NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + + +

PUBLIC COMMENT WEBINAR

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

OCTOBER 13, 2021

+ + + + +

The Board met telephonically at 12:00 

p.m., Steve Ela, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT

STEVE ELA, Chair

NATE POWELL-PALM, Vice Chair

MINDEE JEFFERY, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

AMY BRUCH

BRIAN CALDWELL

JERRY D'AMORE

CAROLYN DIMITRI

RICK GREENWOOD

KIM HUSEMAN

LOGAN PETREY

KYLA SMITH

WOOD TURNER
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

STAFF PRESENT

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, Advisory Committee 

Specialist, Standards Division

JARED CLARK, National List Manager, Standards 

Division

DAVID GLASGOW, Associate Deputy Administrator, 

National Organic Program

ERIN HEALY, Director, Standards Division

ANDREA HOLM, Materials Specialist

DEVON PATTILLO, Agricultural Marketing 

Specialist, Standards Division

DR. JENNIFER TUCKER, Deputy 

Administrator, National Organic Program; 

Designated Federal Official
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

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

12:00 p.m.

MS. ARSENAULT: Alright. Great. 

Well, welcome, everybody. I see about 83 people 

on the line with us. 

I expect the numbers will jump a little 

bit as the West Coast people, and maybe beyond West 

Coast, are starting to log in.

So, if you're online with us on the 

video, you should see a "Welcome" screen that has 

some dial-in information.

If you're having trouble with your 

camera or the audio through the computer, you can 

always dial in on the phone and join us that way.

I also chatted that information into 

the chat, which, if you hover over your "Zoom" 

screen, you'll see a task bar at the bottom.

There is a "Chat" feature and I put some 

information in there to get us started this 

morning.

So, let me back up here. So, if you 

are on the call with us, we ask that you do stay 

on mute and keep your camera turned off. It helps 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

with bandwidth.

Sometimes you may get a message on 

screen that says your internet connection is 

unstable. And if you turn off your camera, it 

usually helps.

For the mic and camera, just for those 

of you who haven't been on Zoom every single day 

for the last two years, it is at the bottom of your 

screen on the left-hand side. 

If you hover over your "Zoom" screen, 

you'll see a microphone that you can mute and unmute 

yourself there. And then next to it is a video 

camera and you can start and stop your camera that 

way.

If you hover over your video tile, 

you'll see three dots in the upper right side. 

You can also do those two things from that menu 

as well, mute and mute and stop your video.

When you are called on to speak -- for 

commenters when you are called on to speak, we ask 

that you unmute yourself and then turn your camera 

on, if you want.

It's optional. You don't have to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

on camera if you don't want to be on camera, and 

you can do so in either of those two ways.

We'd ask that you keep yourself on mute 

otherwise, because we want to minimize background 

noise, dogs barking -- I'm in between two 

construction sites. So, I will keep myself on mute 

for most of the day.

The Chat is enabled. So, if you hover 

over your screen, you'll see the "Chat" feature 

at the bottom. Please feel free to chat with each 

other and shout out to folks.

You should be able to chat with 

individual people as well as everyone, which will 

include all of the NOP staff as well, but chats 

are not part of the public record and it's not a 

way to comment to the Board.

The commenters had to sign up in advance 

and Steve has a list in front of him and will call 

on folks in the order in which they signed up to 

speak. So, we're not answering questions of that 

nature in the chat.

So, for speakers, please make sure your 

name is displayed in your video window. You can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

rename yourself. 

Going to the upper right of your tile, 

you can rename yourself. And if your name is not 

displayed properly, we may not be able to find you 

if we need to unmute you. 

So, just double-check that your name 

is correct. If not, you can chat me and I can fix 

it.

Also at the bottom of your Zoom screen 

you'll see a button that says, "Reactions." 

There's a raised hand feature in there that the 

board members will be using, but we ask that you 

don't use your "Raised Hand" feature because we're 

not calling on people.

Commenters, again, signed up in advance 

and Steve will call on you as we go through the 

day.

Let's see. Oh, you can rearrange what 

you see on your personal screen. If you hover over 

your Zoom screen, in the upper right you'll see 

a button that might say "View," it might say 

"Gallery View." It's a nine-dotted grid. You can 

change to "Gallery View" or "Speaker View."
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Jared and Andrea are running the slides 

today for us and they're going to spotlight my 

camera, which will be on the speaker timer.

So, that should appear on your screen 

throughout the whole day. You'll be able to see 

the timer countdown and hear it very loudly.

If you're having technical issues with 

Zoom, you can go to their help center. I chatted 

in the link to Zoom help. They are very helpful.

You can chat with them, call them --

I think those are probably the most beneficial ways 

-- in realtime.

And the webinar is being recorded as 

soon as I hit the "Record" button. We won't post 

the recording, but we will have a transcript that 

will be available after the conclusion of the Board 

meeting next week.

So, I'm going to start the recording 

and turn the mic over to the National Organic 

Program Deputy Administrator Jenny Tucker.

Jenny?

MR. ELA: Just real quickly, Michelle, 

and the program -- I'm now -- almost all the Board 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

is at the bottom of the list for me. Like, at the 

very bottom.

So, there's only -- Brian's phone is 

at the top. So, I'm not sure what's going on with 

that, but FYI.

Go ahead, Jenny.

DR. TUCKER: Okay. Thank you, 

Michelle. Hi, everybody. I am Jennifer Tucker, 

Deputy Administrator of the National Organic 

Program.

Welcome, first, to all of our National 

Organic Standards Board members. We are becoming 

very practiced in this online mode of engagement, 

but I genuinely miss our in-person connections and 

hope we will be able to return to that in the spring.

I would particularly like to 

acknowledge our three board members who are 

beginning their last meetings of this term -- of 

their terms.

And so, first, our chair for the past 

two years, Steve Ela. Steve, thank you for 

everything.

So, this is, by the way, how we applaud 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

in Zoom is we wave two hands in front of the camera. 

So, we're going to thank Steve Ela and then we 

are also going to thank Sue Baird.

Sue, thank you so much for your service. 

And Asa Bradman, thank you so, so much for your 

service and congratulations on getting to your 

final meeting of your five-year terms. 

I wish I could give you each a big hug 

of thanks. Thank you for your hard work and for 

your service over the past five years. Again, 

thank you. 

To our public commenters, thank you for 

again engaging in this process with us. Thank you 

for signing up to have your voices heard.

I also thank our audience. As always, 

you are important witnesses to this public meeting 

process and we are glad you are here.

This webinar opens a series of virtual 

webinars that will occur over multiple days. Two 

days this week and three days next week.

Meeting access information for all

meeting segments is posted on the NOSB meeting page 

on the USDA website. Transcripts for all segments 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

will be posted once completed.

This meeting, like other meetings of 

the National Organic Standards Board, will be run 

based on the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 

the Board's Policy and Procedures Manual. I will 

act as the designated federal officer for all 

meeting segments.

Now, Steve is going to take the helm 

for this session and I'd like to preview and 

strongly uphold something he's going to review with 

you.

In an open and transparent process, 

mutual respect and professionalism is critical. 

I was disturbed by some of the disparaging 

comments made in written comments this round.

If oral comments cross the line into 

disparagement and personal attacks, the Chair, or 

another board member, will speak up to stop it. 

So, please, please engage, but engage with grace.

To close, I thank the National Organic 

Program Team, an amazing team that I'm honored to 

work with every day. And so, we're going to give 

them an applause as I read their names.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Michelle Arsenault, who brings us all 

together each time. Jared Clark, Andrea Holm, 

Devon Pattillo, Dave Glasgow and our fearless 

standards director Erin Healy.

I also want to again thank Steve Ela, 

chair of the Board, who is about to lead his fourth 

virtual meeting and the final meeting of his term. 

So, let's give Steve a big round of applause. 

Thank you.

And I think I'm now handing off the mic 

to Erin Healy, Standards Division Director, who 

will do a roll call of NOSB members and NOP staff. 

Thank you for being here.

MS. HEALY: Thanks, Jenny. Good 

morning or good afternoon to everyone, depending 

on your time zone.

I am going to read off the roll calls. 

I'll start with Steve Ela, NOSB Chair.

MR. ELA: I am here.

MS. HEALY: Nate Powell Palm, Vice 

Chair.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Good morning. I'm 

here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. HEALY: Good morning. 

Mindee Jeffery, Secretary.

MS. JEFFERY: Good morning. Thank you.

MS. HEALY: Good morning.

Sue Baird?

MS. BAIRD: Yes. Thank you. I'm here.

MS. HEALY: Good morning.

Asa Bradman.

MR. BRADMAN: I'm here, too. Thanks.

MS. HEALY: Hello.

Amy Bruch.

MS. BRUCH: Present. Thank you.

MS. HEALY: Brian Caldwell.

MR. CALDWELL: Also here. Thank you.

MS. HEALY: Hello.

Jerry D'Amore.

MR. D'AMORE: Hello from California. 

Here.

MS. HEALY: Hello.

Carolyn Dimitri.

DR. DIMITRI: Good afternoon. I'm 

here.

MS. HEALY: Hello.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Rick Greenwood.

MR. GREENWOOD: I'm here also from 

California.

MS. HEALY: Good morning.

Kim Huseman.

MS. HUSEMAN: Hello. I'm present.

MS. HEALY: Good morning.

Logan Petrey.

MS. PETREY: I'm present.

MS. HEALY: Good morning.

Kyla Smith.

MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, everybody. 

I'm here.

MS. HEALY: Hello.

And last, but not least, Wood Turner.

MR. TURNER: Here. Good morning.

MS. HEALY: Alright. That's everybody. 

Jenny already introduced the folks that are on 

the call, so I'm going to hand it back to Michelle 

-- sorry, back to Steve.

MR. ELA: Alright. Well, I just want 

to say what's already been said, but thank you to 

all the NOSB members. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

This is a long process leading up to 

the Board meetings, a lot of work, and I think 

everybody has really done a great job in getting 

things to the public and then, as well, to the 

stakeholders for all the wonderful public comments 

that have been sent in.

It really does inform our work and 

oftentimes may change our minds or also help 

reinforce what we're thinking, but the public 

comments really do make a difference in our work 

and I think it's one of the best things about the 

NOSB is to be the conduit between all of you and 

the program, but I think it's a rare thing and it's 

a privilege to be part of that.

So, with that, we'll kind of start 

jumping into things and just go through some 

housekeeping items.

Just a reminder, there is a Policy and 

Procedures Manual about public comments that is 

published and available in terms of our policies 

and procedures.

Of those, all speakers who will be 

recognized signed up during the registration 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

period. So, we won't recognize anybody who did 

not sign up.

When you first start to speak, please 

give your name and affiliation for the record at 

the beginning of the public comment.

And if you are a consultant, for 

example, working for another company, if you would 

also let us know who you're speaking for just in 

terms of knowing if you're representing yourself 

or somebody else, that would be greatly 

appreciated.

Proxy speakers are not permitted. If 

you signed up, you are the one that has to give 

the comments.

And as Jenny already mentioned, and 

given some of the tenor of some of the written 

comments, I want to stress again this is a 

professional meting and a professional board with 

people doing their best.

And so, any individuals providing 

public comment shall refrain from making any 

personal attacks or remarks that might impugn the 

character of any individual, and I'm going to say 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

company as well.

So, let's keep it professional and talk 

about the proposals at hand and the sunsets and 

stick to that and not try and decide what somebody 

else is thinking.

We do ask, just to help us, that members 

of the public are asked to define clearly and 

succinctly the issues they wish to present before 

the Board.

This will give us, the NOSB members, 

a comprehensible understanding of the speakers' 

concerns.

We will call the speakers in order of 

the schedule. Each commenter will have three 

minutes to speak.

As always, Michelle has got her 

favorite timer right up there at the top that will 

sound when your time is up.

When you hear the timer, please finish 

your sentence and end your comment. We want to 

give everybody the same amount of time. So, please 

be respectful.

And, Michelle, are you ready for that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

preview of what it sounds like?

MS. ARSENAULT: Perfect timing. I 

just got buzzed by a helicopter.

(Laughter.)

MS. ARSENAULT: Can everyone hear?

MR. ELA: That either means that your 

egg is done on your egg timer or it's time for you 

to finish making a comment.

So, just, in general, Michelle will pin 

that timer at the top of the screen so you can see 

it.

I will always announce the speaker that 

we're going to and then I usually will announce 

who is going to be up next. and maybe even the next 

couple people, just so anybody, if you're coming 

up, you'll be ready, you can be ready to unmute 

yourself and turn on your video, if you so choose.

After your comment, board members will 

indicate to me if they have questions and I will 

call on them in the order that they raised their 

hands.

And I will ask board members if I don't 

see a raised hand or I don't catch you, please jump 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

in and let me know that you did want to ask a 

question because I sometimes miss that and it 

doesn't bother me if you let me know verbally. 

So, don't be shy. And only NOSB members are 

allowed to ask questions, just to be clear, as 

always.

At the end of the day, we do have a wait 

list. And if we're not running too late, I will 

start calling on people from the wait list.

If you're on the wait list and we don't 

get to you today, we will do our best to get to 

you on Thursday. So, please hang in there for both 

days if we haven't gotten to you today.

And also, if either we have technical 

problems with somebody or somebody isn't present,

we do circle back at the end of the list, circle 

back to those that weren't present as we work 

through it just to make sure that we give them a 

chance and there weren't technical issues 

preventing them from speaking.

With that, does the Board have any 

questions about how this procedure works?

(Pause.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Alright. Well, we'll jump 

into it and we've got a full schedule. So, the 

only other thing I will say to the board members, 

as I've said before, because we're so tight, please 

refrain from making comments to the stakeholders 

who are giving this testimony, but do ask 

questions.

So, I guess, use this time for 

questions, not comments. This is one of the few 

times we get to interact directly with our 

stakeholders. So, let's make the most of that 

time.

Alright. We're going to start off with 

Tim Stemwedel. The next speaker after Tim will 

be Daren Stemwedel and then Deborah Stemwedel.

So, Tim, you are first up. Please 

state your name and affiliation for the record and 

you can begin your testimony.

MR. T. STEMWEDEL: Alright. Tim 

Stemwedel. I'm president and owner of California 

Organic Fertilizers.

As a biologist and agronomist, I find 

it insane that the NOSB is contemplating placing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

what the Crops Subcommittee agrees unanimously is 

a natural material, a molecule, ammonia, that's 

essential to life on earth, on the National List 

as a prohibited natural substance.

In general, the Crops Subcommittee's 

report is full of misleading and opinionated 

statements that should be discarded.

They have failed to see qualified 

advice so that each NOSB member may fully 

understand the issue.

It's rather disgraceful that the 

validity of the TR report has been accepted as 

factual regardless of the countless respondents 

pointing out the many flaws.

The Crops Subcommittee failed to 

compare AE products to existing products to 

determine negative environmental impact relative 

to products already in the marketplace.

Composting studies on animal manure 

show 40 to 60 percent of the total nitrogen is 

volatilized as ammonia and lost to the atmosphere.

Poultry manure contains synthetic 

phosphate as feed and chemicals to control 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

emissions of ammonia. Liquid fish contains 

synthetic acids.

I disagree with the NOSB Crop 

Subcommittee's vote to prohibit AE made using 

separation stripping processes.

Since you agree by vote that AE is a 

natural substance, you agree that ammonia, the 

molecule itself, made using concentration methods 

or separation stripping methods are the same.

No evidence has been provided that 

shows the ammonia from separation is different from 

that of concentration. The only difference is 

whether or not other ingredients are present.

If I understand the law correctly, 

concentrated ingredients is a blend and can't be 

placed on the National List, but this is what you 

propose.

Since you agree that the ammonia 

molecule is the same, you are actually proposing 

to prohibit a group of manufacturing processes 

which have always been approved for use in organic 

agriculture.

They agree that separating provides 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

more purified product, but viewed that as a 

negative and no justification.

The acknowledgment that concentrating 

includes all the soluble ingredients on the base 

materials, they acknowledged that, the Committee 

has failed to analyze or consider the non-ammonia 

ingredients other than carbon, such as salts and 

sodium and other substances which may be toxic.

The Committee has provided no evidence 

that separation technologies don't meet criteria 

defined by OFPA and subsequent regulations.

They claim the organic ag is 

sustainable and regenerative, but push for 

regulations against new technology that recycles 

nutrients, creates green energy, lowers 

groundwater pollution by nitrates, improve carbon 

sequestration and increases sustainability of 

agriculture.

The Committee accepts ammonia as a 

natural, but clearly does not see the ammonia 

molecule as equal in all respects to carbon 

molecules and essential for carbon to function in 

biology. I ask you to vote no on this proposal.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Thank you very much. Are 

there questions from the Board, if you would raise 

your hands?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: Alright. I am not seeing any 

hands. So, thank you very much for your testimony 

and we will move next to Daren Stemwedel, followed 

by Deborah Stemwedel and then Lynn Coody.

So, go ahead, Daren. Please state your 

name and affiliation and proceed with your 

comments.

MR. D. STEMWEDEL: Good morning. My 

name is Daren Stemwedel. I'm the general counsel 

for California Organic Fertilizers.

The proposal on ammonia extracts stems 

from an inadequate technical report and the 

improper influence of interested parties.

The OFPA states the NOSB shall convene 

technical advisory panels to provide scientific 

evaluation of materials considered for the 

National List. Such panels may include experts 

in agronomy, entomology, health sciences and other 

relevant disciplines.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Despite this law, the NOSB uses 

technical reports and task forces in lieu of such 

panels.

The policy manual requires that, quote, 

the third-party contractor must have technical 

expertise relevant to the petition.

The relevant areas and expertise here 

are soil health, agronomy, human health, organic 

crop production and the organic regulatory 

environment and its enforcement.

The individual hired to draft the TR, 

Dr. Shivokevich, is not a soil scientist. He's 

not an agronomist. He does not have a medical 

background. 

MR. POWELL-PALM: I apologize. I'm 

going to have to jump in here. Please do not speak 

disparagingly about individuals. Please stick to 

the topic at hand.

MR. D. STEMWEDEL: You know, with all 

due respect, sir, I'm a member of the public 

commenting on a federal rulemaking process.

The First Amendment of the United 

States Constitution guarantees me the right to make 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

such comments particularly where I am raising 

issues I wish to preserve for potential future 

litigation.

Your admonition to the contrary is 

highly improper and, quite frankly, it's another 

example of issues I want to raise today.

Now, I'm going to continue. If you 

could please replace the time on my --

MR. POWELL-PALM: No, we don't replace 

enough time. Please continue.

MR. D. STEMWEDEL: Okay. He is not an 

organic farmer. He has no apparent expertise in

the enforcement of organic regulations.

Unsurprisingly, the TR is replete with 

errors and misunderstandings of the nature and 

application of natural ammonia extracts.

The manual also requires the Crops 

Subcommittee to ensure that the TR is, quote, based 

on the best available information that could be 

obtained within the designated time frame.

While the TR has an impressively long 

list of citations, not one appears to be about the 

natural ammonia products you seek to ban.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Why didn't the author of the TR take 

the time to reach out and ask questions from experts 

like us who have developed and sell these products 

for use in organic farming?

The TR repeatedly claims that reports 

are not available on ammonia extracts, so it will 

use conventional ammonia as a substitute.

