) 

)

) 

)

 ) 

) 

 ) 

 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE 

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

 

In re: 

Beth Anne Wilson Webb, Administrator’s Decision 

Dba Moonstruck Organics 

Captain Cook, Hawaii APL-028-20

 

This Decision responds to an appeal (APL-028-20) of a Notice of Noncompliance and 

Denial of Certification of National Organic Program (NOP) certification issued to Beth Anne 

Wilson Webb, dba Moonstruck Organics (Moonstruck) of Captain Cook, Hawaii by Oregon 

Tilth Certified Organic (OTCO), an USDA-accredited certifying agent. The operation has been 

deemed not in compliance with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (Act)1

 and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic regulations.2 

BACKGROUND 

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

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

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

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

1

 7 U.S.C. 6501-6522 

2

 7 C.F.R. Part 205 

Page 1 of 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

regulations. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. On August 22, 2019, Moonstruck applied to OTCO for organic certification of its coffee 

crop. 

2. On October 13, 2019, OTCO conducted an inspection of Moonstruck. 

3. On December 10, 2019, OTCO issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Denial of 

Certification. 

4. On January 6, 2020, OTCO denied Moonstruck’s request for mediation. 

5. On February 4, 2020, Moonstruck filed an Appeal. 

DISCUSSION 

The USDA organic regulations at 7 CFR §205.103, Recordkeeping by certified 

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

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

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

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

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

audited; ... (4) Be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Act and the regulations in this 

part...” 

Page 2 of 10 
 

 

The organic regulations at §205.105, Allowed and prohibited substances, methods, and 

ingredients in organic production and handling, state that, “To be sold or labeled as “100 percent 

organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)),” the product 

must be produced and handled without the use of: (a) Synthetic substances and ingredients, 

except as provided in §205.601 or §205.603...” The specific synthetic substances on the 

National List which are allowed for use in organic crop production are identified at §205.601. 

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

that, “(a) The producer or handler of a production or handling operation ... must develop an 

organic production or handling system plan that is agreed to by the producer or handler and an 

accredited certifying agent... An organic production or handing system plan must include: (1) A 

description of practices and procedures to be performed and maintained...; (2) A list of each 

substance to be used as a production or handling input...(3) A description of the monitoring 

practices and procedures to be performed and maintained...(4) A description of the 

recordkeeping system implemented to comply with the requirements...(5) A description of the 

management practices and physical barriers established to prevent commingling of organic and 

nonorganic products on a split operation and to prevent contact of organic production and 

handling operations and products with prohibited substances...” 

The organic regulations at §205.202, Land requirements, state that, “Any field or farm 

parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as “organic,” 

must: ...(b) Have had no prohibited substances, as listed in §205.105, applied to it for a period of 

3 years immediately preceding harvest of the crop; ...” 

The organic regulations at §205.272, Commingling and contact with prohibited substance 

prevention practice standard, state that, “(a) The handler of an organic handling operation must 

Page 3 of 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

implement measures necessary to prevent commingling of organic and nonorganic products and 

protect organic products from contact with prohibited substances...” 

Certifier OTCO issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Denial of Certification to 

applicant Moonstruck after an inspection revealed several noncompliances including the use of a 

fertilizer containing a prohibited substance. 

Moonstruck acknowledged use of the fertilizer containing a prohibited substance but 

inquired into whether there was a “workaround” for the situation, stating it didn’t intentionally 

use a prohibited substance but had relied on the product’s label, which was not clear. 

The evidence shows that Moonstruck applied for organic certification of its coffee crop to 

OTCO on August 22, 2019. OTCO conducted an inspection on October 13, 2019, at which 

numerous noncompliances were found, resulting in the issuance of the December 10, 2019 

Notice of Noncompliance and Denial of Certification. Specifically, OTCO found that 

Moonstruck violated the organic regulations at 7 CFR §205.201 because its OSP didn’t list each 

input used by Moonstruck, the composition and source of the inputs, or the locations where the 

inputs would be used. The inputs observed during the inspection were provided in the inspection 

report and/or in photos. They included 

. The inspection report and the photos of the products’ 

(b) (4)

bags show that the 

(b) (4)

 are all 

OMRI certified. Moonstruck told the inspector that the 

 were only used on Moonstruck’s personal garden and not the 

(b) (4)

organic coffee crops. 

