry for all sizes of producers in different 

production practices that they need this and why 

alternatives aren't working? Can you talk a little 

about that?

MR. CARTER: Yes. I mean, what I'm 

hearing from poultry producers of all sizes is we're 

hearing the message loud and clear that they want 

these birds going outside. And we want to be able 

to accommodate that.

But what do we do then? I mean, when 

we've got then this risk factor that's going up 

significantly, you know, parasites live in soil 

and grass, and not on concrete. So you've got that 

exposure.

We need to be able to treat our flocks 

humanely if we're going to meet these expectations. 

And I think I see that from, you know, we've heard 

that from producers of all scales. 

CHAIR BEHAR: I have a couple of 

questions and comments. So since we don't have 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the organic livestock and poultry practices 

regulation as we had all hoped, really poultry has 

a totally different system than ruminants who are 

really, because they have to get so much of their 

dry matter intake, their nutrition from grazing 

that really forces producers to moving them around.

And we don't have that in poultry. The 

organic livestock and poultry practices, you know, 

did require a certain percentage of vegetation out 

there which was then going to encourage and actually 

mandate that the producers either have a 

significant amount of pasture for their poultry 

or rotate it so they would maintain that type of 

vegetation.

And of course, you know, from flock to 

flock, the chickens are rotated in the flock, but 

the pasture is not. And so if there had been worms 

or whatever, you know, it would be passed on to 

the next flock.

So we did work through a definition of 

emergency treatment and did talk about rotating. 

So I'm just not sure how we're going to really 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

get this with the poultry. And so I have concern 

that it might need to be used two or even three 

times in a flock.

And the fact that the residue of the 

product, even though the FDA says that residue is 

safe, it's not something I want to be advertising 

to the organic consumer, that we're just going to 

let you have a little bit of fenbendazole, but don't 

worry, it's okay.

You know, there is going to be, and it's 

in the eggs for at least two weeks or longer. And 

if it's used three times, that's a lot of, you know, 

exposure. So, I mean, this is a discussion 

document now. And believe me, I understand with 

climate change. We're having it on our own farm.

And then so there's this issue with 

trying to basically improve the system for outside 

access for the poultry. And then we did have quite 

a few public comments from certifiers saying that 

their smaller producers didn't need it, that they 

had actually better systems, because they moved 

the houses around or whatever. But actually, the 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

smaller flocks have better access to cleaner 

pastures than the larger flocks.

And then the last, I know you're going 

to give me some input, but I wanted to know too 

if you could send us a link to the study that you 

were talking about from Denmark.

MR. CARTER: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: I would really like to 

see that.

MR. CARTER: Okay. Yes, it's

footnoted in the petition. It's referenced in the 

petition. But I'll send you the link again, 

Harriet.

On the residue issue, I'm going to, 

Blayne is going to address that a little more 

significantly. I would just say the drop off in 

the residue is minor. The problem, when you have 

a consumer that breaks open an egg with a worm in 

there, that's 100 percent worm in the egg, whether 

they had a, you know, certain percent of that, and 

so your consumer expectations.

You know, when you take a look at the 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

fact that, you know, Canada, the E.U., Japan, have 

all addressed this issue. And again, you know, 

particularly if you look at Canada, they talk about 

one use every 12 months. If you have to use it 

more than every 12 months, that's not an emergency, 

you know, treatment.

So I completely appreciate the fact 

that we've got to put the focus on management and 

preventative practices. But when your animals get 

sick, and something happens, we've got to take care 

of the animals.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Are you 

ready, okay, we're good.

MR. CARTER: And if I don't take a 

butterfly, do I get two pieces of chocolate?

(Laughter.)

CHAIR BEHAR: If you want to start out 

your day with chocolate, that's fine with me.

Okay, we have Blayne. Maybe you can 

say your last name for me. And then on deck is 

Leslie Touzeau. And probably I don't say that 

right either.
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Thank you, Blayne.

DR. MOZISEK: Yes, good morning, Dr. 

Blayne Mozisek. So I'm representing Merck Animal 

Health here, so we've submitted the petition. 

Merck launched this product in about 2016 to the 

US market. And I was charged with leading the tech 

part of the introduction to this product, so helping 

producers develop strategies to control these 

parasites that you see up here.

And I will tell you that this is really 

a personal project of mine. I have had numerous 

contacts with, we have a help line, basically, where 

producers can call in and ask for help. And 

speaking with the smallest of producers on the 

organic side to the large conventional producers, 

mostly these smaller producers needed help. And 

we saw that need, and we tried to drive this petition 

forward. So personal project of mine.

I want to address two main points. 

It sounded like they were comments made yesterday. 

I wasn't here. But one is on the use of this 

product in these small flocks. How often will it 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

be used?

One thing I try to stress with producers 

when they have programs, there's really no one size 

fits all program, I mean, the veterinary aspect, 

for me to take objective data that we get from the 

field and use that to drive our decisions, right, 

when it comes to treating these flocks.

The one data point that's going to most 

helpful here are fecal egg counts. So we take, 

it's a very simple test, we take fecal samples. 

We can put it in the sugar solution and float those 

eggs up to the top. And I can give you an actual 

eggs per gram number.

And so if we look, there's data already 

out there in the literature to suggest that if we 

set thresholds we can treat, based on when those 

eggs per gram numbers cross a certain threshold. 

And those are the recommendations that I've made 

to producers.

There's two approaches. One, we can 

collect individual samples. For example, I go into 

a poultry house, I'll collect 20 individual fecal 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

pellets and float those, and analyze those 

individually.

And then we can base our threshold on 

two units, one is the percent of the population 

that's affected. And then when that fecal egg 

number crosses a certain number of thresholds, for 

instance if 25 percent of the population had greater 

than 200 eggs per gram of feces, that would be my 

threshold to determine when to treat.

So there's also literature to suggest 

that that method, which is called targeted 

treatment, is better than the conventional 

treatment, for instance, if I treat every six 

months, right. So that method allows a producer 

to go out there and not sacrifice birds and also 

to use true data. That would be my one.

The second comment I wanted to make in 

regards to residues is that this product, yes, there 

are residues that are in the egg. The residues, 

the safe level of concentrations, to my 

understanding, and I'm not an expert on World Health 

Organization regulations, but the original number,
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

which is 2.4 parts per million, if I remember 

correctly, was developed from WHO.

And fenbendazole at the highest dose, 

or at the highest level of residue at the last day 

of treatment, it's a five-day treatment, is less 

than half of the acceptable level that's allowed 

in eggs, so again, very safe, and a very low limit 

of residues in the egg. So I'd be happy to answer 

any other questions in regards to this.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: I am struggling with 

this petition. And what you just described, and 

thank you for your presentation, it was very clear, 

is integrated pest management that's used widely 

in conventional agriculture where then once the 

pest population, whether it's a weed or a parasite, 

or an insect, exceeds a threshold, we treat with 

something. In this case it's parasiticide, a 

pesticide. And if it was a weed, we would treat 

it with glyphosate or something. So 

could you just help me see how we're being 

internally consistent to allow a parasiticide using 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

an integrated pest management threshold approach 

for a parasite? And I certainly see the difference 

between an animal being healthy or not, and a weed 

dying in a field or not, I guess from an ethical 

point of view, but I'm struggling to see how it's 

different in another way.

DR. MOZISEK: Well, as a veterinarian, 

you know, I'm charged with protecting animal 

welfare, right, and human health in terms of food 

safety. You can see from the pictures, this is 

some of the things I run into in the field, and 

from a bird welfare standpoint, the picture on the 

left, the feed passage through that intestinal 

tract is nearly impossible.

And so, you know, those numbers are real 

when we talk about birds not being able to gain 

weight, you know, affecting absorption of

nutrients, et cetera.

So as Dave mentioned earlier, this is 

a resource for producers to do something when 

conditions get this bad, and protect bird welfare 

and also protect their product. Because the 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

picture on the right is the consequence or potential 

consequence of having such high burdens in their 

flocks.

You know, and rotation, Dave mentioned 

a little bit earlier, rotation is an option for 

some producers. For the most part, the organic 

producers that I work with, they're in housing, 

and we can't rotate a true chicken house. They 

have outdoor access.

And sometimes it's in the literature 

that these worm eggs can last decades, right. So 

the sun has an impact, weather has an impact, et 

cetera, and time. But for the most part, once that

burden is there, it's something that they're going 

to have to manage.

And in terms of housing, I've seen 

concrete floor, very top of the line houses that 

can be disinfected and thoroughly cleaned between 

flocks. And some of these houses also have 

significant burdens with intestinal worms, which 

is something that has to be treated to be on an 

independent basis in establishing a threshold of 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

when that emergency occurs or preventing an 

emergency situation. It will be important for 

these producers.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. Thank you, that 

was helpful, thanks. And I am just continuing to 

think about, in reality, in conventional integrated 

pest management, most of the time the pest exceeds 

the threshold. And what the result of that is is 

that we're spraying all the time for something.

And I don't want to overstate it, but 

we spray routinely. And if the foundational 

problem that gives rise to the parasite outbreaks 

in the flocks is not addressed, it seems to me that 

we will be on a continuous parasiticide treatment 

regimen. And I'm just struggling with that. But 

thanks for the presentation.

DR. MOZISEK: You're welcome.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve, Emily, Ashley, 

and Sue.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Well, I got in ahead 

of Ashley on a livestock issue.

(Laughter.)
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: Two questions, I 

guess. One is you mentioned the residues, you 

know, decreasing. Knowing that organic consumers 

are very concerned about residues, would you have 

any problem if it were annotated to, I'm assuming 

you'd have the data for when that residue 

essentially disappears. I know it's a half-life 

of a half-life.

DR. MOZISEK: Sure.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Would that be fine to, 

you know, put some timeline after that use to help 

assure organic consumers that they're not having 

a residue of this material in their product?

DR. MOZISEK: So if I heard you 

correctly, so to establish that withdrawal time 

based on when the residue goes to zero?

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes.

DR. MOZISEK: We have that data. The 

one thing, you know, what I would tell you is that, 

as these organic producers they've invested a lot 

in terms of the feed and everything else it takes 

to produce organic eggs, that anytime that they 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are not allowed to sell the eggs as organic, you 

know, is a significant loss, right, because they'll 

have to sell them as conventional.

That data exists, if I remember off the 

top of my head, it's like six days where the levels 

become non-detectable. It's a rapid decline in 

the residue levels.

Again, I think in the past there's been 

a precedent set with doubling the withdrawal time 

for organic products, if I remember correctly. 

And so here we have a zero day withdrawal for meat 

and eggs for this particular product.

So again, if you double zero, it's still 

zero, right. But instead of just pulling in an 

arbitrary number, if we had the safe level, the 

accepted level of safe, which was the 2.4 parts 

per million, for instance, cut that in half as 

opposed to doubling withdrawal time.

To me, we use the data, the science 

that's already out there, and have, you know, true 

science-based withdrawal times or whatever.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Thanks. And my next 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

question would be if the egg masses can live for 

ten years, and this is an emergency treatment, I 

mean, you're not taking care of the egg masses. 

You're treating the bird, but then how do you 

prevent it from coming right back?

DR. MOZISEK: Well, it's also managing 

the outdoor access. So there are tools or things 

that the producer can do, for instance, tillage 

of the soil, for instance, mix those eggs into the 

ground, good cleaning and disinfection.

Even though I gave the example of a 

concrete house that can have a significant problem, 

that doesn't mean they don't need to clean and 

disinfect between flocks. There are tools that 

can be used, resources that producers have to manage 

those egg burdens.

But again, you know, there are regional 

issues that drive higher burdens. You know, for 

instance, if I go to California, I see very few 

intestinal worm parasites. But they have gizzard 

worms. There's other parasites going on. In the 

southeast I see a lot of this.
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So there's tools that they can use, 

resources they have to manage those paddock areas. 

But they are limited, because for the most part 

these houses are in fixed locations, right. And 

they can't move an entire house to rotate those 

poultry.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. And next was 

Emily, then Ashley, and Sue.

MS. OAKLEY: Two questions. One, on 

average, how frequently are the houses cleaned out 

of manure? And secondly, is the fact that the birds 

are living in manure, basically, compounding the 

risk exposure for these parasites?

DR. MOZISEK: Clean-out is really 

dependent on a lot of different issues. And it 

varies by producer. I will tell you, from a 

veterinary perspective, there's pros and there's 

cons to what we call raising poultry on built up 

litter.

Built up litter, if you look at it this 

way, from my mind in a veterinary perspective, is 

four inches of competitive exclusion. It's, for 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the most part, it's good bacteria.

When I change litters, I clean out 

completely, have new bedding, pine shavings, 

whatever it may be, to put those birds down. It's 

sort of a blank slate. So any sort of bacteria 

they were to pick up, if it were Clostridium, or 

a negative bacteria, I'll just put it that way, 

those lead to significant challenges.

Whereas a built up litter system, 

basically that bird has a good flora introduced 

to the system from day one. So that's, in my 

opinion, in my experience, built up litter systems 

outweigh the positives from cleaning out every 

time. With that said, we do have issues with 

potentially building up parasites.

Now, there is one thing between flocks. 

That built up litter also produces ammonia as the 

byproduct, that nitrogen breakdown in that litter. 

Ammonia has its own disinfecting properties, 

right. So down time between flocks, which is 

another resource that producers will have to 

control these, that ammonia produced by the built 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

up litter will inactivate and is one of the good 

things actually, and activate worm eggs, and 

coccidia, and bacteria, and viruses too. So that's 

a positive there.

And your second question, I'm sorry?

MS. OAKLEY: I think you answered it.

DR. MOZISEK: Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley and then Sue.

MS. SWAFFAR: I have lots of questions 

too. Glad to be back with a vet. We normally have, 

in the chicken industry, have vets go on right 

before lunch. So they have the ---

DR. MOZISEK: Yes, I was going to say 

sorry.

(Laughter.)

DR. MOZISEK: Disturb your breakfast.

MS. SWAFFAR: So can you go through and 

show what each of those pictures represent?

DR. MOZISEK: Sure. I was going to 

have some video, but I figured it was too close 

to breakfast to do that.

So on the left we have, this is an 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic flock, colored chickens. So obviously, 

there is a significant, I'll try to point to both 

pictures, but significant number of burdens in 

these flocks.

I will tell you that when I see this 

in the field, before you even open this intestine 

up, that serosal surface, the outside of the 

intestine, is undulated. It's ballooned, it's not 

normal.

And it's partly because or mainly 

because these, this is an intestinal scraping. 

So if I took this intestine, remove the, sorry, 

I have to point at one at a time, but if I remove 

those worms from that intestinal tract, and took 

a scraping, and looked at it under the microscope, 

I can see these, basically what we call L2, L3 

stages, the very larval stages of the worm. 

They're migrating through the tissues. And 

they're causing inflammation and damage.

And the result of that is we get 

inflammation in the intestinal tissue, and not 

necessarily swelling but thickening of that 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

intestinal wall. So that's these two.

Here, this is from a turkey, actually, 

organic turkey that's suffering from blackhead 

disease. Now, this is obviously not a layer issue, 

but this is the result, this happens. The cecal 

worm which is actually on the label of fenbendazole 

to control the cecal worm, it carries a disease, 

histomonas.

And so histomonas causes blackhead 

disease, which are these liver lesions, and 

significant mortality in turkeys. So by 

controlling the cecal worm, we can affect this 

disease. And this disease can cause 90 to 100 

percent mortality in turkeys. And then on the 

right, obviously that's an egg. That was sent in 

by a customer, organic egg with a worm in it.

And so this process is the reproductive 

tract and the intestinal tract empty into the cloaca 

of the chicken, you know, the common sewer, right. 

That's what the word cloaca translates to. And 

these worms are still alive and have the ability 

to migrate back up the reproductive tract from the 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

intestinal tract. And they end up encapsulated 

in the egg.

So this is a very real threat to egg 

producers. And this happens both conventionally 

and in organic flocks. Obviously, the higher the 

burden the more likely this is to happen. And if 

you're a customer and you crack open an egg, you're 

not very happy.

MS. SWAFFAR: So you work with several 

flocks then. I just would like to hear what some 

of the producers are doing for alternatives before 

fenbendazole and kind of why we're at this stage 

of you guys petitioning for this material.

DR. MOZISEK: Sure. So diatomaceous 

earth has been the kind of go to for control of 

these intestinal parasites. I mean, that's really 

the only real solution they have. And the comments 

that have been given to me, and experiences that 

I've seen in the field, is that there's very little, 

if any, effect from diatomaceous earth in terms 

of the worm burden population.

I have heard, I mean, I know of one 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

producer that, in certain flocks, he believes that 

it does have an effect. But for the most part, 

they're looking for a solution, because this is 

what's going on, even in the face of diatomaceous 

earth. There may be a reduction in the burden, 

but it's not controlling the population.

CHAIR BEHAR: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Thank you for this 

presentation. It's been very informative. It's 

interesting, because Dave and I heard the IPM 

totally different. I'm thinking as a certifier 

how would I ever, and we've struggled this, how 

would we ever quantify what emergency treatment 

is. And you gave us some real numbers, and I like 

that.

And just a comment is that IPM is not 

just used for conventional crop producers. IPM 

is actually mandated by the pest hierarchy which 

is A, B, C, and D, and E. And if all else fails, 

then we use a product that's not a prohibited 

substance. Now, there is a caveat that says provided 

that it doesn't get into the organic product. And 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that might be an issue.

But I do appreciate this. And it did 

give me some comfort in that we could define what 

an emergency treatment would be. And I think 

that's been one of our struggles as we went through 

this. Because the term for emergency has not been 

codified by the NOP. How do we therefore move into 

some kind of a quantification of emergency. And 

I appreciate your help on that.

DR. MOZISEK: You're welcome.

CHAIR BEHAR: Rick, and then I have a 

question --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. GREENWOOD: Just a quick question, 

since, from a food safety standpoint, eggs should 

be cooked when they're eaten, does the residue 

disappear under heat? Are there any studies that 

show that it is? Because if it's true, then it's 

a non-issue.

DR. MOZISEK: Correct. You know, I'm 

not aware of that data. I just don't know. But 

certainly we could --
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: I think that would be 

a good thing for Merck to look at.

DR. MOZISEK: Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, I have a couple of 

questions. And then we'll go to Dave.

I also appreciated, you know, having 

maybe some levels that would help us with that 

emergency treatment, you know, when we reached 

emergency. But I thought that the main way people 

found these was through autopsy doing posting. 

And you say there's a fecal sample way of tracking, 

and I'm wondering if that's universally available 

to producers.

DR. MOZISEK: It is. So it's commonly 

utilized across food animal species, so we utilize 

it on the cattle side, and the pig side too, to 

monitor populations without having to sacrifice 

animals, right. So often, when these worm burdens 

get very severe, we can find live worms on the floor. 

And it's not uncommon.

But yes, fecal samples are very simple. 

The test is actually just a fecal sample, you float 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it in this very specific sugar solution, in terms 

of the concentration, so that basically the 

specific gravity of the egg is lighter than the 

solution. They float to the top, and you put a 

slide on top of there, and you can count the eggs. 

So very simple ---

CHAIR BEHAR: When we have a proposal, 

that could be another resource that we put in there.

So it was in public comment, and I have 

seen this also written as far as natural 

alternatives beyond diatomaceous earth. But what 

about pumpkin seeds? Is that just kind of an old 

wives' tale? But it was in public comment.

DR. MOZISEK: You know, I think there's 

a laundry list of alternatives. Now, in my 

experience, or at least to my knowledge, there's 

no data to support that any of those are actually, 

you know, reliable or effective. So I can't speak 

to all of them, and I'm not familiar with pumpkin 

seeds.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. And then lastly, 

if we annotated this for only once in a flock use, 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

would that be sufficient and give us the animal 

welfare we're looking for?

DR. MOZISEK: You know, again, I think 

that goes to, like, a one size fits all program 

to say that we can use it one time. There's nothing 

that suggests that they could come back and need 

a second treatment. I think once is better than 

no options at all.

But I think, again, not only to utilize 

it for the betterment of animal welfare, of the 

bird, but also to manage the tool, the resource, 

that if we only use it once, if we're giving 

producers the ability to use it once, if it's not 

used correctly, there's a potential too for a 

resistance development, and then we lose that tool

as well.

So we need to make sure that the tools, 

the resources that our producers have, that they 

can use them effectively and make that resource 

last as long as possible.

CHAIR BEHAR: Have we found resistance 

to, like, roundworms to fenbendazole?
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. MOZISEK: To my knowledge, in 

poultry, no. Fenbendazole, the resistance in 

horses is significant. This product has been 

around since, I think it was first patented in 1973. 

And so there are some species where, really, it's 

been the only option they had. And overuse, which 

is obviously something we're trying to prevent 

here, has contributed to some resistence 

development.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay, I have --

MR. CHAPMAN: Point of order.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes?

MR. CHAPMAN: Where are we at in the 

schedule?

CHAIR BEHAR: We are about a half-hour 

behind.

MR. CHAPMAN: Just the half hour?

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes.

MR. CHAPMAN: Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: So I have, we have such 

an expert up here.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: I have Dave on the line, 

Ashley, and then Sue. And then after that, I'll 

cut it off. So Ashley says never mind? Okay, I 

have Dave and Sue.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, just quickly, you 

know, I raised the IPM issue because some of these 

decisions we're making, you know, trying to have 

a clear logic and process that we're being 

consistent with is obviously important to all of 

us. And I'm struggling with seeing how this is 

different than conventional agriculture. So 

that's all.

CHAIR BEHAR: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Just addressing a 

follow-up, I think, because you said you have seen 

some resistance over time.

DR. MOZISEK: In horses.

MS. BAIRD: The life of a flock, the 

egg producing is how long?

DR. MOZISEK: It varies from, I would 

say, 90 to 120 weeks.

MS. BAIRD: A hundred and twenty weeks? 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Has there been any study that there could be 

resistance in 120 weeks in the animal?

DR. MOZISEK: This product has only 

been available to the egg industry for a year and 

a half, if I remember right.

MS. BAIRD: Oh, so you haven't had time 

to collect that data. Okay, thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you very much.

DR. MOZISEK: You're welcome.

CHAIR BEHAR: I think we might be 

contacting you again.

Next up is Leslie Touzeau, please state 

your name so I know how badly I said it.

MS. TOUZEAU: Sure.

CHAIR BEHAR: On deck is Tasha Olson 

and then Garth Kahl after that.

MS. TOUZEAU: Okay, good morning, Board 

members. My name is Leslie Touzeau, and I am the 

material review specialist for Quality 

Certification Services.

Thank you for this opportunity to 

provide comments pertaining to the petition to add 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

fatty alcohols to the National Lists. And thank 

you for your work to preserve the integrity of our 

organic community.

QCS strongly supports the addition of 

synthetic fatty alcohols to the National List at 

205.601. Prior to the original petition to add 

fatty alcohols to the National List, QCS 

determined, based on the testimony of experts, that 

fatty alcohols were non-synthetic, and we allowed 

them for use by our 50-plus tobacco growers.

After the NOSB recommendation to 

exclude them from the National List, the NOP allowed 

QCS clients a use-up period for fatty alcohols for 

the 2019 season. The previous exclusion of fatty 

alcohols from the National List was due in part 

to little evidence for essentiality in organic 

production.

By now, I'm sure the Board is aware that 

fatty alcohols are, in fact, essential to our 

organic tobacco producers. As a representative 

of our QCS tobacco clients, I would be remiss if 

I did not add their voices to this discussion.
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

QCS surveyed our tobacco farmers, and 

all 31 respondents indicated that fatty alcohols 

were critical to the success of their operation. 

They were unanimous in their agreement that there 

is no effective alternative to fatty alcohols for 

tobacco sucker control.

They reiterated information provided 

by the North Carolina State Extension publications 

that good sucker control using fatty alcohols can 

reduce the attractiveness of their crop and deny 

a source of food to budworms, hornworms, and aphids.

Furthermore, like other farmer 

comments, our clients emphasized the detrimental 

economic impacts to the organic tobacco industry 

if fatty alcohols are excluded from the National 

List.

I could expound on my written comments 

where I presented the argument that economics are 

foundational to our organic agricultural system 

that exists within a market economy. However, I 

realize that economic viability is not one of the 

several OFPA criteria listed at 6518(m). So we must 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

turn our attention towards these criteria.

The technical report and the summary 

of petition documents found that fatty alcohols 

are not environmentally detrimental. They break 

down readily after use, they have no negative effect 

on human health, there are no effective 

alternatives, and they are compatible with a system 

of sustainable agriculture, especially when grown 

within an organic system that includes other crops 

in rotation.

I believe there are parallels to be made 

here between fatty alcohols and ethylene gas which 

is listed on the National List at 205.601(k) as 

an approved plant growth regulator for pineapple 

flowering.

Like ethylene gas, fatty alcohols are 

growth regulators that have been petitioned for 

use on one crop. Also like ethylene gas, fatty 

alcohols can be considered a crop production aid 

under OFPA 6517. This precedence, along with the 

OFPA criteria, creates an easy path to justify the 

addition of fatty alcohols to the National List.
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We are all aware of the public health 

impacts of tobacco. But this should not influence 

the Board's task to make a recommendation for 

material based on whether it meet the necessary 

criteria. QCS believes fatty alcohols meet these 

criteria.

We urge the NOSB to recommend the 

addition of fatty alcohols to the National List. 

If the vote passes, we also implore the NOP to 

act swiftly and allow the use of fatty alcohols 

for the 2020 growing season.

CHAIR BEHAR: Questions? Thank you.

MS. TOUZEAU: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: So next up is Tasha Olson, 

and on deck, Garth Kahl and Jay Feldman.

MS. OLSON: Good morning. I'm Tasha 

Olson, and I'm the director of Quality and 

Compliance at Fiberstar Inc. Of course, we make 

Citri-Fi which is made of dried orange pulp.

I'm here today to support approving 

dried orange pulp, Substance 205.606, to remain 

on the NOP list. It's our understanding that 
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

during the preliminary stage it was decided that 

it was not necessary or consistent with organic 

handling, and alternatives exist.

So I'd like to just counter that a little 

bit today. But I also have some statements 

regarding the program itself and how it's helped 

us.

Questions arose regarding pesticides 

by the orange industry. Of course, that has always 

been a large concern of us. What we do is we run 

a strict pesticide protocol by certified labs, all 

raw crops, final products produced.

We run them against the residue limits 

that are in the United States as well as the E.U. 

Commission. We also have full traceability back 

to all of the crops that we use.

It was also mentioned a lack of comment 

during the comment period regarding the support 

for this product. Those who do use our product 

at this point, part of it's my fault, because I 

did not reach out due to some health reasons, but 

not an excuse.
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We also feel that our customers are 

sensitive to providing their supplier lists, and 

that makes them a bit uncomfortable when they're 

using a brand new bio ingredient or something that's 

very innovative.

But we do, at this time, have nine 

projects in the United States that are under review 

with large companies. And we have six 

commercialized products.

I want you to know that, with the support 

of this organization, we recently launched our 

first official series that could be organic 

compliant with a dedicated US sales staff which 

was very exciting for us. We are in full support 

of all unique uses of agricultural products that 

benefit organic and all natural markets. That is 

what our passion is at Fiberstar.

And I think we wanted the opportunity 

today to let you know that we think that the NOP 

Agricultural List that's allowed is a fantastic 

stepping stone to organizations of raw materials 

that are organic that would like to eventually have 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

full certification and support of the organic 

market. That is regardless of whether you vote 

to keep us on.

We realize we're used at less than five 

percent, so I don't know that it affects our market 

greatly. But we do think that that list, the list 

specifically, has a lot of weight in marketing and 

in selling products, that being on that list is 

far better than trying to explain that you can be 

at five percent or less. And so we'd like to, not 

only ourselves but everybody else who does 

agricultural science, to be able to be supportive 

and be on that list.

Any questions?

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve?

VICE CHAIR ELA: So we had one public 

comment that said there are a number of organic 

orange processors that have product available so, 

I mean ---

MS. OLSON: Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: -- we have to ask the 

question of why aren't you using organic, why does 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it have to be listed at all?

MS. OLSON: Great question. It's 

twofold. The one product on the market right now, 

which is extremely functional, that is from dried 

orange pulp, has to be produced from wet orange 

pulp.

Our biggest problem is vicinity. So 

we have to get pulp that's wet within eight hours 

of our plant to be able to get it in, or else it 

starts to degrade.

The other point I want to make, and part 

of us growing our business and being a young science 

company is that we're always working on other 

substrates as well. And so we do have things in 

development where it might be an easier raw material 

to be organic and to bring in, which is where we'd

be able to leverage more of a certification for 

ourselves. But being small, we just don't have 

that yet. So that's the situation with the orange 

pulp itself.

CHAIR BEHAR: I have a couple of 

questions.
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OLSON: Sure.

CHAIR BEHAR: So have you worked with 

your current suppliers of organic pulp to see if 

any of them might be interested in becoming organic?

MS. OLSON: You know, they're very 

large producers at this point. I don't believe 

they are interested in a complete organic 

certification. It's very difficult at our 

facility right now. We're actually attached to 

a juicer, to a juice plant for proximity. So that 

hasn't really been something that they're willing 

to do.

CHAIR BEHAR: Have you asked them?

MS. OLSON: Oh, yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, okay.

MS. OLSON: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. That's 

always part of our conversation.

CHAIR BEHAR: Are there organic 

products right now that contain your dried orange 

pulp?

MS. OLSON: Yes, there are.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. And is your 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

process proprietary ---

MS. OLSON: It is.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- or patented?

MS. OLSON: It is.

CHAIR BEHAR: So there's no other 

company who can make this dried orange pulp except 

you?

MS. OLSON: Not without our license. 

But it's not just dried orange pulp. The way that 

we utilize it, if you just dried orange pulp, it 

wouldn't be the same as our product. We do all 

mechanical processing. So it's still just orange 

pulp chemically, but it wouldn't be comparable to 

just orange pulp.

So we process it. It is patented. 

Unfortunately I realize there are some limitations 

in that at this point. Further down the business 

line, would we love to sell the technology? Of 

course we would.

CHAIR BEHAR: So is our listing maybe 

incorrect? Because right now, we're allowing the 

use of non-organic dried orange pulp for someone 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

who maybe wants to put it in a, you know, energy 

bar or something. I don't know.

MS. OLSON: Sure.

CHAIR BEHAR: Because of the way it's 

listed, maybe it should not actually be listed as 

dried orange pulp, because your product is unique 

from that actual, general listing. Is that 

correct?

MS. OLSON: Yes. I understand the 

question. I think it's debatable either way. As 

a scientist, the thing that makes it difficult is 

that it still is dried orange pulp. There is 

nothing done to it. It's all mechanical 

processing.

However, you're right. In our case, 

luckily nobody else is drying orange pulp. So it's 

just us, you know. So that's kind of the debate. 

Either way, we go in at five percent or less.

But I think the biggest thing that we 

also wanted to communicate is how useful it has 

been to be on that list as agricultural. Because 

it allows science companies to come up with other 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

very natural ways to replace some of the 

synthetics and chemicals that have to be used. 

Because there isn't another alternative. It was 

probably more of a who-knows, just the program and 

how much it's helped us.

CHAIR BEHAR: Right. And so if it was 

not on the list, then the labeling category would 

be made with organic if someone wanted to use it?

MS. OLSON: Yes. I mean, they would 

just use that five percent rule. The impact of 

the list is great. But more of it is we think the 

importance of having agricultural products other 

than us, and just understanding the importance of 

the list.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley? Oh, Tom?

MR. CHAPMAN: A couple questions and 

a clarification. You keep referencing the five 

percent exception. I want to make sure you 

understand fully what that means.

In an organic product you have to use 

95 percent organic ingredients. That five percent 

allowance, you can only use items that are on the 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

National List so if this item falls off, that five 

percent rule's no longer relevant to your products.

MS. OLSON: Oh, we misunderstood that.

MR. CHAPMAN: It has to be in the made 

with organic category which is what Harriet was 

referencing.

MS. OLSON: But it still would be made 

with organic, correct?

MR. CHAPMAN: Which is a different 

claim although you can't use the seal and there's 

other requirements in that.

MS. OLSON: Exactly.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.

MS. OLSON: We do understand that.

MR. CHAPMAN: As an agricultural 

product. I also want to clarify that we don't put 

brand names on the National List --

MS. OLSON: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: -- for proprietary 

products which is probably why it got the generic 

dried orange pulp and I believe your spec sheet 

it says that's an appropriate labeling if --
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OLSON: Yes.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes. So that's probably 

the explanation for the term.

I wanted to ask about your, you made 

reference to potentially having a certified organic 

product in the future?

MS. OLSON: Yes. I mean, it's further 

out but it's in our five-year plan right now.

MR. CHAPMAN: Would it be a dried orange 

pulp?

MS. OLSON: It would not be orange pulp.

MR. CHAPMAN: So then would it have, 

and I know it's still --

MS. OLSON: I shouldn't divulge too 

much.

MR. CHAPMAN: I know it's still in R&D 

and it's proprietary to you but then I'd assume 

that would have different functional properties 

potentially and not be a one for one replacer with 

dried orange pulp?

MS. OLSON: Well, what we're learning 

through the science, it's different but it's still, 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it's viable within the, you know, within the food 

market. It just has some different properties.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes. So it would be a 

certified organic product. I assume even when 

that's in the marketplace, if you don't have an 

organic dried orange pulp supplier that's 

economically viable for you even with that other 

product --

MS. OLSON: Right, even with that other 

product.

MR. CHAPMAN: -- you'd be asking for 

this to be retained, I imagine?

MS. OLSON: Right. We would like that. 

It helps as our steppingstone.

CHAIR BEHAR: Asa?

DR. BRADMAN: Just to --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. SWAFFER: So nice today. How close 

is your processing plant where you make the dried 

orange pulp to a certified organic plant that has 

the wet pulp?

MS. OLSON: To my knowledge, it's to 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the north.

MS. SWAFFER: Yes.

MS. OLSON: And it would be about nine 

hours transit.

MS. SWAFFER: One hour outside the, 

well of what you said you needed, eight hours?

MS. OLSON: Right. And it isn't that 

we wouldn't try to squeak that if we could. It 

becomes very difficult though because then you'd 

pay for the wet pulp to come all the way down and 

if it's fermented then it has to be thrown away.

MS. SWAFFER: So if we were to delist 

this product, could you make it organically?

MS. OLSON: No.

MS. SWAFFER: And what are your 

barriers for making it organically?

MS. OLSON: Being able to get it there 

in time and the volume. It takes one tanker of 

what we get because we only use the byproduct water 

that comes off to make a pallet of our product. 

So the volume alone especially after Irma went 

through, we wouldn't be able to do it.
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SWAFFER: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Asa?

DR. BRADMAN: I think you just answered 

my question by mentioning Irma.

MS. OLSON: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: So the, your facilities 

are in Florida?

MS. OLSON: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: Have you looked at other 

regions of the country where you might have better 

access to organic product?

MS. OLSON: Organic pulp, we do need 

wet. We've looked at it frozen. One of our 

biggest obstacles in that sense though, is that 

California produces most of their oranges to be 

sold as oranges, not as juices and that's been a 

big obstacle. So we looked into that.

We thought, oh, if we could freeze it 

and send it that we may even be able to get barrels 

from outside the U.S. but it degrades it too much 

to be functional and to be able to use.

DR. BRADMAN: And then the follow-up 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

question. You mentioned a few times about the 

value of marketing --

MS. OLSON: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: -- of having your product 

on the National List. But is that marketing in 

the organic sector or marketing in the non-organic 

sector or just as a more, just as a food ingredient?

MS. OLSON: Actually the comment, it 

was probably more geared toward the value of your 

list and not necessarily, I mean, obviously it's 

important to us as far as going to organic 

customers. That's not anybody else.

The list is important. The list has 

a lot of respect within the industry and that has 

been a great advantage for us so more, the comment 

was really more not only us but any other 

agriculture biotechs that are out there trying to 

make natural ingredients to replace other 

functions, that that list is so valuable.

CHAIR BEHAR: Tom, what I was trying 

to get at was trying to understand that this product 

is really maybe somewhat different than a generic 
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

dried orange pulp and trying to really kind of hone 

in on what is not truly not commercially available 

as organic.

But it seems like that our listing, we 

can't really call it anything other than that much 

greater --

MS. OLSON: Yes. Had a listing.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes.

MS. OLSON: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Which, you know, to me 

I, you know, it's unfortunate. You know, I'd like 

to be a little bit more honed in on exactly what 

is not commercially available as organic.

MS. OLSON: Absolutely.

CHAIR BEHAR: Rather than a greater 

listing.

MS. OLSON: But even in our situation, 

if we can and hopefully there'll be, you know, a 

lot of rebound in Florida so that we get some more 

organic groves up and running.

The ones that were decimated, you know, 

it takes three years to replace those groves. It's 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

been a real hit but if we can and we get some more 

closer and we can bring them in, we're still the 

only people making, that are actually drying orange 

pulp for that reason except cattle feed.

CHAIR BEHAR: Now are you doing 

anything overseas? I know quite a bit of organic 

oranges are grown in Brazil.

MS. OLSON: Yes. Absolutely.

CHAIR BEHAR: And there's a lot more 

--

MS. OLSON: We're working with Brazil, 

Argentina, and Mexico right now to work on the other 

product. We can't, we tried to freeze their pulp 

and we can't use it. So the other products we're 

developing made of peel, we can't source organic 

from that, from outside, and some from inside.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Thank you.

MS. OLSON: Thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: Did you all hear me? 

Garth Kahl, Jay Feldman, Lynn Coody?

MR. KAHL: Hi. My name is Garth Kahl 

and I've been a proud certified organic farmer since 
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1993 and an organic inspector and reviewer since 

'96.

I want to thank the members of the Board 

for their work and offer them my sincere apologies 

for not submitting written comments this session.

I know and appreciate the hard work you 

put into posing serious questions to the organic 

sector.

I did my research on many of the items 

on the docket this session and even helped IOIA 

draft their comments but when it came down to the 

deadline, life intervened.

In a nutshell, I want to echo to cogent 

and detailed comments submitted by OTA and IOIA 

with respect to GMO vaccines, embryo transfer, seed 

integrity and the need for a predictable, stable 

National List.

I also think the prohibition on paper 

pots has to qualify as the most embarrassing organic 

hypocrisy of the year and I urge you to find a way 

out of this self-imposed labyrinth.

In short, my comments come down to this. 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We need to limit the minutiae, facilitate a stable 

regulatory environment, and concentrate on the real 

threats to organic integrity and ultimately, life 

on the planet.

The Haber-Bosch process is one such 

threat to life on the planet. The IPCC has told 

us that we basically have ten more years to prevent 

cataclysmic environmental collapse.

The Haber-Bosch process by which 

synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is manufactured 

accounts for roughly ten percent of carbon 

emissions from agriculture.

That's even more than all of us 

hypocrites who burn kilojoules of jet fuel in the 

name of sustainability.

In a similar vein, as others have 

remarked, North America has lost 30 percent of bird 

population since 1979. With this in mind, we need 

to be concentrating all of our efforts on bringing 

massive, massive amounts of acreage under organic 

production.

My own operation is a small family 
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

owned, pasture based and uses virtually no outside 

fertility inputs.

I also work with a cow calf operation 

that is corporate, Trump-supporting, and has over 

7000 acres under organic production with more added 

every year.

That equates to thousands of pounds of 

synthetic fertilizer not used and not creating a 

dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi. Impact, 

scalable impact.

We need to address what is preventing 

us from scaling up organic production, attracting 

new growers, and stop fighting over five percent 

market share.

We need to not be afraid of growth, of 

success, of big growers who don't talk and farm 

and vote like our vision of what organic should 

be.

We need to defend our brand and markets 

from real fraud, work to reduce GMO contamination, 

but understand that operations that don't meet our 

personal vision of organic can and do comply with 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the rule.

That includes dairies milking 60 cows 

and 6000 cows, farms growing .05 acres and 5000 

acres, and processors bottling product in their 

kitchen and those with breweries in a half dozen 

domestic and international locations. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: I was surprised that you 

didn't have written comments and I actually checked 

twice because I thought I must have missed 

something. Could you elaborate on the labyrinth 

that you think we've created for ourselves with 

paper pots?

MR. KAHL: Yes. I mean, we allow 

cardboard, we allow paper mulches, we allow paper 

banding on orchards to control codling moth.

At the end of the day, you know, to quote 

the queen mother in Hamlet, I think she doth protest 

too much.

Yes, there are small amounts of 

synthetic fibers or synthetic materials in the 

glues but at the end of the day I think we need 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to allow this practice for growers who want to use 

it.

This is one thing that as an inspector 

I've actually had small, very small, like local 

family scale growers say, this is integral to my 

growing operation. I need it, it's a labor saving 

device. Please, this seems silly. Why are you, 

you know, why are you focusing on this?

It's minutiae. You know, yes, there 

may be small amounts of synthetic fiber. Somebody 

argued up here, well, what if there's high amounts 

of synthetic fiber in the pots?

Honestly, if there's that high amount 

of synthetic fiber in the pots, they won't degrade. 

On my own operation we did try this for a while.

In our situation with well-drained 

soils using drip irrigation, they never degraded. 

So the plants could never grow out of the pot. 

So we discontinued the practice.

Now in somebody else's operation in 

heavier soils with overhead irrigation, maybe the 

pots degrade but at the end of the day we need to 
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

get out of the way and let growers farm organically.

I think on the big scale of things, this 

is a, you know, it's a minutiae. If we can get 

more growers growing organically by allowing this 

practice, then let's do it.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dan, and then Dave?

DR. SEITZ: So I agree with you that 

if you can practice within the organic standards, 

the size of your operation should not matter.

But what I understand from my own 

reading is that there are sizes above which it is 

almost technically impossible say to work within 

the standards.

So if you take a dairy farm and you have 

to pasture the animals for a certain amount of time 

on pasture, just physically getting a very large 

number of animals out to pasture and back in may 

preclude the ability to actually meet the 

standards.

So how do you balance your thought, your 

what, your assertion that we should not be afraid 

of size if you're meeting with the standards with 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the fact, with the idea that there may be sizes 

above which you really technically cannot meet the 

standards?

MR. KAHL: Well, I've inspected 

hundreds of dairy farms in my career and yes, there 

is a limit as to how far you can get a cow to walk.

So at, you know, at over a half mile, 

growers start saying, well, she starts losing a 

little bit of energy and she's not producing as 

much milk. You get up to one or two miles and 

growers don't like to do that.

So obviously there's design issues. 

We can evaluate. I mean, organic inspectors and 

certifiers are good at confirming compliance. So 

if we say, you know, it's thirty percent DMI from 

pasture, you know, I guarantee you the vast, vast 

majorities out there with a few bad actors are 

complying with that.

So if we say that's the rule, you know, 

divide your barns up, have one barn here, have one 

barn there, you're still milking 5000 cows but you 

got, you know, five barns of a thousand cows each 
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

or something like that.

That's not our place to dictate that. 

Our place is to dictate a bar and say, okay, you 

comply with that bar.

I mean, ultimately we may as a community 

want to raise that bar. We might want to say, you 

know what, 30 percent DMI, that's too little.

You know, I've heard people say, well, 

50 percent DMI, 60 percent DMI, absolutely. But 

let's get them in the door and then let's raise 

the bar, give them time to adapt their breeds, less 

Holsteins, more Jerseys, more Guernseys, more, you 

know, better genetics.

But, you know, set a bar and then people 

can comply with it and maybe at some point there 

are scales that can't comply with it. But there's 

some very big dairies that are managing to comply 

with the rule as it is written today.

DR. SEITZ: And just a follow-up and 

this is just for my own information. When you say 

there are bad actors out there, is that because 

you have certifiers who are turning a blind eye 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to them?

What are, why are there very large 

operations out there that don't comply? Who is 

failing in their carrying out their regulatory 

responsibility?

MR. KAHL: I wouldn't even say that by 

and large the large operations aren't complying. 

Some of the worst compliance issues I've seen is 

on small operations.

I mean, the large operations have a 

brand to protect and they've got, you know, half 

a dozen people and they hire consultants like me 

to make sure that they're meeting that 30 percent 

DMI.

I mean, you know, they may look bad. 

Somebody may fly a drone over it midday and say 

they're not grazing but are they taking into account 

night grazing, are they taking into account, you 

know, shoulder grazing? So grazing April, May, 

but keeping them in the barn June, July, and August?

Compliance is something that, you know, 

certifiers and inspectors I think in general do 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a pretty good job with and where you, well, where 

you're seeing non-compliance cropping up is across 

the board and in my experience it doesn't 

necessarily equate well to scale. There are 

non-compliant actors on both ends of the spectrum.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, I just wanted to 

thank you for the clarifying comments on paper pots. 

Thanks.

MR. KAHL: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Garth.

Okay. We are kind of falling, we are 

about 45 minutes behind. I'm sorry, Jay. But 

okay, so Jay, then Lynn Coody, then Michelle 

Smolarski.

MR. FELDMAN: Hi, good morning. Jay 

Feldman, Beyond Pesticides and the new project, 

Organic Eye.

Yesterday you were told about the 

nightmare by Terry Shistar. I want to tell you 

about a love story. Remember Dan Barber's talk, 

How I Fell In Love With a Fish? As a chef of Blue 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Hill at Stone Barns he explains the essence of 

organic practices from bass to beef cattle.

My love affair with organic began at 

a very young age when I met farm workers poisoned 

by pesticides and I was told about pesticide induced 

diseases, about miscarriages, about birth defects 

caused by farm chemicals. I fell in love with 

organic as a solution to unimaginable problems of 

human destruction.

My love for organic grew stronger when 

I joined with organic family farmers to tell policy 

makers that the poisoning was not necessary to grow 

food.

Then I learned that the chemical use 

was destroying ecosystems that support life. 

Trophic effects were being ignored by regulators 

who did not consider whole system effects. My love 

affair with organic grew deeper.

The creation of OFPA was a marriage of 

ideals, values, principals with standards, 

democratic decision making, transparency, true 

participation in stakeholders, in leading 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

government, yes, continuous improvement in a 

governing structure, the NOSB, to protect and 

oversee the necessary nurturing growth and 

integrity.

We know the three OFPA criteria for the 

National List. I urge you to incorporate two 

additional elements that I believe are, that we 

are charged with in upholding the law under the 

NOSB.

Your charge, number one, advancing 

organic differentiation in the market. I love 

organic because it is willing to be unique, to 

express itself, to stand up for what it believes 

is necessary to solving problems and working 

through difficult issues and so we appear different 

in the market.

We find or if we appear different in 

the market, whether we're found in the frozen food 

instead of the refrigerated section of the grocery 

store, we embrace the difference that explains and 

explain at the point of purchase why we don't used 

substances like celery powder with carcinogenic 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

nitrosamine compounds in the final food product, 

whether from synthetic nitrogen or naturally 

derived.

Why we reject GMOs, gene editing, and 

require a three year transition whether in farmland 

or in greenhouses.

And number two, supporting and 

advancing a change in culture. I love that organic 

has always embraced change in the culture of how 

we farm, how we treat the earth, how we process 

food, because it doesn't inherently say we want 

to use this substance for efficiency reasons even 

though it doesn't meet one of the 11 categories 

of allowed materials, OFPA 6517, which doesn't 

allow growth regulators like fatty alcohols.

Organic must be positioned for 

exponential growth to confront the environmental 

crises on the horizon from the climate crisis to 

insect apocalypse and the dramatic decline in 

biodiversity. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Jay. Dan?

DR. SEITZ: So Jay, you're often in, 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

your organization's often in the position of taking 

what you might call minority position on some 

substances.

And I just wanted to get your thinking 

on a couple things and one is fish oil. And again, 

I'm asking just from a consumer standpoint.

So one of the arguments is, well, it 

may not technically meet the criteria for listing 

but consumers are out there wanting to get omega-3 

fortified foods. They can get them conventionally 

plus we'll bring consumers over to the organic side. 

It will help with the success of selling organic 

products.

So I'm just kind of curious just how 

you balance those types of arguments when there's 

not a technical basis for listing a substance?

MR. FELDMAN: Yes. It is a challenge, 

there's no question. This argument that we can 

grow the organic industry by making adjustments 

or compromises with the standards is a slippery 

slope and it's something you confront as an NOSB 

Board Member all the time.
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But the key here is to understand it's 

not the overall organic industry that's being 

questioned in an issue like fish oil and as 

indicated in our comments, but it's the fact that 

we're only as strong as the weakest link.

You know, we may feel like we can't do 

anything about celery powder or fish oil to the 

extent that we retain things that are out of 

compliance, we don't incentivize the alternative, 

the development of alternative materials.

And that's the hard call as an NOSB 

member. I think it's the hardest call. How do 

we hold to the standard and in the process 

incentivize alternatives that fit into place?

And I, you know, I think this is true 

with virtually every material that we feel 

uncomfortable with but we accept as part of the 

growing of the organic system.

So, you know, again we're only as strong 

as our weakest link and we have to adhere to the 

standards we set otherwise we don't have the 

credibility and the integrity that consumers are 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

expecting.

CHAIR BEHAR: Tom?

MR. CHAPMAN: I want to ask a question 

on how you balance certain human health factors. 

So you raised celery powder and, you know, your 

concerns are linked to carcinogen links to 

colorectal cancer.

But the alternative in a lot of these 

meat curing products if you can't use a nitrate 

product is increased sodium chloride uses, more 

salt, distinctly more salt.

And the number one cause of death in 

the U.S. is heart disease. So you're kind of 

pulling from one human health risk and shoving it 

into another human health risk, one that's the 

leading cause of death.

How do you balance that? I mean, it 

seems like we're just pushing from one end to the 

other end.

MR. FELDMAN: Well, I think organic, 

you know, occupies a special place in the market 

and what we're trying to do with organic is be a 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

leader that people invest in in a growth pattern 

that's exponential.

I agree with the previous speaker that 

we have to begin to see ourselves as solving these 

huge environmental problems on the horizon and the 

only way we're going to do that and expedite this 

growth exponentially is to have a greater or higher 

degree of investment.

So in making that tradeoff, we have to 

be sure that we're not doing something that puts 

us in a category of the lack of credibility, the 

lack of trust, that category.

And I don't want to see and you don't 

either, want to see an article in the Washington 

Post or the New York Times about nitrosamines in 

organic food purposely introduced into organic 

foods.

So you weight that, right, against what 

do consumers know vis-a-vis the, you know, their 

own health. Salt, salt in the diet. I mean, salt 

is a labeling issue. We have low salt foods.

It's a commonly understood adverse 
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

effect, right, so and depending on preexisting and 

medical conditions, people are aware and tuned into 

those labels that are out there.

We don't have, we have a misleading 

label right now for celery powder because, you know, 

we're indicating that this thing doesn't contain 

nitrites but then we have a little asterisk that, 

you know, that it's celery powder and it's used 

for curing, you know.

So again, I think one of the things we 

in organic have to be aware of is that we are dealing 

with a consumer population that's reading labels, 

right.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.

MR. FELDMAN: So they're reading about 

salt. If we're not disclosing the impact of the 

inputs that we're using and the potential residues 

in the finished food commodity, we're not doing 

our job.

MR. CHAPMAN: And I agree with you there 

but that's not an issue before us. That's an FSIS 

labeling issue and unfortunately we don't advise 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that branch of the USDA.

MR. FELDMAN: Right, but it has to be 

factored into our decision. I mean, if we're 

sitting here as a Board and you're making a decision 

on including a material or not and you know that 

the labeling will be misrepresentative or 

fraudulent, I would consider it fraudulent, then 

you look at that as a factor in the decision as 

to whether to list or not, say we don't have control 

over this, it is going to misrepresent the 

production process, the processing method, and it 

represents a problem.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MR. FELDMAN: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Next up is Lynn Coody and 

then Michelle Smolarsky, Amalie Lipstreu, and 

Bjarne Pedersen, and then we'll take a break.

MS. COODY: Hi, my name is Lynn Coody 

and I'm presenting comments for the Organic Produce 

Wholesalers Coalition, six businesses that 

distribute fresh, organic produce across the United 

States and internationally.
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

In our comments to the NOSB, we express 

our own ideas and provide a conduit for the voices 

of the many certified growers who supply our 

businesses.

Since that review, OPWC urges the Board 

to relist all the crop materials now up for sunset 

review.

We have provided information about the 

use of these materials in growing fruits and 

vegetables as well as comments from growers about 

their use of these materials on specific crops.

OPWC also supports the relisting of 

citric acid, lactic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and 

peracetic acid, which are important sanitizers for 

handling produce.

Paper pots, OPWC submitted extensive 

comments on paper pots. Our central concern about 

the discussion document is to propose the expansion 

of the scope of the topic to include all types of 

paper crop production aids.

We suggest that regulations for crop 

production aids be decoupled from paper pots at 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this time because, one, paper pots have been in 

use in the organic produce sector for more than 

a decade and have become an important component 

of many growers' production systems.

And two, a February 2018 notification 

from NOP raised regulatory issues uniquely focused 

on paper pots which results in the need for formal 

clarification and resolution of the status of this 

particular product.

We think that further work on the topic 

of production aids is critically important prior 

to imposing any regulations on production aid 

devices such as the questions posed by the 

subcommittee that they asked about applying the 

standards for bioregulation and bio-based content.

OPWC asserts that detailed restrictions 

such as these are premature because we have not 

adequately considered the potential implications 

for such regulation to limit the types of production 

aids devices now in use on organic farms.

We think that a holistic approach to 

definition, scope, and categorization of 
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

production aids would be a necessary first step 

in thoughtful regulation of these devices.

Potassium hypochlorite. Finally our 

written comments urge the crop subcommittee to 

reconsider its proposed annotation for potassium 

hypochlorite as a cleaner for irrigation equipment.

OPWC has concerns about the clarity of 

the listing motion for this material because it 

failed to correct an inaccurate citation to the 

National List which originated in the petition.

Further, our analysis found that the 

annotation of the proposed listing motion does not 

effectively limit the use of the material to 

cleaning irrigation systems as was the focus of 

both the petitioner and the review conducted by 

the subcommittee.

OPWC recognized the importance of 

irrigation cleaners for effective use of drip 

irrigation equipment so our comments proposed a 

revised listing motion designed to resolve both 

of these issues. Thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily, and then Steve. 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Steve and then Emily.

VICE CHAIR ELA: So Lynn, on paper pots, 

so you would prefer that we just deal with paper 

pots? Don't, I mean, even though most like seed 

tape and some of these other things that also 

provide growers a real benefit, and presumably 

could run into the same issues that paper pots did, 

we just let that go?

MS. COODY: Well, our written comments 

were clear that we said that things that were 

similar to paper pots, very similar such as seed 

tape, could be included in the annotation.

But I have on my desk a big catalog of 

horticultural production tools, production aids, 

and I certainly did not want that to be all wrapped 

into the same thing.

So things that are very similar like 

planting production aids could be considered in 

the same group of listings.

But we, yes, production aids, it's a, 

we don't even have a good description of it. We 

don't have a definition, et cetera, so I did not 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

want to see that broad of a scope introduced.

VICE CHAIR ELA: So I think it was OTA 

that submitted comments that, and I think some 

language. I'd have to look it up again but --

MS. COODY: Yes, ours has the same 

language.

VICE CHAIR ELA: The same language, 

yes. And that makes some sense.

MS. COODY: Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: So, okay. Thank you 

on that.

CHAIR BEHAR: I think the language was 

something like in contact with and decomposing into 

the soil.

MS. COODY: Yes. We framed it in terms 

of production aids or products that were intended 

to degrade in the soil, yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you for your careful 

reading of the potassium hypochlorite petition. 

And I was wondering if you could elaborate on how 

you think the subcommittee's proposal could be 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

written in a way that would align with the 

petitioner's request for a limited use in 

irrigation and the subcommittee's intent of 

limiting it for use in irrigation?

MS. COODY: We did propose a change to 

the annotation and basically it would be similar 

to the wording that is used for other, another 

materials that is just used for irrigation or it's 

just intended for cleaning irrigation systems and 

our written comments explained that particular 

language.

So basically you proposed reiterating 

a lot of the information that is in the chlorine 

annotation whereas it should just be the wording 

that is just for use in cleaning irrigation systems.

It's difficult because the, you have 

to look at the way that it's listed and anything 

that's underneath something else is subject to all 

of the provisions above it.

So yes, it's, for somebody who just 

looks at the National List, you know, really 

carefully, you're looking for where it's limited 
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to not all the things that it could be used for 

so I think our written comments really provide the 

details on that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

Ashley, did you have something?

MS. SWAFFER: Yes. Sorry, Lynn. So 

just on that subject, I think the Crops Committee 

kind of realized that they might have left out that 

A in that.

MS. COODY: Yes.

MS. SWAFFER: Are you saying that the 

way that the motion is written would still be wrong 

if they added the A?

MS. COODY: Yes. Yes, because --

MS. SWAFFER: It has the Safe Water 

Drinking Act and all that?

MS. COODY: The way it's written it 

makes it subject to all of the provisions for 

chlorine. And what you're trying to do as I 

understand it by both the petitioner and the 

subcommittee, are trying to list it only for use 

in cleaning irrigation systems.
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So the annotation language itself as 

well as the citation to the National List I believe 

needs to be changed to clarify and limit it to the 

intended use of the petitioner and the 

subcommittee's evaluation, yes.

MS. SWAFFER: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: So it can be, for 

instance, in A, the number would be nine, just add 

it as its own separate item and then make it clear 

that it's strictly for irrigation only?

MS. COODY: Yes, well, if you look at 

our written comments, it explains that. Let me 

get over to it. Sorry, I have to flip through a 

bunch of pages here.

So we said it should be a subset of 

chlorine materials and it's analogous to the 

listing for ozone gas which is, it is used, that 

is allowed only for cleaning irrigation systems 

and under ozone gas it says, for use as an irrigation 

system cleaner only.

And I think that's what you really want 

to say, not all this stuff about how to use it as 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a chlorine material. If you allow its use as a 

chlorine material and use that information, it 

would also be able to be used as a generalized 

sanitizer in crop systems as well.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. I think we will 

--

MS. COODY: Yes. I think, yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- look at that, yes.

Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: This is for Devon. You 

don't have to answer now, Devon, but could we 

discuss this behind the scenes a little bit more? 

Thank you.

MS. COODY: Yes. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next up, Michelle 

Smolarski, Amalie Lipstreu, and Bjarne Pedersen, 

and then we'll take a break. And we're about an 

hour behind, gang.

MS. SMOLARSKI: Good morning. My name 

is Michelle Smolarski. Very impressed with your 

pronunciation correctly.

I'm here this morning to provide 
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

comments on behalf of the International Food 

Additives Council.

IFAC is a global association 

representing manufacturers and end users of food 

ingredients, including a number of substances that 

are permitted in organic foods.

IFAC supports the continued use of dairy 

cultures in organic food production. We 

appreciate the handling subcommittee's 

determination that dairy cultures are covered 

through the existing listing for microorganisms 

and agree with the proposal to combine the two 

listings.

However, to ensure that there is 

documentation that dairy cultures are in fact 

covered by the listing for microorganisms and to 

prevent any confusion, in the future IFAC 

recommends that language be added to the NOSB's 

vote affirming that dairy cultures would in fact 

be covered under microorganisms.

With that said, IFAC strongly supports 

the Handling Subcommittee's recommendation to 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

relist microorganisms at 205.605(a).

Microorganisms including dairy 

cultures are indispensable in the manufacture of 

many organic food products such as dairy and 

beverages.

Further, as microorganisms are of 

fermentable origin not agricultural origin, they 

cannot be certified organic under the National 

Organic Program.

In addition, IFAC supports retaining 

potassium phosphate at 205.605(b). This remains 

an essential ingredient in many organic operations, 

particularly as a pH buffer in dairy products.

Dipotassium phosphate, unlike 

citrates, provides a strong pH buffering for 

neutral pH products. Further, dipotassium 

phosphate increases the nutrient levels of 

potassium and phosphorus in foods while also 

keeping sodium levels low which is in line with 

public health recommendations to reduce sodium 

intake as well as recommendations to increase 

potassium intake.
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Furthermore, IFAC supports the 

continued use of sodium acid pyrophosphate which 

is used as an emulsifying agent in process cheese 

applications and in canned tuna as an inhibitor 

of struvite crystal formation.

Sodium acid pyrophosphate is also the 

only product capable of chemical leavening that 

is allowed by NOSB and we are not aware of any 

comparable ingredients that can be substituted for 

this ingredient.

IFAC also supports the relisting of 

citric acid due to its broad functionality in 

organic foods as outlined in our more detailed 

written comments.

IFAC is not aware of commercially 

available sources of citric acid derived from 

organically grown crops that would meet the needs 

of the organic community.

IFAC also strongly supports the 

relisting of lactic acid, alginic acid, enzymes, 

and yeast, on the National List but given the oral 

comment time restraint we will defer to our written 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

comments for further details in supporting 

information on those substances.

So thank you for the opportunity to 

provide comments. So close.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve?

VICE CHAIR ELA: So I mean, in the dairy 

culture write up the final paragraph is, while there 

is widespread support for the use of dairy cultures 

the Handling Committee believes this listing is 

now redundant and is covered by the listing for 

microorganisms. We would suggest that removing 

dairy cultures from the National List would have 

no negative impacts since they are already covered 

under the microorganism listing. Functionally 

these cultures have continued to be allowed, just 

not listed under a separate category.

Doesn't that cover your concerns?

MS. SMOLARSKI: Would there be another 

opportunity to provide additional confirmation of 

that with --

VICE CHAIR ELA: We'll put it on the 

cover sheet that goes with it to the program but 
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I felt like that was a fairly clear statement that 

we see that they would not disappear and that we're 

not in favor of them disappearing, that they are 

already covered. So I'm just curious what more 

can we say?

MS. SMOLARSKI: Yes, I think anything 

more that you can say would be helpful. I think 

that is helpful and I'm happy to take your comments 

back to our membership and see if they can craft 

some more specific language that they'd like to 

see. So thank you for that comment and for 

including that previously.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MS. SMOLARSKI: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Amalie Lipstreu is up 

next with Bjarne Pedersen on deck.

MS. LIPSTREU: Thank you. My name is 

Amalie Lipstreu and I'm the policy director for 

the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association.

To the NOSB, your hard work and 

dedication are truly appreciated. Thank you for 

your service.
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

To the NOP, OEFFA appreciates the 

professionalism and dedication of your staff. We 

also strongly encourage that you address the 20 

outstanding recommendations of the NOSB as 

mentioned by our chairwoman during her very 

thoughtful opening comments.

Organic is at a crossroads and the time 

to act on recommendations of the Board is now.

We ask that soon after the release of 

the origin of livestock, strengthening organic 

enforcement, and National List rule making, the 

NOP release a list of follow-up actions on 

previously approved NOSB recommendations as well 

as requested work agenda items.

OEFFA producers have been anxiously 

awaiting concrete action to crack down on organic 

import fraud and we appreciate that there has been 

an increased focus on this issue, action to crack 

down on certifiers not upholding the standards and 

we look forward to finalization of a robust rule 

to strengthen organic enforcement.

We request that any new authorities 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

required by the NOP to make additional progress 

on this issue are identified and shared with the 

organic community now so that we do not add more 

time to the already incremental process of policy 

making.

Several NOSB members were present at 

the National Organic Coalition meeting Tuesday 

afternoon where an energy infrastructure panel 

discussed the challenges faced by farmer certifiers 

and inspectors with the ever growing footprint of 

the industry.

Thank you for learning more about this 

issue affecting many producers across the country.

We are disappointed that the will of 

the National Organic Standards Board is once again 

being subverted by the USDA.

Despite the request to add this item 

to the work agenda, the NOP yesterday, after much 

prodding denied the request stating that this issue 

is best addressed by community groups.

Are community organizations 

appropriate to be providing tools to organic 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

certification agencies to determine which items 

are allowed or prohibited on organic farms or how 

growers address the issue of bringing in topsoil 

from an independent contractor?

At a time where record numbers of 

conventional producers are making the decision to 

transition to organic and when our country needs 

a movement away from chemical intensive agriculture 

more than ever and the public is demanding the 

benefits of organic, integrity is increasingly in 

jeopardy.

How many more years must we wait? 

Anyway, I'll take any questions that you may have.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Just a quick comment. 

Thank you for your articulate comments on the energy 

infrastructure issue.

MS. LIPSTREU: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: I wonder if you could 

briefly summarize how it is that groups like your 

group and PASA and other local and regional 
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

advocates for sustainable agriculture and organic 

practices can't effectively address the natural 

gas impacts on farms and marketing of the products 

grown on those farms?

MS. LIPSTREU: It's a very difficult 

to address, issue to address for multiple reasons. 

Certainly issues of jurisdiction, you know, 

whether there is state or federal jurisdiction 

complicates the issue.

But I think one of the biggest 

challenges that we were hoping to address is that, 

you know, there are some clear tools that can be 

used by certification agencies, by organic 

inspectors, to help protect organic certification 

from, for our farmers.

You know, you heard from James Yoder 

yesterday who was able to use that tool and even 

though there were challenges, he was able to keep 

the certification.

But there are many more producers that 

we've worked with and that others have worked with 

who have either been forced or have voluntarily 
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

removed their land from organic certification to 

retransition because they didn't have adequate 

guidance or tools as this process was enfolding.

So we feel it's really, you know, very 

important that those tools and that kind of 

direction is shared widely.

And I would also add that we really hope 

that those Board members that do continue their 

service going forward, have as your top priority 

agenda item to follow up on the work of your peers 

in advancing these 20 outstanding recommendations 

and work agenda items.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: Scott?

MR. RICE: Just a quick comment on the 

energy infrastructure. You know, obviously we 

were intending on working on that in the CACS and 

as I shared on, it was many days ago, Monday, you 

know, we'll still, we had a lot of some stand up 

conversations with you and others in the community.

I would like to bring those topics to 

Accredited Certifiers Association. We have an 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

opportunity to do that, both over our listener 

conversations and more importantly when we're 

together at our annual training and where the NOP 

is as well.

So I think there are some good tools 

out there and I've been glad to hear that they've 

been effective and I think while we may not get 

that information on the platform of this 

environment with NOSB, we can at least address it 

at the ACA level and hope that that gets out to 

the audience that we're looking to, so.

MS. LIPSTREU: Well, thank you, Scott. 

We really appreciate the work of CACS on this issue 

and I guess I'd just also say that, you know, I 

think at the very least there's an opportunity 

perhaps through the Organic Learning Center to 

provide some training to certifiers and inspectors 

on this issue. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

DR. BRADMAN: Harriet, I just have kind 

of one comment to follow-up on that last 

interchange.
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

You know, perhaps in the absence of an 

agenda item from NOSB there could be some sort of 

federal support or USDA support for a conference 

or some, you know, or the CA, the Certification 

Association, some sort of kind of town hall or 

public approach that can integrate.

It seems like there's been a lot of work 

done by different groups, can integrate that and 

kind of have a more universal platform and help 

perhaps build out the platform that the certifiers 

are developing.

MS. LIPSTREU: Thank you, Asa.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Thank you. Next 

up, someone who came from very far away, Bjarne 

Pedersen.

MR. PEDERSEN: Thank you very much.

CHAIR BEHAR: Your name and 

affiliation, please.

MR. PEDERSEN: Yes. First I'd like 

just to thank you for the opportunity to speak here 

and thank you to the Board for all of your work 

on the petition for virgin paper which I'm going 
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to comment.

I'm a consultant, okay, I'm a consultant 

working for the Ellepot Company in Denmark making 

paper pots.

And to Ellepot and to all the customers, 

biodegradation is the absolute priority in this 

and that's whether it's a small family business 

or a larger company.

I've been working at Ellepot now for 

eight years developing papers also for organic 

crops and I'm actually happy to say that it seems 

that we now have the solutions that will work but 

in the end we need your help on this.

To make these papers, we need three 

groups of fibers and they all need to be biobased. 

That's important.

The first group is the main part of the 

paper, is all the natural fibers could be wood, 

flax, hemp, and all the similar fibers.

The second group, or what we choose to 

call the regenerated cellulose fibers like lyocell 

and rayon or viscose but these two groups are 
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

biodegradable to nature.

The third group are the synthetics and 

to make sure that they are biodegradable, I believe 

that the certifiers need to have a certification 

program and soil biodegradable is the documentation 

needed and it's not just a single standard 

certification, it needs to be a full program like 

TUV Austria has.

The petition also mentioned binders and 

I think this should be accepted but no more than 

15 percent in the product.

With these options for the virgin paper, 

paper pots will be safe to use for organic crops 

and this is something that can be made today.

Ellepot has now one product based on 

the first two groups that I mentioned and this will 

cover most crops with six to eight weeks propagation 

time.

And including the third group, Ellepot 

can also produce paper which will probably cover 

a much wider groups of crops.

And I think that the discussion on paper 
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is actually important and I think the use of 

newspaper and recycled paper could use a new review, 

especially considering the amounts that are allowed 

compared to the amounts of use by paper pots. So 

that concludes my comments.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve, and then Sue.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Thank you for coming. 

Obviously the Crops Committee was looking for 

feedback from your industry and we've heard lots 

of comments that we don't want to make an annotation 

that's unachievable.

So how do you, we reference the ANSI 

standards or proposed referencing the ANSI 

standards for biodegradability. We might find a 

different word to use before I start down that.

And you referenced I believe some 

European standards. Those would be harder for us 

to reference --

MR. PEDERSEN: Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: -- as USDA, but do you 

have a, would the ANSI standards, would they work 

for you or are those, would there be something that 
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we could easily reference from the NOP that would 

be different than the ANSI standards?

MR. PEDERSEN: I think that would be 

the same. I think that the TUV Austria program 

uses references to both the ISO and the ASTM 

standards in their program. That's why I recommend 

a full scale certification scheme because they 

include a lot of certification schemes.

If you were to look only at any kind 

of standard looking at salt biodegradability, you 

would leave out the I think very important issue 

of toxicity in the soil which is also looked at 

in the certification scheme.

And I think other issues are important 

to look at the same time beyond the soil 

biodegradability.

And I think most of the standards, ISO 

or ASTM are having a similar build up and I know 

that one of the test institutes, OWS, supporting 

all these for TUV Austria also works in the United 

States.

So I think mentioning perhaps both type 
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of standards relating to each other would be 

feasible.

CHAIR BEHAR: Have you tried hemp as 

to replace some of the synthetic, the, you know, 

the third category that you were talking about?

MR. PEDERSEN: We have tried actually 

a lot of natural fibers and in the beginning we 

actually asked two of our paper suppliers, quite 

large companies, if they knew the difference in 

biodegradation time on natural fibers and they 

didn't.

It's not been an issue in the paper 

business. So we did our own testings and basically 

most fibers including the hemp fibers are 

practically gone within three to four weeks and 

will not hold together any type of paper product.

And that's too short a time period for 

paper pots because you need to have strength in 

the paper enough to move the pot after perhaps six 

to eight weeks and even sometimes more. And after 

that the paper must weaken and biodegrade but three 

to four weeks, that's too short time.
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The first product that we developed had 

that time span but we haven't had actually any 

customers really succeeding with using this. It 

degrades too fast.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. Asa?

DR. BRADMAN: This perhaps repeats some 

earlier information, but you mentioned an Austria 

standard for biodegradability of the fibers? I 

think you were referring to the synthetic portion 

of the paper.

Two questions related to that. One, 

what percentage is the synthetics and then two, 

do they really biodegrade?

I feel like in some of the discussion 

we've had today, we use the word degrade and 

biodegrade interchangeably and do we really mean 

biological degradation i.e., it's being consumed 

as an energy source for microorganisms?

MR. PEDERSEN: TUV Austria is a 

certification company and then they got different 

kind of schemes.

They got home compost, biodegradable 
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in the soil, industrial compost. And the scheme 

for the biodegradable in soil tests in a range of 

ways of disintegration but also biodegradation.

And the test method for biodegradation 

is measuring the CO2 and 90 percent biodegradation 

is measurable. The last ten percent will be 

consumed in other organic processes during the 

biodegradation. And it is biodegradation by 

microorganisms or whatever is in the soil and 

therefore it is entering the system of nutrients 

or whatever.

And the reason for mentioning this 

scheme is that it has a broader range of looking 

at the biodegradation.

And I think within this two year period 

that it works, gives actually a good documentation 

for the synthetic products that they will be 

biodegradable in soil because if you choose like 

biodegradable in home compost, it is a little higher 

temperature and that would not guarantee that it 

would work within two years at least in soil.

It may be like ten years. That could 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

be okay but we would like it to be biodegradable 

in soil because then we know we're on the safe side 

within two years.

CHAIR BEHAR: I have one last question 

and that is do you know if that this synthetic 

polymer that's used in biodegradable mulch, is that 

also being used in some of the pots, the paper pots, 

and that's one of the synthetics?

MR. PEDERSEN: Sorry, I think I missed 

on that one. Could you --

CHAIR BEHAR: There's a polymer that's 

used in biodegradable mulch or is it one of the 

synthetic fibers that's also then used in pots? 

Is it present in somebody's pots?

MR. PEDERSEN: Some of the materials 

are present but as I understand it, the standards 

testing document in the biodegradable mulch are 

the industrial which needs higher temperatures than 

you would find in the soil and they wouldn't make 

it for biodegradable in soil standards.

We use some of these industrial compost 

materials but we do not recommend it for use to 
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

plant out because that would not disappear in many 

years' time.

I think that the main certification to 

focus on would be biodegradable in soil and 90 

percent within two years because that would work.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MR. PEDERSEN: You're welcome.