This is absurd. The author of the TR 

did not attempt to find, or, perhaps, did not know 

where to find such reports. 

NOSB policies also require 

impartiality both from NOSB members and those 

contracted to advise their opinions.

And further, substitution of the 

legally required advisory panel of the NOSB engaged 

an ammonia task force assembled by the Organic 

Trade Association.

I do not know who is on this task force. 

I asked the OTA, but they would not tell me.

I do know that the author of the 

petition himself, Mike Menes, is on the Board of 

Directors of the OTA.

How can the NOSB claim impartiality 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

when it sought special guidance from the task force 

of an organization led by the petitioner?

The OTA also submitted a lengthy 

written comment, which reads very much like the 

petition, and nowhere is that conflict of interest 

disclosed.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you for your 

comments.

MR. D. STEMWEDEL: This is (inaudible) 

breach for both the NOSB and the OTA, an 

organization which is poked in the guise of 

partiality purporting to be a, quote, unifying 

voice of the organic industry.

MR. ELA: Okay. Your time is up, so are 

there any questions from the Board for the speaker?

MR. D. STEMWEDEL: There is also written 

comment purporting to be --

MR. ELA: Excuse me, sir. If you 

continue, we will have to mute you. Please respect 

this.

Are there any questions from the Board?

MR. D. STEMWEDEL: -- (inaudible) is an 

expert in this to support trade law --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Okay. Can we mute the 

speaker? Thank you. We warned you several times. 

You continued. So, please respect our process.

Are there any questions?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: Alright. With that, we will 

move on to Deborah Stemwedel, followed by Lynn 

Coody and Allen "Fee-lo" or "Fi-lo." I apologize 

if I mispronounce your name.

So, Deborah, please state your name and 

affiliation and start your comments.

MS. ARSENAULT: Deb, you're on mute. 

There we go. Go ahead.

MS. STEMWEDEL: Thank you. Good 

morning. My name is Deborah Stemwedel and I'm with 

California Organic Fertilizers.

"Without facts, you can't have truth. 

Without truth, you can't have trust." This is 

a quote from Maria Ressa, who won a Nobel Peace 

Prize last week for her efforts to safeguard 

freedom of expression.

It is my hope that NOSB members take 

this quote to heart. The repeated violation of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

free speech during these meetings must stop.

Many of us joining the NOSB meetings 

are struggling with trust issues. The handling 

of the petition to make natural ammonia a 

prohibited substance is a travesty. It has been 

completely corrupted by personal bias.

Misinformation has taken on a life of 

its own. Science has been ignored, disparaged and 

replaced by gut feelings.

Whether stakeholders are for or against 

this petition, all of us should be appalled by the 

way it has been handled.

The rush to bring this petition to a 

vote demeans the entire petition process and the 

flaunting of all policies and procedures is an 

affront to the organic community.

Placing a natural substance on the 

National List should be taken with the utmost care.

Instead, the Crops Subcommittee has 

twisted this process to propose listing it out of 

an abundance of caution. Without facts, you can't 

have truth. Without truth, you can't have trust.

On March 2nd, the minutes of the Crops 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Subcommittee meeting state that more information 

is needed. Discussion is had about the 

inadequacies of the technical report.

The next recorded action is the 

presentation of a draft proposal on July 27th. 

None of the minutes between the March 2nd and the 

July 27th meeting record any new information being 

considered or shared. This is simply wrong and 

a breach of the public's trust.

Not a single action required by the NOP 

has been taken. Not one of the six required 

criteria has been completed.

NOSB members agree to follow certain 

standards when accepting their positions. These 

standards are clearly stated in the NOSB policy 

and procedure manul.

This manual requires members to have 

the ability to evaluate technical information and 

to fully participate in board deliberations and 

recommendations.

The meeting minutes do not reflect 

either evaluation or participation and the pending 

proposal reflects this lack.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I respect the dedication and passion 

of NOSB members. I believe you have the courage 

to start this process over and to do it correctly.

I encourage members who feel that the 

process was rushed, that shortcuts were taken, that 

science was dismissed in favor of opinion or who 

simply feel they do not have the expertise to vote, 

stop this process, refocus the Committee's efforts 

on a fair, impartial and transparent study of 

(inaudible). Thank you for your time.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve, if you're 

talking, you're on mute.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Are there any 

questions?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: Alright. Thank you, 

Deborah, for your comments. We're going to move 

on to Lynn Cody, followed by Allen Philo and then 

Daniel Hazen.

So, Lynn, state your name and 

affiliation and give us your comments.

MS. COODY: Hi. My name is Lynn Coody 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and I'm presenting comments for the Organic Produce 

Wholesalers Coalition, seven businesses that 

distribute fresh organic produce across the United 

States and internationally.

Today, I'm commenting on 

biodegradable/biobased mulch, sodium nitrate and 

ammonia extract.

Biodegradable/biobased mulch. OPWC 

supports the proposed change to the definition to 

allow at least 80 percent biobased content.

We think the proposal strikes a balance 

that recognizes the needs of growers, as well as 

their concerns about plastic mulch films, while 

providing a mechanism for increasing use of 

biobased content in agricultural films.

We also ask the NOSB to document and 

advance in its cover letter the subcommittee's 

concept that use of a greater-than 80 percent 

biobased material be required when commercially 

available.

Sodium Nitrate. OPWC concurs with the 

proposal to make a technical correction to 

reinstate the prior annotation for the listing of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

sodium nitrate.

We support this idea as an effort to 

increase regulatory quality especially for growers 

of organic produce.

We also urge NOP to implement the 

Board's prior recommendation on sodium nitrate. 

Failure to do so has not only resulted in growers 

using more sodium nitrate, but also in more 

confusion about the material's regulatory status.

Ammonia extract. OPWC supports the 

prohibition of nonsynthetic AE because, after 

detailed analysis, our primary conclusion is that, 

as a soluble, bioavailable fertilizer, 

nonsynthetic AE is not compatible with the NOSB 

principles of organic production.

We fully support Motion 1. We have 

concerns about Motion 2 because, on its own, it 

allows some use of concentrated AE, which we do 

not think is appropriate for a material that does 

not meet organic principles.

And we conclude that Motion 3 should 

be decoupled from the decision on the AE petition 

so that full implications of new practice standard 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

can be considered.

We noted that both the subcommittee and 

stakeholders on all sides of the issue share a clear 

intention that the language used to regulate 

ammonia extract differentiate between AE and other 

nitrogen-containing fertilizers that have been in 

long use.

However, the subcommittee proposal did 

not directly tackle this concern about unintended 

impacts of non-target materials. 

Please put on Slide 2, Michelle. In 

our written comments, OPWC offers a plan to address 

this critically important aspect of regulating AE 

through information to be conveyed in the NOSB's 

cover letter to the NOP.

Our plan has four main features. It 

is based on the subcommittee's motions; it proposes 

language for an exclusion clause that specifically 

excludes -- sorry, specifically addresses which 

nitrogen-containing fertilizers would be excluded 

from definition as an AE and, therefore, not 

prohibited; it creates a definition for AE that 

should not require frequent revision; and it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

supports a simplified listing for AE on the 

National List. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Lynn. Are there 

questions for Lynn?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: Alright. I am not seeing any. 

So, thank you, Lynn. We appreciate it.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I think Amy and Brian 

have hands raised.

MR. ELA: I'm still having trouble 

seeing my list. So, I apologize. I think I'm 

going to have to look at the pictures. Thanks, 

Nate.

Go ahead, Amy, and then we'll go to 

Brian.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Thank you, Steve. 

And, Lynn,, thank you for your contributions today 

and the written comments. I just wanted to say 

thank you. 

I know this isn't a subject that you 

talked about, but on the supply chain verification 

I just wanted to thank your organization for 

including extended comments on that and then as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

well on the handling standards. I appreciated to 

read a little bit more on what your group's focus 

was on that, so thank you.

MS. COODY: Okay. Thanks, Amy. 

We'll have Mike Dill commenting on that 

specifically tomorrow, too.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Perfect.

MR. ELA: Okay, Brian, go ahead.

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah, thanks, Lynn. 

Just wondered if you had some specific examples 

of the ammonium discussion where No. 3 captures 

things that it doesn't mean to.

MS. COODY: No. 3? Motion No. 3? Is 

that what you're talking about?

MR. CALDWELL: I think that you 

presented the extra wording to clarify No. 3. Am 

I not right about that?

MS. COODY: Actually, we presented an 

exclusion clause. Michelle, could you put that 

slide back up there? I think it's Slide No. 2. 

It shows our exclusion clause.

We presented an exclusion clause with 

the intent that the two motions would be sandwiched 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

together, as suggested by the Crops Subcommittee, 

as an option for presentation in a regulatory 

sense.

So, basically we would have these two 

motions together with an exclusion clause added 

on to help explain which materials would not be 

included.

So, this would eliminate from the 

definition of AE, any materials that have just 

physical filtering or removal of water would 

clearly be taken out of the bucket of any materials 

that would be considered to be AE.

So, then since they're not an AE, they 

are not prohibited and, therefore, farmers can 

still use things like fish emulsion or compost tea 

or manure slurry, things like that.

MR. CALDWELL: Okay. I think I see 

where you're going and it's going to take a while 

to digest combining everything like this, but thank 

you very much.

MS. COODY: Thanks, Brian.

MR. ELA: Any other questions for Lynn?

(Pause.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Alright. Thank you, Lynn.

MS. COODY: Bye.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to Allen 

Philo, followed by Daniel Hazen and then Amalie 

Lipstreu.

Allen, please state your name and 

affiliation and give us your comments.

MR. PHILO: Allen Philo with BioStar 

Renewables regarding proposed motions around 

ammonium extracts.

Please know I've been under the 

weather. So, if I cough or have to pause for a 

breath, just please be patient with me to finish 

at the end.

We at BioStar Renewables are not in 

opposition to the proposed motions, but certainly 

are concerned that they; one, lack adequate 

definition; two, are ill-defined in their scope, 

and; three, may be unenforceable.

Consequently, we believe that the 

motions need to go back to the subcommittee to be 

reworked before voted on by the full NOSB.

We, at BioStar, would prefer to be a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

regulated part of the organic industry with a 

defined place. Subsequently, the following 

comments are for the improvement of the proposed 

motions: To further the goal of the NOSB without 

creating unintended consequences or unenforceable 

motions that potentially would not be acted on by 

the NOP.

I will cover the motion regarding the 

stripping technologies and my colleague Dan Hazen 

will cover the other motions.

The broadness of the stripping motion 

creates concerns that it would encompass all 

organic fertilizer materials and its objective 

interpretation of the name "stripping 

technologies" will lead to arguments about new 

manufacturing processes and whether existing 

processes are what is described in the motion.

In order to avoid these issues, we 

suggest the following changes be made to the 

motion: One, the motion needs to include the word 

"liquid" in it to limit the band to liquid 

fertilizers only.

At the moment, it could be read to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

encompass any dry fertilizer with an ammoniacal 

nitrogen content.

Two, the motion needs to define 

"stripping" in unambiguous language and preferably 

with a quantitative methodology.

An unambiguous definition would be, 

stripping technologies are those technologies that 

remove ammonium at higher concentrations from an 

organic substrate acceptable for field application 

as per present organic standards resulting in 

liquids with higher concentrations of ammonium in 

them than the starting materials. This does not 

include simple liquid solid separation techniques 

such as screw pressing, filtering or centrifuging, 

which remove all dissolved solids at the same rate 

as ammonium from said parent materials.

As a definition tied to quantitative 

methodology, we suggest the following definition: 

A product is deemed to have been made by a 

stripping technology if the ratio of ammonium as 

a percentage of dissolved solids is higher than 

it was in the parent organic substrate at any point 

in the manufacturing process being used to create 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the liquid fertilizer.

Organic substrate that would be 

acceptable for a field application as per present 

organic standards are acceptable for testing for 

the original dissolved solids ratio as in lagoon 

water, digestate effluent, particulate 

scrubbings, et cetera.

It should be noted that in our 

manufacturing process of concentration we lose 

ammonium and the ratio of ammonium to dissolve 

solids decrease as opposed to the stripping 

technologies in question where it increases; and 

testing this ratio, therefore, provides an easily 

testable quantitative definition.

This methodology would not capture any 

intended materials of which we are presently aware.

This proposed definition and 

methodology is able to distinguish a fertilizer 

made with stripping technologies regardless of the 

total percent nitrogen in the final product, 

including products testing as low as one percent 

total nitrogen.

Again, we advance these definitions as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

solutions to avoid the above-identified issues 

with the present motion and are neither in favor 

or oppose the banning of stripping technologies. 

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Appreciate that. 

Are there questions from the Board?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: I have a question for you if 

I don't see anybody else. In your reference to 

that it should be addressed only to liquids and 

not solids, my understanding is that you can take 

a liquid and then make it into an ammonium salt 

that would just be another step in the process after 

a liquid.

So, could you explain to me more why 

solids, especially ammonium salts, should not be 

touched while only liquids should be?

MR. PHILO: The question really comes 

down to the nonsynthetic/synthetic decision tree. 

At that point when something would be precipitated 

out of solution and become an ammonium salt, 

technically you would have formed a new molecular 

compound; therefore, that would not be considered 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a nonsynthetic. 

That should be considered a synthetic 

substance and would actually not be -- there was 

a first motion you voted on declaring that these 

things were all nonsynthetic, but even that should 

only apply to the liquids.

Any solid salt that would precipitate 

out should automatically, by the rules, already 

in place be considered synthetic; therefore, these 

rules should be made to only apply to liquids.

MR. ELA: Okay. Great. Thank you. 

Thank you for that clarification. Any other 

questions from the Board?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: Alright. Thank you very much. 

We appreciate your comments and I'm glad you made 

it through considering your health issues.

MR. PHILO: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We're going to move on next 

to Daniel Hazen, followed by Amalie Lipstreu and 

then Jane Sooby.

So, Daniel, please state your name and 

affiliation and start with your comments.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. HAZEN: My name is Dan Hazen. I'm 

president of Perfect Blend Organics. We'd like 

to echo the position laid out by BioStar and, due 

to the time constraints, I'm going to comment on 

Motions 3 and 4.

There are several issues with these 

motions regarding what we believe the Board is 

trying to accomplish in pertaining to the 

enforceability of the proposed motions.

Also, the motions appear to create 

unintended consequences on the oversight of 

fertilizer manufacturing.

First, the intent of the motions appear 

to limit the total amount of ammonium entering the 

soil at one time; however, the motion does not limit 

this in any way.

Consider together if a fertilizer is 

less than 50 percent ammoniacal N and has a 3 to 

1 C:N ratio, there is no limit to the amount of 

fertilizer that can be applied at one time or in 

total.

Two, there are no regulations requiring 

that nitrogen forms or carbon contents be listed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

on fertilizer labels.

This type of enforcement would require 

testing of individual materials during organic 

inspection placing too high a burden on the 

inspectors and the certification agencies.

Three, presently the CDFA and OMRI 

govern liquid fertilizer with an N total of more 

than three percent by subjecting them to one 

scheduled inspection per year and one unannounced 

inspection as a fraud prevention measure.

If the maximum amount of ammoniacal N 

allowed in these products is capped at three 

percent, then potentially any fertilizers in 

question are no longer subjected to this oversight.

The Board has indicated concerns 

regarding fraud and it would appear that this lack 

of oversight would be counterproductive.

In an effort to remedy these issues, 

please consider the following: One, the concerns 

that are being raised with ammonium are applicable 

to all high-nitrogen liquid fertilizers at 

present.

There's already a statute in place 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

governing these products and could be used as a 

basis for a more enforceable regulation.

The cutoff for nitrogen content, 

regardless of the form of the nitrogen, would be 

capped at six percent. There's already a 

precedent established with the CDFA at this level.

Three, the total cumulative use would

be capped at 20 percent of crop needs for any given 

crop. This avoids issues with stacking. And, 

four, the products would need to have a C:N ratio 

of 3 to 1. 

This set of proposed rules would, No. 

1, keep the burden of enforcement with MROs and 

allow the continued oversight of fertilizer 

manufacturing facility, which we encourage.

Two, limit the total amount of nitrogen 

in liquid form that could be used cumulatively 

creating a stronger regulation more in line with 

the spirit of organics.

Lastly, it would also capture liquified 

forms of sodium nitrate and any other new forms 

of high-nitrogen liquid fertilizers that would be 

developed in the future regardless of the form of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

nitrogen in the product.

And since I have 12 seconds left, one 

last thing to consider. Look at our carbon 

footprint, what we're talking about.

Let's just say you have 10 million 

gallons at six percent. That's the quotient of 

2,000 truckloads. Three percent, that would take 

it to 4,000 truckloads. Think of the excessive 

fuel, wear and tear on our infrastructure.

MR. ELA: Great. Thank you very much, 

Dan. Appreciate it. It looks like Logan has a 

question for you.

MS. PETREY: Alright. Thank you. 

So, I have seen at BioStar -- or, excuse me, Perfect 

Blend, they do have a product for ammonia extract, 

is that correct, currently on the market?

MR. PHILO: Yes, we do, ma'am.

MS. PETREY: Okay. How long have you 

had that product?

MR. PHILO: Well, BioStar's had it 

registered since 2012. We've been in the 

marketplace since -- for three years. So, since 

2018.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. PETREY: Okay. To your knowledge, 

do you have farmers that are changing their 

fertilizer practices and not using as much compost 

or things that contain a carbon and instead using 

this product?

You know, the concern is that we're not 

feeding the soil microbiology through products 

like this and that there would be a huge 

replacement.

Didn't know if you saw that among the 

products that you currently have.

MR. HAZEN: What we see in the industry 

with our growers and our customers is is that 

they're using it only for their liquid program.

The one thing that we love about the 

organic industry and the farmers is they're very, 

very intelligent when it comes to protecting their 

carbon base. 

And so, what we see is that they -- in 

the fall, they use a large dry program. We've been 

in the industry producing a dry granular since 

2001.

So, they go out in the fall with a dry 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

program and then they follow it up in the spring 

and summer with the liquid to continue to push that 

whole biological system.

MS. PETREY: Okay. So, in your opinion, 

this is not displacing products like the dry 

fertilizers or amendments and may just be a 

substitute for already used liquid programs?

MR. HAZEN: Exactly. They're 

basically replacing things like fish. They're 

concerned about -- frankly, they're concerned 

about the synthetics when you kind of look at fish 

and the whole phosphoric acid issue.

So, again, my hat's off to the organic 

industry and the growers. They know what they're 

doing.

MS. PETREY: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Looks like Amy has her hand 

up. You may be on mute. Hi, Amy.

MS. BRUCH: Hi. Sorry. Hopefully 

that's the only time I do that. Thank you for your 

written comments and your oral comments. I just 

have a couple questions/follow-ups.

When you extract your ammonia from the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

manure, what is done with the leftover manure 

product?

MR. HAZEN: So, in our particular case, 

we're concentrating the product. And so, what we 

do is is the liquid comes through -- as liquid comes 

through the operation, we're actually using a 

centrifuge to take out the last bit of -- not the 

last bit of particulate, but the particulate that 

is in the product to where it wouldn't allow the 

product to flow through a drip. And so, again, 

our carbon and nitrogen ratio is 3 to 1 or higher.