Page 4 of 10 
 

 

 

 

OTCO was unable to confirm if the remaining observed inputs were compliant with 

organic regulations. As such, OTCO issued a Request for Information letter on November 19, 

2019, asking for specific brand information on the 

(b) (4)

 which the inspector had found to be 

a blend of products approved for organic agriculture; and 

(b) (4) . 

Moonstruck submitted replies to OTCO on November 26 and 27, 2019, including receipts for the 

(b) (4)

 products, a revised farm map, and a statement that the “higher nitrogen formula 

(b) (4)

” were applied to coffee seedlings and “spread at a rate of 1 cup per seedling 

in the map areas showing dots” between the date of purchase, May 22, 2019 and May 30, 2019. 

However, while the

(b) (4)

 which Moonstruck used on the mature 

coffee trees is OMRI certified, OTCO confirmed that the 

(b) (4)

fertilizer used on the coffee tree seedlings contains urea, a substance prohibited in organic crop 

production. As the use of a prohibited substance is a violation of the organic regulations at 7 

CFR §205.202(b) and is non-correctable, OTCO states it denied Moonstruck’s certification 

application. 

OTCO also stated that Moonstruck violated the regulations at 7 CFR §205.201 in regard 

to its OSP not including the required description of practices and procedures to be performed and 

maintained; management practices and physical barriers established to prevent commingling of 

organic and nonorganic products on a split operation and to prevent contact of organic 

production and handling operations and products with prohibited substances; and additional 

information deemed necessary by OTCO. The organic regulations at 7 CFR §205.403(c) require 

that a certifier conduct an initial on-site inspection of an operation requesting certification to 

verify “the operation’s compliance or capability to comply with the Act and the regulations;” that 

Page 5 of 10 
sections of the OSP. The OSP’s Materials List section only identifies

 of which are OMRI listed. However, these were the many 

 (b) (4)

 

 

 

the OSP “accurately reflects the practices used or to be used;” and “that prohibited substances 

have not been and are not being applied to the operation ...” 

OTCO’s inspection found that Moonstruck’s practices were inconsistent with multiple 

(b) (4)

products for which bags were found at the inspection as seen above. Further, the Land History 

section states that OMRI listed 

(b) (4)

 were applied August 1 – 3, 2019. However, 

the OMRI listed 

(b) (4)

 product is the 

(b) (4)

, applied to the mature trees, 

while Moonstruck was found to have applied 

(b) (4)

, containing 

prohibited substances, to the seedlings. Further, the inspector found bags of farm input products 

stored beneath a table set up for drying coffee to parchment, though Moonstruck stated those 

inputs were only used in the personal garden. 

The OSP also didn’t describe the process of 

, or how the organic integrity of the beans is protected during the 

. Further, 

, though the OSP didn’t describe this process. 

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

(b) (4)

 is shared with many other items; there are non-food 

items on shelves near organic coffee; the tarp for drying coffee beans outside was stored on the 

shelf; and a container of motor oil was seen in close proximity to the bag of coffee beans. The 

inspector took pictures of these problems and described them in the inspection report. The 

Further, as the inspector noted, the OSP only describes the 

(b) (4)

Page 6 of 10 
February 5, 2020 email to NOP that it only used of the 

 in a formula which was spread around the coffee seedlings which are interspersed 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

inspection report also cites to recordkeeping noncompliances, including the lack of sales records 

showing the date, product, and quantity sold. 

Lastly, while the OSP states there is no risk of drift from neighbors, there is a 

conventional coffee farm on one side and land to the south, west, and half of the north boundary 

is not under organic management. Moonstruck reported that the buffer zone around the 

boundary was harvested and sold in the 

(b) (4)

 stage as nonorganic, resulting in 

Moonstruck’s operation being a 

(b) (4)

 and necessitating the completion of OSP sections 

on 

(b) (4) , which hadn’t been done. As OTCO stated, these findings also substantiate a 

violation of the regulations at 7 CFR §205.272 which require the implementation of measures 

necessary to prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic products. Additionally, as 

Moonstruck’s OSP doesn’t fully address such measures, OTCO cited a violation of the 

regulations at 7 CFR §205.103 which require the maintenance of records that demonstrate 

compliance by fully disclosing all activities and transactions in sufficient detail as to be readily 

understood and audited. 