CHAIR BEHAR: I think we are done, we're 

going, for now. We are not done though. So it's 

going to be a quick break, try to gain back. So 

it's 10:53. Everybody back by 11:00. I know you 

won't get back but let's try.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 10:54 a.m. and resumed at 

11:05 a.m.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next up is Dean 

Jefferson -- I'm sorry, Jefferson Dean. And on 

deck, David Hiltz. And after that, Mike Croster.

So, is Jefferson Dean in the room? 

There he is.

MR. DEAN: Hello. My name is Jefferson 

Dean. I'm an organic grain farmer from North 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Central Ohio.

I currently farm with my son and have 

been certified organic for 25 years. We farm about 

950 acres and I was an organic dairy farmer for 

13 years.

I have multiple issues to speak about 

today. The first being the origin of livestock 

and grazing rules.

I am disappointed that this is still 

an issue and disheartened by the negative effects 

of the slow action and lack of enforcement.

As we speak here today, small organic 

dairies continue to be forced out by oversupply 

and low prices brought on by massive operations 

taking advantage of the gray areas in poor 

enforcement.

This is not some theory of the future 

or some worst-case scenario. This is happening 

right now.

Yet, now we're talking about a new 

comment period for new producers, but the voices 

we really need to hear from are those that are of 
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the honest, small farmers who couldn't make ends 

meet, but they're gone.

Next, on the topic of honesty, we, the 

producers, need to know what we're planning. 

Genetic contamination of seed corn is a growing 

issue.

It is not unreasonable to ask for all 

seed corn to be tested for GMO with the results 

printed right on the seed tag. There's plenty of 

room on the tag. It's not a terrible burden. It's 

not expensive.

Every load of corn that I produce is 

tested for GE contamination before it can be 

unloaded. There's no reason that seed companies 

cannot provide the same testing before we take 

possession of their product.

Next, I need to make a point about 

innovation and progress. Farmers are some of the 

most innovative people in the world when we need 

to be.

Whether it's new equipment, processes, 

whatever, things start to change when there's 
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

incentive to do so.

However, when the standards are watered 

down to permit conventional techniques, there's 

no incentive and, therefore, no innovation.

Additionally, loosening regulations so 

the farmers can use questionable methods or 

materials harms the integrity of the USDA organic 

label.

No matter if it's considered gene 

editing or pesticide or origin of livestock, 

loosening regulations beyond the spirit of organic 

agriculture can have large and negative effects.

Organic farming is voluntary. It's not 

for everyone. If a farmer can't figure out how 

to farm within the rules, they can opt out of organic 

and they can farm conventionally.

I ask you to please consider the 

founding principles of organic first and foremost 

in any policy decision we make.

Please keep our standards strong and 

give our honest, innovative farmers the chance to 

provide products we're proud of to consumers who 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are proud to buy them.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: I heartily agree with 

everything you've said and thank you for taking 

the time to come here.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, and I agree. 

And I would have liked to have had that 

-- the genetic information on the seed tag, and 

I'm hoping that, in the future, there will be so 

many requests by farmers to find that information 

that they'll just --

MR. DEAN: That's not the way to go 

about it. We really need to force them to do it. 

Only half of them will do it. 

It's not a big burden on them. They're 

testing it anyway, you know. They can test it by 

lot and put it on the seed tag.

There's lots of information on the seed 

tag already. It's very simple. I don't 

understand why it's made to be such a big deal.

CHAIR BEHAR: Sue.

MS. BAIRD: I may be wrong because it's 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

been -- my terminology -- 110 years since I was 

over the Feed and Seed Program in Department of 

Agriculture in Missouri, but the seed tags are 

regulated by law.

It may be -- we need to look that up, 

but it may be actually prohibited for them to add 

another column to their seed tag, maybe.

MR. DEAN: Well, that's real simple. 

When you buy a bag of seed corn, there's a regular 

seed tag that has the germination and everything, 

and then there's another seed tag with whatever 

seed treatment is used, then there's another seed 

tag that has their label and their variety and 

everything.

Just add another seed tag to it. If 

that's a problem -- you know, it's not an issue.

MS. BAIRD: Yeah. You absolutely 

could add another tag, but you could not put it 

on the seed treatment tag. I do know that.

And I'm pretty positive you can't put 

it on the nutritional -- the statement for the --

MR. DEAN: There's already three or 
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

four tags on the bag anyway. You can just put 

another one on there.

MS. BAIRD: Perhaps.

MR. DEAN: You know, it's asking a lot 

for farmers to have to call the seed company, after 

they already got their seed, and give them the lot

number and say, what's the contamination, you know.

I'm ready to plant this and now I find 

out it's contaminated, you know, to the point where 

my crop's going to be contaminated. It's going 

to cost me, you know, a fortune.

What do I -- you know, what do I do then?

MS. BAIRD: I'm very sympathetic. I'm 

just saying legally we need to look at that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MR. DEAN: Thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: David Hiltz is up next 

with Mike Crotser and then Meagan Collins.

MR. HILTZ: Good morning, everyone. 

My name is David Hiltz. I'm the Director of 

Regulatory Affairs with Acadian Seaplants. We're 

a global manufacturer of products derived from 
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

marine algae, including Ascophyllum.

We appreciate the NOSB and the NOP's 

ongoing efforts to study the issues surrounding 

the use of marine algal materials as inputs into 

organic agricultural applications, and we thank 

you for the opportunity to once again comment on 

this topic.

It was a pleasure yesterday to listen 

to the four experts on the Marine Materials Panel 

provide information on this complex issue.

It seems there was good agreement on 

a number of points beginning with the importance 

of initial biomass assessments to establish the 

amount of algae in a given area.

Subsequently, it is important to use 

a conservative harvest plan with closed areas for 

ecosystem protection and minimum cutting heights 

for racks or harvest rotation for kelps to ensure 

that the algae can recover after harvest and any 

minor changes to the ecosystem are short-term.

Finally, harvesting activities in 

seaweed landing should be scientifically based and 
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

periodically audited by a third party for adherence 

to the harvest plans that are in place.

As you heard yesterday, many of these 

suggested conservation efforts are already in place 

for much of the commercial harvest of Ascophyllum.

This species has been shown to be 

extremely resilient and dynamic. It has evolved 

to be this way because it needs to survive in the 

North Atlantic intertidal zone of the coastline.

Daily tidal changes and storm actions 

have been shown to result in significant removal 

of biomass, yet Ascophyllum rapidly regrows and 

recovers from these natural losses restoring the 

habitat to stable levels.

As you have heard, annual harvest rates 

have been set to be less than the documented annual 

regrowth rates.

As a result of this conservative 

approach, we have seen long-term commercial 

applications of -- commercial harvesting of 

Ascophyllum in many global areas with little 

documented effects on the health of the resource.
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It is again important to consider the 

scope of the harvest when suggesting that 

significant quantities of a species are being 

removed by commercial harvesting.

In Maine, for example, the entire 

commercial harvest represents less than two percent 

of the scientifically estimated coastal stock of 

Ascophyllum.

In European countries such as Iceland, 

Norway and Scotland, the total harvest is 

approximately three to four percent of the total 

coastal biomass estimates.

Now, given that storms and wave actions 

have been shown to remove 30 to 40 percent of the 

Ascophyllum biomass on an annual basis, it is clear 

that the scale of the current commercial harvest 

is actually small.

As discussed yesterday, it is next to 

impossible to study every possible outcome to 

demonstrate that any activity shows no possible 

environmental impact.

However, there are numerous scientific 
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

studies that have concluded that the current 

Ascophyllum harvesting practice show no negative

impact on either the species itself or some of the 

associated fauna in the intertidal zone.

We encourage the NOSB and the NOP to 

carefully evaluate the evidence at hand to 

determine if there really is an issue with the 

current commercial harvesting of marine algae for 

crop inputs. Thank you very much.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you for coming and 

you speak to one species and in one geographic 

region, but there are a wide number of species and 

geographic regions that are used in materials. 

So, I just wanted to state that.

And then I've asked you before and I'm 

wondering if this is still true, because in public 

comments a year ago you stated that you would be 

open to the consideration of organic certification, 

but your written comments have subsequently 

expressed more caution for that.

So, I'm wondering if you might like to 
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

go back a year and reexpress support for organic 

certification.

MR. HILTZ: So, with regards to your 

comments, I'll respectively disagree with the first 

statement.

We are a global company. We harvest 

in Atlantic Canada, for sure. We also harvest in 

Maine. We also harvest in Ireland, Scotland and 

a number of other areas that we're investigating.

So, I would not -- so, I would disagree 

that we're a regional -- you know, we're giving 

a regional perspective here.

With regards to your second point, 

Acadian already has a significant portion of our 

commercial harvested certified organic for use an 

animal livestock input.

And as I had said before, it would not 

be unthinkable, if the rules are reasonable, for 

us to then extend that certification practice to 

all of our Ascophyllum harvest regardless of if 

it's going to livestock or to aquatic plant extract 

production.
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The challenge there gets back to the 

last point that I made that we need to have a 

reasonable approach there where a lot of the science 

that we have provided and shown suggests that we're 

not having an environmental impact.

But if there continues to be, you know, 

a demand to do more science and more science, at 

what point does that -- whatever rule becomes --

in place become prohibitive to a company obtaining 

that certification.

So, as long as the rule is reasonable 

-- like, for example, right now, if it was just 

a matter of applying the rules that you heard the 

group from MOFGA say they were applying yesterday, 

I don't think our company would have a problem with 

that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MR. HILTZ: Thank you very much.

CHAIR BEHAR: Next up, Mike Croster. 

Then Meagan Collins and David Suchoff.

I just want to remind people, too, if 

you have a PowerPoint, get it to Michelle way ahead 
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of time before your time to peak.

Go ahead, Mike.

MR. CROTSER: Good morning. I'm 

Michael Crotser, the Certification Manager at CROPP 

Cooperative. 

We appreciate the work at the NOSB and 

the NOP to support organic agriculture. Thank you 

for the opportunity to speak today.

My first comment will be about fish oil 

and gelatin. We support relisting fish oil and 

gelatin on 205.606.

CROPP Cooperative uses fish oil for our 

omega-3 supplemented whole and reduced fat milks. 

Omega-rich products are preferred by a large 

sector of our customers.

We use 606-listed fish oil because there 

is no organic source available. Our fish oil is 

a byproduct of fish meal production.

Utilizing recognized sustainable 

fishing standards will verify that production 

maintains or improves aquatic ecosystems.

If fish oil is removed from the list, 
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it would result in discontinuation of our products 

due to a lack of alternatives and this would have 

a harmful impact on our milk supply.

We also support relisting of gelatin. 

Gelatin is a functional ingredient in fish oil. 

The gelatin is sourced from Tilapia byproducts 

from commercial harvest.

The gelatin's function is to 

encapsulate the fish oil to reduce the fish smell 

and ease the handling of the powder product.

Gelatin encapsulation is a unique 

function when compared to using gelatin for food 

textures such as gummy bears.

My second comment will be about celery 

powder. We support relisting celery powder on 

205.606.

Over 25 percent of the organic meat 

company sales are products that contain celery 

powder.

We use celery powder in a variety of 

processed meat products. This includes hot dogs, 

meat sticks, landjager, meat bars, jerky, summer 
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sausage logs, deli hams, deli summer sausage, 

pepperoni, bacon and spiral hams.

Celery powder provides additional 

attributes to curing, including maintaining a pink 

color, providing flavor, suppressing pathogens and 

lowering the acidity of the finished product.

Removing celery powder from the 

National List will remove meat products from the 

organic market.

The Celery Powder Expert Panel convened 

for the spring meeting and spoke of work to find 

an organic alternative.

This work will continue with the USDA 

Organic Research and Extension Initiative Grant. 

This $2 million grant was awarded to Dr. Erin Silva 

at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and will 

focus on developing an organic alternative to 

conventional celery powder.

At this time, there are no alternatives 

to celery powder in cured organic meat. Please 

relist celery powder at this time to prevent 

disruption of organic commerce.
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Thank you for your time to speak today 

and your support to bring our organic products to 

market.

CHAIR BEHAR: Tom, and then Dan.

MR. CHAPMAN: We've heard other 

comments on fish oil -- I have a couple questions, 

but the first one will be on fish oil.

We've heard a couple comments on fish 

oil about heavy metal content. Can you speak a 

bit to how you monitor or control that, the fish 

oils you procure?

MR. CROTSER: Yeah. We primarily work 

with a supplier or a vendor that meets international 

standards for heavy metal levels and -- in the fish 

oils, and this is shown on spec sheets for the raw 

ingredient, the fish oil itself, and finally the 

powder that we use in our product for the various 

heavy metals that are disclosed on there.

If the board hasn't seen those spec 

sheets, I'd be willing to share those with the 

board.

MR. CHAPMAN: Thank you. And then I 
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

have couple celery powder questions.

First, a Jenny-style hypothetical 

question that she loves, but directed at you, if 

an organic shopper was, you know, at the meat case 

in the store and, you know, imagine we had already 

removed celery powder so we could not be making 

organic hotdogs, for example, do you think that 

consumer would opt for a non-GMO hotdog or just 

not buy a hotdog given the lack of an organic 

alternative?

MR. CROTSER: I think there is one 

section of organic consumers that always chooses 

organics, but I think hotdogs and some of these 

cured products are a little bit different.

They're really popular with kids and 

children and, you know, from my experiences, kids 

will always eat a hotdog, right? And I think the 

parents will want to try to accommodate that.

My kids are having a hotdog sale at 

school. They're buying our organic Prairie 

hotdogs for that. But I think if that wasn't 

available, they would still be having a hotdog sale.
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah. As a parent of 

young kids, I just want the kid to eat.

MR. CROTSER: Yeah.

MR. CHAPMAN: One last question.

I know FSIS, we've heard a lot of 

questions about that and the labeling of meat 

products -- processed meat products. It's heavily 

-- it seems quite heavily regulated and limited 

in what claims can and can't be made.

I was looking at some labels for your 

products and I notice you make a statement along 

the lines of no nitrate or nitrate-added except 

those naturally occurring in celery powder and sea 

salt.

So, it seems like, and correct me if 

I'm wrong, you're trying to disclose the maximum 

extent allowed by other regulations, the presence 

of nitrates and nitrites in the celery powder that 

you use.

Is that a fair statement?

MR. CROTSER: Yeah, that's the intent 

of the statement. Our consumers are very savvy 
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on organic products and they're aware of 

nitrate/nitrite issues. And so, we want to be 

transparent.

As a crop cooperative, as a marketing 

organic co-op, we've had a history of being fully 

transparent on our labels.

We choose to list everything, even 

processing aids, because that's the right thing 

to do for our customers and they want to know that 

information.

MR. CHAPMAN: Thank you. And then 

hopefully in the future you can help me solve the 

mystery of being able to find organic hotdog buns, 

because those seem commercially unavailable for 

some odd reason.

(Laughter.)

MR. CROTSER: Yes. Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dan.

DR. SEITZ: So, you mentioned that 

there's a sizeable market for dairy products 

fortified with fish oil, and I was just wondering 

if you had actually any numbers around that in terms 
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of percentage share of the market that chooses those 

types of products.

MR. CROTSER: Yeah. And I -- for those 

numbers, I think you could look back to my comments 

-- the CROPP comments that we made at -- back in 

Seattle.

We had them in this year's comments, 

but we were advised maybe not to share those quite 

so publicly.

But they were in the Seattle comments, 

so you could reference that to understand the value 

of the omega-fortified milk products.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MR. CROTSER: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Next up, Meagan Collins. 

Then David Suchoff and Dain Craver.

MS. COLLINS: Good morning. Thank you 

for the opportunity to make comments to the NOSB. 

My name is Meagan Collins and I am the ACA 

coordinator with the Accredited Certifiers 

Association.

We are a nonprofit educational 
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organization and our membership includes 60 

certification agencies that are either accredited 

by the National Organic Program or in the process 

of accreditation.

First, we would like to comment on the 

discussion document on paper to the Crop 

Subcommittee. Thank you for the work the NOSB has 

done on this.

The ACA supports the ultimate allowance 

of paper pots as a crop production aid listed at 

205.601(o).

We do not support verifying 

requirements for synthetic polymer fiber content, 

percentage of biobase and biodegradation.

Determining synthetic polymer content 

may be difficult, if not impossible, to measure 

and setting a synthetic polymer content threshold 

could result in a listing that does not actually 

allow for any products currently on the market.

This could also lead to inconsistency 

among certifiers and MROs as some require testing 

to verify requirements and others only require 
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

manufacturers to submit attestations.

While other aids such as seed tape 

collars and hot caps were considered, the primary 

focus for certifiers is allowing paper pots 

specifically.

The intent of a listing for paper pots 

is that it will allow for paper pots currently on 

the market which contain glues and synthetic 

fibers.

Second, we would like to comment on the 

proposal on the use of vaccines made from excluded 

methods to the Livestock Subcommittee.

The ACA would like the NOSB to 

deliberate more on commercial availability and 

consider any resources to determine equivalency 

and release those resources, as well as information 

needed by certifiers to enforce commercial 

availability requirements.

The apparent lack of resources 

available to the producer to determine whether an 

equivalent vaccine is available is a question of 

concern.
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It may be difficult for producers to 

determine what other vaccines that prevent the same 

disease are available and whether they are 

genetically engineered.

Many organic livestock producers may 

not have access to modern technologies to aid them 

in their search. Thus, we request that the 

subcommittee address these questions: Where can 

producers inquire about equivalent vaccines and 

do producers have the resources and technical 

knowledge to determine what an equivalent vaccine 

is and if it is produced through excluded methods.

Finally, another potential concern is 

the placement of the commercial availability clause 

in section 205.105 instead of on the National List 

at 205.603.

This could set a precedent for 

commercial availability for other things listed 

in this section. Thank you for your time.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: Thanks for your comments. 

So, I've asked everybody else and now you're here, 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

so do you think that the ACA could be a place to 

where some of this could be worked out as a group 

for vaccines, if you didn't think that's what I 

was asking about, but could the ACA kind of be that 

resource for the certifiers that have had so many 

questions about the vaccines?

MS. COLLINS: Yes. I think, you know, 

we could form, like, a working group and come up 

with the best practice for that, sure, but I think 

the questions about, you know, whether producers 

or even certifiers have the technical knowledge 

to determine equivalency is still going to be a 

question.

Like, what resources and documentation 

would the producer need to supply the certifier? 

Would it come from a vet, for example.

But, you know, like I said, I think ACA, 

as long as we're given -- provided those resources 

-- I know Harriet had mentioned earlier about 

poultry vaccines and only two are genetically 

engineered.

And so, we'd like to know where that 
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

information came from and if you -- if the NOSB 

can provide any of that information. 

CHAIR BEHAR: We will do that.

MS. COLLINS: I'm sorry?

CHAIR BEHAR: It's actually in the 

proposal.

MS. COLLINS: It's in the proposal. 

Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes.

MS. COLLINS: Was that through the USDA 

APHIS?

CHAIR BEHAR: Uh-huh.

MS. COLLINS: Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Good. Thank you.

MS. COLLINS: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Next up is David Suchoff, 

then Dain Craver. And after that, Brian Shevrin.

MR. SUCHOFF: Hi. Well, good morning. 

My name is David Suchoff. I am the assistant 

professor of organic production systems at North 

Carolina State University and I'm here to talk about 

the fatty alcohols used in organic tobacco.
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Now, to give you all just a little bit 

of background, we've been seeing an increase in 

sales of organic goods in our state since about 

2011.

In fact, in 2016, for the first time 

ever, we became one of the top ten states in the 

nation in terms of overall sales of organic goods.

In that year, we generated around $145 

million. And when you break it down, there are 

three key players; eggs, tobacco, and sweet 

potatoes. Those three accounted for 80 percent 

of the sales within that year.

We've also seen a similar increase in 

the amount of certified organic acreage. And more 

importantly, we've emerged as a leader in the 

southeast with regards to sales and production of 

organic goods.

And this is something we, as North 

Carolinians, as extremely proud of, but it's also 

something that we at the university are really 

trying to support as much as possible.

For example, my position at the 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

university is a newly developed position that was 

created specifically with the intent of keeping 

this upward movement going.

Now, let me be clear. The growth in 

organic agriculture has been on the back of organic 

tobacco.

This crop still affords our growers a 

decent profit margin that can allow them to weather 

some of the fluctuations or even losses associated 

with many of our other organic commodity crops.

And I'm here today because I'm extremely 

worried about what the loss of this product will 

do not just to the tobacco production, but to 

organic agriculture in our state.

I've spoken with a lot of farmers, and 

you all have heard from many of them, too, and what 

they say is that without this product they can't 

grow tobacco organically.

And it's not a matter of just finding 

another crop to fill that void, it's that they can't 

maintain their certification.

And so, we're going to see a huge step 
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

backwards in terms of sales, but, more importantly, 

in the amount of land that is certified organic.

And this is coming at a time when we 

finally have momentum in our state where we have 

a lot more sustainable practices that are really 

flourishing.

Now, we at the university have done a 

lot of research looking at alternatives, and what 

we have found is that there is nothing out there 

that is effective or economical or safe for our 

farmers to utilize.

And so, I'm here today to ask that you 

please allow for this product to be used in organic 

tobacco.

I think it's important that we go back 

to the foundations of organic agriculture, this 

idea of systems or a holistic approach to 

agricultural production, and in North Carolina 

tobacco is an integral part of the organic 

production system.

And so, with the loss of this product, 

it's not just going to affect tobacco in a vacuum, 
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

but it's going to have deeply and negatively --

profoundly negative effects on organic agriculture 

in our state. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. I think we 

might have used up all our questions.

(Laughter.)

MR. SUCHOFF: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next up is Dain 

Craver. And then Brian Shevrin and Emily Musgrave 

on deck.

MR. CRAVER: Okay. Good morning. I 

appreciate everything you guys do as a board. I 

know it's a lot of hard work and I'm just glad that 

you guys can come together and figure things out 

for all of us growers.

I am an organic apple grower from 

Washington State and I've been an organic grower 

for 27 years.

I also consult to help growers go from 

conventional to organic, and there are three 

products that I wanted to touch base on as they 

come up for the sunset review.
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The first one is hydrogen peroxide. 

We use that in our orchards. Mostly when we had 

our antibiotics taken away for fire blight, the 

disease started spreading more and more.

And what we use with this product is 

when -- the ways that we manage it are to go out 

and physically remove the fire blight infected off 

the tree. And so, in order to do that, we take 

loppers and we cut behind the infection.

Well, we could end up spreading the 

disease really bad if we don't disinfect our loppers 

after each cut. So, it's important for us to keep 

a clean set of loppers so that we can go in and 

not spread the disease more.

We also use it in operations where we 

have joint conventional and organic when we need 

to clean our picking bags after we've picked some 

kind of a conventional piece of fruit. It's 

important and it helps us with our washing and 

cleansing of the bags.

Horticultural oil is really the 

backbone of most organic growers. It's got so many 
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

uses in it.

I'll just break down a couple of them 

real quick. We use it to begin the season when 

we spray our trees in the dormant phase.

And what it does, is it will smother 

the eggs and it will kill the eggs of mites, leaf 

hoppers, any -- and which mites are pretty bad, 

so it pretty much takes all those out.

And then, also, we use it to help control 

pear psylla. It helps pretty much on that. It's 

about the only thing that we really have and it's 

also a -- we don't have apple scab, but I understand 

it's used in the apple scab-growing areas also.

The third one is the pheromones. I 

spoke last spring about the pheromones. I'm really 

passionate about it. 

I did the first original work back in 

Washington State in the late '80s with Dr. Jay 

Brunner.

And what we found, it was just a great 

way to go ahead and use it for protection for leaf 

rollers and for coddling moth.
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

What it does, is it confuses the moths 

and they won't be able to mate. Without this, the 

only really thing we have is a virus, which is CYD-X, 

and we're starting to see some breakdown of the 

virus that it's not holding up.

So, with that in mind, those three 

products, I really feel we need to keep those in 

the orchard situation so that we can keep growing 

wonderful organic fruit. Thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: No questions. Thank 

you. Thank you for coming from however far away 

you came.

MR. CRAVER: Washington.

CHAIR BEHAR: That is a long way. Take 

a butterfly. Ride the wings of the butterfly home.

Okay. So, next up we have Brian 

Shevrin. After that, Emily Musgrave and Pat 

Kerrigan.

MR. SHEVRIN: Good morning. My name 

is Brian Shevrin. I am a certification specialist 

from Vermont Organic Farmers. 

We're an accredited certifying agency 
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

up in Vermont, of course, representing over 800 

certified organic producers.

We'd like to extend our gratitude to 

the NOP for extending the allowance of paper pots 

for use on organic farms, and to thank the Crop 

Subcommittee for submitting a discussion document 

in a timely manner.

It's clear the paper pot transplanting 

system saves time and labor for small, organic 

vegetable producers, and that not being able to 

use this system would have an immediate negative 

effect on these organic farmers.

We're also thankful for the July 2019 

technical report on paper pots and containers. 

In our reading, this document confirms some 

important points about the synthetic additives and 

fibers included in the production of these pots.

These points from the technical report 

are as follows: PVA, PVAC, EVA and magnesium 

chloride, which are synthetic fibers used in paper 

pots, are allowed on EPA list 4B as inerts and 

pesticides already approved for use on organic 
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

farms.

Recycled paper products generally have 

a higher contaminate content than virgin papers, 

inks, dyes and other chemicals not applied to virgin 

paper will still be present in recycled paper with 

the highest grades of recycled paper being the ones 

that are free of impurities and contaminants.

Even when natural fibers are used, many 

of these will use various synthetic additives as 

binders, linking agents, et cetera.

Most, if not all, paper pots that are 

now commercially available use artificial fibers, 

as we have discussed.

Two specific ones mentioned are PVA and 

PLA. Both polymers have been considered by the 

NOSB in previous petitions both for the reviews 

on newspaper and recycled paper and as part of 

biodegradable plastic mulch.

In other words, all the synthetic fibers 

that are in use have been considered by technical 

reviews already.

So, based on this important information 
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

from the technical report, we strongly urge the 

NOSB to expand the allowance of paper products on 

the National List by including the following 

language: Virgin or recycled paper without any 

colored or glossy inks.

We do not recommend that any 

restrictions be placed on the synthetic polymer 

content, biodegradability or biobase content.

It is important that we solve this issue 

in a simple way, which is to expand the already 

accepted allowance of recycled paper as mulch and 

compost feed stock to include virgin paper and to 

expand its use in paper pots and all paper 

production aids.

Additionally, with my last little bit 

of time, I'd like to really reiterate and echo the 

comments from ACA'S representative earlier on the 

hemp clones and the clarification needed.

We're seeing a huge growth in the hemp 

industry in Vermont and, like the representative 

from ACA mentioned, we feel required by the letter 

of the law to allow for hemp clones even though 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it really exists in a gray area that we don't feel 

we should or we don't really want to allow. So, 

some clarification on that would be much 

appreciated.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Some questions.

So, given, you know, the annotation you 

apply for paper pods --

MR. SHEVRIN: Uh-huh.

VICE CHAIR ELA: -- but it would mean, 

you know, for what is currently there, but new 

manufacturers can come in and do something 

different.

So, how do we limit what they can do?

MR. SHEVRIN: That is a great question. 

I don't have a background in materials review or 

paper composition. 

I thought the representative who spoke 

earlier who is involved in the paper industry made 

some great points about the actual requirements 

that they are working with for what -- you know, 

what is needed for the functionality of the paper 
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

pot in that four to six-week window and the three 

different kinds of fibers that are involved.

So, I think some continued interaction 

with the paper manufacturers about whether they 

do want to include new synthetic fibers is needed 

so we're not just assuming that they're going to 

be, you know, throwing any kind of synthetic fiber 

in there.

So, open dialog would be my suggestion.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah. Just quickly, 

Brian, I wanted to thank you for the deep dive on 

the composition of some of these other materials. 

And the paper, that's actually one of 

the first times I realized that those things are 

registered. So, thank you. I was not clear on 

that before.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Thank you.

MR. SHEVRIN: Thank you so much.

CHAIR BEHAR: Next up, Emily Musgrave. 

Then Pat Kerrigan and Diane Wilson.

MS. MUSGRAVE: Good morning. My name 
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is Emily Musgrave. I'm the organic program manager 

at Driscoll's.

I would like to thank the NOSB for their 

unwavering efforts to uphold the regulatory 

processes of the National Organic Program.

My comments today focus on the continued 

allowance of the following materials for use in 

crop production, hydrogen peroxide, horticultural 

oils, pheromones, ferric phosphate, potassium 

bicarbonate and magnesium sulfate.

Additionally, Driscoll's supports the 

continued listing of the following products for 

handlers: citric acid, hydrogen peroxide, and 

peracetic acid, as these are all important 

sanitizers for organic facilities.

Driscoll's supports the continued 

listing of hydrogen peroxide for use in organic 

production on the National List.

Hydrogen peroxide is widely used by 

Driscoll's organic growers for cleaning irrigation 

lines and is essential for drip line maintenance.

Driscoll's supports the continued 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

listing of horticultural oils and pheromones for 

us in organic production as they are both critical 

tools for the organic industry as a whole.

Horticultural oils are an integral part 

of the IPM strategy as they kill fungal pathogens.

Driscoll's supports the continued 

listing of ferric phosphate in organic production. 

The vast majority of our growers use 

ferric phosphate as slug and snail damage is 

prevalent among berries.

Driscoll's supports the continued 

listing of potassium bicarbonate in organic 

production.

Potassium bicarbonate is an extremely 

important tool for controlling powdery mildew in 

strawberries.

Potassium bicarbonate is also a key 

input for the production of organic strawberry 

crowns at the new shoot level.

It would be prohibitive to produce 

organic planting stock in strawberries without this 
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

material.

Finally, Driscoll's supports the 

continued listing of magnesium sulfate as an 

approved material on the National List.

Magnesium fertilization is critical to 

plant health across all berry types although 

raspberries, in particular, are heavy magnesium 

feeders.

In the 2019 spring NOSB meeting, the 

board asked about the use of dolomite as a suitable 

alternative to magnesium sulfate.

Dolomite is not a suitable alternative 

to magnesium sulfate because it raises the 

alkalinity of the soils.

This is a problem because the majority 

of growers already have alkaline soils and water. 

this creates another issue because you would need 

to increase your acidification inputs.

We are reiterating what many growers 

and public commenters told the board at the spring 

meeting that dolomite is not a suitable alternative 

to this material and magnesium sulfate should 
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

continue to be relisted as a tool for organic 

growers across the industry.

I would like to thank the National 

Organic Standards Board and the NOP for this 

opportunity to comment today and for your 

consideration.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

Next up, Pat Kerrigan. Diane Wilson 

and Margaret Scoles on deck.

MR. KERRIGAN: Good morning. I'm Pat 

Kerrigan with the Organic Consumers Association. 

Family farm organic dairies are in 

crisis. Unfair and inconsistent interpretation 

by certifiers of existing standards has led to what 

OCA refers to as cow flipping, driving milk 

production up and organic milk prices down.

This is resulting in the continued loss 

for organic dairy family farms, the further erosion 

of their communities and the continued loss of 

consumer confidence in the integrity of organic 

milk and in the USDA organic seal.

While conscientious organic farmers are 
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

following prescribed production practices, huge 

factory farm dairy operations are exploiting 

onetime conventional dairy transition allowance 

to realize lower productions costs and reduce 

competition from real organic dairy farmers that 

have gone out of business.

The fact that the original origin of 

livestock rule was allowed to wither on the vine 

and that it took Senate Agriculture Appropriations 

Committee legislation to finally force the USDA 

to take action is an appalling embarrassment for 

the entire organic community.

The time has long passed for clear and 

fair regulations. Organic dairy farmers cannot 

wait for a second origin of livestock proposed rule 

and desperately need a final rule to be passed by 

the end of this year. OCA received 15,733 petition 

signatures on this.

Celery powder's use as a preservative 

in organic process needs to be prohibited in organic 

because of known health effects including increased 

risks of colorectal, stomach and breast cancers 
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and other known health dangers.

The U.N. FAO's international agency for 

the research on cancer has classified 

nitrate-treated processed meats as a known 

carcinogen.

Beyond pesticides, it simply states the 

use of conventional celery powder with amped-up 

applications of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer 

creates the same function and biological impacts 

as synthetic nitrates/nitrites as a meat 

preservative.

Organic celery powder does not have high

enough nitrate levels to kill bacteria resulting 

in the use of conventional celery powder and a 

labeling asterisk following the uncured and/or 

known nitrate labeling claim.

As Patty Lovera stated at Tuesday's NOC 

meeting, any time we add a disclaimer, we weaken 

organic.

This deception allows consumers' trust 

in USDA -- undermines consumers' trust in the USDA 

organic seal and further erodes organic integrity.
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

OCA has received 12,249 petition 

signatures and I know that Organic Eye has 3200 

signers onto their petition.

Regarding the proposed discussion of 

allowing GMOs into organic, OCA organic consumers 

are adamant that genetic engineering in all of its 

manifestations, old and new, continue to be 

prohibited in organic.

Keep the doors shut and locked. We 

received 27,940 signatures on this issue. Thanks 

for your time and that you all for your service.

Any questions?

CHAIR BEHAR: No. Thank you, Pat.

MR. KERRIGAN: Yeah. Thank you, 

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Next up, Diane Wilson. 

Margaret Scoles, Mike Dill on deck. Go ahead, 

Diane.

MS. WILSON: Can you see me?

(Laughter.)

MS. WILSON: Well, good morning and 

thank you for the opportunity to briefly review 
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the area of nutrients, vitamins, minerals on the 

allowed list of synthetics at 205.605.

I am Diane Wilson, the registered 

dietician and director of nutrition services for 

Nature's One.

Nature's One is the pioneer in pediatric 

enteral nutrition category and we introduced the 

first organic formula in 1999.

So, what is enteral nutrition? Some 

of you have heard us previously introduce this topic 

at other meetings, but it's worth looking at what 

exactly is enteral nutrition as defined by 

healthcare professionals.

It's nourishment through the 

gastrointestinal tract either orally or by tube 

feeding, either a tube through the nose or through 

the stomach, and it usually is used as complete 

feeding. 

These are for children, adolescents, 

adults, senior citizens like myself, who are unable 

to eat regular foods and have to use enteral 

nutritional support. There are over 300 medical 
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

conditions requiring enteral nutrition support.

The next slide shows that the Food and 

Drug Administration does not have a standard of 

identity nor regulations pertaining to enteral 

nutrition products.

However, the Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services clearly recognize the importance 

of enteral nutrition formulas providing complete 

nutrition.

This federal agency assigns what's 

called a healthcare common procedure coding system, 

HCPCS, known as "hic-pics."

And within the HCPCS area, which also 

includes medicines, medical devices, surgical 

procedures, anything medical that would be covered 

by Medicaid or Medicare, they have a special section 

called B-Codes. B, as in baby.

The B-Codes are for complete enteral 

nutrition products. For example, B4150 is a valid 

2019 HCPCS code for enteral formula defined as 

conditionally complete with intact nutrients, 

including proteins, facts, carbohydrates, vitamins 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and minerals, and must be included enterally --

or be fed enterally.

It also should be noted that if we don't 

have vitamins and minerals that are allowed in 

synthetic formulas, we will not have organic 

enteral formulas available to anyone.

So, the technical report also that was 

done in 2015 on the vitamins and minerals is not 

really complete and excludes several key nutrients.

So, I would encourage you to look at 

what really is being used in enteral nutrition 

formulas as a source of vitamins and minerals and 

that would be very helpful also.

CHAIR BEHAR: Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: Can you speak to some of 

the challenges of formulating enteral formulas?

MS. WILSON: The challenges are to make 

sure that you have the appropriate level based on 

age of the person and the medical condition.

So, it involves looking at the caloric 

content and making sure there's a balance of 

proteins, fats and carbohydrates, and the 
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

appropriate levels of each based on age and stage 

of development.

Same thing with vitamins and minerals. 

For vitamins and minerals, we often have to use 

a combination, for example, of sodium selenate to 

get the selenite mineral into the formula, and also 

sodium chloride.

So, it's a mixture of a variety of 

nutrients that need to be placed into the formula.

In addition to that, there may be --

another example would be iodine, you know. We 

might need a couple of different types of 

ingredients in order to get the iodine levels to 

the form that they are.

So, it's a complex process and has to 

be, obviously, meeting label claims. And so, the 

vitamins and minerals are absolutely a critical 

part of the process.

CHAIR BEHAR: Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Just another quick 

question.

Is it sold as a sterile product because 
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of the condition of some of these infants?

MS. WILSON: Powdered products are not 

sterile products, so the -- they are pasteurized, 

but they're not sterilized.

So, there are special precautions that 

have been developed by the American Society for 

Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition that specifically 

give you guidelines for how to handle a powdered 

enteral formula when feeding someone who is tube 

fed.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. Again, how do 

you pasteurize a powdered product?

MS. WILSON: If it's a dairy-based 

product, then the nonfat dried milk is pasteurized 

--

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay.

MS. WILSON: -- if it's dairy-based. 

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. But how about 

the other ingredients?

MS. WILSON: It would be the same thing. 

They all go through the same heating process.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. Thank you.
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. 

Margaret Scoles is next, then Mike Dill 

and Sandy Mays.

MS. SCOLES: Margaret Scoles, 

executive director, International Organic 

Inspectors Association.

Members of the board, thank you for your 

good work. We've already submitted written 

comments to you thanks to our brand-new IOIA policy 

committee which significantly expands our capacity 

to engage with this process. I won't repeat those 

comments.

I came to speak about something else 

altogether, a general comment to the CAC and to 

add the voice of inspectors.

I ask you to consider this: Every time 

you recommend a change to the regulations, even 

if it's small, such as verifying that producers 

try to get non-GMO vaccines when there aren't any, 

understand that those details roll downhill and 

end up in the lap of the inspector. 

Inspectors have to verify one more thing 
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

with the expectation that inspections won't take 

longer. That may be at the expense of big things 

that matter more.

I started inspecting 31 years ago before 

there was an NOP regulation, before OFPA and before 

IOIA.

Inspector training was not 

well-developed and inspection reports were one to 

two pages long, but we generally did rigorous 

audits, in/out balances and trace facts.

As we started inspector training, our 

first IOIA training was in 1993, we developed 

inspector training based on common best practices, 

we taught them that a minimum of three audit tests 

should be conducted.

The regulation, perhaps surprisingly, 

doesn't directly require in/out balances. This 

remains an opportunity for improvement.

The only reference inspectors can cite 

when they encounter problems in their in/out 

balances is 205.103(b)(2), which says records must 

be sufficient in detail as to be readily understood 
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and audited.

I am encouraged by how Dr. Tucker 

describes the proposed rule to be coming with more 

focus on audits.

We have been sitting on a ticking time 

bomb for years. We just didn't know the name of 

it until it exploded, Randy Constant.

This is a failure on all of our heads. 

Our system of managing organic integrity proved 

inadequate.

IOIA training is available for in/out 

balances in all three scopes, but training alone 

is not enough. We need regulatory change.

We, as a certification community, have 

reduced a critical element of inspection to the 

lowest common denominator.

In most cases, inspectors perform only 

one of each; one in/out mass balance and one trace 

back, no matter whether there's one product or a 

hundred and these audits may be flawed.

At the NOSB meeting 18 months ago, all 

of us were focused on stopping fraudulent imports. 
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

At the same time, the largest domestic fraud in 

the country had just happened.

We've had a time bomb go among us and 

the fallout is not done falling. Inspectors today 

take about the same amount of time as they did 31 

years ago, but inspectors are --

CHAIR BEHAR: Finish your sentence.

MS. SCOLES: Thank you -- expected to 

address incredibly more details in that time if 

we're going to do serious audits and be time 

effective.

Please consider this as you fine tune 

the standards.

CHAIR BEHAR: Margaret, I just want to 

make a point that the change in the vaccines was 

to try to make it more consistent between 

certifiers.

So, for independent inspectors who 

inspect, let's say, for months and also maybe 

another certifier who doesn't even check, it's a 

little confusing even for the inspectors to try 

to figure out should they be allowing GMO vaccines 
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

or not.

And so, we were just trying to make that 

consistent in implementation because --

MS. SCOLES: And as you know, we 

actually spoke in favor of it.

CHAIR BEHAR: So, we're not trying to 

make it harder. I think I'm hoping that it will 

make it even a little bit easier because each 

inspection will be covering the same information. 

Thank you.

Next up, Mike Dill, Sandy Mays and Jill 

Smith, in that order. Hello, Mike.

MR. DILL: Hello. Good morning. My 

name is Mike Dill and I'm the food safety and 

compliance manager for Organically Grown Company, 

a wholesaler and distributor of organic fresh 

produce.

This year, we are celebrating our 22nd 

year of being a certified organic handler. We're 

pretty proud of that.

So, along with working for OGC, I'm also 

the coordinator for OPWC, the Organic Produce 
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Wholesalers Coalition, where I get to work with 

and learn from the recipient of this year's OTA 

Leadership Award for Growing Organic Community, 

the wonderful and amazing Lynn Coody.

(Applause.)

MR. DILL: Congrats again, Lynn. We 

all owe you deeply for your contributions to the 

organic community.

Today, I'm going to keep my comments 

brief and give a couple minutes back to the agenda, 

but I felt it was important to thank the Handling 

Subcommittee and the rest of the board, of course,

for all you've done in the past several years.

We've had some very heavy topics that 

required a lot of careful consideration and 

thought, which will ultimately have a positive 

impact.

I'm referring most notably to the work 

on fraud prevention, supply chain integrity, that 

has kind of led to the enforcement rulemaking that 

we're anxiously awaiting.

So, as stated in our written comments, 
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we support the subcommittee's recommendations to 

relist citric acid, lactic acid, hydrogen peroxide 

and peracetic acid.

All four of these materials play an 

important role in keeping our food safe. Without 

them, and a few other materials used for food safety 

and sanitation, it would not be possible to provide 

customers and consumers with the safe food they 

demand and that the FDA requires of us.

Lastly, we want to thank the Board for 

taking a step back from last meeting's proposed 

comprehensive review of sanitizers for the reasons 

we shared in Seattle.

We appreciate this new approach and we 

are eager to learn more about alternative 

sanitizers that are safe for humans and are 

eco-friendly, but not so eco-friendly that they 

allow pathogenic organisms to survive.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Any questions for 

Mike?

Thank you, Mike.

Next is Sandy Mays, then Jill Smith and 
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Robin Hadlock Seeley.

MS. MAYS: Good morning. I'm Sandy 

Mays, partner and certification specialist at Wolf 

DiMatteo & Associates.

For the past 15 years or so I've been 

fortunate to observe the harvest of Ascophyllum 

nodosum in the Breidafjordur of Iceland.

It's a protected area located on the 

northwest coast, a large, shallow bay about 31 miles 

wide, 77 miles long.

It's a natural nursery for commercial 

fishes and crustaceans, which are major industries 

in Iceland.

If the harvest of Asco was doing any 

damage to the Breidafjordur, it would also be doing 

damage to these other industries.

There's no documentation of such 

damage. The Icelandic government, NGOs and 

commercial entities work to assess and protect this 

valuable resource.

The estimated Asco biomass of the fjord 

is anywhere from 1.2 to 1.8 million wet metric tons.
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Thorverk, a certified organic wild 

harvest and processor operation, holds a government 

license to harvest only 20,000 wet metric tons 

annually.

Based on the estimated biomass, they're 

harvesting around 1 to 1.5 percent of the total 

biomass.

This small percent of harvest doesn't 

even equal the amount of die-off of Asco plants 

or mother nature's destruction of the crop during 

the winter season.

Thorverk has been sustainably 

harvesting Asco for over 40 years and follows a 

rotational harvest program.

In the cold waters of the fjord, we found 

that Asco can be harvested every four years; 

however, this is rarely done. Okay.

Harvesting may be done in the same area, 

but not in the same beds. This would be a waste 

of time and money.

Some information I found that could be 

of interest to you, which was taken from an abstract 
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

published in World Agriculture in 2010, it says 

the global seaweed processing industry is estimated 

to utilize some 10 to 12 million tons of seaweeds 

annually sourced from wild harvest or cultivated 

in onshore and offshore farms. 

Wild harvest of seaweeds only accounted 

for about 4.5 percent of the total seaweed 

production in 2010.

While the cultivated seaweed production 

has grown by about 50 percent in the last 10 years, 

seaweeds harvested from the wild have declined 

significantly from about 1.2 million tons in 2000 

to about 0.9 million tons in 2010 and it's going 

down.

Imagine the harvesting of organic 

seaweed is so minute compared to what's harvested 

conventionally.

We at WD&A are hesitant to support the 

requirement that all marine algae used in organic 

production be certified organic and offer a simple 

solution: Require using organic when commercially 

available.
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This would address concerns about 

phasing periods to find sources of certified 

organic marine materials, change types of inputs 

used or having an adequate supply of certified 

organic aquatic products to meet the needs of 

organic crop production. Thank you very much.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: I have always been 

intrigued by the example of applying commercial 

availability across all areas, but in the case of 

seaweed, how would that work?

If I were a farmer and that rule were 

applied, how would I know that the seaweed species 

that I was looking for was organically available 

by one company and not another?

What kind of search process would be 

realistic or feasible for someone in my shoes to 

go through?

MS. MAYS: That's a good question, but 

it's like -- if I'm not mistaken about what your 

question is, it's like what everyone else would 

do while they were searching for an organic 
201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ingredient that's not commercially available. 

They would contact several different 

companies requesting organic seaweeds. And if 

they don't have them, they would use the 

commercially available conventional product.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: That makes sense for 

--

MS. MAYS: I like that smile.

(Laughter.)

VICE CHAIR ELA: Well, I'm just 

thinking through. I mean, it makes sense for seeds 

and, I mean, you know, we have that requirement 

for certain inputs.

MS. MAYS: Uh-huh.

VICE CHAIR ELA: But as farmers for 

agricultural inputs, fertilizers and a lot of these 

things, we're not required to do that. So, it's 

not quite analogous. 

You call up your distributor, you get 

a product and, you know, while we would like to 

use certified organic products, they're really --
202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it's not part of that system of ag inputs.

So, I agree with what you're saying, 

but it really is a different -- it really is 

different.

MS. MAYS: Really is different. Hm, 

I don't know how to answer that. I'm sorry, but 

if I do come up with an explanation or --

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Emily, short.

MS. OAKLEY: Just a really quick, easy 

way would be to require that all seaweed is --

(Laughter.)

MS. MAYS: I don't think there would 

be enough available. I really don't think there 

would be enough available unless we have a lot more 

seaweed harvesters manufacturing organic seaweed, 

you know.

MS. OAKLEY: Well, I think, you know, 

the people that we've heard from both on the webinar 

and the public comment, the majority of their 

harvested seaweed is certified organic for 

livestock use.

MS. MAYS: Uh-huh.
203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: So, it's a smaller portion 

that isn't certified organic for crop fertility 

input uses.

MS. MAYS: Yeah. Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MS. MAYS: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next up, Jill 

Smith and Robin Hadlock Seeley and then Harry Rice.

MS. SMITH: All right. Good 

afternoon, everybody. I guess we passed the 

morning mark.

I'm Jill Smith representing the Western 

Organic Dairy Producers Alliance and I'm also an 

organic dairy producer myself in the state of 

Washington.

I'd first like to thank you all for your 

work on the origin of livestock, we're glad to see 

progress on that, and also for the opportunity to 

comment today.

WODPA strongly represents --- or excuse 

me, strongly supports the proposed rule on origin 

of livestock and urges for an immediate publishing 
204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of a final rule to take effect immediately.

We must close the loopholes that are 

distorting our markets and jeopardizing the 

livelihoods of organic dairies.

The current role has left us trying to 

compete with those who use loopholes as standard 

practices in their dairy operations, leaving our 

members suffering from a disparity in their 

production costs.

We've seen a major influx of livestock 

transition to organic and have been in a milk 

oversupply situation with extremely depressed milk 

prices.

We're seeing lost milk contracts and 

a rapid loss of dairies while we're in this 

unsustainable position.

We have producers losing money on every 

pound of milk that they produce, and those who are 

hanging on are questioning their future in organic 

dairy if we don't bring about change.

Along with this rule we must also ensure 

pasture rules are adhered to and enforced without 
205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

exception.

We need uniform enforcement from 

certifying agencies to ensure this critical piece 

of organic dairy is meeting the highest standards.

Our consumers trust that their milk 

comes from cows who graze on pastures. The 

credibility of all organic milk comes into question 

if the grazing standards are not being met.

Continued training is needed to know 

certifiers truly understand dry matter intake 

methodologies and can recognize effective pasture 

plans. This is imperative for the uniform 

enforcement of the pasture guidelines.

We view vaccines as a vital part of our 

health plans and make our choices based on efficacy 

with disease prevention being a guiding principle.

Without encouraging the use of GMO 

vaccines, we realize the need does exist for some 

of them; however, we cannot put additional burden 

on producers to determine how vaccines are made, 

nor can we put this burden on our certifiers.

Vaccines can be difficult and 
206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

time-consuming to navigate, especially with adding 

layers to the current regulations.

We support further clarification on 

vaccines for producers and certifiers while 

avoiding the creation of barriers to this 

preventative component of our health plans.

Our vaccine options must be readily 

available with a clarified list that is swiftly 

updated to meet producers' needs.

As we look at synthetic substances 

allowed for use in livestock production, WODPA 

recommended the relisting of these products and 

sees each of them as being essential to organic 

livestock production. I'd be happy to answer any 

questions on those substances.

At the heart of everything we're 

discussing is organic integrity. We must not 

jeopardize consumer trust in the organic seal; 

however, we risk doing this without clarification 

of rules and proven consistent enforcement.

Thank you again for your work and the 

opportunity to comment today.
207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MS. SMITH: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: Sorry. I actually want 

to ask a question about iodine.

MS. SMITH: Sure.

MS. SWAFFAR: We hear from a lot of 

folks that we should annotate that for no NPEs.

Do you think there would be a sufficient 

supply that you could still use iodine if it is 

annotated?

MS. SMITH: You know, quite honestly, 

as a diary producer myself, we have not run into 

any issues with finding iodine without NPEs. 

And I think it's definitely become more 

of an industry standard for that to be the case, 

so we have not run into any issue with sourcing 

that product ---

MS. SWAFFAR: Thank you.

MS. SMITH: -- for teat dip. 

CHAIR BEHAR: Dan.

DR. SEITZ: The U.S. Secretary of 
208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Agriculture had stated that, in America, the big 

get bigger and the small go out.

I don't think, in America, we --- for 

any small business we have a guaranteed income or 

guaranteed probability and I'm just wondering if 

these rules were enforced for pasture dry matter 

intake, if the origin of livestock rule was 

promulgated, do you think that small dairies could 

compete?

MS. SMITH: I think they can be more 

competitive than they are. We have other issues 

within the organic dairy industry that do limit 

possibly the success of some of the smaller dairies 

as we have very few processors to market our milk 

to, for one, and they're looking for efficiencies 

in their hauling of milk, you know.

There are still problems that are going 

to exist with small producers. And I think that 

is the same in any industry, you know, as we continue 

to look for efficiencies.

So, I do think this will make them more 

competitive and I think, you know, it also keeps 
209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

these people who really built consumer trust in 

organic dairy products, it keeps them in this market 

and they represent organic dairy like nobody else 

can.

So, we are giving them more power if 

we clarify these rules and get rid of these 

loopholes and try to create that level playing field 

that we talk about.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MS. SMITH: Great. Thank you, guys.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next up is Robin 

Hadlock Seeley, Harry Rice and Ernie Peterson out 

there in the audience, they are coming up.

DR. HADLOCK SEELEY: Good morning and 

---

CHAIR BEHAR: Hold on one second. I 

think we are working on a PowerPoint. Okay. So, 

we're going to go until 12:30, see how far we catch 

up, and then we will have a shorter lunch.

So, next up --- let's just change the 

page here --- Harry Rice and then we'll go back 

to Robin. Go ahead, Harry.
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: Thank you. My name is Harry 

Rice and I am with the Global Organization for EPA 

and DHA Omega-3s, or GOED for short.

We represent the worldwide industry for 

EPA and DHA, the primary long chain omega-3 fatty 

acids found in fish oil.

Our membership is built on a quality 

standard unparalleled in the market and our mission 

is to increase consumption of EPA and DHA and to 

ensure that our members produce quality products 

that consumers can trust.

GOED appreciates the work of the NOSB 

Handling Subcommittee in reviewing fish oil this 

year as part of the 2021 National List sunset 

review, and we support the Handling Subcommittee's 

recommendation that fish oil be retained on the 

National List.

Consumers who prefer organic products 

should have access to products made with 

nonorganically produced fish oil, since organic 

fish oil does not currently exist, and won't exist 

until such time that the National Organic Program 
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

adopts production standards for aquaculture. 

I'd like to touch on three areas very 

quickly. Number one, contaminants. In the U.S., 

there is no mandatory standard for fish oil with 

limits on contaminants; however, GOED maintains 

a voluntary monograph with limits on contaminants 

based on some of the strictest global regulations.

While the monograph is voluntary, it 

is mandatory for GOED members, which means that 

all major fish oil manufacturers are complying with 

the limits of the monograph.

In addition to the GOED monograph, GOED 

executes a randomized testing program to help 

ensure that its members are complying with the 

limits of the monograph.

Number two, sustainability. GOED 

supports the Handling Subcommittee's plan to work 

on the annotation for the fish oil listing in order 

to address sustainability concerns and ensure that 

fish oil is compatible with organic practices. I 

refer you to our written comments for annotation 

suggestions.
212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

GOED believes that protecting our 

oceans and natural resources is paramount. It is 

not only good environmental stewardship, but also 

ensures sustainable growth for the omega-3 industry 

as a whole.

Fortunately, most of the fisheries from 

which fish oils are sourced have either been 

certified or are currently pursuing certification 

for sustainability.

While GOED supports sustainable fishing 

practices, it's important to note that there is 

no fish species in the world that is caught 

primarily for human fish oil production.

Fish oil is always a value-added 

byproduct to fish meal or seafood production 

because the protein's value is much greater than 

that of the oil.

Number three, technical report. As 

mentioned in previous written and oral comments, 

GOED is very concerned about the quality of the 

March 2015 technical report for fish oil being 

relied upon by the Handling Subcommittee.
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

GOED thanks the Handling Subcommittee 

for acknowledging some of our input from our prior 

comments, but there remain a number of incorrect 

statements from the technical report that continue 

to be quoted in the subcommittee's document. 

I refer you to our written comments for 

a more detailed explanation, but GOED respectfully 

requests that future sunset reviews of fish oil 

not rely on the March 2015 technical report for 

fish oil.

In conclusion, GOED encourages the NOSB 

to retain fish oil on the National List. Please 

do not ever hesitate to contact GOED with any 

questions related to fish oil or any other EPA/DHA 

product. Thank you for your time and your tireless 

efforts.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you. I don't see 

any questions --- oh, there he is. Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: Are you able to speak at 

all to the GOED heavy metal limits and compliance 

with Prop 65 in California?

MR. RICE: So, we have heavy metal 
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

limits for four different heavy metals. I can tell 

you that our members are complying with those 

specific heavy metals.

We haven't gone through and picked out 

all of the heavy metals that are present in 

Proposition 65 and had our members provide analyses 

on those. So, I can't really speak to that.

MR. CHAPMAN: Thank you.

MR. RICE: But I will add that I have 

no reason to believe that they wouldn't be in 

compliance.

MR. CHAPMAN: Thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MR. RICE: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Robin, are we ready? It 

looks like --- okay.

DR. HADLOCK SEELEY: Thank you. Good 

morning and, first, a huge thank you to the NOSB 

for tackling the issue of protecting wild native 

marine ecosystems over the past four years.

I come here directly from the coast of 

Maine to be a reality check on what's really going 
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on in Maine now and in the near future for seaweed.

In the inset on this slide you'll see 

the take of seaweed has gone up 340 percent since 

2002 in Maine, and 95 percent of all the seaweed 

landings in Maine are one wild harvested species, 

rockweed or Ascophyllum. 2018 was the biggest take 

of all at 22 million pounds.

Next. As rockweed harvest spreads each 

year to new places that have virgin stands of 

rockweed, more and more of the Maine coast is turned 

from the plant on the left, which is a tall rockweed 

plant with a flowing canopy, to the hedgy form on 

the right which has been cut and is trying to regrow 

with lots of side branches and no canopy.

The problem is that shore birds like 

the willet, up in the upper right-hand corner, 

depend on that rockweed canopy that's floating high 

above for habitat. 

Next. Maine has virtually no cutting 

regulations for rockweed along 98 percent of its 

coastline, only a 16-inch cut height regulation 

and no limit on biomass removed.
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Next, please. Maine does have the 

Natural Resources Protection Act which, for 

everyone in Maine but rockweed harvesters, 

regulates rockweed beds as coastal wetlands and 

critical wildlife habitat. 

Why don't rockweed harvesters have to 

follow the NRPA rules? They get a waiver from NRPA 

requirements if they hold a commercial seaweed 

license.

Additionally, and alarmingly, Maine 

very soon will likely have no limits at all on 

rockweed cutting.

I've been told that the Marine 

Commissioner believes that because rockweed has 

been declared recently a private resource by the 

Maine Supreme Court, the state likely cannot 

regulate this private resource at all. 

Next. And because of this court 

decision, taking rockweed without permission, as 

Acadian Seaplants harvester boats and others did 

this past harvest season, is illegal.

Nature conservancy preserves and other 
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

conservation areas were cut and the situation right 

now is chaos.

So here are my recommendations. One, 

we can stop arguing about whether this habitat is 

under-harvested, over-harvested or just-right 

harvested; whose science is good science or bad 

science or no science; whether the impacts are 

significant or whether there are no impacts at all.

By simply following the logic and the 

lead of state and federal agencies that already 

protect rockweed, there's no need to reinvent the 

wheel here.

If seaweed harvests are held to the wild 

crop standard, and they should be, if permitted 

at all, a marine version of that standard will have 

to be written.

After a lot of thought, I support going 

the certification route. I also support the 

formation of a task force to consider guidance for 

important habitat-forming species, wherever they 

are, ecosystem engineers like rockweeds and kelps. 

Thank you. 
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you for coming and 

for coming a long distance.

I am curious that you are in favor, after 

a long consideration, of supporting organic 

certification because I know in the past you haven't 

been.

Could you elaborate a little bit further 

on your thought process on that?

DR. HADLOCK SEELEY: Yes. It was 

discussions held with others who know more about 

these things than I do, about the enforcement 

capability of certification and the lack of any 

enforcement ability in annotation, if I'm 

understanding the terms right.

One of the problems we have right now 

on the water is simple enforcement and to add 

another thing to the mix that would have no 

enforcement power just seems pointless.

CHAIR BEHAR: I have a question. Is the 

coast supported by any other federal laws or 

oversight?
219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. HADLOCK SEELEY: NOAA identifies 

essential fish habitat, or EFH, for each species 

of fish that it regulates.

And the one that involves rockweed is 

the juvenile cod, because they recently extended 

their jurisdiction not just out in federal waters, 

but up through the intertidal zone.

So what I've told you is just about cod, 

but that's just because the juvenile cod are using 

the rockweed. 

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Robin.

Next up, Ernie Peterson. 

MR. PETERSON: Hi, Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: My chicken feed guy. And 

then John Hendrickson and Elijah Dean on deck.

MR. PETERSON: Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: In southwest Wisconsin 

everybody knows Ernie.

MR. PETERSON: Is that good or bad? 

Probably bad.

So, thank you guys for your dedication 

because --- pardon me. Okay. Okay. But thank 
220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you guys. I know it's a lot of dedication and ---

I may even ask you to help. Thank you.

I'm Ernie Peterson, Cashton Farm 

Supply, and we were first certified in 1988. Focus 

has been on poultry. In '96 we went completely 

organic.

And Harriet, I was thinking it was about 

25 years ago you had your flashlight looking 

underneath pallets for mice, and she's thorough.

The reason I'm here is to beg for 90-some 

producers that you continue with the present 

DL-methionine rule that you have.

We serve probably the greatest share 

of those people at 2,500 or 10,000 birdhouses and 

there's some up to 20,000 birdhouses.

They're committed to the outdoor access 

and birds on soil and all those people certainly 

support the new rule.

I also would like to mention that we're 

part of the DL-methionine task force and been part 

of several studies on either lowering the DL or 

no DL. And I think, you know, you guys have heard 
221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the results and arguments on that.

For myself, from '76 to '84 I worked 

for Ralston Purina Company. From '84 to present 

I've been at Cashton Farm Supply and most of our 

emphasis is on poultry, of course.

I've read a lot of the public comments 

that were sent in this year and a lot appear to 

be a form letter. When I've looked at rations, I 

can't find any poultry rations out there that did 

not have DL-methionine.

The reason I wanted to bring some slides 

--- and I brought four slides --- the only point 

I wanted to make, that if we take a slide and if 

I would put a ration profile together for birds 

that were in the early part of the lay period, up 

to like 35 weeks, we would be short methionine with 

a corn soy. If we would then add --- and I don't 

know if anybody else can see these --- if we would 

then add some small grains, we would be even shorter 

yet.

Once we get into a mid-lay period, we 

have plenty of methionine with two pounds per ton. 
222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So the present program you have is one that we can 

nutritionally support these birds.

I think without methionine, you guys 

know the effect. I mean, there's pecking, we have 

dead birds. They're very cannibalistic. We're 

going to have to feed more protein, you know.

You've been to barns, you know the 

ammonia problems, you know, Harriet, that comes 

along with it, the environment, what we do, and 

then the carbon footprint for more soybean meal.

I was in Denmark this summer and, you 

know, that's --- at Aarhus where they're trying 

to extract DL-methionine.

They've certainly proven that you can 

extract some from a fresh legume, not dried or 

fermented.

We're going to be able to get some, but 

we're never going to be able to replace 

DL-methionine with any extraction method.

And I even met my clock. I guess, really 

in the summary I'm asking you to continue the 

present DL-methionine law, not to punish these 
223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

producers, the farmers, the birds or the 

environment. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: I have a question.

MR. PETERSON: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: So I do quite a few 

organic inspections and in your area, as you know, 

and I ask the poultry producers, you know, where 

are you getting their feed? They say, I'm getting 

it from Ernie.

And then I say, well, have you worked 

out a system to make sure that over the life of 

the bird it will not go over the two tons?

MR. PETERSON: Two pounds.

CHAIR BEHAR: And so, we're have a 

little trouble out in the field verifying that. 

I'm wondering if you are offering various levels 

--- I know you offer starter grower and then laying 

mash, but I'm wondering if you offer a feed towards 

the end of the chicken's life when they need a little 

less methionine just to make sure that those 

producers that are buying feed from you are meeting 

the ---
224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. PETERSON: Correct. You know, and 

our mill, of course, is computerized, so obviously 

it's very technical on what they got. So the 

records are easy, the audit is easy, okay.

When you take a bird that gets out to 

that 65-week area, we have an advantage now these 

birds --- we're going to have a 100-week bird, but 

people are pushing those birds out into the 80 

weeks.

So when we take this 60-plus-week bird, 

we can drop that methionine to a pound and that 

is adequate for those birds, Harriet. They have 

no trouble meeting that.

And, yes, we do have a challenge with 

producers, as you know. Where's the feed tags? 

Where's the invoice? They don't know.

So we certainly know that we have to 

be providing that information and making sure 

they're changing.

We've had a little bit of a problem 

communicating with the pullet grower to make sure 

that we know the DL-methionine levels if we do not 
225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

grow those.

And we understand that we have --- you 

know, we emphasize that with these --- whoever is 

buying the pullets, they have to have those records 

so we know intake on that.

It's going to be a challenge with intake 

with the new breeds coming up, you know. You take 

some of these Lohmanns and the Tetras that don't 

like to eat versus a Bovan or the Hy-Line where 

we have higher intake. Those are very easy to meet 

that two pound.

The new genetics are going to make it 

a little bit tougher, but it's still acceptable. 

I don't know if that answers your question or if 

I went way too ---

CHAIR BEHAR: So you are offering kind 

of late-life laying mash that has less methionine 

in it?

MR. PETERSON: Correct. Yes, we are.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

MR. PETERSON: Yes. And trying to keep 

records so the auditors will be happy and we ---
226

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

they can be happy and we can support this.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MR. PETERSON: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Ernie.

MR. PETERSON: See, I get out of here 

quick at dinnertime.

CHAIR BEHAR: No food for the wicked 

up here.

Okay. So next is John Hendrickson, 

another person I know, and Elijah Dean on deck with 

Marisol Oviedo after that. And that may be the 

last one before we go to lunch.

Go ahead, John.

MR. HENDRICKSON: John Hendrickson, 

Small Farm Works, importer and seller of paper chain 

pots.

I'll start with my personal experience. 

Paper pots have been in use on my organic farm 

since 2006. I was indeed the very first one in 

America to use this product.

I've seen no buildup of paper refuse 

or deleterious effects of using paper pots in those 
227

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

13 years. Decomposition is complete, from a visual 

standpoint, within two growing seasons well before 

two years.

The issues raised by the proposed 

annotations in the discussion document are complex 

and there are pros and cons to the various 

annotation approaches.

On the one hand, the biodegradable 

standard --- biodegradability, I'm not the only 

one that's tripping over that word --- standard 

for paper products might be considered preferable 

over stating a maximum percentage of synthetic 

fiber that can be used, given that unknown amounts 

of synthetic fibers could be present in recycled 

papers and recycled paper products.

However, as has been noted by members 

of the Board, the apparent availability of purely 

synthetic polyester-based papers whose 

manufacturers claim biodegradability is certainly 

problematic.

So while a biodegradable standard is 

a sound idea, I would recommend that perhaps the 
228

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

annotation limit the use of paper to bio-based or 

cellulose-based paper.

The base ingredient in the paper chain 

pots that I use and sell is cellulose-based, 

unbleached craft pulp paper.

I would also say that the existing paper 

chain pots that I use and sell could comply with 

a standard of no more than 15 to 20 percent synthetic 

fiber.

The manufacturer of the paper pots that 

I sell is committed to replacing synthetic fibers 

with natural fibers to create paper pot products 

specifically for organic farmers.

The time line for introduction of a 

paper pot using hemp fiber is scheduled for the 

2021 growing season.

It had been hoped to have a hemp paper 

paper pot product in time for the 2020 growing 

season, but --- and I say this with good humor ---

not unlike the organic standards petition review 

process, product testing and development takes 

time.
229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The company remains committed and 

confident they will be successful and have a product 

by the 2021 season.

Finally, I've said this before, but I 

believe the issues raised by paper pots are 

extremely minor in comparison to the use of plastic 

mulch and flimsy, ultimately disposable, plastic 

planting pots, products whose usage is vastly 

greater in magnitude and which are destined for 

a landfill. 

I still have 30 seconds. Should I do 

a song and dance?

CHAIR BEHAR: Any questions? 

Questions for John?

I just want to make sure, so the vinylon 

is a cellulose-based ---

MR. HENDRICKSON: I did not say that.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- fiber?

MR. HENDRICKSON: I did not say that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, okay. Because you 

said that it was ---

MR. HENDRICKSON: The paper.
230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, the paper part was 

cellulose-based, but then there's 15 to 20 percent 

synthetics which would be like the vinylon. Okay.

MR. HENDRICKSON: Correct.

CHAIR BEHAR: Jut trying to get that 

straight.

Steve, did you have --- you're thinking 

about a question here?

VICE CHAIR ELA: So, yeah. I keep 

trying to wrap my head around it. I mean, I know 

the cellulose and paper is synthetic because paper 

is synthetic. There's a cellulose-based, more 

synthetic fibers that are --- I mean, that help 

provide some of the structure, and then there's 

just noncellulose-based fibers.

But in your pots, are they all 

cellulose-based or are there --- I mean, some of 

them are more refined than others, I guess, but 

are there, like, essentially plastic fibers in 

those pots as well or ---

MR. HENDRICKSON: There's currently 

vinyl -- in the currently commercially available 
231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

product, there's a product called vinylon.

VICE CHAIR ELA: And is that 

biodegradable?

MR. HENDRICKSON: Vinylon --- I 

actually prepared for this question because I knew 

it would come up.

The synthetic fiber in the existing 

paper chain pots, called vinylon, is made from 

polyvinyl alcohol, or PVA.

PVA is recognized as one of the very 

few vinyl polymers susceptible to ultimate 

biodegradation by microorganisms.

Accordingly, increasing attention is 

being devoted to the preparation of environmentally 

compatible PVA-based materials for a wide range 

of applications.

I'd also note that while vinylon in most 

places is manufactured from petroleum products, 

in North Korea it is made from anthracite and 

limestone as raw materials, not petroleum. So, 

it's actually possible to make it without 

petroleum.
232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: You said anthracite?

MR. HENDRICKSON: Like coal, correct.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Coal. Okay.

MR. HENDRICKSON: Yeah.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Thanks, John.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thanks. I think that's 

it for questions for you. I think we're getting 

hungry. So thank you, John.

Elijah Dean, Marisol Oviedo and that 

might be it before lunch. Okay. Thank you. Go 

ahead.

MR. DEAN: Hello. My name is Eli Dean. 

I am an organic grain producer in northern Ohio 

at Timberlane Farms with my father.

We have 550 certified acres and another 

400 in transition. This is our livelihood and we 

work all season to make that happen.

I'm here today to discuss an important 

topic, one that is affecting both today's 

discussion and the Board's broader policy 

direction. However, it's a pretty subtle issue and 

its effect is easy to miss.
233

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Meeting time. The NOSB has meetings 

in the spring and in the fall when the majority 

of farmers are the busiest.

Producers are perhaps the most vital 

of stakeholders in the organic movement, yet 

something as seemingly trivial as the date of the 

meeting significantly discourages us to attend.

The only reason that I am able to be 

here today is the exceptionally wet spring and late 

planting. I would normally be in the midst of 

harvest.

During planting and harvest, we have 

extremely long hours and making the travel and 

attending these meetings is very, very difficult. 

This is the precise situation of many 

farmers that my father and I have spoken to by phone 

since arriving here in Pittsburgh, farmers that 

have opinions and would like the opportunity to 

be here to voice those opinions, but they're far 

too busy with harvest to do so.

This is an ongoing issue that has been 

mentioned many times by myself, my father, and I 
234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

know that my certifier, OEFFA, has for years been 

including meeting date as a concern in their written 

submission, and yet the 2020 meetings have already 

been scheduled in the spring and in the fall.

Some producers have even said that they 

feel we are being intentionally excluded and that 

the NOSB and NOP really don't care what we have 

to say and don't want us here.

I'm not asking for money. I'm not 

asking for a shift in policy. All I'm asking is 

that meetings be held when farmers can attend them.

So please, let me ask, can the date for 

the first meeting of 2021 be set for February 17 

through the 19th or is there some major issue 

preventing the selection of an equitable meeting 

date? Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I recognize the issue. 

I'm a farmer. I mean, we're finishing harvest 

as I speak.

But having served on another board that 

was farmer-driven as well, we found that nearly 
235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

--- depending where you are in the country, there's 

always something being harvested. So, these 

meeting dates affect you, but if you schedule later, 

then people in the south or people in California 

or --- you know, there's just different cycles.

And so, it's hard to --- in my 

experience, it's really hard to not exclude some 

farmer group, but I hear the pain and I totally 

get that. 

Are the webinars not accessible? I 

mean, that, to me, is the best way for somebody 

that can't travel to take, you know, 30 minutes 

or an hour and a half to give comments, you know. 

We all listen. It's a -- you know, it's an oral 

back-and-forth. Do you feel like they're not as 

effective?

MR. DEAN: I agree with your point and 

I agree that finding a single meeting time that 

works for everybody is extremely difficult.

Fortunately, the NOSB is having two 

meetings a year and I think it is reasonable to 

request that at least one of those meetings be 
236

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

scheduled so that farmers in different areas of 

the country have an opportunity to attend.

And as to the webinar, I agree, very 

useful and very helpful. However, I feel that 

being here in person has a significantly greater 

impact and I would like the opportunity for more 

farmers to be able to do so.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Yeah. I also just want 

to reiterate if a farmer wants to come and observe 

the meeting and participate in the full process, 

they can't do that over the webinar. So, I was 

wondering if a September and March meeting time 

might be feasible?

MR. DEAN: March would be preferable 

for us, preferably towards the beginning of March, 

but, yes, that would be better than the current 

meeting schedules.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

MR. CHAPMAN: Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, sorry. Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: Let me just --- so you 
237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

walk away with some knowledge, part of the challenge 

is they need to be --- they fairly well need to 

be set off from each other by six months.

There's --- we have to submit our 

proposals to the program about two months before 

the meeting date to get it churned through. So, 

from the last meeting, that's only four months of 

time to work on issues. 

And then, to be honest, because we have 

other jobs and lives, generally, the month after 

a meeting not much work gets done. So, we really 

have a three-month window. And if you don't set 

those off by six months, then one of those windows 

gets really tight and it's very difficult. It's 

already very tight between now and the spring 

meeting because of holidays as well in there.

So, it's just --- it doesn't answer your 

answer, but I hope you can at least bring that back 

to explain to folks that there needs to be a 

six-month setoff and then maybe other days would 

work better than the ones we have right now. 

I'm not arguing with that, but there 
238

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is a bit of, like, work timing issues that happen.

MR. DEAN: Yeah. I understand the 

difficulties. It would be greatly appreciated if 

something along the lines of maybe February and 

August, or something like that, would be considered 

to make progress on this.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MR. DEAN: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Marisol Oviedo, 

and I just wanted to ask if Lee Frankel, Julia Barton 

and Peggy Miars, is it okay with you to go after 

lunch or do you have to do it before we go to lunch?