That actual centrifuge product goes 

right back out into our manure pile and we reprocess 

it through. So, it's a zero-waste type of system.

MS. BRUCH: Um-hm. What would be the 

analysis of that final -- of the product, of the 

waste stream?

MR. HAZEN: Prior to putting it through 

an evaporation process?

MS. BRUCH: Just post the ammonia being 

extracted.

MR. HAZEN: Well, we're not extracting 

the ammonia. The ammonia is actually in the water.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BRUCH: Okay.

MR. HAZEN: It's in the water and so 

we're not -- again, we're not stripping or anything 

like that.

So, the liquid, before we concentrate 

it up, is anywhere from 1-1/2 to 2 percent.

MS. BRUCH: Um-hm. what I'm trying to 

--

MR. HAZEN: That's total nitrogen. And 

of that total nitrogen of 1-1/2 to 2 percent, 95 

percent of that is ammoniacal, Amy.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. What I'm trying to 

focus in on is not necessarily the product that 

you're removing. I'm trying to focus on what's 

remaining and what you'll return back to manure 

or what is manure.

I was just trying to understand what 

that analysis is of --

MR. HAZEN: Well, the liquid -- the 

ammoniacal -- the liquid, let's just call it the 

liquid nitrogen, is going to be 1-1/2 to 2 percent 

in water.

And in that water, you're going to have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a remaining particulate. And through a centrifuge 

process, we're basically removing that 

particulate. 

And so, that particulate, once it's 

removed, it's like our traditional, say -- I'm just 

going to throw out a 442 product. Okay?

MS. BRUCH: Um-hm.

MR. HAZEN: Of that 442 product, the 

ammoniacal nitrogen in that product is anywhere 

from a half to three-quarters of a percent in solid 

form.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. So, there is 

ammoniacal nitrogen still remaining in solid form 

in addition to the organic nitrogen.

MR. HAZEN: Correct.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. In more of a 442 form. 

Okay. And then my last -- or my second question 

would be, in the liquid program you mentioned to 

Logan that primarily folks are using this not 

substituting for their dry program, but the liquid.

How are they applying this liquid? Is 

it through ground rig, irrigation systems or is 

there another way to apply?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. HAZEN: The product is designed 

where it can go through any system. So, you can 

see it being applied on a drip basis. You can see 

it applying through pivot irrigation. It can be 

applied through any type of application that's 

liquid.

MS. BRUCH: Um-hm. If not applied 

with water, is there a volatility with it?

MR. HAZEN: No, because it's 

stabilized and it's stabilized through our dry 

manufacturing process.

We're the only ones that have ben able 

to actually -- we actually pH balance our product 

through our dry process, you know, which obviously 

becomes the liquid process, and so we're not using 

other type of additives

Of course, the fish has the phosphoric, 

it's been, you know, grandfathered, but we don't 

use citric or anything like that.

MS. BRUCH: Um-hm.

MR. HAZEN: It's a proprietary process, 

Amy, yeah. Go ahead.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Thank you, Daniel. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Appreciate that.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Dan. We do 

appreciate it.

MR. HAZEN: Thank you very much.

MR. ELA: We're going to move on to 

Amalie Lipstreu, and then Jane Sooby and then Julia 

Barton.

So, Amalie, please state your name and 

affiliation and give us your comments.

MS. LIPSTREU: Good afternoon from 

Ohio. My name is Amalie Lipstreu and I'm the 

policy director for the Ohio Ecological Food and 

Farm Association.

I'd like to share a few key points of 

consideration regarding organic management and 

climate that I hope will influence your future 

communications with Secretary Vilsack.

As you know, organic management systems 

are voluntary and American policymaking 

prioritizes voluntary measures over regulation. 

Support for organic is, or certainly should be, 

bipartisan. 

Organic management systems provide 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

multiple ecosystem services of note when we look 

to solutions to the climate crisis.

You recently noted in your letter to 

the Secretary in response to the 90-day progress 

report on actions to address climate, that organic 

farms start from the vantage of having a higher

soil organic carbon suggesting that there is 

potential for these farms to contribute to climate 

change mitigation.

Certainly research from the Rodale 

Institute also confirms that greater water holds 

in capacity and infiltration of organically 

managed soils, which is critical for long-term 

adaptation and food systems resilience.

It's rare that we acknowledge how 

organic management systems combine suites of 

practices that work synergistically.

As promising as incentivizing cover 

crop use is, planting cover and burring it down 

with Roundup, it's not going to get us where we 

need to go on soil health, climate mitigation or 

food systems resilience.

Organic farmers nurture the soil 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

biology that's key to meeting many of these 

challenges that we face.

And finally, organic is holistic. 

It's not focused on any one environmental outcome 

and uses the systems-based approach that builds 

long-term resilience.

I recently had the opportunity to ask 

Deputy Secretary Bronaugh/Under Secretary 

Moffitt, how they plan to promote organic 

agriculture as a key solution to climate change, 

USDA plans for future investments in the NOP, and 

support for farmers transitioning to organic 

(inaudible). This is really good news and yet it's 

not enough.

I want to thank you for writing the 

letter to Secretary Vilsack noting the lack of USDA 

inclusion of organic agriculture in the 90-day 

progress report.

Please continue to communicate with the 

Secretary the importance of investing in, 

acknowledging and, yes, promoting organic 

management systems as a path to climate adaptation 

and food systems resilience.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

As we face an existential crisis, we 

all need to hold the executive branch accountable 

to promote and market organic management systems. 

MR. ELA: Thank you. Are there 

questions from the Board?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: I'll just ask one real quick 

one. How do you think we should, you know, in terms 

of, you know, continuous improvement in organics, 

how do you think we should, like, in the more 

immediate sense, tie into how organics are 

beneficial for climate change?

You know, what are the -- I mean, you 

just named a bunch of tangible things. But if we 

were going to document that, how would we document 

it at this point?

MS. LIPSTREU: Well, you know, I think 

in talking about the benefits of organic systems 

for climate change, it's really important that we 

don't get reductionist the way that we see with 

some potential solutions that are out there and 

that are being talked about for climate change.

I think the, you know, the beauty of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

organics, again, is this holistic, synergistic 

nature of, you know, the voluntary suites of 

practices that people are using, not just soil 

health, but also the water infiltration, the 

water-holding capacity as well as, you know, some 

of these other issues around carbon, both 

mitigation and sequestration.

So, I know there's a lot of questions 

out there in terms of sequestration ability. I 

think we can certainly look and say that, you know, 

when we compare organic systems to other 

alternatives out there in terms of this holistic 

nature and the accountability, that's where we 

really need to hold up the national organic program 

as a model that needs to be promoted.

MR. ELA: Great. Alright. Any other 

questions?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: Great. Thank you so much. 

We are going to move on to Jane Sooby, followed 

by Julia Barton and then Robert Long.

Jane, please state your name and 

affiliation and give us your comments.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SOOBY: Thank you, Steve. Hello. 

I'm Jane Sooby with CCOF, California Certified 

Organic Farmers, and I'd like to thank the staff 

of the National Organic Program, the members of 

the National Organic Standards Board and all of 

the stakeholders on this call and all the calls 

and meetings next week for their dedication to 

organic.

Our comment is we'd like to express that 

CCOF is in alignment with and thanks the Crops 

Subcommittee for their call for the NOP to move 

forward on a current method of listing EPA List 

3 inerts and a parallel process to List 4 inerts.

The continued inclusion of EPA's List 

4 and 3 -- yikes. Sorry. The continued inclusion 

of EPA's List 4 and 3 and some materials annotations 

is challenging because EPA's regulations have 

changed, but NOP's references to them have not.

Along similar lines, the Handling 

Subcommittee's proposed fish oil annotation refers 

to external third-party certifications. 

CCOF noted, in our written comments, 

that incorporation by reference of other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

certifications may lead to certifier 

inconsistencies in determining what sustainable 

certification programs are acceptable under the 

fish oil annotation.

CCOF's larger point is that challenges 

in maintaining certifier consistency and organic 

integrity can arise when organic regulations are 

linked to regulations or verifications outside of 

NOP jurisdiction.

As a rule, NOSB and NOP should determine 

the specific elements of the cited laws or external 

verifications they wish to incorporate into the 

standards and use generic language that reflects 

those requirements.

In addition, as the Crops Subcommittee 

apply noted, removing List 3 inerts from the 

National List would severely limit the ability of 

organic growers to control and monitor a number 

of crop-threatening pests, and CCOF joins them in 

urging the NOP to move forward on a current method 

of listing List 3 inerts, and a parallel process 

to List 4 inerts, to maintain certifier consistency 

and protect organic integrity. Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Great. Thank you, Jane. 

Questions for Jane or comments?

MR. BRADMAN: I have a question. 

MR. ELA: Go ahead.

MR. BRADMAN: Just, I guess, a little 

bit more on the question of third-party 

certification and definitely I think that would 

be a new and, you know, part of a recommendation 

if we go this route with fish oil.

At the same time, you know, there's not 

the resources and infrastructure for the NOSB and 

the NOP and I think, in general, regulatory issues 

around many issues and resource use for organic, 

to really oversee and regulate use of those 

materials.

I mean, I think, you know, this came 

up also with other marine materials like use of 

seaweed, you know, situations where extracting 

resources from one environment and putting it into 

the organic system.

So, you know, what are your thoughts 

on when we're dealing in this case with a product 

part of the five percent in handling the setting, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

but, you know, there's going to be resources that 

are used in organic agriculture that are kind of 

beyond the reach of really overseeing them within 

the current structure.

MS. SOOBY: Yeah. And we've seen that 

in the organic livestock and poultry in the OLPP 

rule as well, invocation of other parts of the 

federal codes.

And, you know, at a minimum, it would 

be useful to have guidance on specifically what

resources to use to verify those certifications 

or, you know, allowing certifications. 

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Logan has a question.

MS. PETREY: Yes. Thank you. Okay. 

As a certifying body, we'll just start off with 

the ammonia extract and the motions in that 

petition. We have the 3 to 1 carbon-nitrogen ratio 

and then it would be limited to 20 percent.

As a certifying body, do you see that 

that would cause issues with inspectors to monitor 

or to enforce that?

MS. SOOBY: You know, that's kind of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

outside the scope of my comment.

MS. PETREY: Yes, ma'am.

MS. SOOBY: So, I'm sorry, I can't 

answer that question.

MR. ELA: Alright. Logan, anything 

else?

MS. PETREY: No, sir.

MR. ELA: Anybody else? 

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: Alright. We will move on. 

Thank you so much, Jane.

We are going to move on to Julia Barto, 

followed by Robert Long and then Terry Shistar.

Julia, please go ahead, state your name 

and affiliation and give us your comments.

MS. BARTON: Thank you. Good 

afternoon. My name is Julia Barton with the Ohio 

Ecological Food and Farm Association. I'd like 

to thank you for your work and to share comments 

on three topics today.

Field and greenhouse container 

production. OEFFA has been meeting informally 

with partner organizations discussing the topic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of hydroponics and container production.

Hydroponics is not a settled issue. 

We do not agree that hydroponics are able to be 

certified based on a full reading of OFPA.

Further, we'd like to lift up the latent 

and related container issue. We submitted a joint 

letter to the Board noting areas of agreement and 

requesting that the suddenly missing agenda item 

of field and greenhouse container production 

return to the NOSB work agenda in active form.

We would happily provide detailed input 

as to the forward movement of this agenda item with 

the shared goal of improved transparency and 

consistency and bringing us into greater alignment 

with the global organic movement, including the 

recent IFOAM position on hydroponics.

Racial equity. OEFFA appreciates the 

work of the current administration bringing equity 

issues to the floor within USDA and the efforts 

of NOC to bringing these issues to light within 

the organic community.

We support NOC's written racial equity 

comments and also have two specific requests. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

First, please reorganize NOSB subcommittees to 

include a diversity, equity, inclusion 

subcommittee to begin to discuss and address race 

issues in organics.

It was suggested that perhaps two 

subcommittees could be combined to make room for 

a DEI subcommittee.

Imagine what we could get done if our 

organic leadership board took up this topic on a 

regular basis, posed ideas and sought community 

feedback.

Secondly, please add fairness 

standards to the NOSB work agenda and work to 

develop them.

IFOAM's fairness principles are a good 

starting point for discussion and we urge the NOSB 

to engage with the public in a group effort to 

develop social justice standards for the national 

organic program.

Finally, the timing and format of 

meetings. Our colleague Mike Dill and organically 

grown company shared an interesting idea during 

the NOC pre-NOSB meeting a couple of weeks ago.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Mike suggested we break the NOSB 

meetings into four meetings. One meeting during 

the summer and winter each focusing on big-picture 

issues, and one meeting each spring and fall as 

they are now focused on materials.

Further, we could suggest that two be 

held in person and two be held virtually, thereby 

mitigating concerns regarding winter travel, 

spreading out the workload and reducing up-front 

costs.

OEFFA Grain Growers also continue to 

suggest solutions to the spring and fall meeting 

schedule, which they feel systematically 

disenfranchises many stakeholders, including many 

farmers across the U.S., who are particularly busy 

during that time of the year.

We look forward to your updates about 

how we might improve access to the meetings as you 

discussed in the proposal shared by the policy 

subcommittee. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Julia. Are there 

questions?

MR. BRADMAN: I just want to ask more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

about the idea of fairness standards. I think that 

is a really interesting and important goal in many 

contexts in terms of farmwork and other settings 

as well.

I'm curious how broad is the thinking 

on this? And I apologize that I haven't gone 

through all the written comments yet, so I'll get 

to it.

MS. BARTON: We did not go into great 

detail on the fairness standards in our written 

comments other than to ask that it be added to the 

work agenda echoing NOC's leadership on this issue.

I will say that OEFFA is part of the 

agricultural justice project and does certify to 

the AJP standards, and we'd be happy to discuss 

that with you further, Asa, if you're interested.

That group has worked for a long time 

on fairness standards and I think we have a lot 

of room to grow within organic and this is one of 

the arenas in which, you know, we have an 

opportunity for that growth.

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah, I agree. Thank you.

MS. BARTON: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Any other questions?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, Julia. 

Greatly appreciate it.

MS. BARTON: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

Robert Long, followed by Terry Shistar and then 

Kiki Hubbard.

So, Robert, please state your name and 

affiliation and start with your comments. 

MR. LONG: Good morning. I'm Robert 

Long with Braga Fresh Family Farms. I've been 

farming organic vegetables in the Monterey, San 

Benito and Santa Cruz Counties for 15 years.

I've been part of companies that are 

some of the largest organic producers in the 

country growing in excess of 10,000 acres per year, 

producing millions of pounds of leafy greens and 

other row crop commodities every week of the year.

I am the fourth generation in my family 

to grow vegetables in the Salinas Valley, but the 

first to do so organically.

My employment relationships have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

allowed me to continue a proud family farming 

tradition while at the same time pushing ahead with 

pioneers and bringing the organic movement to the 

mainstream.

I do not want to use ammonia extract 

as part of my farming practices because I believe 

it is a short-term fix that is not in the spirit 

of the organic method.

An organic farmer incorporates 

specific tillage, nutrient and irrigation 

management practices with the goal of increasing 

soil health, microbial activity and fertility.

There is an interconnectedness of all 

of these components that must come together over 

the long term to build a successful organic system.

The organic farmer does not have the 

tools in his toolbox to push a crop towards a 

desired outcome. 

I feel that the use of ammonia extract 

would be a step backwards from the principles of 

organic growing and lead us down a path that 

converges with conventional practices, and this 

is not what the organic seal represents.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

As an organic farmer dedicated to his 

craft, I know full well that we can rely on 

traditional organic principles to grow vegetables 

in the marketplace that are on par with 

conventionally produced vegetables. The consumer 

demands it and we do not fall short.

Farming any system is hard organically 

or conventionally. I can understand the 

attraction of ammonia extract with its high 

plant-available nitrogen, which would let me 

provide a quick nitrogen fix for my crops, but I 

do not agree that allowing it for use in organic 

is the right path for organic farming.

Our organic farming practices are about 

more than just producing vegetables. They are 

part of a movement to take better care of our soil 

and our --

MS. ARSENAULT: I think we just lost him.

MR. ELA: We lost him.

MS. ARSENAULT: Yeah. He dropped off 

the call. Alright.

MR. ELA: Well, we'll move on and I know 

somebody had a question there for him. If we can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

get him back on, we'll let him finish his testimony 

and go to questions.

MS. HUSEMAN: I think there was about 

45 seconds left on the timer.

MR. ELA: Exactly.

MS. ARSENAULT: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Right. So, we'll see if we 

can pick that back up. Meanwhile, while we're 

trying to get him back, let's move on Terry Shistar, 

followed by Kiki Hubbard, and then Jay Feldman.

So, Terry, would you like to go ahead 

and state your name and affiliation and comments?

MS. SHISTAR: Sure. 

MS. ARSENAULT: Terry has slides.

MR. CLARK: They're the auto ones. So, 

Terry, just let me know when you want to start and 

I'll start your slides.

MS. SHISTAR: Just start right now. 

My name is Terry Shistar and I'm on the board of 

directors of Beyond Pesticides. This is a 

three-minute review of our comprehensive written 

comments.

This year has brought us more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

(inaudible) ecological collapse, wildfires, 

insect apocalypse, crashing populations of marine 

organisms, creatures large and small entangled in 

plastic, more species extinct or at risk of 

extinction, rising global temperatures, horrific 

storms and pandemics.

Our organization focuses on one of the 

most blatant examples of environmental abuse, the 

dispersal of toxic chemicals across the landscape.

Organic can be a big part of the global 

solution only if it doesn't stray from its core 

values and practices.

We are not interested in what's less 

harmful, we urgently want to prevent ecological 

collapse.

some issues on the agenda have already 

been decided by the NOSB -- why are we not 

advancing? I'll just keep talking.

The NOSB must assert its statutory duty 

to reduce substances allowed and prohibited in 

organic production by reaffirming its positions.

OFPA says the National List must be 

based on the recommendations of the NOSB. Please 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

insist that the NOP respect recommendations on 

carrageenan and sodium nitrate, List 3 inerts, and 

excluded methods.

NOP must implement the 2018 

recommendation to protect native ecosystems 

through regulations and guidance.

We support the letter to Secretary 

Vilsack encouraging organic for climate change 

mitigation.

The most important barriers to organic 

integrity are systemic. For example, better 

enforcement tools can assist in returning organic 

integrity to dairy only if NOP and certifiers 

enforce access to pasture and promulgate a strong 

regulation on origin of livestock.

Our comments on crop include copper 

sulfate as toxic to aquatic organisms and humans 

and should not be used in rice paddies which replace 

natural wetlands and provide alternative habitat 

for animals threatened by the loss of wetlands.

We do not need another antibiotic. We 

support the proposals on ammonia extracts. Zein 

is synthetic if made with corn gluten meal from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

wet corn milling. It's not essential for organic 

production and processing and can be produced 

organically by this alternative practice.

The fish oil annotation lacks the 

necessary transparency to determine whether it 

meets OFPA criteria. Bycatch must not be used for 

fish oil in organic food.

The NOSB needs a comprehensive 

examination of cleansers, sanitizers and 

disinfectants to inform decisions on chlorine and 

other materials. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Terry, and I apologize 

for the lag in your slides. I know that didn't 

help you at all, so thanks for persevering with 

that.