Moonstruck didn’t address the OSP deficiencies, failure to follow the OSP, buffer zone, 

commingling, or recordkeeping noncompliances in the Appeal, though those noncompliances 

would have been correctable. Moonstruck only addressed the violation involving the use of a 

fertilizer containing a prohibited substance, which is not correctable. Moonstruck stated in a 

(b) (4)

with mature coffee trees in the 

(b) (4)

 orchard with the seedlings being a minimum of 

away from the mature trees. 

(b) (4)

Page 7 of 10 
2019 Request for Information, Moonstruck stated that it had spread the product “at a rate of 

.” The represents , yet there are seedlings, therefore, the 

(b) (

 

 

 

 

 

However, in its November 27, 2019 email to OTCO in response to the November 19, 

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

rate of application is more accurately 

(b) (4)

 per seedling unless more than 

(b) (4)

 was actually 

used. The revised Farm Map provided to OTCO by Moonstruck shows the area including both 

mature trees and seedlings where the product was spread, which encompasses about half of the 

total farmland. However, while Moonstruck states that the affected area is 

(b) (4)

, the 

inspection report states the entire farm is only 

(b) (4)

; therefore, the affected area appears to be 

less than 

(b) (4)

 resulting in the mature trees and seedlings being more ‘densed.’ 

Further, a 

(b) (4)

 representative confirmed the 

(b) (4)

contains about 10% urea, and stated it also contains ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, 

and therefore, not OMRI listed. Furthermore, Moonstruck admitted using the

 on the coffee seedlings. 

(b) (4)

CONCLUSION 

The USDA organic regulations assure consumers that products with the USDA organic 

seal meet consistent, uniform standards. Key to these standards is that products with the USDA 

organic seal are produced and handled in accordance with the organic regulations. However, the 

evidence substantiates that Moonstruck violated the organic regulations at 7 CFR §205.105 and 7 

CFR §205.202, which state that any field or farm parcel from which organic crops are harvested 

can’t have had any prohibited substance applied within 3 years immediately preceding the 

harvest; and the land has to be organically managed without the use of synthetic substances 

Page 8 of 10 
 

 

 

 

 

unless the substance is specifically allowed. Moonstruck admitted to applying a prohibited 

substance, excluding the fields for organic production. 

The evidence also substantiates that Moonstruck violated the organic regulations at 7 

CFR §205.201; 7 CFR §205.272; and 7 CFR §205.103, by not submitting a complete OSP; not 

identifying all inputs; not identifying management practices and physical barriers to prevent the 

contact of organic production and handling operations with prohibited substances; drying coffee 

beans under conditions that may result in contamination of the coffee beans with non-organic 

substances; and not maintaining records that fully disclose all activities and transactions in 

sufficient detail so as to be auditable and demonstrate compliance with the organic regulations. 

While these noncompliances are correctable, the violation of the regulations regarding the use of 

a prohibited substance makes a correction of these noncompliances irrelevant at this time. 

DECISION 

The appeal is denied and the Notice of Noncompliance and Denial of Certification is 

affirmed. Moonstruck is denied certification and is ineligible for organic certification of the 

farmland to which the prohibited substance was applied, for 3-years from the date of the last 

application of the prohibited substance, which was May 30, 2019. Moonstruck may not sell, 

label, or represent product as organic unless and until it is certified. 

Page 9 of 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________ 

SUMMERS 

Attached to this formal Administrator’s Decision denying Moonstruck’s Appeal is a 

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

before an Administrative Law Judge. If Moonstruck waives the hearing, this Administrator’s 

Decision denying Moonstruck certification will become final. 

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

 day of ________________, 2020. 

BRUCE Digitally signed by BRUCE 

SUMMERS Date: 2020 06.07 22:46:15 -04'00' 

Bruce Summers 

Administrator 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Page 10 of 10