I see Peggy saying it's fine. Fine. 

Lee, fine. Okay, good. All right, Marisol.

MS. OVIEDO: Okay. Hi. I'm Marisol 

Oviedo with the Northwest Horticultural Council 

out of Yakima, Washington.

The Northwest Horticultural Council, 

or NHC, represents growers, packers, and shippers 

of apples, pears, and cherries in Oregon, Idaho 

and Washington on federal and international policy 

and regulatory issues.
239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

While the NHC submitted written 

comments on a number of invaluable tools for organic 

tree fruit growers and handlers, I will be focusing 

my oral comments on the need to allow the continued 

use of ammonia-based soaps, magnesium sulfate, and 

peracetic acid in the National Organic Program.

In many ways, the Pacific Northwest is 

an epicenter for organic pome fruit production in 

the United States.

Washington State is a national leader 

in the production of organic apples, pears, and 

cherries. Over 18 million boxes of organic apples 

are now harvested from more than 28,000 acres 

amounting to over 90 percent of the entire organic 

apple crop in the United States. There's also a 

significant amount of organic pears and cherries.

Ammonia-based soaps are used to deter 

and repel unwanted browsing by animals like 

rabbits, deer and porcupine that can cause damage 

to the tree and drip line irrigation.

EPA studies show that ammonia-based 

soaps undergo a rapid degradation in the 
240

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

environment and the agency lists ammonia soaps 

under the lowest possible toxicity classification. 

They are used on an only as-needed basis by organic 

tree fruit growers.

Magnesium sulfate is used as a soil 

amendment to improve nitrogen and phosphorous 

levels in the soil. This, in turn, improves root 

health of the tree prompting crop growth and health. 

Magnesium sulfate is a vital tool in organic soli 

management. Nearly all of our organic growers use 

this product.

Peracetic acid is used as a sanitizer 

or disinfectant for cleaning the packing house and 

for water sanitation to prevent 

cross-contamination.

Chlorine, electrolytes, water, and 

ozone are the only other widely used sanitizers 

permissible under the National Organic Program and 

reliance on a single sanitizer can lead to evolution 

of resistance of pathogens. Nearly all of our 

organic tree fruit growers use this product.

I understand that the NHC will also be 
241

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

considering the discussion document related to 

future consideration of sanitizers. We emphasize 

a critical need for organic growers, packers, and 

processors to have access to multiple effective 

sanitizers, both now and in the future.

The number of food from pathogen 

outbreaks related to fresh produce has increased 

in recent years and cross-contamination of produce 

from food contact surfaces has been identified as 

a primary contributor. Access to effective 

sanitizers is vital to preventing food from 

pathogens from becoming established in packing 

houses.

The ability to rotate sanitizers as well 

as the use of different sanitizers and orchard tools 

versus packing house food contact surfaces is 

necessary to prevent pathogens, in addition to 

implementing regulations for the Food Safety 

Modernization Act, FSMA, that are now in effect.

On behalf of the growers and packers 

we represent, the NHC strongly supports the 

continued use of these vital tools for insect 
242

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

control and plant health. We ask the members of 

the board to support the continued listing of these 

products as they are critical for production --

organic production.

Sorry, I am getting hypoglycemic. I 

am so hungry.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. So, you said 

that almost all growers are using magnesium 

sulfate, is that correct?

MS. OVIEDO: I'm sorry?

MS. OAKLEY: Did you say almost all 

growers are using magnesium sulfate?

MS. OVIEDO: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: Okay. And so, the 

annotation allowed with documented soil 

deficiency, could you just help elaborate for me 

to understand the soil deficiency that so many 

growers are experiencing?

MS. OVIEDO: I don't have the exact 

deficiency. I can certainly get that for you after 
243

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this meeting.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Thank you.

MS. OVIEDO: All right.

CHAIR BEHAR: So, we had three people 

before lunch that we're going to push off to after 

lunch.

We had an hour and a half scheduled for 

lunch, and so I'm going to truncate that back to 

an hour and 15 minutes, but we will start here 

promptly at 2:00 p.m.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 12:44 p.m. and resumed at 

2:02 p.m.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Great. Thank you. I 

hope everyone had a good lunch. Our first speaker 

is on deck and ready to roll, Lee Frankel. And 

next up is Julia Barton. And after that, Peggy 

Miars.

MR. FRANKEL: Okay. All right. Thank 

you very much. Good afternoon. My name is Lee 

Frankel. I'm the Executive Director of the 

Coalition for Sustainable Organics.
244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

First off, I wanted to thank all of the 

NOSB members for their time and dedication to the 

industry, and particularly those that have served, 

kind of, full five-year terms. I do realize that's 

a lot of work and I appreciate all that you've done 

and all that you've been able to teach me since 

I've been participating in these meetings.

I did want to make some comments 

regarding the June 3rd memo from USDA. I think 

my major concern is that we --- the industry is 

feeling like it needs to use, kind of, false 

information and kind of fake charges in order to 

try and spur USDA to take action on issues that 

are of importance to us.

I followed up with the Florida grower 

that was kind of highlighted, and a lot of the other 

groups that were saying that there's a problem with 

the policy and, you know, that grower verbally told 

me that he's never used glyphosate on that property, 

that he, you know, did not plate his land and didn't 

change any of the contours of the land prior to 

putting his blueberry pots on there.
245

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, again, I recognize your frustration 

as well. I have lots of questions for USDA 

regarding kind of what's allowed or what's not 

allowed, but, you know, hopefully we can find other 

ways of getting USDA to respond without resorting 

to information that isn't necessarily true for that 

producer. 

The other kind of item I'd like to, kind 

of, bring up and warn the NOSB and maybe the industry 

in general, I worry that, you know, I guess I heard 

a lot of people saying, well, we need to manage 

the supplies and, you know, supplies are increasing 

too fast because of containers, but, you know, I 

guess we also have these unintended consequences, 

you know. 

Here's the most recent 52-week data and 

it seems like there's obviously other factors 

happening in the market at any time that explain 

what's happening or not, but I guess the --- you 

know, we cut off the supply, but prices didn't 

suddenly increase and I guess this is at the retail 

level rather than the farm-gate level, but, again, 
246

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you know, just to, you know, the industry may not 

be as interested in promoting and expanding the 

category, now that they feel like their supply 

options are cut off.

The other kind of hypothetical I did 

hear was, you know, can a producer be organic, then 

become nonorganic, and then kind of switch back 

to organic quickly, and I sort of see that there 

is some inconsistent applications, you know.

Most of the seedling facilities, you 

know, will kind of produce whatever is needed, but, 

you know, there is, you know, in the nonorganic 

product, they do use nonorganic potting soil for 

the mix and there is some runoff that hits the floor, 

but it's not really impacting the actual organic 

integrity of the next organic seedling batch that 

might come through and use the same space. So, 

thank you very much.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you for your 

comment. I just wanted to clarify that there was 

a letter from Americert International on April 26 
247

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of this year following our meeting, stating that 

they had not been applying the three-year 

transition period to crops grown in containers.

So, it wasn't like a hypothetical and 

maybe it wasn't happening with someone that you 

contacted, but there was absolutely a certifier 

who was not following the three-year transition 

period in container production.

MR. FRANKEL: And I can --- I grant you 

that point that, you know, people aren't waiting 

the three years, but I guess the reasons why, I 

guess, I was hearing from the industry that we have 

to revisit that practice is that because people 

are spraying glyphosate and immediately certifying 

right after spraying that.

And so, again, we can have our debates 

as to whether the earthworms in the pots were 

crawling out from the soil, so we need to be 

concerned, or if that was, you know, part of the 

worm castings in the potting mix and so they're, 

you know, kind of not interacting with the soil 

below and why do we need it or not. But, again, 
248

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

let's have that debate, rather than kind of talking 

about chemicals that aren't being sprayed or land 

practices that aren't happening.

MS. OAKLEY: Well, I guess just to reply 

to that, I think that when I read the regulations, 

I don't see any except or when that there --- there 

aren't any exceptions, that it's just something 

that all certified organic producers go through. 

It's a hallmark of how we produce.

MR. FRANKEL: Okay. Thanks. I can 

see the question or where there could have been 

confusion because it states, on land, and many 

growers feel like they're not producing on land 

if they're raised up off the ground or in the NFT 

channels producing leafy greens that, you know, 

don't have contact, or in aquaponic systems that 

are not interacting with the ground immediately 

below the production.

MS. OAKLEY: So, are you aware of 

production systems or producers that are not going 

through the three-year transition period in those 

systems?
249

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. FRANKEL: I guess prior to the memo 

I was aware of people -- or people getting certified 

in a newly constructed facility without a land use 

history.

MS. OAKLEY: So, do you think that 

following the memo there are not people growing 

in greenhouses, that you're aware of, and you --

your coalition members?

MR. FRANKEL: All the seedlings that 

almost all the growers are using are coming from 

facilities not following the three-year transition 

period currently. So ---

MS. OAKLEY: And they're certified 

organic?

MR. FRANKEL: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: So, can I ask a question 

to the Program?

I know that Jenny had mentioned 

yesterday that she was going to offer additional 

clarification on that. So, maybe this would be 

a good time to do that.

DR. TUCKER: I'm going to allow all the 
250

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

public commenters to speak, just like we did 

yesterday, and I'm happy to make a closing statement 

after the public comments.

MS. OAKLEY: Do you want me to follow 

back up with you on that or you'll be ---

DR. TUCKER: I defer to the Chair on 

how she wants to handle that process ---

MS. OAKLEY: Okay.

DR. TUCKER: -- at the end of public 

comment.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: So, I had a question about 

this slide where you said that the price of tomatoes 

had dropped. Was that because there was less 

volume -- or the sales had dropped. Was there less 

volume of organic tomatoes?

MR. FRANKEL: I think as producers, you 

know, saw a path forward that they can, you know, 

take a greenhouse structure, pull out all the 

equipment, install new, clean equipment, new 

substrate, new pots that -- you know, they felt 

like as demand increases, they can go into a 
251

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

production system fairly quickly.

I think, you know, now, I mean, some 

of those producers are saying, you know, maybe we 

don't want to spend a lot of time and effort 

promoting a category that even if demand does pick 

up, there is kind of no easy way to expand 

production, or no quick way.

CHAIR BEHAR: So it was, the volume 

decreased?

MR. FRANKEL: So, the volume basically 

stayed flat and, you know, but prices still 

decreased.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. 

MR. FRANKEL: So, we didn't get the 

anticipated thing of, as we limit supplies or as 

we can kind of pull up the ladder on new operations 

getting certified, you know, we're not seeing, kind 

of, the surge in prices.

CHAIR BEHAR: And you think that's 

related to the memo that stopped people from using 

glyphosate without a three-year transition?

MR. FRANKEL: I think it's kind of based 
252

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on, maybe, commercial producers having a different 

look at organics and maybe feeling like, you know, 

regulations and interpretations of regulations can

change or if they're kind of so cloudy, you know, 

this is not the place to invest a lot of time and 

money into the industry.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MR. FRANKEL: You're welcome.

CHAIR BEHAR: And nobody else? Thank 

you, Lee.

MR. FRANKEL: Thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next up, Julia 

Barton, then Peggy Miars. And after that, Eli 

Chandler.

MS. BARTON: Good afternoon. My name 

is Julia Barton with the Ohio Ecological Food and 

Farm Association.

Thank you to the Board for your service, 

and to the program for your work, and for the timely 

publishing of the meeting materials. That really 

helps us to do our work.

Transparency is one of the foundational 
253

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

values of the organic movement, and one we discuss 

a great deal at these meetings. There are three 

items related to transparency that I'd like to 

discuss with you today.

The first has to do with the results 

of the National Organic Program's peer reviews. 

In the organic certification process, an issue of 

concern that is identified at inspection, and is 

reviewed and agreed with by the certifier, follows 

an organic operation until it has been fully 

resolved.

Similarly, a noncompliance issue to a 

certifier is made public for the whole community 

to see and certifiers, much like producers and 

handlers, are required to submit a plan to correct 

that noncompliance, and that plan of correction 

is followed up on at the following audit until it 

has been resolved. We'd like to see that same sort 

of process for the Program.

The results of NOP peer reviews must 

be made public so that these can be followed in 

a constructive, continuous manner by the community 
254

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and, most importantly, the future peer reviewers, 

so that issues of concern are resolved.

The accountability and transparency 

that we request of producers and certifiers must 

also be reflected at the National Organic Program.

Similarly, we request this same sort 

of reciprocitous transparency in the grain seed 

industry. The agenda item, genetic integrity 

transparency of seed, draws us back to this term 

and this value.

It baffles us, then, when after six 

years of discussion and proposals for pilot 

projects and work towards information gathering 

and potential thresholds, that we read a proposal 

to the community for certifiers to tell producers 

that if they so choose, they can call their seed 

companies and ask for the genetic content of the 

seed after they have purchased it.

The seed companies have information 

which they are only willing to share upon request 

upon further effort made by the producers who, as 

we know, are already making so many efforts on the 
255

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ground to protect their crops from genetic 

contamination.

This proposal does not make substantive 

forward progress. We urge you to please take it 

back to subcommittee, utilize input from both 

producers and seed companies and to increase 

transparency for the people responsible for growing 

our food.

Finally, we'd like to see transparency 

and increased control for the National Organic 

Standards Board regarding its work agenda.

The National Organic Program is 

currently so involved and we'd like to have clear, 

transparent public reasoning when an item is 

removed from the work agenda, such as the hydroponic 

and container agenda item that we just discussed 

with Lee. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave, then Dan.

MR. MORTENSEN: Could you elaborate on 

the value of NOP being more open with the results 

of these peer reviews? I'm not that familiar with 

what that achieves. Thanks. 
256

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BARTON: Yes. Thank you, Dave. 

Thank you, too, for your comments yesterday, your 

reflection. I found that really compelling.

I think this is --- it's about 

transparency. It's about this value that we all 

say that we think is important. And I thought I 

explained it pretty clearly, that we'd like to just 

see the same process that we have kind of flowing 

downstream to flow back upstream.

So, there are many people in this room 

who understand the peer review process far better 

than I do and I've learned a great deal from them, 

but I think it's not a complex issue for all of 

us here to understand why it would be important 

for issues of concern that are identified in the 

National Organic Program audits to be continuously 

followed up on over time. 

Just as they would be for a producer, 

just as they would be on our farm if we receive 

a noncompliance, we have to submit a plan for how 

we're going to correct it. Our certifier has to 

approve that plan and then, you bet your boots, 
257

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

at our next inspection that will be followed up

on to see whether or not we achieved that plan of 

correction. That then goes back to the certifier 

and is reviewed.

If we don't have a public process for 

the Program's peer review audit, it's not clear 

to me how the community, which is, I think, in the 

seat of trying to hold --- we're all in the seat 

of trying to hold each other accountable, right?

But, also, how would those peer 

reviewers be able, from session to session, just 

like an organic inspector --- IOIA-trained 

inspector would do at an organic producer 

inspection, how would they be able to follow up 

with the program on those issues that are identified 

over time? I think it's kind of a no-brainer.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dan.

DR. SEITZ: Nicki, this is another 

question about transparency, but on a slightly 

different subject.

MS. BARTON: I'm Julia.
258

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SEITZ: I'm sorry. Okay.

MS. BARTON: That's okay.

DR. SEITZ: But you're from Driscoll's?

MS. BARTON: No, sir.

DR. SEITZ: Okay.

MS. BARTON: I'm from the Ohio 

Ecological Food and Farm Association.

DR. SEITZ: Okay. I apologize.

MS. BARTON: Unless you have a job offer 

you know about.

(Laughter.)

MS. BARTON: Just kidding.

DR. SEITZ: Okay. I don't have a 

question. I thought you were from Driscoll's.

MS. BARTON: If you'd like to discuss 

containers, I think we have a lot to discuss given 

that last testimony.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Julia.

MS. BARTON: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Peggy Miars, then 

Eli Chandler and Tina Jensen Augustine.

MS. MIARS: Good afternoon. My name 
259

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is Peggy Miars. I'm the Executive Director and 

CEO of the Organic Materials Review Institute, 

affectionately known by many in the room as OMRI.

OMRI is a nonprofit organization 

established by certifiers and organic stakeholders 

in 1997 that achieved ISO accreditation in 2008, 

which we've maintained since then.

OMRI is recognized as a material review 

organization in NOP interim instruction 3012, which 

states that certifying agents may consult with OMRI 

for crop and livestock materials, as well as for 

materials used in organic handling. The OMRI 

products list is a directory of over 7,000 input 

products that we have reviewed and determined to 

be compliant for use in organic production and 

handling.

My brief comments today are intended 

to address some issues and concerns that were raised 

as some materials have been discussed during this 

meeting.

For example, there was a question about 

who would be responsible for enforcement related 
260

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to production of marine materials used as crop 

inputs. While OMRI is not an enforcement agency, 

our review program staff and external review panel 

members are experts in material review for organic 

crops, livestock, and handling.

Although I am not as technically 

knowledgeable as those individuals, I am confident 

that given appropriate guidance on review criteria 

OMRI could review marine materials to determine 

organic compliance, including conducting field or 

site inspections, and adhering to any restrictions 

or annotations.

You've also been discussing vaccines 

developed using excluded methods. OMRI does not 

currently list any vaccines. Again, given 

appropriate guidance on review criteria, OMRI could 

review vaccines to determine organic compliance, 

including reviewing confidential manufacturer 

information, while also considering restrictions 

or annotations. This way, the manufacturer only 

has to provide confidential information to one 

organization and OMRI bears the burden of 
261

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

monitoring ongoing compliance.

The Livestock Subcommittee's proposal 

even mentioned OMRI saying manufacturers of 

vaccines not produced through excluded method 

technologies could choose to be OMRI listed as well.

I know that time is of the essence when 

it comes to animal health and vaccines. While our 

review times vary based on a number of factors, 

for the last seven months our immediate initial 

review times have been two months. So, if OMRI 

can assist with information, research or writing 

beyond our regular work of reviewing brand-name

inputs, we stand ready to help the organic 

community.

Thank you for your ongoing work to 

uphold organic integrity.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily, and then Ashley 

after that. 

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you so much for your 

clarifying comments on an annotation and the 

ability of material review organizations like OMRI 

to potentially, both review, and monitor and do 
262

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

onsite inspections for an annotation.

How might that work for materials that 

choose not to go through OMRI certification, or 

any certification, and are naturals that, you know, 

would fall, sort of, not through the cracks, so 

to speak, but don't necessarily have a prerogative 

to go through a material review organization?

MS. MIARS: So, you're asking what OMRI 

would do in a situation like that?

MS. OAKLEY: Well, not what OMRI would 

do, but, for example, as a farmer, if we did an 

annotation rather than organic certification, I 

could look for OMRI-listed products that were 

natural soil conditioners that didn't include any 

synthetics and just included seaweed inputs, but 

there might also be products with that same category 

that didn't go through the OMRI review that were 

still supposed to adhere to the annotation. How 

would I, as a farmer, determine that they had, in 

fact, adhered to the annotation?

MS. MIARS: Okay. I think in that 

instance, most likely then the certifier would have 
263

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to do the review, and our technical staff is 

available to answer any questions that certifiers 

may have related to that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: So, I've been thinking 

about that OMRI and doing the vaccine and stuff, 

but I kind of worry about that just a little bit 

because, what if the vaccine manufacturers won't 

go through that process? We don't want to limit 

the toolbox of an available tool, and then there's 

the whole commercial availability piece of the 

vaccine.

Do you think OMRI could help in that 

area of --- because it's not just, here's the two 

vaccines. One's made from excluded methods and 

one's not; so, you have to use that. There's the 

form, quality and quantity piece that we put in 

there. Does OMRI have any solutions on that piece 

of it?

MS. MIARS: No. I think the certifier 

would have to be responsible for that.

MS. SWAFFAR: Thanks.
264

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Go ahead, Asa.

DR. BRADMAN: I have a question about 

OMRI and inerts. On your website you note there's 

two CAS numbers related to NPEs that you won't 

review. And I'm curious if --- what clarification 

you're waiting for and would that be helpful to 

you?

MS. MIARS: I think that's a technical 

question that I would refer to Tina, who's going 

to be up in two speakers.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: And just to comment, if 

we could start working on the vaccines, it would 

be very similar with OMRI. Everything on the OMRI 

list --- products list is approved, but not 

everything that's approved is on the OMRI products 

list.

MS. MIARS: Correct.

CHAIR BEHAR: So, it's not going to be 

the comprehensive list that the certifiers are 

requesting, but it's a start, and we already are 

in this world with many materials.
265

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. MIARS: Right. Yeah.

CHAIR BEHAR: You list potting mixes 

and --- but not every approved potting mix is on 

that list.

MS. MIARS: That's correct, if they did 

not go through OMRI.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yeah. Thank you.

MS. MIARS: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next up is Eli 

Chandler. Tina Jensen Augustine is after that, 

and then Chris Grigsby.

MR. CHANDLER: Good afternoon. My 

name is Eli. I'm the Operations Manager for 

Thorvin. We're the organic seaweed folks. I'm 

here today to talk about marine materials. I 

appreciate the Board's time and efforts in looking 

into this issue.

I could bore you with all of our 

sustainability, but I think you've heard way too 

much of that already. In listening to this 

discussion over the past day, I've concluded that 

it's --- in my humble opinion, it is a conversation 
266

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that is similar to the old conversation of 

conservationism versus preservationism.

And the best example I can think of for

that is a discussion that occurred the turn of the 

last century with Gifford Pinchot and John Muir, 

and luckily our president at the time established 

both the National Forest and our National Parks.

So, I would be hesitant to follow a 

preservationist mentality because the end result 

of that, in my opinion, would mean no cultivation 

of anything whatsoever and allowing most of our 

farmland to go back to native forests, or prairies, 

or whatever their original biome was.

So, Thorvin is not opposed to the 

organic certification of seaweeds for inputs. We 

would like to see it applied universally to all 

inputs, versus the single ingredient, and feel that 

the idea of applying commercial availability to 

fertilizer inputs overall is a more uniform 

approach to the principle of continuous improvement 

in the organic industry. And that's all I have.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.
267

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: So, Thorvin has long been 

certified organic. Were you the first certified 

organic?

MR. CHANDLER: No, there were other 

certified organic sea vegetables. I believe we 

were one of the first for use in commercial 

agricultural applications, yes.

MS. OAKLEY: So, my question is why you 

chose organic certification before the livestock 

feed requirement, when maybe there wasn't an 

economic benefit to it or isn't as great of one.

MR. CHANDLER: Well, agriculture is not 

our only market. We also work in human-use and 

specialty markets. So, that was part of the 

rationale.

The organic certification was a 

verification, at that point in time, of the quality 

of the material, the cleanliness of the site and 

the sustainability of the harvest.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thanks for your 

comments. You were citing some folks that helped 
268

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

frame your thinking about how we're approaching 

the marine issue. And I've, over the last year 

or two, come to realize that I think what we're 

trying to do there is consistent with Richard Hobbs' 

book, Novel Ecosystems.

MR. CHANDLER: Okay.

MR. MORTENSEN: And that's the idea --

the thinking that we're trying to retain ecosystem 

services of value to a healthy ecologically sound 

marine ecosystem, while still be disturbing it and 

--- so, that's the thinking.

So, I don't think we're trying to hold 

onto a past ethic or philosophy that's somehow 

outdated, but actually looking forward and 

recognizing that when we go in and cut things, 

whether it's trees or algae or whatever, there is 

a legacy from that disturbance, and we're trying 

to figure out how to do that in a sustainable way.

MR. CHANDLER: Thank you. I 

appreciate that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Hi. Thank you for being 
269

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

certified.

Tell me, are you certified to the wild 

crop harvest standard? And if so, how do you 

determine and document that you are meeting the 

standards you have to maintain the culture -- or 

the colony of that wild crop harvest?

MR. CHANDLER: Okay. So, the harvest 

that Thorvin is involved with is the harvest that 

Sandy Mays was talking about earlier in Iceland 

in the Breidafjordur, northwest Iceland.

The documentation is based on the 

Icelandic Marine Fisheries Institute's 

recommendations. They estimate between 1.2 and 

1.8 million metric wet-tons of product. They have 

issued the harvester we work with a license to 

harvest 20,000 wet metric tons, which is 

approximately 1 to 1-1/2 percent of the estimated 

biomass.

Now, what you have to realize about 

Iceland, I think somebody earlier referenced that 

Asco is a cod nursery. Cod and langostino fishing 

is two of the biggest industries in the country 
270

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of Iceland. 

So if the Asco harvest that has occurred 

there for going on 40 years was having a negative 

impact on either one of at least those two species, 

which are much bigger industries and much more 

important to the economy there, the government 

regulators would have slowed it down or stopped 

it entirely.

CHAIR BEHAR: Go ahead.

MS. BAIRD: Yeah. I appreciate you 

telling me that Iceland has a standard as well. 

We were kind of --- at least I was, maybe others 

had more knowledge, but I was --- I've heard that, 

you know, Maine had a standard that other people 

--- that maybe other countries did not.

So you're saying that they actually ---

all countries, or at least Iceland as well, has 

standards that they have to adhere to.

MR. CHANDLER: The vast majority of 

harvests of rockweed, that I'm aware of, have some 

sort of regulatory body at the governmental level 

that is responsible for establishing a threshold 
271

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of what they can harvest and how it can be harvested.

And it's a complex system, of course, 

because you're dealing with an entire biome, but 

---

MS. BAIRD: Thank you for that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MR. CHANDLER: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Next up is Tina Jensen 

Augustine. And I think we're about 40 minutes 

behind, just so everyone knows.

MS. JENSEN AUGUSTINE: I'll try to keep 

it brief.

Good afternoon. My name is Tina Jensen 

Augustine. I'm a senior technical coordinator at 

OMRI.

Thank you to the Board for the 

opportunity to comment today. I'll be addressing 

the topics of marine materials and paper pots.

The OMRI products list includes 

approximately 3,800 crop fertilizers or soil 

amendment products.

Of those, 29 products are listed in the 
272

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

category of nonsynthetic aquatic plant products, 

another 100 are listed in the category of aquatic 

plant products synthetically extracted, 60 

products are listed in the seaweed and seaweed 

products category, and 20 products are listed in 

the kelp meal category.

These numbers are not necessarily meant 

as a cumulative tally of distinct OMRI-listed 

products that are or contain marine algae since 

they may represent some rebranding or shared 

ingredients, but I wanted to provide them just as 

a point of reference. OMRI currently has four 

products listed for crop fertility that are 

certified organic marine algae.

In general, OMRI supports the 

development of standards to ensure the sustainable 

harvest of seaweed. That said, from a material 

review perspective, these kinds of standards would 

be fairly unique. There's no other input material 

that has review requirements relating to 

environmental sustainability.

High-nitrogen liquid fertilizers are 
273

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a class of input product that do have special review 

requirements. They are singled out by the Guidance 

5012 as needing special review. In a similar 

fashion, ensuring the sustainable harvest of marine 

algae will necessitate new review requirements that 

are indicative of environmental harm or lack 

thereof.

OMRI therefore encourages the NOP to 

identify clear, consistent parameters that an input 

supplier, inspector or other designated party can 

measure and that material reviewers can evaluate. 

These parameters should be accessible over a 

reasonable time frame and also identify any need 

for ongoing monitoring.

Now, regarding the paper pots petition, 

OMRI requests that the NOSB clearly define what 

constitutes a paper pot. Such a definition should 

differentiate between the plant-derived cellulose 

lignin and starch components that are synthetically 

processed into paper, and the types of synthetic 

additives identified in the technical report such

as binders, strengtheners and reinforcement 
274

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

fibers.

OMRI feels that a clear definition will 

facilitate the review of these materials. OMRI 

does not think that the proposed Annotation A, 

virgin recycled paper without colored or glossy 

inks, provides sufficient clarity. The criteria 

in proposed Annotation B also have their 

challenges, as have been discussed.

A requirement for 100 percent bio-based 

content will result in a situation similar to that 

of biodegradable mulch stone; however, OMRI 

considers that a minimum bio-based content or limit 

on the synthetic polymer additive content for 

virgin paper could be a reportable parameter that 

would help ensure that the pots aren't more plastic 

than paper.

Biodegradability test requirements 

could also be evaluated by a material reviewer; 

however, these test results may not be 

representative of actual biodegradation in the 

field.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment 
275

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and for your work on these issues.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: So yeah, I just ---

so how would --- just to give us some idea of how 

we could or should proceed, you echoed our 

sentiments that just the listing for no glossy inks 

is not sufficient, but then you had some 

reservations about bio content or biodegradation.

I mean, in your opinion, you know, what 

--- how should we --- you know, where should we 

head the ship?

MS. JENSEN AUGUSTINE: It's a really 

good question. I think there's been so much 

discussion because there's not a really good, 

clean-cut answer. I personally think that one 

thing that --- from a material reviewer 

perspective, we need things that are measurable.

I think that measuring biodegradability 

is --- it's possible with the test methods provided, 

but I don't know that those measures are necessarily 

reliable. I feel that looking at what a 

manufacturer puts into a product is, in some ways, 
276

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

more measurable.

When we review products, we get a 

formulation statement of all the ingredients and 

the purpose for their addition to that product. 

And so we can look at how much of it is paper coming 

from plants versus other synthetic additives. So 

that would be, in my mind, a measurable thing that 

we could look at.

And so if the NOSB could determine what 

an appropriate level for these different --- the 

content of these different components could be, 

that's something that an organization like OMRI 

could evaluate.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MS. JENSEN AUGUSTINE: You're welcome.

Asa, did you want me to comment on the 

NPEs question?

DR. BRADMAN: That would be great. 

Thank you.

MS. JENSEN AUGUSTINE: Okay. So a 

number of years ago in the process of doing product 

reviews, OMRI was looking at a product that 
277

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

contained nonylphenol ethoxylates, and of course 

trying to determine whether they were on EPA List 

4 or List 3. And it came to light in our 

correspondence with the applicant and also EPA 

officials, that some NPEs had had the wrong CAS 

number assigned to them or they were being 

represented by the wrong CAS number.

And we never got to a point where we 

could get clarity on which was the correct CAS 

number, and so it kind of seemed like a black box, 

and that's why we determined to not allow those 

for the time being.

And I think you asked kind of what we're 

waiting for in order to move forward. It's not 

an issue that we're currently working on. I think, 

if anything, that we would hope that further work 

on inerts could be done, and we could move away 

from using obsolete EPA lists.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Thank you.

MS. JENSEN AUGUSTINE: You're welcome.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next up is Chris 

Grigsby, then Mary Capehart and Alecia Bock.
278

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GRIGSBY: Good afternoon, 

everyone. First, I'd like to thank the NOSB members 

and outgoing Board members for your work and 

commitment to the organic community. And thank 

you to the NOP for their recent work on increasing 

enforcement, training and oversight. And also 

thank you for the butterfly.

My name is Chris Grigsby, certification 

director at MOFGA. Briefly, I'd like to speak on 

the issue of integrity. As former general manager 

of the largest food co-op in Maine, I would echo 

the comments from PCC yesterday regarding consumer 

trust and questions that will only continue as the 

industry grows.

We must keep an eye on that all of our 

collective work is and should be done for the 

purchasers, consumers and eaters throughout the 

sector. Our work is not for the benefit of the 

industry and lobby efforts, farmers, handlers, 

politicians, et cetera.

Okay. Marine materials. We stand by 

our past and current comments regarding our 
279

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

concerns of requiring organic certification marine 

materials used in crop inputs.

While we support the sentiment of the 

subcommittee to address this from an environmental 

harm and whole ecosystem standpoint, we feel that 

without additional guidance definitions or rules 

to assist certifiers within the certification 

process, we present a false sense of complete 

oversight and thoroughness.

Simply requiring organic certification 

as it currently stands is not enough. This was 

conveyed in my panel presentation yesterday, and 

we support the formation of a working group or task 

force. While we recognize that the rulemaking 

process is slow at best, guidance and clarification 

does not have to be.

The fact that industry continues to 

advance much faster than the rulemaking can match, 

we sometimes find ourselves, as certifiers, in a 

difficult situation. OFPA intent relies on not only 

continuous improvement of the program, but also 

that the secretary and NOP would be willing to 
280

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

provide guidance when needed.

The decision to allow hydroponics, from 

what I understand, had less to do with whether that 

production model fits within the organic 

regulations and more to do with the fact that the 

regulations and guidance don't explicitly prohibit 

it.

That's a flawed interpretation which 

could have been remedied early on by the NOP through 

guidance to certifiers. The same is true for 

continuous transition of livestock. We know from 

experience that once things are permitted, they 

are very difficult to retract.

To me, the NOP program handbook is 

underutilized as a tool. In particular, the use 

of policy memos to certifiers. The suggestions 

from NOP and NOSB that certifiers work amongst 

themselves to develop consistent policies and 

utilize ACA best-practice documents is a positive 

approach on face, but the concern is the nonbinding 

nature of this approach.

In a world of increasing litigation, 
281

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

pushback and documented issues in the media, it 

is imperative that certifiers have binding guidance 

and rules to enforce as opposed to internal or ACA 

policy positions.

We ask that the NOP consider their full 

authority to administer the program and to uphold 

their responsibility within the public-private 

partnership. In many cases, relying on consistent 

interpretation from certifiers has had detrimental 

and irreversible effects. Thank you for the 

opportunity.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: I just want to say that 

the last portion of your comments echoes a 

conversation that I've had with some Board members 

and that we --- we did have on a CACS call as well, 

how to address the issue of questions that come 

from certifiers to the program and don't always 

get resolved in a timely fashion, and then disparate 

interpretations take place among certifiers 

creating different systems in place.

So I'm going to get with you on that 
282

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

after this. So thanks for those comments.

MR. GRIGSBY: Okay. Great. Sure. 

Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MR. GRIGSBY: Thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: Next up, Mary Capehart. 

Then Alecia Bock and David Will on deck.

MS. CAPEHART: Good afternoon. My 

name is Mary Capehart, and I am a certification 

senior specialist at Organic Valley.

We currently represent nearly 2,000 

certified organic farmers in 34 states. Organic 

Valley supports Option 1 listed in the document, 

allow all vaccines without any review or 

consideration if they were produced through 

excluded methods.

Vaccinations are a necessary component 

of good animal welfare and this recommendation 

ensures organic dairy farmers have the needed tools 

to provide the best animal health and care possible. 

Both the European and Canadians have adopted all 

vaccines are allowed recognizing the importance 
283

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of preventing disease and suffering in animals.

Excluded methods in vaccine 

manufacturing are used to make vaccines safer and 

more effective for the animal. If we deny use of 

these methods, we increase the risk to organic 

animals. 

Commercial availability, although a 

good option, assumes the organic industry could 

pressure the manufacturers to provide a product 

that does not include excluded methods. Due to 

the small size of their organic vaccine buyers and 

the high cost of development, we have reason to 

believe this pressure will not influence vaccine 

manufacturers.

Commercial availability could 

represent a barrier for organic farmers from 

preventative methods which would prevent disease 

and sufferings in their animals. Several 

effective vaccinations developed using excluded 

methods are highly important as they protect 

against amniotic diseases such as salmonella. 

These diseases are a risk to both animals and 
284

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

farmers. 

The organic philosophy defers to 

natural processes; however, over cases such as 

disease prevention, this can be an ethically 

questionable approach. In nature, if disease 

invades a native population of animals, the result 

is generally an epidemic.

Animals which do survive will develop 

a productive immunity, but some will suffer for 

long-term effects of the illness. It is critical 

to keep this in mind that the goal is to prevent 

suffering and disease.

In addition, I'd like to add we strongly 

support the proposed rule of --- on origin of 

livestock and urge the USDA National Organic 

Program to publish a final rule as quickly as 

possible, and thank you so much for all your hard 

work and commitment, and my cows.

(Laughter.)

(Off-mic comments.)

MS. CAPEHART: Any questions?

CHAIR BEHAR: Dan.
285

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SEITZ: You made a statement that 

the use of excluded methods in producing 

vaccinations has made those vaccinations safer and 

more effective. What is that based on, that 

assertion? 

MS. CAPEHART: It's based on five 

veterinarians which I spoke with.

DR. SEITZ: Excuse me? I'm sorry, I 

didn't hear you.

MS. CAPEHART: It was based on five 

different veterinarians that I spoke with in regard 

to the effectiveness of vaccines.

DR. SEITZ: So do you have any idea 

where they gathered their information? Was that 

an observation or published research, or simply 

your conversation that surfaced that as a ---

MS. CAPEHART: I don't know ---

DR. SEITZ: Okay. Thank you.

MS. CAPEHART: -- the answer to that.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MS. CAPEHART: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next up is Alecia 
286

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Bock, and David Will, Steve Walker on deck.

MS. BOCK: Hello. My name is Alecia 

Bock with AgriSystems International. My comments 

are mainly my own, but I'm also sharing feedback 

from some of my baking and meat product clients 

today.

I'm in support of relisting all the 

handling sunset list materials, and I have comments 

on a few specifically. First, dairy cultures. 

While I generally understand your rationale for 

removing a redundant listing, I think it could be 

confusing because dairy cultures have historically 

been considered a unique category.

However, if you decide to move forward, 

perhaps the new listing could read microorganisms, 

including dairy cultures. Second, yeast. 

Several of my clients have expressed a critical 

need to keep yeast on 205.605. Commercial 

availability, viability and consistency is not 

where it needs to be especially on the fresh yeast 

side.

We continue to work with our suppliers, 
287

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

but so far the organic options have not worked in 

all processing applications. Third, celery 

powder. The irony of some of the comments 

yesterday were not lost on me, first, hearing much 

debate about whether cured meat is safe then 

switching to the topic of organic tobacco.

In my opinion, we are not here to judge 

whether certain products should be on the market. 

Even more ironically, food safety is the main 

reason for the use of celery powder and that wasn't 

even brought up. Those who know me know how 

passionate I am about food safety. As a consumer, 

I am also passionate about consumer choice and 

letting the market decide.

In my former life, I grew up in the 

conventional meat industry, and I was involved in 

the novel idea of using celery powder to replace 

sodium nitrate as a curing agent. Currently, I 

have clients who sell certified organic processed 

meats. Though they don't currently use celery 

powder, they support the relisting of this material 

knowing that it's the only current way to produce 
288

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a cured organic meat product.

I am thrilled to hear that the $2 million 

was granted to research organic celery powder and 

Swiss chard for this purpose. This is the way 

205.606 was supposed to work. It worked for the 

transition to organic hops, and it can work for 

organic celery powder.

But if we remove celery powder from the 

toolbox before further research can begin, then 

all we do is remove consumer choice. Instead, we 

should be incentivizing growth, as was said earlier 

today, increase organic acreage, organic livestock 

and organic meat product options.

Today, I was in 7-Eleven trying to find 

a protein snack. I found a meat-stick/cheese combo 

that contained natural uncured hard salami 

minimally processed, no added nitrates or nitrites 

except those naturally occurring in cultured celery 

powder. This is an FSIS label claim and is outside 

the scope of USDA Organic Program.

My point is that the conventional meat 

industry will continue to produce and market these 
289

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

natural products because consumers want them. As 

a consumer, I wish I could have purchased an organic 

meat-stick using organic celery powder this 

morning.

Finally, just a comment on fatty 

alcohols. I don't smoke, but I support the choice 

of consumers to smoke and specifically to purchase 

organic tobacco. They all may have their personal 

reasons. Perhaps it's to reduce pesticide use or 

to promote more organic crop conversion. Maybe 

it's just to support organic family farmers. After 

hearing all the testimony on this topic yesterday 

and today, I support the addition of fatty alcohols 

to the National List. Thank you for your service.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

Okay. Next up, David Will with Steve 

Walker and David Moore on deck.

MR. WILL: Okay, Harriet. I asked for 

a free 10 seconds because I have to scold you. 

I can't believe with all the baseball going on right 

now and the fact that the Nationals are in --- you 

don't quite understand. Here is at bat, on deck, 
290

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and the third person is in the hole. Okay.

(Laughter.)

MR. WILL: Okay. So we're good. You 

can hit the button and I have a slide. Okay. Thank 

you very much.

My name is David Will. I'm general 

manager of Chino Valley Ranchers. We're egg 

producers in California. I'm the chair of the 

Methionine Task Force and the chair of the 

California Shell Egg Advisory Board, and my 

comments are based on those two positions.

I want to thank you very much for the 

rule you have on methionine and the relisting and 

we hope that it continues. Our Methionine Task 

Force is made up of a numerous number of members, 

which we account for about 86 to 90 percent of the 

entire organic egg industry in the United States.

We represent members of all forms of 

production. We have members as small as 1,500 

birds and much larger and all different styles; 

outdoor access, massive outdoor access and limited 

outdoor access.
291

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Harriet, at the last meeting in Seattle 

you brought Methiomax to our attention. We 

appreciate that. We've looked into it. 

Unfortunately, the methionine content in it is 

0.0007 percent per pound, so we would have needed 

a mere 2,500 pounds per ton to equal two pound of 

methionine.

(Laughter.)

MR. WILL: So we did do our homework. 

Unfortunately, it didn't work out. You might want 

to use that land for something else because I knew 

you grew a couple of those.

One of the things that we get a lot of 

comment on is the EU. That's been brought up a 

couple times what they've done, and behind you is 

the slide that deals specifically with the Journal 

from the European Union that has to do with egg 

and egg production as far as their adjustments.

The first one --- or if you go to points 

6 and 7 -- is that they do allow a 5 percent exemption 

and that's due to quantity and quality of organic 

feed. So you can use nonorganic feed such as 
292

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

shellfish and other starches and other proteins 

because of the poor protein quality.

It was supposed to sunset in 2018. It 

did receive a two-year extension. So it is in 

effect until the end of 2020, and we're going to 

monitor it to see if it continues. We're also doing 

a deep dive to find out what that 5 percent includes, 

but more importantly are the two points above it.

Again, it was allowed to continue, and 

it basically says in the EU, you can allow a poulet 

that's 18 weeks of age grown conventionally to be 

put into the organic program. We're day two of 

life in the United States. We are 0.001 percent 

methionine at a two-pound cap over the life of the 

flock. So 18 weeks versus a 5 percent exemption, 

they do have ways around some other things and they 

get the major growth in.

We are still looking at our insect 

trial. We're doing some more deep dives into that 

and I also think that black soldier fly has made 

a tremendous amount of news. And I think that's 

a lot from the fact that we've done the work. And 
293

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

just remember that in the EU, they use slow-growth 

broilers. They may not use it in layers. We're 

all stuck with the exact same genetics that we see. 

So they have the same genetics in Europe as we 

do in the United States. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: I have a comment about 

the Methiomax. That was actually in the Organic 

Valley public comment. And the purpose of it was 

not to be used as a replacement for methionine, 

but it was supposed to amplify the methionine that 

was present.

But in further research since the last 

meeting, it doesn't seem to be --- it's more of 

a product claim than an actual ---

MR. WILL: Which is exactly what we 

found, too.

CHAIR BEHAR: And it's used to actually 

--- it's sold to humans as well to --- like, as 

an energy or for bodybuilders.

MR. WILL: Yeah.

CHAIR BEHAR: Since I don't do any of 

that, I don't know. I'm not really the 
294

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

bodybuilder.

Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thanks for the 

presentation.

MR. WILL: You're welcome.

MR. MORTENSEN: You used some terms 

that I'm not familiar with, and I was curious if 

those are standard categorical labels or if those 

were just loosely used. You said limited outdoor 

access, outdoor access and massive access. Are 

those categories, or are those just terms ---

MR. WILL: No, that was just ---

MR. MORTENSEN: -- you just were using?

MR. WILL: I didn't want to call out 

specifically, you know, who our membership is, but 

we have members that are outdoor on soil, members 

that are outdoor on five to 10 foot per bird, and 

we have members, including some of our production, 

that's out on 108 square feet per bird.

And as you remember in the Seattle 

presentation, Dr. Burley even referenced that when 

they had dissected birds that had been outdoors 
295

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in a pasture-type setting, that they found less 

than 1 percent of their craw was actually material 

in intake not only --- not just insects, but just 

even stuff from the ground. So the birds still 

--- they eat what's put in front of them, is the

easiest choice.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thanks.

MR. WILL: Uh-huh.

CHAIR BEHAR: Asa.

DR. BRADMAN: I just have a follow-up. 

Sorry if it's a little off-topic, but do the people 

that you work with generally support the Organic 

Livestock and Poultry Production standards?

MR. WILL: You mean the OLPP? 

DR. BRADMAN: Yeah. And would they 

like to see that implemented?

MR. WILL: I will tell you I am the chief 

fundraiser for that for the Organic Trade 

Association and there are a majority of like-minded 

industry. Unfortunately, I think it's the 

majority of the certificate holders, the minority 

of the bird count, but we do support and ---
296

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

methionine is easy because it impacts all of us. 

Our membership is broad and it's --- OLPP is not 

something we take to our membership.

I think we'll end up probably getting 

involved in vaccines because, again, it applies 

over everyone equally. OLPP is a company choice 

and a decision, and it's a lot more restrictive.

CHAIR BEHAR: Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: So I have two questions.

You touched on it briefly, but we've heard from 

a lot of commenters about, well, in Europe they 

use slower-growing breeds. Can you touch on that 

on the layer side and how that might be a challenge?

MR. WILL: You know, in the United 

States we're 5 percent of the entire population 

of layers --- we're 5.4 percent, 17 million out 

of 330 -- and we're really left to the same few 

genetic strains.

They have the same here in the United 

States. Most of them are owned by European, the 

blood stock and the parent stock. So you'll find 

that a lot of the Lohmann and the Hy-Line offshoots 
297

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and the Bovans here as you will across the pond. 

So on the layer side it's very restrictive. On 

the broiler, I just don't know specifically, but 

the layers, they're dealing with the same genetics 

as we are.

MS. SWAFFAR: Same birds here as in the 

UK?

MR. WILL: Uh-huh.

MS. SWAFFAR: Okay. And the other part 

--- you didn't touch on vaccines. Do you have an 

opinion on that?

MR. WILL: Yeah. I'm from California 

and we make everything tough. And, as you know, 

we had California Prop 2 and then again Prop 12 

was just passed. And part of it was we defended 

Prop 2 at the Food Safety Initiative, and we're 

one of 50 states and came up with the vaccine 

requirement of having a live and a killed 

salmonella, which is obviously one that's being 

reevaluated.

I think my main opinion is just you've 

got 49 other states that are looking at what we've 
298

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

done. You've got food safety issues, and you're 

going to have a very uncooperative vaccine market 

that -- as kind of what Peggy alluded to, 

proprietary information is proprietary for a 

reason.

And also, you know, there's --- I may 

have a disease, you may have the same disease, but 

it's a different strain of that disease, so you 

need a different vaccine. And what works for me 

may not work for you, and it's just geographic in 

nature. So it's going to be tough. It's going to 

be a daunting list.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

Steve Walker, with David Moore and 

Michael Hansen in the hole.

MR. WALKER: Good afternoon. I'm 

Steve Walker, operations manager at MOSA. In our 

many comments on seed purity and other GMO issues 

over the years, we've emphasized a need for fairness 

and wider USDA support to ensure our organic 

community is not solely responsible for preventing 

genetic trespass.
299

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The seed genetic integrity transparency 

proposal notes a good area for improving education 

and doesn't create more undue burden on organic 

farmers. Yesterday, we heard from Kiki Hubbard 

that seed suppliers are willing to share 

contamination info, but few producers are asking; 

however, we certifiers already can inform farmers 

about their options. We don't need instruction 

to do so. The same end might be achieved with a 

wider audience through info and NOP's learning 

center.

Yesterday, we also heard some debate 

about the effects of robust discussion on biotech. 

Our community is united in opposition to genetic 

engineering and organic systems. We're sort of 

done talking about it; but with ongoing outside 

threats, our thoughtful discussion must be heard 

elsewhere. Beyond preaching to the choir, we must 

be heard on the street to protect our interests. 

USDA must invest in a more functional coexistence.

Data will help. We support NOP funding 

a task force to collect data detailing the 
300

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

contamination problem. This will add sensible 

enforcement. We also support prioritizing 

research related to our coexistence with GMO crops. 

Yesterday, David Gould said we need more 

transparency from biotech developers to 

proactively protect organic.

I was reminded of a similar comment I 

brought to NOSB five years ago. I had noted a 

Lutheran church statement on genetics, faith and 

responsibility. The CLCA statements says, human 

beings are innovative stewards called to be 

responsible to the Golden Rule. It says, we must 

respect and promote the community of life with 

justice and wisdom. This imperative should be used 

to direct genetic research and knowledge in ag and

other areas. 

It's a moral requirement for those with 

expertise to share knowledge with policy 

developers. Our robust conversation shows we're 

honoring our side of the coexistence concept. We 

need more fairness and transparency from USDA. 

IFOAM's fairness principle says, organic ag should 
301

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

be built upon relationships that ensure fairness 

with regard to the common environment and life 

opportunities.

USDA also must support the principle 

of care managing agriculture in a precautionary 

and responsible manner to protect the health and 

well-being of current and future generations. 

Thanks for your work on these challenging issues 

for so many years.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Steve.

MR. MORTENSEN: I just have a quick, 

quick question.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah. Thank you for 

the thoughtful comments. Could you say a little 

bit more about how the certifier's role could be 

seen as the helpful go-to resource on information 

about the seed farmers are purchasing and planting?

MR. WALKER: Getting information to 

farmers ---

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

MR. WALKER: -- as suggested in the 
302

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

proposal?

MR. MORTENSEN: How do you envision 

that that could address the issue ---

MR. WALKER: Yeah, I don't ---

MR. MORTENSEN: -- of making the 

information available. That's what I understood 

you were saying.

MR. WALKER: I don't have a problem with 

the proposal, but -- you know, a big problem with 

the proposal. It just --- it sets up a four-step 

communication process where NOP tells the 

certifiers that they can tell the farmers that they 

can ask the seed suppliers and, you know, why not 

just put it a little more directly and put it in, 

you know, wider-based educational efforts.

And there's also a couple --- this gets 

a little nit-picky, maybe, but there's a couple 

words in there like "suggest" and it almost starts 

to sound a little bit like consulting. And there 

is a line between consulting and providing public 

information that's, you know, available to 

everybody.
303

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I don't think that this at all 

crosses that line, and sometimes I think that that 

distinction is a little bit overblown in our minds, 

you know. We can answer questions, sometimes it 

depends how they're worded, but why not just put 

education out there about options and make that 

part of a wider effort rather than issuing 

instruction to certifiers that now we have to follow 

and so forth.

CHAIR BEHAR: Steve, just --- not all 

certifiers are as proactive in communicating with 

their operations. So I know, you know, you say 

you're already working with your growers, but not 

all do that. So we're trying to make that a little 

bit more universal.

MR. WALKER: Promotion, marketing, 

education, and get the word out.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Thank you.

MR. WALKER: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Next up is David 

Moore, Michael Hansen and David Ferman. Okay. 

David Moore. Thank you. Michael Hansen, I see 
304

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

him walking. And after that, believe it or not, 

is our last speaker, David Ferman. Go right ahead.

MR. MOORE: Good afternoon. I'm David 

Moore. I'm the California-licensed agricultural 

pest control advisor. I'm a qualified applicator. 

I work for Neudorff, and I'm here to keep ferric 

phosphate on the National List.

I come from preaching folks, so I'm 

going to quote chapter and verse. I'm going to 

start here in the National Organic Program at 7 

Code of Federal Regulations part 205.601(h).

Ferric phosphate is the only material 

you are voting on. You are not voting on EDTA 

because at 7 CFR part 205.601(m), EDTA is an allowed 

synthetic inert ingredient which sunsets in 2022 

along with the rest of List 4.

You're also not voting on EDTA because 

it's already in the law at 7 U.S.C. 6517 which 

states, synthetic inerts not classified by EPA as 

being a toxilogical concern are allowed. Only EPA 

has authority to determine inert and active 

ingredients in pesticide formulations. And at 7 
305

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

U.S.C. 6518, the Board shall review available 

information from EPA. 

6517 and 6518 are OFPA. OFPA is the 

law. And under that law, NOSB's stated mission 

is the implementation of that law --- NOSB's 

statutory mission. NOSB's stated mission includes 

reviewing public comments. So you-all know that 

the public is strikingly silent on ferric 

phosphate.

Of 12,018 public comments, one single 

comment objects to relisting ferric phosphate. 

The NOP has explicitly instructed the subcommittee 

--- and by extension this Board --- to consider 

and vote only on ferric phosphate.

Lastly, OFPA 6517 sets out three 

criteria for review; harmful to health or 

environment, necessity and compatibility with 

organic farming. Since 2005, NOSB has 

consistently found that ferric phosphate meets 

these criteria and so it continues to do today. 

No new information to the contrary has been 

presented to or by this Board.
306

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

There is no scope within the law or the 

regulations to vote to delist ferric phosphate and 

you must vote accordingly. I'm David Moore. I work 

for Neudorff. Thank you for your attention and 

consideration. And since I have a minute, I'll 

say at least in California without Sluggo, there 

is no organic celery. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah. It's also our 

mandate to carefully review efficacy data, and we 

have done so. And I just would say that it's very 

important for us to look at the marketed product 

when we think --- at least certainly it is when 

we're looking at the efficacy data because that's 

what was applied in those field trials, and the 

chelating agent has an enormous effect on the 

efficacy of ferric phosphate.

So while we understood that we were 

looking at ferric phosphate, we also have to 

understand that the way in which it's formulated 

and applied to a field will influence the efficacy. 

And in this case, it influences the efficacy by 
307

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

something like an order of magnitude or greater.

The knock-on effects of that is that 

it effects soil health by having effects on 

earthworms and other populations in the soil. So 

it's important that we are following the 

guidelines, but we are also recognizing the fact 

that when these compounds are used in the field, 

they need to be in concert with the ecology of the 

soil and the organic system plan. Thank you.

MR. MOORE: The assertion that ferric 

phosphate and EDTA are --- as a combination are 

harmful to earthworms comes from a single 

publication produced by a competing pesticide 

manufacturer that does not operate in the organic 

world, and we believe that a substantial portion 

of that has been refuted effectively. We've 

submitted such evidence in comment and written 

submissions.

MR. MORTENSEN: We had very limited 

published data to go on, and that was one of the 

papers that we went on, and it was also carefully 

reviewed in the technical report.
308

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MOORE: The technical report is 

frequently cited as holding that there's an 80 

milligram per kilogram LD50 for the combination.

That is entirely untrue and the very 

simple evidence of that is that the EDTA --- or 

the EPA-approved label for Sluggo, which is ferric 

phosphate and EDTA, for Ferox, which is iron EDTA, 

bears a caution label. The federal limit, the 

minimum allowed LD50 is 500 milligrams per 

kilogram.

In my office, I can go and pull that 

information out of a book on the shelf. That 

statement of 80 milligrams is simply untrue, and 

it's been perpetuated for 10 years. We've tried 

to refute it in public comment and with submitting 

public research. It's simply untrue. It's a red 

herring.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dan.

DR. SEITZ: You went through the 

chapters and verses very fast. There was one 

chapter or verse that was something to the effect 

that the NOSB shall review findings or information 
309

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

from --- was it the EPA?

MR. MOORE: Review available 

information from EPA.

DR. SEITZ: Yeah. Okay. So I read 

that as meaning we shall review it, but not 

necessarily that that would be dispositive in terms 

of a final decision on our part. In other words, 

we can exercise independent judgment from that 

other agency.

MR. MOORE: Yes, but that --- it bears 

to the issue of an active versus an inert and to 

the publication in materials related to this 

meeting of the assertion that there's the 80 

milligram per kilogram LD50, which is untrue.

CHAIR BEHAR: No other questions?

MR. MORTENSEN: Just back to that, and 

it's not really worth arguing over, the Board has 

to have efficacy data. And it's important that we 

have peer reviewed efficacy data that we can make 

a judgment on.

And so if you're of the opinion that 

the one peer reviewed paper that we could find and 
310

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that was in the technical report is not accurate, 

then you're finding fault with the peer review 

process in published papers. I would say that it 

would be helpful for a company to seek collaborators 

to have their work evaluated and published in the 

peer reviewed literature so that a board like this 

can make an objective assessment of the performance 

of the product.

I don't think anybody on the Board, 

because I was on all those conversations, has 

questioned the fact that slugs are a problem and 

also that this product works. The thing that we 

got caught up in the discussion of is what are the 

nontarget effects, and there is not a lot of 

literature there. We went with what we had to go 

on when we did that assessment.

MR. MOORE: We cite three peer reviewed 

papers in our public comments to this meeting to 

refute the Edwards paper on earthworms.

MR. MORTENSEN: Well, I will just stop 

here, but I would say it was not compelling to me 

that the efficacy differences were as you are 
311

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

stating.

MR. MOORE: I don't believe I made a 

statement about efficacy differences, but 

according to CCOF's public comments, 309 of their 

certification clients find it very effective and 

have it in their organic systems plan.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

MR. MOORE: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Michael Hansen, and then 

our last speaker will be David Ferman.

MR. HANSEN: Good afternoon. My name 

is Michael Hansen. I am senior scientist with 

Consumer Reports, an independent nonprofit 

organization that works side by side with consumers 

to create a fairer, safer and healthier world.

On genetic engineering, we commend Dr. 

Tucker for clarifying that gene editing is an 

excluded method. We urge the NOP to formally adopt 

the NOSB recommendations on excluded method 

terminology from 2016 through 2019 and implement 

them through guidance. We also support the present 
312

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

proposal to add induced mutagenesis developed via 

use of in vitro nucleic acid techniques to the table 

of excluded methods and to support further work 

by keeping induced mutagenesis developed through 

exposure to UV light, chemicals and irradiation 

on the to-be-developed list for future discussion 

and review.

We also urge NOSB to add embryo rescue 

in animals where there is no use of hormones in 

either the recipient or donor animals to the table 

of not excluded methods since we think that, for 

precautionary reasons, hormones should not be used 

for superovulation on the donor animals due to 

potential health impacts on the offspring.

On genetic integrity transparency for 

seed grown on organic land, we support the proposal 

for the instructions to certifiers with one, small 

word --- one small, one-word modification that we 

mentioned in our comments as a good first step. 

We also think the Board should request NOP to set 

up a task force to gather data on the levels of 

genetic contamination and seeds, and work further 
313

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on this issue with the goal of ultimately setting 

tolerances for seed planted on organic land.

For vaccines, we support the change to 

Section 205.105(e), which makes clear that vaccines 

produced through excluded methods can only be used 

when an equivalent vaccine not produced through 

excluded methods is not commercially available.

In addition, we urge the Board to ask 

NOP to work with APHIS to develop a list of which 

veterinary vaccines have been produced using 

excluded methods or not, using the USDA publication 

veterinary biologic products, licensees and 

permittees as a starting point. Using the 

methodology mentioned by the subcommittee, we found 

that 75 vaccines were produced using excluded 

methods in the October 1st, 2019 version of the 

publication.

Finally, we urge the Board to remove 

celery powder from the National List particularly 

when it comes from conventional celery grown with 

synthetic nitrogen that is prohibited in organic 

production. You've heard that IARC has classified 
314

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

processed meat as carcinogenic to humans based on 

sufficient evidence of consumption of processed 

meat that causes colorectal cancer.

Given the health problems associated 

with processed meats in the world that added 

nitrates and nitrites may play in those health 

problems, we do not think that nonorganic celery 

powder should be allowed in organic productions. 

Thank you. 

CHAIR BEHAR: I just have to say, wow, 

you covered a lot. Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: I had a question regarding 

your comments on fish oil.

MR. HANSEN: On what?

MS. OAKLEY: On fish oil. Could you 

elaborate a little bit more on the data -- I'm sorry, 

on the data that you provided that the health 

benefits that are claimed by fish oil are unproven?

MR. HANSEN: Yeah. That's actually 

--- I didn't have time to talk about that, but yes, 

there's actually very recent studies that have 

found --- let's see if I can find them --- that 
315

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

fish oil claims are not supported by research. 

Let me see the most persistent one. Yes. Earlier 

this year a large-scale randomized 

placebo-controlled trial involving 25,871 

participants, women 55 years or older and men 50 

years or older, who were followed for 5.3 years 

found that, "Supplementation with M3 fatty acid 

did not result in lower instance of major 

cardiovascular events or cancer than a placebo."

This is perhaps the largest study of 

its kind. There's also a disconnect between the 

study showing the benefits from eating fish and 

the benefits of omega-3 supplementation.

So, you know, some of the data is really 

showing that just having the supplement doesn't 

seem to be having an impact on health compared to 

eating the whole fish. And I think this is similar 

to people focusing on individual nutrients and 

trying to get them rather than get them from a whole 

food.

CHAIR BEHAR: Tom, and then Dave.

MR. CHAPMAN: I'll pass. Dave.
316

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave, and then maybe Tom.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah. I was wondering 

if you could say a little bit more about how the 

Animal/Plant Health Inspection Service is tracking 

vaccines derived from excluded methods.

MR. HANSEN: Yeah. That's actually 

--- here's the --- they put this publication out 

at least twice a year and it's basically a listing 

of all the veterinary biologic products.

And so vaccines and all various vaccines 

are listed there, and then for each type of vaccine, 

they say how many folks are making it. And I was 

just using the code of if the fifth digit is a D 

or an R, that means it's a recombinant vaccine or 

uses an excluded method.

And some of them will even say 

"chimera," which that will tell you that that's 

excluded. And so you can do this and this is 

something that I think could be done where you take 

this list, you can determine which vaccines are 

engineered.

And for some categories, all the 
317

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

vaccines will be engineered and other ones won't 

be. And right there in this list for the ones that 

aren't, there is a licensee number and it will say, 

for example, 188. And you just look at the 

beginning and there is their contact information 

and everything.

So having a chart --- developing this 

would be very easy to do based on what's already 

put up and updated. And in our written comments, 

I had based it on the July 31st --- this is August 

--- October 1st, and we found even new ones there.

So I think by doing that rather than 

putting the burden on the certifiers, this should 

be something very easy to do. And if you wanted 

to go even further, they could, you know, bring 

in OMRI for some of the ones because at the ---

at our NOC pre-meeting there was somebody who said, 

wow, they've heard from some of these manufacturers 

that the supposed nonengineered vaccines are 

actually engineered.

But I think this is a good first step 

and that would be something that would be very 
318

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

useful because then you could tell very quickly 

whether there is a nonengineered one available or 

not. So it's an easy first step and it puts what's 

already put out in a very useful form, and I don't 

think it would take that long of time for somebody 

to do.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Tom, you were passing? 

Okay.

Thank you, Michael.

MR. HANSEN: Thanks.

CHAIR BEHAR: And last but not least, 

David Ferman.

MR. FERMAN: Hello. I'm a marketing 

director, David Ferman, for BrightHouse Organics. 

I wanted to first thank the NOSB for your dedication 

and hard work, and I want to let you know that we 

support the increased efforts for scrutiny in the 

supply chain to limit organic fraud. I think 

that's great. I also want to thank the NOP for the 

continued support for organic certification of 

greenhouse-grown container systems.
319

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

In a couple of the comments that were 

made yesterday that mentioned --- they requested 

the banning of containered production methods for 

organic certification, and I think that's of grave 

concern --- at least it is for me --- and I would 

think it's a big step backwards for organics if 

that were to happen. The words yesterday, soul of 

organic, were used and I also thought about some 

words from November of 2016 where they talked about 

the magic of the soil. And I think about that 

language really as kind of fluff used to distract 

from the real motivation for that opposition group, 

which would be to limit supply and artificially 

--- and benefit from the higher price that would 

result. So really purely economic.

In actuality, the allowance of 

certified hydroponic container-growing methods 

have dramatically helped the organic consumer by 

increasing supply to meet demand, providing 

year-round availability, and adding competitive 

pressure to reduce price premiums. As a 

consequence, organics are now more attainable and 
320

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

affordable than ever before. One example is with 

tomatoes, where currently over a quarter of the 

organic supply is grown in container-based 

greenhouses, and price premiums have reduced over 

the last five years from over 90 percent down to 

66 percent.

Really, the organic consumer is winning 

here with an affordable product that's available 

year-round in all of their grocery stores. That 

wasn't the case 10 years ago. Any action to ban 

these production methods would have a dramatic 

impact on the market availability, and the pricing 

would hurt the organic consumer significantly.

Second, as we heard that the --- you 

must improve the soil. I think that when you use 

that argument for banning container systems, those 

folks are ignoring the consideration of the 

diversity of the total system, both the cultivated 

land as well as the wild land.

In actuality, greenhouse-grown 

hydroponic container systems require about 87 

percent less land space for any given output level. 
321

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So you have a lot less arable land that needs to 

be converted from wild land. They also use about 

90 percent less water. So they are, therefore, 

the most environmentally friendly methods for 

production. It's a natural evolution of modern 

farming.

So as organics grow with increased 

hydroponic container greenhouse operations, there 

is less impact on the natural habitat. Now, 

Harriet, you mentioned yesterday that, you know, 

the goal is we can feed the world with organic, 

and I think that's absolutely admirable. I look 

at organics right now in the U.S. It's about 7 

percent organics as a function of the total from 

produce perspective.

And to feed 7.7 billion people in the 

world, I think we need to embrace innovative 

technologies like greenhouse growing and further 

advancement in technology for the organic consumer.

Emily.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MR. FERMAN: Sorry.
322

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

(Laughter.)

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. Do your 

greenhouse-grown hydroponic growing systems follow 

the three-year transition period?

MR. FERMAN: They do, but I don't think 

they should. I believe the three-year growing 

mandate should be --- should have some common sense 

applied to it and was originally I think crafted 

prior to significant greenhouse growing 

operations. But yes, all of ours do.

MS. OAKLEY: I'll just refute that. 

I think that the persistence of chemicals varies 

widely on the chemical makeup of each chemical, 

and some of them are highly persistent over a long 

period of time -- longer than the three-year 

transition period, and they would be persistent 

in a greenhouse and the surfaces that they touch.

So I think that there are clear reasons 

why we have that and we don't have an exemption 

in our rules. That's my interpretation.

MR. FERMAN: Understood. I think that 

particular instances for high-tech greenhouses, 
323

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for example, where the earth sits beneath concrete 

and has sat there for multiple years, that 

converting from a conventional system to an organic 

system with replacement of all of the irrigation 

and the buoys and all of the materials that would 

come in contact with the root zone would be more 

than sufficient. And unfortunately, I think that 

it's going to restrict, you know, companies like 

us, as Lee mentioned earlier, from continuing to 

advance the supply.

MS. OAKLEY: Well, let me help you 

understand why I don't think that works, because 

then you're asking us to have a case-by-case basis 

and examine the chemicals or inputs that were 

prohibited that were used, which creates a 

nightmare scenario. I think the reason that we 

have a general prohibition and a general 

requirement for a three-year transition period is 

to have a level playing field, and it's also one 

that is easy for everyone to understand and adhere 

to, rather than trying to come up with a list of 

those products or prohibited substances that might 
324

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not need to go through the three-year transition 

period, which it seems is something that you might 

be suggesting.

MR. FERMAN: No, and more of just the 

system itself and whether or not it would make sense 

for the root zone to contact the actual area. I 

know that we talked about earlier the case that 

was kind of proven to be false for spraying 

glyphosate over and then immediately growing --

putting pots down. And, you know, in that sort 

of situation if that was the case, yeah, totally 

agree, you need three years. I don't think it's 

necessarily the case for systems that don't operate 

in ground. 

And the level playing field piece, I'm 

not sure if I totally agree with that either. And 

my Tesla doesn't take unleaded fuel and my digital 

camera doesn't use nitrocellulose film. It's an 

innovation that's advancing the industry forward.

MS. OAKLEY: I just can't let you have 

the last word on this one.

(Laughter.)
325

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: Where those materials are 

applied, how they are persistent is totally a matter 

of debate, but the reality is that we have a law 

that was agreed upon, that was adopted by Congress, 

and that organic farmers voluntarily agree to 

adhere to, and we do not have any exceptions written 

into that law that allow for any exemptions to 

follow those practices. And the three-year 

transition period is very clear and I think I'm 

glad that you follow it, but I hope you don't come 

back here advocating that we should stop following 

it.

(Applause.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Dan. And just so 

everyone knows, we're 45 minutes behind.

DR. SEITZ: And this is a comment, 

actually. I would find it ironic that a 

conventional farmer who wishes to transition to 

organic and has to patiently work his soil, or her 

soil, for three years and not get a premium for 

selling the products during that time would be 

required to abide by a three-year period for 
326

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

transition. 

And yet, someone who would like to 

immediately set up a hydroponic operation and apply 

prohibited substances would immediately have 

access to a premium market. I just --- I want just 

to state this as a comment that I would find that 

highly ironic.

CHAIR BEHAR: As I said in my opening 

statement, I don't think this is a settled issue. 

Emily, you really want that last word; don't you?

MS. OAKLEY: No. I just want to say 

that if we are done with public comment -- and Jenny 

indicated that it was at your discretion to ask 

her to comment on this topic -- that this might 

be the right time to do that.

MR. CHAPMAN: Point of order, I mean, 

this is public comment. If the public commenter 

wanted to respond to anything, I think it would 

be open for them to speak.

CHAIR BEHAR: Well, I believe we are 

at the end of the public comment session.

MR. FERMAN: Thank you.
327

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Jenny, you said you might 

be able to answer Emily's question at the end of 

the public comment session.

DR. TUCKER: So we are at the end of 

the public comment session, and I think just as 

we did yesterday, I think it's appropriate to thank 

everyone who gave a public comment, and let's give 

them all a big round of applause. Thank you for 

being here.

(Applause.)

DR. TUCKER: And so I did say that I'd 

be happy to follow up on comments as needed, and 

clearly this is a topic of continuing interest. 

I would say that my comments from yesterday are 

my comments now. All container systems must meet 

regulatory requirements related to the use of 

prohibited substances on land.

The three-year transition period is 

tightly connected with prohibited substances, and 

that's why we talk about land use histories. And 

so the certifiers need to make decisions for each 

individual operation that they certify based on 
328

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the regulations. And so certifiers responsible 

for making those decisions, any farmer who has 

questions about how transition or how the rules 

apply to their operation need to contact their 

certifiers. We will continue to monitor certifiers 

as we do across all practice standards.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: So we heard from a 

commenter that he is aware of greenhouse growers 

not going through the three-year transition period.

If I, as a farmer or consumer, were to 

file a complaint on something like that, what would 

the result be with the NOP?

DR. TUCKER: So anytime we get a 

complaint, a complaint is reviewed to determine 

what is the issue at hand, what is the applicable 

regulation, and what is the evidence. So we would 

review any complaint in that light and pursue 

accordingly.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Just the last question. 

Is the NOP aware of greenhouses that are currently 
329

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

growing without going through the three-year 

transition period?

DR. TUCKER: I am not.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. I don't see any 

other comments. I'm sure we will continue this 

conversation at some point or another. So I'm going 

to move --- I'm not going to take a break right 

now because we're so far behind. 

So the Handling Subcommittee will 

begin. There are no proposals. It's just a very 

long list of sunset materials, and as is our usual 

method, I turn over the running of the meeting to 

the subcommittee chair, Asa.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you, Harriet. 

Michelle, is this working in terms of sound quality? 

Okay. So I was expecting a break.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Asa, Devon will be 

putting up the material.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: And then Devon will read 

into the record ---
330

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. BRADMAN: Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- the name of the 

material, the annotation ---

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. I see a few hand 

signals going on there.

(Discussion off the record.)

CHAIR BEHAR: So everyone wants to take 

a break, which means that we will go longer than 

probably we had planned. So if you want to take 

a break, I'm open to that. Ten minutes ---

DR. BRADMAN: Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- which probably means 

15.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 3:33 p.m. and resumed at 

3:44 p.m.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Everyone back in 

your seats, please. Was that refreshing? All 

refreshed for the next marathon? 

Okay. So, the way this works is I will 

turn this over to the Handling Subcommittee Chair, 

Asa. And before each material that goes up for 
331

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sunset, it'll be up on the screen before you and 

Devon will read the summary. So it's all -- it's 

just going to flow like clockwork. 

Asa, it's all yours.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. I hope everyone 

can hear me okay, and please mention if my distance 

to the mic is not working.

So, the first substance we're going to 

be reviewing today is -- voting on today is citric 

acid. And, Devon, I think you're going to 

introduce it for us.

MR. PATTILLO: Yep. Thanks, Asa. 

We'll start the sunset reviews with substances used 

in organic handling, found in Section 205.605 of 

the National List. This section of the National 

List includes nonagricultural, nonorganic 

substances that are allowed as ingredients in or 

on processed products labeled as organic or made 

with organic. These substances may be used as 

ingredients in or on processed products labeled 

as organic or made with organic in accordance with 

any restrictions specified in the section.
332

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Section 205.605 is divided into 

paragraph (a) for nonsynthetic substances and 

paragraph (b) for synthetic substances. We'll 

start with nonsynthetics in paragraph (a). 

And the first substance is listed as 

acids, citric, produced by microbial fermentation 

of carbohydrate substances.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you, Devon. Lisa, 

I think you're on deck for this one.

MS. de LIMA: So, citric acid is 

produced through fermentation. It's widely used 

in food processing. According to public comment, 

it's used to control pH, used as an acidulent, a 

buffer in gel formation to stabilize colors, and 

as an ingredient in dietary supplements.