Are there questions for Terry?

MR. BRADMAN: I just want to note, and 

perhaps this can bring out more discussion about 

fish oil and third-party, kind of outsourcing the 

third-party certification, but I want to mention 

that the definition there is for "byproduct," not 

"bycatch."

And I think maybe we need some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

definitions there, but very distinct source 

material.

"Bycatch" would be the inadvertent 

harvesting of marine organisms versus "byproduct," 

which is use of materials that were not the primary 

focus of harvesting. So, I just want to make that 

distinction. 

MS. SHISTAR: Yes. Thank you, Asa. I 

just think it should be made explicit that 

"bycatch" is not allowed.

MR. ELA: Any other questions for Terry?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: I am not seeing any. I'm just 

going to circle back around. 

Did we get Robert Long back, by any 

chance?

MS. ARSENAULT: He is back on the line, 

Steve.

MR. LONG: Yeah. I did jump back in. 

Apparently, I had some critical updates that 

needed to be installed.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: Well, fair enough. You had 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

about 45 seconds left and I don't know if you know 

exactly where you dropped off, but if you'd like 

to continue, we'll let you continue.

MR. LONG: Yeah. I just had a couple 

quick, quick points to wrap up. I was saying 

organic farming practices are about more than just 

producing vegetables. They are part of a movement 

to take better care of our soil and our planet.

And I feel that consumers are aware of 

these efforts that we undertake and we need to 

maintain their trust and confidence in the organic 

seal.

And I would ask that we please support 

farmers who are doing the hard work necessary to 

build healthy soils as required by organic farming 

principles and vote to prohibit the use of ammonia 

extracts from natural sources as crop inputs. Thank 

you.

MR. ELA: Great. Thank you. And we do 

have a couple questions for you. Nate, why don't 

you start off.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Alright. Thank you 

for your comments. Could you speak a little bit 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to what you imagine the incentive for rotate crops 

and can the landscape of crop rotation and soil 

health would become if this was a widely available 

product that folks were confirmed to be allowed 

to use from --

MR. LONG: I think the incentive to 

rotate crops as a farmer is just to build a healthy 

cycle that you don't get locked into monoculture 

agriculture where you're just producing lettuce 

crop after lettuce crop.

A healthy rotation leads to healthy 

farm, healthy plants and, yeah, I think that's the 

incentive is to be able to have those -- that 

healthy ecosystem for your plants to thrive in.

MR. POWELL-PALM: And if you had ammonia 

extract and that was an option, would you see that 

incentive to rotate being consistent or would that 

decline?

MR. LONG: I would think that you still 

need a healthy rotation because even though you've 

got the fertility component, a strong fertility 

component in the extract, you still -- that's not 

going to help you in terms of fighting -- managing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

disease and pests.

So, I think they are kind of independent 

of each other.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Logan.

MS. PETREY: That was very well stated. 

I agree with you. I'm a grower also and, yes, 

crop rotation is definitely needed for -- you 

couldn't grow lettuce back to back to back no matter 

what you had.

MR. LONG: Right.

MS. PETREY: So, on your farm, so you 

have 15 years' experience, you're in California, 

more of an arid climate; however, leafy greens, 

I mean, the quality is extremely necessary. I 

understand. We try to do it over here in 

(inaudible) difficult.

I'm just curious. Do you use any 

fertilizers with readily available nitrogen 

currently?

MR. LONG: Not as part of a normal 

program, no. I've used them spot treatments to 

see what they do, how they work, but, no, I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

those are mainly used as a crutch in problem areas 

and the bulk, yeah, safely say 100 percent of the 

program is --

MS. PETREY: Yeah. So, you would not 

program, you would not bank on using things with 

readily available nitrogen in them to grow your 

crop.

MR. LONG: Right.

MS. PETREY: However, is your crutch 

necessary? Are you saying you would use it or you 

do use it or is this more of like a trial?

MR. LONG: More of a trial basis, yeah, 

to see is there a benefit, is there a difference, 

do they have a place more in terms of --

MS. PETREY: Okay. And when you mean

sticking mean to growing a good quality crop like 

on a trial basis because that would be more 

immediate, or is it a long-term trial (inaudible) 

the soil microbiology?

Is it like a year, like an ongoing 

trial, or is it just an immediate -- does this help 

me with make a good crop?

MR. LONG: Yeah, in the immediate 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

circumstance.

MS. PETREY: Okay. Certainly. Yeah. 

I mean, I understand. Like, if I get a five-inch 

rain, which happens in season, there's definitely 

-- that's a crutch, I guess you could say, 

especially when --

MR. LONG: Right. And does it help? 

It's good knowledge to have. It's good knowledge 

to understand what different fertilizers do to your 

crops on different soils, different ranches, yeah.

It's valuable knowledge to have. Do 

we need theses things? Do we not need these 

things? Yeah.

MS. PETREY: And so, you found that you 

mostly do not need it. Like you said, you 

(inaudible) 100 percent, that's correct?

MR. LONG: Correct, yeah.

MS. PETREY: And in what all states do 

you farm in or what all areas do you --

MR. LONG: Primarily California in 

Southern California in the desert and Yuma.

MS. PETREY: Okay. Thank you.

MR. LONG: Yeah.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Alright. Thank you, Robert, 

and thanks for jumping back on. Appreciate it.

MR. LONG: Yeah. Thanks for the time 

back there. Appreciate it.

MR. ELA: So, we're going to move on to 

Kiki Hubbard, followed by Jay Feldman and then 

Frank Austin.

So, Kiki, state your name and 

affiliation and take the floor.

MS. HUBBARD: Thank you so much. Hi, 

everyone. I am Kiki Hubbard and I'm the director 

of advocacy and communications for Organic Seed 

Alliance.

We are a mission-driven organization 

that works to ensure that organic farmers have the 

seed they need to be successful.

And we're so grateful for the work of 

NOSB and NOP especially during an ongoing pandemic 

that requires us all to meet virtually.

My comments that follow focus on the 

Materials Subcommittee's work on excluded methods.

We have been very supportive of the 

subcommittee's work on this topic, which, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

believe, has now spanned nearly ten years.

We support the proposals -- all the 

proposals. Again, NOSB has already unanimously 

passed on this topic and we're really grateful to 

see the topic back on the agenda this month.

Regarding the discussion document at 

hand that focuses on cell fusion and protoplast 

fusion, we recognize that cell fusion is already 

clearly listed as an excluded method per the 

regulatory definition; however, we do support the 

NOP Policy Memo 13-1 that deems cell fusion and 

protoplast fusion when conducted within taxonomic 

plant families as allowable.

And we believe this method of cell 

fusion, again, when employed within taxonomic 

families, we believe it should be moved to the list 

of methods that are not excluded, but, for absolute 

clarity, also add cell fusion that's operating 

outside of taxonomic families to the list of 

excluded methods.

We encourage the NOSB to present 

recommendations on the remaining TBD methods at 

the next meeting as we continue to hear from organic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

plant breeders, seed growers and other 

stakeholders that there is a sense of urgency in 

wrapping up this work and providing more clarity.

We believe that the lack of clarity is 

risking slow progress toward another organic 

integrity goal, which is to plan as much organic 

seed to organic acreage as possible.

An important point of context here is 

that most organic farmers still use conventional 

seed for at least part of their operation. 

So, enforcing some of these excluded 

methods decisions will be difficult outside of 

certified organic seed production. And this is 

just one reason why we believe strongly that 

organic growers should be consistently required 

within the confines of the rule for us to source 

more organic seed.

We think that measures that result in 

more consistent enforcement of the organic seed 

requirement, including showing measurable 

progress year to year, will resort -- excuse me, 

will result in organic seed companies more 

confidently investing in organic seed production, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

which will only expand availability.

And as more acreage is planted, organic 

seed -- it's going to be easier to enforce these 

excluded methods decisions as well and we believe 

that the organic seed trade will experience a 

strong incentive to adhere to the principles and 

the values of the organic community as they pertain 

to plant breeding methods and that's it. Thank 

you for your time and service.

MR. ELA: Great. You gave us two 

seconds back. Thanks. Are there questions? 

Brian has a question for you.

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah. Thanks very much. 

I have a bunch of questions and I think I only 

have time for one or two, but the first one is, 

organic seed is simply any seed that's allowable 

being grown under organic conditions; is that not 

correct?

MS. HUBBARD: And that does not include 

excluded methods or prohibited substances.

MR. CALDWELL: But not being able to use 

excluded methods is true for any organic grower, 

right?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. HUBBARD: Correct.

MR. CALDWELL: But there's issues with

basically determining whether a given variety has 

used excluded methods in its background; is that 

correct?

MS. HUBBARD: There are some examples 

where it is difficult to trace, and that is the 

case for some of the methods listed as "to be 

determined."

MR. CALDWELL: Right.

MS. HUBBARD: Yeah. Go ahead.

MR. CALDWELL: So, I'm a little bit 

unclear as to why -- I'm totally in favor of organic 

growers and farmers being required to use a lot 

-- almost exclusively of organic seed, but I don't 

see why organic seed would actually help us to --

using organic seed would help us to police or 

enforce the excluded method.

MS. HUBBARD: Well, for starters, 

regardless of whether they're easy to trace or not, 

and some of them can't be traced, of course, we 

-- the organic program has no authority over seed 

suppliers that, you know, are supplying certified 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

organic seed or handlers.

And so, for starters, it would be easier 

to enforce especially for those methods that can 

more easily be traceable.

You're correct that regardless of 

organic or not, those methods that are hard to 

trace, you know, will be difficult within the 

confines of organic.

I think the important point there is, 

though, that there's regulatory authority for 

certified organic seed.

Also, beyond excluded methods organic 

seed represents so much more than what is not 

included, including the plant breeding techniques 

and environmental conditions in which it was bred 

and produced.

And so, we don't want to lose sight of 

the benefits of organic seed, more proudly, and 

the importance of organic seed as a fundamental 

first input to the integrity of the end product. 

That is progress that I think we should be striving 

for.

MR. CALDWELL: Great. Thank you, yeah. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I'm totally all for having use of organic seed, 

but I just wanted to see what that -- exactly what 

that connection was between the sort of 

enforceability of excluded methods and organic 

seed and I think you've clarified that. So, thank 

you very much.

MS. HUBBARD: You're welcome.

MR. ELA: Okay. Any other questions for 

Kiki? Mindee's got one for you.

MS. JEFFERY: Hi. Thank you, Kiki, for 

all your work on this issue. Maybe this is too 

big a question to answer in a moment, and I get 

it, but do you see any value in the NOSB sort of 

structuring its work around excluded methods to 

more of some of its remaining TBD list issues being 

coupled with the organic seed question and the 

excluded method issue being a little bit, like, 

more wrapped up in the decision-making around, 

like, major genetic insertion techniques and sort 

of the plant breeding techniques moving over so 

that the workflow moves over from plant breeding 

and seed as a paired issue and excluded methods 

being its own package of NOSB work.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. HUBBARD: So, if I'm understanding 

you correctly, Mindee, separating out the plant 

breeding aspect of excluded methods? 

MS. JEFFERY: Yes.

MS. HUBBARD: Is that what you're 

asking?

MS. JEFFERY: Yes.

MS. HUBBARD: Gosh. I don't know if I 

can answer that. I might need to give --

MS. JEFFERY: Yeah, that's fair enough. 

I realize it's a really big question, but 

something I think in general I'm interested in 

hearing from the community if there is -- if that 

workflow could be highly functional. 

MS. HUBBARD: Yeah. I guess I would just 

reiterate something I've already said, which is 

just this urgency in wrapping up the existing 

methods listed in the framework that was developed 

in 2016. 

I think that can be done and would 

really provide necessary (inaudible) to the 

community and I hope -- will hopefully allow to 

the NOSB, if you're interested, in further work 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that would strike, then, the enforcement of the 

organic seed requirement and make it more 

consistent.

MS. JEFFERY: Thank you.

MS. HUBBARD: Um-hm.

MR. ELA: Anything else?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: Thank you so much, Kiki.

MS. HUBBARD: Thanks all.

MR. ELA: Appreciate it. We are going 

to move on to Jay Feldman, then Frank Austin and 

then Kate Mendenhall.

Jay, please state your name and 

affiliation and take the floor.

MR. FELDMAN: Hi. I'm Jay Feldman, 

Beyond Pesticides, former NOSB member. Consumers 

and farmers together built organic in response to 

a failure of chemical-intensive agriculture to 

protect health and the ecosystems that nurture 

life.

This foundation supports the organic 

market and must be reaffirmed every time that the 

NOSB leaves its transparent decision-making 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

process subject to public scrutiny and input.

The NOSB deliberations start with the 

default standard in the Organic Foods Production 

Act that prohibits synthetics in organic 

production allowing synthetics only as an 

exception through the National List review 

process.

In reaction to the low bar that allows 

toxic chemical use in chemical-intensive 

agriculture, the bar for allowance of synthetics 

in organic is intentionally set high.

We only earn organic consumers' trust 

in the organic label with rigorous and stringent 

review and oversight.

Two key principles in the law essential 

to the comments that Beyond Pesticides has 

submitted on every substance at issue before the 

NOSB at this meeting: No. 1, board decisions must 

protect against cradle-to-grave adverse affects 

informed by technical reviews independent of costs 

or benefit claims.

This is distinguished from 

chemical-intensive agriculture where claims of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

benefits permit hazardous toxic chemical use.

Two, only after determination of no 

adverse affects, the Board must determine 

essentiality of the substance under review. 

Determining that a synthetic is necessary given 

alternative practices and materials is a 

precautionary standard which acknowledges 

possible uncertainties and externalities.

How do these principles affect 

decisions at this meeting? Here are two examples.

Unfortunately, you cannot allow 

bioplastic mulch and ensure protection from 

adverse affects. 

Given what is known about degradation, 

we must be certain that microplastic particles in 

any amount are not being released into the very 

soil system that is foundational to critical 

microbial soil life.

Two, on essentiality we can no longer 

allow copper sulfate in a market that has done very 

little, if anything, to cultivate dry land rice 

with intermittent irrigation, an organic farming 

system that was heralded for rice in the seminal 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

National Academy of Sciences book Alternative 

Agriculture.

As you act on the agenda for this 

meeting, we urge you to view Beyond Pesticides' 

written comments.

With these principles, consumers and 

farmers have built an organic market worth tens 

of billions of dollars that was unthinkable 30 

years ago.

We will continue to grow only if 

consumers trust in your decisions. Your decisions 

are not solely that list of materials that are 

allowed, but about systems of land management that 

are compatible with nature and a future that 

regenerates life.

Taking on the challenges that confront 

the climate crisis, biodiversity collapse and the 

future pandemics of public health threats, your 

decisions on organic, as instructed by the law, 

must be holistic, must be visionary, must be our 

future.

With that, I thank you for your service. 

I (inaudible).
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Thanks, Jay, and nice pacing 

there at the end getting it down to zero. Any 

questions for Jay?

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah, I've got a quick 

question.

MR. ELA: Go ahead.

MR. BRADMAN: I mean, maybe this is too 

much of a comment, but I do think the bioplastic 

mulch is a complex issue in that, in my mind, you 

know, we've mistakenly allowed the use of 

polyethylene films that are used across the organic 

landscape and have huge environmental impacts at 

many different levels.

And I know, you know, you've stated 

before we shouldn't be doing a -- kind of a 

comparative risk assessment and, you know, of 

course there's also the question whether we have 

adequate information to do a comparative risk 

assessment, but, you know, I guess that's more of 

a comment than not, but do you want to opine more 

on that on the possible --

MR. FELDMAN: Yeah. And I appreciate 

the thought so that you get to these issues 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

especially on the comparative risk assessment, 

which is something we're all very familiar with 

in terms of EPA analysis of allowable toxics. 

We've got to take ourselves, as you 

know, outside of that mindset and begin to think 

holistically.

If we've allowed a material that has 

detrimental impacts, we shouldn't compare a new 

allowance to that decision -- that previous 

decision.

What's most troubling to me in this age 

of fossil fuel-based materials is that, you know, 

the intent at least with the allowance of plastic 

in agriculture as it stands now in organic 

agriculture, is this concept of removal from the 

site because we want to protect, at all costs, the 

soil health, impacts on microbial activity in the 

soil, and then now we're concerned about 

sequestration.

So, to the extent that we're adding any 

microplastics in that context, we're really doing 

a disservice to organic farmers and to the larger 

existential issues that you mentioned.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah.

MR. FELDMAN: It is challenging. I 

understand.

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah. And also, I guess, 

in my mind, the removal is incomplete and I, you 

know, I see that with plastics all up and down the 

Salinas River and in the Monterey County landfills.

And, you know, I have pictures of huge 

piles of drip tape, which of course is a water 

conservation tool, but I see piles of drip tape 

just, you know, breaking down in the environment.

So, I mean, that's the kind of thinking 

perhaps this --

MR. FELDMAN: And that's an 

enforcement issue in many ways. You know, our 

comments really go to other alternative mulching 

systems and that's where continuous improvement 

comes in, but we don't view the bioplastic mulch 

as continuous improvement. 

We view it as a stopgap that introduces 

new elements of uncertainty and potential harm that 

is devastating in the long run and virtually 

impossible to clean up once we realize our mistake.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Great.

MR. BRADMAN: Thanks.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Jay. Sure appreciate 

it. We are going to move on to Frank Austin, and 

then Kate Mendenhall and then Ramy Colfer.

So, Frank, please state your name and 

affiliation and take the floor.

MR. AUSTIN: Sure. My name is Frank 

Austin. I'm a director at Clear Frontier Ag 

Management. We invest in farmland, predominantly

organic farmland, across the U.S.

I'd like to thank the NOSB for having 

me today and I would like to provide you with some 

comments on the SOE.

I'd really like to begin by saying 

congratulations on that. It's, I think, a really 

phenomenal piece of law and regulation I hope we 

can move forward.

And the reason for that is that, you 

know, when I think about the U.S. government's role 

in protecting American organic farmers, I've seen 

that, to date, the government has really sort of 

fallen short and that new regulations are needed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and that modernization is needed, and I do believe 

that your proposal will ultimately provide the 

first step towards that modernization.

Year to date, 400,000 metric tons of 

soybean meal have been imported from India. Each 

year we have thousands of metric tons of cracked 

corn coming in from Turkey.

These are just two examples of 

countries that do not have comparable organic 

standards and, in some cases, no organic standard 

at all.

As these imports come in and they are

likely fraudulent, they cause price shocks across 

regional markets, ag economies in our country, and 

ultimately jeopardize the cash flow of our farmers.

When we think about organic farming as 

one of the most profitable and sustainable food 

production systems we have available to us today, 

I think that it's very important for us to also 

consider the (inaudible) impact that bad actors 

have on farming families across this country. So, 

again, I'd like to congratulate you on what you've 

outlined.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

One final thought for you would be that 

I believe that open data sharing is going to be 

very critical in this.

I think that having open access 

information, giving the public access to that 

information, is going to be very important in terms 

of identifying and improving the integrity of 

organic standards in general because, simply put, 

regulations, they can be great on paper, but bad 

actors will try to skirt, you know, the law.

So, ultimately I'd like to have a 

discussion with you today about that. I'm happy 

to answer any questions that you have and, again, 

thank you for having me.

And finally, again, really excellent 

work with the SOE. I hope it goes through and I 

cannot, you know, say enough good things about it.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Frank. Are there 

questions?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: I am not seeing any. So, 

Frank, thank you so much for your --

MR. AUSTIN: Thank you for having me.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: -- comments. I am going to 

do one more speaker and then we will take a break. 

We're doing well on time, but I always know that 

that sometimes can be a fleeting victory. Staying 

on time can disappear really quickly.

But, Kate Mendenhall, if you're willing 

to go before break, then we'll take a break and 

then come back to Ramy Colfer and Michael Crotser.

So, Kate, state your name and 

affiliation and take the floor.

MS. MENDENHALL: Thank you. Thank you, 

NOSB members, for the opportunity to speak before 

you today.

My name is Kate Mendenhall. I'm the 

executive director of the Organic Farmers 

Association.

OFA was created to be a strong national 

voice, an advocate for domestic certified organic 

farmers.

Our policy positions are created 

through a nationwide grassroots process that 

invites participation of all domestic certified 

organic farmers and then our certified organic farm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

members vote on these policies.

We operate a strict "one farm, one vote" 

policy so all farmers have an equal seat at the 

table.

Today, I will address three areas; 

public comment process, ammonia extract and sodium 

nitrate.

For public comment process, we have 

found a more diverse group of organic farmers able 

to participate in the oral testimony virtual format 

and encourage you to continue to offer this 

platform.

Without both the webinar and in-person 

oral comment opportunities, it seems that there 

is less time for comments, so we encourage you to 

keep this a priority of the NOSB process.

We also encourage you to address the 

rules for how comment slots are assigned to make 

sure that organic farmers have some priority to 

testify to the Board.

Many of the registrations occur during 

high farm production cycles and the oral comment 

slots often fill up weeks before the deadline often 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

with multiple people from the same company or 

organization.

For the ammonia extract prohibition, 

OFA recently adopted a policy position which 

states: OFA supports prohibiting the use of ammonia 

extract for use in organic production because such 

use is incompatible with OFPA and good soil health 

practices. 

Therefore, we support the first two 

National List motions to add stripped ammonia and 

concentrated ammonia at 205.602, nonsynthetic 

substances prohibited for use in organic crop 

production.

For sodium nitrate, we have testified 

before on OFA's policy position, which states: 

Consistent with NOSB's April 2011 recommendation, 

the Organic Farmer's Association supports 

re-listing sodium nitrate on 7 CFR 205.602 without 

annotation. This rulemaking action would make 

sodium nitrate prohibited in organic farming and

eliminate the use of this soluble plant-available 

fertilizer, which circumvents natural nutrient 

cycling and organic soil management.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Therefore, we support the 

subcommittee's motion to reinstate the listing of 

sodium nitrate at 7 CFR 205.602(g), prohibit 

nonsynthetic, but we wish it was more restrictive.

When we have discussed both ammonia 

extract and sodium nitrate with our farmer policy 

committees, the larger topic about soluble 

nitrogen comes up.

OFA encourages the NOSB to review 

soluble nitrogen as a whole rather than addressing 

individual nitrogen products or forms.

Cultural management like preventive 

practices that limit the need for external and 

off-farm input for building a healthy agroecology 

system is a critical piece of building organic 

matter and good soil health.

Organic is a solution for climate 

change because we have demonstrated standards that 

celebrate and demand good soil health as an 

essential component for organic certification for 

decades. We must protect that for the future of 

organic. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Kate. Looks like 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

we've got a question from Wood.

MR. TURNER: Kate, thanks for your 

comments. I just wanted to make a comment about 

-- in support of your suggestions about the public 

comment process and I think those are really 

interesting and I think we should really take that 

into consideration as best we can.

I'm curious are you suggesting, though, 

that organic farmers, because of the barriers that 

you have described, are really missing an 

opportunity?

I mean, are you hearing that from your 

members that they're missing an opportunity to 

participate in this process?

MS. MENDENHALL: I have heard people 

who have tried to submit and have not been able 

to get on. 

And so, then they can sign up for the 

waiting list, but they are -- I think it's hard 

to ask a farmer to come and sit through a four-hour 

meeting in the case that they might get pulled onto 

the waiting list.

So, I think it would help if they knew 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that the NOSB really wanted to hear from farmers 

and that there was some time set aside.

I think if that time wasn't filled up 

by farmers, then it could be filled up by other 

factors, but reserving some time to hear those 

voices, I think, is really important.

MR. TURNER: Super helpful. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Kim has a question.

MS. HUSEMAN: Thanks, Steve. And 

thanks, Kate, for your comments. Very much 

appreciated. 

Maybe it's following along with Wood's 

comment, is it always -- it does strike a nerve 

to know that stakeholders, growers that provide 

organic goods, may not have an equal opportunity 

or an opportunity to be able to speak.

And speaking -- and maybe it's more of 

a comment, than a question, I'll get to my question 

as well, but I think in the virtual formats being 

able to allot time by not having to travel, et 

cetera, has been promoting to farmers who are 

dedicated especially -- we're in the month of 

October. This is a big harvest time period for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

most people, but this format could provide that 

opportunity.

I believe we had 20 days before the 

comment time period was full. So, it seems like 

-- are there other suggestions that you would have 

other than, you know, I feel like 20 days is pretty 

ample time to be able to sign up before, you know, 

this time period has been filled.

What other, you know, I guess we are 

open to suggestions. I am concerned if you feel 

like there's not enough time where the spring and 

fall is plant and harvest. 

I feel like the Board has -- and the 

program has done a nice job with both the virtual 

format and extended time periods to provide 

opportunity for farmers. So, what else can be 

done?

MS. MENDENHALL: I think when you say 

"20 days," it sounds like a really long time, but 

the reality is that this is a really busy time of 

year.

And so, there's advocacy groups like 

Organic Farmers Association that we're waiting and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

waiting, waiting to see when is registration going 

to open. And then we hear it's open and then we 

try to email our farmers.

They may not read it for 5 days, so now 

we're down to 15 days and, you know, it's just --

it's a busy time of year and so they need multiple 

reminders during harvest season.

So, maybe having a set time when 

registration will open with a little bit more 

advance warning so we can give folks, you know, 

something that they can mark on their calendar 

might help.

And I think just, you know, like I said 

before, having a section of the comment period 

reserved for farmers might also make it seem more 

important that their voices are heard and more 

responsibility to weigh in.

MS. HUSEMAN: Okay. Thank you very 

much. I appreciate it.

MR. ELA: Alright. Logan, I saw you had 

our hand up, but it's lowered. Did you have a 

question or do you want to move on?

MS. PETREY: Kim nailed it. She 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

mentioned, you know, the planting/harvesting 

windows and they're extremely busy, but she got 

it. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Okay. Just didn't want to 

ignore you. Yeah, I've never missed an email for 

weeks before, so -- during harvest, but -- great. 

Well, looks like that's all the questions, Kate. 

Thanks for your comments.

We are scheduled for a break at this 

point. We're running pretty well on time, but 

let's take a 15-minute break. 

I just want to make sure we stay on 

schedule. So, let's come back at the top of the 

hour. 

And I won't do any time conversions on 

that, so we'll see you in 15 minutes.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 1:45 p.m. and resumed at 

2:00 p.m.)

MR. ELA: Well, I guess it's lunch for 

some and afternoon tea for others, but -- and then 

there's in between, but I don't -- it looks like 

it's the top of the hour, so we'll jump back into 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

it.

So, we have coming up Ramy Colfer, then 

Michael Crotser and then Adam Seitz. So, Ramy, 

if you would like to state your name and association 

and then jump into the comments, that would be 

great. Go ahead.

MR. COLFER: Alright. Thank you. My 

name is Ramy Colfer. I work as a research 

economist for True Organic Products.

Before coming to True, I spent 18 years 

working at Earthbound Farm where I was involved 

with the farming of organic leafy vegetables.

Organic farming is an attempt to 

produce safe, highly nutritious food in a more 

natural way utilizing crop rotation, cover crops, 

natural carbon-rich organic soil amendments and 

beneficial habitat plants that attract and harbor 

beneficial insets.

Like nature, it requires time to build 

up these systems. Ammonia extract products are 

made by using a very energy-intensive process to 

separate and concentrate ammonia and ammonium from 

manures.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

These products are natural analogues. 

The synthetic ammonia, the same ammonia they used 

in fertilizers every day in conventional 

agriculture around the world.

Feed materials are widely used in 

organic agriculture, but we likely see similar 

problems to those seen in conventional 

agriculture.

Some of these include increased nitrous 

oxide emissions, a potent greenhouse gas, 

increased nitrate leaching and nitrate runoff, 

acidification of soils, reduction of soil organic 

matter and reduction in microbial diversity in the 

soils. 

To understand the negative effects of 

ammonia extract in organic farming, please see the 

Technical Evaluation Report for AE and a comment 

letter by UC-Davis professor Dr. William Horwath.

And while it is good to capture ammonia 

emissions from industrial manure waste, this 

ammonia should be government-incentivized to be 

used in conventional agriculture, not forced into 

organic agriculture where it is philosophically 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

incompatible with organic principles.

Currently used organic input such as 

compost, cover crops and natural organic 

fertilizers, all add thousands of pounds of carbon 

per year per acre to organic farms. AE would add 

little to no carbon to the soil.

Innovations in organic agriculture 

should be consistent with organic principles. 

Organic innovation should include cultural 

practices that improve soil quality focused on 

regenerative agriculture and reduced tillage.

New organic input should be focused on 

biologically based products that improve soil 

microbial activity, reduce plant stress, stimulate 

plant health and naturally reduce plant pests and 

diseases.

For example, appropriate focus on 

organic innovation might be microbial and 

plant-based products.

Innovations in organic agriculture 

should fall under the umbrella of organic 

principles. 

Do we really want to embrace 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

technologies that make natural analogues to 

synthetic fertilizers and pesticides? Is this 

progress? 

We thank the NOSB for its hard work and 

support the motions proposed by the Crops 

Subcommittee on AE. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Are there questions? Logan?

MS. PETREY: Alright. Thank you. 

Okay. So, in True, you have the -- I think it's 

the guano added to your products; is that correct?

MR. COLFER: We use guano as an 

ingredient, yes.

MS. PETREY: Okay. So, and it's readily 

available, so do you see that it's used as a main 

fertilizer or is it more -- do you see like a 

seasonal production increase, you know, during the 

-- or, excuse me, during the winter and things like 

that?

MR. COLFER: Yeah. I mean, if you look 

at our products that contain guano, the amount of 

ammonia is quite low.

MS. PETREY: Okay.

MR. COLFER: It's less than one percent.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. PETREY: But it's got the sodium 

nitrate part, which is available, is that right, 

or is that and --

MR. COLFER: None of our products have 

sodium nitrate.

MS. PETREY: Excuse me. The nitrate and 

the (inaudible) guano or so, but the total -- I 

guess when you look at the amount of available 

nitrogen and the, like, (inaudible) 2-1/2 of so, 

what is the percentage of availability?

MR. COLFER: It's less than 10 percent 

-- I mean, 1 percent.

MS. PETREY: Okay.

MR. COLFER: It's right below 1 percent. 

In fact, yeah, almost all of the nitrogen is in 

the organic nitrogen form.

MS. PETREY: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Nate, go ahead.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Ramy, could you speak 

a little bit to -- the question I have is it sounds 

like the chemical difference between synthetic 

ammonia and AE is very little.

What effect would having widely 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

available AE on the market play in fraud and seeing 

synthetic ammonia work its way more and more into 

organic systems?

MR. COLFER: Yeah. I'm going to let you 

ask that question to Jake Evans. He's going to 

speak later today, but absolutely. I mean, it's 

almost impossible to catch fraud using testing.

And there's already, you know, examples 

where it's happened previously in organics and even 

currently. So, I do think, yeah, it's really 

Pandora's box.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you. I'll hold 

that question. Appreciate it.

MR. ELA: Other questions?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: I have one. You know, in the 

review of the various articles on whether ammonia 

extracts promote soil biology or discourage it, 

you know, there were several comments that AEs, 

when you add them, encourage soil biology by 

releasing more nitrogen from the carbon in the 

soil.

One of my concerns is that, yeah, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

release it from the carbon and it's great this year, 

but you -- down the road you're robbing the bank 

and -- but could you speak to that or what you see 

in your experience?

MR. COLFER: Yeah. I think that's the 

thing. I mean, when you have carbon amendments, 

you know, it requires microbial breakdown of the 

products.

And if you have something that's very 

high in carbon, it can even, you know, grab onto 

available carbon in the soil, but really, I mean, 

all that nitrogen that's not breaking down 

immediately is being stored in the soil as 

equivalent of organic nitrogen and like an organic 

matter.

And when you add just straight 

nitrogen, the soil -- I mean, the basis, you know, 

the thing that microbes need in the soil is, you 

know, a nitrogen -- an organic nitrogen source and 

a carbon source for a balanced diet.

And if you just give them nitrogen, 

really it's going to grab carbon out of the soil. 

So, you know, over time it will drive down that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

organic matter soil and we see that all over the 

world, right, where ammonia is widely used.

And I'm afraid, yeah, that such things 

could start happening in organic farming if ammonia 

was available as a standalone product.

MR. ELA: Great. One more question from 

Logan. Then we'll move on.

MS. PETREY: Yeah. Thank you. Okay. 

I'm sorry. And just a note on -- you said, like, 

the carbon nitrogen, you know, to have an 

imbalance, when you do have the nitrogen that 

becomes available and it is lost due to leaching 

or things like that when we do make, you know, 

applications again with those products, do you find 

that there are buildups of things like phosphorous 

or potassium or other salts in the soil because 

we cannot typically add products that just have 

the nitrogen component that would be readily 

available to add what was lost due to that leaching 

event?

MR. COLFER: Yeah. I think that's 

where, as a grower, you know, you have to really 

choose your amendments properly, you know.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

You might use plant-based, you know, 

compost instead of manure-based to avoid salts or 

phosphorous.

And organic fertilizers are made such 

that they don't overdo it on the phosphorous and 

it's less available to, you know, much of the 

phosphorous is in calcium phosphate form. So, 

it's very slow to release. It takes years, really.

So, I think it's, yeah, kind of on the 

organic grower to monitor the soil nutrient levels 

and make sure nothing's excessive, but it 

absolutely can be done, yeah. It's -- yeah.

MR. ELA: Alright. Well, thank you very 

much. Appreciate your comments.

MR. COLFER: Yeah, I appreciate it. 

Thank you, guys.

MR. ELA: We're going to move on to 

Michael Crotser, then Adam Seitz and then Abby 

Youngblood after that.

So, Michael, please state your name and 

affiliation and start with your comments.

MR. CROTSER: Good afternoon, everyone. 

Can you hear me alright?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: We've got you. Go ahead.

MR. CROTSER: Great. I'm Michael 

Crotser and I'm the director of certification at 

CROPP Cooperative.

We appreciate the work of the NOSB and 

the NOP to support organic agriculture. Thank you 

for the opportunity to speak today.

My comment today relates to the 

modernization of the organic supply chain 

traceability discussion document.

This document's intent is to build on 

the strengthening of organic enforcement proposed 

rule and human capital.

CROPP is participating with the Organic 

Trade Association's fraud prevention program.

The purpose of this program is to 

identify supply chain risks, determine 

vulnerability and develop mitigation measures to 

reduce fraud.

Our goal is to assure product integrity 

and this plan will be our primary tool to meet SOE 

requirements.

We assess external tools in the aid of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

fraud prevention and we have worked with 

TraceGains, our supplier management program, and 

the Organic Trade Association, to utilize 

TraceGains' Smart Alert System.

We also use the NOP enforcement 

activities, which include fraudulent certificate 

disclosure, the enforcement dashboard and the 

organic integrity database.

Although valuable, these tools do not 

represent data in realtime, lack mandatory 

reporting and have limits to evaluate vendors.

We ask the NOP to evaluate their 

existing resources and adapt these resources as 

needed.

Modernization of the supply chain is 

needed. Certifiers are conducting more detailed 

mass balance traceback audits.

We applaud these technological 

solutions for consistent and robust traceability 

exercises.

This could include the organic link 

concept, which will connect lot numbering systems 

through the supply chain.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

This concept is hard to imagine 

especially how it would fit in with current organic 

system plans of our diverse operations. The plant 

community would be an example.

Because the SOE rule mandates that 

certifiers share information, confidentiality of 

client data is at risk.

The proposal also underestimates the 

burden of maintaining transactions in the organic 

link and less integrated with existing 

technologies.

To give perspective, CROPP has roughly 

1800 organic farms and 90 co-packers on a complex 

supply chain.

We support the need for improvement, 

but this will be a heavy lift that needs a full 

risk benefit analysis before implementing.

I want to thank the NOSB, the NOP and 

the organic industry for time to speak today and 

I'm happy to address any questions. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Are there questions?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: Okay. I have a question. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

don't know if you can answer this since you really 

were speaking more to the fraud in general -- or, 

you know, on the supply chain. 

So, I don't know if you can speak to 

production practices, but in terms of verifying, 

like, maintaining or increasing soil organic 

matter, you know, as required by the CROPP -- the 

OSP, what's your biggest difficulty in doing that 

and verifying that?

MR. CROTSER: Well, I think the primary 

tool that certifiers look for improving, one common 

thing that they look at, as well, organic matter, 

but I think, from the perspective of our farms and 

the certifiers that they have, is really a lot of 

limitations to the amount of time and resources 

certifiers have to go in and dig deep into soil 

biology and soil health.

A lot of their work done at inspection 

is mostly spent with paperwork and verifying inputs 

and materials, transaction certificates and so on.

We do have the luxury, so to speak, as 

the majority of our farms are dairy and because 

of manure cycling, typically our organic matter 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

values are likely higher than maybe some row crop 

farmers out there, but generally I think assessment 

by certifiers, where their soil is, as far as 

biology goes, is a limiting factor.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Any other 

questions?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: Thank you so much, Mike. 

Appreciate your comments. We can move on to Adam 

Seitz and I'm just going to say in general to all 

th stakeholders, I will butcher your names 

universally. So, I apologize for 

mispronunciations and everything.

I keep coming up on these and like, oh, 

no, I'm going to mess this one up, too. So, I'll 

try and do it to everybody so I don't selectively 

butcher somebody's name, but Adam Seitz and then 

Abby Youngblood and then Robert Rankin.

So, Adam, please state your name, 

affiliation and give us your comments.

MR. SEITZ: Yep. Good afternoon. My 

name is Adam Seitz and I serve as a senior reviewer 

and policy specialist for Quality assurance 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

International, an NSF international company and 

a leading provider of organic certification 

services worldwide.

Check your local grocery and you'll 

definitely find the QAI mark well-represented on 

the shelves. First, thank you NOSB and NOP for 

your efforts and for the opportunity to comment.

Fish oil. Considering the previously 

discussed annotation option, QAI agrees that the 

current iteration is the best proposed option in 

terms of meeting its purpose and the ability for 

certifier enforcement.

Carrageenan. QAI certifies, at 

minimum, 41 operations that use carrageenan in 

their organic products.