In the organic produce sector, it's 

widely used in the formulation of disinfectants 

and sanitizers, allowed for use in direct contact 

with organic food without the need for a rinse, 

a practice which is essential for complying with 

FSMA requirements for raw agricultural 

commodities.
333

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It's also used for controlling pH in 

wash water, used for post-harvest handling of fresh 

fruits and veggies. Additionally, the 

neutralizing of pH of wash water thereby reduces 

the amount of chlorine that needs to be added to 

the water.

Two commenters wrote in that citric acid 

should be reclassified as synthetic unless it's 

possible to define nonsynthetic citric acid by 

annotation. They further stated that citric acid 

was originally added to the National List based 

on TAP reviews that gave a simplified version of 

their production using fermentation.

No new information was brought forward 

in terms of harm to human health or the environment. 

And that's about it.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. I want to open it 

up for discussion. Any comments, questions, 

discussion for citric acid? 

No? Then let's take it right to a vote.

So, all those in favor of a motion to 

remove citric acid based on -- uh oh, am I doing 
334

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

something wrong? A second?

CHAIR BEHAR: Did you just make the 

motion, Asa?

DR. BRADMAN: What was that?

CHAIR BEHAR: You need to make a motion 

before we vote.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. I'm sorry. So I 

want to make --

CHAIR BEHAR: Unless someone else --

MS. SWAFFAR: Point of order. Point 

of order. These motions have already came to us 

made and seconded from the Subcommittee. So we 

will just proceed to vote.

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, just vote.

DR. BRADMAN: Do you want -- yeah, 

that's how I understood it.

CHAIR BEHAR: Somebody was just telling 

me we had to vote. I just was doing what Steve 

told me to do.

(Laughter.)

MS. SWAFFAR: Point of order. Hasn't 

the program historically read for us?
335

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. BRADMAN: Yeah.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay.

MS. SWAFFAR: Okay.

MR. CHAPMAN: No, normally the Chair 

reads it.

DR. BRADMAN: So I was just -- yeah, 

my plan was to read the motion. So, a motion was 

brought by the Subcommittee to remove citric acid 

based on the following criteria in OFPA and/or 7 

C.F.R. 205.605(a) if applicable. And the motion 

was made by Lisa and seconded by Scott Rice. And 

now we're going to vote as a full Board.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So we will go to 

a vote, and we will start with Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.
336

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: And Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion passes -- or fails. Excuse me.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Asa, next 

material.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Now we're going 

to move on to lactic acid. Devon, if you could 

introduce that for us.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks. We'll continue 

with nonsynthetic substances in 205.605(a). And 

the listing is acids, lactic.

DR. BRADMAN: Lisa?

MS. de LIMA: So, lactic acid, 

originally isolated from sour milk. Today it's 

produced through carbohydrate fermentation. Uses 

from public comment included as an acidulent, a 

flavor enhancer, a buffer, coagulating agent, pH 
337

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

control agent, as a carcass wash, and as a 

processing agent in conjunction with celery powder.

In the organic produce sector, it's 

widely used in the formulation of disinfectants 

and sanitizers, allowed for direct contact with 

organic food without the need for a rinse, similar 

to what I just talked about with citric acid. And, 

similarly to citric acid, it's also used in 

controlling pH in wash water.

And, again similar to citric acid, two 

commenters wrote in that lactic acid they thought 

should be reclassified as synthetic. And, again, 

no new information was brought forward in terms 

of harm to human health or the environment.

DR. BRADMAN: Opening this up for 

discussion or comment by Board members? 

No comments? No? Okay. Then why 

don't we take this to a vote. 

So, a motion has been brought to the 

Board to remove lactic acid based on the OFPA 

criteria in 7 C.F.R. 205.605(a). I think we're 

ready to vote.
338

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. We'll start the 

vote with Tom this time.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

CHAIR BEHAR: Asa, you can go to the 

next material.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Our next material 

now is calcium chloride. Devon, if you can 

introduce that.
339

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Asa. Still in 

Section 205.605(a), and the listing is calcium 

chloride.

DR. BRADMAN: Tom, I think you're up 

on this one.

MR. CHAPMAN: Calcium chloride is used 

a wide variety of food applications, particularly 

in tofu, cut fruit, canning applications as a sodium 

replacement, as a water adjustment, and as a 

nutrient supplement.

Public comment at this round mimicked 

the public comment we received in the spring with 

several certified operations speaking to its 

necessity in several trade associations and 

certifiers speaking it its wide usage.

There were two comments from interest 

groups that, again, as in the spring, raised 

concerns about the allowance for up to seven percent 

impurities. But that is what's on the USP and FCC 

monographs for these items. And there was not, 

I guess, any real justification as given to why 

they raised an objection on the seven percent 
340

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

impurity of a substance produced like calcium 

chloride.

DR. BRADMAN: Any discussion by the 

Board? 

No comments? Okay. Then I think we're 

ready to go to a vote on calcium chloride.

So the Subcommittee brings a motion to 

remove calcium chloride from 205.605(a) on the 

National List based on OFPA and the 7 C.F.R. 

205.600(b).

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. We will go to a 

vote, starting with Lisa.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.
341

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes --

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Oh, sorry. Chair votes 

no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

CHAIR BEHAR: Asa, you can go to the 

next substance.

DR. BRADMAN: Now we can go our next 

substance, dairy cultures. And maybe this will 

be a little more exciting.

(Laughter.)

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Asa. The next 

listing is 205.605(a) for dairy cultures.

DR. BRADMAN: Steve, I think you're on 

deck for dairy cultures.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I am. You know we had 

to create some controversy of our own. So, in a 

nutshell, no opposition to renewing, relisting 

dairy cultures. Everybody is in favor of it. In 

the public comments, they're obviously widely used 
342

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and critical to the dairy industry.

The main issue here is whether dairy 

cultures are covered by microorganisms, and most 

commenters agree that they are. The debate becomes 

not whether they're important but that some people 

want to keep dairy cultures listed separately 

because they say they serve a unique and functional 

difference from other organisms. If consumers 

don't see dairy cultures on the National List, they 

may think that they aren't organic. 

And other commenters were that listing 

microorganisms on National List does not easily 

match or translate in lay terms to the appearance 

of cultures on an ingredient label.

Some people argued that the listing is 

not redundant, that from a technical and 

phylogenetic perspective, we might be able to view 

them as a subcategory of microorganisms. However, 

dairy starter cultures include a unique subset of 

microorganisms used for certain dairy products to 

create a desired outcome.

Other comments did say the dairy 
343

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

cultures are covered by the listing for 

microorganisms, and one recommended that dairy 

cultures be removed from the National List. But 

they wanted to make sure that we provided criteria 

for doing so in the recommendation. And, as we 

heard in public comment, the write-up for dairy 

cultures does actually include a paragraph that 

specifically states that dairy cultures are 

included under microorganisms. And that would 

also be put on the cover sheet depending on how 

the vote goes for this.

I don't think there's much doubt that 

it does -- that they could be folded into 

microorganisms. It just then come down to a Board 

discussion of whether that's the preference or not. 

It could be argued that it's redundant. It can 

also -- obviously, some people feel very strongly 

that they like that listing kept separately. My 

personal opinion is that it's redundant.

So, there was also some comment on the 

process, that using the sunset listing to delist 

it because it's redundant may not be proper, that 
344

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we should go through a work agenda item with an 

annotation change, or basically an annotation 

revocation, I guess.

We put this before the program as far 

as this process when the Executive Committee and 

we all agreed that this probably was an appropriate 

process. So, I understand the argument. But the 

National Organic Program, as well as the NOSB, 

through the executive process was okay with this 

process. We did run it through the system.

So, with that, Asa, I would open it up 

for discussion and questions.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you, Steve. 

Anyone like to opine on this issue? Dan.

DR. SEITZ: I don't want to opine. I 

want to ask a question. If there's anyone who's 

on the Board who's in favor of keeping this as a 

separate listing, for purposes of informing the 

consumer or for some other reason, I'd just be 

interested in hearing that, just because it seems 

to me, either way, it won't change the actual 

practices. So just curious to know if anyone feels 
345

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

there's a good reason for a separate listing.

DR. BRADMAN: Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: Not to throw it right back 

at you, Dan, but I'm also interested to know your 

opinion being a consumer rep.

(Laughter.)

DR. SEITZ: Well, I did not know until 

I started reading this -- well, I guess I always 

knew that cultures were microorganisms, sort of. 

But it never occurred to me that they were a subset 

of microorganisms. So that was a fairly new 

understanding on my part.

I do feel more comfortable when I read 

a label and I see that it says "dairy cultures. 

" That, to me, says more than if I saw 

microorganisms. But I also understand that 

there's no limitation in listing dairy cultures. 

So, from an aesthetic standpoint, I like the idea 

of simplification without losing substance.

DR. BRADMAN: So, is this a dialogue 

with Tom? Or, Lisa, I think you were going to 

comment.
346

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. de LIMA: I mean, I'll just add that 

I've been working in retail for 20 years and I've 

probably had one or maybe two conversations with 

a customer that even knew what the National List 

was, which is alarming but actually true. People 

really don't get it at this level. I mean, I have 

employees that don't get it at this level that work 

in the store level. If someone came up to them 

and asked about the National List, they wouldn't 

necessarily know.

So I'm not concerned about it from that 

standpoint. And once it got cleared up that they'd 

still be able to list it, however they're listing 

it currently, that I'm less concerned. But I don't 

actually feel strongly about it either way.

DR. BRADMAN: Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: So I think if we're going 

to remove a substance like this, we need to have 

a robust discussion on rationale. And there's some 

things that were said that the dairy industry was 

very concerned that dairy cultures wouldn't be 

listed.
347

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I just want to say, you know, a lot 

of the label claims that they provided us didn't 

actually list dairy cultures. They had a whole 

bunch of other acids and things like that. So they 

didn't specifically say dairy cultures on the 

label.

And then the comment that folks felt 

that this was not the appropriate time for this. 

I just want to say that I feel like this is the 

most appropriate time for that. And the only time 

to delist a sunset item is during the sunset 

process. So I just want to ease those fears out 

there that this is the time for that.

And I would like to ask the 

Subcommittee, in your proposal to the program or 

in the cover sheet, are you going to explicitly 

state that dairy cultures are microorganisms so 

fears can be alleviated?

DR. BRADMAN: Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: In answer to that, yes. 

I mean, it's already explicitly stated in the 

proposal. But I think it never hurts to restate 
348

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that.

I will also say one of the reasons that 

they have been separated in the past -- and, I mean, 

I don't want to say older Board members; Board 

members with more experience may be able to jump 

in. But at least in taking this over, prior to 

this, the list of ancillary substances for the two 

listings were different.

And I think the Food Additives Council 

noted that, and it may have been Stoneyfield from 

the spring meeting. But public comment in the 

spring brought those two to align where the list 

of ancillary substances is the same.

So, really -- and if you look at the 

write-up for the two of them, I did both of them, 

you'll notice they're extremely similar. So, that 

could've been one of the arguments in the past to 

keep them separate, along with that they were added 

at different times. But I just want to bring up 

that the ancillary substance list is the same for 

both of them at this point. So, the write-up is 

duplicate.
349

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. BRADMAN: Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: I mean, the ancillary 

substances process and review is still kind of in 

process. I don't know if that was the reason back 

in the day, because that started recently. That 

was, like, 2014, 2015.

The one thing I'll note that is slightly 

confusing to me is the last technical review on 

dairy cultures is not in the petitioned substances 

database under dairy cultures; it's under 

microorganisms. And you got to go to that, and 

that's where we did the first technical review 

asking about ancillary substances.

So that's, I guess, for these highly 

informed consumers roving the stores with the 

National List or their computer looking this up, 

if they wanted to get even more technical data, 

they would still need to be able to make that 

connection that it's a microorganism. Flip over 

to that list and then find all the information they 

want to find on it.

The other point that, you know this is 
350

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a half a dozen, you know, six on one end, half a 

dozen on the other kind of deal. Sue brought up 

the question about non-dairy yogurts. And I looked 

up a couple labels and they say "live cultures."

And I guess, similarly, you could have 

confused consumers going on labels, looking at the 

National List and then finding dairy cultures and 

being concerned that they're buying a non-dairy 

product. But it's based on a dairy culture.

And so is that a compelling reason to 

take it off? No, but, you know, you can make that 

argument in multiple different ways, I guess is 

what I'm trying to say. And I don't know. It just 

seems like a redundant listing. It seems like a 

lot of work to do it through another petition 

process or a work agenda item.

DR. BRADMAN: Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Just following 

Ashley's comment about a robust discussion. I 

appreciate Ashley's comments.

For me, it makes a great deal more 

logical sense to not have dairy cultures and have 
351

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it nested in microorganisms. I think, as we think 

about excluded methods, the group, the 

microorganism group, is a targeted area that we're 

going to have to pay a great deal more attention 

to going forward in the very near future.

So I would prefer to see us get all the 

microorganisms under one microorganism; including 

yeast, actually, but certainly dairy cultures. 

And so I'm going the same direction as everyone 

else that's spoken.

DR. BRADMAN: Harriet, and then Tom.

CHAIR BEHAR: So, back in ancient 

history when OFPANA -- when OTA was OFPANA, there 

was a subcommittee called the MPPL. And I know 

someone in the room who was in that subcommittee 

with me. Manufacturing, Processing, Packaging, 

and Labeling Subcommittee.

And when the National List was being 

put together between -- the rule wasn't even out 

yet. It was after the OFPA was passed but before 

2002. The program, as it was then, what, three 

people, came to the organic community and industry 
352

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and said, we're putting together this National List 

as required under the OFPA, and what should we do?

And so people came together and put 

things on the List. And so this is a holdover from 

then, not much of a process, really. It was just, 

like, yeah, we better have dairy cultures on there 

so we can be making yogurt and cheese and tempeh. 

I know that's not a yogurt culture, but -- and 

at that time, I was working at Organic Valley and 

I was the person who submitted the dairy cultures.

But at this time, we have a much more 

structured system rather than just kind of throwing 

things out there and hoping they get put on the 

list. So I support moving this to microorganisms 

because that's really where it belongs. And as 

we clean up our National List and make it more 

uniform, I think that's all a good thing.

DR. BRADMAN: I think I have Scott and 

then Emily and Tom. Tom, Scott, Emily. Sorry.

MR. CHAPMAN: As I do when I go shopping 

right now, flipping through the petition substances 

database. So I can probably opine on why I think 
353

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

they're separate listings and that's that dairy 

cultures was petitioned in '95 and microorganisms 

was petitioned in 2002.

So it looks like dairy cultures were 

first and then a more broader microorganisms came 

through from when people wanted to make soy sauce. 

So that's probably why, and then it's lasted since 

then.

I agree with -- if yeast had no other 

annotations on it, I would be totally in the same 

boat of trying to cut yeast out and drop it under 

microorganisms. I think yeast is in a separate 

bucket now a little bit because it has a strong 

specific annotation that restricts it further than 

other microorganisms. Although it could be fair 

to say, why is that evaluation not being done on 

microorganisms?

DR. BRADMAN: I think we're going to 

Scott, Emily, and then Harriet.

MR. RICE: Yeah, I agree with much of 

what's been said, but just as a fan of sort of clean, 

tidy, and efficient, and kind of looking at we did 
354

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

get a couple of comments from certifiers who agree 

that the listing was not necessary and redundant. 

I don't see any issues from that perspective in 

terms of taking this one away.

DR. BRADMAN: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: This is a comment to the 

USDA that it's so important to have Board members 

that have historical and institutional knowledge 

about this process. And so I hope as new members 

are appointed they will be able to supply some of 

that and we will not lose as much as we're losing.

DR. BRADMAN: Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: So, when we were 

discussing this in subcommittee, I tried to figure 

out were there any dairy cultures that were not 

microorganisms? And I just didn't know, you know, 

some of kind of strange cheese made in wherever, 

and I couldn't find any.

So I don't think by taking this off the 

list that we will restrict any new products. Or, 

everything that would have been and could be made 

using dairy cultures will be covered under the 
355

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

microorganisms.

DR. BRADMAN: Steve, and then maybe we 

can end the discussion.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yeah, I just want to 

be clear. When I said the ancillary substances, 

I did not think that was the original reason. But 

in the spring comments, that was one reason that 

people argued for them to be, separate because they 

had a different ancillary substances list. So, 

I want to be clear on what I meant on that.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. I just want to 

make one comment and then close the discussion, 

unless anyone has anything very -- something they 

really have to say.

But basically one thing about combining 

them is that hopefully the next time around we'll 

save whoever is reviewing this a few hours of time 

by consolidating it. And we're spending a fair 

amount of time right now. But, going down the road, 

we may be saving hours of time for people. So I 

think that's one argument in favor and certainly 

understanding our demands of time, it's really 
356

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

substantial.

So I think we're ready to go for a vote 

on dairy cultures. And Harriet, do you want to 

direct that? Oh, I'm sorry. I have to go through 

the motion.

So, the Committee is a bringing a motion 

to remove dairy cultures from 205.605(a) based on 

OFPA and the 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b). 

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: So, we'll go to a vote, 

starting with Dan.

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes.

MR. RICE: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.
357

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. de LIMA: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes yes.

MR. RICE: That's 13 yes, 1 absent. 

The motion passes.

MR. CHAPMAN: I do want to make it clear 

it's a "yes, I love dairy cultures" as part of my 

vote.

CHAIR BEHAR: I wanted to say, yes, moo.

(Laughter.)

DR. BRADMAN: So now, Devon, we want 

to cover enzymes if you could introduce that.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Asa. We're 

still in Section 205.605(a), and the listing is 

enzymes. It must be derived from edible, nontoxic 

plants, nonpathogenic fungi, or nonpathogenic 

bacteria.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. So I want to open 

that up for discussion by the Board. 

Steve, did I see you -- I'm sorry. 

You're on deck right now to introduce it. Thank 

you.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yeah. This can take 
358

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

20 seconds. There's widespread support for the 

relisting of enzymes. Really, the only main 

comment is that enzymes should be classified as 

synthetic unless annotated to define those that 

have not undergone synthetic chemical change. And 

the review of ancillary substances should include 

all such substances, including those on the 

National List.

So it's just basically nobody said we 

shouldn't relist enzymes, but there is some 

discussion that wouldn't be part of the sunset 

review of whether they are synthetic or 

nonsynthetic.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. At this point, I 

want to open it up to the Board for discussion or 

comment. Anyone? 

Okay. No? Then I think we're ready 

to go to a vote.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So we go to a vote, 

and now we start with Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.
359

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MS. de LIMA: Point of order. Was a 

motion made?

DR. BRADMAN: I'm sorry. Keep 

reminding me. Next year I'll get it right.

So, the Committee is bringing a motion 

to the full Board to remove enzymes from 205.605(a) 

on the National List based on OFPA and the 7 C.F.R. 

205.600(b). So, now I think we're ready to go for 

a vote.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. We will start 

over.

We'll start with Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.
360

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. So our next 

substance is L-malic acid. And, Devon, if you 

could introduce that.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks. The listing at 

205.605(a) is L-malic acid, CAS No. 97-67-6.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. So, Scott, I think 

you're onboard with this one.

MR. RICE: I am. L-malic acid is used 

as a flavor enhancer, a flavoring agent, adjuvant, 

and pH control agent in a variety of foods. It 

occurs naturally in many fruits and veggies and 

can be obtained by enzymatic conversion of fumaric 

acid by fermentation. However, it's not 

economical to extract L-malic acid from natural 

foodstuffs.

In the first round of sunset review this 
361

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

past spring, a number of commenters questioned 

whether commercially available L-malic acid is 

indeed from nonsynthetic sources, as the listing 

restricts. Commenters noted that while supporting 

documentation may state L-malic acid is produced 

naturally via enzymatic fermentation, that 

statement refers to only the second half of the 

process.

The major commercial source of L-malic 

acid is enzymatic conversion of synthetic fumaric 

acid to L-malic acid by immobilized microbes. If 

the malic acid produced by this method is synthetic, 

most if not all of the L-malic acid on market is 

therefore synthetic.

We received comments. Well, first of 

all, it was clear to the Subcommittee that the 

material should be reclassified and placed on 

205.605(b) to reflect that commercially available 

sources are a product of a synthetic process.

That reclassification can't be 

completed via sunset, so the Subcommittee is 

proposing to relist this material and address the 
362

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

reclassification as a separate work plan item for 

consideration in the spring, which we are indeed 

looking to do.

Comments on this. We had support, wide 

support of continued use of this. Several 

certifiers commented that a number of operations 

they certify include L-malic acid on their 

materials list used in the production of wine, 

juices, dietary supplements, personal care 

products.

We had several commenters opposed to 

the relisting of this, noting that it should be 

removed and then petitioned for inclusion at 

205.605(b), or could be listed to 605(a) with an 

annotation to require nonsynthetic fermentation. 

As noted before, however, most, if not all, L-malic 

acid on the market it produced through this 

synthetic process.

DR. BRADMAN: Open for discussion. 

Any comments, concerns, questions about L-malic 

acid? 

Okay. Then I think we can go to a vote 
363

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

so that -- just about to do it. So, the 

Subcommittee wants to bring a motion to the full 

Board to remove L-malic acid from 205.605(a) and 

the National List based on OFPA and the 205.600(b) 

criteria. So I think, Harriet, we can go to a vote.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. We are ready for 

a vote. And, Asa, you are first.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.
364

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Our next material 

are microorganisms. Devon, if you can introduce 

that.

MR. RICE: Point of order. I think 

we've got magnesium sulfate.

DR. BRADMAN: Did I skip magnesium 

sulfate? Oh, sorry. I almost let you off the 

hook, Scott. So, Devon, if you could introduce 

magnesium sulfate.

MR. PATTILLO: At Section 205.605(a), 

the listing is magnesium sulfate, nonsynthetic 

sources only.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Let's open it up 

to the Board for discussion. I'm sorry. Open it 

up to Scott to present.

MR. RICE: I'll go ahead and present 

first. Thank you. Magnesium sulfate has a wide 

variety of uses in food processing and personal 

care products. It's used as a firming agent in 

the production of tofu, also used as a nutrient 

in salt replacement products, dietary supplements, 

carbonated beverages, other drinks, and as a 
365

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

fermentation and malting aid in beer, ale, and other 

malt beverages.

Several mineral forms of magnesium 

sulfate are recovered from the ground. Magnesium 

sulfate generally found in nature is in the hydrated 

form.

Two manufacturers noted their support 

of this material. In the spring, we received other 

support in this current period, as well as use as 

a nutrient vitamin and mineral product.

We had one comment characterizing 

magnesium sulfate from no synthetic sources as 

synthetic based upon dehydration and purification 

reactions and suggesting it be removed and 

classified as synthetic, and, if supported, 

repetitioned to 605(b).

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Done? Thanks. 

Okay. Now we can open it up for Board discussion 

for magnesium sulfate. Any comments, questions, 

discussion? 

No? Then let's go straight to a vote. 

So, the Subcommittee is bringing to the full Board 
366

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a motion to remove magnesium sulfate from 

205.605(a) based on OFPA and the criteria --

and/or -- well, we have C.F.R. 205.600(b) there. 

Okay. Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. We will start with 

Steve this time.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Now we can shift 
367

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

over to microorganisms. Devon, if you could 

introduce that material.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks. Continuing 

205.605(a), the listing is for microorganisms: any 

food-grade bacteria, fungi, and other 

microorganism.

DR. BRADMAN: Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: All right. Again, 

widespread support for relisting of 

microorganisms. I mean, the main comment is 

microorganisms are indispensable in the 

manufacturer of many organic food products that 

would be unavailable without their use.

I guess the one comment that we received 

that the listing is not clear. It's apparent that 

it's intended to cover those microorganisms present 

as living organisms in foods such as cheese, yogurt, 

vinegar, pickles, tempeh, wine, so forth. 

However, there are other products that are made 

from, or with the assistance of, microorganisms, 

and it's not clear whether that listing is intended 

to cover them. And that could include nutritional 
368

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

yeast, spirulina that have been cultured by 

microorganisms that are no longer living, or the 

products of fermentation that have been isolated 

from the fermentation organisms.

But that is -- so, it's just a comment 

on the details of the listing, but not a comment 

that they should not be relisted. So, again, just 

a broad class that is vital to organic production. 

And I would strongly support relisting it, and 

it would be very awkward if we didn't at this point 

having just delisted dairy cultures.

(Laughter.)

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you, Steve. 

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Not only are they needed 

for the production of food, but they add great 

health benefits to the food, as well. So, it's 

not only let's just have more food, but let's have 

some healthy food, too.

DR. BRADMAN: Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: I just found a two-word 

addition that could be made to enhance the clarity 
369

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in the wording of a minor point, but an important 

point, potentially, since we're lumping cultures 

in. And that is on the very last page. Can you 

do that at this point, first off? No. Oh, can't 

make a change in the wording?

DR. BRADMAN: A change to the motion?

MR. MORTENSEN: Or can you? If you 

can't, that's fine.

DR. BRADMAN: A change to the motion? 

Or a change --

MR. MORTENSEN: No, just there's a 

statement that reads, "any culture that is 

genetically modified is disallowed." What I was 

-- how it should be, in my opinion, worded is, "any 

culture containing microorganisms that are 

genetically modified is disallowed."

DR. BRADMAN: So, that's in the 

narrative?

MR. MORTENSEN: It's in the narrative.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay.

MR. MORTENSEN: I'm just asking, for 

the record, can that be amended with that minor 
370

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

word change or not?

DR. BRADMAN: The sunset narrative or 

the motion?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, this one. As a 

written record, I just am asking -- you can't do 

it? Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: We might need Paul to let 

us know if that's considered a substantive change 

since it's not really part of the motion.

DR. LEWIS: Right. It's not part of 

the motion. So let's keep the report the way it 

is.

MR. MORTENSEN: Okay. That's fine.

DR. LEWIS: I think people understand 

the intent in terms of where we're getting to here.

MR. MORTENSEN: Okay. I guess I did 

have one other question and just a point of 

clarification. Tom, you indicated that the 

annotation in the yeast one, and I was wondering 

-- I didn't pick up on that. Could you just explain 

what you meant when you said that before just so 

I understand? And the point was that maybe we could 
371

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

put the yeast under microbes, microorganisms. And 

you were saying we probably could but the annotation 

gets in the way or something.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah. There's an 

annotation on yeast that's very specific, requires 

sourcing of organic yeasts, despite it being a 

non-ag ingredient. So, yeast grown on organic 

substrates, and then there is specific substrates 

that are prohibited. And I think there's something 

about smoked yeast for flavoring.

MR. MORTENSEN: Okay.

MR. CHAPMAN: I can look it up, but it 

will come up later and Steve will address it. So 

there's some very specific requirements on yeast.

None of that exists with the microorganisms.

MR. MORTENSEN: Okay, good. Thank 

you, Tom.

DR. BRADMAN: Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I do want to say, and 

I think Dave said it earlier, that this is a class 

in general that worries me because it is ripe for 

genetic modification. And I don't want to -- I 
372

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

want to see the program and the Board stay ahead 

of it and not get backed into a corner, like we 

did with vaccines, where suddenly you have no other 

choice but to accept a genetically modified 

organism.

So I would like to make sure that, as 

stakeholders, if a product starts being made with 

genetically modified organisms, that they maintain 

the nongenetically modified culture for organic 

use. So I just think that's important to be mindful 

and thoughtful and pay attention to the class as 

a whole.

DR. BRADMAN: Tom and then Harriet.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah. I just want to 

point out that excluded methods applies to 605 

items. And so that's something that gets verified. 

And hopefully, I guess, if there's any difference 

to that, again, like I said at the very beginning, 

that would require a petition. And the forum for 

that petition, or anything like that, would be the 

NOSB. And so hopefully NOSB stays in front of that.

DR. BRADMAN: Harriet and then Scott.
373

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: I just want to say that 

it's not hypothetical about having genetically 

engineered microorganisms. They do exist and they 

are being used in conventional, nonorganic food.

DR. BRADMAN: Any other comments or 

discussion related to microorganisms? No?

So, the Subcommittee then brings a 

motion to remove microorganisms from 205.605(a) 

and the National List based on OFPA and 7 C.F.R. 

205.600(b). 

So, Harriet, I think we're ready to 

vote.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. We will go to a 

vote, starting with Scott.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.
374

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Our next 

substance is perlite. Devon, if you could 

introduce that.

MR. PATTILLO: At Section 205.605(a), 

the listing is perlite, for use only as a filter 

aid in food processing.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you. Scott.

MR. RICE: Thanks. Perlite is used as 

a filter aid in food processing such as filtration 

of juices, beer, wine, and vegetable oils. It's 

an amorphous volcanic glass that occurs naturally, 

sourced primarily from mines in the U.S., Greece, 

Turkey, and China.

The listing of perlite has been 

consistently supported by the Board and 
375

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

stakeholders. There has been some concern with 

potential human health hazard of inhalation of fine 

silica dust. However, the use of personal 

protective equipment minimizes such risk.

In this round of comments, we continue 

to have support for this, with a number of 

operations listing this on their organic system 

plans and called out specifically as an essential 

filtering aid for fruit concentrates.

DR. BRADMAN: Opening this up for 

discussion, comment. Lisa.

MS. de LIMA: I just want to add it's 

also used to filter wine.

MR. RICE: Good point.

DR. BRADMAN: Any other comments, 

concerns, discussion for perlite? 

No? Then the Subcommittee then brings 

a motion to the Board to remove perlite from 

205.605(a) of the National List based on OFPA and 

7 C.F.R. 205.600(b). 

Harriet, I think we can vote.

CHAIR BEHAR: We move to a vote 
376

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

starting, with Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Our next substance is 

potassium iodide. And, Devon, if you can introduce 

that.

MR. PATTILLO: At Section 205.605(a), 

the listing is potassium iodide.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. So Tom.
377

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CHAPMAN: So, again, on this item, 

public comment at the fall mimicked public comment 

at the spring. Potassium iodide is used for iodine 

supplementation to address iodine deficiencies and 

potentially used as a sanitizer. From public 

comment, it looks like it's primary used in the 

industry for the supplement side.

We received comments in support from 

various industry manufacturers, including dairy 

and infant formulas. The trade association --

multiple trade associations commented about their 

members' usage. We did receive a comment from an 

interest group that recommended that its usage be 

restricted to only when required by law.

DR. BRADMAN: Opening it up for 

discussion, comment. No? Concerns? 

Okay. And then I think we can bring 

a motion to the Board. So, the Subcommittee brings 

a motion to the full Board to remove potassium 

iodide from 205.605(a) in the National List 

following criteria in 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b). And 

I think we're ready to vote.
378

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: This time we start with 

Jesse.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Devon, if you 

could introduce yeast for us.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Asa. The 

listing at 205.605(a) is yeast when used as food 

or a fermentation agent in products labeled as 
379

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic. Yeast must be organic if its end use is 

for human consumption. Nonorganic yeast may be 

used when organic yeast is not commercially 

available. Growth on petrochemical substrate and 

sulfite waste liquor is prohibited. For smoked 

yeast, nonsynthetic smoke flavoring process must 

be documented.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: All right. Surprise, 

yeast is a microorganism that is commonly used for 

fermentation, baking, food flavors, adding 

nutritional value and providing health benefits. 

There's, again, widespread support. 

It's very critical for the organic industry. 

Organic yeast options are available, but they're 

not always in the appropriate quantity. And even 

when organic yeast is commercially available, the 

quality can vary. Since the yeast are very 

specific for what they're used for, they have 

functional requirements regarding flavor.

And so the upshot is organic yeast, 

while available, it's not always available in the 
380

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

correct quantities and often does not exhibit the 

correct properties for consistent application, 

Thus, the listing.

The other thing is there are many 

ancillary substances added to yeast. There's a

list in the write-up. So, that's just one of those 

things we continue to monitor.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Opening it up for 

discussion. Tom and then Harriet.

MR. CHAPMAN: Just on this one where 

commercial availability has been added in on it, 

you know, there's a lot of comments received about 

606 and other handling materials and commercial 

availability and the need to remove materials 

before we push industry to produce organic versions 

of them.

And I think this is a case that shows 

that that argument is not true. As a super-nano 

or nano-nano-brewer, 15 years ago finding organic 

yeast was nonexistent. And now brewers, at least 

on the brewery side, there's whole companies 

dedicated to producing only organic yeasts in 
381

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

various formats. They certainly don't cover the 

breadth of all the types of yeast used in the brewing 

world, but they cover quite a few. And the size 

of that market has grown significantly to where 

I, as a home brewer now, can easily source organic 

yeast. So I do think commercial availability can 

be quite effective at moving the dial towards 

organic.

DR. BRADMAN: Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: So, for another trip down 

memory lane, I remember when Grace Marroquin and 

Dick Siegel fought for years to get this on the 

National List. And there was a lot of discussion. 

Is it really agricultural? Can it be considered 

commercially available? And it's just an example 

of the tenacity of the organic community, as well 

as our openness to view all kinds of life forms 

as agricultural.

DR. BRADMAN: Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: And I would put forth 

the argument this whole category really should 

carry this kind of annotation. It's not -- I mean, 
382

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I would almost be interested in having that at the 

very top saying, you know, it has to be documented 

for no commercial availability. Because, I mean, 

as Tom says, the whole point of this category is 

a stepping stone, or it should be in most cases.

And I don't know. I mean, does yeast 

have this annotation? I think it is the stepping 

stone in the right direction. And I think all these 

other ones -- I mean, some may not be able to be 

organically produced, like calcium citrate or some 

of those. But, I mean, all the microorganisms 

certainly could be. That's my two cents.

DR. BRADMAN: Any more discussion, 

comment? 

No? Okay. Then let's bring this to 

vote. So, the Subcommittee brings a motion to 

remove yeast from 205.605(a) of the National List 

based on OFPA and 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b). So, 

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: We start the vote with 

Sue.

MS. BAIRD: No.
383

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you. And now, 

Devon, if you could introduce activated charcoal.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Asa. We're now 

moving into the synthetic substances included in 

Section 205.605(b). And the first listing is 

activated charcoal, CAS No. 7440-44-0; 64365-11-3, 

only for vegetative sources, for use only as 

filtering aid.
384

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you. So, Scott, 

you're onboard for activated charcoal.

MR. RICE: Thank you. Activated 

charcoal is used in processing as mechanical 

filtration involving the physical separation of 

suspended solids from a liquid passing through 

carbon arrayed as a porous media in a column or 

bed.

Activated charcoal of vegetative origin 

can be made from a large variety of sources, such 

as hardwoods, grain hulls, corn cobs, and nut 

shells. It undergoes pyrolysis at a very high 

heat. These agricultural byproducts may be 

chemically activated using a variety of acids and 

bases. Charcoal may also be activated through 

exposure to oxygenated gas or steam.

We, in both spring and fall, had 

continued support for this being relisted, with 

a number of operations listing it on their organic 

system plans for the filtration of wine and spirits.

We had one organization support it but 

with a few restrictions: limiting its use to 
385

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

filtering water and requiring the steam activation 

versus the chemical activation. And that is the 

review.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you. Comments, 

concerns, discussion for activated charcoal? 

No? Okay. Then let's bring this to 

a vote. So, the Subcommittee brings a motion to 

remove activated charcoal from 205.605(b) and the 

National List based on OFPA and 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b). 

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: We will begin the vote 

with Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: Sorry. No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.
386

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

DR. SEITZ: Oh, no.

MR. RICE: Sorry about that.

CHAIR BEHAR: You were just correct 

now. He put in his no vote.

MR. RICE: So, just to be sure, that 

was 13 no, 1 absent. The motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you. Devon, if you 

could introduce alginic acid.

MR. PATTILLO: Continuing Section 

205.605(b) of the listing is alginic acid, CAS No. 

9005-32-7.

DR. BRADMAN: Lisa, thank you.

MS. de LIMA: Alginic acid is derived 

from brown cold water seaweed. It's manufactured 

through a chemical separation process that includes 

maceration, alkali treatment, and acid 

precipitation of alginic seaweed from brown seaweed 

-- or alginic acid rather.
387

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The FDA allowed uses include as an 

emulsifier, formulation aid, stabilizer, and 

thickener, and its use is limited to soup and soup 

mixes.

We received no public comment from 

producers using alginic acid, and there were no 

reports from certifiers of it being included on 

any OSPs. One interest group asked that the list 

be reviewed within -- or the listing be reviewed 

within the broader context of marine materials and 

to consider adding an annotation related to harvest 

restrictions and risk based testing for toxic 

materials.

The TR -- well, I want to point out that 

the TR reported no residues of heavy metals in 

excess of FDA tolerances. There were a couple of 

other commenters that thought that it should be 

delisted due to lack of essentiality and 

environment impacts of seaweed cultivation.

In regards to seaweed harvesting, the 

TR reported that the majority of brown seaweed 

species harvested for production of alginic acid 
388

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are wild harvested. However, in countries like 

China and Japan, large scale production does exist 

and can affect coastal waterways.

So at the spring meeting, we asked that 

the community respond if they're using alginic acid 

to provide us public comment in advance of this 

meeting, especially because the TR pointed out that 

there were possible alternatives like agar-agar, 

carrageenan, gellan gum and xanthan gum.

And it would've been helpful to hear 

from users if they had tried using alternatives. 

And if alginic acid was preferable, why that was. 

But like I said, we didn't end up getting any public 

comment from producers. And in Subcommittee, we 

did vote five in favor of removing and two were 

absent.

DR. BRADMAN: So open for discussion. 

Tom and then did I see a hand over here? No? 

Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: There were two comments 

or maybe one comment since I think it's the same 

communication company. But Kellan, IFAC, the 
389

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Association of Dressings and Sauces -- IFAC and 

Association of Dressings and Sauces at least spoke 

to wanting its maintenance.

MS. de LIMA: Correct. They spoke in 

-- oh, sorry. Can I?

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah.

DR. BRADMAN: Lisa.

MS. de LIMA: They spoken in favor --

MR. CHAPMAN: I see.

MS. de LIMA: -- of relisting. But 

they didn't point out that there was anyone actually 

using it.

DR. BRADMAN: Any other discussion?

MR. CHAPMAN: I wasn't present for the 

Subcommittee. I'm one of the two absent. So if 

we are going to vote to remove this, I'd like to 

hear a little bit more from the other Subcommittee 

members on the discussion that occurred and the 

reasoning behind just so we get that out there on 

the record.

DR. BRADMAN: Then Lisa.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Go ahead, Lisa. It 
390

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

came down to essentiality. I felt like there just 

wasn't much argument that it was needed for me. 

So I guess I tend to like to see somebody say, this 

is important to me. And if I don't see any 

comments, especially after two rounds, that has 

bearing to me. So that, for me, is the main --

probably one of the main reasons.

DR. BRADMAN: Lisa.

MS. de LIMA: I think this is our second 

time voting on it. And the first time around, it 

was the same level of silence and we didn't get 

anyone.

DR. BRADMAN: Ashley, you look like 

you're -- Emily, thank you.

MS. OAKLEY: Yeah, I think having two 

recent rounds without public comment of use is a 

really compelling reason and demonstrates sound 

judgment by the Subcommittee.

DR. BRADMAN: Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah, I just have one 

small nit-picky point. But I imagine our 

recommendations over the years are littered with 
391

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the same mistakes. I don't think it matters all 

that much.

But the reason cited was essentiality, 

and essentiality is a criteria that's applicable 

to adjuvants and processing aids which this does 

not appear to be either of those. So necessity 

should technically be the one that we're citing 

here. But not a reason to stop moving forward 

because I assume that's littered throughout 

historical ones as well.

MS. de LIMA: I'd say that I'd correct 

that next time, but this is my last go at it.

(Laughter.)

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you, Tom. We're 

going to miss your encyclopedic knowledge. 

Ashley, were you going to say something?

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah. So I do. I think 

in the handling side of a manufacturer because this 

is only for soup and you would assume that those 

manufacturers are highly plugged into this. But 

I just want to caution us of saying that just because 

we don't hear from someone doesn't mean everyone 
392

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

knows that this process is happening.

I know I feel that way on the livestock 

side a lot. Like, say, chlorine, for instance, 

a lot of people use that. But we don't hear from 

that many people. So I just want to caution us 

on using that as a justification always.

But I mean, I feel like the larger soup 

manufacturers would probably notice this, that we 

are talking about this. And this is the second 

time the three of us have went through this and 

not heard anything. So I do feel comfortable 

taking this off, but I just want to caution that 

rationale in going forward.

DR. BRADMAN: Emily then Steve.

MS. OAKLEY: Thanks for your 

clarification, Tom. And I think just to back up 

what Ashley is saying. I think in the absence of 

hearing from manufacturers of soup that this is 

a necessary material and there are so many organic 

soups on the market, I think this is a safe 

conclusion that the Subcommittee has come to.

DR. BRADMAN: Steve.
393

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: I assume you'll put 

necessity in the cover letter. And I agree with 

that cautionary principle, Ashley. But I still 

feel like you need to pay attention. And the other 

thing is they do get one more shot when it goes 

to rulemaking.

So maybe if somebody really is using 

it, Paul will hear about it. And we know from 

experience that necessity and economic harm might 

be a reason for it to be not delisted. So I don't 

feel like this is the final shot for them, but maybe 

it's a wake up call if nothing else.

DR. LEWIS: Thanks for sharing that in 

terms of from the Program perspective if we look 

at the recommendation and if we go in terms of 

rulemaking, there is an opportunity again for the 

public to weigh in on this.

DR. BRADMAN: Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: There's so many things 

to look at, I can't remember. Was there anything 

listed like OTA or CCOF or some of the other 

certifiers --
394

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. de LIMA: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No, the only two comments 

were --

CHAIR BEHAR: -- mentioning anybody 

using it?

MR. CHAPMAN: -- Association of 

Dressings and Sauces and IFAC, the International 

Food Additives Council.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

CHAIR BEHAR: So it wasn't any actual 

certifier or --

MR. CHAPMAN: No, no. When you --

CHAIR BEHAR: -- organic organization 

listed?

MR. CHAPMAN: -- look at the petition 

database, this is a 95 item again and there's no 

petition that's available anymore. So it's hard

to tell who and where this originated, if it was 

ever used.

DR. BRADMAN: Emily.

CHAIR BEHAR: Because those are -- just 

for the public, those are very helpful to us because 
395

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

they can then reach and see what's out in the organic 

system plan.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah. The one point --

Steve makes a really good point about there's 

another shot at this. I guess I just want to make 

sure it's clear to the Program that we did consider 

the comments from IFAC and ADS as we're making this

decision. So I'd hope that they would keep that 

in mind that that's been considered. So additional 

comments outside of those would be what would need 

to be considered.

DR. BRADMAN: Emily and then Scott.

MS. OAKLEY: I just thought that in some 

of the comment -- or the stakeholder surveys to 

their stakeholders like OTA and others, they had 

zero respondents using this. So I think that there 

was an attempt by stakeholders to reach out to the 

community, but no one was using it.

DR. BRADMAN: Scott.

MR. RICE: I just want to make a 

comment. So the inverse of encouragement to weigh 

in, in support of it not being renewed as well 
396

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

because we've seen the importance of that, so --

DR. BRADMAN: I think we're at a point 

where we can close discussion. So let's move to 

our motion to the full Board from the Subcommittee 

to remove alginic acid based on OFPA and/or 

205.605(b). And maybe -- well, it says 

essentiality. I think that necessity is the 

appropriate term here. But as listed, it's 

essentiality.

CHAIR BEHAR: I suppose in the cover 

sheet, we could mention to change it to necessity.

DR. BRADMAN: Yeah. So Harriet --

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

DR. BRADMAN: -- let's go to a vote.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. We are starting 

the circle again. Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.

MS. de LIMA: Yes.

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes.
397

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes.

MR. RICE: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes yes.

MR. RICE: That's 13 yes, 1 absent. 

The motion passes.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Devon, if you 

could introduce ascorbic acid.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Asa. At 

Section 205.605(b), the listing is ascorbic acid.

DR. BRADMAN: Scott.

MR. RICE: Thanks, Asa. Ascorbic acid 

is used as a dietary supplement and nutrient flavor 

ingredient used -- a supplement and nutrient flavor 

ingredient used in meat and meat containing 

products, curing and pickling, in flour to improve 

baking quality as an antioxidant in fats and oils 

and a wide variety of other food processing uses.

It is often added to processed foods 
398

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for nutritional purposes, and is one of the most 

common sources of Vitamin C which provides many 

important biological functions.

Most modern industrial production 

processes use fermentation with additional 

biooxidation steps, adding a biocatalyst which 

eliminates the need for the chemical steps. 

Despite the use of various microorganisms, for the 

bulk of the synthesis, the use of acid in the final 

step of the process results in the substance's 

classification as synthetic according to the 

guidelines in NOP Guidance 5033-1.

During the first review, Subcommittee 

requested additional information on the use of 

excluded methods on the production of ascorbic 

acid. In the 2019 technical report, the authors 

note that the microorganisms employed for the 

synthesis of ascorbic acid are not genetically 

modified.

One interest group noted the 

predominate use of ascorbic acid is to fortify 

processed foods to pre-processing Vitamin C levels. 
399

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Subcommittee notes that evaluation criteria at 

205.600(b) restricting the material's use as a 

preservative or its use to recreate or improve 

flavors, colors, textures, or nutritive value lost 

during processing is limited to processing aids 

and adjuvants of which this is not.

Public comment reflected much of what 

we heard in the spring with a number of operations 

listing this on their organic systems plan, used 

by beverage manufacturers, wineries, bakeries, 

dietary supplement manufacturers, and others for 

a variety of uses. And that is the review.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

Comments, discussion, concerns? No? Okay.

I think we can then go to our motion 

to remove ascorbic acid from 205.605(b) of the 

National List following criteria in OFPA and 7 

C.F.R. 205.600(b). So Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: So we move to a vote. 

Tom is first.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.
400

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Devon, if you could 

introduce calcium citrate.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks. At 205.605(b), 

the listing is calcium citrate.

DR. BRADMAN: Lisa.

MS. de LIMA: So calcium citrate is a 

calcium salt of citric acid and it's prepared by 

neutralizing citric acid and calcium hydroxide or 

calcium carbonate and subsequent crystallization.
401

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

A public comment was supportive and 

mentioned uses including fortifying nutritional 

supplements with calcium, that it's used in fruit 

fillings to thicken and stabilize gel structures, 

and as a buffer in fruit and flavor preps. No new 

information was brought forward in terms of harm 

to human health or the environment.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you. Opening for 

discussion. Any comments, concerns, discussion 

related to calcium -- is it citrate or citrate? 

Okay. Thank you. Dan.

DR. SEITZ: A question. I noticed on 

the sheet that two people abstained from the vote. 

So I was wondering if there were concerns about 

this substance.

DR. BRADMAN: Tom.

DR. SEITZ: There were two -- I think 

there was --

MR. CHAPMAN: I think they're absent. 

They might be -- and I see it listed as abstained. 

But I think this was same meeting I was not at. 

Do people remember it any differently?
402

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. de LIMA: No, we didn't have any 

conversation with anyone abstaining.

MS. SWAFFAR: In the documents in the 

book, it says absent in the sheet that was provided 

to us. So I think maybe the PowerPoint might be 

wrong.

MR. CHAPMAN: Oh, okay.

DR. BRADMAN: Tom, did you want to say 

anything else? No? Okay. Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Maybe we can just go back 

to the subcommittee notes for that meeting and just 

make the correction in the final document.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes, that sounds good. 

So at this point then, I think we can go to a vote 

to the full Board.

So we're going to bring a motion to 

remove calcium citrate based on the following 

criteria in OFPA and/or 7 C.F.R. 205.605(b). 

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: We will start with Lisa.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.
403

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Devon, if you could 

introduce ferrous sulfate.

MR. PATTILLO: The next listing is also 

at 205.605(b) for ferrous sulfate for iron 

enrichment or fortification of foods when required 

by regulation or recommended, parentheses, 

independent organization.

DR. BRADMAN: Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: Ferrous sulfate is 
404

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

commonly added to flours and cereal products to 

make the optional enriched flour claims. And so 

you'll also find it in baked products and infant 

snacks. It's also commonly used in infant oat 

cereals, in teething biscuits. Its usage is to 

address iron deficiencies which can lead to a 

wholesale list of health issues, population-based 

iron deficiencies.

The public comment this round, again, 

mirrored public comment received in the spring. 

We received support from various -- a few companies 

and from the trade association mentioning its 

usage. There was one comment from an interest 

group mentioning that this is covered under 

nutrient vitamins and minerals and questioning 

whether this was the most effective form of iron 

supplementation.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you, Tom. 

Discussion, comments, concerns? Dan. Okay. Any 

comments, concerns, discussion for ferrous 

sulfate? No?

Then I think we can go to our motion 
405

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to remove ferrous sulfate from 205.605(b) of the 

National List based on OFPA and/or 7 C.F.R. 

205.600(b). Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. We start with Dan.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Devon, if you can 

introduce hydrogen peroxide.

MR. PATTILLO: Moving right along. At 
406

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Section 205.605(b), the listing is hydrogen 

peroxide.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you. I'm going to 

call on myself for this one. So hydrogen peroxide 

is a very simple molecule. Most of us are familiar 

with H2O2.

It's a strong oxidizer like many other

sanitizers, and it's an effective microbial pest 

control in a number of different settings, 

disinfectant, sanitizer, used in a variety of 

settings within organic. Internationally, it's 

accepted and used widely.

Like any sanitizer with an oxidizing 

mechanism of action, there's certain health risks 

associated with it. It's potentially corrosive, 

causes eye damage, respiratory problems. Relative 

to many other sanitizers, though, handled properly, 

it has relatively low persistence and no long-term 

impact on the environment and breaks down into 

benign breakdown products. Hydrogen 

peroxide, I should say everyone loves hydrogen 

peroxide. There's extensive comments on it and 
407

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

everyone supports relisting it as really an 

essential tool.

So that completes my introduction; 

opening up for discussion, concerns, comments? 

No? Then let's go to a vote and bring a motion 

to the full Board to remove hydrogen peroxide from 

205.605(b) of the National List following OFPA 

and/or 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b). Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: We will start the vote 

with Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.
408

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails. And I also want to just add I checked 

the notes from the May 21st handling meeting and 

it was two absent and not two abstained if that 

helps people feel more comfortable.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you very much. 

Devon, if you could introduce nutrient vitamins 

and minerals.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Asa. At 

205.605(b), the listing is nutrient vitamins and 

minerals, in accordance with 21 C.F.R. Section 

104.20, nutritional quality guidelines for foods.

DR. BRADMAN: Tom, if you could 

introduce your review.

MR. CHAPMAN: Nutrient vitamins and 

minerals are used to recreate or add nutritional 

content to foods. This is a categorical listing 

and encompasses a large number of products.

Public comment on this came from several 

sources but mimicked again public comment received 

in the spring. And that mimicked public comment 
409

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in 2015. Comments came from interest groups, 

industry, consultants, and certifiers.

From industry and certifiers, it's 

clear that it has wide usage throughout the industry 

from interest groups and somewhat shared with 

certifiers as well as the trade association. I'm 

just going to list out kind of the outstanding 

concerns that have been present for several years 

on the side of now.

There's general objections to it being 

a categorical listing. And some commenters have 

asked that only specific vitamins and nutrients 

should be listed individually. There are several 

already. We've already voted on several of those.

And that generally, vitamins and 

minerals should be restricted to places where it's 

required by law. There are very few -- just as 

a note, this is in the report or the writeup. There 

are very few instances where nutrients are required 

by law.

There's also comments around the missed 

citation to a regulation managed by the FDA and 
410

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that that needs to be fixed. And related to that 

is a lot of comments related to moving forward with 

the 2020 previous recommendation of the NOSB that 

has basically stalled out. And that's wrapped up 

with a request that there's just clarity in this 

that's easily enforceable by certifiers.

In a nutshell, that's the comments 

received. I guess we'll open it up for discussion.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you, Tom. So 

discussion, comments, concerns about this listing? 

Oh, I'm sorry. Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Just a point of 

clarification. I did not know that there were 

conditions where things were required by law that's

entrusting. Tom, I'm just curious, an example of 

that.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes, give me half a 

second.

MR. MORTENSEN: I don't think it 

relates to this vote, but I just was curious.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah, so there's -- as 

far as I know and this is pulled actually from the 
411

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

TR from 2015. But there's three classes of food 

where it's required by law. And one of those 

classes is actually, I think, a state-by-state 

requirement. But infant formulas and margarine 

are the two where it's clearly required by law. 

And then milk, Vitamins A and D potential, thought 

that might be a state-by-state requirement.

There's also a class of foods where it's 

kind of optional claims. So for example, enriched 

flours. If you want to make that enriched claim, 

then you have to --

MR. MORTENSEN: I see.

MR. CHAPMAN: -- put a whole host of 

fortifications there. But you can make a flour 

without an enriched claim. And then there's some 

kind of informal ways of requiring it. So there's 

several products under the WIC program that will 

only be covered if they have certain fortifications 

in them. So it's kind of an informal requirement 

in those.

DR. BRADMAN: Any more discussion on 

nutrient vitamins and minerals? Then I think we 
412

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

can take this motion to the full Board to remove 

nutrient vitamins and minerals from 205.605(b) of 

the National List based on OFPA and 7 C.F.R. 

205.600(b). Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: We'll start the meeting 

with -- I'm sorry -- the voting with Asa.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Devon, if you could 
413

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

introduce peracetic acid.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Asa. At 

Section 205.605(b), the listing is peracetic 

acid/peroxyacetic acid, CAS No. 79-21-0 for use 

in wash and rinse water according to FDA 

limitations, for use as a sanitizer on food contact 

surfaces.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you. I'm going to 

call on myself again. So peracetic acid is another 

oxidizing sanitizer. It's currently used in 

organic handling in wash water and rinse water 

including post-harvest handling, disinfect 

organically produced agricultural products, 

sanitize food contact surfaces, dairy process 

equipment. Basically a number of all-around uses 

related to sanitation and disinfection and pathogen 

control.

Peracetic acid, like hydrogen peroxide, 

is widely used and widely supported in the 

community. Really there were no concerns about 

relisting -- well, I shouldn't say no concerns. 

There were no objections to relisting this 
414

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

material.

One thing that was brought up in prior 

reviews and is in our review and also mentioned 

in some comments related to the use of additives 

including HEDP and dipicolinic acid as perhaps 

inerts or ancillary products. And there were some 

comments about the legitimacy of that and the 

reference to list three inerts and also just the 

general issue of inerts with regard to this 

material.

And in our review and in those comments, 

there's general agreement that only products with 

allowable inert ingredients should be use and also 

I think underscores a little bit that we need to 

spend more time on inerts and defining what are 

allowable.

But with that, we should open it up for 

discussion. Any comments or concerns about 

peracetic acid? No? Am I seeing everyone? Okay.

Then let's take it to a vote with a 

motion to remove peracetic acid from 205.605(b) 

of the National List based on OFPA and 205.600(b). 
415

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: We will start the voting 

with Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: no.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

MR. CHAPMAN: Can I make a point of 

clarification, something that --

DR. BRADMAN: Sure.

MR. CHAPMAN: -- I think we forgot to 
416

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

do. We voted two items off, dairy cultures and 

alginic acid. Both of those were sunset 

reorganization items. So as part of the -- I think 

part of the policy is that they would stay on the 

list through their full listing and then the 

recommendation for sunset would go -- or the sunset 

date would be based off of the last renewal. So 

five years from when it was last renewed, not 

immediately from this time.

DR. BRADMAN: Right. It would be based 

on -- the cover letter would be from the end of 

the sunset period.

MR. CHAPMAN: Correct, yeah. It's 

just one of the pull-forward items. And the 

pull-forward items had a special time periods, kind

of, of protected status even if we were voting them 

off.

DR. BRADMAN: Right. Is that an issue 

--

MR. CHAPMAN: I just want to call that 

out on those. We normally --

DR. BRADMAN: -- of the Program or for 
417

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

--

MR. CHAPMAN: On the pull-forward ones, 

we normally call that out when they get voted off. 

And we just didn't do it on these two.

DR. BRADMAN: We call it out in the 

dialogue?

MR. CHAPMAN: Uh-huh.

DR. BRADMAN: Got it.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay.

MR. CHAPMAN: So this is the last 

meeting we'll ever have to do that, so --

DR. BRADMAN: Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: And I'm sure Paul is all 

over it.

DR. LEWIS: Yes, we're aware in terms 

of when a recommendation is divided, obviously it 

doesn't mean it goes off immediately. So yes, we 

handle it.

DR. BRADMAN: And Tom, with that 

comment, your voice will be here behind us to keep 

us on track of that process. So Devon, if you could 
418

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

introduce potassium citrate.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks. At Section 

205.605(b), still the listing is potassium citrate.

DR. BRADMAN: Lisa.

MS. de LIMA: So potassium citrate is 

the potassium salt of citric acid. It's prepared 

by neutralizing citric acid with potassium 

hydroxide or potassium carbonate and its subsequent 

crystallization.

Public comment was supported and 

mentioned uses including buffer and pH control 

agent, acidity regulator in the wine making 

process. And the TR also stated that it could be 

used to wash processing equipment to remove all 

flavors.

There was no new information brought 

forward in terms of harm to human health or the 

environment. And this is another one where I 

believe it's a typo. It says we voted four no and 

three abstained in Subcommittee. But I'm pretty 

sure those were three absent.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes, I think that's 
419

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

correct and consistent with peracetic acid where 

we had three absent. So thank you for that review. 

Opening up for discussion, comments, concerns on 

potassium citrate. No? Okay.

Then let's take this to a vote and we'll 

make a motion to the full Board to remove potassium 

citrate based on OFPA and 205.605(b). Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: We will start the voting 

with Scott.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.
420

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you. And Devon, 

if you could introduce potassium phosphate.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Asa. At 

Section 205.605(b), the listing is potassium 

phosphate for use only in agricultural products 

labeled made with organic specific ingredients or 

food groups, prohibited in agricultural products 

labeled organic.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you. Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: Potassium phosphate is 

used in dairy products to control pH and for milk 

protein stabilization. It's also nutrient 

additive and a source of potassium. It can be used 

also in meat applications and liquid eggs.

We received comments from industry and 

trade associations, mostly in the dairy and infant 

food space and enteral formula space speaking to 

its necessity.

There was also comments from interest 

groups questioning its necessity, although not 
421

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

offering what would be a wholly natural substitute 

product. There's also concerns that were raised 

as they'd been raised previously about the impacts 

of phosphates in general on human health on an 

accumulated basis across dietary exposure.

All this information is similar to the 

information we received the last time this 

substance was reviewed. I don't think there's any 

significant new information provided at this time.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you for that 

review. Opening it up for discussion. Sue, did 

I see you raise your hand? Okay. Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yet another trip down 

memory lane. When this material was first put on 

the list, there was a lot of concern about all the 

phosphates in food and that allowing this would

be a slippery slope and open the door to a 

proliferation of phosphates. And we really have 

not see that happen. And as an organic inspector, 

I do see it used fairly widely out there in the 

world.

DR. BRADMAN: Dan.
422

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SEITZ: Just a question. When the 

Subcommittee sees that a substance doesn't appear 

in the European, Japanese, or IFOAM organic 

standards, is that something that raises any 

concern or when we're looking at it as an approved 

substance? Just curious to know how that piece 

of information is taken into account.

MR. CHAPMAN: I mean, it's another 

piece of discussion. There are several ways that 

our lists differ. For example, we allow celery 

powder and they allow sodium nitrate. We'll get 

to that in a second, though. So I don't want to 

expose too much on that beforehand.

I asked questions of IFAC or someone 

else last time. We had the questions actually in 

the spring about why you would see this in products 

in the U.S. and not products in Europe. And the 

response back, I believe, if my memory serves me 

correctly in my old age on this Board, was that 

the consumer demand differs by region and the 

products. The kind of milk stabilization products 

are more in demand in the American markets than 
423

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you would see in the European market.

DR. BRADMAN: Any other discussion? 

I think in Subcommittee, there were also some 

comments about -- concerns about health effects 

of phosphates and kind of putting it in the category 

of salt in terms of people need to be aware of it.

And also I think this argues for the importance 

of eating whole foods. But I'm not sure, as a 

group, we didn't feel that would take it off the 

list.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah, the issue is the 

accumulated exposure. It's not a single food's 

exposure. So it's akin to the salt argument.

In fact, one of the studies that's cited 

by the folks that raised those concerns kind of 

makes that recommendation that the solution to this 

is greater consumer education about phosphates in 

foods and the labeling, the clear labeling of 

phosphate levels. I think that was directed at 

the European community, that study. But that's 

regulated. The required disclosures of various 

nutrients is regulated by someone other than us.
424

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. BRADMAN: Any more discussion, 

comment, concerns? No? Then let's take this to 

a vote with our motion to remove potassium phosphate 

from 205.605(b) of the National List based on OFPA 

and 205.600(b). Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: We will start the vote 

with Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: That's 13 --

CHAIR BEHAR: No, no. You have to 

vote.

MR. RICE: Oh, excuse me. No.
425

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: Minor distraction. 

Thirteen no, one absent. The motion fails. And 

again, with the previous material, potassium 

citrate that was confirmed as three absent and not 

abstain.

DR. BRADMAN: Devon, if you could 

introduce sodium acid pyrophosphate.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks. At Section 

205.605(b), the listing is sodium acid 

pyrophosphate, CAS No. 7758-16-9, for use only as 

a leavening agent.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you. Scott, if you 

could brief us on your review.

MR. RICE: Yeah. Sodium acid 

pyrophosphate is used as a leavening agent in baked 

goods where it reacts with baking soda, sodium 

bicarbonate to liberate carbon dioxide, 

essentially leavening the dough and creating the 

desired area texture that consumers expect of baked 

goods such as cakes and cookies.

Again on sort of the same page as what 
426

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we were talking about before with phosphorous, the 

2016 TR on phosphates included extensive discussion 

of the impact of phosphorous on the human diet. 

But due to restrictions on phosphate use in organic 

foods and our discussion on how this -- the diet 

based on those foods, an organic diet would reduce 

the phosphorous intake. An occasional intake was 

not a concern.

Yeast is a natural leavener that's been 

used for quite some time and as a common alternative 

to chemical leavening. However, yeast leavened 

baked goods have a different physical texture and 

require more time than chemically leavened foods. 

It also imparts a different flavor.

During the first round of comments in 

spring, a number of food manufacturers and trade 

groups noted the essentiality of this material as 

it is the only chemical leavener available to the 

baking sector. We received notes in this round 

that echoed those needs with a number of operations 

listing this on their organic system plan as shared 

by a couple of certifiers.
427

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We had one comment believing this to 

be an artificial ingredient and should be removed 

and does not believe it is essential. We had 

another similar comment that it's a synthetic 

chemical, not essential for processing but again 

continued to be used and supported by manufacturers 

in the organic sector.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you, Scott. I want 

to open this up for discussion, comment. Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: So ditto on my other 

comment. I don't know how many hundreds of 

phosphates there are. We don't have that many on 

our list. And this one helps with making cake 

doughnuts. And it would've helped with the organic 

twinkie, but nobody has stepped forward to do that 

yet.

DR. BRADMAN: Coming from San 

Francisco, we're scared of twinkies. 

(LAUGHTER.)

DR. BRADMAN: And that might be 

something for the older generation. But if you 

don't know what I'm talking about, you should look 
428

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

into the history there. Dave. Dave and Dan.

MR. MORTENSEN: I don't know the 

history of the twinkie in San Francisco, but the 

vote on this one also indicated four no, one 

abstained, two absent. Could the rationale 

underlying an abstention be shared with the group? 

Is that an accurate vote first?

MR. RICE: I would have to look at that 

record.

DR. BRADMAN: I don't remember.

MR. RICE: I don't recall either. Does 

the abstainer recall?

MR. CHAPMAN: I can probably say I was 

one of the absents, so don't ask me.

(LAUGHTER.)

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Maybe this was 

also a four-three absent situation.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I almost want to say 

it was somebody that got distracted during the 

discussion and then didn't feel like they could 

vote. But I'm trying to remember. It could've 

been --
429

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: I was just curious. 

One of my hobbies is I like to bake. And to my 

knowledge, but perhaps it's in something amusing 

and I don't realize, I don't think I've ever used 

sodium acid pyrophosphate. Could someone on the 

Subcommittee, like, help me understand what it is? 

I didn't do a lot of study on this.

DR. BRADMAN: Scott, can you speak to 

that or Harriet too?

MR. RICE: Yeah, it's used as an 

alternative to a natural leavener. Most commonly 

yeast would be used in something that -- a yeast. 

A long-raised baked good or in a quick bread, you 

often baking soda or baking powder.

This is used as an alternative to that 

for -- as I said at the top, it's kind of a chemical 

leavener and it's acting more quickly. And it 

provides a unique texture and character to the baked 

good.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Scott.

DR. BRADMAN: Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: I think it also results 
430

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in somewhat of a denser leavening. So things like 

a cake doughnut or that sort -- waffles, things 

where you don't want to have too much air in there, 

pancakes, things like that.

MR. RICE: Perhaps Asa, in the Bay Area, 

you could make an organic It's-It.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes, that would be 

another contribution to humanity. Okay. Is there 

any more comment, discussion on sodium acid 

pyrophosphate? Then I think we can bring this to 

a vote.

The motion to remove sodium acid 

pyrophosphate from 205.605(b) of the National List 

based on OFPA and 205.600(b). So with that, 

Harriet, I think we're ready to vote.

CHAIR BEHAR: We are starting with 

Jesse.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.
431

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: I will say that there should 

be a number of syllables above which we would not 

approve a substance. But I'll vote no.

(Laughter.)

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No. And I neglected to add 

that it's also called SAP if that's helpful, Dan.

(Laughter.)

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Devon, if you could 

introduce sodium citrate.

MR. PATTILLO: Continuing in Section 

205.605(b), the listing is sodium citrate.

DR. BRADMAN: Lisa.

MS. de LIMA: So sodium citrate is the 

sodium salt of citric acid. It's prepared by 
432

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

neutralizing citric acid with sodium hydroxide or 

sodium carbonate and its subsequent 

crystallization. Public comment was supportive 

and mentioned uses including as an antioxidant, 

a stabilizing salt buffer.

Someone also mentioned that when it's 

combined with citric acid, the pair provides a 

tartness without a significant drop in pH which 

is important for preventing degradation of sucrose 

in confectionary products. It's also used for 

achieving a consistent pH for the gelling of pectin. 

It's also found in OSBs used for meat processing 

and in the manufacturing of dietary supplements 

and personal care products.

No new information was brought forward 

in terms of harm to human health or the environment.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

MS. de LIMA: Oh, and this is another 

one where that's a typo and that's not three 

abstain. That's three absent.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you for that 

introduction. Any discussion, concerns, comments 
433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on sodium citrate? No? Then let's -- Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: In some applications, it 

can be an alternate to sodium phosphate.

DR. BRADMAN: Any more comments? No? 

Then let's take this to a vote with a motion to 

remove sodium citrate based on OFPA and 205.605(b). 

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: We'll start the vote with 

Sue.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.
434

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Devon, if you could 

introduce tocopherols.

MR. PATTILLO: At Section 205.605(b), 

the listing is tocopherols derived from vegetable 

oil when rosemary extracts are not a suitable 

alternative.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you. So I'm the 

lead on this one. I'll get this a little closer. 

so tocopherols are currently permitted in handling 

and processing as an antioxidant ingredient. 

That's the primary use. They're added to foods 

to help prevent oxidation of fatty acids, 

especially when there's lipid components to the 

food.

Tocopherols are derived from vegetable 

oil and allowed for uses as ingredients in or on 

processed products labeled as organic or made with 

organic when rosemary extracts are not a suitable 

alternative. So that -- they're talking about 

complexities. I'll get there in a moment.
435

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So that's our listing for this material. 

If you go through the comments we've had, pretty 

universally, there's support for relisting of 

tocopherols as kind of an essential component for 

preserving or working with foods in developing food 

products.

There's a fair bit of discussion around 

-- from one commenter related to whether we should 

be listing this and using -- let's see -- synthetic. 

Right now, it's listed on 205.605(b), synthetics 

allowed, and whether there are nonsynthetic 

versions allowed.

We discussed that at the fall 2017 

meeting. And at that meeting, we concluded not 

to move forward on making an annotation change to 

tocopherol, i.e., probably listing it -- i.e., 

listing it on 205.605(a) or both 205.605(a) and 

(b).

But according to many transcripts note 

if there is sufficient commercial availability of 

this material in another form, we encourage members 

of the public or industry to petition the NOSB to 
436

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

make this change and we would take it up at that 

time.

I've done a little homework since 

preparing this review. I think it's actually 

possible -- let me step back a moment. Many of 

the review comments related to this felt that there 

were not alternative sources available.

But I think it's possible that some of 

the sources that are being used are possibly 

nonsynthetic in that some of the companies that 

are listed on this source here may, in fact, meet 

the definition of nonsynthetic and may actually 

even be in use. I've had some review of these and 

some long discussions with Gay Timmons at Oh, Oh 

Organic and other people I know in the industry.

I think for this listing today, we're 

focused really on tocopherols under 605(b). But 

again, this may be something down the road we might 

want to come up with this -- reconsider this idea 

that maybe there are available forms that can be 

listed on 205.605(a) and maybe be preferred over 

a synthetic source.
437

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

That's my introduction. I'm expecting 

Tom to probably have deeper knowledge than I on 

this. Thank you.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah. I mean, the one 

thing I want to point out is the way we define 

synthetic and the way the food industry defines 

synthetic, at least related to this substance, is 

different. And Vitamin E can be derived from 

petroleum products, and that's generally what 

people mean by the synthetic version. The 

nonsynthetic version is generally one derived from 

a vegetable oil.

But because of the processing and the 

extraction method, we consider it synthetic. So 

there is -- I don't know. This thing is just ripe 

for confusion basically. And I still if someone 

has an interest and thinks the nonsynthetic 

according to us version is commercially available, 

the petition is a great process to get that 

reviewed, get it out there, and have the Board 

address it.

DR. BRADMAN: Right. And I also don't 
438

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

think it'd actually make it different in anyone's 

market or use of the material. I did review some 

of the process sheets for one of the companies here, 

BTSA Tocobiol. And it looks nonsynthetic to me. 

But I don't know if I'm the best judge of that.

And these comments also come up in the 

public comment. But in terms of my vote on this 

material, I would vote no as we're listing it. 

So as did the committee as a whole. Any other 

discussion, comments, concerns?

So let's take this to vote then to remove 

tocopherols -- I hope I'm saying that right, 

tocopherols -- from 205.605(b) of the National List 

based on OFPA and 205.600(b). So Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: We will start the voting 

with Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.
439

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent. The 

motion fails.

CHAIR BEHAR: Asa, I just would like 

to take a little poll here from the Board if it 

is 5:35. Well, I'm just going to ask if anyone 

wants to take a break or if we want to push through 

the remaining six items which might have some 

discussion, celery powder, fish oil, gelatin, 

orange pulp dried, and the two seaweeds. Just how 

do people feel?

MR. CHAPMAN: I vote to power through.

CHAIR BEHAR: You vote what?

DR. BRADMAN: To power through.

MR. CHAPMAN: Power through.

CHAIR BEHAR: To push on --
440

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CHAPMAN: Push through.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- through. Anybody 

else?

MS. OAKLEY: Okay. Then I'll be right 

back.

CHAIR BEHAR: So if someone needs to 

-- anybody else? Everybody wants to go for it? 

Okay. Because we do have a reception at 6:30, so 

maybe we can keep going here. That's fine with 

me. Just wanted to make sure everybody was okay. 

Okay. Asa, you can take over.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you. Devon, if you 

could introduce celery powder.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks. We're now 

moving to sunset reviews for ingredients in Section 

205.606 of the National List. This section in the 

National List includes nonorganically produced 

agricultural products allowed as ingredients in 

or on processed products labeled as organic.

These products may be used only when 

they are not commercially available in organic form 

and only in accordance with other restrictions 
441

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

specified in the section. The first product under 

review is listed at 205.606(c), celery powder.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you, Devon. So I 

think there's going to be an opportunity for a lot 

of discussion about this material. Celery powder 

is used in meat preservation for processed meat. 

It's kind of a natural version of nitrites and 

nitrates used for curing and preserving meats.

The use of nitrites and nitrates and 

lactic acid is a pretty old technology. These 

materials have been used for many, many years to 

process meats. And really celery powder is kind 

of a modern incarnation of this.

But using a plant-based source, ideally 

an agricultural product that is perhaps, I think, 

perceived as being more natural or consistent with 

organic philosophies. And also, of course, in our 

rule setting here, pure nitrates and nitrites are 

not allowed or used as they are in Europe.

So in terms of manufacturer, we've had 

a number of discussions on this in the panel last 

year. The celery is cleaned and basically juiced 
442

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and then dried. And then depending on the nitrate 

content of the plant at harvest, hopefully the dried 

material and powder derived from that will have 

an adequate level of nitrates and nitrites that 

can be used for manufacturing purposes.

In terms of human health and the 

environment, there's -- of course we had our panel 

session last spring. And it was pretty clear to 

me that, you know, current use in production of 

celery powder is dependent on conventional celery 

production.

We weren't able to get explicit 

information about agronomic practices and whether 

excess nitrogen was being applied to celery --

conventional celery stalk or -- I'm missing a word 

here, like, pre-material -- first material for 

this. But clearly when we looked at some of the 

levels of nitrate in the conventional versus 

organic, although some of the organic levels did 

approach the levels in conventional that might be 

useful for celery powder production, in general, 

there's more variability in lower levels than the 
443

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic sources.