While not advocating for or against 

removal of carrageenan from the National List, we 

do want to highlight the following subcommittee 

review that statement that, quote: Eliminating 

carrageenan may be achievable through the 

elimination of many processed foods where it is 

considered essential by manufacturers, end quote.

This is a risky proposition and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

sentiment for the organic industry. Minimally 

processed organic fruit, vegetable, milk and egg 

sales predominate the organic market, which is 

fantastic, but organic-processed foods also take 

a large slice of the organic market pie. Organic 

farmers need all available organic markets.

Research priorities. With 

appreciated the spring presentation by NIFA 

detailing how the NOSB research priorities 

directly impact the Agency's research funding 

requests for applications. This truly puts the 

importance of these research priorities in 

context.

On this front, we'd like to encourage 

the adoption of more research topics under the food 

handling and processing category.

For example, a static research topic 

priority for evaluating the essentiality and 

suitability of alternatives to National List 

substances in applicable food formulations can 

serve two purposes.

One, research project outcomes could 

inform NOSB decisions regarding the sunset 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

(inaudible) National List substances.

Two, several recent initiatives in the 

organic industry have focused on building an 

engaged, competent and valued organic workforce.

Professors, graduate researchers and 

undergraduate researchers and students in 

university food science departments across the 

country would benefit from funding for 

organic-focused research projects.

Providing funding opportunities for 

such projects would help train and expose future 

organic food formulators and future organic 

program quality managers to the needs and 

expectations of the organic market increasing 

access to our organic foods research priority. 

Thank you for continuing to include this as a 

priority. 

Finally, I'd like to read a letter QAI 

received from a young organic advocate earlier this 

year.

In an envelope with a hand-drawn 

recycle symbol, Rebecca writes: QAI, I am very 

proud of buying organic foods because of my healthy 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

lifestyle. Organic isn't just non-GMO, it's 

(inaudible) healthy ingredients, humane treatment 

of animals for meat, dairy and eggs, free from 

pesticides and so, so good for the earth and its 

resources. I'm willing to buy any organic foods. 

Only downside is they cost more. Once again, I'm 

so proud of myself to buy organic foods for a 

healthy lifestyle. Thanks a bunch. See you 

later.

MR. ELA: That's great. Questions for 

Adam?

MR. BRADMAN: I have a question. I'm 

really interested in your comment about perhaps 

more research priorities around food handling and 

processing and that could be compatible with 

organic. 

I mean, I think you're right there and 

what comes to mind especially is around colors and, 

you know, the availability of organically sourced 

both in terms of source crops, but also in the 

development of colors.

And I'm curious if you have more things 

to say on that or perhaps it's in the written 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

comments.

MR. SEITZ: Yeah. Actually, I did not 

include anything in the written comments on this 

front, but, you know, I took a look at the past, 

oh, maybe seven years' worth of meeting packets 

and agendas to see what similar research topic or 

priorities might have been included.

And there were some regarding celery 

powder and trying to find alternatives to that in 

the context of its sunset review.

I think, in general, just keeping a 

broad topic around evaluating alternatives or 

essentiality regarding any of the National List 

ingredients would be helpful just because I think, 

you know, having taken many courses in the food 

science department, I can say that there wasn't 

a lot of discussion about organic products or 

organic expectations or formulating organic 

products.

So, I would see it really as a good way 

to expose future food scientists to those concepts.

I'd love to think about some additional 

topics that could be included, but really do think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

just having a generic item around examining 

formulations and essentiality of -- or the 

essentiality of National List ingredients in 

applicable formulations.

For example, for carrageenan, you know, 

if we had -- if a program received funding around 

looking at the essentiality and those sorts --

those types of formulations in which it's used in, 

that could really help to provide unbiased 

information to the NOSB, you know.

You have some folks saying it's 

essential, some folks saying it's not essential. 

Well, you know, take a look at it in the context 

of a food science lab.

MR. ELA: Kyla.

MR. BRADMAN: Thanks.

MS. SMITH: I was just going to promote 

the open docket for something like that, Adam. So, 

as items come to you and once the open docket is 

opened up, which tends to be very shortly after 

the end of the meeting, Michelle's really on top 

of that, please feel free to include those in the 

open docket.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: Thanks. We'll take a 

look.

MR. ELA: Alright. Thank you so much. 

Do appreciate it. We're going to move on to Abby 

Youngblood, then Robert Rankin and then Darryl 

Williams.

So, Abby, please state your name and 

affiliation and give us your comments.

MS. YOUNGBLOOD: Hi. Good afternoon. 

I'm Abby Youngblood, executive director at the 

National Organic Coalition, and I would like to 

start by thanking the Board for the letter you 

drafted to Secretary Vilsack highlighting the 

important role for organic agriculture in 

mitigating climate change.

NOC is urging you to pass the three 

motions to prohibit ammonia extracts and to limit 

the use of high-nitrogen fertilizers. This is the 

most important action you can take to solidify 

organics' role as a climate-friendly system that 

relies on soil building rather than the 

conventional "feed the plant" mentality.

NOC also supports the NOSB's proposal 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to make a technical correction for the sodium 

nitrate listing to ensure this material is reviewed 

going forward.

We remain frustrated that the NOP has 

not implemented the previous 2011 NOSB 

recommendation. It's another example of the lack 

of accountability on the part of the NOP.

Last week, NOC held our community-wide 

pre-NOSB meting with more than 100 participants, 

including many of you.

The meeting included a robust 

discussion about the structural reforms NOC has 

proposed to advance organic at USDA.

We have put forth five recommendations 

to elevate the NOSB, which is the bedrock of the 

public-private partnership and I will highlight 

just two issues which emerged at our meeting last 

week as the highest priorities.

First, we've called on USDA to reduce 

barriers to NOSB service. So, this means 

providing farmers who serve with stipends to cover 

the cost of hiring on-farm labor during NOSB 

meetings and it means finding creative ways to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

ensure that individuals from lower resource 

organizations can serve.

It also means allowing NOSB members to 

hire assistants who can help with research and 

preparation to ease the workload associated with 

NOSB service.

The second issue that emerged as a top 

priority last week is the need for a better process 

going forward to ensure that the NOP acts on NOSB 

recommendations.

We're asking that the NOP provide a 

written explanation within 60 days for all NOSB 

recommendations, including how they will implement 

the recommendation and the time line.

For recommendations that the NOP does 

not plan to implement, we're asking for a clear 

written public justification.

One area where the NOP has failed to 

act is on excluded methods. The NOSB had sone a 

tremendous amount of work to clarify which methods 

are excluded, which ones are allowed and why. The 

NOP must codify these recommendations.

Building off of that work NOC urges the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

NOSB to make determinations on the remaining TBD 

methods and we support listing cell fusion and 

protoplast fusion within the same taxonomic family 

as allowed. Thank you for your (inaudible) of 

these comments.

MR. ELA: Perfect timing. Are there 

questions for Abby?

(pause.)

MR. ELA: I'll just jump into one really 

quickly here, but, Abby, I know in the written 

comments and you just said you support the ammonia 

extracts, the recommendation from the Crops 

Subcommittee.

What do you see as the crucial aspect 

of that that concerns you with the use of ammonia 

extracts?

MS. YOUNGBLOOD: I think I would 

emphasize first that ammonia extracts do not meet 

the OFPA criteria. So, they're not consistent 

with organic principles and they really move us 

farther from this ethos of fostering soil 

fertility, building soil systems and more towards 

this "feed the plant" mentality.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I think there's also an issue of 

consumer trust and I think some of our members like 

PCC Community Markets is seeing how much consumers 

are looking to purchase food that's 

climate-friendly.

So, organic has the opportunity to 

demonstrate the powerful role that organic is 

playing, but we have to have that consumer trust 

that organic really is, in fact, doing that.

And if we move away from this holistic 

system, I think others have pointed out, my 

colleague Amalie, it's about climate change, but 

also about water quality and biodiversity. So, 

moving away from that system is problematic and 

could result in a loss of consumer trust.

MR. ELA: Logan.

MS. PETREY: Yes. Do you think that all 

fertilizers are -- should be more of a holistic 

approach instead of, you know, we have, like, 

potassium sources that we're really just focusing 

on the potassium itself and not necessarily applied 

with others.

Do you think that what you're saying 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

with the nitrogen applies for other things as well?

SSS: I'm not sure. I guess I would take 

it back to the nitrogen issue in that one of the 

-- from our perspective, the intent has always been 

to limit high-nitrogen fertility products in 

organic, and that's part of what's kind of spelled 

out in the preamble to the organic regulations.

But the way in which we had intended 

as an organic community to place those restrictions 

by identifying specific materials that are 

nonsynthetic with annotations, we think that that 

system isn't working well.

So, I'm not exactly answering your 

question, but I just want to point out the need 

for a more holistic system to address the use of 

high-nitrogen fertility sources in organic.

MS. PETREY: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I'm really trying to 

not be the muted one of the session. So, could 

you please speak, Abby, a little bit to that 

consumer perception in confidence point that you 

just made?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I think when we talk about fertilizers, 

the overarching theme is that fertilizers in 

organics don't pollute and they don't rush through 

soil. They're more stable. They ultimately are 

cycling, you know, a lot of this greater ecosystem 

that's on a farm, including livestock integration, 

a mixture of nitrogen-producing and 

nitrogen-feeding plants like legumes and cereal 

crops or corn.

Could you speak a little bit -- I know 

you mentioned a consumer perception point of view 

as it relates to climate change, but also could 

you speak to sort of from an environmental health 

point of view?

MS. YOUNGBLOOD: Well, I think you were 

doing a good job just now speaking to that, but 

I think, you know, it's -- I think there is an 

expectation among some consumers looking for 

organic that you're going to see an organic 

operation using cover cropping, crop rotations, 

having compost be part of the system and, to the 

greatest extent possible, having a system that is 

trying to cycle nutrients rather than relying on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

off-farm inputs.

Of course there's some off-farm inputs, 

but it's a system that is holistic in that way. 

And so, I think that that's something that folks 

are looking for.

I think the growing awareness of the 

impact of our food choices on climate change is 

driving some consumer awareness and I think, you 

know, there are other issues that consumers are 

looking for and they are expecting that the -- that 

organic means the highest standards when it comes 

to protecting the environment.

And so, you know, having fertility 

systems that don't pollute would be part of that.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: See, I'm going to mute myself 

now. Saved you, Nate. Anybody else?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: Alright. Thank you, Abby. 

Very much appreciate it. We are going to move on 

to Robert Rankin, then Darryl Williams and then 

Jaydee Hanson.

Robert, please state your name and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

affiliation and proceed with your comments.

MR. RANKIN: Thank you. Robert Rankin, 

executive director, International Food Additives 

Council.

IFAC is an association representing 

manufacturers and end-users of food ingredients, 

including handling materials permitted for use in 

organic food.

IFAC supports the re-listing of 

agar-agar, animal enzymes, carrageenan, cellulose 

and silicon dioxide.

All of these ingredients are used in 

alignment with organic principles and are 

essential to meeting the needs of the organic 

community.

IFAC strongly disagrees with the 

Handling Subcommittee's recommendation to de-list 

carrageenan. 

Carrageenan is one of the most unique 

and versatile food ingredients and is preferred 

due to its ability to bind protein, promote gel 

formation (inaudible) stabilize and substitute for 

fat in a variety of applications.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Carrageenan also helps to improve the 

palatability, mouthfeel, nutrient delivery and 

appearance of many organic foods and provides a 

plant-based alternative to animal-based 

ingredients used in vegan and vegetarian products.

Carrageenan is essentially because it 

does not have a suitable replacement in all 

applications and its removal would result in 

inferior products containing multiple additives 

to achieve the same function or, in some cases, 

products being discontinue altogether. 

Carrageenan also does not have an 

organic alternative, another part of OFPA's 

essentiality criteria.

Based on an INNOVA search for organic 

food products launched over the past five years, 

IFAC found 160 new organic products containing 

carrageenan launched in the U.S. with seven 

products launched in 2021 to date, including 

plant-based frozen lasagna, a nondairy cheese 

blend, nondairy chocolate-flavored confections, 

pot stickers, protein shakes and fruit-flavored 

smoothies.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

From 2016 to 2020 there were 153 new 

product launches of foods with carrageenan in 

organic nondairy drinks, protein shakes, puddings 

and frozen desserts as well as dairy-based 

products, meat products, plant-based meat 

alternatives, regular and gluten-free snacks, 

tortillas and frozen pasta meals.

IFAC would like to iterate the positive 

attributes of seaweed cultivation on the 

environment sustainability.

Seaweed farming creates valuable 

marine habitats, improves water quality and does 

not require the use of farmland, fresh water, 

pesticides or heavy machinery to harvest the 

seaweed.

IFAC member companies have invested in 

initiatives to support sustainable seaweed 

harvesting and create responsible economic 

opportunities for local citizens.

In response to public comments posted 

to the docket, carrageenan is not carcinogenic. 

No credible research has found carrageenan to be 

carcinogenic. And if it was, it would not be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

permitted for use in food.

We also remind the Board that 

carrageenan is not degraded carrageenan or 

poligeenan. Carrageenan has very different 

physical and toxicological properties than 

degraded carrageenan and poligeenan, which are 

produced by intentionally degrading carrageenan 

under extreme conditions not found in the body.

These harsh conditions are not 

applicable to the production of food-based 

carrageenan. 

There is no degraded carrageenan or 

poligeenan in any commercial food-based 

carrageenan that is used in conventional or organic 

food products.

Since the NOSB's last review, there 

have been no changes in the global regulatory 

permissions for carrageenan.

Based on international organic 

equivalency programs, organic foods containing 

carrageenan are permitted throughout Europe, South 

America and Asia.

In fact, Europe recently renewed its 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

list of additives permitted in organic food, which 

includes carrageenan.

Finally, we know public comments in the 

Handling Subcommittee report discussed the NOSB's 

previous vote to de-list carrageenan.

Past NOSB discussions should not 

(inaudible) the current evaluation of materials. 

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Robert. That was a 

big breath at the end there.

MR. RANKIN: Almost done.

MR. ELA: Almost done. Fair. Are 

there questions for Robert? Mindee's got one.

MS. JEFFERY: Thank you. That was a 

long list of essential uses that you just provided 

us with. Thank you very much.

I was wondering if that's in your 

written comments specifically.

MR. RANKIN: The functionality and 

examples of where carrageenan is preferred to 

alternatives is.

We actually got the list of product 

launches from the INNOVA search after the deadline 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

for the written comments. 

So, I'd be happy to provide that if 

that's helpful for the Board. Otherwise, the 

functionality and characteristics that 

carrageenan provides for foods is in our written 

comments.

MS. JEFFERY: Thank you. And your list, 

is it essentiality in the sense of it seems like 

it works better in some places than in others and 

would you say that list is the essential uses or 

it's like a -- is there like a differentiation and 

sometimes they use it because they're allowed, but 

they could use something else, and there is also 

a list of truly essential uses?

I'm making a distinction that might not 

be that real. I'm hoping to hear your perspective 

on it.

MR. RANKIN: Yes. I think for a lot of 

formulators and consumers essentiality might be 

a personal decision.

And obviously there are examples of 

formulators who have replaced carrageenan or moved 

on and chosen to use either multiple additives to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

achieve the same function carrageenan provides or 

potentially remove that product from the market.

So, in terms of the comparison to other 

additives or ingredients that are permitted on the 

list, yes, there are some replacements in some 

cases. 

I would argue that there is not an exact 

one-to-one replacement in all cases. And, in some 

cases, one could not replace carrageenan with an 

alternative.

So, in my read, in my review of the, 

you know, the OFPA and related, you know, 

requirements, if an ingredient is essential in one 

application, it's considered essential and, you 

know, certainly formulators and consumers continue 

to have the option to avoid products containing 

ingredients or anything if they choose to do so.

MS. JEFFERY: Thank you.

MR. RANKIN: thank you.

MR. ELA: alright. Amy.

MS. BRUCH: Sure. Thank you, Steve. 

Thanks, Robert, for your written and oral comments. 

I just had a question.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I wanted you to expand a little bit more 

on the health merits. You briefly touched on the 

fact -- or your opinion on it being labeled a 

carcinogen.

Are there any other health issues that 

you could expand on or debunk regarding carrageenan 

such as the intestinal ulcers or irritable bowel 

syndrome, et cetera?

MR. RANKIN: Well, we did address that 

to some extent in the written comments. I wish 

we didn't have to because a lot of this research 

has been disproven and debunked by other research 

that tried to replicate what those researchers 

proved or said they prove. 

I think there are questions as to the 

materials the researchers used that --

(Discussion off the record.)

MS. ARSENAULT: Hold on one second, 

Robert. Let me just --

MR. RANKIN: So, there is research that 

was developed and, you know, I think, in our view, 

that research did not use carrageenan as its test 

sample.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And so, there was some research that 

was attempting to replicate that work and was not 

able to, which questions, in our mind, what 

substance that research was using.

In terms of intestinal, you know, 

issues, certainly we've seen, you know, comments 

and allegations toward that.

You know, I think, you know, what we 

are learning more and more about the microbiome 

and our insides, are that everybody is very 

different depending on our lifestyle and what we 

eat all the time.

And so, you know, I don't know -- I 

wouldn't -- well, in my opinion, you can't pin a 

particular outcome down to one ingredient that you 

may consume on some sort of a basis.

This requires quite a bit of very 

detailed research and studying of the diet and 

lifestyle and the person's body and things to 

determine whether anything could be causing a 

certain issue.

So, in my view, there is not any proven 

data to show that carrageenan causes negative 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

outcomes in those situations here I think we're 

referring to.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Then we'll do Wood and Jerry 

and then we'll move on to the next speaker.

MR. TURNER: Thanks. Robert, thanks. 

You may have said this in your response to Mindee's 

question, but I just want to make sure I understand 

it.

I feel like just anecdotally or sort 

of (inaudible) I see a decline in the use of 

carrageenan in the marketplace, but it seems like 

you're talking about over the last ten years or 

so.

Your numbers were compelling to me, 

though, that it is growing -- it feels -- it almost 

sounds like there is almost more of a proliferation 

of it over the last several years than I was really 

perceiving and I'm just -- can you speak to that 

again?

Is it being used more or is it -- or 

has the rate of use in products slowed?

MR. RANKIN: So, I appreciate your 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

question and I, too, was surprised -- happily 

surprised to see how many products had been 

launched over the past five years that contain 

carrageenan.

I don't have data on what products may 

have gone away that had carrageenan or the 

reformulated, so I will say, first, I don't have 

that data, but I will focus on the fact that 

companies are continuing to launch products --

innovative products that consumers seem to want 

that contain carrageenan.

And whether it's an opinion on the 

National List or a preferred ingredient, which I 

would argue it probably is, the data shows that 

companies are using it and want to continue to use 

it.

And, you know, some of those examples 

I provided are, you know, gluten free, nondairy, 

meat alternatives. Things that when you look to 

the future, those are products that consumers 

increasingly want.

And like I said before, having it as 

an option for companies allows them to launch those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

products, it allows, you know, companies to 

consider other options and, again, companies and 

consumers to consider not purchasing those 

products if they don't want to.

So, gain, I think that the data shows 

that companies still want to use it and are using 

it, and that is evidence that consumers are looking 

for those types of products. So, that's all I have 

on that.

MR. TURNER: I appreciate that. Thank 

you.

MR. RANKIN: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Yeah, Jerry, and then we'll 

move on.

MR. D'AMORE: Robert, thank you very 

much. Appreciate all that. My thought -- or my 

thoughts were overtaken by both Amy and Wood there. 

And I think those were great questions and I think 

you answered them well.

You referred to the data. I would like 

to ask the question as to the why and, you know, 

so you have the initial health concerns, then you 

had a drop off in product and the use of that product 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

in mixes, and I don't care what the data says. 

I'd like just to know is there a why attached to 

that?

So, if you have an overwhelmingly 

strongly put health concern at some point, then 

you have refuting data. Without leading the 

witness, I'd like to ask you, do you think there's 

a correlation there?

In other words, you get the strong 

health concerns, the drop off, and then very 

hardened also by the new products.

is there a continuum there that might 

suggest that the initial health concerns caused 

users who might like to have carrageenan to say, 

I just can't -- I just can't risk it?

MR. RANKIN: I think absolutely. The 

allegations and the discussion that was had and 

has been being had for over ten years certainly 

led to consumers, you know, providing input to 

companies, which then made decisions on the 

products.

Obviously not all companies decided to 

reformulate and, in some case, maybe thought that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

they couldn't or, you know, wouldn't, which I'm 

glad to see. And now, it seems that there are more 

products coming to the market and at the same time, 

you know, in my opinion, again, the science that 

was put out to support some of those negative 

outcomes has been refuted and debunked and so that, 

I think, hopefully gave consumers and food 

companies comfort that this is not the issue that 

maybe some had suggested it might be.

And so, that has potentially, you know, 

been illustrated in what you just talked about, 

Jerry, and what you're saying as far as what we're 

looking at right now as far as the environment.

So, that sort of seems to line up pretty 

well.

MR. D'AMORE: Yeah. Well, thank you 

very much for your thoughts and your time on that. 

In my mind, it's a slow ship to turn around once 

you've had some negativity to it. So, thank you.

MR. RANKIN: Thank you all.

MR. ELA: Nate, I'm wanting to move on. 

Is your question --

MR. POWELL-PALM: Very pithy. And I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

apologize if I missed it, Robert. Could you --

the products that you mentioned that were new to 

market using carrageenan, those were all certified 

organic products?

MR. RANKIN: I would need to check that 

data, Nathaniel. If I could, go back and check 

on that and then maybe send something to someone, 

Michelle or someone --

MR. POWELL-PALM: That would be very 

helpful.

MR. RANKIN: -- to give you all that 

information ahead of next week.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. RANKIN: Sure. Thank you. Happy 

to.

MR. ELA: Good job on the pithiness, 

Nate. We're going to move on. Thanks, Robert. 

Appreciate it.

We're going to move on to Darryl 

Williams, and then Jaydee Hanson, and then Marie 

Burcham.

So, Darryl, please state your name and 

affiliation and you have the floor.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. My name 

is Darryl Williams and I'm a senior technical 

reviewer and policy specialist for Quality 

Assurance International.

First thing is biodegradable, biobased 

mulch film, BBMF. QAI supports the NOSB's efforts 

to outline and obtain resolutions for BBMF if the 

result is practical for organic producers and has 

a positive environmental impact.

We would like to know what biobased 

percentage is currently available for use. If 80 

percent biobased content is not available now, we 

would like to know when the industry plans to have 

an 80 percent biobased film commercially 

available.

These are important questions to know 

before defining a percentage that is to be 

evaluated by certifiers, then used by organic 

producers.

We urge the NOSB to ensure that the 

defined biobased percentage is achievable by the 

industry as of the date the new definition is 

published.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Sodium nitrate. QAI agrees that the 

older annotation, at a minimum, needs to be 

re-listed to ensure sodium nitrate isn't possibly 

understood to be allowed for unlimited use.

If it will be re-listed under the old 

annotation, guidance should be issued for proper 

and accurate nitrogen, soil or tissue testing and 

how to verify the 20 percent nitrogen requirement 

without any standard for what each prop type 

requires.

Sodium nitrate was reviewed by the NOSB 

in 1995 and voted for allowed use with 

restrictions.

After the allowance, many 

certification agencies still did not allow the use 

of sodium nitrate prior to full implementation by 

the USDA rule.

The organic sector wanted to phase out 

in 2003 and again in 2011, but almost 20 years later 

it is still allowed for organic agriculture. 

Internationally European Union, 

Canada, Mexico, Japan, IFOAM and Codex standards 

do not allow sodium nitrate.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

The NOP's allowance of this input only 

hinders trade agreements and causes unnecessary 

paperwork for both certified entities and 

certifiers. Harmonization of all organic 

regulations should be top priority.

Public comment process. QAI would 

prefer that the Board maintain the pre-pandemic 

format of hearing oral comments both virtually 

prior to the in-person meeting as well as in-person 

at the public NOSB meetings.

We see value in both formats. the 

virtual format provides opportunities for 

participation from more organic stakeholders, and 

the oral comments at in-person meetings provides 

tones, expressions and ultimately a real-person 

experience.

Virtual oral comments provide 

commenters that cannot attend, farmers, small 

businesses, people with illnesses, communicable 

or noncommunicable, it offers them an avenue to 

deliver oral comments.

QAI sees value in both virtual and 

in-person meetings as more employees can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

participate in the virtual format while the 

in-person meeting provides unique opportunities 

to connect with organic stakeholders.

QAI supports livestream meetings. 

You'll see it in my comments. We thank you guys 

for all your work, time and commitment and 

expertise, and thank you for the Board for allowing 

us to comment.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much. Are 

there questions? Brian has one.

MR. CALDWELL: Yes. Thanks a lot for 

that. I want to just relate some of this to the 

ammonia extract discussion and I assume you have 

expertise on that as well.

MR. WILLIAMS: Go ahead. I'm going to 

tell you right now I am a food scientist and a 

handler and my farm experience is like nil. So, 

I have to let you guys --

MR. CALDWELL: Okay.

MR. WILLIAMS: But I am more than willing 

to try my best to -- this is like my first time 

even playing with sodium nitrate. 

MR. CALDWELL: Alright. Well, is there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

another person from QAI who is going to talk who 

would have more expertise there that I should ask 

or --

MR. WILLIAMS: I think -- well, Adam 

Seitz already went on. I think he's still here. 

He's more handling, too, but -- I'm not sure if 

he can jump back in.

MR. CALDWELL: We'll just --

MR. WILLIAMS: We don't have anymore 

spots this afternoon. I apologize.

MR. CALDWELL: We'll just go forward and 

if you have insights, great. If not, that's fine.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sure.

MR. CALDWELL: The first one was whether 

you could elaborate on the difficulties that you 

might find with the 20 percent requirement for, 

you know, basically high-end fertilizers in the 

ammonium extract, you know, discussion -- or 

proposal.

And the second one is, though, do you 

think that, again, those ammonium extract points 

that we made in the proposal would require more 

testing either on farm or perhaps at the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

manufacturer level for some products.

MR. WILLIAMS: So, from what I have read, 

you know, sodium nitrate used in different -- even 

a specific state, it depends on elevation, soil, 

you know. There's so much involved in what the 

ratio you're going to use.

So, that was kind of where I was going 

with the guidance on where we get our information 

--

MS. ARSENAULT: Darryl froze. Let's 

see if it fixes itself.

MR. ELA: Yeah. Well, if he comes back 

on, we'll return to the question, Brian, so -- but 

meanwhile I think we'll move on.

Like I say, if he comes back on, we'll 

let him finish that thought.

MR. CALDWELL: Great. Thanks.

MR. ELA: Yeah. So, okay, next up is 

Jaydee Hanson, and then Marie Burcham, and then 

Alice Runde. 

So, Jaydee, state your name and 

affiliation and start your comments.

MR. HANSON: I'm Jaydee Hanson. I'm the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

policy director at the Center for Food Safety and 

I'm going to be focusing my comments entirely the 

question of BPA and ortho-phthalates.

Synthetic chemicals called phthalates 

or BPA and BPS are found in hundreds of consumer 

products.

They are a problem in organics because 

they're used as food context substances. They're 

used in plastic mulches.

A new study came out this week that says 

that exposure to people ages 55 and 64, that 

ten-year block, to these chemicals is causing 100 

to 107,000 premature deaths a year. That's 1/7th 

of the deaths we've had this year from COVID. So, 

it's huge number.

The National Organic Program was going 

to do research on BPA in 2018. I was told that 

if we wanted research to be done, we had to approach 

the Secretary of Agriculture because it was at that 

level that the decision not to do the research was 

done.

People with the highest levels of 

phthalates in their bodies have a greater risk of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

death from any cause, but especially 

cardiovascular.

The study that was published this week 

estimates that these deaths are costing the U.S. 

between 40 and 47 billion a year.

These chemicals are used in plastics 

to make them softer, to make them, you know, to 

make better tubing, to make better linings in cans, 

t make all of these things, but while doing so they 

interfere with the body's endocrine system and 

they're linked to developmental, reproductive, 

brain, immune system problems and others.

The challenge of these chemicals is it 

takes such a small amount of them to have a huge 

effect.

And the study I quoted from this week 

was looking at a large study of adults 55 to 64, 

but when you look at some of the things that are 

being connected to these chemicals with children, 

it's awful. And it's awful that organic food would 

still have these chemicals in it. Thank you very 

much.

MR. ELA: Well timed. Amy has a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

question for you, Jaydee.

MR. HANSON: Sure.

MS. BRUCH: Jaydee, thanks for your 

information and there's actually several written 

comments in regards to what you were talking about 

and we appreciate you bringing this up.

You made reference to a study that was 

released. Is it possible for you to share that 

study or the link to I?

MR. HANSON: Yeah. It's from the 

journal Environmental Pollution and the lead 

author is Leonardo Trasande, who is a professor 

of pediatrics and environment medicine at the New 

York University Langone Health center.

MR. HANSON: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ELA: If you want to send that to 

Michelle, Jaydee, that would be great. She can 

--

MR. HANSON: Yeah. Be happy to do that. 

What we're finding, you know, is that, you know, 

five years ago when I wrote, there's a lot of data. 

Now, there's even more data about how we need to 

get these out of our food.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And one organic company -- Amy is going 

to -- when we showed them the data and they're now 

owned by General Mills, they said, okay, we're 

taking it out.

Some other companies shown the data 

have not taken it out and we have resisted, you 

know, targeting those companies in a boycott or 

something because we want all of organics to say, 

this won't be in organics, so that we don't have 

to go company by company.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thanks.

MS. BRUCH: Thanks for sharing that with 

Michelle also. I appreciate it.

MR. ELA: We've got Wood and then Esa.

MR. TURNER: Jaydee, I really appreciate 

the comments and really appreciate the information 

you provided. I just want to make sure I'm clear 

on what you're saying just within the context of 

sort of our work agenda as it currently exists.

Are you saying that the research 

priority that we have published is not sufficient? 

Are you saying we're beyond the point of needing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

more research on this? Is that the idea?

I just want to make sure I'm clear on 

the core of your message. I just want to --

MR. HANSON: Well, we've had, you know, 

years that we've been waiting on the research. 

Meantime, other researchers have done some really 

good work that we need to be looking at and we need 

to be acting on that.

This is a challenge for organic because 

we have, for the most part, not looked at food 

contact substances. This comes in from food 

contact substances, including stuff that gets into 

the soil and water, but it's a food contact 

substance problem.

MR. TURNER: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: I have a question here. 

I think what you're saying is really important. 

When we talk about food contact, we should be 

thinking both in terms of packaging and also 

processing and handling.

And I thought, in fact, I'd be working 

on BPA for the last five years, but my question 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

is is that one of the issues that came up, you know, 

five years ago and has come up is under OFPA, you 

know, where do we have the authority to, you know, 

opine and regulate on food contact materials and 

particularly packaging materials as one component.

And I think it's important for everyone 

to hear your thoughts on that as we go forward and 

hopefully these issues are more central.

MR. HANSON: Yeah. Well, you know, I 

think that we've got some really good lawyers at 

Center for Food Safety and I, frankly, haven't 

asked them to go to a scientist and a policy guy, 

you know.

If, you know, the ideal thing would be 

that this would be a no food. And, you know, if 

we can't find a way and offer to keep it out of 

organics, then what will end up happening is that 

there will be a list of good organic companies and 

not so good organic companies that haven't got it 

out of their food.

We don't want that. So, we've got to 

find a way to keep this out of organic food or it 

will further complicate the organic brand.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you. Yeah, I agree.

MR. ELA: Great. Thank you, Jaydee. 

That's all the questions I see. So, do appreciate 

it.

MR. HANSON: Thank you very much.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to Marie 

Burcham, followed by Alice Runde and then Christie 

Badger.

So, Marie, state your name an 

affiliation and give us your comments.

MS. BURCHAM: Good afternoon, members 

of NOSB and NOP. My name is Marie Burcham and I 

am the policy director for the Cornucopia 

Institute. 

Cornucopia asks that the NOSB 

reclassify carrageenan as a synthetic before 

voting to remove the substance from the National 

List.

When asked to evaluate substances, the 

NOP and NOSB must consider that if a substance will 

be harmful to your health.

Our extensive recent comment flags 

recent research showing that carrageenan causes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

inflammation.

This research has not been debunked. 

That harm is especially relevant to sensitive 

populations, including those suffering from 

chronic illness such as IBS and Crohn's and other 

inflammation-mitigated disorders.

The organic marketplace is premised on 

a higher standard for human health that requires 

closer scrutiny.

While conventional food system may take 

years to align with research, the organic 

marketplace requires thoughtful action from NOSB 

and policymakers.

I would like to take off my Cornucopia 

policy hat for a moment and speak briefly with 

chronic illness and a disability and as a 

disability rights advocate.

The integrity of the organic label and

the standards for human health are deeply personal 

to chronically ill individuals such as myself.

Organic food is justifiably 

recommended by doctors to help treat chronic 

illness. A diet of organic food lowers exposure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to substances that fuel inflammation such as 

pesticides and livestock drugs.

Even the smallest doses of these 

chemicals can affect the day-to-day functionality 

and welfare of someone with chronic illness.

It's why the organic label has become 

necessary and a safe haven for so many. While not 

the original intent of the label, many individuals 

now rely on organic farms and brands as a source 

of the only food they can trust.

Of course, concerns of accessibility 

and inequity in the organic marketplace are right 

alongside as issues.

In the meantime, I ask NOSB and NOP to 

consider what integrity within the organic food 

system can mean for people with certain 

disabilities and chronic illness. It's a matter 

of life and death. 

Personally, I have a condition called 

alpha-gal, an increasingly common acquired allergy 

to mammal products.

Many folks with alpha-gal have 

compromised health due to and in addition to their 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

severe allergy and seek out organic and vegan 

alternatives on doctor recommendation, but the 

same products that are necessary for our well-being 

can threaten it.

Carrageenan cross reacts with this 

allergy and will often cause life-threatening 

reactions such as anaphylaxis.

If carrageenan was always named on the 

ingredient panel or listed as an allergen, this 

would be less concern, but carrageenan does not 

always appear on labels.

Sensitive individuals cannot guarantee 

their safety by eliminating processed foods 

because labeling laws do not require transparency 

and carrageenan is used as a processing aid such 

as in the cream used to make ice cream or when it's 

used to filter alcohol.

Carrageenan is also used on edible 

films or to pump poultry and other fresh products.

There is even a possibility that 

carrageenan is being used as protective films on 

organic produce, again, undeclared.

People with alpha-gal and other chronic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

illnesses like Chron's should not be disregarded 

when considering human health concerns.

Even though society devalues disabled 

people, the organic label does not need to follow 

suit.

As Cornucopia's policy director, I 

implore both NOP and the NOSB to consider the actual 

research which we reference and summarize in our 

written comments the new research showing 

(inaudible) health effect has not been debunked. 

Thank you very much.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Are there 

questions?

MR. BRADMAN: I have a quick question.

MR. ELA: Um-hm.

MR. BRADMAN: Could you add more on the 

use of carrageenan as a fruit or vegetable coating? 

I share your concerns about unlabeled 

ingredients.

MS. BURCHAM: Yeah. Sure. So, we did 

include some reference to research about it being 

used as a protective film in organic produce, but 

essentially -- or just in produce in general, not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

necessarily organic. 

So, we don't know how much is being used 

in organic, but that's a real concern especially 

for people with sensitive health.

It's being used as protective films to 

limit food from becoming rotten quicker. So, it's 

preventing respiration and bruising and things 

like that.

So, it's very common in certain fruits, 

soft-bodied fruits, tomatoes, things like that.

And we're not sure how prevalent it is, 

but I can tell you as someone with severe chronic 

illness, I can't necessarily trust organic food 

anymore, like fresh produce anymore because of this 

issue.

And my doctors are very concerned for 

the chronic illness community in general because 

of the lack of labeling.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Wood.

MR. TURNER: Thanks for your comments. 

I think you may -- I just want to make sure I'm 

clear on this and the discussion of carrageenan 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

as a coating is helpful to me. So, thanks for that 

question, Asa, but I -- is the context that 

carrageenan would not be labeled simply in the 

context of it being used as a processing aid?

I just want to make sure I just -- that's 

a comment that struck me and I just want to make 

sure I understand that.

MS. BURCHAM: Yeah. Sure. So, when 

it's being used as a processing aid, it doesn't 

-- legally it does not need to be included in the 

label. Certainly companies could include it on 

the label, but, in general, they do not.

So, processing aid meaning like the 

cream used in ice cream. And since the cream is 

being labeled as an ingredient, it's not 

necessarily including its use of alcohols, but it's 

to just used in processing.

So, we're seeing it in edible films. 

That's more of a handling issue. And also to, 

like, add texture and plumping to other fresh 

products.

So, it's not just a question of 

processed food necessarily. I don't know if I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

answering your question.

MR. TURNER: No, that's helpful. I'm 

just trying to -- sorry. I'm trying to parse a 

lot of comments that I'm remembering from the 

written comments as well as conversations we've 

had internally and I just want to make sure I 

understand.

MS. BURCHAM: Yeah, it's definitely 

undeclared on a lot of labels and that is a serious 

concern. I think if it was always declared, then 

for sensitive individuals it would be less of a 

concern, but that is not the case.

MR. ELA: Anything else?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: Thank you so much. We do 

appreciate it.

MS. BURCHAM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to Alice 

Runde and Christie Badger, followed by Harry Rick.

So, Alice, please go ahead. State your 

name and affiliation.

MS. RUNDE: Thank you. Good afternoon. 

My name is Alice Runde. I'm the coalition manager 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

for the National Organic Coalition. My comments 

today pertain to several topics.

On racial equity, the National Organic 

Coalition, or NOC, has previously presented data 

in context to both the USDA and the NOP regarding 

the persistent structural racism in our 

agricultural system which has excluded many black, 

indigenous and other farmers of color from their 

ownership, farming and participation in the 

organic movement over time.

In our written comments, we turn to our 

own system and reflect how the NOSB and the US 

organic community can keep the tenets of fairness 

and inclusivity at the forefront of our work.

Our full recommendations are outlined 

in our written comments, but I will highlight two 

of them here.

First, to make sure this topic receives 

the time and attention it deserves, the ask the 

NOSB to establish a diversity, equity and 

inclusion, or DEI, subcommittee to lead this work

on the part of the Board.