That kind of -- I summarized some of 

the discussion that we had last spring, votes from 

the panel and the public comment. And I think this 

kind of summarizes the statements we have for this 

time around too that celery powder remains an 

essential curing agent for organic cured meats, 

alternative source material such as Swiss chard 

or other crops now fill the need.

That reference to alternatives really 

addresses the use of other vegetable juices that 

may also be a source of nitrate, not another 

material. That would be a non-nitrate approach 

to curing these.

Organic cured meat has been around for 

some decades and they've been using this material 

for ages. And it's a big industry that's relied 

on this. Let's see. And one of the challenges 

that the industry has faced or celery powder 

producers was that it's difficult to leverage 

investment in developing alternatives to the 

conventional celery because it's a relatively small 
444

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

market for the overall agronomic -- on the agronomic 

side.

That said, I think some of the attention 

we paid to this issue in the last few years helped 

perhaps contribute to recent success with an OREI 

grant to the University of Wisconsin for two million 

dollars. That will support research going forward 

on organic sources of agronomic practices --

organic agronomic practices for celery production 

that could meet the needs of celery powder 

production. So that's kind of a step forward.

If we go back to the 2015 review, there 

was kind of a promise made to look for alternatives. 

And this time around, we don't yet have those 

alternatives in terms of a natural organic source 

in celery powder. But perhaps the funding of that 

research will lead to a viable organic source for 

celery juice and celery powder.

The other issue that's come up and 

that's always associated with processed meats is 

the listing of processed meats by IARC as a 

carcinogen. Relatively weak carcinogen, but it 
445

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is listed as a carcinogen. That's processed meat, 

and some of that risk may be associated with use 

of nitrate and nitrites in the cured meat.

There could be in vivo transformation 

to nitrosamines and other related compounds that 

may -- or be carcinogens. And the additional 

processing of the meat with the nitrates present 

and proteins and heat may also perhaps facilitate 

or catalyze formation of some of those potential 

or actual carcinogens.

So the public comments on this really 

kind of fall into three categories. One, there's 

people who support keeping celery powder basically 

because it is an important tool for making cured 

meat products, organic cured meat products which 

are highly valued. Probably all of us consume 

these or have consumed these.

And that consumers should have choice 

and freedom to still have their bacon and not 

necessarily go to the freezer for that. And 

there's strong argument by producers that without 

celery powder, a lot of their product would 
446

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

disappear and demand would disappear.

There's another category of comments 

that address concern about the use of nonorganic 

source material and would have us take this off 

the list as an incentive and/or -- as an incentive 

to move to organic and/or they just feel like it 

should not be on the list if it's not organic. 

And that if it was organic, though, they would allow 

it and leave that kind of consumer choice.

And then we've heard arguments 

presented yesterday and today and also in the 

written comments about the fact that, you know, 

nitrates per se are not necessarily carcinogens. 

But they are being used in a process that may be 

increasing the risk for the finished food product. 

And therefore, that is -- essentially, it's a 

potential stain on the organic brand and raises 

concerns about that.

So I think I have a long but hopefully 

relatively complete summary of kind of the issues 

here. I may be forgetting one thing, and I'll bring 

it up when it comes to my mind. So I think we can 
447

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

open this for discussion and comment. I see Tom 

and then Steve. And why don't we start with Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: Thank you, Asa. That was 

a really, I think, good and balanced summary of 

the comments and the issues before us. The one 

point I just wanted to clarify is in your beginning 

comments about the production of conventional 

celery powder, you alluded to -- I mean, it's clear 

that we don't know what the celery producers are 

doing because they do not appear to have engaged 

with the folks that we brought in or are commenting 

to us and seemed to probably find that their 

production practices are proprietary.

But they're also alluding to that they 

might be spiking that production with nitrates to 

boost the levels. And just with our expert panel, 

both Dr. Silva commented on trying to in the organic 

trials manipulate the nitrogen sources from organic 

sources to try to adjust the output of the crop 

and that it was too variable to really see any direct 

correlation between those two.

And then Carrie had mentioned that with 
448

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a culinary conventional facility grower that they 

had attempted to spike that with synthetic nitrogen 

sources and that they also did not see the 

correlated elevated levels. So that's kind of a 

theory that we have out there. But --

DR. BRADMAN: Correct.

MR. CHAPMAN: -- I don't think it's been 

actually corroborated --

DR. BRADMAN: Right.

MR. CHAPMAN: -- by anyone, any grower 

or any scientific article. But they did see kind 

of a connection with time. So there's still a lot 

of, like -- we're still trying to crack the celery 

nut, if you will, on what -- the celery seed on 

what they were doing.

DR. BRADMAN: Right. Thank you for 

that. I think there was a little frustration, 

though, that -- and I see your comments about the 

crop. But I think there's a little frustration 

that no growers did come and say, yes, we do, or, 

no, we don't.

The other thing I meant to mention about 
449

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

carcinogenicity is that the carcinogenicity of 

processed meat may also be related to just the 

cooking process. And in that same review of 

processed meat, they reviewed red meat. They put 

red meat as a possible carcinogen, but -- they 

didn't put it in a higher category.

But in general, cooking meat produces 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. And anytime 

you're putting your food on your grill, whether 

it was frozen without celery powder or not, you're 

exposing yourself to significant carcinogens. And 

that may be part of the risk with processed meat 

because it's been heat treated. Steve and then 

Emily and then Harriet. Actually, it's hard for 

me to see down this way.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No, that's fine.

DR. BRADMAN: Thanks for --

VICE CHAIR ELA: So yeah, I think --

I mean, I thought the panel in the spring kind of 

sealed the deal in terms of really saying, you know, 

what are the alternatives. But I also struggle. 

I mean, this is one we're reviewing celery powder. 
450

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We're not reviewing meats.

And so I mean, and again, this product 

is used to cure meats. But we're not -- we really 

need to keep our focus, is this material okay or 

not? Because once we get organic celery powder, 

we're still going to have the same problem with 

the meats.

And so I feel like we're wrapping 

ourselves in a tailspin of, well, here are all these 

problems. But organic celery powder is not going 

to solve that problem either, I don't think. So 

I'm hoping that that two million dollar grant will 

help unravel and crack that stalk.

But for now, I'm probably going to vote 

in favor of relisting because I really don't think 

there's an alternative. And I think the celery 

powder itself is not the issue.

DR. BRADMAN: I think Emily, then 

Harriet, then Rick.

MS. OAKLEY: This is a question for Tom. 

You mentioned earlier that you thought yeasts were 

a good example of a material that was on the list 
451

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

but still had organic alternatives. And so one 

of the -- or some of the comments that we've heard 

from stakeholders is that by keeping it on 606, 

we're not incentivizing organic celery powder.

And obviously, we know that there's a 

tremendous amount of research going on to that 

effect. But I just wanted to hear your thoughts 

on this material in particular.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah, I mean -- so 

commercial availability is what I was lauding. 

And 606 commercial availability applies to it. 

I think the fact that you saw Kerry Ingredients, 

the manufacturer of this product, actively spending 

resources to try to find an organic solution shows 

that it's working. The solution just hasn't been 

found yet.

And if you look at the slide, OTA has 

really gotten on their game with their graphics. 

And it was really briefly up there, but theirs, 

we can go back and find it. OTA has a graphic on 

the time span to take something through to get, 

you know, commercialized. And 14 years is kind 
452

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of the list that they have on there.

So where this didn't become an area of 

intense focus until 2015. So if you apply that 

to this material, it's still going to take a lot 

of time to crack this nut. And unfortunately, 

conventional growers who are making this product 

right now are not cooperating with us.

I would hope that they would see the 

market potential for this product because, I mean, 

frankly, there's not that many juice manufacturers. 

There's not that many cultured powder 

manufacturers. And there's not that many organic 

processed meat manufacturers. So it wouldn't be 

that hard to convince them to switch that product.

It's also such a small, minor portion 

of their formulations. I don't think it's 

materially a cost impact to any of those meat 

manufacturers. That's me projecting an 

assumption. I didn't ask them any of those 

questions. So I don't see that as the block.

It's just it technologically hasn't 

been correct yet. And that's true for some other 
453

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

606 items. But there's hundreds 606 items where 

organic sources of it has developed over time. 

Hops was one that was given to us.

We just took off a few years a wholesale 

list of items, dill weed. I'm blanking on a ton 

of them now. I'm looking at my older colleagues 

to remember some of these other ag items that we 

removed. We removed about a dozen of them just 

a couple years ago.

So the system works. But some items 

that have especially technical barriers to it just 

take longer.

DR. BRADMAN: I would add to that. 

I'll take my place as the Chair to butt in out of 

place. Just that I think it's good that there's 

been a commitment of federal funding to do research 

on that. So I'm sorry. Harriet and then Rick, 

I think.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So in one of my 

day jobs, I work with Dr. Silva at the University 

of Wisconsin Organic and Sustainable Cropping 

Systems lab. So I'm very happy, and there was a 
454

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

big email to the group and the team. So we're happy 

to be able to be working on that.

The petition that's before the FSIS to 

change the label that even if it's celery powder, 

it would still then it would have to be called cured 

meat. The manufacturers would have to deal with 

that, and that's outside our purview. And they 

would still have a choice at that time to not use 

it if they wanted to go to frozen or whatever, if 

they didn't want to say their meat was cured.

And then the other things is if we voted 

this down which I am not promoting, it could still 

be used in a made with organic product. But I just 

want to say there is that option out there. But 

it would look a little strange in the marketplace 

to have bacon made with organic meat because most 

consumers would think that, well, what else is in 

the bacon, or whatever.

I mean, the jerky bars and things like 

that where there could be dried cranberries and 

all of that, maybe that would make more sense to 

a consumer, that it's a multi-ingredient product. 
455

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But ham made with organic meat, how does that work?

So I'm very happy to be moving down the 

path of getting an organic alternative. And I will 

be voting for this.

DR. BRADMAN: Rick, then Dave, then 

Emily. Rick, did you -- oh, I thought -- no? Okay. 

Then Dave, then Emily, and then -- sorry. Did 

I miss you guys? Okay. All right. Well, how 

about Ashley, Lisa. Okay. So Ashley. Oh, will 

you just try to get in line? Okay. Dave. Great, 

okay, Dave, speak.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, so I'm going to 

articulate a different perspective on this that 

is the view that I come to it with and that is that 

I'm not personally convinced that it's necessarily 

in the best interest of the organic community that 

we need to have parallel foodstuffs. So you think 

a conventional or regular bacon or organic bacon 

or whatever, jerky, organic, nonorganic.

And I do have concerns about the 

intended use of the celery powder. I spent a lot 

of time with a colleague who's field of study was 
456

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the influence of different chemicals, not this one 

in particular, on humans.

And I think we all know what he found 

about the effect of lead on children and urban 

environments and that is that children are way more 

sensitive to most any of these compounds than are 

adults which raises a significant concern for me. 

And I think it was actually highlighted by the 

fellow that presented about the hot dog thing this 

morning that the kids were having hot dogs.

And so I'm going to vote not to have 

this remain on the list because I don't -- it's 

not consistent with the logic model that's in my 

mind. And my logic model may not conform to others. 

But that's where I'm coming from.

DR. BRADMAN: Emily, Ashley, Lisa, Tom.

MS. SWAFFAR: Thank you for that, Dave. 

I was curious about your opinion. And I don't 

mean to put Dan on the hot seat, but there were 

a lot of letters from consumers. And so I was 

wondering if you had a take as a consumer rep on 

this material.
457

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SEITZ: I'm actually planning to 

vote to keep it on the list from the standpoint 

of it's not our role I feel to necessarily protect 

the consumer from a choice that may have some 

adverse effect from a health perspective. And then 

my own personal philosophy is everyone should have 

one bad habit that makes them happy.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR BEHAR: This is bacon. Is that 

your bad habit?

DR. SEITZ: If you count bacon, I have 

two bad habits.

(Laughter.)

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. So Ashley, Lisa, 

Tom, Sue, Dave.

MS. SWAFFAR: Great. So I just want 

to put my support in for celery powder. I want 

to -- there's no alternative for this right now 

as we've heard from industry. And I think that 

they have done a tremendous job hearing us in 2015 

or hearing some concern in 2015 that folks don't 

like celery powder and they wanted them to start 
458

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

researching for an alternative.

And they worked really hard to get that 

grant. They formed a working group. I think 

that's a great partnership that they have done. 

And I just want to say that's wonderful and voice 

my support because this -- not only is this critical 

as consumer choice. But it's critical for the 

livestock industry.

And there is a lot of cuts of meat that 

go into these hot dogs and some other deli meats. 

And I think this could really have a devastating 

effect. And so I want to voice my support and say 

this is a 606 item.

So between now and the next sunset 

process, if somebody comes up with an organic celery 

powder that works, they have to use it if it's 

commercially available.

DR. BRADMAN: Lisa.

MS. de LIMA: All right. So there's 

been a lot said. So agree with and hear what folks 

are saying, and I just want to point out that from 

my perspective if processed meats -- organic 
459

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

processed meats were to go away, I don't think all 

of a sudden all these consumers are going to go 

vegetarian. They're just going to end up buying 

some all natural alternative to what they're 

currently purchasing organically. And that's not 

something that I can get behind.

CHAIR BEHAR: Probably containing 

celery powder.

DR. BRADMAN: I think it goes Sue, then 

back -- okay, Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: I find it easier to write 

the list down.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Just raise your 

hand when it's your turn.

(Laughter.)

MR. CHAPMAN: So I do want to point, 

though, in the Q and A from IARC on their red meat 

one, there's a question in there about is there 

a higher risk to children, elderly, women, or men? 

And they note that there's not data available to 

make any conclusions to that.

As a father of a young child who eats 
460

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

hot dogs from time to time, I am glad I'm able to 

offer him an organic option. I'm not fooling 

myself. He eats unhealthy food sometimes and hot 

dogs I would put in that category.

He also eats sweets and cookies 

sometimes. I'm sure he's at a Halloween thing 

right now getting a massive pile of probably 

conventional sweets, maybe hopefully a couple 

organic sweets in there as well. And I'm not 

fooling myself that there's other major health 

issues that organic is not the full solve for, 

diabetes, heart disease.

And I do think that, to be honest, the 

first solution to this if this came off would be 

highly salt-cured meats available in the 

marketplace that probably will fail. But you just 

end up pushing the problem from cancer over to heart 

disease.

Also, I know economics is a hard part 

for a lot of people to factor into things. But 

making use -- value-added uses of the whole parts 

of animals and selling that and having markets for 
461

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

them that return help create viable markets. And 

while organic has grown quite a bit, it is still 

quite small.

Gelatin -- or not gelatin. Casings 

haven't -- the market for meat hasn't evolved to 

a point where we can reliably get organic casings. 

Putting additional dents in the growth of organic 

meat which is one of the more expensive organic 

items to buy already just makes it -- it slows the 

growth in that trend. And I would much rather more 

animals under organic production than less.

And I agree with kind of what Lisa said 

and what we got from the commenter about the hot 

dogs is I go shopping with my son. Shopping at 

the grocery store and at the farmers' market, it's, 

like, one of my most favorite activities. And he's 

picking out whatever he wants. And he's, like, 

I want broccoli. I'm, like, great, we'll get the 

broccoli. And then, I want hot dogs. I'm, like, 

no, no hot dogs. And cut to home, he's eating 

broccoli and hot dogs.

So if there's an organic version, I'm 
462

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

always grabbing that one. But that kid runs my 

life. So if there's not an organic version, 

there's oftentimes I will be forced into buying 

that one.

DR. BRADMAN: Sue, and then Emily. 

I'll start writing it down.

MS. BAIRD: I have to admit that I'm 

a little conflicted about this product because of 

the blue baby syndrome and things that do happen. 

But it is not our position to justify a lack of 

labeling perhaps by FSIS.

If this has got nitrates in it, if the 

celery powder contains enough nitrates that are 

causing health issues, that's bad. But we need 

to have that -- somehow that needs to be addressed 

by labeling. That's not our position. We're here 

to review the product.

I think I've got to support this. I've 

got to support this because exactly what Tom says. 

I'm a grandmother, and I've got a kid who's going 

to have a hot dog. Hopefully not as a regular diet. 

In fact, I know not as a regular diet. But they're 
463

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

going to eat hot dogs, and I'm going to eat bacon 

because I love bacon. I don't think there's a life 

without bacon.

On top of that, I do market my farmers' 

products. And meats are one of the hardest things 

to market for a farmer. It's really easy to market 

the steaks or the belly which goes into the bacon 

and stuff. But it's really, really, really hard 

to market those off- products. And if they're not 

processed, if we don't have a market to process 

those products and retain those products, then 

there's almost no market.

Fresh is not the answer for most cuts 

of meats. And frozen unfortunately is not really 

the answer because people want fresh meat. And 

if they don't want to buy it fresh, I mean, I'm 

not going to buy anything but a fresh steak. But 

bacon is processed.

Man, I don't want to say that I'm 

supporting nitrates and nitrites. But there's no 

other alternative right now. So yeah, I'm going 

to have to support it.
464

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. BRADMAN: Can I just comment too? 

We're talking about alternatives in terms of 

organic celery powder versus nonorganic celery 

powder. And then alternatives, I think the way 

you framed it just now in terms of, is there an 

alternative to any nitrate enhancing treatment? 

So I think Emily, then myself, and then Scott.

MS. OAKLEY: I just wanted to say that 

I don't think choosing to abstain from a material 

vote is a bad choice. I think that sometimes we've 

gotten that feedback from people. But it is okay 

to be genuinely conflicted about a decision or to 

not fully determine that you know where you stand 

on something. Just putting that out there.

DR. BRADMAN: I'm just going to take 

the floor for a second to talk a little bit about 

kind of risk and risk assessment. Blue baby 

syndrome or methemoglobinemia I think would not 

likely be associated with use of this material. 

That's mainly associated in young kids with high 

contamination. So nitrite contamination of water 

in places like Central Valley in California. And 
465

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

people may use it for formula, and then the kids 

are getting overexposed.

MS. BAIRD: I meant that with -- so are 

you saying this would not affect for the blue baby 

the nitrites in this?

DR. BRADMAN: No.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you. I appreciate 

that.

DR. BRADMAN: I mean, unless the 

agronomic practices have run off or something like 

that.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you. I appreciate 

that clarification.

DR. BRADMAN: In terms of cancer, you 

mentioned the potential more vulnerability of 

children. There are almost no guidelines on how 

to evaluate cancer risk in children. There's no 

formal guidelines. EPA doesn't have any. Usually 

it's kind of averaged as a lifetime risk.

Only in California, which we have 

California still, the Office of Environmental 

Health Hazard Assessment has come up with some 
466

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

guidelines for adjusting potency factors for cancer 

for children zero to three and three to five. At 

the youngest age, they increased the potency by 

a factor of ten. And then the slightly older age, 

they increase it by a factor of three. But then 

that risk is averaged over a lifetime.

But those are not even formally adopted. 

They've never been kind of formalized by the 

agency. They're just a guideline.

So it may be that exposure to a 

carcinogen when you're young is different than when 

you're a young adult. But no one really knows about 

whether there's a lifetime difference in cancer 

risk. So then I have Scott, then Dave.

MR. RICE: Just a quick comment. I 

mean, much of what I was going to say has been said. 

So I don't want to pile on. But just putting a 

finer point on with the meat market looking at not 

just the impact of more meat equaling more organic 

product or more organic acres that those animals 

are on.

But more organic acres of the feed for 
467

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

those animals and the impact of that and just our 

responsibility of looking at this off the criteria 

and the celery powder as celery powder. And given 

that, I'm definitely going to support continued 

listing of this.

DR. BRADMAN: Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Asa, your comments 

about the fact that we don't have data on children 

does not comfort me one single bit, right? Where 

we do have data, exposure of adults, adolescents, 

and children, almost always the children are 

significantly more sensitive just as you said.

DR. BRADMAN: Yeah.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, so --

DR. BRADMAN: Especially for 

noncancer.

MR. MORTENSEN: -- the fact that we 

don't have the data is unsettling to me, and I know 

that. But it certainly doesn't lead me to be 

confident that the lack of data should lead me to 

be more comfortable about making decisions about 

-- or even inferring, actually, the likelihood that 
468

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

there's going to be a greater effect on children 

than there would be on adults.

The other thing I would just say, like, 

none of this is personal, right? Like, this is 

how I see the world, and we all see it in our own 

ways.

When I was working on pesticide 

regulations and exposure with the EPA, they use 

a risk cup to assess risk which is to say, Dan, 

sorry to pick on you, if you have one bad habit, 

that's one part of your risk cup. You're going 

to choose to expose yourself to something. But 

we're all filling our cup in our own way. It's 

the cumulative effect of the exposures of things 

in life that come along.

And so that's just underpinning sort 

of the way my mind is working on this. I'm totally 

aware that animal agriculture is under great 

duress, including dairy. And so I'm not suggesting 

that we wouldn't use meat that is coming from 

organic sources. I wasn't compelled by the 

discussion that meat can't be frozen or meat can't 
469

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

be constituted in other ways that wouldn't require 

this kind of preservation.

And as I said at the beginning, my view 

is that we don't have to have parallel products. 

In fact, I think it's actually a bad way to go 

for the industry.

DR. BRADMAN: Just to clarify about 

children. It's true. I don't think there would 

be any way to have data about children. But what 

I was talking about is that right now there's no 

formal guidance on how to evaluate risk to children.

And along with that, I mean, it's almost 

impossible to do research on whether children are 

more or less vulnerable. But there is some 

informal guidance, but there's no formal guidance.

MR. MORTENSEN: Well, it's done by 

epidemiological work at least with some of the 

compounds which is where -- for example, the 

children's exposure to lead. That kind of insight 

comes from that.

DR. BRADMAN: Right. But that kind of 

data is actually for noncancer outcomes. I don't 
470

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

think there's anything for cancer outcomes. And 

definitely in terms of noncancer outcomes like 

neurodevelopment, behavior, definitely exposures 

prenatally and early child have a bigger impact 

on children than adults. But that's a totally 

separate arena from cancer.

MR. CHAPMAN: I'm not getting the sense 

that this conversation is moving or changing 

people's opinions, and it's been pretty robust 

already. So I'm about to call the question to end 

discussion unless there's some brand-new point. 

But I don't want to go through three votes if we 

don't need to.

CHAIR BEHAR: Emily had a comment, and 

I just was going to say it's 6:13.

(Laughter.)

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Emily and then 

maybe we should close --

MS. OAKLEY: Yeah. I just want to say, 

though, it's fine for us to differ in our opinions. 

And I feel like Dave is allowed to have a different 

opinion than everyone. And he represents a 
471

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

stakeholder group, and he represents his own views. 

And diversity amongst our opinions is important.

DR. BRADMAN: Absolutely. So at this 

point then, I think we're ready to close the 

discussion on celery powder. So let's proceed with 

our motion to remove celery powder from the National 

List at 205 -- excuse me -- 205.606(c) based on 

OFPA and 205.600(b). Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: We will start the voting 

with Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: Abstain.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.
472

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: Excuse me, 11 no, 1 abstain, 

1 absent, 1 yes. And the motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: So Devon, if you could 

introduce fish oil, our next material.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Asa. At 

Section 205.606(e), the listing is fish oil, 

parentheses, fatty acid, CAS Nos. 10417-94-4 and 

25167-62-8. Stabilized with organic ingredients 

or only with ingredients on the National List, 

Sections 205.605 and 205.606.

DR. BRADMAN: Tom, you're on board.

MR. CHAPMAN: Fish oils used in organic 

processing and handling as an ingredient to 

increase the content of omega-3 fatty acids, 

primarily EPA and DHA to benefit human health by 

contributing to healthy brain development or other 

medical conditions -- addressing other medical 

conditions. It's used in -- it can be used in a 

variety of food products, but it's most often used 

in dairy products.

Public comment -- Public comment this 
473

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

time has mirrored public comment received in the 

spring. And in the past, support came from dairy 

manufacturers, a manufacturer of fish oil, the 

trade association for fish oil. And then it was 

noted that it was used both by trade association 

and by a certifier.

Those opposed to it which came from 

interest groups, really the comments, I think, kind 

of roll up into human health impacts, environmental 

impacts, and necessity. And the one new piece that 

was here that wasn't in the previous reviews was 

a study that was conducted in or published in 2019 

about efficacy of omega-3 supplements in relation 

to cardiovascular disease.

Other areas of human health impacts or 

at least the concerns of human health, so that's, 

like, on the efficacy of using fish oil supplements. 

There's also concerns raised with exposure to 

heavy metals, although those concerns are the same 

concerns that have been raised in the past.

We had a substantial dialogue with 

manufacturers and the trade association, both in 
474

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this meeting and in the last meeting. And it 

appears that they do comply with Prop 65 safe harbor 

limits for heavy metals and where they exist, 

European or American standards or FDA standards 

on heavy metals and other toxins.

On the environmental side, that impact 

is generally around overfishing. And the 

overfishing piece, we as a Subcommittee requested 

a work agenda item to address the environmental 

impacts of harvesting fish directly for their oil. 

And the NOP has granted that work.

They have asked us in that and I'm 

quoting from their item that while our reviews about 

the environmental impacts of harvesting fish for 

fish oil, it's not to go down the route of -- I 

guess I'm not quoting right here, I'm summarizing 

-- go down the route of organic fish aquaculture 

standards which clearly the NOP -- or NOSB has 

worked on it in the past. And then they've also 

asked us in our review that we make sure it aligns 

with other federal regulations addressing fish 

harvesting.
475

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Both the trade association and the 

manufacturer offered us some wording that they 

recommended to address our issues and were 

supportive of us addressing the environmental 

impact issue through an annotation. I can read 

those if people are interested. They were in the 

written public comment.

But they basically either offer a kind 

of avoidance of direct fishing for oil usage that 

can only come from byproduct or citing FAO 

guidelines for avoiding overexploited or depleted 

or recovering fish regions.

We also got a comment from an interest 

group that said if we're annotating it that we 

should look at the wild crop standard similar to 

what's being done with marine materials, although 

we're somewhat limited given that we can't look 

at organic certification of fish products as a 

solution to this.

So that's that. I do want to comment 

about the study. The study wasn't provided, so 

I did get my hands on it. But it wasn't, I think, 
476

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

available to everybody on this committee. It was 

focused on cardiovascular impacts and the 

connections there and the weak science for that.

But in its usage, at least in dairy 

products that I could find, the claims are not 

related to cardiovascular usage. It's related to 

brain development, eye cognitive development. So 

I don't know how relevant that is to the usage in 

the organic industry, perhaps as a direct 

supplement.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you for that 

summary, Tom. So we're now opening this up for 

discussion to the full Board. Emily, Harriet. 

Harriet, Emily.

CHAIR BEHAR: I just want to say thank 

you to the NOP for giving us that work agenda item.

DR. BRADMAN: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Two comments or questions. 

One, I know that there was some discussion within 

the Subcommittee about people's interest in 

supporting this based on the NOP's approval of the 

work agenda item. So I was wondering if anyone 
477

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

would want to comment on that.

DR. BRADMAN: Lisa.

MS. de LIMA: I don't know if I was the 

only one, but I was one of those people. So I wasn't 

comfortable voting for it unless that work agenda 

item came through. And I knew that the 

environmental aspect was going to be dealt with 

through annotation at some point in the future.

DR. BRADMAN: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Yeah, so just to follow 

up on that, I'm also really happy to see that it's 

a work agenda item. But back to abstaining being 

a viable option. Because that is not the current 

annotation, I'm going to go ahead and abstain. 

But I am encouraged to see this Board move forward.

DR. BRADMAN: Dan.

DR. SEITZ: I just want to say that I 

share ambivalence on this item as well because of 

some of the environmental issues that have been 

stated.

DR. BRADMAN: Everyone tired? I was 

expecting more discussion on this item. No more? 
478

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Okay. Then I guess we can move to a vote on our 

motion to remove fish oil from 205.606 of the 

National List based on OFPA and 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b). 

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Voting begins with Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: Abstain.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: Abstain.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: The vote is 1 absent -- 2 

abstentions, 11 nos, and the motion fails.

CHAIR BEHAR: I just want to ask the 

Board if they would like to quit and move the rest 
479

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of the agenda to tomorrow or if we should do one 

more. We do have a very long list, even if we don't 

talk a lot. I mean, we've had a long list this 

afternoon. And even just going through the motions 

of voting does take some time. So just asking. 

I don't want to make the decision for everyone's 

bodies and minds.

MS. OAKLEY: Well, we have people who 

have early flights tomorrow. So I think we should 

power through now because otherwise they might miss 

officer voting which seems really key that they're 

here for that.

MR. CHAPMAN: I think three of the four, 

maybe even all, they might be pretty quick.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes, I think we should 

power ahead.

CHAIR BEHAR: This is the power ahead 

kind of Board.

DR. BRADMAN: I'm not sure if I'm 

actually powering at this point.

(Laughter.)

(Simultaneous speaking.)
480

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. BRADMAN: So Devon, if you could 

introduce gelatin.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Asa. At 

Section 205.606(g), the listing is gelatin, CAS 

No. 90000-70-8.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you. So I've taken 

over this item. Gelatin is used in a wide range 

of products as a clarification and fining agent 

in teas, juices, and wine, a stabilizer, 

texturizer, thickener in capsules and may either 

be an ingredient or a processing aid in candies, 

gummy bears which are, I think, particularly 

important to many, desserts, marshmallows, and 

jello, wow, dairy products, cosmetics.

Fish gelatin is often used in kosher 

foods and also -- learn a bit later, it's also used 

in the use of fish oil in dairy products. Gelatin 

can be made from a number of different sources, 

generally from cattle bones, hides, pig skins, 

probably mostly from hides and pig skins and also 

to some extent from fish.

It's prepared in a way that is more like 
481

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

cooking and could be considered nonsynthetic. 

However, gelatin may also be processed in ways that 

render it synthetic. So that's where we're listing 

it right now, actually at 205.606(g).

Gelatin is used internationally in a 

number of different listings, EU and in the Codex 

Alimentarius. IFOAM -- there's a number of groups 

actually that permit it. Sorry. I'm taking over 

this sunset review from another member from A-dae 

who wasn't able to make it. There's no major issues 

with ancillary ingredients. So really we're 

dealing with a pure material here.

The public comments on gelatin are, in 

a way, kind of divided the way we've seen them 

previously with some concern about use of this 

material as a -- not sourced from organic material. 

And the environmental and potential human health 

issues related to nonorganic production of gelatin, 

the argument that's been put forward on the trade 

side is that there's not a big enough meat market 

and industry to source material for organic 

production.
482

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

There is, though, a fair bit of support 

for this in a number of processors and other 

organizations that are using this to make a variety 

of food products. I've mentioned some of them 

already.

So at this point, I think we can open 

it up for discussion by the full Board. Any 

questions or comments on gelatin? So I see Emily, 

then Tom.

MS. OAKLEY: Tom, you can go first.

MR. CHAPMAN: I actually was just 

moving my microphone getting ready to vote. So 

I don't have anything to say.

MS. OAKLEY: Well, I was just going to 

note that we had some robust discussion around this 

in the spring, right?

MR. CHAPMAN: Well, robust discussion 

around collagen. Collagen is a precursor to 

gelatin.

MS. OAKLEY: Right, as a connected 

issue.

DR. BRADMAN: Right. It's a similar 
483

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

material to collagen.

MR. CHAPMAN: Virtually the same.

DR. BRADMAN: Yeah, in functional 

terms, it's actually the same material. Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: So if we're all eating 

more beef hot dogs, we'll get some organic gelatin. 

Is that the deal?

DR. BRADMAN: Right.

MR. CHAPMAN: One of these days, or 

agricultural standards.

CHAIR BEHAR: Or more fish oil to get 

the gelatin.

DR. BRADMAN: So, any more discussion?

CHAIR BEHAR: Everything's 

interconnected.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes. Any more 

discussion on gelatin?

(No audible response.)

DR. BRADMAN: No, then I think we can 

take this to a vote with our motion to remove gelatin 

from 205.606(f) on the National List following OFPA 

criteria and 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b), so Harriet.
484

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: We start the voting with 

Lisa.

MS. DE LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. CHAPMAN: I said no, but yes.

MR. RICE: That's 13 -- 1 absent, 13 

no. The motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Devon, if you could 

introduce orange pulp?

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks. At Section 

205.606, and the listing is orange pulp, dried.
485

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. BRADMAN: So, I've taken over the 

orange pulp sunset review from A-dae. And just 

to review some of the information here and then 

some of the comments we've heard earlier today.

So, dried orange pulp is a fiber. It's 

derived from orange pulp and other orange 

byproducts. We heard this morning about leftovers 

from juicing and processing that. The processing 

-- the process to create the product is patented.

I tried to actually look up the patent 

today. I'm not sure if I found it, but it's used 

in a number -- well, I shouldn't say actually it's 

used. The proposed uses that we've heard about 

are related to a number of food processing and food 

production purposes.

In the public comment and submissions 

to this board, we didn't really hear about any uses 

of this. And in the public comment, there really 

was no description of use of it. There were some 

comments, actually, were from OTA related to some 

groups that list -- or actually, production of 

organic pulp and selling of that for other purposes. 
486

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It wasn't clear what that was for, but it doesn't 

seem related to this particular patented product.

In terms of new information, we got 

comments today from the representative of the 

manufacturer that we have not heard before, and 

I think that's really the only substantive comment 

related to supporting this material. There's been

a number of comments from mainly consumer and other 

interest groups that this material is not 

appropriate as a non-organically sourced material 

and should not be used and allowed on the organic 

list.

I personally don't know the history of 

this material. I don't know if, Harriet, you can 

give us some institutional knowledge there. As 

a subcommittee, we voted -- I think in this -- hope 

this is our four-to-three day, but we voted -- four 

of us voted yes to take this off the list, one person 

voted no, and there were two absent.

I don't know if that should be actually 

yes four and absent three, because it seems like 

that was our low attendance day, so to open it up 
487

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for discussion, comments, concerns, questions.

(No audible response.)

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Harriet, Steve.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So, yes, I was in 

the room when this was first put on the National 

List. And there was discussion about why they 

couldn't -- it was a gentleman that had, you know, 

put it forward and spoke for it and said that there 

were customers who would be willing to use this. 

I guess, I'm kind of thick nerve, but there was 

discussion.

And it was actually not -- I don't 

remember what the vote was when it first got on, 

but there were people who felt that, "There is so 

many oranges out there, why can't we get this orange 

pulp?"

And the reason was the distance of the 

organic orchards to the juice factory to get the 

pulp or another juice factory to get that then wet 

waste pulp that was organic. However, since it 

is so difficult -- okay, that's the history, but 

we know that the organic citrus world is somewhat 
488

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

suffering and having a hard time with disease and 

climate change, weather issues.

But I think -- I personally do not like 

the wide range of the listing, which then, I think, 

somewhat discourages manufacturers to go the extra 

mile to use the dried pulp to make dried organic 

pulp out there to then give those orange producers 

another stream of dollars coming into their 

operations.

I don't necessarily like also putting 

a patented product that the main reason we're 

putting it on there is because this one narrow use, 

which is patented. This is a generic list as we've 

spoken about before.

I know that 606 can be seen as a place 

for encouraging organic items to be manufactured, 

but -- I don't know. I think I'm not going to vote 

for this product to remain on the National List.

DR. BRADMAN: Tom. Anyone else? Tom, 

and then Steve.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes. I mean, I thought 

I was going to vote this item off when we voted 
489

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on it in Vermont, and they came with a pretty 

compelling presentation on why they couldn't make 

it organic.

I think at the end of the day, this is 

not a widely used fiber period. It's pretty 

innovative, but I imagine this is, again, a little 

bit of me taking guessing, but they're a smaller 

company, smaller usage, and for whatever organic 

customers they have, it's probably a pretty small 

role usage of whatever this product is.

When there was no comments about the 

usage, I was on board with removing it. The public 

comment I heard today spoke about six products out 

there in the market, I think, or six companies out 

in the market that are using it.

There was also not really compelling 

evidence presented to me on why to remove it, other 

than people not using it, so the fact that we 

received some testimony about its usage, I'm going 

to vote keep it on the list.

DR. BRADMAN: Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I'm conflicted. I 
490

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

agree, Tom, and then I also heard the same person 

say, "Well, it was eight hours, nine hours, that 

maybe they could tweak it." And to me, you know, 

that left -- you know, if there was a compelling 

reason to push that envelope, it sounded like there 

might be a possibility and that -- I mean, if it 

was double the distance.

I mean, I think we need to encourage 

that use, and sometimes you have to kind of prod 

a little bit to say, "This -- you do have to go 

the extra mile." And I've heard that -- and I saw 

the comment from the orange processor saying, "We 

have this raw material available too," which, you 

know, they took the time to comment on that, which 

I also take a little bit seriously, so I'm leaning 

towards yes, but I'm listening.

DR. BRADMAN: Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: So, I kind of had to look 

back to our comments from fall '15 on this one, 

because there was so little on this period. And 

I did look at the manufacturer of this product's 

comment, and I noted they have a ton of options 
491

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that this product could be used in.

And as we heard today, six folks are 

using it and there is no alternative, but, Steve, 

one of the things that I wrote down from her comments 

from last time was there's not enough organic raw 

materials, fresh, wet, organic orange pulp on any 

given day within a proximity of the single Florida 

production facility to produce a minimum batch, 

so not even just run the plant all day, just one 

batch of it, so that kind of compels me -- the thing 

with 606, I'm going to say it again, if somebody 

comes up with an organic dried orange pulp, 

commercially available, then they have to use it, 

and they can't use this product. So, that's what 

606 is designed for and there's no alternative right 

now for this product.

MR. CHAPMAN: Can I ask Steve a quick 

question? I missed my opportunity when he was 

yapping, but it was about --

DR. BRADMAN: Sure.

MR. CHAPMAN: I just have a really quick 

question.
492

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The comment, Steve, is that the OTA 

comment?

VICE CHAIR ELA: Say that again.

MR. CHAPMAN: The comment about orange 

processors using it, was it the OTA comment that 

you were referring to or is there another one that 

I missed?

DR. BRADMAN: Not that they were using 

it.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I thought it was from 

the manufacturers, but I'd have to look back. I'll 

look. I'm not -- I'd have to look.

MR. CHAPMAN: Okay. The only one I saw 

was OTA, and it looked like it was from orange 

producers, growers.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes, exactly.

MR. CHAPMAN: Not from a juice 

manufacturer saying, "I got this byproduct for 

you."

DR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. CHAPMAN: I think it's from like 

growers that are saying, "Clearly, this byproduct 
493

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is being made from the oranges I'm selling. Why 

can't you use it?"

DR. BRADMAN: Right, yes.

Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. I think, 

obviously, they made a business decision, because 

if you go back to celery, there is no organic celery 

that we could make celery powder. In this sense, 

they could move their factory to a place where there 

are organic oranges and make the product, so they've 

made the decision not to use organic oranges, so 

I, you know, I can't support it.

DR. BRADMAN: Harriet, Steve, Emily.

CHAIR BEHAR: I don't know if it's still 

true, I didn't ask the question, but I remember 

from when it was first put on the list that they 

kind of either own or have long-term contracts with 

the orange groves around the plant. And, then, 

you know, it was just like too expensive to go 

organic.

Plus, I don't know exactly when this 

is a sunset -- sorry, end of the day -- 2022. That's 
494

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

quite a while from now as far as, you know, 

encouraging them to figure out a way to get it worn 

out or closer.

And like I said, I know that the organic 

orange, fresh orange and juice oranges in Florida 

are struggling, and so I think giving them an 

opportunity to have another market for especially 

a secondary product, would be useful to them.

VICE CHAIR ELA: So, it was the FTA, 

but the three producers of organic oranges respond 

to the survey year-round. These producers 

generate organic wet orange pulp and peel as a 

byproduct, which is then sold to the food processing 

industry to re-dry it or otherwise used, so you 

can interpret that -- volume is hard to tell, but 

there is availability, and is obviously is dried 

if they say it, but that's the only --

DR. BRADMAN: Emily, and then Sue.

MS. OAKLEY: Yeah. I've said this 

before. I think, the litmus test for 606 has to 

be high especially when we have such a robust 

organic orange industry. And I echo Rick's 
495

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

comments and Harriet's comments as well, and so 

I will be voting to remove it.

DR. BRADMAN: Sue, then Scott.

MS. BAIRD: Yes. I just was thinking 

though that she said it was a distance thing, so 

there may be all these orange people who say, "I 

have orange pulp," but maybe they're not close 

enough to her. To Rick's credit, he's saying, "Why 

isn't she close to them?" So, it's kind of a 

catch-22.

DR. BRADMAN: Scott.

MR. RICE: Yes. I think I was leaning 

towards voting to remove this as well, but given 

the comments this morning and just thinking about, 

you know, the organic sources are out there, and 

they are, been obliged to use those. Again, it's 

the purpose of 606 there.

And I think we can ask someone to be 

closer by an hour to an orange grove, but if there's 

-- to my mind, moving a manufacturing facility is 

no small thing and just giving that some thought.

DR. BRADMAN: Any other -- I'm sorry, 
496

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: One more quick comment. 

We neglected actually to even ask her if she's 

reached out -- I mean, it could be that she -- I 

mean, I don't know if it's truly the closest organic 

grove --

MR. CHAPMAN: We asked her that. She 

said nine hours. And we asked her if she --

CHAIR BEHAR: Right, but we know that 

--

MR. CHAPMAN: -- contacted her 

processor who run organic. She said, yes, she had.

CHAIR BEHAR: But I don't know that she 

asked every organic grower in Florida. I mean, 

this is the one that she knew of a juice plant, 

one juice plant that she checked with.

MR. CHAPMAN: I mean, I guess, we didn't 

ask her if she went out and bought organic land 

and planted the oranges either. There's a limit 

to what we can ask people. I think she answered 

that question.

CHAIR BEHAR: Right. I mean, I don't 
497

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

know how robust her review was for -- because there 

could be a closer grove and another juice plant 

closer in that's not doing anything right now that 

could happen.

DR. BRADMAN: Any other discussion, 

comments, concerns? Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Well, back to the 

celery, I mean, if there was an organic celery field 

somewhere, we'd tell them they have to use it or 

it wouldn't be on the list, so, you know, I don't 

think we can have it both ways.

DR. BRADMAN: Well, I think with the 

celery though that there was a $2 million funding 

effort by the feds to move that in the direction 

we want it to go in is one difference.

So, I think, at this point, we should 

take this to a vote, so subcommittee brings this 

motion to the full board to remove orange pulp, 

dried from 205.606(n) of the National List based 

on OFPA criteria and 205.606(b).

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: I think we start with Dan.
498

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Abstain.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. DE LIMA: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes yes.

MR. RICE: Thanks for your patience. 

We had seven yes, five -- let me correct myself 

here. Seven yes, five no, one absent, one 

abstention, and the motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Devon, if you 

could introduce Seaweed, Pacific -- Pacific kombu 

seaweed?

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Asa. At 

Section 205.606(r), the listing is seaweed, Pacific 
499

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

kombu.

DR. BRADMAN: Steve, I think we've --

put this in your lap. Sure.

MR. CHAPMAN: Just a quick -- I hear 

rumblings out in the audience, so like a point of 

clarification. There was 12 votes, seven yeses, 

so that comes out to 58 percent. Two-thirds is 

required to carry it, so that's why it failed.

CHAIR BEHAR: The decisive vote with 

the one abstention would have been eight yeses, 

and so we didn't make it. It was seven, so the 

motion failed.

MR. CHAPMAN: Indecisions. Okay. 

Seaweeds, this is one of A-dae's materials that 

I took over. This was another one kind of like 

in the orange pulp where we received very little 

public comment, and so -- and we didn't -- we 

received very little in the spring as well.

Basically, of the professional 

organization, CCOF, PCO, and OTA, none of them 

showed any members listing either of these two 

seaweeds. And I'll kind of talk about them both 
500

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

simultaneously here even though they're listed 

separately.

There was a request that annotations 

requiring testing for heavy metals and 

radioactivity and prevention of over-harvesting 

were protecting organic consumers in the 

environment, and so there was the question of 

whether the allowance of the use of these are 

adequately protective.

There was also a request that the 

seaweed materials be reviewed within the broader 

context of the marine materials' document. Please 

consider that the addition of an annotation related 

to harvest restrictions and risk-based testing for 

toxic materials would need to be performed, so it's 

a pretty short discussion.

I was -- on kombu, I was the one that

voted yes to remove it based on no one telling me 

that it was used and that bothers me. The rest 

of the committee voted no not to remove it, so I 

got lots of feedback from my committee members about 

all the seaweed products that I'm not familiar with, 
501

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

so it was educational. So, you know, I guess this, 

you know, it kind of comes down to a discussion 

among the board of whether you want to vote yes 

or no. 

DR. BRADMAN: I'm sorry. Harriet, did 

you have your hand up?

(No audible response.)

DR. BRADMAN: Emily. Okay, sorry, I 

was reading the review.

MS. OAKLEY: What's preventing both of 

these seaweeds from being certified organic to the 

wild crop standard?

VICE CHAIR ELA: I don't have an answer 

for that.

MS. OAKLEY: All right. Well, then 

I'll just follow up by saying that with no one using 

this and with the wild crop standard applied to 

many other seaweeds, I don't really understand why 

this is still on the list.

DR. BRADMAN: Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: I mean, I'm aware of 

Edwards & Sons' miso soup recipe that uses wakame 
502

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and kombu, so I know it's used in the marketplace.

DR. BRADMAN: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Well, I think, I mean, 

obviously, for consistency in my position, I think 

that this should be certified organic to the wild 

crop standard, so that's my take.

MR. MORTENSEN: I share that 

perspective. And, you know, with all the time 

we've spent on the marine materials' work, I was, 

you know, thinking that that's how this was, so 

I'll be voting the same way.

DR. BRADMAN: All right. I should say 

I've kind of been influenced by all the discussion 

today about marine materials, this meeting.

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: All right. So, we didn't 

really have any commenters here or written, you 

know, to speak for it where we could ask, "Could 

this be certified or not?" That's a tough one.

You know, I mean, I personally would 

like to know that the wakame that I'm putting in 

my beans, you know, could, you know, was somewhat 
503

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

overseen, because we know that our oceans have some 

areas that are cleaner than others, and also I would 

hate to contribute to the destruction when I think 

it could have been overseen to be more sustainable.

DR. BRADMAN: Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: All right. I guess, 

on the wakame, I voted to re-list it. I'm kind 

of tending towards delisting both, and we still 

have what I said earlier on the other one was, we 

still have a public comment through rulemaking if 

somebody really comes in and says, "This is going 

to be an economic hardship," but I just have a hard 

time with nobody telling me that this is necessary.

DR. BRADMAN: Ashley. Sorry.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes. I just want to 

caution again about just because we don't hear from 

someone, doesn't mean that they don't use it. And 

to bring up again the brilliant part of 606 is if 

someone, some seaweed person or sea vegetable, 

whatever the correct terminology is, if they get 

these wakame and Pacific kombu certified organic 

through the wild crop standard, they have to use 
504

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

them if they're commercially available, so that's 

the brilliant part of 606.

DR. BRADMAN: So, Lisa, then Scott.

MS. DE LIMA: So, I want to echo what 

Ashley said, because I'm looking at our next vote, 

and it's on kombu, and we didn't have anybody write 

in that they're using non-organic kombu in an 

organic product, but if you take -- Harriet just 

made me think of this -- if you look at Eden Beans, 

organic beans, and they have kombu in every single 

can of their beans, but they didn't write in saying, 

"Keep it on the list," so -- oh, sorry, we are voting 

kombu. It's seven o'clock. Are we voting on 

kombu? Oh, well, then, I'm definitely voting to 

keep it on the list, because it's in a ton of 

products.

DR. BRADMAN: Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: I'm just looking at the 

irony that livestock get organic kelp and humans 

don't get organic seaweeds.

DR. BRADMAN: Scott, and then Tom.

MR. RICE: I was not familiar that --
505

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

or Tom was a good reminder of the Edwards & Sons 

product. Even though we didn't hear from them, 

it's something that we have at our house, and we 

use. There's a bunch of it in our emergency kit, 

and we got it because it was organic, and so that's 

good to know.

MR. CHAPMAN: There's a lot of 

inconsistencies -- I assumed I was the next person. 

There's a lot of inconsistencies. On the food 

side, we have to use organic glycerin, but, you 

know, the livestock side, you can use conventional 

even from petrochemical sources, so --

DR. BRADMAN: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: So, 2022 is a long time 

from now, and I think what we've heard is that many 

practices for the harvesting or even the farming 

of some seaweeds may be easily acquired with organic 

certification, so I still stick with my position 

and hope that it encourages the certification of 

these materials.

DR. BRADMAN: Dan, and then Tom.

DR. SEITZ: Lisa, if you don't mind, 
506

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I just was wondering you say that it's in many 

products. What are some of the products that you 

mention?

MS. DE LIMA: Many of the Eden Bean 

products. It's in all of their beans.

DR. SEITZ: Oh, really? Okay, so all 

the different types of beans they sell, pinto, or 

whatever, okay.

MS. DE LIMA: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes. I mean, the 

successful model that we've seen with removal from 

606 is when people come to us and say, "I have an 

organic product." It's not I assume there will 

be an organic product in the future. I am not an 

expert in every manufacturing methodology and there 

could be very good reasons why kombu and wakame 

may be more difficult to manufacture organically 

than other formats of seaweed.

I mean, nori is widely available out 

there. You see it in every supermarket, so there's 

clearly some that could be done, and, you know, 
507

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the seaweed companies or most companies want to 

always increase their market share.

If it was easy, I imagine they'd be doing 

it because, like Ashley said, "If it's there, you 

got to use it." And frankly, the businesses we've 

mentioned generally are fairly strict on the 

organic side, so I imagine if they could source 

it, they would want to source it.

So, I really would prefer to see it 

available first and then remove it from the list, 

not the other way around. And that's the way it's 

been successful with hops, that's the way it was 

successful with yeast, so looking at, you know, 

making sure it's actually there.

DR. BRADMAN: Any more discussion?

(No audible response.)

DR. BRADMAN: I really don't know how 

I'm going to vote on this one, but let's bring a 

motion to the full board to remove seaweed, Pacific 

kombu from the National List based on OFPA and 

205.600(b).

Harriet.
508

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: I think we still have to 

start it with Dave. Is that correct? Does it seem 

right to you?

MR. MORTENSEN: That's right. I think 

so.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR BEHAR: I'm losing it a little 

here.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So, Dave said yes. 

We're waiting on Asa.

MR. CHAPMAN: You're first with the 

next one too.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: That was a yes, Asa? 

No.

MR. RICE: No

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.
509

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. DE LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Abstain.

MR. RICE: I've got one absent, three 

yes, nine no, one abstain. The motion fails. Yes, 

the motion fails.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Then, can --

Devon, can you introduce our last material seaweed, 

wakame.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Asa. At 

Section 205.606(v), wakame, seaweed, Undaria 

pinnatifida.

DR. BRADMAN: So, Steve, I think you're 

on board for our last material today.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I would just say the 

same discussion as what we've already gone through. 

I don't know that we need to repeat that, so if 

there's further discussion, that's fine.

(No audible response.)

DR. BRADMAN: No? No, okay. Then, 

let's bring this to a vote for a motion to remove 
510

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

seaweed, wakame from the National List based on 

OFPA and 205.600(b).

CHAIR BEHAR: We will begin the voting 

with Asa.

DR. BRADMAN: Hold it. Dan, did you 

want to say --

DR. SEITZ: So, what products -- and 

I'm sorry, and maybe it's been raining somewhere, 

but what's the range of products that this 

particular substance is used in as distinct from 

the other seaweed that we just voted on?

MR. CHAPMAN: So, kombu was in the 

beans. Wakame is in miso, miso soup.

DR. SEITZ: In miso, okay.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes. It's in Dashi.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Any other 

discussion?

(No audible response.)

DR. BRADMAN: No, okay. I'm going to 

repeat then that we want to bring this motion to 

the full board to remove wakame seaweed from the 

National List based on OFPA and 205.600(b).
511

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Harriet, I think I'm the first person.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes. We begin the voting 

with Asa.

DR. BRADMAN: And I'm going to be 

consistent and say yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. DE LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Abstain.

MR. RICE: So, that was one absent, 

three yes, nine no, one abstain. The motion fails.

MR. CHAPMAN: Do you guys want to just 

keep pushing through and do fatty alcohols now?

(Laughter.)
512

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: I think we should stick 

with the agenda and get some rest and come back 

with clear minds and --

PARTICIPANT: Oh, yes. That was 

intense.

CHAIR BEHAR: We can read more public 

comments. So, we are adjourned for today. We will 

start tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m.

There is a reception. PCO is putting 

one on. I believe, there's still carts outside, 

213 Smithfield Street, supposedly a quarter mile 

away.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 7:02 p.m.)
513

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + +

FALL 2019 MEETING

+ + + + +

FRIDAY

OCTOBER 25, 2019

+ + + + +

The Board met in the Philadelphia 

Ballroom at the Doubletree Hotel & Suites 

Pittsburgh City Center, One Bigelow Square, 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania at 8:30 a.m., Harriet 

Behar, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT

HARRIET BEHAR, Chair

STEVE ELA, Vice Chair

SCOTT RICE, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

JESSE BUIE

TOM CHAPMAN

LISA de LIMA

RICK GREENWOOD

DAVE MORTENSEN

EMILY OAKLEY

DAN SEITZ

ASHLEY SWAFFAR
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

STAFF PRESENT

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, NOSB Advisory Board 

Specialist, National Organic Program

PAUL LEWIS, Ph.D., Director, Standards Division, 

National Organic Program

DEVON PATTILLO, Materials Specialist, 

National Organic Program

JENNIFER TUCKER, Ph.D., Deputy Administrator,

National Organic Program
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CONTENTS

Crops Subcommittee

Topics:

Proposal: Fatty Alcohol ....................... 5

Proposal: Potassium hypochlorite ............. 50

2021 sunset substances review:

Hydrogen peroxide ............................ 67

Soaps, ammonium .............................. 70

Oils, horticultural .......................... 76

Pheromones ................................... 83

Ferric phosphate ............................. 85

Potassium bicarbonate ........................ 95

Magnesium sulfate ............................ 98

Hydrogen chloride ........................... 102

Ash from manure burning ..................... 103

Sodium fluoaluminate Discussion ............. 113

Document: Paper ............................. 115

Materials Subcommittee

Topics:

Proposal: Excluded methods - Induced mutagenesis

and embryo transfer in Livestock....... 129

Proposal: Genetic Integrity Transparency of

Seed Grown on Organic Land............. 132

Proposal: NOSB Research Priorities 2019 ..... 169

Discussion document: Marine materials in

organic crop production................ 177

Verbal update: Assessing cleaning and

sanitation materials used in organic

crop, livestock and handling........... 200

Policy Development Subcommittee

Topics: Proposal: Updates to the policy &

procedure manual (PPM) ...................... 211
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Livestock Subcommittee

Topics: Proposal: Use of excluded method

vaccines in organic livestock production .... 216

2021 sunset substances review:

Atropine .................................... 241

Hydrogen peroxide Iodine .................... 246

Magnesium sulfate ........................... 254

(Parasiticide) Fenbendazole ................. 257

(Parasiticide) Moxidectin ................... 269

Peroxyacetic/Peracetic acid ................. 272

Xylazine DL - Methionine .................... 275

Trace minerals .............................. 303

Vitamins .................................... 306

Discussion document: Fenbendazole ........... 314

Compliance, Accreditation, and Certification

Subcommittee

Topics:

Verbal update: Integrity of the supply

chain/Oversight improvements to

deter fraud............................ 220

NOSB Officer Elections ...................... 334

NOSB work agendas/Materials update .......... 337

Recognition of outgoing members and

closing remarks ............................. 341

Adjourn ..................................... 350
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

(8:30 a.m.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Welcome to day three of 

the 56th Public Meeting of the National Organic 

Standards Board.

Today we're going to go through the 

materials and proposals from the Crops 

Subcommittee, the Materials Subcommittee, the 

Policy Subcommittee, and the Livestock 

Subcommittee, and the Compliance, Accreditation, 

and Certification Subcommittee, so I don't think 

there's too much on the agenda. I'm being 

sarcastic if you don't -- can't tell.

So we will start first with Steve Ela, 

the subcommittee chair of the Crops Subcommittee.

VICE CHAIR ELA: All right. Good 

morning, everybody.

We're going to start with two proposals 

that we have on the docket and then move into our 

sunsets and finish with a discussion document. 

So we will start with the proposal on fatty 

alcohols. Devon, do you want to read the --
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

introduce it?

MR. PATTILLO: Sure. Thanks, Steve.

Before the Board is a petition to add 

fatty alcohols to the national list for organic 

crop production at 205.601 paragraph (k), 

specifically the petition request allowance of 

synthetic fatty alcohols C6, C8, C10, and C12 for 

tobacco sucker control.

The petition was submitted by Green Ag 

Supply LLC on December 10th, 2018 and was 

transmitted to the NOSB on February 11th, 2019.

A technical report on fatty alcohols 

was prepared in 2016 and is available on the NOP 

website.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Jesse is the lead on 

this. Jesse, do you want to --

MR. BUIE: Okay. Good morning.

A petition requesting the addition of 

revised active ingredients C6, 8, 10, 12 naturally 

derived fatty alcohols was received by the NOSB 

December 2018 to be added to Section 205.601(k) 

of the National List.
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The petition asks for the substance to 

be annotated for sucker control of organic tobacco 

crops. The petitioner has made numerous revisions 

to their original petition which was submitted in 

2015.

According to Dr. Matthews, the original 

petition was for the use in tobacco and other crops, 

contained reference to multiple materials 

including inerts and did not specify the range of 

fatty alcohols in the material MASCOL80.

The repetition as revised specifies the 

use on tobacco only, clarifies material being 

petitioned, and includes the full range of the 

alcohol C8 through C12.

The NOSB's formal recommendation on 

December the 2nd, 2017 to the NOP stated, among 

other issues, the use of synthetic growth regulator 

is not compatible with the system of sustainable 

and organic agriculture.

The repetition specifies the need for 

the synthetic growth regulator on organic tobacco 

for sucker control.
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

There could be human health concerns 

caused by the exposure to nicotine when hand 

suckering. The NOSB has received a petition signed 

by many tobacco farmers stating that they need this 

material which had been allowed by a few certifiers 

in the past.

Growing organic tobacco can be one 

organic crop in a longer crop rotation. Some 

producers have stated that if the material is not 

approved, there may -- they may choose to no longer 

grow other crops organically on their farms.

On the adverse impacts, the fatty 

alcohols from both natural and manufactured sources 

represent a low risk for environmental 

contamination.

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 end points of toxological concerns have 

been identified for human health risk assessment.
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The EPA concluded that there are no 

human risks of concerns for aliphatic alcohol, and 

that was TR lines 396 to 399.

Fatty alcohols are chemicals that 

naturally occur in all plants and animals and are 

known for their high level of biodegradability in 

the environment.

Their derivative products are 

additionally designed to rapidly degrade after use 

and are not considered endocrine disruptors.

The review of subsequent -- Okay. The 

review and subsequent denial of fatty alcohol 

petition at the fall 2017 NOSB revolved around 

several issues.

The first issue, the uses requested by 

the petition material were broad and extended 

beyond the limited use of tobacco desuckering.

Since other uses of the petition 

material were not allowed by the EPA, the Board 

was forced to either -- was forced with either 

adding an annotation to the listing or denying the 

petition.
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Secondly, the petition was not clear 

as to which fatty alcohols were being requested. 

The petition contained references to multiple 

materials include inerts and did not specify the 

range of fatty alcohols requested.

Thirdly, there was little evidence 

provided for essentiality to organic production 

in the original petition.

The Board reviewed few comments noting 

that this material was essential for organic 

tobacco production. The Board was also not aware 

that fatty alcohols had been approved for some 

certifiers and not by others and that some growers 

were already using the material.

During the review of the current 

petition, several of these issues have been 

addressed.

First, the current petition is limited 

to the use of fatty alcohols on organic crop 

production.

Secondly, the fatty alcohols being 

requested are clearly spelled out and match those 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

available in the products previously allowed by 

some certifiers.

Thirdly, the Board received numerous 

comments during the spring 2019 Board meeting, 

noting the essentiality of the material to organic 

growers.

These comments were received even 

though the material was not on the meeting agenda. 

Numerous tobacco growers noted that without this 

material, they would be unable to produce organic 

tobacco and would most likely drop their organic 

certification, including the certification for 

crops that they use in rotation with tobacco.

The reason for essentiality include 

other currently available materials are 

ineffective and sporadically effective whereas 

fatty alcohols are effective and reliable.

Manual desuckering involves numerous 

passes through the fields and exposes workers to 

the potential for tobacco poisoning and numerous 

health issues. 

The use of fatty alcohols prevents this 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

exposure and is necessary to prevent -- to protect 

human health.

The suckers of tobacco plants provide 

habitat for aphids and increase the susceptibility 

of the plant to other pests.

Desuckering the plants reduces pest 

pressure. The Crops Subcommittee is aware of the 

negative impact on human health of tobacco use. 

However, tobacco is a legal crop and a crop eligible 

for organic certification.

Like any other material for use in 

organic crops, the Committee is limiting our review

to whether the material meets the criteria 

necessary for adding to the National List as a crop 

production aid.

Since fatty alcohols occur naturally 

without the -- throughout the plant world, 

breakdown are readily -- it break down readily after 

use, help prevent worker exposure to tobacco 

poisoning, and reduce insect problems, they are 

compatible with a system of sustainable 

agriculture.
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Public comments were overwhelming in 

support of fatty alcohols. Comments against 

listing fatty alcohol include, number one, they 

pose a health and environmental hazard; number two, 

these comments said that they were -- it was not 

essential and was inconsistent with organic crop 

production.

That ends my presentation, but at this 

time, Emily will present the minority opinion.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you, Jesse.

So yes, I wrote the minority opinion, 

and we discussed this pretty robustly as a 

subcommittee. I won't read you the whole minority 

opinion, but I'll just summarize that the TR for 

this material notes that fatty alcohols do not fall 

into any OFPA categories and although manual 

control is clearly more expensive, the same can 

be said for manual pruning and removal of suckers 

on many other crops.

But for me, the key issue is that the 

foundation of organic agriculture is predicated 

on using natural, manual, mechanical and cultural 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

controls over synthetic materials.

In many cases, this means utilizing 

hand labor in is part of why organic receives a 

priced premium.

Labor saving and greater economic 

returns are insufficient criteria for adding a 

synthetic material to the National List.

So organic tobacco growers have been 

growing organic tobacco without fatty alcohol for 

a long time before they started using it in about 

2007.

And although I do empathize greatly 

with the growers particularly in that they were 

allowed to use material by their certifiers that 

hadn't gone through the adequate review process, 

the empathy that I have for them doesn't mean that 

I feel that that makes this material compatible 

with organic agriculture.

I feel that organic agriculture is 

distinguished by the fact that we don't spray 

chemicals in place of labor. For example, we don't 

use herbicides in organic crop production and we 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

do have a plant growth regulator on the National 

List, but I think we know from previous Sunset 

review the slippery slope that some have claimed 

this causes us.

We did hear from Dr. Bill Collins here 

during the public testimony that nicotine poisoning 

happens at harvest not at sucker removal, so the 

claim that we would add this to help protect workers 

I think is somewhat called into question.

I would say that the way to make organic 

tobacco profitable is for the Santa Fe Company and 

others to pay growers more and for consumers to 

pay more for the product, not to allow a chemical 

to avoid labor costs.

And our previous vote on this was 

unanimous. I will say that when this came up in 

the summer and we voted on this again, I had some 

personal challenges on my farm that prevented me 

from delving more deeply into an issue that I think 

we should be discussing here today which is that 

this petition is for naturally derived fatty 

alcohols made from Sumatran palm kernel oil.
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And the petition does provide a 

certificate for roundtable on sustainable palm oil, 

but there is controversy within the community as 

to whether or not that certificate is adequate.

There have been various studies on that 

certificate, but one that was published in 2018 

found that there was no difference in environmental 

sustainability from certified versus non-certified 

palm oil plantations.

And I know that this is a new subject 

to be introducing right now, but I think it's 

something that's really important for us to discuss 

because farmers are applying 6 to 10 weeks of fatty 

alcohol, which is a lot of palm kernel oil, and 

I think it is something that we need to do our due 

diligence on because it's part of the manufacturer 

of the product.

But I am curious to hear from my fellow 

Board members for those who supported this 

unanimously in the past what has changed in their 

support. And I think a lot of people would say 

that it is hearing from the growers, which I agree 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is extremely compelling.

But I also wonder to what extent we hear 

that and make changes based on previous 

determinations. If growers came to us and told 

us that they needed herbicides, I don't think that 

that would change our position on herbicides.

And although this is not an herbicide, 

it does play a somewhat unique role in organic

agriculture as a sucker removal.

And that's all I have to say, and I guess 

I'll turn it back to Jesse. Thank you.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Okay.

I will open it up for Board discussion.

Tom?

MR. CHAPMAN: I can speak to my vote 

previously. I had made the motion and attempted 

to send it back to Subcommittee in Florida, and 

the Board did not agree to do that.

At that time, the petition was not in 

a state that I felt fit to vote on, so it was because 

of that why I voted it down. But I preferred 

greater discussion at that time, which other folks 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on the Board disagreed with.

I did have a question back to you, 

Emily, and I imagine you're expecting this one. 

But you put a lot of your position related to the 

economic impact and labor costs, and I can't help 

but contrast this with similar comments you've made 

in the past with paper pots and the impact that 

that has economically on small operations.

And given that that's -- also seems to 

be full of synthetic materials, how do you -- can 

you help me understand the why one would be 

acceptable and the other one would not?

MS. OAKLEY: Sure. I'm not sure that 

I have actually ever used the comment that it is 

a -- that it's for labor saving or for economic 

reasons.

I don't -- that is actually not for me, 

why I would support paper pots. And I am not 

surprised that question came up because we 

discussed that also as a subcommittee.

For me, the difference -- although 

there are definitely lots of similarities between 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

those two materials, particularly in terms of 

growers being allowed to use a material -- is that 

paper is already on the National List and fatty 

alcohols are not.

So this was a different determination 

I think by certifiers in that they assumed that 

that use was already permitted.

For me, the reason to allow paper pots 

is to be consistent with our existing paper listing. 

I think it can be clearly argued in my view, 

although I know not everyone would agree with this, 

that when the paper pots are used, their initial 

use is as a transplanting plug cell, so as this, 

you know, the container in which the seedlings are 

grown.

So that's their first use. Then they 

become recycled because then they're recycled when 

they're put into the field.

So I think that it's a quite different 

distinction, but I don't use paper chain pots, and 

I use a mechanical transplanter. And I think that 

they're both equally viable.
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I don't have experience with paper 

chain pots, but for me, that was -- has not been 

an argument that I think I have personally made.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Other Board members?

I will recognize this myself. I 

changed my vote as well on this. I think it really 

comes down to worker protection for me. We use 

a lot of hand labor on our farm to thin peaches 

that far exceeds the amount of suckers.

You know, we figure we remove somewhere 

between 0.75 to 1 million peaches an acre by hand. 

So we do it, but we also have a much higher price 

premium for our crop.

But I heard from a number of growers 

how their workers, this is their most hated job, 

to go out and do this, and I -- you know, I recognize 

that. And so from a worker protection standpoint, 

I think that's probably where I switch my vote 

because I -- farm workers are -- they do a crazy 

amount of work, and I don't want to make their lives 

more difficult.

The economic argument is difficult 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

because that's not really what we can decide on. 

But I also recognize on the bigger picture that 

tobacco is part of a system just like strawberries 

are in California and that I think as that 

rotational crop, we are able to expand our organic 

footprint in a very positive way.

I can make the decision on worker 

protection and human health in terms of farm 

workers, but I think the -- you know, hearing from 

Carolina stewardship program about how this has 

changed -- has been a game changer for those farmers 

and that they're now a high percentage in the 

national map, you know, that perks up my ears. 

So that is where I've come down on the fence.

So Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: So could I ask you a 

question about Dr. Collins's testimony saying that 

tobacco greening -- poisoning doesn't happen at 

sucker removal, that happens at harvest?

VICE CHAIR ELA: Agreed. But I also 

heard from other people that it does happen and, 

you know, it still comes back. I can't remember 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

who it was, but you know, it's so compelling when 

somebody says my workers are so happy they don't 

have to do this anymore.

I mean, these -- my experience, these 

are workers that will do almost anything to make 

money, and when they come back and say this is 

terrible, I -- just from a human -- a humanity 

standpoint, I -- that has meaning to me as somebody 

that does employ a number of workers.

Other Board members?

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Nobody is going 

to be able to figure out how I'm going to vote or 

what I'm going to say.

So I live in Southwest Wisconsin and 

Southwest Wisconsin and South-Central Wisconsin 

used to grow a lot of tobacco.

And it was really kind of the pay the 

mortgage crop for many small farms and midsized 

farms. I actually have a tractor that I use for 

cultivating vegetables that I got from a tobacco 

farmer.

Between the mid-80s and mid-1990s, 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

those tobacco allotments have gone away, and I think 

there's only maybe 40 acres left in my county, 

although it might be gone. I can't remember. And 

it used to be in the thousands.

I have actually cut tobacco myself and 

helped out the neighbors. I understand the social 

and economic impact. This was a place where people 

would get together and they'd go from farm to farm 

and help people cut and help people hang and then 

even during when the dried tobacco is taken down 

from the drying barns and then stripped and what's 

called case -- case it up and get it ready for 

bundling it up, basically, for sale, that was 

another time when people -- I mean, I went and helped 

case for my friends, and it was like we still call 

it casing weather when we get a foggy time in 

December because -- excuse me -- if it's somewhat 

foggy and humid in the air, then when you're 

handling the tobacco leaves they won't shatter so 

much and you can bundle them better.

And so I -- you know, I kind of have 

fond memories of doing that with my friends and 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

seeing all my neighbors all getting together and 

working together and then there would be big 

potlucks. And that was, you know, important.

And I have seen that benefit to having 

that. And that's what all those farmers have --

you know, when they were speaking about how they 

needed it and how it's important crop in the 

rotation, that brought me back to that memory.

On the other hand, a good friend of 

mine, the person who I used to help case tobacco, 

contracted throat cancer, suffered for years, and 

succumbed to that disease. I'm still very good

friends with his family and we miss him all the 

time.

And this was a farmer. He did not smoke 

tobacco. He raised tobacco because it was an 

economic beneficial crop for his farm.

I've seen the tobacco go away in my 

county, but I haven't seen the farmers go away. 

They've managed to find other crops to fill in on 

the tobacco and they would killed -- still be 

growing tobacco if the Government hadn't taken away 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the tobacco allotments.

They're growing organic. Many of you 

know, maybe you've heard of Vernon County, 

Wisconsin which has the highest concentration of 

organic farmers in the country.

That was also a big tobacco growing 

county. They're growing organic vegetables, 

fruits. They're getting into hemp now. There's 

a lot of growing grains for distilleries and hops 

for breweries and the farmers have been resilient 

in finding substitutes for the tobacco.

And we don't see the same numbers of 

farmers contracting cancer, which relates a lot. 

I think actually most of it comes when you're 

casing because it's very, very dusty work when 

you're taking down the dry tobacco, stripping the 

leaves, and bundling it.

And then on the other hand, it is a legal 

crop. And so my personal emotional issues with 

this I'm not sure if I should let that come into

play or not. I mean, I am a human, and I think 

that that is an important part to decision making.
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I also think what Emily has said is 

compelling and that, you know, there is somewhat 

of a slippery slope of, you know -- I remember --

again, let's go down memory lane -- when tree fruit 

growers petitioned -- this is a way long ago --

for a synthetic to do some thinning of flowers on 

their fruit trees.

And since there was a mechanical way 

to do it, which was hand thinning, and then there's 

other ways to do it too with approved materials. 

That was denied.

And so I'm just thinking about that, 

thinking of the NOP. So it's kind of one way or 

the other, and I am very much struggling with this 

vote, and I guess I'm just going to wait to hear 

from the rest of the Board members to help me see 

which way I should go.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: If others want to say 

something, I don't want to hog the time. But if 

there's a break, then I would say something, so.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Other comments? 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Lisa?

MS. de LIMA: So for me, a bunch of what 

Steve said resonates with me as far as it being 

-- hearing from all the farmers definitely had an 

impact on me, especially hearing that it's a 

rotational crop and part of the larger system on 

their farms.

And so at the end of the day, I think 

that sways me to voting to list it.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Like Harriet, I am 

conflicted on this vote. My -- I was pretty certain 

I was one of the ones to say no to having it added. 

Either I'm sure that I was, actually the last time 

we voted.

And since that time, we've heard on the 

public comment webinars, the growers here, we've 

done more reading.

I've been struck by the argument just, 

as Lisa articulated, of the -- what I think of as 

the keystone crop. You take it away and it undoes 

the economic viability of the farm.
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I am almost certain that Dr. Collins 

was wrong, although I have not done a deep study 

on this.

When I was living in North Carolina for 

nine years, I did have the opportunity to work in 

flute cured tobacco fields for two years, two field 

seasons doing research.

And the exudates that you come out of 

the field covered in, once the tobacco's waist high 

or higher and that's when they're spraying the 

suckering material is loaded with all sorts of 

secondary compounds that I'm sure includes nicotine 

and other things. So I can't believe that you're 

only exposed to that stuff at the end of the season.

We all know that most of that labor is 

done by, you know, hired hands and folks that are 

out hoeing and doing that kind of work, as Steve 

has articulated, day in and day out through a very 

long and hot summer.

So my views have shifted some, but I 

continue to be conflicted. So that's where I am.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Scott.
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: Yeah. I think it's hard not 

to be conflicted on this in terms of how we view 

tobacco these days and the health impacts that that 

has.

But I think, you know, that's similar 

to other conversations we've had at this meeting. 

That's not really our task here. And for me, I 

think with it, again, being that part of a crop 

rotation that keeps these folks in business, and 

Harriet, I know you shared some of your experience 

where you are, but I think there may be regional, 

local differences between how a farming system is 

established and how those businesses continue.

And I think we've heard from many people 

that without this as part of their rotation they 

would not be farming and perhaps not be farming 

-- or certainly wouldn't be farming organically.

And so when we can have more organic 

acres, would the use of what is a fairly light 

footprint in terms of a material, it's hard for 

me not to support that when hearing all those 

combined.
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: Emily, and then Sue.

MS. OAKLEY: So a couple of things. 

Yes, I definitely hear that this is a keystone crop. 

And even for diverse growers like myself, we tend 

to have one crop that rises above the rest as highly 

profitable.

And for me, that is tomatoes. And I've 

experienced years that have been very bad tomato 

years, and I've experienced years that have been 

very good tomato years.

And ironically, it's the diversity that 

helps make up for the years that are very bad tomato 

years.

And what affects that crop negatively 

will help another crop that I grow successfully. 

And I think it actually encourages diversity to 

have that mixture. You're hedging your bets.

I also just want to say that I looked 

on the organic integrity database, and there are 

over 300 growers of tobacco listed, over a dozen 

crops, and over multiple countries.

But we heard from a relatively small 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

subset of tobacco growers, and I know that they're 

an important part of that community. But we also 

did hear from a certifier who certifies tobacco 

saying that their growers don't need and that they 

were opposed to the material.

I also think that we really did not do 

our due diligence on the manufacturer of this 

material, especially with relation to palm kernel 

oil, and I think that that is something that should 

definitely give us pause and was not adequately 

addressed in the TR because this material is for 

naturally derived fatty alcohols from palm kernel 

oil.

But the TR gave quite an extensive 

description of all different types but really did 

not go into this aspect of it. And I think -- I 

at least urge everyone to consider that 

significantly.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you. I appreciate 

hearing the different conflicts we all have.

I hate smoking. I hate tobacco 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

smoking. My children decided they have to do that, 

and I don't know why they decided that. Neither 

my husband nor I did.

But if they're going to smoke, I would 

rather they smoke organic tobacco than non-organic.

I've got one son who smokes Spirits, 

which is an organic cigarette. The advantage to 

that is there is no all the added tars and all the 

added synthetics because it's an organic tobacco.

I lived through the time of -- Missouri 

used to have a lot of small organic -- or not just 

-- not organic, but they had small tobacco farms. 

And during the time the Government took the 

allocations away, we lost all of that.

I've always been an advocate for the 

small family farm. Those of you that's known me 

for all these years know that small family farms 

are my heart and my passion.

This -- from everything that's been 

presented appears to be a really, really, really 

benign substance. And I don't want to see tools 

kept from small family farms that help them to stay 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

viable.

I do want to see tools added that 

protect the worker health and wellbeing and quality 

of life.

So yeah, I change -- I'm going to change 

my vote. I appreciate the palm oil issue. I think 

that's something we've got to address perhaps as 

a separate issue. So just my say.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I didn't see which 

one, Tom or Ashley, which one was first. Ashley, 

go ahead. I'll make the decision.

MS. SWAFFAR: Okay.

So I do support listing this material. 

You know, there's no alternative that we heard 

besides the hand suckering. I think there might 

be something in the future but you know, nothing 

right now.

And the one thing I know that several 

folks on the Board are conflicted because this is 

a crop that they probably don't agree with, and 

I feel like that's not our place to judge an item 

for a crop that we don't agree with.
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I would encourage those of you who 

are feeling that way to abstain from this vote. 

If you don't agree with a crop, you know, that's 

not fair that you would give it a no vote just 

because it's tobacco.

And the other part, Emily, you had said 

that we heard from a relatively small subset of 

tobacco growers. I actually felt like we heard 

from an amazing amount of tobacco growers.

And I actually thank them for their time 

on the webinars and in person and in public comment. 

That's actually -- I thought we heard from a very 

significant amount of tobacco growers, and I 

appreciate them taking the time to tell us how 

important that this is to their production system.

So I wanted to recognize that. I 

appreciate their time and effort.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Can we let Tom go 

first?

Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah. I echo what 

Ashley says, and if we've got 30 or so farmers of 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

300, it's 10 percent. That -- I don't think we've 

gotten that response rate from any subset of grower 

since I've been here. So I'm actually impressed 

by the numbers that we've seen in that regard.

I want to speak to the keystone crop 

piece. I mean, we talked, you know, tomatoes have 

been brought up as a counterpoint to that.

But granted, data out there is not very 

good. I pulled data for acre values, trying to 

use USDA data and don't fully check me on this 

because, you know, it was multiple years, but it 

was the best I could pull off the internet 

yesterday.

But the return per acre on a tobacco 

crop is somewhere -- on a conventional tobacco crop, 

is somewhere between $4- and $5000 and it looks 

like the return on it a tomato field crop is, you 

know, $12-, $13,000. So we're talking about a 

significant difference when the $5000 crop is your 

keystone crop that's keeping your farm going.

And if you, you know, significantly 

increase the costs to produce that, that's not 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

longer probably that keystone crop even with other 

rotations.

At the end of the day, even if people 

don't want to talk about it, organic competes with 

conventional substitutes. And I know my business 

is out there every day competing against other bar 

manufacturers who people assume are organic aren't 

organic.

And you know, the amount that we can 

differentiate ourselves and sell it in equals more 

acreage under organic management, but you know, 

it's simple supply and demand that as I increase 

my costs, I lose the people, the number of people 

that will buy my product.

So while I might be able to still be 

a profitable company, I will sell less. And if 

I sell less, that means there will be less acreage 

under organic production.

And that's true of this crop as well. 

So I don't know how realistic, you know, looking 

at American Spirit and seeing if they can raise 

their pricing to solve this issue alone.
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The last two pieces I wanted to really 

briefly talk -- touch on is I guess oil chemicals 

because that's coming up at the last minute on this 

item.

But yeah, there's issues with palm oil. 

RSPO is actually the widest acceptable -- and I 

don't want to put Lisa on the post, but you know, 

when we're out there, palm oil is actually one of 

the number one questions we get as a brand is what 

palm oil we're using and who are we working with.

And generally for the palm oil our 

company I'm blessed to say is using organic and 

Rainforest Alliance-certified. But that's few and 

far between.

And to be frank, in the derivatives, 

which this is so fractionated palm products. There 

is no organic and RA out there.

So those options aren't available. 

RSPO is the certification accepted by retailers 

across the board to meet the standard domestically 

and in Europe. And Europe is much further along 

in the palm oil discussion than we are here 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

domestically.

But palm oil is not the only product 

that oil chemicals come from. Palm oil is one of 

the largest fat sources out there in the world, 

so that's why that one gets focused on.

But it's not -- you know, once you 

fractionate that fat, there is really not much of 

a chemical difference between it or one derived 

from tallow, which is another major source.

The other major sources domestically 

are soy and canola, but those probably are not used 

in this manufacturing because of the GMO 

contamination problems.

So I don't know if this is tied 

exclusively to palm and it's last minute, but also 

that criteria would need to be applied across the 

board. I like picking on the glycerin, the 

livestock listing.

But glycerin is a product of the oil 

chemical industry. And without any greater 

annotations on that, it could be from petrochemical 

or it could also be likely from palm.
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So there is a lot of other listings out 

there that could potentially share that same issue.

But it could also be from tallow or 

rapeseed and not be palm or GMO. So it's a bit 

more complex than just that one piece.

The last one I want to touch on is the 

labor piece. That's the highly compelling piece 

of this argument for me is worker safety and just 

putting -- I don't want to be in an industry that 

puts the burden of going organic on the backs of 

laborers.

And you know, when I was -- I was blessed 

to go down to Paraguay to visit a bunch of fair 

trade and organic sugar cane operations that are 

generally manually harvested by chopping cane.

And with the fair trade premiums, the 

first thing those coops did was buy a mechanical 

harvester because that work was the worst work. 

And -- but that's -- that's what for the longest 

time is what organic sugar cane was built upon.

And if there was a fairly benign 

alternative that allowed for those workers to not 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

have to go through that strenuous labor, you know, 

the human health impacts of harvesting sugar cane, 

there's studies out there about the shorter life 

span of those workers.

So you know, again, it's oftentimes 

these tradeoff decisions we're making is not a --

it's a good versus the bad, it's about where the 

bad is being placed. And for me, this material 

has more good than bad.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Emily, quickly. And 

then we can go to Rick and Dan and then we need 

to -- unless there's more substantiative things 

that are going to change people's votes, we're --

we need to move on because we're going to be short 

on time for some of the other discussions.

So Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yeah, I just wanted to 

quickly clarify that I didn't mean it was a small 

subset of growers. I should have said a 

geographical region, that it's from one area, one 

state, whereas we have, you know, 15 states growing 

this crop.
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And then we did hear from some growers 

in written testimony from other states, but they 

were a small -- like you know, West Virginia, 

Virginia. That's -- but I just want to clarify. 

I do agree we heard from a lot of growers, and 

I greatly appreciate that, and it is a unique thing.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. My 

background's public health, and when I first saw 

the proposal, I was immediately against it because 

of tobacco. And I actually was responsible for 

passing a very strong anti-smoking ordinance in 

Orange County, California.

So I was completely against it. Over 

time, I realized, again, it's a legal crop, and 

so it's not for me to take my thoughts about smoking 

in terms of our decision making process.

And I've been very impressed by the 

people that spoke. I think reminded me of the 

ethylene folks that came up to talk about that. 

I mean, it's -- for them, it's a key component of 

their entire system.
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And the idea that more organic fields 

are being put into production, I think is a key 

issue for me. I mean, that's what we're all about 

is encouraging organic agriculture.

And I'd hate to see that get derailed, 

so I'm for it with a little bit of heartburn.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Dan.

DR. SEITZ: Just to say I am conflicted 

for all of the reasons that we've heard today. 

And one of the things that also makes a decision 

like this difficult is that we see that it's very 

hard to take substances off the National List 

because of the two-thirds requirement to -- during 

sunset.

So there may be circumstances that 

change that would bring another substance that's 

more benign, more in line with the criteria, might 

make that practical.

But we see oftentimes that because 

something becomes a regular practice, it's hard 

to remove from the National List. So that I feel 

is a little bit of a challenging aspect of this 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as well.

But I'm still trying to make up my mind 

on this substance.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Harriet. Short, 

please.

CHAIR BEHAR: Just two things, that 

worker exposure is not only at suckering to the 

tobacco. It's the everything from planting 

through.

And -- I mean, I agree with Dan, too, 

with the taking off of the material is somewhat 

difficult.

But I -- we haven't heard from Asa, and 

I would like to hear from him.

VICE CHAIR ELA: He's actually -- well, 

it's his choice. You don't have to speak, Asa, 

but you --

DR. BRADMAN: I actually wasn't 

planning to discuss it today. I just wanted to 

take in the comments. Thanks.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Okay.

Unless I see anybody else --
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BUIE: There's one more.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yeah, I just want to remind 

the Board that this substance fully meets our 

criteria for listing. So we -- out of all this 

discussion, I don't think we brought that back up, 

but it fully meets all our requirements for listing.

CHAIR BEHAR: One other thing. As I 

think part of why we were -- we're in this position 

is that the farmers have been able to use it in 

the past. The certifier declared it as 

non-synthetic. And so there was somewhat of a 

reliance, and it makes it harder for us to take 

something away once they've been using it and 

haven't developed other methods.

VICE CHAIR ELA: All right. I'm going 

to call for the vote.

The first thing, since this is a 

petition, we have a classification motion. That 

motion is to classify fatty alcohols, C6, C8, C10, 

C12 naturally derived fatty alcohol as synthetic.

The motion was originally made by Jesse 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and seconded by Harriet. So --

MR. CHAPMAN: Didn't we --

VICE CHAIR ELA: -- Harriet, would you 

like --

MR. CHAPMAN: Didn't we classify this 

back in Florida?

VICE CHAIR ELA: As what?

MR. CHAPMAN: Didn't we classify this 

material in Florida when we voted on it last time?

VICE CHAIR ELA: A good question. We 

probably did.

MR. CHAPMAN: Oh, whatever. We can do 

it again. To be doubly sure.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I'm sure we did, 

actually, but we'll be redundant.

MR. MORTENSEN: Steve, could you 

quickly review the rules of voting in terms of how 

the counts are made?

VICE CHAIR ELA: So this is a petition 

that needs two-thirds to -- two-thirds majority 

to pass. And of course, if there are abstentions, 

that changes the -- the abstention counts -- doesn't 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

count into the total vote count. So if somebody 

abstains, it's the two-thirds of the people who 

actually voted, so -- even though abstention is 

an actual vote, I don't mean to take that away.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you.

VICE CHAIR ELA: So Harriet, can you 

-- so we're ready for the vote on classification.

CHAIR BEHAR: Does anybody remember 

where we ended yesterday?

(OFF-MIC COMMENTS)

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you.

VICE CHAIR ELA: So I vote yes.

MR. RICE: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: Sorry, this is a 

classification.

MS. OAKLEY: Sorry. Yes.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. de LIMA: Yes.

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes yes.

MR. RICE: That's 13 yes, one absence, 

the motion passes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Okay.

We'll move on to the National List 

motion. The motion is to add fatty alcohols C6, 

8 -- C6, C8, C10, C12 naturally derived fatty 

alcohol at 205.601 for sucker control on organic 

tobacco crops.

The motion was made by Jesse, seconded 

by Rick.

CHAIR BEHAR: Voting starts with 

Scott.

MR. RICE: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.

MS. de LIMA: Yes. 

DR. SEITZ: Abstain.

MR. MORTENSEN: Abstain.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. I'm going to vote 

no.

MR. RICE: The vote was 8 yes, 3 no, 

2 abstain, 1 absent. The motion passes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: All right. Thank 

you, everyone. I know that was a heartfelt 

discussion.

So we are going to move on to the next 

proposal, which is a petition for potassium 

hypochlorite. Devon, would you like to read that?

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Steve.

Before the Board is a petition to add 

potassium hypochlorite to the National List as a 

chlorine material for organic crop production at 

205.601(a)(2).
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The petition was submitted by Enviro 

Tech Chemical Services Incorporated on November 

8th, 2018 and later amended on March 26th, 2019.

A technical report was not requested 

by the Board, although technical reports for 

chlorine materials including sodium and calcium 

hypochlorite were prepared in 2006 and 2011 and 

are available on the NOP website. Thanks.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Asa's the lead on 

this, and I just want to point out we do have a 

slight technical clarification to the final motion, 

but I'll let Asa start off the discussion and then 

I'll make a motion to add the clarifications in.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you, Steve.

So this petition is to add potassium 

hypochlorite to the National List for use in 

cleaning irrigation systems.

This material is very similar to other 

chlorine materials that are already on the list, 

including sodium hypochlorite bleach and calcium 

hypochlorite.

Like most compounds, this material is 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

an oxidizer sanitizer and is used -- can be used 

in a number of settings related to food safety, 

water -- pathogens in water, and other, you know, 

mechanical uses.

This petition was a proposal to use this 

material specifically for irrigation cleaning 

purposes, and we have attempted -- and we'll talk 

about the language on that in a bit -- to respond 

to that specific petition and address the question 

of -- certainly on that issue, using this for an 

irrigation water for cleaning irrigation systems.

There are some related uses with the 

development of FSMA, the Food Safety Modernization 

Act, and upcoming requirements for use of 

irrigation water and sanitation of irrigation water 

that touches crops in the preharvest and also 

post-harvest period.

This material is another chlorine 

compound, and because of that, it's raised concerns 

among different members of our community and, like 

chlorine compounds, for me, it also raises 

concerns.
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Chlorine compounds are -- have 

occupational health issues. They're -- we know 

that sodium hypochlorite is an asthmogen, so it 

can cause permanent respiratory damage.

There's -- its' been classified as an 

asthmogen by the Association of Clinical -- I don't 

have it in my head, but anyway, it's been classified 

as an asthmogen. It's very likely that these other 

chlorine materials are also asthmogens, 

particularly because this is a very similar salt 

-- sodium hypochlorite.

It has potential implications in water 

for forming disinfection byproducts and other 

potential carcinogens like other chlorine 

compounds.

The flip side to this is that we already 

have some very similar chlorine compounds on the 

list and potentially having a broader toolbox has 

some advantages.

Relative to sodium hypochlorite, this 

material has as the cation potassium, which is 

potentially a plant nutrient, or at least it 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

wouldn't contribute to the increased salinity in 

soil.

It is true that the -- another material 

already on the list is calcium hypochlorite which 

would also avoid that increase -- potential 

increase in salinity related to sodium 

hypochlorite.

That said, this is another material. 

It's very similar. It has some advantages over 

at least one of the materials we already have on 

the list, and you know, could be useful in the 

toolbox.

In terms of public comments, again, 

there's been concerns about this material as 

another chlorine compound and a feeling that we 

have not adequately evaluated the whole issue of 

sanitization and the use of sanitizers and 

disinfectants in the organic space.

A number of certifiers, QCS, the Ohio, 

OEFFA, have supported listing it. A number of 

farmers themselves have also voted in favor of this 

material.
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We also have kind of an issue with 

language. And Steve, I don't know if you want to 

go over that, or do you want me to?

So I think that kind of summarizes the 

pros and cons and the material as well.

VICE CHAIR ELA: So we did have some 

public comment that the petitioner as well as the 

committee neglected to add a -- there is no 

205.601(2). We neglected to put the (a) in front 

of the (2).

And then also, in our past, it was clear 

from the petition as well as the committee that 

we were intending it for use in water for irrigation 

purposes only, not for an expanded use.

So I'm going to make a motion to amend 

the National List motion to add (a) between -- so 

it's 205.601(a)(2) and to add the word "only" in 

-- for use in water for irrigation purposes only.

DR. BRADMAN: Period.

VICE CHAIR ELA: So there is --

MR. CHAPMAN: I'll second that.

DR. BRADMAN: I'll second it.
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: So just for discussion 

purposes, so it was the Organic Produce Wholesalers 

Coalition that brought this to our attention, as 

we've already noted.

And just wanted to ask. They in their 

written comment suggested that we use the wording 

that we have under ozone gas, which is for uses 

in irrigation system cleaner only.

Does that change the intent of our 

proposal? Lisa?

DR. BRADMAN: No. I think that 

reflects the intention.

MS. OAKLEY: Should we do that for 

consistency, or is this adequate?

VICE CHAIR ELA: I would say -- and the 

reason I made the motion the way I did is ultimately 

it's up to the Program where they're going to list 

this and the final wording.

We're trying to make it clear that it 

is for irrigation purposes only, not for sanitizing 

and disinfecting. That was the intent of the 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Committee.

I think in terms of the language for 

residual chlorine levels, that is in the higher 

section, but we wanted to be clear that it was going 

to follow the Safe Drinking Water Act.

But really that -- the wordsmithing is 

going to be done at the Program if they choose to 

take this to rule making.

We're just trying to make our intent 

clear to the Program. They will actually wordsmith 

it.

And I would ask before we take the vote 

of Devon and Paul, is this a substantial change 

that would -- do we need to send it back or can 

we vote on this?

DR. LEWIS: Sure. Thanks, Steve. 

And thanks in terms of clarifying in terms of how 

we're going to look at the recommendation, finding 

where it will be placed --

VICE CHAIR ELA: A little closer to the 

mic --

DR. LEWIS: Where it'll be placed in 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the National List, and also just to remind is that 

in terms of what's being clarified here aligns with 

what was the intent of the petition.

So with that, we don't see this as a 

substantive change in terms of what's being changed 

here.

MS. SWAFFAR: So Steve, point of order. 

Your motion that you made is different than the 

motion that is being projected on the screen.

You said to add it to 205.601(a)(2).

VICE CHAIR ELA: I'm sorry. I 

misspoke. I meant to substitute (a) for (2). It's 

up to the Program under which section of (1) through 

(9) they list it. But -- so it -- you can make 

the argument that it should be at number (9). It 

could go under (2).

I think we're trying to be just clear 

that this is where it gets added, so.

MS. SWAFFAR: So I hear grumblings in 

the crowd here, and I just want to go through this.

So 205.601(a) says algicides, 

disinfectants, and sanitizers, including 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

irrigation cleaning systems. 

And then under (a) lists alcohols, 

chlorine materials, copper sulfate, all those 

things.

And so I think what the Committee is 

trying to do is say this is where it goes. It goes 

in (a), but we're not quite sure which one. It 

probably should go in (2) with an annotation there 

of what you've put residual chlorine levels and 

things like that.

So I see what you're doing and I think 

it's right, and I think the Program just has to 

-- I think it needs to go under (2) with that 

annotation.

But --

VICE CHAIR ELA: I would agree, but 

there's been discussion that it could be in its 

own --

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah. It could be in 

number (9) or --

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yeah. Yeah.

MS. SWAFFAR: -- I think (9) is a little 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

more --

VICE CHAIR ELA: It could be a new --

an additional one. So to me, that -- this is up 

to the Program. We don't -- we as a Board recommend 

that the material be added. We don't get to say 

exactly when it does, so.

Tom and then Harriet.

MR. CHAPMAN: I think the intent here 

is quite clear, for irrigation purposes only, still 

needs to comply with the Safe Water Drinking Act. 

And where it sits, you know, I'll leave that to 

the experts at the Program to figure out.

MALE SPEAKER: Thanks, Tom.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: When we submit it to the 

NOP with a cover sheet, we can explain why we didn't

give it a number.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Can we move to the vote 

on the amendment? Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: We start the voting with 

Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BUIE: Yes.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.

MS. de LIMA: Yes.

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes.

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes yes.

MR. RICE: That's 13 yes, one absence, 

the motion passes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Okay.

We'll move on with discussion of the 

material as amended. Any further Board discussion 

of whether to add this to the list or not?

Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: Since I will be leaving 

the Board and we're going to be getting a lot of 

new people, so we've all learned lessons to really 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

be looking closely at our annotations and just hope 

the new people, you know, the continuing Board 

members help the new Board members as they struggle 

with this kind of thing, too.

VICE CHAIR ELA: And I think we're just 

as bad.

(Laughter)

VICE CHAIR ELA: Any further 

discussion?

Asa?

DR. BRADMAN: Well, I just want to note 

that, you know, there's kind of a really outstanding 

concern about the review of sanitizers and 

disinfectants and the use of chlorine compounds.

And I know I have been a little bit torn 

about this material and adding another chlorine 

compound to the list.

At the same time, it's not that 

different from materials that are already there. 

And in fact, some of them it may be perhaps less 

concerning, at least in terms of environmental 

impacts in some senses.
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So you know, part of it -- you know, 

one question that's been raised is, do we need it. 

Is it just going to duplicate what's already there, 

particularly with respect to calcium hypochlorite?

You know, I don't think we should be 

looking at a sanitizer as a way to add a nutrient 

to plants. So the potassium hypochlorite, you 

know, I think the plus there is that it avoids 

sodium, not that it adds something positive to 

plants.

The flip side, you know, where I go back 

and forth on this, again, is that it's probably 

perhaps a little less concerning than some 

materials that we already have.

And you know, we often hear about the 

toolbox and that having another alternative might 

be helpful, especially with kind of emerging 

requirements that will result from the FSMA.

And so I -- our subcommittee was 

unanimous, actually, in supporting it, but I just 

want to kind of acknowledge that there's some 

hesitation about it, at least even on my part, and 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that there is, you know, a need, again, for this 

larger discussion about the use of sanitizers and 

disinfectants which are very powerful chemicals.

We talk about bleach and things like 

that. You know, they're in range of many other 

kinds of synthetic pesticides used in conventional 

agriculture that we are all concerned about.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Ashley?

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah, thanks, Asa. But 

I do want to stress the importance of actually 

giving the farmers options in the toolbox. I've 

been very passionate about sanitizers and having 

options for growers to use because pathogen 

resistance is a real thing and FSMA is a real thing. 

And I feel like adding another tool for them in 

the toolbox is important.

VICE CHAIR ELA: All right.

I think we'll go ahead and move to the 

classification motion. The motion is to classify 

potassium hypochlorite as synthetic. It was --

the motion was made by myself, and it was seconded 

by Dan.
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: We will begin the voting 

with Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.

MS. de LIMA: Yes.

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes.

MR. RICE: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes yes.

MR. RICE: That's 13 yes, 1 absent, the 

motion passes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: We'll move on to the 

National List motion. The motion is to add 

potassium hypochlorite at 205.601(a), chlorine 

materials for use in water for irrigation purposes 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

only, residual chlorine levels in the water and 

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.

I think I got that in one breath. But 

motion's by myself, seconded by Rick.

CHAIR BEHAR: No other discussion. 

Voting begins with Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.

MS. de LIMA: Yes.

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes.

MR. RICE: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes yes.
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: That's 13 yes, 1 absent, the 

motion passes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Thank you, everyone. 

Those are the end of the petition material 

proposals. We're going to move on into our sunset 

reviews for crops.

The first one is hydrogen peroxide. 

Devon, could you read hydrogen peroxide in?

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Steve.

At Section 205.601(a), as algicide 

disinfectants and sanitizer including irrigation 

system cleaning systems -- the listing is for 

hydrogen peroxide. 

VICE CHAIR ELA: Jesse, I believe this 

is yours.

MR. BUIE: Hydrogen peroxide is widely 

used as a disinfectant and bleaching agent. It 

is effective and environmentally benign substance 

used to reduce and control microorganisms in food 

safety purposes.

It is critical for sanitizing aseptic 

packaging. It is a weak but a strong oxidizer and 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

makes it very useful as a fungicide, cleaning agent, 

and for disease control.

Technical report was commissioned in 

2015 for hydrogen peroxide since the information 

from the previous 1995 TAP was old and incomplete.

It showed that hydrogen peroxide is 

inherently unstable and breaks down readily into 

oxygen and water.

During the spring 2019 NOSB meeting, 

the Crops Committee received comments in favor 

relisting hydrogen peroxide and no comments against 

delisting.

Comments include that hydrogen 

peroxide is an effective microbial pesticide used 

in an orchard setting for the sanitation of 

equipment such as picking bags and pruning shears.

It is also used as an algicide and 

disinfectant including for irrigation system 

cleaning.

With a loss of antibiotics, hydrogen 

peroxide has become an extremely important tool 

in controlling fire blight in both organic apples 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and pears.

Are there any questions?

VICE CHAIR ELA: Discussion?

All right. We will move to the vote.

The vote is -- this is -- I'm trying 

to find where I am. It's whether to relist hydrogen 

peroxide. So the motion is to remove hydrogen 

peroxide from 205.601(a) of the National List based 

on the following criteria, in OFPA and or C -- 7 

C.F.R. 205.601(b).

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Voting begins with Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent, the 

motion fails.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Rick, you did well on 

remembering to vote no to keep it relisted. So 

congratulations.

We will move on to ammonium soaps. 

Devon, could you read those in?

(OFF-MIC COMMENTS.)

VICE CHAIR ELA: Oh, I'm sorry, there's 

a second part, right. Can you do hydrogen peroxide 

for the second part of it? I'm sorry.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks.

Continuing with the same substance but 

in Section 205.601(i) as plant disease control. 

The listing is 5 hydrogen peroxide.

MR. BUIE: Okay.

And again, hydrogen peroxide is widely 

used as a disinfectant and bleaching agent. The 

rest of the information is the same.
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So are there any questions?

VICE CHAIR ELA: Any discussion from 

the Board?

Sue, is that a -- yeah.

MS. BAIRD: I don't know how to do this, 

but it says 205.601(a) on our motion instead of 

205.601(i).

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yeah. We might need 

the next -- so that --

MS. BAIRD: It is in the (i) section.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Correct.

This should be because we just did 

205.601(a).

MS. ARSENAULT: I'll double-check that

the actual proposal is correct. this is just for 

display.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yeah. It should be 

(i) is the second part of this.

MR. CHAPMAN: It's not in our packet. 

In the packet it says (a), not (i).

VICE CHAIR ELA: So we have two (a)s 

in the packet?
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CHAPMAN: We've got two (a)s. 

Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Harriet?

(OFF-MIC COMMENTS.)

MS. SWAFFAR: Looks like in the packet 

that we received that the proposal, it maybe just 

copied over and the motion says (a) --

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes, it should -- it 

was copied over obviously. It should be (i). Do 

we need a clarification on that?

MS. SWAFFAR: I have a feeling that you 

probably said (i) in subcommittee, so I'm good with 

it.

VICE CHAIR ELA: We intended to vote 

(i) for sure, so. So this would be 205.601(i) as 

Devon pointed out in reading it in.

Is there any issue on the Board to 

proceeding with 205.601(i)? Okay.

So the motion is to remove hydrogen 

peroxide from 205.601(i) of the National List based 

on the following criteria in OFPA in 7 C.F.R. 

205.601(b).
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The motion was made by Jesse, seconded 

by Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: We'll begin the voting 

with Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent, the 

motion fails.

VICE CHAIR ELA: And as we noted, it's 

the older Board members that sometimes make the 

mistakes. Thank you for that catch.
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Okay. Now we will move on to ammonium 

soaps. Devon, could you read that in?

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks.

This listing is 205.601(d) as animal 

repellants, soaps, ammonium for use as a large 

animal repellant only, no contact with soil or 

edible portion of crop.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Rick, this is your 

lead?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. Ammonium soaps 

are used as animal repellants to protect 

organically produced crops from unwanted browsing 

primarily from deer and rabbits.

And as we heard yesterday in one of the 

comments, used in Washington State to protect apple 

orchards in particular.

Fatty acids are broken down and 

esterified into soaps with ammonia. They have a 

very short half-life in the environment.

In fact, they can't do long-term 

studies because they degrade actually within a day, 

have low toxicity. EPA has placed them in the 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

toxicity category for lowest available 

classification.

We had no comments for removal and about 

10 comments for keeping them on the list, so very 

benign substances.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Any Board discussion?

Okay. With that, we'll move to the 

vote.

There is a motion to remove soaps 

ammonium from 205.601 the National List based on 

the following criteria in OFPA and/or 7 C.F.R. 

205.601(b). Motion was made by Rick, seconded by 

Emily.

CHAIR BEHAR: We'll begin the voting 

with Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent, the 

motion fails.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Okay.

We will move on to horticultural oils. 

The -- this horticultural oils has two listings, 

so we'll start with the first.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Steve.

In Section 205.601(e), as insecticides 

including acaricides or mite control, the listing 

is 7, oils horticultural, narrow range oils as 

dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.

VICE CHAIR ELA: This is one of my 

materials. Basically, horticultural oils form one 

of the backbones of organic production systems 

especially in tree fruits, although I find it very 

interesting that in public comments we also 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

received comments they're used to control bugs in 

soybean, leaf fungus, and banana. They're listed 

for a wide variety of crops.

You know, basically comments are that 

they're a key essential component of disease and 

pest control programs in organic systems.

We did have one comment that the listing 

for horticultural oils should be annotated in a 

way that limits use to central situations and 

protects workers from inhalation hazards and 

non-target arthropods from harm.

But -- so take that into consideration, 

but they are -- they -- I can speak from many years 

of experience they are very soft, they don't disrupt 

our integrated system, and they are very useful 

on organic systems.

Any comments from the Board? 

Discussion?

All right. We will move to the vote.

DR. BRADMAN: Steve?

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes, Asa?

DR. BRADMAN: Sorry. I just want to 
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

make --

VICE CHAIR ELA: Go ahead.

DR. BRADMAN: -- a comment.

Just kind of a reminder that this is 

derived from petroleum and that, you know, in 

organic setting, we have some concerns about using 

petroleum, petrochemicals in agriculture.

I think it would be great if there was 

some incentive to look for alternatives. There's 

some discussion about vegetable oils and the need 

for petroleum-based emulsifiers in that and also 

efficacy and concerns about phytotoxicity, and 

maybe that does preclude the use of some vegetable 

oils.

But I just think we should acknowledge 

that this is a, you know, a very substantial use. 

In California, horticultural oils are 

probably one of the most heavily used pesticides. 

In terms of putting it in the soil, I 

think it's a ratio of maybe one to six if we look 

at the petroleum content. For example, 

biodegradable mulches, it's a six -- about a sixth 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of that at least in the most heavily used crops 

in California based on the pesticide use reporting 

data.

So I just -- you know, I'm going to vote 

for it, but we should all realize that we're using 

it -- heavily used petrochemical here and that it 

would be great if there were a viable alternative.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Thank you, Asa.

Anybody else?

Okay. We'll move to the motion. 

Motion to remove horticultural oils from 205.601(e) 

of the National List based on the following criteria 

and OFPA and 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b). Motion was made 

by myself and seconded by Dave.

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: The voting begins with 

Lisa.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: I want to acknowledge Asa. 

I appreciate your knowledge. Thank you for giving 

us backgrounds on some of these things. You can't 

do that?

VICE CHAIR ELA: Well --

MS. BAIRD: Okay.

VICE CHAIR ELA: -- we had chance for 

discussion before. So continue with the voting.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent, the 

motion fails.

VICE CHAIR ELA: So we have a second 

listing for horticultural oils. Hopefully we got 

the right this time. Yes.

Devon?

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks.
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Moving to Section 205.601(i) as plant 

disease control. The listing is 7, oils 

horticultural, narrow range oils as dormant, 

suffocating, and summer oils.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Again, this is my 

lead, and I would just say ditto on the discussion 

that we already had widely used essential and 

organic production.

Sue, if you would like to make a 

comment, this would be a great chance.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you, Asa. Your 

knowledge about all these products really helps 

me, at least, to make an informed decision. I just 

want to acknowledge that in public.

DR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: And I also appreciate the 

discussion that we would like to see natural 

alternatives to the petroleum products.

DR. BRADMAN: If somebody could come 

up with a product that's as effective and as 

natural, they could probably get very rich.
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yep. Yeah.

I will say that it is very fascinating 

how the oils have changed, you know, in the last 

20 years. So the refinement is where we can use 

them in summer and the phytotoxicity has gone down 

significantly from what they used to be, so.

Any further discussion?

Okay. We'll move to the motion. The 

motion is to remove horticultural oils from 

205.601(i) of the National List based on the 

following criteria in OFPA and/or 7 C.F.R. 

205.600(b).

Motion was made by myself, seconded by 

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: And the voting begins 

with Dan, who's like in the starting gate there.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent, the 

motion fails.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Okay.

The next listing is for pheromones. 

Devon?

MR. PATTILLO: thanks.

This listing is at Section 205.601(f) 

as insect management pheromones.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I am again the lead 

on this, and pheromones are used to do several 

things for the organic crop producer. They help 

to monitor pest pressures and used in trapping and 

monitoring extensively. It really gives us the 

decision tools to decide if we need to have a control 

situation.
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And then they are also used especially 

in palm fruits, apple, pear growers to disrupt 

mating of codling moth and leafrollers, and they're 

also used in a number of other systems, too, as 

a mating disruption tool.

They are a very key component, very 

selective to those specific insects and are widely 

used, in fact, are now widely in the conventional 

industry as well. That came out of the organic 

situation.

So with that, I'll open it up to Board 

discussion.

All right. Motion is to remove 

pheromones from 205.601(f) of the National List 

based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act and/or 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b).

The motion was made by myself. It was 

seconded by Dave.

Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: We begin the voting with 

Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent, the 

motion fails.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Next item up is ferric 

phosphate. Devon?

MR. PATTILLO: The listing is Section 

205.601(h) as slug or snail bait, ferric phosphate 

CAS number 10045-86-0.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Dave is the lead on 

this.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah. So we -- ferric 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

phosphate is used for -- as a molluscicide for slug 

and snail suppression. It's something that would 

be applied to the soil surface, ingested by the 

slugs and snails and disrupts their digestive 

system.

Ferric phosphate is a compound that 

occurs naturally in the soil at low concentrations. 

The difference with this product is that it would 

be applied at a higher concentration in the 

background level in the soil.

It's quite effective, as we heard from 

one of the public commenters yesterday. They're 

-- I actually went back and looked at what we had 

spent actually quite a bit of time on this for 

review. And the efficacy data is clear as are the 

13 public comment notes that we got out of 14 that 

supported relisting ferric phosphate from farmers 

across the country from the Pacific Northwest to 

the Vermont farmers, et cetera, that they're 

finding it useful.

In those public comments and something 

that a number of us had observed in farms where 
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we've seen it used, we are seeing increased amount 

of organic matter on the surface as a cropping 

systems approach that arises in part from reduced 

tillage organic and as well as heavier reliance 

on more cover crop biomass.

The downside of that increased organic 

matter on the surface or near the surface is that 

it creates ideal habitat for mollusks particularly 

in wetter, cooler years.

A technical review was written in 2012, 

and the subcommittee asked for additional 

clarification in the form of a technical review 

that would look at this material again with 

particular attention to such things as the 

non-target effects of the compound, the efficacy 

of the compound, and the extent to which it's used. 

That was conducted by the USDA ARS scientists.

And you heard yesterday quite a 

protracted discussion about whether the chelating 

agent that's part of the formulated product but 

not ferric phosphate itself has an impact on the 

efficacy, and I will just say that the data on that 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are equivocal, that some papers report that it does 

enhance its activity quite a bit and that others, 

that effect is nominal.

I would say that one of the biggest 

concerns that we had in discussing this were the 

non-target effects given the great focus of organic 

farmers on soil quality, which would also include 

the soil biodiversity and biota, so the non-target 

effects.

One paper indicated there were such 

non-target effects, and we were unable to see other 

evidence in the peer reviewed published literature 

that would suggest otherwise.

It is the case that the snail and --

snails and slugs are a big problem, and one that 

farmers clearly are saying, you know, this product 

is being used and used quite a bit where the problem 

exists in a therapeutic way as opposed to just 

routinely applying it. So you would see that you 

have a slug problem, and the application of this 

material would be made.

I don't know that I should speak to the 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

split vote -- or it's not split. We had several 

folks vote to abstain based on my -- our review 

and my experience with this problem in the field 

and then -- and my concerns that farmers dealing 

with this problem was underwritten by 13 of the 

14 comments that we received in this most recent 

commenting period leads me to vote that we would 

be -- I'm not sure that I need to reveal my vote, 

but I am supportive of this going forward and 

relisting.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Thank you, Dave.

Board discussion? 

Dan?

DR. SEITZ: I just have a question for 

the farmers on the Board if they have a thought 

on this.

Do they use other methods besides this 

for controlling slugs and mollusks and how 

necessary a substance is this in their experience?

VICE CHAIR ELA: Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay.

I'm a -- Okay. I'm a user of Sluggo, 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and I find it to be effective. The downside is 

it's expensive. So that's the downside for me. 

But beyond that, no, it does good control for 

mollusks.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: I was going to say we don't 

have the problems with slugs or snails. We have 

some, but not nearly like they do in California. 

So I think this may be regional, perhaps.

MR. BUIE: Yeah, it's not a big problem 

for me, so I don't --

VICE CHAIR ELA: We grow things above 

ground.

(Laughter.)

MR. MORTENSEN: And maybe just to Dan's 

question based on the public comment, we had public 

comments where growers in the Pacific Northwest 

are using it -- you know, it's used a fair bit. 

And we had quite a few comments from the northeast 

and I know from working with farmers in Pennsylvania 

it's used widely there and actually at a PCO note 

testing to that fact as well. Yeah.
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: Harriet, and then Tom.

CHAIR BEHAR: On my farm, we don't need 

it. We don't use it. That doesn't mean that other 

people might need it.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: I also just want to point 

out that 205.206 requires that cultural mechanical 

means be exhausted first before you move on to other 

substances.

So built into the rule is a requirement 

to try alternative methods before you have to resort 

to the National List.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Rick, and then Sue.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yep. As opposed to 

you, I have snails that climb trees.

(Laughter.)

MR. GREENWOOD: And they get on the 

bugs and --

VICE CHAIR ELA: Closer to your mic.

MR. GREENWOOD: Oh, yeah. And they 

get on the bugs, so they do climb. They're 

California snails.
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: Oh, goodie. I get to 

go home and have more worries. Thanks, Rick.

Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Yeah. I just want to 

iterate that when I lived in San Diego when I was 

working, the snails I could not believe. They're 

just horrific. It's something we need to be 

cognizant of. We're not a reviewer for our section 

of the United States. We're a reviewer for a 

national and then indeed international.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: I just was curious to 

know if Rick has considered escargot as a secondary 

crop to --

(Laughter.)

MR. GREENWOOD: No, but I did try 

little trays of beer, which people said might drown 

the snails, but that didn't really work very well. 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. CHAPMAN: You just had really happy 

snails?

VICE CHAIR ELA: Asa.
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

(Laughter.)

VICE CHAIR ELA: Asa.

DR. BRADMAN: I don't use ferric and 

Sluggo -- ferric phosphate personally, but I do 

put it in my garden, which in some ways is a little 

farm.

And it definitely does work and it's 

important. We did recently last year approve 

another molluscicide, sulfur compound. And this 

is applied as a pellet. And it's mostly on the 

surface, so I wonder as it works into the soil 

whether, you know, it might be deluded to a factor 

that it might not actually increase, you know.

I wonder what the impact is but 

definitely snails and slugs on the West Coast are 

a big issue I know among many organic farmers I 

know.

And just to comment on the California 

snails, I think they're actually from Spain. It 

just speaks to the issue of invasive species and 

the pest pressures that they can create.

VICE CHAIR ELA: All right. Unless 
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

somebody needs to do something to change their vote, 

we'll move on.

There is a motion to remove ferric 

phosphate from the National List at 205.601 based 

on the following criteria in OFPA and/or 7 C.F.R. 

205.600(b). The motion was made by Dave and 

seconded by Harriet.

Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: Begin the voting with 

Asa.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: NO.
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent, the 

motion fails.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Okay. We'll move 

next to potassium bicarbonate. Devon?

MR. PATTILLO: At Section 205.601(i) 

as plant disease control, the listing is for 

potassium bicarbonate.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Emily, this is your 

lead.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

So yes, this is a plant disease control 

material, and it's used on a wide variety of crops 

for a wide variety of diseases.

It decomposes as potassium carbonate, 

water, and carbon dioxide. It's considered to be 

more environmentally friendly than many of the 

other alternatives, but it is a mild respiratory 

and eye irritant.

The TR does provide possible 

alternative materials or practices, however we're 

received substantial written and oral comment on 
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this material over the last two meetings from a 

wide diversity of stakeholders who augment the fact 

that this is of low toxicity and readily available 

for disease control.

It -- we've also had some commenters 

respond that this is part of a rotation of materials 

and that it can be important later in the season 

when alternatives may hurt the crop.

So yes, we've had widespread continued 

expressed support for this material. It's used 

in the field, high tunnel, greenhouses, and is 

employed, as I noted, as a material in rotation. 

One commenter expressed that it is not 

funny -- fit any OFPA criteria or categories of 

allowable synthetics. But the overwhelming 

majority of commenters are in widespread support 

of this use.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Discussion?

All right. We'll move to the motion. 

The motion to remove potassium bicarbonate from 

205.601(i) based on the following criteria in OFPA 

and/or 7 C.F.R. 205.601(b). The motion was made 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

by Emily, seconded by Dave.

Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: Voting begins with 

Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent, the 

motion fails.

VICE CHAIR ELA: We will move on to 

magnesium sulfate. Devon?

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Steve.
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

At Section 205.601(j) as a plant or soil 

amendment, the listing is magnesium sulfate allowed 

with the documented soil deficiency.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Emily, this is yours.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

It's used to correct for magnesium soil 

deficiencies and helps to improve the uptake of 

nitrogen and phosphorous by crops, helps seeds 

germinate, increase chlorophyll production and 

aids in the production of flowering.

It can be attained from naturally 

occurring sources or can be manufactured by a 

chemical process. Historically, there have been 

commercially available products containing mined 

no raw mineral magnesium sulfate in bulk quantities 

suitable for agriculture.

And for this reason, the production of 

synthetic magnesium sulfate has been necessary.

It is actively used by stakeholders and 

continues to be considered necessary for the 

production of fruit and vegetables.

We've had, again, in both meetings, 
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

extensive written and oral testimony expressing 

continued support for this material stating that 

it's important in high tunnels and greenhouses as 

well as fruit tree production.

Some growers commented that dolomite 

is not a suitable substitute in all cases as it 

cannot be used in high pH soils, nor as a foliar 

application.

Magnesium sulfate is also used in high 

pH soils when sulfur is needed but growers do not 

want to increase the pH.

So we did get some new comments this 

round, but they all tended to be reflective of those 

received in the spring.

Some noted that the annotation on this 

listing is important because it emphasizes rock 

patterns as the primary source but allows for 

magnesium sulfate in an emergency and that it's 

also important that required documented deficiency 

is required.

One commenter noted that it shouldn't 

be necessary in biologically active soils but that 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it's acceptable only under limited circumstances.

Another commenter noted that magnesium 

sulfate is not taking the place of soil building 

and that it is critical to fruit tree production 

and again, that dolomite is not viable in high pH 

northwestern, especially Pacific soils.

So the continued support for this 

material remains, and any questions?

VICE CHAIR ELA: Board discussion?

I will just add in that, yeah, I would 

echo that even in soils that are high magnesium, 

for example we have high calcium soils and we can 

still have calcium deficiency in the fruit. It's 

just because of the way the nutrients are moved 

within the crop that even though it's adequate in 

the soil it may not be adequate in the crop. So 

some of these materials are actually, even though 

it seems like we shouldn't need them, we have very 

active soils that can be actually quite critical 

to the nutritional quality of the crop.

Without further discussion, we'll move 

to the motion. Motion is to remove magnesium 
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sulfate from 205.601(j) based on the following 

criteria in OFPA and/or 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b).

I feel like I'm on one of those radio 

ads, you know, how fast can you say it.

But motion by Emily, seconded by Asa.

Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: Voting begins with 

Scott.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: It's 13 no, 1 absent, the 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

motion fails.

VICE CHAIR ELA: All right. Next 

material is hydrogen chloride. Devon.

MR. PATTILLO: Moving to the last 

listing in 205.601 Section 205.601(n), seed 

preparations. The listing is hydrogen chloride, 

CAS number 7647-01-0 for delinting cotton seed for 

planting.

VICE CHAIR ELA: And even though this 

shows the motion was made by myself, it was because 

Asa was absent that day in subcommittee, so Asa, 

are you the -- you're the lead on this, aren't you?

DR. BRADMAN: Yes. Yes.

I wish all the compounds were as easy 

as hydrogen peroxide --

VICE CHAIR ELA: Can you move a little 

closer to the mic, Asa?

DR. BRADMAN: I wish all the compounds 

were as easy as hydrogen peroxide or manure ash.

But so hydrogen chloride is being --

is up for relisting. The primary use of this 

material is for delinting copper -- not copper, 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

cotton seed and enable it to be more easily handled 

for planting.

It's been -- we've had a number of 

comments on this -- on its importance to the organic 

cotton industry in the U.S.

I want to just point out a few things 

about this material. One, it's not just being used 

for delinting. The -- in the public comments 

submitted now and in discussions I had with I think 

Dr. Dever, who's based in the south and helps 

support cotton, the cotton industry, some other 

important functions of the material is control of 

blight or other pathogens on the cotton seed.

It also tends to break dormancy on 

cotton seed particularly if it's been imported from 

the southern hemisphere and it's being used for 

planting the use of the hydrogen chloride, 

basically kicks it out of dormancy.

So it's being -- it's been listed for 

delinting cotton seed. But it also serves other 

important functions that probably should be 

acknowledged at least in the record.
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Universally, there is actually support 

for this material with the understanding that it's 

essential for treating cotton seed and really 

enables the cotton industry, the organic cotton 

industry and agriculture in the United States.

Concerns about this relate to many 

comments and concerns we have about chlorine 

compounds. It forms hydrochloric acid in the 

process, and as we know, chlorine compounds have 

a lot of human health and potential environmental 

impacts.

Of course, if it's handled properly and 

used properly, it's not likely to get into the 

environment, and of course, if -- workers should 

not be exposed if it's handled properly.

We've had some discussions about 

alternatives and there's been some research 

supported by the USDA on mechanical or perhaps other 

methods to treat the cotton seed in a way that it 

can be used -- can be handled appropriately for 

planting.

Although that nut does not necessary 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

get at issues around dormancy and pathogens. So 

there is these other secondary functions of the 

hydrogen chloride that seem to be essential for 

the use of the seed.

The -- let's see. The last thing, you 

know, there is kind of a call in many of the comments 

about the need for more research for alternatives. 

And I should say we included that in the review 

here. And as a subcommittee, we supported the need 

for more research.

But I just also want to mention that 

when we came up with research priorities for this 

year, this kind of fell off the list partly because 

it seems like some of the other categories were 

higher priority and we felt like our research 

priority list was getting to long.

But maybe this is something we want to 

revisit -- the Board wants to revisit in 2020 about 

putting our voice in for research on alternatives 

to this material beyond just to state that in the 

sunset review.

Thanks.
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: Board discussion?

Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah. Thanks, Asa.

I just want to point out that I believe 

that the other things that you talked about this 

could be used for are probably secondary benefits 

of the delinting of the cotton because this 

annotation is strictly for delinting cotton seed 

and no other use allowed.

DR. BRADMAN: I understand. I agree 

that they're secondary, but it seems like they're 

also essential. 

VICE CHAIR ELA: I think the real issue 

is you're delinting them and then you're using it 

for delinting and you also get these secondary 

effects from the delinting process. 

So Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: I had the privilege of 

reading IOIA organic fiber training quite a few 

years ago now. But we spent a week around Lubbock, 

Texas and went to organic cotton farms and 

non-organic cotton farms and really learned a lot 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

about cotton growing.

And the process of non-organic cotton 

growing is extremely chemical intensive, to the 

point that right before they harvest the cotton, 

they come in and spray paraquat on the open cotton 

balls and then harvest the cotton.

So we really need to be supporting 

organic cotton production in the United States, 

and actually there's a lot of farmer and farm worker 

health problems around cotton production.

So I support this material.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Steve, since we were 

-- since we reworked the research priorities, we 

lumped a couple of things, the disease class into 

one larger group and then tried to reorganize that.

And I think we could do the same at the 

chlorine materials and alternatives in a way that 

Asa's suggesting we might.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yep.

Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yeah, I just wanted to 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

reiterate what Ashley said. This is specifically 

for delinting cotton seed for planting. It would 

be up to a certifier and inspector to verify that 

they're not using it for other purposes. This is 

specifically annotated for delinting the cotton 

seed.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yeah. I don't -- my 

understanding wasn't used separately. In the 

delinting process, you also got these other 

benefits. But we'll move to the motion unless 

there's more discussion.

The motion is to remove hydrogen 

chloride for delinting cotton seed for planting 

based on the following criteria in OFPA and/or 

205.601(n) seed preparations if applicable.

Motion was made by myself, seconded by 

Harriet.

Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: We begin the voting with 

Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent, the 

motion fails.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Okay. We'll move on 

to ash for manure burning.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Steve.

We're now moving to substances at 

Section 205.602 of the National List which includes 

the non-synthetic substances that are prohibited 

for use in organic crop production.

It's section 205.605(b). The listing 

is ash for manure burning.
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: Harriet is the lead.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yeah, so this received 

universal public comment to remain as a prohibited 

natural. We did receive one public comment after 

the spring meeting that came directly to the Board 

and didn't go through the public comment process 

from a manufacturer of ash from manure burning and 

said that it could be a very beneficial source of 

some micronutrients.

However, that doesn't change how this 

material is produced. It removes the carbon from 

manure and we all view that as an important aspect 

of the use of manure.

In addition, typically this ash is --

comes from industrial large scale farms because 

they don't have enough land base or it's too 

difficult or expensive to move the manure from there 

to land for crop growing, and so they burn it. 

And I think in organic agriculture, we 

highly value manure for all the benefits that it 

can offer to us and building humus and sequestering 

carbon.
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So that is the -- any other comment from 

the Board on that? That's the summary.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Board discussion?

All right. We'll move to the motion. 

Motion to remove ash from manure burning from 

205.602 of the National List based on the following 

criteria in OFPA and/or 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b).

Motion was made by Harriet, seconded 

by Jesse.

CHAIR BEHAR: And we begin the voting 

with Jesse.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: 13 no, 1 absent, the motion 

fails.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Okay. The final 

sunset for crops is sodium fluoaluminate.

MR. PATTILLO: At Section 205.602(g), 

the listing is sodium fluoaluminate (mined).

VICE CHAIR ELA: Dan, this is your 

lead.

DR. SEITZ: So sodium fluoaluminate is 

a non -- as mentioned, non-synthetic substance 

prohibited for use by inorganic crop production. 

It's been prohibited since 1996.

It's a mined substance and is -- in 

agriculture is primarily used as a insecticide to 

control a variety of pests including various 

weevils, leafrollers, various moth and worm species 

and grey skeletonizers.

The reason it is forbidden is because 

of the potential toxicity of sodium fluoaluminate 

due to the release of fluoride into the environment.
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I just want to add one interesting 

historic note. Just 24 miles from here was 70 years 

ago one of the largest industrial accidents in the 

United -- history of the United States with a death 

of 70 people in a town of 1400 due in large part 

to the release of fluorine gas in an industrial 

accident, and that was trapped because of an 

environmental inversion and actually led later on 

to the creation of laws to protect clean air. So 

interesting that we're close to that.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Board discussion?

All right. The motion to remove sodium 

fluoaluminate mined from 205.601 -- 205.602 of the 

National List based on following criteria in OFPA 

and/or 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b). Motion was made by 

Dan. It was seconded by Jesse.

CHAIR BEHAR: Voting begins with Sue.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent, the 

motion fails.

VICE CHAIR ELA: All right. The final 

item on the crops agenda is a discussion document 

for paper plant pots and other crop production aids. 

It is a petition. This is strictly discussion 

document. We won't be taking a vote today.

Harriet is the lead on this. I'm just 

going to note we really only have five minutes more 

of our time left, but I'd ask the chair to give

us maybe an extra five minutes if we need it, so.

CHAIR BEHAR: I'm easy.

(Laughter.)

VICE CHAIR ELA: So Harriet, this is 
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

your lead.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

So I want to thank the public for the 

detailed and very thoughtful comments. It is 

really is very useful how you kind of tear apart 

all of our thoughts and help us clarify exactly 

what we're looking at and what questions we need 

answered and solutions to those questions.

With those really good comments, we're 

hoping that the Crop Subcommittee will be able to 

move forward with a proposal in the spring.

And since I am a lame duck, Steve will 

be taking on this to the vote. So he'll become 

the lead in the spring. At least that's what he 

agreed to yesterday.

I would say that we are -- of course, 

we haven't had a full subcommittee meeting, but 

I think we're leaning towards having the annotation 

be for paper that's in contact with soil and then 

decomposes into that soil and still remain to have 

it not just only be for pots but for all those other 

production aids which basically have the same use 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and effect.

Finding a practical percentage of the 

synthetic fibers and possibly limiting them to 

either a specific type of synthetic fiber or a 

percentage in the paper pot is also something we're 

looking at.

We're also looking at tying those --

the full pot or the full paper in the production 

aid to the biodegradability standards.

So we would have an issue with a 

polyester fiber and then the following year when 

you go in to rototill it, it gets that -- it gets 

all wound up in your rototiller.

So we do want the fibers to biodegrade.

Two areas of consideration that were 

brought up by the public that will be challenges 

would be to try to prohibit paper from genetically 

engineered trees since these are basically 

impossible to track and to the best of my knowledge, 

I don't know how you would figure that one out.

And then also the use of PLA polymers 

that are produced through genetic engineering 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

technology that might be a little bit more easily 

tracked through the manufacturers who would be 

adding it to the paper pots. And we still did get 

many certifiers in operations that said that these 

were important to them.

But I think that many of those that are 

using these pots, if they understood how much 

synthetic there was in there and why we're taking 

so long to deliberate on this issue, I think that 

they would be happy for that so -- because we really 

truly are looking out for the environment, for the 

soil, and for the long-term benefits that the paper 

pots offer to the growers without any sort of 

detriment to the environment.

So other discussion?

VICE CHAIR ELA: I would just add that 

we heard a number of public comments that we should 

just limit the annotation to being essentially a 

mimic of the newspaper.

You obviously heard my comments on that 

yesterday as I asked questions. But I think that 

opens it wide open to pretty much any synthetic, 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and I'm personally not comfortable with that and 

won't be recommending that.

And in talking with several 

manufacturers, they're not comfortable with that 

as well.

So at this point, from what I'm hearing, 

it looks like that 15 to 20 percent limit on non 

-- well, how do I want to say this, and it gets 

complicated because you all pointed out that 

cellulose itself is actually synthetic for the most 

part, the way it's made under our definition.

So I'm going to say fibers that aren't 

directly cellulose and have somehow been modified 

beyond cellulose are truly from a different source.

And I think there's a fair amount of 

support. You know, one person called it 

regenerative cellulose but it basically is 

cellulose-derived fibers that those -- and you'll 

find some way to make that useful.

The other thing I heard from comments 

is on the adhesives. You probably notice the 

subcommittee did not deal with adhesives because 
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that is a rather daunting task, to be honest.

But I did hear from several people that 

we may need to in the annotation somehow deal with 

the adhesive issue and limit it to certain adhesives 

just to keep that genie in the bottle.

So those are my additional comments. 

Harriet, and then are there other Board members 

with comments?

Yeah -- oh, yeah. Dave, I'm sorry. 

I jumped over you. Sorry.

CHAIR BEHAR: Well, and just the 

biodegradability as well.

VICE CHAIR ELA: And the 

biodegradability, yes. Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, we also heard 

from quite a number of people that if doing all 

paper pot or all paper products was going to bog 

us down so that we couldn't get this done by the 

spring, that they were asking that we take a really 

critical look at whether we just stay on paper pots, 

and I think that personally really resonated with 

me.
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So I really am hopeful and confident 

that we can get this done by the springtime because 

the growers are going to be wanting a clear signal 

on what's coming for the next field season.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Just to respond, I think 

that we're not going to look at paper ties and things 

that are not in direct contact with soil and 

degrading, but things like collars or seed tape, 

things that are actually touching the soil.

I think that those can all fit into this 

category because they're going to decompose into 

the soil, they're in contact with the soil, and 

so they're very similar to the paper pots, and it 

would save future boards from having to review, 

you know, put on the National List collars and seed 

tape, and all of those other items.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Just to respond to 

Harriet, and I guess as long as we can -- it can 

be done in a timely way. If it's going to be the 

adding these other things prolongs it for several 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

years or something, which I could envision it could, 

I think that would be unwise of us. We wouldn't 

be doing the farming community a service by doing 

that.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Yeah, to that end, I think 

the issue of adhesives is an extremely tricky one, 

and I think that if we go down that road, we need 

to go down that road for paper as well to be 

consistent and it's the biggest gap in our newspaper 

supplemental TR.

So I understand the hesitancy with 

that, but we've got to look at cardboard, we've 

got to -- and so I don't want to do that. I think

that -- I think we also heard from commenters that 

we don't want to get wrapped up, to use one person's 

term, in too much of a labyrinth because we're 

looking at the synthetics within a synthetic.

I don't want to create something that 

is less strict than the current listing, but I don't 

want to create something that is more strict than 

the current listing.
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: I would add that, you 

know, I agree with you or I have agreed with you. 

I'm wavering a little bit. I mean, part of the 

public comments were we should not be tied to be, 

that we should decouple our analysis from the 

newspaper listing, and I take those comments to 

heart as well that just because we already have 

something on the list doesn't mean that we should 

follow that.

On the other hand, I am a believer in 

consistency. So I am going to kind of leave that 

open in my own head.

Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: And I hear that, and I 

completely agree with that, but I also think as 

a Board, as has been discussed by commenters and 

Board members, we also have to triage our time and 

priorities, and if we spend an inordinate amount 

of time on this material, it seems rather odd to 

me just given the other broader context of our 

agenda and priorities.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Agreed. I would also 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

say in response to Dave, really if you look at our 

discussion, it is not about seed tapes and these 

other things. It really is trying to flesh out 

what a paper pot annotation is.

And so I actually personally don't feel 

like these other, as you know, paper as a planting 

aid, if we want -- not production aid, but as a 

planting aid, I don't think takes up more time at 

this point. It's really trying to define a paper 

pot, so.

Other discussions?

I would put -- like to thank the 

commenters that made -- gave input to us. I think 

this is one of the values of these discussion 

documents. This is where the Board may or may not 

have expertise and all of your inputs, this is 

really where we are looking for you to give us 

guidance so that we can make informed decisions 

and informed annotations.

This is where I really appreciate this 

public process.

Harriet, with that, I think Crops is 
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

done, and I think you had one thing to add before 

we take a break.

CHAIR BEHAR: I think the Program would 

like to -- Jenny, you have something to say?

DR. TUCKER: Yeah, I just wanted to 

make a brief comment on this because of the last 

few days I've gotten emails from producers sort 

of asking what the status of this material is 

because they saw the agenda and are just keeping 

a very close eye on this.

I did want to remind folks that last 

fall this Board was very, very strong in passing 

a unanimous resolution at the fall 2018 public 

meeting recommending that we allow the continued 

use of paper pots while it is deliberating.

And so we did send a note based on that 

resolution. And the fact that half of the 

certifiers had already approved this in good faith, 

and it was a good faith decision.

And so based on that, we had extended 

the allowed use of paper pots until further notice. 

And so the use of paper pots continues through 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

these Board deliberation. Please keep that in mind 

as you are deliberating on a topic -- on this topic.

This is a material that has been in use, 

has been approved in good faith by certifiers. 

And while we did make the decision that that 

determination by certifiers was incorrect, and we 

stand by that, it was a good faith decision and 

use of the material does continue in this interim.

I just want to remind the Board how 

strongly you urged me last fall to allow this. 

And so that's all I want to say.

VICE CHAIR ELA: And I want to add in 

today, I appreciate that, Jenny, and I think --

I know this is taking longer than we thought it 

would, but I think the Board is moving ahead and 

at a pace that is as expedient as possible while 

doing our due diligence. And I think the Program 

giving us the leeway to do that so that we can do 

this correctly while not tying growers' hands, I 

think is a great compromise.

So thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: And also to -- we're 
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

trying to make sure that however we approve it or 

in the annotation that it is a practical annotation 

and one where there are commercially available 

materials that meet that annotation, whatever it 

comes up with.

So that's part of the tricky part as 

well.

And it is 10:38, so we're eight minutes 

over. But let's take a break and come back at five 

to 11:00.

(OFF-MIC COMMENTS.)

VICE CHAIR ELA: Five to 11:00.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 10:39 a.m. and resumed at 

10:57 a.m.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. We will start 

with a little comment from Jennifer Tucker.

DR. TUCKER: I just wanted to 

acknowledge and welcome Devon who is joined next 

to me to sort of support Program up here and just 

to highlight how -- what a wonderful asset Devon 

is to the Program. He's done a lot of great work 
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this year. And so let's welcome him to the table 

here.

(APPLAUSE)

CHAIR BEHAR: And Devon is kind of 

doing double duty filling in until we get a new 

National List manager.

(OFF-MIC COMMENTS.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So we are next to 

the materials subcommittee with Emily Oakley as 

the chair. So I'll turn over the meeting to her.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you, Harriet.

So the Material Subcommittee has three 

proposals, one discussion document, and one verbal 

update.

And our first proposal is Harriet's, 

which is the excluded methods determination October 

2019. But before I turn it over to Harriet, I did 

just want to read one quick statement which is that 

genetic engineering has always been prohibited by 

the organic regulations.

Prohibiting genetic engineering in 

organic is a foundational tenant key to farmer and 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

consumer support of the label.

And I just want to note that the ongoing 

work on excluded methods determinations is a 

complement to that.

So thank you, Harriet. I will turn it 

over to you.

CHAIR BEHAR: I just would like to 

thank Zea Sonnabend who continues to be someone 

I can pass -- I mean, bounce ideas off of as I am 

considering the issues. And there's also a kind 

of group of task force people that I bounce things 

off of, and I will be passing that on to whomever 

takes that on.

And I hope to be added to that list of 

someone to help.

So this excluded methods determination 

is the October 2019 edition. We continue to build 

upon the 2016 original document which spelled out 

in more detail kind of expanded upon the excluded 

methods definition, didn't add to it, but helped 

delve a little bit more deeper into what the various 

technologies that are mentioned and then gave some 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

more subsets to those technologies.

So as we go through this document, we 

continually illustrate to the public the items that 

we have voted upon in the previous documents, which 

include methods that are excluded and those that 

we are considering non-excluded.

And as I said in my opening remarks, 

the fact that we are finding items from our 

to-be-determined list to not meet the definition 

of excluded methods, we continue to provide 

consistency in certification and clarity for 

certifiers and operators and manufacturers to know 

what items we will allow and what items we do not.

But we really feel that everything that 

we're reviewing right now is covered under the 

current regulation.

So -- and I believe this will continue 

to be the format that we will keep adding to the 

list. And as we have our proposals, keep printing 

the current list so that the current recommendation 

will have the full list each time, again, just for 

ease.
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

If you see, there are still items to 

be determined. And so I will happily pass them 

on to the next person because I kept working on 

taking the lowest hanging fruit I could.

So there -- but there are an important 

issues, actually still to be determined. We have 

six items now, although driving to the airport I 

heard of another method that is somewhat similar 

to CRISPR but supposed to be somewhat more targeted. 

I think it's called CRIM. I don't know.

Anyway, I'm sure there'll be -- this 

list of to-be-determined is also not comprehensive 

and could be added to as proposals and discussion 

documents come forward.

But for this time, we brought forward 

two items: induced mutagenesis through in vitro 

-- let me just get the wording right -- through 

developed via use of in vitro nucleic acid 

techniques. So that is the infiltration of the 

nucleus of the cell and direct manipulation of the 

genetic material in that to produce a mutagenesis.

We received universal agreement that 
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this should be an excluded method because of that 

direct manipulation of the nucleic acid.

And I want to point out to whoever takes 

this on next -- kind of looking at Dave, but I don't 

know if he's agreed yet -- that ASTA had some good 

information on some of the to-be-determined items. 

So it might give you some -- a place to start to 

keep pecking away at this to-be-determined list.

I did not really -- I didn't see any 

comments that said that this should not be added 

to the excluded methods list for induced 

mutagenesis.

There are, however, numerous other 

methods to induce mutagenesis, which include 

irradiation, environmental stresses like heat or 

cold and chemical exposure. Those are still to 

be determined.

And I think that's it for -- I'm going 

to do one at a time and then -- so we can talk about 

that and then I'll go to embryo transfer and we 

can talk about that and then we'll do the vote.

So any discussion on induced 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

mutagenesis?

MS. OAKLEY: Is there any discussion 

on induced mutagenesis?

All right. Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. Embryo transfer, 

I'm going to read that.

Embryo transfer, embryo rescue in 

animals, use of hormones not allowed in recipient 

animals.

So this was pretty split through public 

comment and actually split by the author because 

many people -- and I don't know if it was 50 percent, 

but there was significant public comment that the 

hormones should not be allowed in the donor animals 

as well.

Most of those comments came from public 

interest groups, consumer groups. And then those 

who supported this wording were mostly certifiers 

who live by the word of the rule.

And the rule is that we start looking 

at organic animals at last third of gestation within 

their mother. And so the donor animal, however 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it has been treated, should not be considered in 

whether or not they had received hormones.

However, the donor animal, by receiving 

those superovulation hormones, those eggs have been 

effected by the treatment of those hormones, and 

there can be subsequent generational effects on 

those embryos that had been born from those eggs 

that had come into being through superovulation 

and hormone use.

But in Committee discussion, we agreed 

with the certifier side that we're not really 

looking at that, and as far as an excluded method, 

it doesn't -- the use of hormones is not really 

in our definitions for considering that as far as 

genetic engineering.

So that's where we ended up. But I 

would like to go on the public record that over 

time, if we see, especially if it becomes more 

widely used either on the conventional side, the 

non-organic side, or the organic side, and we do 

see some negative effects in the offspring, that 

we might revisit this in the future. 
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But right now, I think we're -- the 

proposal is to only look at the recipient animals 

and not the donor animals but with the knowledge 

that maybe, if we feel we need to, it could be 

revisited in the future.

MS. OAKLEY: Is there any discussion 

on embryo -- oh, sorry. Go ahead, Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: There was one other 

comment about cloning, and we do mention that 

cloning is not allowed. And so there -- I will 

make that in the cover sheet clear as well that 

both semen from cloned animals and eggs from cloned 

female animals would not be allowed in organic.

And there actually is semen available 

on the market now from cloned animals, although 

I think beef -- bulls. So that is something that 

certifiers should be aware of and be looking at.

MS. OAKLEY: So -- oh, yes. Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, I was just -- the 

table that has cloned animals and offspring 

excluded method, would -- I guess I would have 

assumed, but maybe that's not a fair assumption 
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that cloned eggs from a cloned animal would be 

included in that statement. Or no? I -- so I guess 

I'm just raising the question does that needed to 

be added just deliberately, or maybe we need to 

be more elaborate in what that covers in that 

statement that's in the document.

MS. OAKLEY: Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: Well, yes, and it does 

say that --

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- in numerous places, 

actually, in the proposal. But because it -- if 

someone's just looking to see if embryo transfer 

is okay and they don't look at the rest of the chart, 

again, I just want to make it clear in the proposal 

if someone looked back --

MR. MORTENSEN: Okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- you know, that that 

was clearly -- and just to put it out there into 

the certification community that when there is 

artificial insemination of beef animals, that semen 

should be checked over for cloning.
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: Further discussion on 

embryo transfer in animals or any other portion 

of the document?

All right. Seeing none --

CHAIR BEHAR: Well, it --

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: -- feels good to do a 

proposal and everybody thinks it's wonderful.

MR. MORTENSEN: I have a --

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: -- maybe just a process 

question, if I could since I may wind up inheriting 

some aspect of leadership on this but also I'm --

just as a clarification.

And that is several comments were made 

during the course of the public comment period that 

I believe were suggesting that a proposal like this 

one be written into guidance and that that -- and 

I heard words like it should be in guidance, it 

should be codified in some other form.

And so my question is, this process 

seems to me to be a living, morphing with time 
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

process that we're following. And yet I was 

hearing, if I understand, a distinction that our 

stakeholders, some of them were asking and it makes 

sense to me that they would ask this, that we put 

this into a firmer state that a morphing document 

that we update on occasion.

And so I just ask other Board members 

to help me understand more clearly exactly what 

it is our intent is with this process.

MS. OAKLEY: Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: So the 2016 document 

which is the basis --

MR. MORTENSEN: Yep.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- as we're moving ahead, 

that's what we really want to have the NOP have 

part of not just on the NOSB recommendation side 

on their website but on the National Organic Program 

side, so if people come and look and want to 

understand what we're looking at.

And there, there could be some 

statement that says this chart will continue to 

be updated and then they go through their process 
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of that updating.

But that original document with the 

definitions and the terminology and those things 

that we've worked so hard to clearly spell out so 

we can move forward because we do get a lot of 

questions from the greater community --

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, yeah.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- is this allowed or 

not, and as we know, there was a, you know, confusion 

by some statements by, not the Program, but those 

higher up in the administration about talking about 

certain types of gene editing and that sort of 

thing.

And so this is the proof of our robust 

dialogue, and this is where we, the National Organic 

Program, and the greater community, because we rely 

very heavily on public comment, have shown that 

this is where we're going.

And so I think, you know, people want 

to know is embryo transfer allowed, right?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, yeah.

CHAIR BEHAR: Where are they going to 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

go to find that out?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, yeah.

CHAIR BEHAR: So that's what we're 

trying to have. And over time, we know it's not 

going to all be done the minute that we make a 

recommendation.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah.

CHAIR BEHAR: But especially the 2016 

document as our foundation is, to me and I think 

many in the audience, is important to get on the 

Program side and not just on the recommendation 

side.

MR. MORTENSEN: So as we move forward, 

then, I think that it's my view that it would be 

helpful for us to more clearly articulate our 

mileposts, right?

So one milepost might be occasionally 

we revisit it, a new method comes out, it's 

discussed, debated, and then added or not to this 

kind of document.

Another milepost is that what we were 

hearing from folks and in reviewing some more of 
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the comments last night -- I was reading several 

of them -- folks are asking for something beyond 

that, right, something that is more definitive and 

more lasting that perhaps is revisited and updated, 

but otherwise, that's our foundational body of 

evidence that these are the things that we don't 

allow.

And so maybe as we go along together, 

if we could more clearly articulate what some of 

those mileposts are beyond the process that we're 

looking at right here.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you, Dave, and I 

think that's a good point for us to discuss in the 

subcommittee --

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah.

MS. OAKLEY: -- as we bring this up. 

But you're right to raise those comments and 

concerns, and thank you.

Harriet, do you have any additional 

comments in closing?

CHAIR BEHAR: Looking back at my notes 

from the public comment, no, I think I covered them 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

all.

MS. OAKLEY: Okay. 

Any further discussion before we move 

to a vote?

All right. I think we're ready to move 

to a vote.

The motion to accept the proposal and 

excluded methods determination October 2019.

Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So the proposal 

is the NOSB recommends the NOP add the following 

to the table of excluded methods in the National 

Organic Program Excluded Methods Guidance: induced 

mutagenesis developed use of in vitro nucleic acid 

techniques.

The NOSB recommends the NOP add the 

following to the table of not excluded methods in 

the NOP Excluded Methods Guidance: embryo transfer 

or embryo rescue in animals, use of hormones not 

allowed in recipient animals.

And the motion was made by myself and 

seconded by Dan.
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And the voting will start with Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.

MS. de LIMA: Yes.

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes.

MR. RICE: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes yes.

MR. RICE: That's 13 yes, 1 absent, the 

motion passes.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

Our next proposal is genetic integrity 

transparency, a seed grown on organic land 

instruction to certifiers. And again, this is 

Harriet's proposal.

CHAIR BEHAR: I always take the fun 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

issues.

Okay. So there were a lot of comments 

on this one, and they were not all in agreement.

I just want to make it clear because 

there were numerous comments that said there should 

be no tolerance levels for genetic contamination 

in organic seed or organic crops.

And that is not what this 

recommendation states. It clearly states this is 

not a tolerance level.

It does mention that tolerance levels 

are present in the marketplace and that producers, 

through no fault of their own, lose markets because 

of unintended presence of genetic contamination.

And the point of this document was to 

give producers a way to know what the levels of 

contamination are in the seed that they plant so 

they would have a baseline of what -- of actually 

the minimum that they could have because they could 

get more contamination out in their fields.

But if they're in a fairly isolated 

area, and let's say they're going for market with 
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a 0.1 percent and an IC (phonetic) that's at 0.3 

percent, they're never going to make that market.

And there's a lot of contracts out there 

that actually stipulate that if you can't deliver 

on the contract, you've got to buy it and deliver.

So this is -- this can be a significant 

burden to producers if they can't meet that.

On the other end, those that are buying 

the crop, they're planning, you know, just in time 

kind of thing. They're bringing in their corn or 

soy bean or cotton, and they're testing it there 

and they're planning to clean it and package it 

and ship it out, you know, in a day or two.

And if all of a sudden they lose a 

significant portion of the load they're about to 

clean because it goes over their tolerance level, 

then they're scrambling to try to find the right 

level or tolerance in a product.

So the genetic contamination causes 

some havoc in the supply chain, and so this was 

to try to at least give some tools to farmers so 

they could and could choose seed that would give 
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

them the best chance of meeting their market needs.

It's clear from program guidance that 

if there's the presence of genetic contamination, 

and it was there that was unintended, it was not 

an intentional use of genetically modified germ 

plasm or whatever, that the operation does not lose 

their organic certification and neither does that 

crop.

So finding genetic contamination 

presence does not take away organic certification.

The farmer or the handler may lose their 

market who is testing, but that could be still sold 

to an organic stream who either doesn't test, 

doesn't care about the genetic contamination, or 

has a higher tolerance level that they're 

approving.

Okay. So there was a lot of comment, 

which I thought was excellent, about wanting 

training from the National Organic Program on GMO 

testing types and understanding the accuracy of 

those results.

Numerous people asked for a National 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Organic Program task force to help with that 

development to give certifiers and operators and 

seed suppliers more guidance on what they would 

be using so there'd be more uniformity in the 

testing and more trust in the results.

Okay. There was a question about 

whether this requires that farmers check with their 

seed suppliers, and it doesn't say that, and that 

was the intention.

This was just for the certifiers to make 

that known. And I know that some certifiers do, 

and I know that some farmers know, but as an organic 

inspector, I would say that many farmers don't 

realize the -- all the testing that's going on and 

that they assume, especially if they're buying 

organic seed, that it's free of all genetic 

contamination.

And from what we saw with the seed 

supplier survey, and thank you, Kiki, for providing 

that to us. I know that was a lot of work, if she's 

still in the audience. Oh, there she is.

That there is genetic contamination and 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that the seed suppliers actually take a significant 

economic hit by having to either divert seed to 

a non-organic market if it's over the tolerance 

that they are seeking or even sometimes destroy 

it because there is no market for that certain 

variety.

So genetic contamination is a very 

large problem in the organic world because we are 

small and they are big.

But we are a growing market. The 

non-GMO market is a growing market. And so I think 

over time there's going to be more and more -- well, 

there already is quite a bit of this testing.

The other item that almost universally 

everyone asked for and even cut and pasted back 

into their comments was the call for the task force 

to help us understand what is the larger problem 

out there with genetic contamination of seed. And 

that's all we asked for in the task force was seed.

And if we can get that, maybe in the 

future we can look even at the crops. But first 

we need to know about the seed because the seed 
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

producers spend a significant amount of time and 

money developing germ plasm, bringing in foundation 

seeds for making their hybrids that contain 

characteristics that work on organic farms.

And so when we lose, some of those 

varieties that have been bread specifically to work 

with slower release fertilizers like manures, 

something like with corn or soybeans that they jump 

out of the ground quickly because organic farmers 

plant later and they canopy early because that's 

part of the weed control strategy on an organic 

farm, all those things, when we lose those due to 

genetic contamination, it's frustrating for the 

seed growers, the farmers lose those options.

And so we really -- I'm looking at Jenny 

-- ask the National Organic Program to help us with 

a task force to understand the problems that we 

have so we can try to find solutions because there 

could be certain regions in a country where we have 

cleaner seeds than others.

And the seed breeders are coming up with 

some solutions that, again, seeing which ones are 
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

most effective and having that out there in the 

greater community could be a benefit to all.

Okay. So the original proposals 

actually required that the farmers get the 

information from the seed producers and that all 

seed producers of corn, organic and not organic, 

provide information to the farmer on the genetic 

contamination in the seed.

We got a lot of negative comments on 

that. And so we backed off from that. However, 

the Organic Seed Alliance survey did show that 

there's significant testing already going on.

So we backed off on this and just said, 

you know, let's start out with the farmers, with 

the certifiers informing the farmers that this 

information is out there for them to seek out. 

And if they have a market or have any inclination, 

I mean, you'll find that most farmers don't want 

to have genetic contamination in their seed. There 

are characteristics that kind of travel with the 

genetic engineering, especially know in corn it's 

a higher lignin content.
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And if you want to graze the corn stalks 

and you have a high percentage of genetic 

engineering, it's not palatable for the cows.

So if you know you're getting a high 

GE content, you know you can't plan to let your 

cattle graze on those corn stalks.

And so that information is important, 

not just for sale but even for use on the farm.

With the negative response from the 

seed companies that they didn't want to be forced, 

I felt that the National Organic Standards Board 

would not vote to approve the proposal, and I wanted 

to have a proposal that would pass, although 

personally I think that it should be a stronger 

proposal. But I'm willing to move ahead with this 

as a first step.

We did get some certifiers and grower 

groups and I heard from an individual growers 

outside the public comment process who wanted it 

to be a stronger proposal, and I explained to them 

why we went to this level.

I really enjoyed what the Vermont 
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic farmers said. They said, why are farmers 

and seed suppliers in opposition to each other when 

they all have the same goals which is more 

transparency and understanding of genetic 

contamination on seed plants and on organic land.

There was a very good suggestion for 

improvement that we change the part where we talk 

about that they inform people about genetic testing 

of seed or planting. This proposal moves it beyond 

just corn. It's anything that has a genetic 

engineered equivalent.

So the change was that instead of asking 

for is there genetic testing on the seed or planting 

stock, but instead asking what are the levels --

are you knowledgeable of the levels of genetic 

contamination in your product.

It's just kind of a nomenclature. It 

basically results in the same thing and I think 

I could put that in the cover sheet to clarify for 

the NOP somewhat better language to -- just to make 

it easier for everyone involved.

Many people did comment that they liked 
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it included more than just corn. I believe that 

was the Organic Produce Wholesaler alliance -- or 

coalition, or whatever they are, that they liked 

that because there is genetic engineering of 

produce, summer squash and some other items.

The Inspector's Association spoke in 

favor of it and consumer groups also spoke in favor 

of it.

So with that long introduction, I am 

ready to have a conversation.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you, Harriet.

Is there a Board discussion on this 

topic?

Dave, then Asa.

DR. BRADMAN: Can I go first?

MR. MORTENSEN: Sure.

DR. BRADMAN: I just asked to go first 

just to say, Harriet, I really appreciate and 

probably on behalf of the Board really appreciate 

the leadership that you've taken with this. It's 

been an incredible amount of work and really 

appreciate it, and I've learned a lot.
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Thanks.

(Applause.)

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah. I echo Asa's 

sentiments. It wouldn't have been moving had it 

not been for Harriet's efforts.

Harriet, just to be sure that we're all 

clear, the language, which I think is perhaps --

makes it more palatable to a broader audience in 

my view, the language is advisory.

There's a lot of should and could, may, 

is subject to. In other words, what it is that 

is framed here is encouraging certifiers to work 

with our farmers to help them be better informed 

about this issue.

There isn't must and have to meet X, 

Y, Z threshold of X, et cetera, et cetera, 

deliberately because of all the public comment and 

the multiple iterations of the document that we've 

been working on over the last -- I don't know how 

long it's been now, year and a half or something.

Is that correct? 

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, that is correct.
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you.

MS. OAKLEY: Ashley?

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah, so thanks. I know 

this is a huge issue to tackle and it's very, very 

difficult.

You know, this proposal basically is 

just asking certifiers to just tell their folks 

that they can ask for it.

And I just want to say that I really 

hope the Program will listen on the task force 

because this is a really, really big issue. Nobody 

wants to talk about it.

I see it on the backend on the feed mill 

level when you have folks testing, you know, that 

will -- most mills will blend organic, non-GMO and 

organic corn -- feeds, not together, separately.

But I mean, when you hear their testing 

protocols for non-GMO project verified feed and 

then organic, it's pretty sad how much more strict 

they are than what we are. So I really hope that 

the Program will support a task force moving forward 

because this is a really big issue that we need 
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to get a handle on before it's too late.

MS. OAKLEY: Scott?

MR. RICE: I think just on the subject 

of the comments from the certifiers and the need 

for a task force, there was pretty broad comment 

from that community about needing greater guidance 

on GMO sampling so that we're all on the same page. 

And ACA did develop best practices for that. That 

could be a good resource should NOP go down that 

route.

MS. OAKLEY: Okay. I'm going to call 

myself.

I agree with that, and I think the new 

learning database is another avenue for this and 

I wanted to just ask if I could ask the Program 

their thoughts on a task force given the great deal 

of public comment and support that we've heard for 

it.

DR. TUCKER: So I think we certainly 

hear the interest in this topic and will consider 

that when we get back.

Like all meetings, I will take back the 
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

key themes from this meeting to our leadership, 

and we'll consider next steps.

MS. OAKLEY: Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: I know that enforcement 

and fraud are at the top of the list for the Program, 

but in some ways this is both enforcement and fraud 

because the consumers are expecting to not have 

any genetic engineering in their food. The 

livestock producers don't want to get feed that 

has been genetically engineered for their animals. 

And the enforcement goes back to, you know, the 

certifiers doing genetic testing as well and just 

down the chain, as Ashley said, that in many ways 

the organic world, because we're -- seem to be not 

genetically engineered, it may not always be the 

truth, and we really should have some tougher 

enforcement on that end.

DR. TUCKER: Can I add a brief comment? 

This is -- seed in general is an area -- so not 

just this topic but more broadly, seed searches 

and all of that has been raised as a topic to the 

Program as we are exploring additional courses for 
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the organic integrity learning center, a seed is 

one of those on the list that we've sort of been 

evaluating, you know, who could develop that 

training.

And not just on this topic but broadly 

related to seed, I think there are a lot of questions 

about seed.

I would caution a little carefully on 

the word fraud. You know, fraud has a very specific 

connotation and I think we should be very careful 

when we use that term.

MS. OAKLEY: Ashley?

CHAIR BEHAR: I understand that, but 

if you asked a consumer, they would feel at least 

that the promise of organic was not being met if 

there was contamination of genetic engineering in 

their organic food.

MS. OAKLEY: Ashley?

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah, I just want to say 

I don't think it's fraud by any means that 

somebody's like trying to do this on purpose. I 

think it's through pollination and things like 
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that. And I think why that task force could be 

important is maybe they could come up with some 

breeding techniques or, you know, things like that 

to maybe help prevent getting as much -- getting 

contamination in.

So I definitely don't think this is 

fraud at all. It's just the world that we live 

in that, I mean, we have neighbors.

MS. OAKLEY: I just wanted to add a 

comment regarding the farmer feedback that we've 

received and expressed desire for a more strict 

proposal.

And I just want to reiterate what you 

said that the subcommittee discussed this at length 

and ultimately we have to come forward with 

something that can get enough support to be voted 

on, and sometimes that compromise is greater than 

some people would like, but that's where we find 

ourselves to date with this proposal, and we would 

rather move forward than not move forward.

Is there -- yep, Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Yeah, I've got -- you know, 
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I've been an organic inspector for a lot of years 

as well, and I reiterate that a lot of those 

technique are planting later in the season so that 

there's no -- you past the pollination stage, a 

lot of things that they do.

I think farmers are very diligent not 

to be fraudulent in their seeds. And I don't think 

seed companies are fraud. I think that that's a 

term that's not quite applicable here.

And I've -- but cross pollination 

happens, and accidents happen. One of the things 

I remember so vividly was the inspection of a farm 

that had been certified for 40 years or had been 

managed organically for 40 years and certified from 

the time they could before NOP and had always been 

managed organically, and it was a soybean/corn 

farm.

And a neighbor had hired, and he had 

all the buffers in place that he could. He had, 

you know, all those things that he had -- could 

do.

And his neighbor down the road hired 
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a sprayer to come in and of course he had to Roundup 

beans and the company hired someone who was not 

so diligent and probably like me, not so cognizant 

of directions and instead of turning north, he 

turned south into my farmer friend's farm.

And the field was sprayed with Roundup. 

And Walt was totally surprising to him and to me 

was about every four-foot square there was beans 

left standing in the field, which meant that there 

had been contamination of the seed, certainly not 

his methods of production.

It's the real world, unfortunately. 

I tended a seminar in 2003 and at that time it was 

stated that -- I should not have ever said -- can't 

remember -- 95 percent, 2003 I think it was 95 

percent of all seed was contaminated with GE.

So you buy organic seed and you're going 

to have GE. It's just there, and it's not fraud. 

It's just there, so I think that the efforts that 

this committee is doing I commend you completely. 

I also caution us, just kind of hold the words 

down.
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So I realize that 

fraud has a legal definition and this doesn't meet 

the legal definition, but there is also kind of 

a colloquial feeling about it. And more at the 

-- and some are good and some are bad.

When a non-organic seed supplier 

provides an affidavit that says my seed that I'm 

giving to you, it's not organic, to the best of 

my knowledge, we did not use genetic engineering 

techniques to produce that seed, but they know 

because they tested it, that it contains 5, 6, 7 

percent genetic engineered germ plasm and they 

don't put that in the affidavit, that's what we're 

trying to get at here is so the farmer truly 

understands because when the farmer gets that 

affidavit that we did not intentionally put it in 

there, the assumption is it's not there. And that 

is not fair to the farmer.

So that's the transparency. It's not 

called preventing fraud. It's asking for 

transparency so the farmers have the tools they 
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

need. And I would -- like I said, I would have 

liked it stronger, but I don't think that the seed 

industry is ready for that yet.

I'm hoping that the certifiers will be 

robust in forming and maybe even put it in the OSP, 

you know, on their seed, are you aware you can 

contact your seed supplier to find out 

contamination levels in your corn or soybeans so 

that farmers start calling.

And then they're going to get tired of 

answering calls, and they're just going to be 

transparent about it.

MS. OAKLEY: Any further discussion?

Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: I guess I would also 

like to just add based on some of the comments we 

just made in the last six minutes.

Some of the comments that were made by 

some of the Board members in the last couple of 

minutes that this is not an indictment of the seed 

industry, and it isn't the case that 95 percent 

of the seed is contaminated.
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

What we're trying to do is to have just 

openness about actually revealing that many of the 

seed companies are doing a great job and catching 

cases where things are problematic.

And I think it's -- and in my view, and 

I haven't -- I had some conversations with some 

folks that were discussing last night while we're 

out together that, you know, are concerned about 

certain aspects and advocating for the task force.

One of the things that I think is very 

comforting for farmers is to have control over the 

things they can control. And this clearly -- when 

farmers choose seed -- is one of their most 

important points of leverage for the coming field 

season.

And you know, the weather they don't 

know. They don't know a whole bunch of other 

things, but they do know that they're starting with 

what they're starting with. And I think that's 

what we're trying to get at here. It's the front 

end of the production system to allay any concerns 

that might arise later in the field season if a 
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

problem should arise.

MS. OAKLEY: Any further discussion?

Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: So like I said, I hope 

this is a first step. I hope that the National 

Organic Program will work with the NOSB on the 

development of a targeted task force to help with 

understanding what the issues are with genetic 

contamination and seed.

And I -- you know, I appreciate really 

everyone's strong input on this -- and this started 

-- I don't know -- it's been maybe nine years as 

a seed purity discussion. But we understand as 

you said, Sue, we're not going for seed purity. 

We're just trying to give farmers the tools so they 

can meet their goals on their farm.

MS. OAKLEY: Any final discussion on 

this before we move to a vote?

All right. I think we're ready to move 

to a vote. Glasses.

The motion to accept the genetic 

integrity transparency of seed grown on organic 
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

land instruction to certify a proposal. The motion 

was by Harriet, seconded by Dave.

Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: Voting starts with 

Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.

MS. de LIMA: Yes.

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes.

MR. RICE: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes yes, and now 

I'll have a little bit of time to bake a pie now 

and then.

MR. RICE: The final vote is 13 yes, 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

1 absent, the motion passes.

MS. OAKLEY: Our next proposal is the 

Material Subcommittee proposal 2019 research 

priorities, and the lead on this is Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: So the research 

priorities, the process that I think we all know 

the process we've been going through, which is that 

updates for the research priorities are solicited 

from the subcommitee at the subcommitee level and 

then discussed across the subcommittee's -- with 

several things in mind trying to identify areas 

of research that might help address someone 

uncertainty that exists in our process, a product, 

a -- something to do with genetic engineering or 

whatever it might be but that the research could 

help inform our process but also that the research 

would help the organic farm and market chain 

continuum.

We've revisited and discussed this and 

updated. We're cognizant of the fact that we don't 

want to grow a list of research objectives that 

is only added to and never -- some things never 
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sunsetted from the list, so there's a fair amount 

of discussion about that.

In the current iteration, the 2019 

iteration, we've added several new areas of 

research that we're lifting up needing some 

activity.

And by the way, we were happy to learn 

that these research objectives have been a source 

of helping guide the request for proposals for the 

OREI and the Transitions to Organic Program among 

a couple. But I'm -- there are others that have 

also been using this list to help inform members 

of the Board have also been trying to proactively 

share this list with applied and basic researchers 

so they're aware of the priorities.

One new priority is a focus on farm 

level or system level, and by system that could 

include marine impacts of rockweed harvest, for 

example. But ecosystem provisioning centered 

assessments of organic systems.

There was a fair amount of discussion 

and interest in seeing greater research in the area 
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of cover crops with a specific focus on the degree 

to which cover crops can meet the fertility needs 

of the subsequent crop in field systems. That's 

in there.

Identifying barriers, barriers and as 

well as developing protocols for the organic 

nursery stock industry where there's a -- we've 

heard from stakeholders a lot that there is a need 

there.

And the last area was the genetic 

modificate -- the genetic GE part of the research 

priorities of which there were four parts. We've 

added a new one, which is to assess the genetic 

integrity of crops at risk and there would be an 

example that greater insight into the genetic 

integrity of crops at risk could inform this very 

sort of process that Harriet just led us through.

So it would be feeding our 

understanding there.

We restructured the plant and the plant 

diseases section, collapsing some sections and 

trying to bring greater focus in that area in a 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

topic that had been in the research priorities that 

was sunsetted, which isn't to say that no one will 

ever do work on it again. It's just to say that 

it's not currently an active priority.

List the area of contaminated leaf and 

grass clippings and other carbon stocks that might 

be contaminated and the fate of those contaminants 

in the composting. And the reason for that was 

that the feeling was that quite a body of research 

had developed during the past number of years.

We got quite a bit of public comment 

-- excuse me, public comment about, you know, some 

supporting these. There was some helpful comments 

provided recently that are now added to a working 

document that we will be revisiting for refreshing 

the priorities as we go forward but wouldn't be 

included here.

For example in the NOC comments there 

was -- they were urging us to be more specific about 

some of the no-till organic initiatives or areas 

that required more research. And a number of our 

Board members responded very positively to the 
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

social question that addresses barriers to 

participation in organic farming by folks of color.

And I guess having listened to that very 

thoughtful presentation by a woman whose name I 

don't know or can't remember, I found that very 

interesting.

I also would say that having been at 

a conference recently where there were folks of 

color presenting on the challenge to access to 

organic food on the backend, so the specific comment 

was about certification.

I also was left -- left that conference 

thinking about the social implications of access 

to food on the backend that could be some sort of 

topic area that's broader than just the certifiers 

themselves and farmers.

So anyway, that's it, and I think we 

had good input, good discussion around the subjects 

and the document is in our looseleaf binder.

MS. OAKLEY: Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: The public may notice 

that it's a longer list than in the past. At one 
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

point, we were looking at, you know, we shouldn't 

have more than three to four per -- and maybe Board 

members, too, notice that.

But we know that -- thank you out there 

in the audience who lobby Congress to get more money 

for more organic research. 

So we felt that we could add a few more 

items to our list because there's more money in 

the pot to go around.

MS. OAKLEY: Asa?

DR. BRADMAN: I just want to comment. 

I appreciate input on the handling priorities. 

We have seen that there's been some funding for 

looking at organic celery production for celery 

powder.

BPA right now is not on our work agenda, 

but I continuously get questions about this from 

different stakeholders and just recently had 

contact with the breast cancer group in San 

Francisco and they're very interested in work on 

this issue and the NOSB working on this issue.

And again, I think that that research 
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

priority defined alternatives to BPA particularly 

in can linings and other package-related issues, 

there's something that is still percolating and 

could use some attention.

MS. OAKLEY: I'll also note that we got 

a lot of comments this time around in terms of the 

actual wording of these different research 

priorities and suggestions for edits, which is a 

somewhat new piece of stakeholder feedback which 

we really appreciate.

And one thing we've discussed in my --

and we'll discuss further in subcommittee is the 

notion of incorporating some of those changes, 

bringing the document back in the spring to give 

stakeholders additional time to make feedback or 

add suggestions for research priorities that should 

be included in that calendar year so that there's 

a little bit less lag time between those suggestions 

and when we incorporate them.

So we would still then go through the 

regular process that we go through, by subcommittee 

to determine new priorities but it would also give 
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

additional chances for feedback.

Any other comments?

Discussion before we move to a vote?

Okay. The motion is to adopt the 

proposal in 2019 NOSB research priorities, motion 

by DAVE and seconded by Lisa.

Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: Tom will start with the 

voting.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.

MS. de LIMA: Yes.

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes.

MR. RICE: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes yes.
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: 13 yes, 1 absent, the motion 

passes.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

The next item on our agenda is the 

discussion document, marine materials and organic 

crop production.

So before I start in on this, I did want 

to just say that I'd like to give, again, just sort 

of a brief introduction to this, and then spend 

the time, if we can, with Board discussion on this 

discussion document and potential next steps.

So before I begin, I just want to thank 

the NOP heartily for the marine materials panel 

that we had this meeting. I think it was extremely 

helpful and substantive and illustrated the benefit 

that panels can have for helping to inform us of 

complicated issues. So thank you for that.

I also want to thank, of course, the 

panel members for the time that they put into that. 

And I really look forward to delving further into 

the slides that we didn't get to finish in terms 

of recommendations that the two scientists on the 
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

panel gave us, and thank them for their 

collaborative work on that.

I also want to thank the trade 

associations for creating a task force on this issue 

and working together to give us stakeholder 

feedback from industry because we have discussed 

in the past that that's not been adequate. And 

that really helped us get additional feedback this 

time around.

I also want to the OMRI for publishing 

in their newsletter that we're working on this issue 

and for asking for their members, and especially 

those with OMRI listed products in these categories 

to be aware that we're working on this topic and 

that the stakeholder community and industry in 

particular can comment. So thank you to everyone 

for helping reach out to the broader community on 

this.

So basically what I want to say is that 

our job as NOSB members I think is to take very 

disparate points of view and sometimes data and 

look at both of the ends of the spectrum and 
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

everywhere in between and try to come up with the 

middle ground and the compromise that is most viable 

and try to get as many stakeholders and Board 

members in agreement with those compromises as 

possible.

If we look at sort of one spectrum or 

one stakeholder group in particular and not the 

others, we obviously can't go forward with 

proposals.

But this topic has had a great deal of 

time and feedback and I think, and I hope, that 

we would be ready to come forward in the spring 

with a proposal that I am very optimistic will gain 

enough support from the stakeholder community to 

move forward.

So what I wanted to just outline is my 

kind of broad thinking on what that might look like 

so that people have advance knowledge of that and 

always know that the docket is open after these 

meetings, so please give us your feedback between 

meetings and before meetings. If you have it, it's 

greatly appreciated.
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So I think where I am heading with this 

is looking at the possibility of organic 

certification or annotation, whichever one seems 

to be the most appropriate tool.

The proposal would then also require 

the establishment of an NOP task force to develop 

guidelines for these various species and geographic 

regions and harvesting methods based both on the 

panel's recommendations and the experts that would 

be -- or rather the panel we had today but also 

the experts that would be on that task force.

The possibility that we've discussed 

is the option looking at maybe those several species 

that are most highly used and starting with them, 

sort of a triage rather than trying to address the 

wide number of species that are used.

That would then lead to guidelines or 

instructions to certifiers across probably all 

certified uses of seaweed.

That would also then need to be coupled 

with certifier training. But most importantly, 

I think any requirement for organic certification 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

or annotation would need to be put on pause or would 

be contingent upon the development of this task 

force and development of guidelines and would 

require an ample phase-in period.

I know we've heard numbers from 12 

months to 10 years. I think if we could look at 

something like a five-year phase-in period, that 

is a very long period of time, and it obviously 

will also take a long time for the NOP to work on 

this issue.

So I don't want anyone to think we're 

coming out in the spring with something that would 

adopt organic certification and then in the fall 

people would start worrying that they need to start 

looking at this. This is a long-term process.

So that is what I wanted to present, 

and I'm really eager to hear from the rest of the 

Board as to their thoughts on both the panel and 

this topic in general and where we head next.

Sue?

MS. BAIRD: I really appreciate the 

subcommitee work on this. It's brought to my mind 
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the fragility of our system. And I had not ever 

thought about it before. I mean, we just feed sea 

kelp to our animals, right?

So I really do appreciate this and for 

you to tackling it. I appreciated especially the 

task force and the information that I gleaned from 

that.

And I appreciate being invited to the 

lunch afterwards so we had further discussion.

I really, really -- I just really 

appreciate it. But what I would say is if we are 

going to have consistency, I would be leaning 

towards going towards certification as well. 

That's just the way we're ever going to be able 

to be consistent is that everyone operates by the 

same rules and regulations.

I support having a task force to develop 

what those rules and regulations that we're going 

to be certifying to.

So I think you -- I support the 

direction you're taking, Emily, and thank you.

MS. OAKLEY: Dave?
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah. I benefitted a 

great deal from the panel, so thank you, Emily, 

for your leadership in assembling a really -- a 

panel that really spoke to the questions that we 

were seeking answers to.

I second the notion of the triage 

approach. I was really struck by the comment --

I think it was Allison or Allison and Nichol playing 

off of each other when asked about how would you 

deal with this complicated problem in a way that 

it's not left intractable.

And they said that there were -- I think 

I heard five to seven, you know, big player algal 

species.

I was also struck -- it was a complete 

new way of thinking about it to me that these --

many of these algae occur, these really common ones 

occur in a near monoculture in contrast as they 

were making the analogy of a canopy of algae to 

a canopy of a forest.

And, you know, a canopy of a forest is 

not a monoculture. It's many, many, many species. 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So the notion of harvesting one tree out of --

species out of 20, it seems intractable in the same 

way that it seems intractable to me that you can 

manage how you're going to harvest rockweed if 

there's 20 other things that you're getting at the 

same time.

So I like the triage approach. It 

seemed a lot more doable to me after listening to 

the panel and that was very helpful to hear.

And I also think that the approach that 

we've taken with your leadership on this to engage 

the folks that are doing the harvesting, the folks 

that are -- you know, so that we've got -- we have 

a pretty good sense for where the weaknesses and 

the, you know, sort of challenges in this whole 

process lie. So I'm excited to see us come this 

far and move forward.

MS. OAKLEY: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: You know, I really 

appreciate getting the background information. 

And I agree, a slow approach is really necessary. 

I mean, it's a very fragile ecosystem and most 
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of us are terrestrial based.

And every time I hear something, I know 

I know less than I did before. So it really I think 

is very important before we make any decisions to 

really understand what we're doing because I'd hate 

to come up with regulations that are meaningless 

and have no basis and facts.

So I also agree. I think slow is 

better. I hate to say it ever on some things, but 

I think it's really true in this case.

And it reminds me a little bit of paper, 

how little we knew about paper until we started 

on this. Again, I like the approach.

MS. OAKLEY: Steve?

VICE CHAIR ELA: I think Rick just 

nailed it. As a terrestrial person, marine 

ecosystem's not growing up on the shore. I'm 

fascinated by all the people that testified --

excuse me -- that have grown up on the shore and 

know these systems much better than I do.

I also am very flummoxed by how we even 

approach this at all. You know, inaction is an 
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

action. On the other hand, I -- you know, bad 

action is not useful either.

And so I kind of get caught in that bind. 

I, you know, have heard that certification may 

not be the right idea. I've heard that wild harvest 

may not be the right idea. I've heard that no 

regulation may not be the right idea.

And so I'm not really sure how to 

proceed, honestly. But yet I think it's an 

important thing.

And I think what I really come up 

against is I hear, you know, on the Atlantic Coast 

with Nova Scotia and Maine that I think there are 

probably very sustainable systems there. You

know, I really worry in other parts of the world 

that they're not. And I don't hear from those 

people and obviously international people aren't 

going to come testify to us.

But I don't want to say, oh, we don't 

need to do anything because the industry is doing 

it when we know there probably are areas where 

that's not true in species that's not true.
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

On the other hand, I want to honor what 

is being done and let people that are doing good 

work do their good work without us interfering in 

that.

So that's where I really get boggled 

is how do we deal as a group that does have 

international people that's certified through the 

equivalency of U.S. standards, how do we protect 

those international marine areas while honoring 

what's already been done in our domestic lens.

MS. OAKLEY: So I'm going to just 

quickly comment on that. And I think those are 

all good points. I think it's important to realize 

that the three harvesters that we -- well, we heard 

from several others, but the -- that gave oral 

testimony either on the webinar or here all have 

certified organic production of the same species, 

but they also sell for crop fertility inputs and 

organic certification comprises half or the 

majority of their production systems.

So I think, you know, we came to organic 

certification largely because it almost seemed like 
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a logical place to flow given that.

I know that there has been comment, you 

know, certainly by some harvesters and industry 

as well that this is predicated on the assumption 

that there is an environmental harm, and I know 

we've discussed that already a little bit.

And I don't -- I want to just clearly 

state that I don't think that we came to this based 

on bias but based on our previous discussion over 

the review of these sunset materials based on our 

TR, based on public comment, and based on the 

precautionary principle that I think is our 

obligation to take given our responsibility to 

ensure that we are minimizing environmental harm.

I don't think we are making assumptions 

one way or the other but we are trying to make sure 

that we are doing our due diligence.

And Harriet, did you have your hand up? 

Okay. Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: So I'm greatly gratified 

that we are considering environmental impacts as 

one of the people sitting in an environmental seat, 
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and that -- because many times we focus so much 

on the material and that.

But the definition of organic in our 

rule talks about the production system that 

responds to site-specific conditions by integrated 

cultural, biological, and mechanical practices 

that foster the cycling of resources, promote 

ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.

And so I think this is really important 

that we -- I know this is tough. I know this, you 

know, can give a lot of people heartburn. But we 

have to remember what our core is and that's our 

core is that that ecological balance and 

conservation of biodiversity.

And so that's where I hope we can go 

with this.

And then the other side of it is, again, 

I always, you know, think about the black eye, you 

know, that we're out there destroying the marine 

environment so we can grow whatever, organically.

Of course, it's not only organic 

producers that use kelp and seaweed, so it wouldn't 
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

only be us.

But we in the organic world should be 

more environmentally sensitive and be willing to 

go the extra mile.

MS. OAKLEY: Asa, Sue, and then Scott 

I think.

DR. BRADMAN: So in some ways I'm a 

little different, maybe strange from some 

perspectives. I do a lot of ocean swimming in 

California, not just on beaches but often in coves 

and places that's sometimes are a little scary 

maybe.

I just want to read this quote here that 

was from an article just yesterday in the local 

paper in California.

Envision California's lush forest from 

San Francisco to the Oregon border. Now imagine 

that 90 percent of those forests disappear within 

two years. Laura Rogers-Bennett with the 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife says 

that's exactly what happened to underwater kelp 

forests off the northern California coastline from 
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

just 2014 to 2016.

And you know, I kind of grew up with 

kelp and I've done a lot of swimming in kelp beds. 

I always felt safe there because I worry less about 

sharks.

The -- there's been an explosion of this 

purple urchin maybe related to warmer temperatures, 

disease to starfish and predation on other species 

that has allowed this species to proliferate.

So we're seeing in a very short time 

almost possibly a real ecosystem collapse. And 

that that may spread as well. And this, of course, 

is a -- you know, a marine algae plant that we're 

concerned about.

So just to underscore that as we think 

about this, we're talking about using a wild 

resource and transferring those nutrients to our 

agricultural setting to land or other uses that 

are organic but we're still exploiting that 

resource.

And I think that is a tremendous 

responsibility and to the extent that organic can 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

protect that environment and wild resource, I think 

that's important and just underscores how important 

these issues are and that we live in a dynamic and 

changing world.

MS. OAKLEY: Sue and then Scott.

MS. BAIRD: Yeah. I tell -- when it 

each organic agriculture, I tell everybody that 

when I first found organic, because I came from 

a conventional agriculture world.

When I first found it, it reminded me 

of what my Cherokee grandmother always said, which 

is that we are a part of earth and they are a part 

of us. And so I appreciate Harriet reading that 

definition because that's what turned me on to 

organic was the fact that we are honoring the fact 

that we are part of Mother Earth.

It is scary how quickly we are 

decimating Mother Earth and the fact that Asa said 

within two years we've lost a lot of our 

biodiversity on the coastlines scares me.

I am a terrestrial. I'm interested --

I was not ever on an ocean until I was in my 50s, 
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

so that shows how little my background is on this 

thing.

I think we've got -- so now I've got 

to back up. We've got to hurry up wait. We've 

got to wait hurry up. I mean, how do you say that?

We don't have a lot of time to develop 

those regulations and those things. If we're going 

to be losing our ecosystems within two years, we 

need to move on this quickly, so I'm backtracking 

what I said earlier. 

Thank you.

MS. OAKLEY: Well, just as a point of 

clarification, that loss is not attributed to 

harvesting of seaweed for these purposes. It's 

-- but I agree with you. I think that we do have 

to realize that there are broader environmental 

issues that concern us, especially acidification 

of the oceans, rising temperatures, that are 

impacting those ecosystems.

And then when we come in and 

additionally impact them, that is something for 

us to seriously consider.
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Scott, right? And then Harriet.

MR. RICE: Thanks.

I think this is an incredibly important 

topic, too, and a lot to bite off. It's -- from 

looking at the comments from a lot of the certifier 

perspective and just thinking about it myself, it's 

a lot to work through of how from a practical 

standpoint the certification would -- could happen.

I looked at some of those maps of how 

spread out and how extensive those sites are and 

thinking of how you'd even start to schedule that 

inspection or manage it and meet some of the 

expectations of what our regulations currently have 

as an annual -- inspection.

I also have some concern about just the 

capacity of -- for expertise to administer this. 

It's, you know, diving into a whole other area. 

It's not the first time we've done that with 

different production systems, but I think this has 

a lot of very specific and unique characteristics 

that, as we saw from our panelists, you can spend 

a lifetime studying but -- so I think we need to 
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

be extremely -- both extremely specific on what 

those regulations and what that guidance would look 

like, but we also need to recognize that we're an 

international standard and that we're sourcing from 

around the world and that we may have a ton of 

information about Nova Scotia and the coast of 

Maine.

We don't have a lot of information or 

at least at the moment about where else this is 

going to impact. So just some thoughts about the 

kind of administrative capacity on that, lots to 

think about but an important thing to move forward.

I think I agree with the sentiments of 

moving, you know, as we can to be effective but 

making sure that at the end of the day it is 

effective, it is attainable, and it's -- it meets 

what we're -- what our goals are.

MS. OAKLEY: Harriet, before you go, 

could I just quickly comment on that?

I mean, I think you're absolutely 

right. And you know, within the debate on 

certification, there are those who would say, well, 
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you can't certify it because it shouldn't be 

certified because it, you know, shouldn't be 

harvested.

And then there are those who would say, 

you know, if you allow it, you could be green washing 

the resource, so to speak, because there might not 

be adequate training for certifiers.

And then there are those who would say,

you know, we can adequately certify it and we are 

and we are able to meet those standards. So you've 

got this, you know, broad spectrum of comments even 

on certification itself.

I think, you know, we are already 

certifying seaweed, and there are certifiers who 

are doing that on a global basis.

So I hear absolutely your concern 

about, you know, coming -- like just the practical 

standpoint of it. And I think one of the 

necessities of creating guidelines is also to 

streamline the ways in which certifiers are 

interpreting it already as it's already being 

practiced.
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So I think it also addresses not just 

the issue of crop certification but can help --

or crop input certification but it can help with 

livestock and potentially human uses, too.

Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: I know this is a daunting 

task, but there are many resources out there to 

help us, already people who are looking at 

sustainability in this area.

So I think the challenge will be 

figuring out how to use those in the most efficient 

and effective way and that follow our ethics and 

rules as well.

But it's not like we're starting from 

scratch here. There's a lot out there to work with.

MS. OAKLEY: Any other comments?

Sue?

MS. BAIRD: I'm sorry I'm taking up 

everybody's time.

I'll never forget -- and Margaret 

Scoles is in the room, so she's going to laugh at 

me -- when I first did an inspection in Montana 
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

because I had come from the Midwest, I'm -- my first 

inspection out on one of those ranches was to go 

out and ask them, well, how many cows do you have 

per acre.

And of course I got laughed at pretty 

severely because in a high desert it's how many 

acres, tens of acres of -- do you have per cow. 

So acknowledging that we don't have that inherent 

knowledge does not prevent us from being able to 

realize that we're pretty ignorant and it really 

is how many acres per cow instead of how many cows 

per acre, just to comment.

And there are standards out there. I 

was encouraged to hear that Iceland also has 

standards, and the presenter from there said that 

most nations, most countries have standards for 

harvesting of this crop.

So absolutely we have to pull on their 

knowledge to build our knowledge base.

MS. OAKLEY: Any final comments on this 

topic?

All right. Well then, I'll just 
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

conclude by saying that I really want to thank all 

of the stakeholders on this from scientists to 

certifiers to harvesters and everyone sort of 

putting their positions and opinions out there.

It can be vulnerable to share your

information, and I really appreciate that. I think 

that we have resources, as Harriet said, available 

to us. We have scientists that care about this 

issue. We have stakeholders that care about this 

issue, and we have harvesters that care about this 

issue, and certifiers that care about this issue 

and are all engaged in it. And I continue to be 

optimistic and think we will find a path forward 

and hopefully that will be soon.

So thanks, everybody, for taking your 

time on the subject.

And our next topic before we close the 

Materials Subcommittee is a verbal update on 

sanitizers, and I will turn that over to Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: So we have been trying 

to work on a topic of comprehensive review of 

sanitizers to try to understand which categories 
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of these materials fall into various use types, 

what would be useful in rotation, and then, of 

course, the OFPA criteria of human and 

environmental health and essentiality or 

necessity.

And so we put out last time a discussion 

document that had kind of lists of various ways 

that we could approach the issue, and the National 

Organic Program -- oh, I guess we also brought in 

-- after our last meeting, we had Bob Durst from 

Oregon State speak with the Materials Subcommittee 

on a conference call along with the Program about 

the benefits or not.

I just want to say I did NOC. I just 

sent him the form and I said would you look this 

over and then discuss this with us. I did not try 

to influence him in any way, and he liked it.

He thought that was a really good idea, 

that it would be very useful to the organic 

community to have -- to look at sanitizers and 

disinfectants through the lens of the OFPA in a 

bigger way to help both manufacturers who produce 
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the products as well as manufacturers and farmers 

who use the products.

However, when working with the Program, 

they felt that the request was fairly overwhelming. 

They did not feel that a technical review -- if 

they put it out for technical review that anyone 

would take it on because it was too daunting and 

too big of an issue.

So being tenacious as we are, we did 

not just say, well, okay, so next spring there will 

be a panel and we will bring in some experts to 

help us go through these products. I will not be 

sitting up here, but my fellow members and new 

members will.

And I will help work with the 

subcommittee until I'm off of the Board in January 

to come up with some good questions and we will 

have all of our panelists chosen by then before 

I leave to help us through this and maybe help us 

narrow down some of the actual questions that could 

be the most useful in this area.

So that's pretty much the update. Even 
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Devon's shaking his head yes.

MS. OAKLEY: So yeah, I'll just add 

that we are continuing to discuss this in the 

subcommittee and we have not taken breaks prior 

to this meeting because we continue to work on this 

and other topics. And we won't take one after this 

meeting.

So we will be developing the list of 

who to invite and very shortly. And yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: And so if members of the 

public have any good suggestions for panelists, 

you know, contact Michelle or me directly.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, that is exactly what 

I was going to say. So yes, please provide us with 

your feedback and we look forward to hearing from 

those panelists in the spring. And with that, I 

think the Materials Subcommittee is done and we 

have concluded our portion of the meeting.

Yep. Are there any questions?

MS. SWAFFAR: Can we comment on this?

MS. OAKLEY: Oh, of course. Sorry.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah. Yeah, thanks.
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So this is work agenda item that I am 

very concerned with, as most everyone knows, just 

in the direction that it could go, not the direction 

I think it is going now.

I don't -- I'm very worried about 

whittling down of the list on sanitizers because 

it's not a this can work for five things and we 

should never have any alternatives to that.

So I just want to -- before I get off 

the Board and I'm only limited to three minutes, 

I just want to say, you know, we need alternatives 

for sanitizers so it's not a we can only have one 

item to sanitize processing plants with. So we 

need options. So just want to say that before I 

get off.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes. So I just want to 

respond to that, which is we did discuss this in 

the spring as well, and I think it's very clear 

from the document that was put forward in the spring 

and our verbal comments that is not the intention. 

Intention is a review that is helpful for the Board 

to determine gaps, to determine, for example, we 
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

got this petition for potassium hypochlorite.

However, we've restricted it for 

irrigation use. Someone might want to petition 

it in the future for an additional use. It might 

be a less toxic material than others.

So I think the goal is absolutely not, 

just to clarify one more time, to limit it down 

to one material. As you said, that is not --

definitely not our goal.

Tom and Harriet?

MR. CHAPMAN: I was just trying to flag 

for Ashley. But I understand your intent. I think 

there was some light made of the Program's resistant 

to put this out to a TR, I think.

I mean, the reality of this is it's a 

super complex subject and when you look at rules, 

FSMA and other rules, they generally dictate 

outcomes, not specific methodologies or materials 

that need to be used.

And the reason for that is the variety 

of threats that come is a constant learning 

experience, and the variety of production 
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

environments of which products are made especially 

when you consider this review is across livestock,

crops, and handling is just -- it's enormous. And 

each operation is different and they need to address 

their issues site-specifically.

And so to ask for a single report that 

could summarize that is a pretty enormous ask.

So you know, the panel sounds like a 

great approach to start, you know, eating this 

dinosaur one bite at a time, and I look forward 

to seeing what they say.

MS. OAKLEY: Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: So I know where the fear 

I think somewhat that we're trying to whittle them 

down because there have been public comments kind 

of leaning that way saying that you should get a 

comprehensive review so you can figure out which 

ones to get rid of.

But in the subcommittee, we thought 

about how useful a comprehensive review would be 

so we have a better idea of the universe because 

this times -- and I -- that we have voted down 
201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sanitizers because we saw one that already was 

working. And we didn't understand where -- what 

is the special part to this that -- you know, and 

of course the petition always says everybody else's 

sanitizer is worthless and mine's the only one that 

works.

I know, Ashley, you voted against some 

sanitizers especially in the teat dip world because 

we just weren't sure where they all fit in -- and 

so that was the way we approached it.

We saw the ideas as a good one but not 

necessarily the reason that was first given to us 

as the reason why we liked it.

MS. OAKLEY: Steve?

VICE CHAIR ELA: Following up on what 

comment Ashley said, I mean, when I came on the 

Board, Joelle came on with me and even though she 

was only on the Board for a short time, her 

background was in food safety and I think her words 

echo in my head. I mean, practical experience does 

as well on her own farm.

But her words just like on a firm and 
202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a marine ecosystem, every day is different and every 

farm is different. You know, her words were that 

every packing plant and ever processing plant and 

every input is different.

And to categorize those into an easily 

discernible -- sorry -- table is nigh impossible.

And so I think that -- I think we 

recognize that and I'm looking forward to the panel. 

I think stakeholders have asked us over and over 

to do something besides just approve new materials.

I don't think it's going to give us the

answer, but at least it'll give us information. 

And I think this topic is always going to be before 

us. I don't think it's going to go away. I don't 

think a TR or a panel is going to solve it.

But at least we will have more 

information, and from public comment for the 

onboard will be, you know, it's in the striving 

for continuous improvement and that -- I -- if we 

have continuous improvement I think it'll be a darn 

good day. I'm not sure if we'll even get that far, 

but we have to start somewhere, so.
203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: Any additional comments 

on this subject?

All right. Thank you, Ashley, for 

reminding me that we needed discussion on it, and 

this does conclude the Materials Subcommittee's 

portion.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

We are going to take lunch and we're 

just three minutes over. Good job, Michelle, in 

helping us with the agenda.

MS. OAKLEY: Wait, wait. What about 

me, man? Didn't I keep us on time?

CHAIR BEHAR: Well, you did a good job.

(Laughter.) 

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So we come back 

at 2:00 on the dot, please.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 12:34 p.m. and resumed at 

2:03 p.m.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. We're in the 

final stretch. I hope all of you had a chance to 

stretch.
204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

There are still a few butterflies over 

there. If you want to take them home for your kids 

or whatever, I don't need them.

But I took the last two chocolates.

(Laughter.) 

(OFF-MIC COMMENTS.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay.

So we are missing a couple, but I think 

we have a quorum. Yeah. Yeah, we're good.

So I will now turn the meeting over to 

the Policy Subcommittee Chair Rick Greenwood.

MR. GREENWOOD: Thank you, Harriet.

This should be relatively quick and 

painless. I don't think there's a lot of 

controversy here.

What we did as a committee was go 

through the policy an procedure manual, and I know 

that Tom had done tremendous amount of work in the 

past.

We felt there were some areas that 

needed to be refined and updated, so I'll go through 

some of them as bullet points.
205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We added to the NOSB's secretary's duty 

to monitor and notify subcommittee chairs 

periodically of public comments posted during the 

open docket period just to let people know what 

was going on in case they needed to see that.

We clarified the language about when 

the new NOSB chair takes office to match the 

language that's in one of the sections, and we'll 

go through that at the end of the day when we have 

a new chair.

Another type of discussion document 

petition material was added and we clarified the 

steps in the material review process for new 

petition to make sure that everyone was clear on 

the steps that we needed to take on that.

We added some clarifying language about 

how a subcommittee determines sufficiency of a 

petition, and that was one of the things when we 

look at them, does it really have everything that 

we need, do we have to add things, what kinds of 

discussions do we need. So we clarified that.

And we also added a process for the 
206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

subcommittee to develop a discussion document based 

on a petition. And that was one of the things that 

we thought was important where we could post those 

as discussion documents and start getting input. 

They're not official documents. They're 

discussion documents only. And we felt that would 

let stakeholders have more input during the 

process.

And then we added an additional bullet 

point under the section about policy for public 

communication between NOSB meetings for posting 

discussion documents and proposals between public 

meetings for review and public comment.

And again, that's another avenue that 

we felt was necessary to get public input in 

essentially an informal way. And I think one of 

the things that hopefully everyone saw today is 

public comment is incredibly important for this 

whole process.

I think the public knows things that 

we don't know and it brings it to our attention. 

So clarifying documents, basically I'll open it 
207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

up for discussion if anyone has any comments.

We did get a couple of comments during 

the open period that were in support of the changes. 

And so thought that was good that actually people 

looked at it and felt that some of these things 

would be helpful for our stakeholders.

CHAIR BEHAR: Rick, you call on the 

people who --

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. I'll call on 

the people and then I'll call on Tom, too.

(Laughter.) 

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah, really good job. 

I wanted to make sure we had a good, robust 

conversation about this. So Michelle can you pull 

up that 60-page PowerPoint I sent you?

(Laughter.)

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. Yeah.

MR. CHAPMAN: Oh, it got lost? All 

right. Sorry. Yeah. Really good job, Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. Thank you.

MR. CHAPMAN: You made a lot of good 

changes. I'm really happy about the petition 
208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

discussion documents. I think it really leads to 

a more robust, clear process for everybody.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. Yes, Steve?

VICE CHAIR ELA: I actually want to 

thank Asa for that because it was Asa that brought 

up why can't we have more discussion, and I think 

I brought it up on an executive call and then Tom 

had the idea of -- or maybe I don't know who did 

of, you know, we could do this. And so I think 

it really shows where sometimes as we wrestle with 

time as a Board and how do we have robust discussions 

without 60-page documents.

But you know, I think it's where 

individual members bring good ideas and it shows 

where it works, so.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. Thanks. Okay, 

any other comments?

(No audible response.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Would you like to read 

the motion?

MR. GREENWOOD: I -- the motion is to 

accept the changes to the policy and procedure 
209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

manual. It was -- the motion was by Steven and 

seconded by Tom.

(OFF-MIC COMMENTS.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. I'm just trying 

to figure out where we start. I think it's Lisa. 

Is that right? All right. I remembered.

MS. de LIMA: Yes. Oh, sorry, do you 

have --

CHAIR BEHAR: We will now start the 

vote with Lisa.

MS. de LIMA: 

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes.

MR. RICE: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes yes.

MR. RICE: That's 13 yes, 1 absent, the 

motion passes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Thank you, Rick. Coming 

on and becoming a subcommittee chair right away, 

good job.

Okay. Next up is the Livestock 

Subcommittee which has a few things on the agenda, 

and I will turn the meeting over to Sue Baird.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you.

Livestock has been rather busy. We're 

going to start with one petition, the use of exclude 

methods and vaccines. We will move to 12 sunsets 

and then we're going to move to a discussion 

document for revising annotation for fenbendazole.

So the -- we're going to start 

immediately with a motion to accept the use of 

excluded method vaccines in organic livestock. 

And I think that is Harriet. Right. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: Like I said, I like to 

take on the hard ones.

Okay. And I like to get public 
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

comments, so I just write the things that people 

want to talk about.

So this came out of a work agenda item 

that we requested of the National Organic Program 

that came up at the last sunset of vaccines that 

because it was pretty clear and the certifiers 

verified that, that there was inconsistent 

implementation of the two different references to 

vaccines in the organic rules.

So there is a reference in 105 that 

talks about excluded methods are prohibited except 

for vaccines when placed on the National List. 

That's not the exact wording, but that's what it 

means.

And then there's also a list on the 

National List that says that biologics and vaccines 

are allowed in livestock production.

So some were just looking only at the 

National List and saying, therefore, all vaccines 

and biologics are allowed whether or not they are 

genetically engineered, and others said, no, you 

have to look at the full regulation and we will 
212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not allow them unless they are placed on the 

National List.

And currently none have been petitioned 

and none have been placed on the National LIST.

So to find consistency, we looked at 

a variety of options which we had a discussion 

document in the spring and now we have a proposal 

based on the public comment.

We asked should we just accept all 

vaccines and not look at their genetically 

engineered status, look at only allowing them, 

genetically engineered vaccines, if 

non-genetically engineered vaccines were not 

available, not commercially available and 

following the commercial availability requirements 

of form, function, and quantity, and third, was 

to stay with the current rule as is and require 

that all genetically engineered vaccines go through 

a petition and review and then approval process 

to go on the National List.

Of those three, most preferred the 

commercial availability because they basically --
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as we've said earlier in this meeting and numerous 

times and in all those public comments, said the 

organic community does not want to include genetic 

engineering in our production methods.

However, we're also kind of backed up 

against a federal wall in that there are vaccines 

that are federally required in poultry operations 

over a certain amount, and I think it's 2000 birds 

-- 3000 birds, that must use certain salmonella 

vaccines and they are only available in a 

genetically engineered version.

So if we did the not allowing GMO 

vaccines at all, or genetically engineered 

vaccines, then we would knock out all poultry houses 

over 2000 -- 3000 birds.

We have also had this genetically 

engineered vaccine statement in 105 since the rule 

was written and have never received a petition for 

a vaccine. And so we could see that wasn't working.

What was happening, though, is that 

some certifiers were not allowing any vaccines and 

some were allowing everything, and so it really 
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

was very inconsistent.

So we went to the commercial 

availability to basically say if we are not given 

an option and we are forced into using a genetically 

engineered vaccine, then we will not take that 

important tool away from organic livestock 

producers as a preventative as well as meeting 

regulations and let them use those genetically 

engineered vaccines.

And that's where -- now, we did get a 

lot of public comment. Some said that we should 

only allow them if they're commercially available 

and when Government required. Others did not --

so other said don't allow them at all, but that 

was very few.

To respond to that, that basically kind 

of takes away the benefit of vaccines as a 

preventative, and so if there's, let's say, some 

kind of outbreak and -- well, then it might be 

Government required or not. 

But if the only vaccine is one that is 

genetically modified and someone's having an issue 
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in their region with their livestock, we need to 

allow them to prevent that problem. We will lose 

livestock producers if we truncate the availability 

of vaccines to them and not -- and none -- no 

producer wants to watch their animals suffer.

We get a lot of comments from certifiers 

and others that they needed more guidance on how 

to find these genetically -- non-genetically 

modified vaccines and which ones were genetically 

engineered.

There's quite a bit of information 

links in the proposal and we also have talked with 

numerous certifiers about working with the 

Accredited Certifiers Association in helping 

develop a list.

I mean, one thing about vaccines is they 

don't -- it's not like a new vaccine is coming on 

the market every day or even every week or even 

every month.

So managing updates shouldn't be too 

difficult because there's not -- it's not like a 

fast-moving area. It's not like seed where you 
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

could get lots of different varieties coming on.

And I would be happy in the cover letter 

to kind of spell out a little bit more some of those 

resources and kind of present which ones are 

genetically engineered right now and which ones 

do and do not have non-genetically engineered 

equivalent.

There was also discussion on what does 

it look like to be commercially available when 

you're talking about a vaccine and that is somewhat 

discussed in the proposal. The method of delivery, 

regional availability, and I think, too, we could 

include in the cover letter that if you want to 

find out if something's equivalent, some 

documentation from a veterinarian in your area who 

has some experience with various vaccines to say 

which one they felt was working well because they're 

the disinterested third party who knows which 

vaccines are working and which ones are not.

And that is my summary.

(OFF-MIC COMMENTS.)

(Simultaneous speaking.)
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: I've been trying to --

in reading through this and thinking about it, I've 

been trying to equate this to other things that 

we work on that in the area of how it is that we 

create incentives for the desired outcome. And 

Ashley's pointed out that we had the one mechanism 

where we allowed the use of something as a 

replacement comes along or ideally.

How much discussion was there about 

that kind of thing? So let's say we're -- we are 

in the proposal accepting the use of things that 

we would ideally rather not use and yet are 

interested in the short- or mid-run incentivizing 

alternatives that are aligned with the organic 

principles.

One approach that I was pondering that 

might be analogous to this or at least somewhat 

analogous to this is the EPA has rules in place 

where they use something called the IR-4 in Section 

22(c) program to enable conventional farmers to 

use off-label uses of pesticides where the USDA 
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is actually subsidizing in part the creation of 

an alternative that is not financially viable or 

lucrative for the company to foot the bill for a 

small use development.

And I'm just wondering if a program 

something like that couldn't help. That's not 

speaking to this document right now here and now, 

but I -- the one concern I have is that once we 

start doing this, right, as we start allowing for 

these things to be used more and more, there will 

be little incentive for any kind of alternative 

to be developed that I can see.

In fact, it could very well discourage 

alternatives from being developed and made 

available. So that's just something I've been 

pondering as I read this and read the public 

comment.

MS. BAIRD: Emily, and then Harriet.

MS. OAKLEY: Harriet, if you want to 

answer that first, then I'll go after you.

CHAIR BEHAR: So I would compare this 

actually to the commercial availability on seed 
219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and that since we've had that, it's actually --

and if the certifiers are requiring it, and as an 

inspector I can tell you we go through those seed 

tags and we look at what they're using and what 

they're not using as far as organic or not.

That has greatly increased the organic 

seed market. We've seen some things come off the 

606 list because we're allowing the non-organic 

agricultural product be used because we find that 

the organic one is not available.

But -- so I think if people will be 

searching and possibly even asking vaccine 

suppliers or their veterinarian can you please get 

me the non-GMO version of this, I understand there 

is one, I think that would be useful in sending 

the message that there is a market for these non-GMO 

vaccines.

But I really do love your idea about 

having some subsidy for vaccine makers to perhaps 

develop vaccines that are currently not available 

in a non-GMO version.

So I'm not really sure how we do that, 
220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

but we could pass that on to the Program and let 

them know that we are interested in exploring that 

possibility for the future, and thank you for 

bringing that forward because I didn't know about 

that.

MS. BAIRD: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: I think that -- I've 

talked with a couple of people about this. I 

struggle with this issue because on the one hand, 

I greatly appreciate the work that the subcommittee 

went -- or put into this document, and I really 

hate to see inconsistencies between certifiers and 

how they're interpreting and applying the rules.

At the same time, my reading of the 

rules and regulations are that number two would 

be the most appropriate option, allow vaccines from 

excluded methods but only if they were individually 

reviewed and approved by the NOSB and placed on 

the National List by the NOP.

So I feel torn about this, but I would 

-- I would not vote to end inconsistencies between 

certifiers and my vote will likely be an abstention. 
221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I think Ashley is wanting to answer what I 

have just said.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Ashley, now.

MS. SWAFFAR: Okay. I've got a lot of 

points. I'll start with yours, Emily.

So number two, listing by individual 

vaccines, the subcommittee didn't feel like that 

was the appropriate approach because nowhere on 

the National List do we list any branded products, 

and these would have to be listed by brand, and 

we didn't feel that that was consistent and that 

would lead to a very, very slippery, slippery road 

of starting to List things by brand name.

And so that's why we didn't go with that 

one.

So onto just my comments on this. You 

know, I think this is a really huge challenge area 

for the poultry industry and I'm sure other 

livestock industries.

But you know, you heard from several 

poultry producers that the majority of the poultry 

industry is really trying to put birds outside 
222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

because that's what we all feel the customers are 

looking for when they're purchasing organic eggs.

And many companies have actually 

implemented OLPP and beyond. Actually, a lot of 

them are putting birds outside at a rate that is 

anywhere from double to, at my company, 54 times 

what OLPP set. So you know, we're actually putting 

birds outside at a really big stocking rate.

And there's huge challenges with that. 

And you know, this week alone while we're sitting 

here, I've had two cases come back from our 

veterinarian with excessive E. coli, and a part 

of it is our vaccination schedule that helps with 

that.

I mean, we do vaccinate for E. coli but 

we still have flocks that get pretty severe cases. 

And the reason for that is climate change. I mean, 

we are so wet in Arkansas right now -- Emily and 

I were just talking about this. We've got three 

inches in like the past 24 hours and it's supposed 

to keep raining.

But that wet environment are perfect 
223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for disease growth and vaccines are critical to 

help us, you know, get a little bit of immunity 

there. But we're still seeing a lot of disease 

outbreak.

So you know, E. coli, necrotic 

enteritis and fowl cholera are some pretty bad 

things that are hurting the poultry industry 

because we are putting birds outside, and vaccines 

can help us mitigate that a little bit.

And you know, some of those vaccines 

are only available made from excluded methods, so 

you know, I really support this because we can't 

take away vaccines because if we do that and 

particularly any of these vaccines, you will no 

longer have commercial organic poultry industry. 

And that is, you know, 16.5 million layers out 

there, and we really need these vaccines.

The salmonella one, like Harriet had 

mentioned, that is a Federal requirement and the 

State of California dictates that, so that's one 

that we have to use.

And then I just want to talk about 
224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

commercial availability there and really highlight 

what Harriet had put in the document and what the 

subcommittee brought forward.

It's not a if it's available or not. 

It's if it's available in the correct form, the 

correct quality -- quality is the big key there 

- and quantity. Those are key areas that I really 

want to stress gets pulled forward.

If this passes and the Program puts this 

into place, that those are really key areas for 

commercial availability and -- sorry, my last 

point.

I know there are a lot of certifier 

concerns on this, but I feel like the subcommittee 

is bringing forward a good document, and you know, 

it's not always our job to tell you the exact details 

of how to implement stuff to that level of detail.

I think there are groups such as the 

ACA, you know, coming up with a working group and 

a list to kind of identify those vaccines that are 

made from excluded method is a really great step.

And you know, I -- we heard from a lot 
225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of certifiers that this would create a huge burden 

on time and work. And there are not vaccines being 

developed all the time.

I mean, like in the poultry industry 

in the past 10 years, I mean, I can think of a couple 

that's probably been developed.

So you know, it's not like it's going 

to keep continually update this List. So that's 

kind of that.

That's my thoughts for now. Maybe 

later I'll have some more.

MS. BAIRD: Dan.

(OFF-MIC COMMENTS.)

DR. SEITZ: So this is a large complex 

topic in a way very similar to the seed integrity 

transparency topic.

And I feel that we've actually reached 

a realistic middle ground. So I just want to say 

that I feel very comfortable with this as I felt 

comfortable with the seed integrity transparency 

document that we approved.

It's realistic. It will take some 
226

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

work. It's seeking a middle ground, and it's 

trying to, as best we can with a complex topic, 

find a middle way --

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No, I think Ashley 

brought up a good point. In the sense that we need 

to have that as a tool because we live in a global 

economy now and if you think back, West Nile didn't 

exist in the U.S. and then suddenly it roared across 

the country.

We're going to have other West Niles 

and other things, and we need the capability of 

getting a quickly engineered vaccine. I mean, it 

may not be what we want, but we need that if we're 

going to do it.

And that goes with all kinds of animals, 

not just chickens. And it goes with people.

And I had mentioned it to Tom yesterday. 

I had the rabies vaccine because I used to work 

with live rabies in the old days and it was a duck 

embryo vaccine. The side effects were horrible, 

and it was -- didn't work.
227

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And then a few years later, there was 

a cell culture vaccine which gave me a great titer. 

And so I'm not really livestock, but it -- I think 

there's a lesson to be learned there that we need 

those.

MS. BAIRD: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: I just want to clarify 

that I'm not against vaccines at all. I didn't 

want that to be confused with my statements.

I still just struggle, as you were 

talking about, you know, we don't want to set a 

precedent of posting or listing name brand 

materials. And that's one slippery slope.

But I also think taking an alternative 

approach to what is stated in the rules is also 

a slipper slope. But I understand the practical 

reasons that are in place for this. But just wanted 

to clarify I am not against vaccines.

MS. BAIRD: Scott?

MR. RICE: Yeah. I just wanted to 

acknowledge, as was already said, that I think it 

will be initially a lot of work for certifiers on 
228

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this, but hopefully that's just front ended and 

we can work together either through ACA or NOP or 

NMRO to get a comprehensive list and hopefully some 

resources on how best to determine commercial 

availability so that we are all on the same page 

and do this consistently.

But I think as has been said, it's a 

good middle ground for now, and I felt comfortable 

hearing from some of our public commenters who while 

maybe not ecstatic about exactly how this is written 

could move forward.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: I just want to put in the 

public record, as the writer of this, that I wish 

that we didn't have to use the GMO vaccines or the 

genetically engineered vaccines. But -- and I 

really hope that there's no other aspects of organic 

production that will be pushed into this situation 

where we have no other choice than to use the 

genetically engineered.

So that's -- I don't know where else 

that might be, but I'm just putting that on the 
229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

public record that this was not really what I don't 

think the main organic community really wants is 

to be using them. But we really don't have any 

choice.

And for animal welfare and food 

production, we really need to have them in the 

commercially available category.

MS. BAIRD: Any other comments?

I just want to go on record as agreeing 

with what everybody says. We inherently hate GMOs. 

But we also are mandated to put our livestock 

outdoors, and when we do that, we inherently put 

them at risk for diseases.

And I am certainly going to support the 

commercial availability. I think it is a great 

first step in being able to move to -- and a 

statement that we said, you know, if there's 

something out there, then let's do our due diligence 

and find it.

So yes, Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: While, there could be 

some diseases and health issues that are caused 
230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

by being outdoors, there are benefits to it, as 

well. And so I just -- I wouldn't have a carte 

blanche that being outdoors means that we need lots 

and lots of vaccines and all indoor poultry don't 

need vaccines because they're indoors.

So I think it's --

MS. BAIRD: Right.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- here and there, you 

know, various different issues are dealt with 

differently.

MS. BAIRD: Agreed. Thank you.

Any others?

All right. Then I think it's time to 

call for a vote. And I'm -- oh, yes?

MR. MORTENSEN: To be perfectly clear,

because I'm a little confused still. So number 

three on Page 194 of 230 reads, allow vaccines from 

excluded methods but only if the vaccine is not 

commercially available and had not been produced 

from excluded methods to effectively treat the 

health issue.

So (e) on the last page, which is what 
231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we're voting on, is three on that page. Is that 

correct? 

CHAIR BEHAR: We tried to provide the 

actual regulatory language that we would like to 

see changed.

MR. MORTENSEN: Because I guess I asked 

that question, one, for clarity, but also two, 

because what just was discussed was drilling into 

greater detail than what is revealed in (e), like 

quality and in this locale and the things like that.

I just am curious how precise the 

wording needs to be.

CHAIR BEHAR: There is a definition in 

the rule on commercially available which 

specifically says form, function, and quality.

MS. BAIRD: Right. 

CHAIR BEHAR: And quantity.

MS. SWAFFAR: So just under that, at 

the end or at the bottom of that page, the 

subcommittee talked about commercial availability, 

and --

MR. CHAPMAN: I'm going to jump in. 
232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

If you go back to the second page it has relevant 

areas of the rule, 205.2, terms defined in 

commercial availability, the ability to obtain 

production input in the appropriate form, quality, 

or quantity to fulfill an essential function of 

the system of organic production. And then it goes 

on talking about certifier review. 

But -- so that's already a section of 

the rule when we talk about the term commercially 

available.

MR. MORTENSEN: Okay.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you, Tom.

Any other discussion?

All right. So Harriet's going to read 

the motion. Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: I'm giving Sue sign 

language here.

Okay. We will be voting on the motion 

to change the USDA organic regulations at 

205.105(e), addition to the current rule noted in 

bold. I don't know how to say that.

But so the current rule is (e) excluded 
233

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

methods except for vaccines provided that -- bold 

-- vaccines produced through excluded methods may 

be used when an equivalent vaccine not produced 

through excluded methods is not commercially 

available, period.

MS. BAIRD: Okay --

(Simultaneous speaking.) 

CHAIR BEHAR: -- the motion in 

subcommittee was by Harriet and seconded by Ashley.

MS. BAIRD: Right. All right. Do you 

want to call the vote?

CHAIR BEHAR: So I believe we're 

starting with Dan.

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

DR. BRADMAN: Yes.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Yes.

MR. RICE: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: Abstain.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.
234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yes.

MS. de LIMA: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes yes.

MR. RICE: We had 12 yeses, 1 

abstention, 1 absent, the motion passes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Sue, it's back to you.

MS. BAIRD: All right. 

The next -- we will move on to sunsets, 

and our first sunset will be the motion to remove 

atropine.

Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Devon, do you have to read 

something?

MR. PATTILLO: Yeah.

MS. BAIRD: Is that correct, Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Devon is going to read it 

into the record.

MS. BAIRD: Yes, Dan -- Devon will read 

it. But -- yes.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Sue.

We're now moving to substances in 
235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Section 205.603 of the National List which includes 

synthetic substances allowed for use in organic 

livestock production and the first listing is 

205.603(a)(3) atropine, CAS number 51-55-8.

Federal law restricts this drug to use 

by or on the lawful written or oral order of a 

licensed veterinarian in full compliance with 

AMDUCA in 21 7 -- 21 C.F.R. part 530 of the Food 

and Drug Administration regulations.

Also for use under 7 C.F.R. part 205, 

the NOP requires use by or on the lawful written 

order of a licensed veterinarian and, two, a meat 

withdrawal period of at least 56 days after 

administering to livestock intended for slaughter 

and a milk discard period of at least 12 days after 

administering to dairy animals.

DR. SEITZ: So this substance has been 

on the list as an allowed substance since 2002. 

It -- we received about a half dozen comments in 

favor of relisting.

Commenters stated that it's not widely 

used but it is an essential substance.
236

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It's commonly administered as a 

pretreatment for anesthesia during surgical 

procedures, and it also is used to reverse the 

effects of organophosphate poisoning.

When used during surgical procedures, 

it's administered to reduce the secretions of sweat 

and saliva reducing the risk of airway obstruction.

Sorry. I should have read that more 

into the microphone. So anyway, the -- that's it. 

Any questions?

MS. BAIRD: Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: Taking another trip down 

memory lane, this material was put on the National 

List when we had a veterinarian on the NOSB and 

numerous of the materials that we're going to be 

looking at were put on by Dr. Hugh Karreman who 

is still -- I don't think he's doing much practice 

of veterinary because he is now an organic dairy 

farmer in Virginia or --

MS. BAIRD: Yeah.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- Maryland or 

somewhere, Carolina, somewhere in mid-Atlantic.
237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So just thought to let you know that 

this was put on the National List by a vet who is 

very active with organic livestock.

MS. BAIRD: Any other comments?

All right. So Dan, you want to read 

the motion?

I'll read the motion. She read the 

motion last time. I thought I -- okay. One of the 

two of us will read this motion.

The motion is to remove atropine from 

205.603(a) based on the following criteria which 

is the OFPA and 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b). Okay.

Call to vote. Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: We start with Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Didn't I start last 

time, or not? No? Okay. No. 

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: NO.
238

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent, the 

motion --

MS. SWAFFAR: Point of order, Tom was 

absent.

MR. RICE: Thank you for 

clarification.

That is 12 no, 1 -- 2 absent, the motion 

fails.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Moving on, the next 

motion will be to remove hydrogen peroxide. Devon?

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks.

We're still in Section 205.603(a), and 

the listing is hydrogen peroxide.

MS. BAIRD: And that is Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Hydrogen peroxide is used 

as a readily available disinfectant and broad 

spectrum germicide.
239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It is an important cleaning agent for 

use as -- on contact surfaces such as equipment, 

calf pails, bottles, and utensils.

The material is used to clean wounds 

and was first registered with the EPA in 1977. 

During the spring, NOSB reviewed -- the 

Livestock Committee received comments in favor of 

relisting hydrogen peroxide and no comments against 

relisting.

One commenter stated hydrogen peroxide 

is one of the most widely used hard surface 

sanitizers and is generally recognized as safe as 

an antimicrobial agent and for other purposes by 

the FDA.

Unlike many alternatives available to 

organic producers, it is an excellent choice as 

it readily degrades to oxygen and water leaving 

no residue.

Are there any questions?

MS. BAIRD: Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: I imagine you received 

many public comments in support of this material?
240

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BUIE: All in support.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yeah. I see it used a 

lot on livestock operations.

MS. BAIRD: Absolutely.

Any other comments? All right. 

Harriet?

Motion is to remove hydrogen peroxide 

from 205-603(a) based on the following criteria 

in OFPA and 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b). Motion was made 

by Jesse, seconded by Ashley.

We're ready to call it to vote.

CHAIR BEHAR: We will start the voting 

with Asa.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.
241

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent, the 

motion fails.

MS. BAIRD: All right. Next up on the 

agenda is a motion to remove iodine. Devon?

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks.

Iodine is listed twice in 205.603, once 

in Section (a) as sanitize -- as disinfectant, 

sanitizer, and medical treatments as applicable, 

and also in Section (b) as topical treatment, 

external parasiticide, or local anesthetic as 

applicable.

I believe we're covering these 

separately.

MS. BAIRD: Yeah. We're voting 

separately.

MR. PATTILLO: First one's the listing 

--

MS. BAIRD: So --
242

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. PATTILLO: -- in 603(a) as iodine.

MS. BAIRD: Right.

So this is Ashley's.

MS. SWAFFAR: So we vote separately, 

but the discussion is the same for both, if that's 

all right with everyone.

So iodine has excellent antimicrobial 

qualities and is widely used in organic livestock 

production as a tropical -- topical treatment, 

disinfectant, and antimicrobial. It is especially 

used as a teat dip in both premilking and 

postmilking.

While a clean barn and a clean milking 

parlor and clean cows are a vital aspect of organic 

milk production system, barns are not sterile 

environments, and these antimicrobial teat dips 

are used in pre- and post-milking are vital 

preventative healthcare products.

And there are many teat dips available 

commercially and iodine-based teat dips are the 

most commonly used in organic livestock production. 

We heard from several farmers that said iodine 
243

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is an essential part of preventative healthcare 

in milk quality.

We did hear from several consumer 

groups that have requested that we look at doing 

an annotation on iodine to limit it to only those 

without NPE.

And so we talked about that a little 

bit at the subcommittee level after the spring 

meeting, and we kind of said, hey, we really kind 

of want to hear some more info from the public on 

that before we ask for that as a work agenda item.

And as you may have noticed, I asked 

-- tried to ask that in several of the dairy farmers 

that came up. And so we'll take all of that under 

consideration and talk about it at the subcommittee 

level on if we'll proceed with that work agenda 

request, but looks favorable.

Any questions?

MS. BAIRD: Yeah. Thank you, Ashley. 

And I think if your comment is pertinent to (a) 

and not (b) you need to say that, otherwise we'll 

take comments on both together.
244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: AS an organic inspector 

in dairy country, when I -- somebody -- if I get 

a file in the mail that I'm supposed to go inspect 

or receive where I can smell it from across the 

room. It smells like iodine, not that that's 

anything, but it's always -- it's heavily used. 

Let's put it that way. It gets into the paperwork.

MS. BAIRD: I just -- I want to say food 

safety demands somatic cell count to be low in 

quality of milk and that could be correlated very 

closely with the use of iodine as teat dips. I 

think it's a food safety issue.

Yes, Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Iodine is readily 

available and fairly inexpensive, but it can be 

somewhat hard on the skin of that tender skin of 

the udder.

And so we do have other options, too, 

for farmers who prefer not to use iodine. And I 

do know some who don't use iodine at all. They 

might use glycerine or other items to keep their 
245

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

animals -- the teats from having bacteria go up 

into the udder.

MS. BAIRD: And I've seen them in 

combination as well. Any other comments?

All right. The motion is to remove 

iodine from 205.603(a) -- we're going to vote on 

each one separately -- based on the following 

criteria in the OFPA and 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b).

CHAIR BEHAR: We start the voting with 

Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.
246

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: Thirteen no, one absent, the 

motion fails.

MS. BAIRD: We will do a motion to 

remove iodine from 205.603(b) based on the criteria 

of OFPA and 205.600(b).

So call the vote, please.

CHAIR BEHAR: Voting begins with 

Scott.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No

MR. GREENWOOD: NO.

MS. SWAFFAR: No

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.
247

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: That's thirteen no, one 

absent, the motion fails.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you.

The next item up is a motion to remove 

magnesium sulfate from 205.603(a). Devon?

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks.

At Section 205.603(a), the listing is 

magnesium sulfate.

MS. BAIRD: Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: Okay. For my last sunset 

ever, magnesium sulfate, it acts as a laxative, 

brochodilator, electrolyte replacement aid with 

hypoglycemia and may be used to treat cardiac 

arrythmias.

Magnesium sulfate can be added to 

livestock feed to treat conditions stemming from 

a magnesium deficiency. Lactation tetany or grass 

tetany occurs when ruminants graze on grasses low

in magnesium or suffer from a low level of magnesium 

in their diet.

Magnesium sulfate as Epsom salts can 

be used to treat inflammation and abscesses in 
248

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

livestock by soaking the affected area in a mixture 

containing Epsom salts and water to reduce the signs 

of inflammation.

We did receive comment from many dairy 

producers and the one -- just one of the comments 

is it's -- they had said was it's important for 

cows that are actually out on grass because they 

can be susceptible to the magnesium deficiency, 

and so they feel that it's a critical item for their 

cows and broad support for relisting of this.

Any questions?

MS. BAIRD: Discussion?

Motion is to remove magnesium sulfates 

205.603 based on the following criteria OFPA and 

205.600 (b). Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: Voting will begin with 

Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.
249

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's thirteen no, one 

absent, the motion fails.

MR. RICE: Okay. The next item up is 

fenbendazole. Devon?

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks. At Section 

205.603(a)(23), the listing is fenbendazole, CAS 

number 43210-67-9, milk or milk products from a 

treated animal cannot be labeled as provided for 

in subpart D of this part for two days following 

treatment of cattle, 36 days following treatment 

of goats, sheep, and other dairy species.

MS. BAIRD: That's my item, my topic.

So fenbendazole is a type of 

parasiticide that is listed as anthomanic. 
250

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Absolutely used to evacuate parasitic intestinal 

worms from internal organs.

The original petition was received in 

March 23, 2007 and it was added in 2012. They 

completed a new technical review in '15 and it was 

voted as renewed 3/15/17.

At that time, NOSB unanimously 

recommended to lessen the withdrawal time after 

the application of fenbendazole and additionally 

to use it -- to add the use of it for fiber animals.

That was voted on and NOP responded to 

that and published the recommendation and the 

annotation. That new annotation is effective 

January 29, 2019.

This is -- EU, Japan, Codex 

Alimentarius Commission does not allow, as we 

don't, the regular use of parasiticides, but they 

all recognize the -- and allow the use as long as 

there is documentation. They have a doubling of 

withdrawal times.

We've heard overwhelmingly support for 

relisting this. There were a couple of comments 
251

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

-- public comments that we -- because the withdrawal 

time has now been lessened significantly they would 

urge NOP to move forward on the adoption of the 

emergency treatment which states, and I just wrote 

it down so I could read it, emergency treatment 

for parasiticide control in breeding, dairy, and 

fiber bearing animals and urgent non-routine 

solution in which the organic system plan 

preventative measures and veterinary biologics are 

proven by laboratory analyses or visual inspection 

to be inadequate to prevent life-threatening 

illness or to alleviate pain and suffering.

Haven't heard anybody that says that 

they don't -- I got no negative comments on this. 

Any comments?

CHAIR BEHAR: Just to make it clear 

that when -- at last sunset, this was not approved 

for poultry and the approval for poultry just came 

--

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- up.

MS. BAIRD: We're not introducing 
252

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

poultry at this time.

CHAIR BEHAR: No, I know. 

MS. BAIRD: Yeah.

CHAIR BEHAR: I'm just pointing out why 

it's not -- why poultry is not listed there.

MS. BAIRD: Any other comments? Yes, 

Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: One of the concerns 

that I have -- and this -- admittedly this is not 

my area, but when we're talking about concerns about 

the use of chlorine, you know, we're into some 

pretty, pretty highly synthetic and very strong 

compounds here, obviously, if it's going to 

evacuate the system of a mammal.

And so it concerns me, and I know this 

is not the application that the fellow was speaking 

about that was describing the threshold-based IPM 

treatment trigger.

But it's not clear to me here. How is 

it being determined that the organic system plan 

that was approved for preventive management is not 

preventing the infestation? How is that done? 
253

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Could someone answer that?

MS. BAIRD: Ashley? Oh, Scott. I'm 

sorry.

MR. RICE: You're asking how the 

preventive practice is evaluated?

MR. MORTENSEN: No. Actually what I'm 

asking about is this reference in the very first 

paragraph. It says parasiticides are prohibited 

and blah, blah, blah when an organic system plan 

that was approved for preventive management does 

not prevent infestation.

How is that determination made that the 

system plan didn't prevent infestation?

MR. RICE: I think it's -- I mean, 

you're essentially addressing the preventive plan 

that is in place and documented in the organic 

system plan. So it would be looking at records 

of, for instance if pasture rotation would have 

helped in this and any other measures that the 

producer could have undertaken.

MR. MORTENSEN: But then -- and then 

after that's done, Scott, what I'm meaning to ask, 
254

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and probably not very clearly, who's determining 

that fenbendazole is now the solution to the 

problem?

MR. RICE: I see an eager answer.

MS. BAIRD: Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: I'm sorry. There will 

be an inspection. There will be a discussion at 

the inspection, what are the parasites that you're 

having, are you aware of their life cycle, their 

reproductive capabilities and then talk with the 

producer.

So they -- let's say it's a rule that 

if you don't pasture an area for 30 days then all 

the larvae are gone, but they will take back in 

every 15 days, well then, those preventative 

measures are not being done.

So it's really a conversation with --

between the inspector and the farmer with the 

certifier overseeing what's in the plan and then 

the report from the inspector of what they heard 

and then the certifier makes the determination if 

the preventative measures are sufficient.
255

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And there are times when the certifier 

will say, to prevent this infestation so you don't 

have to keep using the parasiticides you need to 

lengthen your rotation times on your pastures or 

allow the pastures to get taller so the animals 

are not eating down at ground level, depending what 

kind of animal, because sheep always eat down at 

ground level but cows would prefer not to.

MR. MORTENSEN: And do we have a sense 

for how evenly across the certifier body the 

determination would be made?

What I'm getting at obviously is, you 

know, you could be pretty loose and free with this 

or you could be very conservative in the way it's 

prescribed.

I recognize you don't want to be 

evacuating animals if you don't have to, but I also 

could see this based on the range of farmer 

attitudes of farmers that I've interacted with 

where you could have folks that would be -- want 

to be very conservative in the administration of 

such a treatment and those that would be much less 
256

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

so.

MS. BAIRD: Ashley, then Scott next, 

and then I want to respond after that.

MS. SWAFFAR: So people have to do a 

physical and biological control before you use a 

synthetic like a chemical control. So that's your 

first and foremost and that's part of your organic 

system plan.

And then I think the big piece that you 

probably are wanting to know is what triggers an 

emergency to actually let someone use this. And 

that's a document that we worked on -- was that 

last year or the year before? Yeah, just before 

you came on the Board we put a document forward 

that defined what an emergency is. And the Program 

has yet to put that out there.

MR. MORTENSEN: Okay.

MS. SWAFFAR: So we -- you know, we 

heard that the last time that fenbendazole came 

through, which we were on the Board for that. And 

so you know, we carried that work forward because 

there was concern that people were overusing that 
257

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

term emergency, so we wanted to do that, so put 

that forward.

So there are controls in place that are 

coming, but you know, first and foremost, you rely 

on that certifier when they're reviewing that 

organic system plan to make sure that physical and 

biological controls are used first.

MR. MORTENSEN: Okay.

MS. SWAFFAR: Before a chemical.

MR. MORTENSEN: Okay.

MS. SWAFFAR: So.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thanks, Ashley.

MS. BAIRD: Scott?

MR. RICE: And just a quick 

clarification on -- we -- as a certifier, we 

wouldn't tell the producer what they can do. We 

would ask them to give us a plan for how they will 

successfully address the issue.

MS. BAIRD: And then I want to respond, 

then Harriet.

As a beef producer, the need for any 

of these parasiticides are really, really dependent 
258

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on the species of animal. Beef animals I've got 

a full rotation plan. I very seldomly ever have 

to use it.

But a sheep or goat, they die within 

a day or two. They get full of worms and they're 

going to die.

So it's -- first of all, it's dependent 

on the species of animal, and it -- as Scott said, 

you have to outline in your system plan. I know 

from past history that -- and from the biology of 

the worm, I know that every 30 days I've got to 

get those animals off of there, give those time 

for the larvae to die.

And then there are tools that you can 

use and they described that for poultry, but it's 

the same for sheep or for cows. They -- you take 

a fecal sample, you float those -- you see the 

ovocytes of the worms. And you've got a certain 

established number that you would tolerate. And 

it's back to that, you establish toleration. I 

don't -- Scott doesn't tell me. I say, you know, 

I can tolerate -- my beef cow can tolerate pretty 
259

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

high loads, so I'm going to let it develop its own. 

But if it was a sheep, I would say, man, I'm going 

to get rid of these worms or it's going to die 

because they will. They just turn up their feet 

and die.

So it's all based on the system plan. 

It's based on science and -- you know, they do. 

I mean, they just die. They like to die sometimes, 

I think, especially in wet climates. And it's also 

based on the climate you're in.

We -- I talked to friends in Colorado 

because it's a high desert. They don't have the 

worm issues, the parasite issues up there for their 

sheep as we do in Missouri. You can't -- I mean, 

you just have to have it. But it is all based on 

a plan that you propose to your certifier. They 

review it and then the inspector verifies it.

And Scott you had a -- did you have 

something? I thought there was one other hand I 

saw. Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: As an organic inspector 

who inspects goats, sheep, and dairy cows, since 
260

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this has -- the days have lessened, and of course 

this is just anecdotal. I have not seen increased 

use.

MS. BAIRD: As with any drug, we're 

here to take care of our animals, but we certainly

don't want to put any more money into giving them 

drugs that they don't need.

There's just -- I mean, if for no other 

reason, for economical issues, not just because 

we love our animals. And I do. Any other comments?

Okay. I think we're ready to call it

to vote. 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 two 

days following treatment of cattle, 36 days 

following treatment of goats, sheep, and other 

dairy species. Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: We'll start the voting 

with Jesse.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: NO.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.
261

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's thirteen no, one 

absent, the motion fails.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you, guys.

That -- I appreciate that discussion. 

That was fun. The next one is the motion to remove 

moxidectin.

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Sue.

Continuing Section 205.603(a)(23), the 

listing is moxidectin, CAS number 113507-06-5, milk 

or milk products from a treated animal cannot be 

labeled as provided for in subpart D of this part 

for two days following treatment of cattle, 36 days 
262

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

following treatment of goats, sheep, and other 

dairy species.

MS. BAIRD: All right. This one also 

is my material.

Moxidectin was reviewed at the same 

time as fenbendazole. It actually -- it was pulled 

back by NOP which said that moxidectin not only 

is anthomantic but it also is effective against 

arthropod parasites using antibiotic method.

Subsequent with that, a lot of public 

comment stating that this was not used in an 

antibiotic function and NOP studied those public 

comments and agreed, so it was listed in 2012.

Moxidectin has been shown to be very 

benign. In fact, of the three, which would be, 

the other third was ivermectin, which was pulled 

off, for dung beetles in the soil, moxidectin is 

the most benign. It peaks in two days in the feces 

after treatment, decreases to less than 10 parts 

per billion by 36 or 37 days, addressed by the same 

annotations as is fenbendazole.

So, discussion. Harriet?
263

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: So these two 

parasiticides were put on the list to offer 

parasiticides to organic producers but also to be 

able to remove ivermectin which has very negative 

effects on dung beetles out in the pastures.

And we need both parasiticides, and I 

can't -- I think fenbendazole doesn't work for hogs. 

I can't remember which one is -- no, maybe it's 

moxidectin. One of them doesn't work -- you can't 

use on swine.

MS. BAIRD: I think it's the fact that 

the parasites build a resistance, so you have to 

keep them -- you need both. You need a rotation 

of your parasiticides. Ashley?

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah, this is prohibited 

in slaughter stock, just saying. So you wouldn't 

be using them in swine.

MS. BAIRD: Yeah.

CHAIR BEHAR: They usually give it to 

the brood sows before gestation.

MS. BAIRD: Any other discussion?

Okay. Call the vote. Moxidectin, the 
264

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

motion was to remove moxidectin from 205.603(a). 

There it is. And so Harriet, call the vote.

CHAIR BEHAR: We're starting with you, 

Sue.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: NO.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: It's thirteen no, one 

absent, the motion fails.

MS. BAIRD: Next substance coming 

forth is peracetic acid, peroxyacetic peracetic 

acid.
265

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks, Sue.

In Section 205.603(a)(24), the listing 

is peroxyacetic/peracetic acid, CAS number 79-21-0 

for sanitizing facility and processing equipment.

MS. BAIRD: This is Jesse's.

MR. BUIE: According to the TR line 88, 

peracetic acid is listed for the use in organic 

livestock production for sanitizing facility and 

processing equipment.

This is consistent with the substance's 

primary use in food industry as a bactericide, 

fungicide, and for sanitizing and disinfecting 

structures, equipment, and hard surfaces.

During the spring 2019 NOSB, the 

Livestock Committee received comments in favor of 

relisting peracetic acid and no comments against 

relisting.

The NOSB previously reviewed peracetic 

acid as a disinfectant, sanitizer, and medical 

treatment in accordance with 205.603. Peracetic 

acid is recommended for relisting based on the 

available 2000 Technical Advisory Panel.
266

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The technical review of March 2016, the 

unanimous NOSB 2017 support of this material, and 

the lack of new scientific or meritorious 

information.

The NOSB reviewed few materials for use 

in barns, stalls, stables, and milking parlors, 

leaving relatively few options for producers. Are 

there any questions?

MS. BAIRD: Any discussion?

Seeing none, we're going to move a 

motion to remove peracetic acid from 205.603(a) 

based on the following criteria which is OFPA and 

7 C.F.R. 205.600(b). Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. The roulette 

wheel has ended up on Rick Greenwood.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.
267

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's thirteen no, one 

absent, the motion fails.

MS. BAIRD: Next substance is 

xylazine. Dan? So Devon?

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks. At Section 

205.603, the listing is xylazine. Federal law --

sorry, CAS number 7361-61-7.

Federal law restricts this drug to use 

by or on a lawful written or oral order of a licensed 

veterinarian in full compliance with AMDUCA and 

21 C.F.R. Part 530 of the Food and Drug 

Administration regulations. Also for use under 

7 C.F.R. Part 205, the NOP requires use by or on 

the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian 

and a meat withdrawal period of at least eight days 

after administering to livestock intended for 
268

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

slaughter, and a milk discard period of at least 

four days after administering to dairy animals.

MS. BAIRD: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: So the motion is to remove 

xylazine from Section 206.603(a) based on the 

following criteria in the Organic Foods Production 

Act and/or -- well, and/or 7 C.F.R. 205.605(b) if 

applicable.

So xylazine is used as a sedative, 

analgesic, and muscle relaxant in veterinary 

medicine.

As a medical treatment, it can be 

administered intravenously, intramuscularly, 

subcutaneously, or orally, usually as a water-based 

injectable solution.

Let's see. Xylazine's sedative 

properties are due to its depressant mode of action 

or nervous system synaptic receptors. Sedation 

of animals is necessary for both planned medical 

procedures and emergency procedures to prevent pain 

and suffering of animals as well as injury to 

veterinarians performing the procedures.
269

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Xylazine is commonly used in 

conjunction with tolazoline, which is a reversal 

agent for a sedative such a xylazine And 

tolazoline is also listed as on the National List 

and it's been I think listed with us -- with the 

NOSB since about 2000.

We received about a half dozen comments 

in support and the comments said that it was a 

critical substance to have available for 

veterinarians.

And there was one comment opposed to 

the relisting that stated that the FDA does not 

allow the use of xylazine in domestic food producing 

animals. And I did find a regulation, an FDA 

regulation that does indeed say that.

So we're in this somewhat awkward 

situation where one agency is saying that that can't 

be used for food producing animals.

It can be toxic to human beings if not 

administered correctly. And there are no 

effective natural non-synthetic alternatives 

available. Any questions?
270

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: I -- yeah, that's an 

interesting situation that we're in. And we've 

been in it before that we've approved something 

and then turned out by FDA that it's not allowed.

That's something I think that we need 

to address at a later point perhaps. Any other 

comments on that?

CHAIR BEHAR: I think it's allowed if 

a veterinarian --

MS. BAIRD: Dan's saying that he found 

a paper that it was not allowed for food -- for 

slaughter animals at all.

DR. SEITZ: Limitations: do not use in 

domestic food producing animals and do not use in 

cervidae less than 15 days before/during the 

hunting season. And also it specifically says do 

not use for horses that are going to be used for 

human consumption. 

MS. BAIRD: Horses are used for human 

consumption in a lot of countries, and indeed, some 

do here in United States. That's not --

DR. SEITZ: Sure. No, no, I -- no, I 
271

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

-- I'm just saying that that's what the regulation 

says. Yes. Right.

MS. BAIRD: Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: I'm going to -- I seem 

to remember -- I mean, we go through these materials 

months and months ago, but I think we did talk to 

the Program about this. 

And so I don't know if -- and I think 

Devon clarified that it was -- is that ringing a 

bell for -- I see Ashley kind of shaking her head 

yes.

MS. BAIRD: I -- yeah, I thought that 

--

CHAIR BEHAR: So I'm going to put Devon 

on the spot and see if he remembers anything about 

it.

MR. PATTILLO: Is it -- sorry, can you 

repeat, does the question have to do with what 

animals xylazine --

DR. SEITZ: No, no, just that -- the 

question of whether there's a different -- a federal 

regulation from the FDA that somehow is --
272

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

complicates our approval because they have a 

limitation on it, on -- for meat producing animals.

I mean, I'm with Sue that we should 

probably just approve it and then see down the road 

if there's some issue there that needs to be 

addressed.

MS. BAIRD: I thought we found out that 

it was allowed.

DR. SEITZ: Yeah.

MS. BAIRD: Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: Give me just a second. 

I'm pulling up the link.

MR. MORTENSEN: I guess I would just 

say I'm not with Sue. If that's not clear, that 

needs to be clear in my opinion before we --

MS. BAIRD: I thought that we did --

because this did come up during the discussion, 

and I thought that we traced back that end citation. 

We found out that it was allowed.

But Devon, do we have some background 

on that? I know you do because you were the one 

who found it.
273

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SWAFFAR: Devon, you sent us an 

email on July 24th at 9:34 a.m.

(Laughter.) 

MR. PATTILLO: There we go. I stand 

by that.

(Laughter.) 

MS. BAIRD: Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: I'm pulling it up to see 

what it -- it talked about extra-label --

MR. PATTILLO: Extra-label drug use.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah. Sorry, I got --

CHAIR BEHAR: Around what date was 

that, Ashley, so I could try to find it?

MR. PATTILLO: I mean, usually if --

MS. SWAFFAR: July 24th, 9:34 a.m. 

Central.

(Simultaneous speaking.) 

CHAIR BEHAR: See, we hold on to all the 

emails, Devon.

MR. PATTILLO: I know. That's good. 

Better than my memory, apparently.

Yeah, in many cases, I mean, the FDA 
274

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

provides for extra-label use of approved drugs, 

which means that if a certain animal is not included 

on a label, it could still be used in some cases.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah. So I'm in the 

FARAD database here. And xylazine meat withdrawal 

time is four days, and our annotation is eight days, 

which is doubling.

The milk withdrawal time is 24 hours, 

and our milk discard time is 4 days. That's not 

fair to them, but it's more -- it's four times what 

they say is the withdrawal time.

MS. BAIRD: So are you clarifying that 

it is allowed for slaughter animals as long as 

there's the withdrawal?

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah. On FARAD on the 

lookup for xylazine, it says meat withdrawal is 

four days.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Harriet?

CHAIR BEHAR: Without that we're 

restricting it to a veterinarian --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. BAIRD: Absolutely, yes.
275

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR BEHAR: -- is going to I think 

-- then the onus is somewhat on them to be up to 

date on the laws as Devon said in certain 

circumstances and those veterinarians should know 

what those are. We're not just an 

over-the-counter, you know, go down to your local 

feed mill, buy it, and use it.

DR. SEITZ: Yeah, I would say that's 

a good point. So if there is a prohibition, the 

veterinarian should know of it and abide by it.

MS. BAIRD: Any other discussion?

Okay. I think we'll go to move for --

to vote -- motion to remove xylazine from 205.603(a) 

based on the following criteria OFPA and/or 7 C.F.R. 

205.600(b).

Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: We start the 

merry-go-round with Ashley one more time.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.
276

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: Abstain.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's twelve no, one 

abstain, one absent, the motion fails.

MS. BAIRD: The next material is 

DL-methionine. Devon?

MR. PATTILLO: Thanks.

At Section 205.603(d), the listing is 

DL-methionine, DL-methionine-hydroxy analog and 

DL-methionine-hydroxy analog calcium, CAS numbers 

59-51-8, 583-91-5, 4857-44-7, and 922-50-9 for use 

only in organic poultry production at the following 

pounds of synthetic 100 percent methionine per ton 

of feed in the diet, maximum rates as averaged per 

ton of feed over the life of the flock, laying 
277

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

chickens 2 pounds, broiler chickens 2.5 pounds, 

turkeys and all other poultry, 3 pounds.

MS. BAIRD: This is Harriet's.

CHAIR BEHAR: So if you would count how 

many in the public comments this would have been 

commented on the most in this docket. Of course, 

many of those were somewhat of a form letter against 

methionine.

There -- so there was some comments 

about -- from Organic Farming Research Foundation 

that there's research going on on high methionine 

crop varieties that maybe would help lessen the 

need for synthetic methionine.

And a lot of the comments that wanted 

to remove methionine from the National List stated 

that if animals go outside they don't need 

methionine. And that really is not true.

It is true that the synthetic 

methionine lessens the concentration in ammonia 

in the houses because the protein received from 

natural sources is not in the right amino acid 

percentages, so some of that protein bypasses the 
278

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

digestive system and ends up in the fecal matter 

and then causes high ammonia.

So by adding the extra synthetic 

methionine, you can have a better balance of amino 

acids from natural sources and not throw off that 

balance.

Outside access, bugs, grass, dirt, does 

not provide methionine in significant quantities 

to then do the essential aspects of methionine 

intake does for poultry which is improved feather 

cover, good -- you know, good and stable growth, 

and with chickens they really -- if they see bare 

skin, they start pecking at it.

And so if a bird is not feathered well, 

you're going to have cannibalism and have you ever 

heard the phrase pecking order? And you don't want 

to be at the bottom of it.

That's what happens in a flock of 

chickens is those ones that have poor feathering 

are really -- if they can survive, and many of them 

don't. And there's nothing worse than watching 

that.
279

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And they're not doing it out of -- you 

know, they're not bullies. It's just kind of part 

of their DNA to go after bare skin and especially 

red.

There's challenges. Ashley has 

pointed out that most of our chickens don't have 

year-round access to insects outside to be able 

to get that methionine while black soldier fly larva 

-- no, black soldier fly beetle larva is promising 

in order to fill -- feed the -- what did Ashley 

say, 16.5 million birds. That's a lot of black 

soldier fly beetle larvae and we definitely are 

not ramped up to produce that.

We really need to be providing our 

poultry balanced rations both for the health of 

the poultry and for the economic viability of our 

poultry producers, especially the egg producers 

if they don't get, you know, 90, 95 percent lay, 

that expensive chicken feed is an economic hardship 

to buy. So they need to keep up the lay and having 

a high lay in an egg flock, it doesn't hurt the 

chickens at all.
280

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Let's see. So for both the bird health 

and welfare standpoint and for environmental risks 

like the high ammonia in the chicken houses, it's 

important to retain this level of methionine as 

written in there for the various types of poultry, 

laying hens, boiler hens, turkeys, and all other 

poultry, at those levels.

If you remember, I asked my chicken feed 

supplier -- everybody knows Ernie -- if he was 

offering laying rations so the flocks would be able 

to follow the rule because we changed it to not 

just so much per ton but so much per ton over the 

life of the bird.

And he stated that he is doing that. 

So he will be able to offer that because they need 

higher methionine when they're young and growing, 

and at peak production, and then when they're 

starting to get on the lower end of the curve there, 

they can use less. And then they'll be at this 

amount.

So I think this will be -- this -- I 

hear from the certifiers that everything is going 
281

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

well with the implementation of this. And as an 

inspector, I usually get there when the birds are 

young, so I don't see what their later rations are, 

but I'm being assured that the rations are 

available.

So with that, we can have a -- I guess 

one more thing. I would really love to see actual 

research on whether or not birds out on pasture 

really don't need methionine. And I have spent 

time looking for that because this is the opinion 

of the 10,000 people that said that in our public 

comment. 

But I've looked in European animal 

magazines and really tried to search for any 

research and proof that a bird that's even out in 

a hundred percent pasture would get enough 

methionine from -- without having that synthetic 

methionine in their ration. I just haven't seen 

it.

So I challenge the audience and the 

people who don't want the methionine to bring 

forward some research so we can really see that 
282

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

those assertions are true.

MS. BAIRD: Comment? Sure.

DR. BRADMAN: I have a --

MS. BAIRD: Asa?

DR. BRADMAN: -- question. I'm just 

trying to understand DL-methionine versus 

L-methionine.

Do we -- what -- is it -- because it 

was --

MS. BAIRD: D -- yeah.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. BAIRD: There's a DL and there's 

an L. Yeah. It's a different chemical 

formulation.

DR. BRADMAN: Both chimers, chimeras, 

or whatever, chimers are nutrient protein or is 

it just one form?

MS. BAIRD: We need a chemist. I think 

L is the natural form and DL-methionine is the 

synthetic form analog of L-methionine.

DR. BRADMAN: Okay. Okay. Because one 

thing that I'm kind of seeing in the literature 
283

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

with respect to this is that there is a lot of work 

out there trying to find natural sources of --

MS. BAIRD: Right.

DR. BRADMAN: -- methionine. There's 

also a lot of work going -- GMO work going on to 

try to create bacteria or other substrates or

perhaps even incorporate into plants genetics that 

will produce a higher methionine content in the 

feed.

But as far as I can tell, you know, 

that's down the road. And the main source is this 

chemically produced methionine as a synthetic 

protein.

MS. BAIRD: Right. Well, I have to say 

my mantra, which is that chickens are dinosaurs, 

that they're not a derivative or downline of 

dinosaurs. They are dinosaurs by DNA and they are 

omnivores, and they are inherently -- their 

inherent nature is to eat protein.

And you put a chicken out and let it 

find a mouse, you'll find how quickly -- they need 

protein. They need DL-methionine. They need 
284

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

methionine. That is their inherent genetic 

limiting factor.

And when we in our wisdom dictated that 

meat and bonemeals, which was the source of 

methionine in conventional -- when we said they 

would not allow meat and bonemeal to supply that 

methionine, we had to find another way to do it, 

and we've allowed DL-methionine, the chemical 

analog from that point on.

I remember Anne Fanatico, and I don't 

know if a lot of you remember her from ATTRA, which 

is the University of Arkansas, and she dedicated 

eons of time trying to find a natural form of 

methionine that would supply the sufficient amount 

of methionine.

The University of Arkansas has had 

grants to be able to do that. So this is not a 

new subject. It is, indeed, a health issue for 

the birds.

I -- Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: Thanks, Sue. You stole 

my thunder on one of my points.
285

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But yeah, so I just want to say that 

is the ultimate need of why we need synthetic 

DL-methionine is because we have birds that are 

now vegetarians that are never supposed to be 

vegetarians. And we can't supply the needs of the 

birds through cereal grain ration. So we have to 

supply them with methionine. Methionine is an 

essential amino acid, so it's a first or second 

limiting amino acid.

So if -- you know, if you take a cup 

and you only fill it up to partway, everything else 

only goes to that way. They'll never reach 

maturity, growth potential, feathering if you 

restrict the diet by not having that in there.

One, you know, talked about research 

and that you're wanting to see that birds on 

pasture, you know, do they or do they not need 

methionine. You know, I think if someone does that 

research study, it's important to realize that in 

the U.S. we have chickens in every state and there's 

a lot of states that are cold and there's no out.

You know, even if they are marketing 
286

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a pasture-raised bird with ample outdoor space, 

I mean, it's snowing, snowing in Texas today, you 

know. And so that outdoor access alone does not 

meet the needs of a diet.

And then Harriet, I want to take, you 

know, offense to one of the things you said in your 

thing, and it's -- you said it's about economics, 

and it's not about economics.

As all of you can tell, the poultry 

industry is a very passionate group and we just 

want to provide balanced diets to our birds, so 

it's not economics to that.

We want our birds to, you know, grow 

to their potential and, like you said, all the 

things you said, feather cover, and cannibalism 

is a real thing. And that's what -- I mean, it's 

bad if you get a flock that starts picking because 

they'll pick feathers when they're low on 

methionine. Feathers are a great source. They'll 

start picking them off of each other and start 

eating each other because they're -- you know, we 

forced them to be vegetarians in the organic world 
287

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and that's not the life they want to live, so.

MS. BAIRD: They will literally eat 

each other inside out. They have to have 

methionine. Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: I just want to clarify 

that our rule says that meat and poultry slaughter 

byproducts cannot be fed to meat animals and poultry 

-- organic. That's just the actual wording.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah.

CHAIR BEHAR: And so it's all organic 

livestock cannot receive any byproducts of other 

livestock.

And I just -- I guess the reason why 

I brought up the economics was because if you have 

a substandard flock, if you say, okay, you know, 

we're going to give our chickens a half an acre 

apiece and we're going to, you know, fill it up 

with chipmunks so they can catch, you know, meat 

or whatever, whatever your organic system might 

be to try to get it outside, I mean, that's really 

unrealistic and not economically viable to try to 

have an outside flock that could get -- possibly 
288

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

get enough methionine without any supplement.

MS. BAIRD: Yeah.

CHAIR BEHAR: And so you know, it 

doesn't -- it -- and if you don't -- if you have 

a substandard production flock, it means that they 

are unhealthy.

MS. BAIRD: Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: In several places in 

this document and in the research priorities and 

in a number of the more detailed public comments

that we received on the subject, there was an 

indication that breeds of poultry vary, I had the 

sense, largely in their methionine requirement, 

and that one cultural practice is breed selection.

Is that true, and are organic farmers 

using breeds that are low methionine requiring 

breeds?

MS. BAIRD: Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah, so chickens are 

chickens. Everybody has -- they all have the same 

requirements. It's just the days that it takes 

for grow-out. 
289

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So I mean, they're still taking the same 

amount. It's just over a longer time, you know.

MR. MORTENSEN: Well, I guess -- I 

mean, the comment is that chickens aren't chickens, 

that there are distinctions between breeds. So 

I'm --

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah, to -- for every 

pound of meat it takes the exact same amount of 

DL-methionine. It's just taking it over a longer 

period of time. So you're not getting any less 

with a slower growing bird. It's just eating it 

over a longer period of time.

And the one thing I want to say about 

breeds, that is a broiler statement more so than 

it is a layer statement. There are other breeds 

of broilers that are readily available in Europe 

that are not available in the U.S. And there are 

-- well, I'll say there are some available in the 

United States in the broiler layer.

On the layer level, we have right now 

four breeds, brown birds, in the United States. 

All their cousins are the same ones from Europe. 
290

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

They're all owned -- the genetic companies are 

actually European genetics. So I mean, all --

that's the same bird Europe and America on the layer 

level, so.

MR. MORTENSEN: I guess I will just say 

that I have a concern that we're -- by approving 

things like this -- and I see the argument for it, 

but by approving things like this, I think we're 

-- we run the risk of locking in to a system that 

will be very hard to break out of. 

I don't -- I really find it hard to see 

how, you know, we really explore alternatives when 

we have a pretty easy fix. I mean, Ernie's fix 

was pretty straightforward, just mix it in and sell 

the ration based on the life stage of the bird.

I don't see -- or I find it hard to 

believe or see how changes to other breeds, 

particularly -- particularly as the houses become 

bigger and bigger and the birds are in closer and 

closer proximity and all of this.

So it's a concern I have. I don't know 

what the answer is. Other than that by taking away 
291

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

incentives for change, we're I would say pushing 

toward a more strongly locked in system where it 

will be dependent on this for a much longer period 

of time.

MS. BAIRD: I'm sorry. I've got to 

respond. The Methionine Task Force has worked 

diligently from the beginning of time and put a 

lot of, lot of, grant monies into several different 

universities trying to find an alternative, and 

they continue to find -- try to find alternatives 

for providing synthetic methionine.

It's just that poultries are dinosaurs. 

And to your comment that laying breeds are 

Europeans, when I was in broilage, the same genetics 

go back and forth across the water. It's the same 

genetics.

So yeah, there are those breeds out 

there that may grow bigger, they may grow slower, 

some of them, I think, probably are more prone to 

going outdoors than others. Part of that is 

training, but we've got organic poultry producers 

who are deliberately doing every method that they 
292

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

can to get those birds outdoors such as Ashley was 

describing.

It's just like dairy animals. We don't 

put those dairy cows out there in Wisconsin and 

Pennsylvania out in the middle of feets of snow. 

And in Missouri it's pretty easy to leave them 

out year around. You don't put chickens out in 

feets of snow.

Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Dave, I have the cutest 

little flock of chickens you'd ever want to see. 

They're all heritage breeds. Takes them 20, 24 

weeks to start laying eggs, which is, you know, 

significantly longer. But then they last longer, 

too. And they need methionine. And I would like 

to call a question.

MS. BAIRD: Is there no more discussion 

then? Is that what you called? Okay. Then --

MR. CHAPMAN: No one seconded it, so 

we don't have to vote on it, but if people still 

want to talk, I'm going to second it, so.

MS. BAIRD: That was kind of strange 
293

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to me. I've never seen if people are talking that 

we can just --

MR. CHAPMAN: Call to question is to 

end debate, yeah. It's parliamentary procedure.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Is that how we do 

it, then?

MR. CHAPMAN: If we need to. But I 

mean, I think -- yeah, I think Harriet's point is, 

I'm not sure further discussion is changing 

people's minds.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. So then we're going 

to move on to motion. Okay.

MS. SWAFFAR: Point of order. There 

was not a second, officially.

MS. BAIRD: I'm sorry.

MR. CHAPMAN: Yeah, we'll go back to 

the primary motion without a second. Then we'll 

just vote on the subcommittee. Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: So Sue should read it and 

we're ready to go? So read the motion.

MS. BAIRD: Motion to remove 

DL-methionine, DL-methionine-hydroxy analog, and 
294

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DL-methionine-hydroxy analog calcium CAS #59-51-8, 

#583-91-5, #4857-44-7, and #922-50-9 from 205.603 

of the National List, based on OFPA and 7 C.F.R. 

205.600(b). Call to vote.

CHAIR BEHAR: We start the vote with 

Tom.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: Abstain.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That was 12 no, 1 

abstention, 1 absent, the motion fails.

MS. BAIRD: Our next material is trace 
295

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

minerals. Devon?

MR. PATTILLO: At Section 205.603(d), 

the listing is trace minerals used for enrichment 

or fortification when FDA approved.

MS. BAIRD: This is Scott's.

MR. RICE: Thanks. Minerals are 

required in animal nutrition for their vital roles 

in various metabolic, enzymatic, and biochemical 

reactions in the animal body. They may be provided 

through the intake of plant matter and feed stuffs, 

or through synthetic supplements.

When diet is insufficient to meet an 

animal's nutrient requirements, supplementation 

of minerals is typically done through the inclusion 

in the diet, either as an individual substance, 

or as part of a trace mineral premix.

In terms of manufacturer, this is a 

broad categorical listing. The manufacturer 

varies. In our 2019 TR, technical review from this 

-- earlier this year, descriptions of the common 

processes used to manufacture many of the trace 

minerals are detailed in that.
296

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Based on information presented in that 

TR, the hazards associated with the use of trace 

minerals are primarily associated with dust 

irritation of the skin and eyes.

We've received comments during the --

both review cycles from wide representation of the 

organic community supporting the continued use of 

this material, these materials, noting their 

essentiality of livestock health and welfare and 

their importance in offsetting seasonal variables 

in forage nutrition.

We did have some commenters noting that 

organic production should not be dependent on 

synthetic nutrients and that the current annotation 

is not restrictive enough to prevent reliance on 

them. These same commenters recommended adding 

an annotation, when foraged and available natural 

feeds are of poor quality.

According to the 2019 TR forages alone 

do not satisfy the minimal requirements of grazing 

cattle. And there is wide documentation of the 

need for these moving forward. Otherwise, 
297

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

comments were, again, in support of relisting this. 

Thank you.

MS. BAIRD: All right. Any comments? 

Discussion? Cool. All right.

So the motion has been made to remove 

trace minerals from 205.603 of National List based 

on the following criteria OFPA and 205.600(b). 

Call to vote.

CHAIR BEHAR: We start with Lisa.

MS. de LIMA: No.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: Chair votes no.
298

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: That was 13 no, 1 absent, 

the motion fails.

MS. BAIRD: The next material is 

vitamins. Devon?

MR. PATTILLO: At section 205.603(d), 

this listing is vitamins used for enrichment or 

fortification when FDA approved.

MS. BAIRD: All right. And this is 

mine.

The necessity for vitamins in livestock 

feeds are addressed in -- they're so important 

they're addressed in three different sections of 

the livestock regulation. 205.236(a)(2)(I) says 

that all agricultural materials must be agriculture 

except that synthetic substance allowed under 

205.603, and nonsynthetic substance not prohibited 

under 205.604 may be used as feed active and feed 

supplements except that -- okay.

And then 237, livestock feeds, says the 

producer of an organic livestock operation must 

provide livestock with the total feed ration 

composed of agricultural products, including 
299

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

pasture and foraged, that are organically produced 

and handled in operations certified to the NOP.

And 238, livestock health care 

practices says the producer must establish and 

maintain preventative livestock healthcare 

practices, including the provision of a feed ration 

sufficient to meet nutritional requirements 

including vitamins, minerals, proteins, and/or 

amino acids, fatty acids, energy sources, and 

fibers for ruminants.

So it has been dictated that the 

livestock operation must provide the nutritional 

needs of the livestock, including vitamins.

We heard -- there are 15 essential amino 

acids currently allowed for use in organic 

livestock production for fortification enrichment 

of the livestock feeds. With the scope of vitamin 

compounds being defined as required nutrients by 

the NRC, which is the National Resource Council 

nutrient requirements for cattle, sheep, swine, 

and poultry.

Dietary intake of these essential 
300

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

vitamins are essential for the health and wellbeing 

of the animal, including livestock, including 

people.

Most vitamins aid in metabolism of 

protein, carbohydrates and fats, while some vitamin 

compounds have important antioxidant properties. 

Common signs of vitamin deficiency include 

anorexia, poor growth, reduced feed efficiency, 

and in some cases, fatality.

No studies have been found indicating 

any kind of a toxic effect of vitamins in soil 

dwelling organisms, but it is noted that there are 

some during the process of making a vitamin that 

in this extraction process of vitamin compounds, 

that it might actually -- the acids and bases that 

are used could have some kind of ecological 

impairment if they were dumped in the soil. It 

was just kind of an aside.

There was a TR conducted in 2015 that 

stated that individual vitamin compounds are 

normally produced on an individual -- on an 

industrial scale by chemical synthesis or partial 
301

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

synthesis, but state there's increasing number of 

fermentation processes being developed for vitamin 

production.

And many recently developed 

fermentation methods for manufacturing vitamins 

utilized GMOs. And that was kind of an eye opener. 

We had been using vitamins for the beginning of 

organic production. There was a lot of discussion 

at that time knowing that vitamins are from a very 

limited source, with most of those sources being 

located in China and Indonesia.

According to this -- in response to this 

TR, NOP disbursed the guidance 5030 guidance 

evaluating allowed ingredients and sources of 

vitamins and minerals for organic livestock feed, 

which instructed certifiers to be diligent when 

reviewing their vitamins for presence of excluded 

methods. And OMRI, at that same time, issued a 

decision tree for determining.

In the guidance 5030, NOP specifically 

stated that vitamins and minerals identified as 

approved by FDA -- I'm not even going to read all 
302

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

those different citations -- are listed in the 

current edition of AAFCO, because that's where you 

go to find approved FDA vitamins, including metal 

amino acid chelates, metal amino acid complexes, 

and metal whatever that amino acid that is, that 

is tied to complexes that are permitted, with the 

following limitations. And this was the 

limitation they gave on that.

Proteinated metal sources, metal 

proteinates containing protein sources from 

slaughter byproducts or produced by excluded 

methods are not permitted when fed to poultry in 

minor.

So there was no must on it that said 

that vitamins had to be reviewed for GE presence. 

They -- but there was must that minerals had to 

be reviewed.

Accordingly, we've heard that -- from 

comments that the ACA has developed a working 

document and guidance stating that we're not --

based on NOP directive that we're not reviewing 

for vitamins using GEs and that is -- there's no 
303

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

other source of vitamins, guys. So we want to 

acknowledge that out there and just we're not making 

comments. So comments, guys?

(Off-microphone comments.)

MS. BAIRD: Yes. Thank you, Harriet. 

I needed a comment.

CHAIR BEHAR: Well, I think we'll just 

move forward on this with the knowledge that if 

there are no other non-GMO vaccine -- I mean --

MS. BAIRD: Yeah.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- vitamins out there --

both begin with the word -- the letter V -- that 

that's what we are approving just so the, you know, 

the organic community knows that we're aware --

MS. BAIRD: And we know.

CHAIR BEHAR: -- and we're still voting 

to keep it listed.

MS. BAIRD: And I appreciate that. 

Keep in mind we are mandated in three different 

sections of this livestock regulation that we have 

to meet the nutritional value, including use of 

vitamins. Any other comments? There you go. How 
304

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

about that? I figured there would be a lot of 

comments.

Motion to remove vitamins from 

205.603(d)(3) based on the following criteria OFPA 

and 7 C.F.R. 205.600(b). Call to vote.

CHAIR BEHAR: We'll start with Dan.

DR. SEITZ: No.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

DR. BRADMAN: No.

VICE CHAIR ELA: No.

MR. RICE: No.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

MR. BUIE: No.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MS. SWAFFAR: No.

MR. CHAPMAN: No, ma'am.

MS. de LIMA: No.

CHAIR BEHAR: Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 13 no, 1 absent, the 

motion fails.

CHAIR BEHAR: As a time check, it is 
305

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

4:00.

MS. BAIRD: So are you wanting to move 

forward or are you just saying we --

CHAIR BEHAR: No.

MS. BAIRD: -- go -- okay.

CHAIR BEHAR: No, we want to move 

forward.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. The next item on our 

Livestock agenda is the discussion document 

annotating fenbendazole for -- to include laying 

hens and replacement chickens. That is -- who --

Ashley. Thank you, Ashley.

MS. SWAFFAR: Last thing. Okay. So 

we received a petition to revise the annotation 

for fenbendazole to expand the use to poultry and 

the annotation would include laying hens and 

replacement chickens intended to become laying 

hens.

We decided to do a discussion document 

this time to kind of get an idea of where everybody 

was, and we did not request a TR, but we did receive 

a lot of public comment that they would like for 
306

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

us to get a poultry specific TR. And we talked 

about it in subcommittee prior to this meeting that 

we would more than likely be moving forward with 

a limited scope TR, so that's kind of where we are.

And let's see So just want to point 

out same thing as we talked about earlier with 

fenbendazole, this would be for use only in 

emergency situation.

In the document, I tried to put a few 

examples of how they would determine what an 

emergency is. And the other part of this is there's 

quite a controversy in the public comments about 

the no-withholding time of fenbendazole.

As the lead on this, I didn't feel that 

we had any justification to put a withholding time 

on fenbendazole because the FDA does not require 

withdrawal time for fenbendazole. And typically 

in the past what we have done is we've doubled any 

withholding time, so that's -- like the FERET that 

I brought up on moxidectin, we doubled it, in some 

cases a little more than double. And when you 

double zero, it's still zero. So that was my 
307

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

rationale for that.

I know there has been questions about 

the efficacy of that concentration level in the 

residue and that is the main focus that we're going 

to do on that TR, so it's around the residue level, 

so. Any questions?

MS. BAIRD: Harriet, and then Scott, 

and then Asa.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

CHAIR BEHAR: I just wanted to also 

just encourage the public to provide us continued 

information on this material so we'll be able to 

bring a proposal forward for the spring and, you 

know, the five new members will be voting on it. 

But probably many of us who are still here will 

work on it until January.

MS. BAIRD: And I said Scott, but I 

think it was actually Steve.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I guess, Ashley, in 

the public comment, I mean, it was, yeah, two times 

zero is zero as far as withdrawal period, but I'm 

not sure that's entirely fair. I mean, there was 
308

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

public comment that there are residues present, 

they're just below FDA levels.

So I'm not sure that -- I guess I would 

prefer to see a very short withdrawal time just 

-- I think the public probably expects that we don't 

have residues present, and given that we tend to 

double the safety period, if there's residue 

present, you know, even if it's just right at the 

FDA approved level, I think there could be some 

rationale for a very short withdrawal time based 

on that.

MS. BAIRD: Asa was next.

DR. BRADMAN: I have kind of a related 

comment. You know, since we're at the discussion 

document stage, I know I would like to see perhaps 

more information maybe summarized in a tabular 

format of residue data. There was one study I think 

that CROPP/Valley submitted with their comments 

and then there's some information that's cited in 

the document.

I know there's reference also to the 

FDA threshold and, you know, it being at a safe 
309

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

level. I know from experience that we have, for 

example, food tolerances from EPA for pesticides. 

You know, all pesticide use in this country is 

safe, based on their risk assessment process, 

although I personally have concerns about some of 

the residues that are allowed.

Similarly, I would be concerned about 

any residue from a synthetic biocide used in an 

animal. I think in the CROPP/Valley data, you 

know, there was nothing detected in their study. 

But I'd just like to see more of that and look 

at the detection limits and really decide if the 

studies were good, and perhaps I can help with that 

a little bit.

So and that might inform decisions 

about whether any withholding period is appropriate 

or necessary or not.

MS. BAIRD: Ashley is going to respond 

to that, and then Emily. Emily first? Okay.

MS. OAKLEY: Sure. I was just going 

to comment that the veterinarian, Blayne Mozisek, 

who spoke to us said that there was a six-day period 
310

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to show no detectable levels. Is that something 

that could factor into this discussion?

DR. BRADMAN: And do we have that 

study?

CHAIR BEHAR: Just as a point of 

information, and they are given fenbendazole for 

five days. So if -- it'd be five days plus six.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Ashley?

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah. That information 

wasn't included in the TR, he said. That was a 

study out of Denmark.

You know, I just want to say about the, 

you know, I know there's a lot of concern about 

that residue and whether you believe or don't 

believe that the FDA is ethical in their 

determination of that residue testing, you know, 

I think that's where the TR is going to come into 

play on that. And I think before anybody jumps 

to any conclusion that it should be five, six or 

whatever day, we need to wait till we see that TR 

come back.

And I -- since I won't be on the Board, 
311

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I just want to caution everyone moving forward that, 

you know, we need to not just have arbitrary numbers 

thrown out there because it makes us feel better 

on a withholding time. And that's where you saw 

the fenbendazole on the dairy. I think that was 

kind of bringing that back into line because we 

lessened the withholding time on that because it 

was pretty much just a random number. And that's 

why it is now 48 hours on milk -- yeah, on milk 

so -- because it's double what they said.

And -- yep. On the detectable level, 

what I would like to see out of that TR, because 

you guys bring up that no detectable level and 

comparing that to milk. Is milk at 48 hours? Is 

that a no detectable level? Because we should hold 

all species the same accountability not just, you 

know, doing this.

And I want to go back and talk on my 

own personal part of it because I will only have 

three minutes the next time I talk about this, is 

this is a critical need for laying flocks. We have 

a real problem with birds that are truly outdoor 
312

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and on pasture and even on the pasture flocks that 

I work with that rotationally graze throughout 

their pasture because it's not just the outdoor 

area. It's chicken houses that have dirt floors.

Dirt floor chicken houses are the 

absolute worst for worm infestation. So you know, 

even if you're doing everything outside right, 

you're rotating every 14 days, 21 days, 30 days, 

whatever the different protocols are, you know, 

the inside of the house is where the problem is. 

You'll never get rid of them.

You know, and the conventional side, 

I mean, people are seeing these in cages. So it's 

not even just like access to the soil. They're 

having, you know, flies bring it in and things like 

that. So it's a real issue that is affecting the 

poultry industry and, you know, I know it was 

probably pretty gross to see those photos that that 

vet put up there, but I could go out to any flock 

just about and post-birds -- That's what we call 

an autopsy -- and look into the intestine track 

and see worms like that.
313

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And that's completely, you know, 

absorbing the chickens' food that they should be 

absorbing in their body. Those worms get it. So 

I just want to say it's critical for them.

We have done over the, you know, 10 

years that I've been working with birds outside 

and on pasture, we've done diatomaceous earth as 

an alternative and see really not great results. 

It can knock the levels down, but it sure doesn't

get rid of worm infestations. And you know, we 

have to add it to high -- to the diet at such high 

amounts that the diet becomes nutritionally 

inadequate, and so there's some real challenges 

when using that. And yeah. That's my comment. 

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Rick, and then 

Dave, and then Asa, and then Steve.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. I had 

mentioned, I think it was yesterday, about whether 

or not the residue survives cooking, because eggs 

are eaten as a cooked product at basically very 

high temperatures. They're fried or sauteed or 

something, but they're high temperatures. So the 
314

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

whole issue of residue may be moot. And I'd like 

to see when we get a TR or maybe Merck can survive 

-- provide information to see if it's what we're 

talking about is even necessary.

It's not like milk that's consumed 

while it's fresh even though it's been pasteurized 

for a short period of time. So I think that's 

something else we need to look at as a group for 

a TR. 

MS. BAIRD: I just said, yeah, heat 

degrades, so that's a good point. I forget to get 

on -- okay. Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah. I would just 

say, gosh, we're -- if we're going to have a TR 

done, this is the time to get the data. I'm sure 

they can provide it on residues. And I think we 

should ask for that data.

I think also given the breadth of 

conditions under which the birds are raised, not 

to keep picking up on the having, you know, zero 

is zero, it's really a likelihood of some 

concentration that remains in the bird over time, 
315

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and it -- pesticides are being used here and we 

should be able to assure folks that are buying 

organic eggs that there are, you know, really low 

levels of the residue of that pesticide, which is 

a synthetic organic pesticide.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you. Asa, and then 

Steve is on -- I'm not sure where he's at at this 

point. I lost my baseball terminology.

DR. BRADMAN: I just want to clarify 

one thing because you used the word ethical with 

respect to FDA. And I have no doubt that what they 

did was ethical. What I'd be more concerned is 

just I want to understand the methods, and different 

methods, different approaches may come to different 

conclusions, but not an issue of ethics.

MS. BAIRD: Steve?

VICE CHAIR ELA: I guess, Ashley, I 

mean as you're describing this, and you just said 

dirt floors are the worst, or whatever, not quote 

you exactly, although it hits me, isn't good 

management then not to use dirt floors? I mean, 

I'm not a livestock person. I don't know the 
316

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

systems, but when I hear something like that, it 

seems like if you're going to do good preventative 

measures to avoid this, then that would be one of 

the expected preventative measures.

MS. SWAFFAR: Yes. So -- I mean, yeah, 

we prefer concrete. Going forward, all new builds, 

we require concrete. But the great thing about 

my area is we have a huge poultry industry that 

has left these farmers -- well, it's not a great 

thing, but it is when you're growing.

We have a poultry industry that's told 

these farmers thanks but no thanks anymore. So 

there's empty chicken houses that are older from 

the '80s that are sitting empty that we're going 

into. And they didn't do concrete floors back 

then. So you're getting older houses that people 

are remodeling to put into layers, and that's 

happening all over the country.

It's cost prohibitive for them to put 

concrete in. You're talking about 16,000 

square-foot of concrete for the majority -- most 

houses are about that size and it's several inches 
317

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

thick.

And so if you're going in with a 

pastured flock of, you know, smaller size and a 

larger barn, I mean, it's cost prohibitive for them 

to do that.

And the other point I wanted to say, 

don't expect this to come out in the spring. This 

will be a fall issue because we are -- we won't 

get the TR back in time to have this as a proposal 

in the spring.

MS. BAIRD: Yeah, we did vote, I think, 

at the last subcommittee that we would have a TR. 

It's not just -- that was decided that we would. 

No?

MS. SWAFFAR: No, we decided we would 

wait to talk about it.

MS. BAIRD: Oh. Okay. I thought --

CHAIR BEHAR: Well, we said that we 

wanted a TR but we would wait after this to give 

the targeted questions to the Program.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIR BEHAR: So the Program hasn't 
318

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

started working on it yet, but they're aware that 

we want one.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Thank you. Any 

other discussion? Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: I don't think I've said 

anything about this yet.

So I agree about the pesticide, the 

fenbendazole residue in there, and also one of the 

questions would be, you know, human health.

In the very limited research that I did, 

it -- fenbendazole is sometimes used in human health 

as well. And it is some parasiticide that can 

develop resistance, and so I don't know if that's 

an issue with human health, if people have been 

getting low levels of it, if it would then affect 

its efficacy in a health product in the future 

because they would have had -- I don't know. I 

don't know. But that's one of the questions I would 

like to put --

MS. BAIRD: So all the papers that you 

sent, most of them in third world countries, but 

I'm sure that somewhere in the United States there 
319

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are people who also may have worms. I don't know.

CHAIR BEHAR: It's actually being used 

as a cancer, yeah, showing the --

MS. BAIRD: Oh, thanks. Well, I saw 

that they were using it as a parasiticide for people 

in third world countries that they're actually 

using it as a medicine, which within itself, to 

me, meant that it was not toxic to humans if we're 

actually prescribing it. But that was my take on 

that paper.

We are done with Livestock, guys. 

thank you very much. Yay. Oh, oh. Asa.

DR. BRADMAN: One comment to end the 

livestock conversation before -- we've actually 

had an answer to a question that Dave kind of posed 

about indirectly which came first, the chicken or 

the egg. And somebody actually answered that 

question today, and I'll just leave it at that.

(Laughter.)

MS. BAIRD: Please clarify that answer 

because I didn't catch that one.

DR. BRADMAN: You actually answered 
320

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it.

MS. BAIRD: I did?

DR. BRADMAN: You did.

MS. BAIRD: How did I answer, guys? 

I'm not with it.

DR. BRADMAN: Well, which comes first, 

the chicken or the egg?

MR. CHAPMAN: The dinosaur.

MS. BAIRD: The dinosaur.

DR. BRADMAN: So the egg must come 

first.

(Laughter.) 

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Thank you. I 

didn't --

DR. BRADMAN: It came from a dinosaur.

MS. BAIRD: Oh, all right. Chickens 

are dinosaurs. I love that. It is true.

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So we're going to 

end the Livestock Subcommitee and we're just going 

to take a very, very, very short break, come back 

to Scott and Certification. And I know I'm going 

to talk to Dan and Dave because they have flights, 
321

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

so we're going to try to also fit in officer 

elections. So it is right now 4:19. Be back at 

4:25.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 4:19 p.m. and resumed at 

4:27 p.m.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. We are going to 

get started. So next up is the Compliance, 

Accreditation, and Certification Subcommittee, 

affectionately known as CACS, and Scott is the 

chair. It's all up to you, Scott.

MR. RICE: Thank you, Harriet. I 

won't take too much time here.

Even though the CACS did not come 

forward with any discussion documents this meeting, 

we did have plenty of substantive conversations, 

namely around the continuing efforts in the 

industry and at the Program around fraud and 

integrity of the supply chain with some eager 

anticipation for the strengthening organic 

enforcement rule as we heard from Jenny on 

Wednesday. We should be seeing that by end of year, 
322

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

which we're excited about.

And as I've said before, I imagine there 

will be quite a bit that the CACS finds relevant 

to their work. And my thoughts are that we kind 

of take a look at what is included in there and 

if there are things that we can sensibly approach 

even before, I guess, that rule is finalized that 

makes sense, that would be good and, indeed, look 

at the things that that rule does not address and 

certainly take a look at those, in terms of any 

aspects of the industry that are not -- that just 

aren't addressed to where we think it might best 

be served.

And one of that -- one of those areas 

that has come up repeatedly is the fresh produce 

trade. We've heard from a number of commenters 

and through public testimony some of the unique 

challenges there. So I imagine that would be 

something that we would look at as well.

And also, just briefly, again, just to 

reiterate, we have heard of the concerns around 

energy infrastructure. That's not fallen on deaf 
323

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ears, and as I noted at some point during public 

comment in the last couple days, look to approach 

that in other platforms, namely through ACA and 

expect to have some discussions with folks at the 

upcoming Accredited Certifiers Association 

training that we have annually in conjunction with 

NOP coming up in end of January I believe.

So that is really in brief what I wanted 

to touch base on, so I'll leave it at that.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Scott, I just have to 

say in the terms of enforcement and accreditation, 

we were unloading a truck this year to put some 

of our stuff on, and there was a box of vegetables 

that had the statement, certified organically grown 

by organic certifiers.

(Laughter.) 

MR. RICE: We like to keep it straight 

and simple.

VICE CHAIR ELA: I was like --

CHAIR BEHAR: There actually is an 

organic certification agency located in 

California. Ventura, I think.
324

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: Yeah.

CHAIR BEHAR: And their name is Organic 

Certifiers.

VICE CHAIR ELA: It was good, but it 

was like.

MR. RICE: Stick with the obvious.

CHAIR BEHAR: You know when it says 

certified organic by the National Organic Program 

that it's not quite right.

Okay. With that, any other questions 

or comments? Okay. So on to the next item of 

business, which is NOSB officer elections. Our 

process is, we will nominate. If there is more 

than one person getting nominated, then we will 

have a ballot, and I believe myself and maybe 

Michelle will count them, or Devon.

MR. CHAPMAN: It's usually --

CHAIR BEHAR: Myself and someone else 

since --

MR. CHAPMAN: It's usually one of the 

other officers, whoever's not running.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yeah. Well, we'll see 
325

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

how the --

MR. CHAPMAN: I can help because I'm 

not running for anything.

CHAIR BEHAR: But with that, I would 

like to enthusiastically nominate Steve Ela to be 

the chair. I got a second already from Jesse. 

Are there any other nominations?

Going once, going twice, looks like 

you're stuck with it, Steve.

(Applause.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. We're going to go 

to nominations for vice chair. Sue?

MS. BAIRD: It's my honor to nominate 

Scott Rice as vice chair.

CHAIR BEHAR: Any other nominations? 

Oh, Dan has seconded and Rick will third.

MR. CHAPMAN: I'll fourth.

CHAIR BEHAR: Any other nominations 

out there? All you guys that don't want to step 

forward, it's really not that much work. Okay. 

Especially when Steve's going to shoulder all the 

burden.
326

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

(Laughter.) 

CHAIR BEHAR: Okay. So let's say 

congratulations to Scott, our new vice chair.

(Applause.) 

CHAIR BEHAR: The next position is 

secretary. You can see what Scott had done is 

tracking the voting and you also attend the 

executive subcommittee calls and the 

administrative call when we plan the executive 

call, so.

MR. CHAPMAN: And, now, track the open 

docket.

CHAIR BEHAR: Yes, and keep track of 

the docket. So --

DR. SEITZ: I'd like to nominate Jesse.

MR. BUIE: I've been secretary 

already.

DR. SEITZ: Oh, you --

CHAIR BEHAR: So you're highly 

qualified.

DR. SEITZ: Highly -- yeah.

(Laughter.) 
327

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SEITZ: There's no term limit or 

-- no, there's no term limit, right?

CHAIR BEHAR: No.

DR. SEITZ: Yeah. So I'm nominating 

you for a second term.

CHAIR BEHAR: Jesse, will you accept?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIR BEHAR: Good. Then I'll second 

it. I will heartily second it.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR BEHAR: Any other nominations 

for secretary of the National Organic Standards 

Board for the upcoming year? We love you, Jesse.

(Applause.) 

CHAIR BEHAR: I think Emily seconded 

that, right, Dan?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, I did.

CHAIR BEHAR: Or whoever's keeping 

track of that.

Okay. So we now have a new Board. I 

don't know if they start right now or not. I guess 

I'll finish it, but I'll let Steve do that at the 
328

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

very end.

Next up is the work agenda. Michelle, 

are you ready? You are. Okay. I'm -- guess I'm 

going to read this. So upcoming for the spring 

meeting is strengthening organic enforcement 

follow up, probably a discussion document. We're 

just going to have to wait and see How quickly it 

comes out and how much work we can do on something.

Sodium carbonate lignin is a petition 

for crops, that'll be a vote. Paper pots, a 

petition for crops, so that'll be a vote. Liquid 

fish productions annotation for crops is a 

discussion document. Biodegradable -- biobased 

mulch, possibly changing the annotation is a 

discussion or may be a vote.

Soap-based algicide demossers is 

crops, a discussion. Ammonium carbonate -- now 

we're moving into sunsets. So soap-based 

algicide, demossers, ammonium carbonate soaps, 

insecticidal, vitamin D3 as a rodenticide, aquatic 

plant extracts, lignin sulfonate as a chelating 

agent suppressant, sodium silicate floating agent 
329

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and post-harvest handling, EPA List 4. That one's 

always fun, inters of minimal concern.

Arsenic and strychnine on 602, that's 

the sunsets for crops. Everything in the spring 

meeting is a discussion on sunsets and then we vote 

in the fall.

For handling, there will be a fish oil 

annotation change that we will look to go to vote, 

L-malic acid reclassification go to vote, ion 

exchange filtration in handling will be a 

discussion document. This is something the 

National Organic Program asked us to talk about 

and look at.

Low acyl gellan gum is a petition 

that'll go to vote. Red jalapeno pepper on 606 

is going to go to vote as a petition. New petition 

material -- now we start the sunsets.

Kaolin, sodium bicarbonate, waxes, 

nonsynthetic, like, wood resin, ammonium 

bicarbonate only as a leavening agent, ammonium 

carbonate as a leavening agent, calcium phosphates, 

monobasic, dibasic, and tribasic, ozone, sodium 
330

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

hydroxide prohibited for use in lye peeling of 

fruits and vegetables, inulin, oligofructose, 

enriched, kelp for use only as a thickener and 

dietary supplement, orange shallac, unbleached, 

corn starch native, sweet potato starch for bean 

thread production only. And now we're moving into 

606s.

Turkish bay leaves, whey protein 

concentrate, carnauba wax, colors, and there's 18 

of them, glycerin. That's handling, which usually 

has a lot of materials in the sunset.

Okay. Next will be a petition for a 

discussion again for the fenbendazole, and we might 

not have the TR back by then -- butorphanol. 

Starting sunsets now for livestock.

Flunixin, magnesium hydroxide, 

poloxalene, formic acid, excipients, EPA List 4, 

and then on the prohibited natural, strychnine.

And then Materials Subcommittee, 

Emily's going to do her best to have a marine 

materials proposal for a vote in -- and this is 

in crops only. And then there will be a panel on 
331

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

assessing cleaning and sanitation materials used 

in organic crop, livestock, and handling. And that 

will just be a discussion.

So looks like an easy load, gang, 

especially since most of it I won't have to do. 

But I'm going to help with some.

Anyone have any questions or additions? 

I think the subcommittee chairs did look that over. 

I don't see anybody quaking in their boots, so 

you know, give some thought to which items you might 

want, so on the next subcommittee calls you're ready 

to help the chairs out with the assigning of those 

sunsets.

Okay. Since no more comments, what 

time are we at? 4:39.

Next up is the outgoing members, Ashley 

Swaffar, Tom Chapman, Lisa de Lima, and myself are 

going to get some pats on the back.

(Laughter.)

DR. TUCKER: Okay. So the first pat 

on the back goes to Harriet. And so we have here 

a certificate of appreciation presented to Harriet 
332

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Behar for four years of dedicated service as a 

member of USDA's National Organic Standards Board 

2016 to 2020.

And I just have to say Harriet's work, 

she invests her heart and soul in everything that 

she writes and produces for this Board. Your 

passion shines in everything you do, so thank you 

for all your work, so.

(Applause.)

DR. TUCKER: We'll also take official, 

sort of, closer up photos as a group afterwards. 

Okay?

CHAIR BEHAR: My only comment on this 

is when you serve less than five years, you could 

apply again, but I think my husband would kill me.

(Laughter.)

DR. TUCKER: Our second -- next 

certificate of appreciation is for Lisa de Lima, 

this time for five years of dedicated service as 

a member of USDA's National Organic Standards 

Board, so 2015 through 2020.

I have really enjoyed getting to know 
333

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Lisa. Lisa is always quiet, and yet every time 

she speaks, it is of tremendous value and really 

reflects the consumer's view, which is appropriate 

for the retailer's seat. And so you have 

represented your community beautifully.

Thank you for all your work.

(Applause.)

DR. TUCKER: And so now we have a 

certificate of appreciation presented to Tom 

Chapman also for five years of dedicated service 

as a member of USDA's National Organic Standards 

Board from 2015 to 2020.

I recently had the opportunity to visit 

Tom in his home space at Clif Bar, and I have 

appreciated your gentle counsel and wise words over 

the past couple of years. It is a true honor to 

work with you.

(Applause.)

DR. BRADMAN: Can I just add, Tom, if 

you run for Congress, I'll vote for you.

(Laughter.)

DR. TUCKER: And so here is a 
334

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

certificate of appreciation for Ashley Swaffar, 

again for five years of dedicated service as a 

member of USDA's National Organic Standards Board, 

2015 to 2020.

And Ashley, you bring the voice of the 

producers and the voice of pragmatism, and 

wait-make-sure-you're-paying-attention-to-this, 

and I love that both thoughtfulness and dedication. 

So thank you for everything.

(Applause.)

VICE CHAIR ELA: I would just like to 

say as you guys were the leaders that -- for my 

group that came in, you know, we didn't know the 

previous group. Tom was chair. You really set 

a high bar and, you know, Harriet, thank you for 

all the long discussion documents that, you know, 

dove in and really took some things by the horns.

Ashley, I really appreciate -- I'm not 

a livestock person that -- it's always very 

educational for me to hear what you have to say

in that industry.

Tom, your leadership and attention to 
335

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

detail and memory, it's a little daunting to know 

that you won't pop up with some detail from five 

Board meetings back from the notes that -- but it's 

impressive and it's been huge.

And Lisa, I just echo what Jenny said. 

You're quiet, but when you say something and your 

knowledge in the retailer side, I -- you all are 

going to be very missed, so thank you.

As incoming chair, it's just hard shoes 

to fill. I know we will fill them, but we will 

miss you, so.

DR. SEITZ: And Tom, maybe you can 

produce for us the cliff notes.

(Laughter.)

MS. SWAFFAR: So I have the cliff 

notes. I did a little thing here, because I know 

Tom loves statistics about our term on the Board. 

We voted, during our five years, 503 times on this 

Board, and in our first term we voted 184 times 

our very first year.

So we lived through sunset '17 and the 

rest of the Board is yours, so you're welcome that 
336

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we reorganized sunset and you will never have to 

go through that ever again.

(Applause.)

VICE CHAIR ELA: I know it's common for 

people to have a closing statement, if you so 

choose. So do any of you wish to make your last 

hurrah as you -- you didn't get to vote. You didn't 

get to do a final vote as we did election for 

officers, so we couldn't clap for you on that, but 

closing statements? Harriet.

CHAIR BEHAR: Probably not a surprise, 

but that you haven't seen the last of me. And Lynn 

Coody said I can't wait until you're off the Board 

so you can sit next to me again. So look for me 

out there in the audience.

VICE CHAIR ELA: Ashley?

MS. SWAFFAR: Yeah, so I just want to 

say thanks to a few folks. Thank you to Michelle 

for keeping us all in line. Your job is so hard 

to keep us all on time and everywhere we're supposed 

to be for subcommittee calls, so thank you so much 

to all of your dedication to our Board during our 
337

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

time. So thank you, Michelle.

(Applause.)

MS. SWAFFAR: And I also want to say 

thank you so much to the public. Your comments 

really help us in what we do on this Board and kind 

of guide us in the route that we take.

I know that I couldn't have done my job 

without the public submitting their comments and, 

you know, learning all the other processes, because 

I know quite a little bit about chickens, but sure 

didn't know a lot about all the different gums over 

the years that we've talked about -- and seaweeds.

So you know, I just want to say thank 

you. You guys don't always get recognized, but 

your comments are very valued. So thank you.

MR. CHAPMAN: I don't have many final 

words to say, other than -- I mean, this is honest. 

People know this, as I've been -- the last two 

years, that I'm not going to miss the Board or the 

work. But what I am going to miss, and this comes 

from my heart, is the people. I mean, the Board 

members, the Program, and the members of the public, 
338

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it's incredible the amount of passion and work that 

people put into the organic movement, and I just 

feel blessed that I'm able to do this and go home 

every night and sleep soundly knowing that, you 

know, my life has purpose and I'm making a positive 

impact on the world. So thank you, everybody.

(Applause.)

MS. de LIMA: Yeah, just to echo what 

Tom said, especially grateful to all of you on the 

Board and the Program that even though we don't 

all agree or have the same perspective that I feel 

like these last few years we've really been able 

to, you know, sit down, have dinner together, hang 

out, have drinks, you know, talk NOSB into -- late 

into the night and really be able to listen to each 

other and not have that -- you know, it could have 

gone very differently and I'm really happy about 

how this Board gelled and came together after the 

first few years. So thank you to all of you.

(Applause.)

VICE CHAIR ELA: And I'd like to thank 

the rest of the Board. I'm not really sure I'm 
339

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ready for this position or have time for it, so 

it's somewhat with trepidation. But everybody 

else, as well, has put a lot of time into this, 

and I want to echo what Lisa said.

I know we had at least one very divisive 

vote that could have really fractured the Board, 

and it's been nice that that, you know, I think 

we respect each other and, you know, it's okay to 

have diverse opinions. It's okay to abstain. 

It's okay to do all these things, and I look forward 

to a Board that continues to voice their own 

opinions and have strong thoughts, but also at the 

end of the day goes out and enjoys each other's 

company.

So thank you to all the Board members 

for the time you put in. And we have five new Board 

members coming in at some point, and that then means 

just as when five of us came in for you all, you 

know, that's -- it's going to be a new world. But 

I think we can train them and, you know, bring them 

along and hopefully instill a very good culture 

in them. So thank you to the rest of the Board.
340

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. TUCKER: As the Designated Federal 

Officer, I would like to thank everyone for being 

here. Let's give a big round for everyone who's 

still here, first of all.

(Applause.)

DR. TUCKER: The last three days have 

been democracy at work. Thank you for being a part 

of it and safe travels home.

CHAIR BEHAR: And so with that, Steven 

and I, we'll do it together, adjourn.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 4:52 p.m.)
341

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com