The subcommittee's future 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

recommendations should include changes that would 

make the certification process more accessible to 

producers of color, make organic food more 

affordable and available and ensure that organic 

farmers -- or organic farming pays living wages 

for farmers and farm workers.

The NOSB should work with the NOP to 

establish a structure that invites and compensates 

stakeholders to offer guidance and feedback to the 

DEI subcommittee.

Second, NOC recommends that the NOSB 

engage in a public consultation process to develop 

fairness and social adjustment standards to the 

NOP. The NOSB should add this topic as a work 

agenda item.

On oversight improvement to deter 

fraud, NOC appreciates the CACS committee work --

sorry, working to identify gaps that require 

further action to address enforcement challenges.

While we appreciate the importance of 

the technological aspect of this work, the most 

challenging barrier to organic integrity continues 

to be systemic within the USDA and the NOP.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

While we think the SOE rule is 

important, there is more work to be done. I refer 

you to our full comments where we provide 

additional details.

On carrageenan, during the spring 2021 

meeting several NOSB members expressed our concern 

that the current NOSB is discussing something that 

a former board made a solid, significant decision 

on.

They further noted that unless there 

is significant, new material to be addressed, the 

fall 2016 NOSB recommendation to delist should be 

respected. 

We could not agree more. Why are we 

asking the NOSB and organic stakeholders to spend 

time and energy on developing new recommendations 

that circumvent the USDA's responsibility to 

advance longstanding NOSB recommendations.

And finally on oral and written 

comments, we agree that there is disproportionate 

access to the NOSB, much of which takes place behind 

the scenes.

We are grateful for the integrity of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

those NOSB members who refuse to take part in such 

backdoor dealings. Transparency is a core tenet 

of how we work.

Due to the differences in access to the 

in-person meetings, we are in favor of multiple 

ways for stakeholders to engage in this process.

Virtual, in-person and written 

comments should all be weighed and considered 

equally. Thank you for the opportunity to comment 

today and the time you all spend on these important 

complex issues.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Alice. Are there 

questions?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: I am not seeing any, so thank 

you so much for your comments. We are going to 

move on to Christie Badger and then she will be 

followed by Harry Rice and Aimee Simpson.

So, Christie, please go ahead and state 

your name and affiliation.

MS. BADGER: Thanks, Steve. Good 

afternoon. My name is Christie Badger and I'm a 

consultant with the National Organic Coalition. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Thank you for your time and service on the Board.

Biochar frm manure burning. We 

wholeheartedly support the comment from a NOC 

member who stated, manure is one of the best soil

amendments and to waste it by turning it into ash 

is nonsensical.

Manure on its own will build the soil, 

feed the soil and aid in sequestering carbon. 

Turning it into ash from manure burning does not 

enhance these qualities.

Kasugamycin. Antibiotics in organic 

production are contrary to consumer expectations. 

Organic livestock producers are prohibited from 

using antibiotics.

Antibiotic resistance poses serious 

threats to human health. Using antibiotics in 

organic agriculture contributes to those threats. 

Kasugamycin is incompatible with organic 

practices. The NOSB must vote no.

Biodegradable/biobased mulch. 

Continuous improvement is a cornerstoen of organic 

production. Should this annotation change be 

made, continuous improvement must be addressed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

within the statutory language.

We suggest that an appropriate wording 

would be, when greater than 80 percent 

biobased/biodegradable plastic film becomes 

commercially available, producers are required to 

use them given that they are of the appropriate 

quality, quantity and form.

This terminology is known to 

certifiers, inspectors and producers of organic 

operations, applies the commercial availability 

statement and allows for variances based on 

functionality.

To be clear, though, NOC feels strongly 

that more research is needed into 

biodegradable/biobased mulch film before allowed 

for use in organic production.

Zein. As per the published materials, 

there are no stakeholders in favor of listing zein 

on the National List.

Zein does not fill a unique 

functionality that is not already filled by 

currently allowed substances. Zein can be 

manufactured organically.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

If, against the recommendation of 

stakeholders, zein is listed, the NOSB must 

explicitly prohibit use for nanoencapsulation. 

We strongly recommend that this petition be denied.

Copper sulfate for use in aquatic rice 

systems. Upon further investigation into this 

listing, we are left with more questions and 

concerns.

Is the practice of skirting the 

regulations by claiming the disease control use 

in aquatic rice systems a common practice?

If so, are certifiers aware of this 

practice and what are they doing to address it? 

Drainage practices need to be better understood 

with clearly defined parameters of what is and is 

not allowed in organic production.

In the interest of (inaudible) 

improvement, we strongly support the Crops 

Subcommittee recommendation for a comprehensive 

review of copper sulfate as a research priority. 

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Christie. Are 

there questions from the Board?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: I have one if nobody else does. 

So, coming back to biochar there's certainly been 

discussion on the Board, but we really don't have 

criteria that -- and I think this comes out with 

ammonia extracts and a number of our products that 

we're being asked to recycle waste streams from 

conventional industries through the organic 

system.

Do you think -- I mean, you know, the 

argument here is the paralysis of the manure is 

different than burning.

I know it's a technical question, but 

it actually, I think, is pretty important to how 

this petition goes.

Do you have any thoughts on that and 

how to interpret the paralysis versus ash?

MS. BADGER: Steve, I think this is one 

that the NOP has actually already been clear on 

and they have said that paralysis is the same as 

burning.

So, this is one we actually do have 

guidance from the NOP on. Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Thank you. Any other 

questions for Christie?

(Pause.)

MR. ELA: Thank you so much, Christie. 

Very much appreciated.

MS. BADGER: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to Harry 

Rice, and then Aimee Simpson, followed by Greg 

Rawlings.

So, Harry, please state your name and 

affiliation and you have the floor.

MR. RICE: Thank you. My name is Harry 

Rice. 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 unparallel to 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.

Today, I'm going to address the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Handling Subcommittee's August 13th discussion 

document on the fish oil annotation.

As expressed previously, GOED supports 

sustainable fishing practices and views a 

modification to the fish oil standard -- or 

annotation, excuse me, as an acceptable solution 

to address sustainability concerns and to ensure 

that fish oil is compatible with organic practices.

The proposed fish oil annotation in the 

August 13th discussion document is a minor 

modification of annotation Option No. 2 included 

in the Handling Subcommittee's discussion document 

dated 18 February 2021 on the same topic and 

discussed during the spring 2021 meeting.

Annotation Option No. 2 was supported 

by GOED in its 12 April 2021 written comments and 

its 22 April 2021 oral comments.

The current annotation, with this minor 

modification, does not change GOED's support of 

the annotation.

That said, GOED supports the fish oil 

annotation as written in the Handling 

Subcommittee's August 13th discussion document. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

That is, GOED supports the addition of the 

following text to the current fish oil annotation: 

Sourced from fishing industry byproduct only and 

certified as sustainable against a third-party 

certification that is International Social and 

Environmental Accreditation and Labeling (ISEAL) 

Code Compliant or Global Seafood Sustainability 

Initiative (GSSI) recognized.

As always, thank you for your time and 

tireless efforts.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much.

MR. BRADMAN: I have a question. Is 

the industry clear and is there a potential 

confusion of the word byproduct with bycatch? And 

do you have a definition of both and if you could 

explain how byproduct is used to produce a fish 

oil.

MR. RICE: So byproduct is not the 

primary catch. It would not be for the primary 

purpose and I'm stumbling here because I'm thinking 

about what your question was. 

MR. BRADMAN: Let's go with the first 

part. Do you have a definition of byproduct and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

bycatch? I mean I know there's many definitions 

of bycatch and that's regulated by NOAA in many 

contexts, but I'm curious. I just want to verify 

because I have a distinct understanding of 

byproduct and I want to make sure that agrees with 

your understanding.

MR. RICE: Yes, so I have to apologize. 

You took me off guard with this question. There 

is a formal definition of byproduct, but I'm not 

recalling it right now. So my definition that I'm 

going to give you is just my understanding and 

that's what is not caught for the primary purpose 

of consumption. The bycatch is inadvertent catch 

would get caught in the net, if you will. So they 

are very different and I think that's what you're 

getting at, if I'm understanding you.

MR. BRADMAN: Just to confirm, a 

byproduct is a product derived from a catch that 

is secondary to the primary purpose of the catch?

MR. RICE: Yes, yes. Because the 

industry does not catch anything specifically for 

fish oil. It's all secondary. If you want, I can 

get back to you on this issue to give you a formal 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

definition. I'm not trying to evade the question, 

I just don't want to answer it incorrectly.

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah, okay, no, thank 

you. I mean that's my understanding and I did do 

research on that, but--

MR. RICE: Okay.

MR. BRADMAN: But I would like--I 

probably should have reached out to you earlier, 

I would like to get that definition.

MR. RICE: Yeah, absolutely I can get 

that to you. No problem. Should I send that 

through Michelle? 

MR. BRADMAN: Yes and it's probably 

something we want to submit to the open docket, 

too.

MR. RICE: Okay, so submit through 

regulations.gov?

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah.

MR. RICE: Okay. No problem.

MR. ELA: Or you can send it directly 

to her as well.

MR. RICE: Okay. 

MR. ELA: Either way.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ARSENAULT: Actually, send it to 

me. The docket is not open and you can't submit 

comments right now.

MR. RICE: Okay.

MS. ARSENAULT: Thank you. 

MR. RICE: I'll do that.

MR. ELA: So I just, Asa asked the 

question and I'm certainly not as versed in all 

the terminology here, but in my head and especially 

like when we talk about fish emulsions and the crop 

side, byproduct is the remnants left after 

processing a fish for other uses versus the catch 

not intended for human consumption. I tend to 

think of byproduct as the bits and pieces after 

processing whereas you're saying in terms of 

handling it's a very different definition. Am I 

hearing that right? 

MR. RICE: I think that's fair to say, 

yes.

MR. ELA: Okay. Good. That actually 

is good to know because I've never made that 

distinction in my head. Other questions for 

Harry? (Pause.) Thank you so much. We do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

appreciate it.

MR. RICE: Thank you. Thanks. Bye.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

Aimee Simpson and then Greg Rawlings and Jill 

Smith. After Jill, we are going to take another 

break. So, go ahead Aimee. State your name and 

affiliation.

MS. SIMPSON: Hello. My name is Aimee 

Simpson and I am the Director of Advocacy and 

Product Sustainability for PCC Community Markets, 

based in Seattle, Washington. As a certified 

organic retailer, it is our mission to ensure that 

good food nourishes the communities we serve while 

cultivating vibrant, local, organic food systems. 

An integral part of this mission is to ensure that 

the organic food systems we support are recognized 

for the benefits they provide to our communities 

and the environment, especially in the face of 

climate change. 

We want to thank the NOSB for drafting 

its letter to Secretary Vilsack concerning 

opportunities for advancing organic as a climate 

change solution. In addition to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

recommendations highlighted by the NOSB, we would 

also support the development of clear soil 

fertility standards as required under OFPA and an 

accompanying, strengthening of the Organic Systems 

Plan requirements to reflect those soil fertility 

standards. We would also support the enforcement 

of existing organic standards and other 

climate-friendly practices already required under 

OFPA, such as the pasture rule. 

Beyond these steps, we must continue 

to eliminate gaps in organics, strengthen the 

integrity of the organic label and evaluate all 

aspects of organic production with a lens of 

eliminating practices or inputs that are 

inconsistent with overarching organic principles 

and our growing understanding of climate-smart 

agriculture. 

This includes finalizing origin of 

livestock, organic livestock and poultry practices 

and strengthening organic enforcement rules. 

This also includes, however, applying additional 

whole system scrutiny to the inputs and practices 

currently allowed in organic. For example, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

nonsynthetic ammonia extracts, we are supportive 

of their exclusion. As one of our organic 

producers stated when asked if it was a necessary 

tool, they said heck no, that stuff will mess up 

your soil. Similarly, we know that antibiotic 

use, such as kasugamycin, in crops have far 

reaching impacts on biodiversity and the health 

and safety of all and do not support its inclusion 

in organic. 

We also must continue to look beyond 

the soil and assess the impacts of our food 

production and the inputs on our connected marine 

and aquatic ecosystems. To this end, we continue 

to support the NOSB's efforts to delve into the 

complex category of sustainable fishery management 

and harvest standards and support the proposal to 

limit fish oil sourcing to byproduct meeting a 

third party sustainability certification. 

Ideally, we would like to see organic 

develop its own aquaculture and wild fish 

sustainability standards to ensure strong 

alignment with organic principles, but in the 

interim, we understand the necessity of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

identifying an external reference point. We 

would, however, encourage continued scrutiny of 

the proposed GSSI and ISEAL certifications as 

appropriate reference points that meet the 

expectation of the organic community and consumer.

Finally, we must expand access and 

inclusivity in organics so that the understanding 

and practice of organic as a climate change 

solution becomes more widespread. Barriers to 

organic engagement and certification are barriers 

to true climate solutions and we support a 

continued effort to study and identify ways to 

remove those barriers, especially for our 

byproduct communities and producers. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Aimee. Brian has 

a question for you.

MS. SIMPSON: Yes, Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah, thanks, Aimee. 

You mentioned soil fertility standards and I'm just 

wondering what kind of standards you folks are 

envisioning, you know, that would be applicable 

in the wide variety of soils and regions across 

the country.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SIMPSON: Yeah, I mean I think that 

that's part of where there's a lot of confusion 

and inconsistency. You know, soil fertility 

processes are required under 6513 and there are 

really no guidelines as to beyond saying crop 

rotation and, you know, those general kind of 

guidance as to what people should be doing to foster 

that and I think with our increasing awareness of 

regional soil sensitivities, climate change, 

carbon sequestration, all of that I think that we 

need to capitalize on that growing knowledge and 

really develop some stricter standards for organic 

system management plans. And yes, they would have 

to be kind of individualized, but I think that the 

growing science that we have going on right now 

and our understanding in organic needing to invest 

in that and really show that connection is worth 

that effort.

MR. CALDWELL: Great. Thank you.

MR. ELA: I have a question kind of 

related to that and it's kind of the flip of what 

you said when you asked consumers about ammonia 

extracts and they said heck no. If they found out 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that, I mean and you know this is somewhat true 

with just with sodium nitrate and some of these 

other things, but if they said, you know, if we 

were using them and they found out about that, what 

do you think would be the response?

MS. SIMPSON: I think, you know, so 

just to clarify, the people that we were talking 

to were our local organic producers. I usually, 

you know, in this kind of input scenario I like 

to try to reach out to some of our, you know, 

stronger partners to say hey, do you have an SSE 

for this, like is this is something that's really 

critical and that's where the response was like 

absolutely not, this is not good for my soil 

management systems and really throws everything 

off. As far as from the consumer perspective, you 

know, I think whenever you dig down into this kind 

of stuff, it gets really complicated really fast 

for consumers, but if you step back and you say, 

you know, on the whole we know that this disturbs 

the soil fertility and soil health, but we now know 

is critical to climate change and carbon 

sequestration and climate friendly agriculture, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

then the answer is very clear for them in that they 

are saying no, we don't want. 

In fact, climate change and climate 

conscious practices are probably one of the number 

one concerns and we conducted materiality 

assessments of this recently. It is like one of 

the top concerns for consumers and I think that 

anything organic can do to ensure that its label 

is not eroding the confidence in its support of 

climate friendly agriculture is a win on the 

consumer front.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Anybody else? 

Somebody had their hand up and it dropped, I think, 

but I may have missed it. Oh, Mindee, go ahead. 

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you. Aimee, I 

really appreciate all your comments and the depth 

of work that you do at PCC. I'm just curious if 

you can provide us with some perspective around 

consumers interacting with organic labels and 

organic labeling claims. In your experience, do 

consumers expect the word organic and organic 

labels to mean the same thing across all categories 

and all places in the marketplace? For example, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

if a consumer sees a towel and it has the word 

organic on it, do they expect total organic 

engagement with enforcement and integrity across 

personal care, supplements, the grocery aisle, 

produce? Do they see the label as meaning the same 

thing in all categories? 

MS. SIMPSON: Absolutely. I mean any 

time there's a label like consumers, I mean, even 

our most invested consumers they just want to have 

confidence that that stands for the same standards 

wherever they see it. As a retailer, I mean, you 

know, even though we do a lot of effort to educate 

on the nuances and, you know, me personally with 

my background, you know, I know that it's not 

necessarily the same. OFPA only covers a certain 

scope, but it's always hard to communicate that.

As a retailer, our reliance on 

certifications on organic as being one of the 

strongest legally backed standards out there is 

critical especially as we continue to seek those 

kind of increasing complexities as to what's being 

put into food, how it's being produced and 

expanding beyond that. If we had more confidence, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

you know, that organic means this in health and 

body care and textiles and because we are 

continuing to have to expand our standards and the 

expectations that consumers are pursuing in our 

stores, then that just makes our job easier. So, 

you know, I would say yes the goal is consistency 

across all categories and all standards. Now, I 

understand there's some nuances to that, but the 

simpler we can be and the more consistent we can 

be, the easier it is to meet what the consumer 

expects.

MS. JEFFREY: I appreciate your 

perspective and experience. Thank you. 

MR. ELA: Anybody else? (Pause.) 

Thank you so much, Aimee. We do appreciate it.

MS. SIMPSON: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

Greg Rawlings and then Jill Smith. We'll take a 

break and then after the break, we'll come to Jerry 

Hatfield. So, Greg, please state your name and 

affiliation and start your comments.

MR. RAWLINGS: Hi, good afternoon. My 

name is Greg Rawlings. I work for Jacobs Farm/Del 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Cabo. I am an organic grower for about 25 years 

now here in the central California coast. 

Currently we're growing a lot of culinary herbs, 

squash and tomatoes. I am speaking today on 

ideally, you know, not allowing ammonia extract 

into the organic food system. The reason is I 

addressed this Board earlier this year about the 

same thing, but the reason is that it breaks the 

symbiosis between the soil biota, the bacteria and 

the fungus that's in the soil and the plant and 

that biota is what gives organic fields their 

flavor. It's what gives the organic production 

systems, you know, the nutrients that come from 

a soil and it's really what organic is meant to 

be. You know, the old standard of feed the soil 

to feed plant versus the conventional idea of just 

feeding the plant. When you feed the soil, you're 

feeding the soil biota which is really, you know, 

kind of just a more detailed, nuanced way of putting 

it. 

But there's a whole bunch of bad things 

that happen when you do break that symbiosis. You 

know, the soil biota because it's filling up the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

space in the soil and has a strong productive 

ability, what you're doing when you break that 

symbiosis is you are allowing diseases to move into 

your fields, you know, nitrogen and when you put 

those soluble nutrients, like ammonia extract, 

into the soil you're allowing those plants to grow 

really fast, you know, initially, but the reason 

why they're growing so fast is they're no longer 

sharing any of their productive capabilities with 

the soil biota, which the soil biota then starts 

to recess as, you know, the profile in the soil 

begins to recess and is smaller and smaller and 

that allows an open door for disease, plant 

diseases to come in. 

The other thing that happens that's 

really bad for organic fields when we apply the 

soluble nutrients is that pests are more attracted 

to especially high nitrogen of crops, fields with 

high nitrogen availability in them. Ammonia 

extract is the worst of a whole line of soluble 

nutrients, but kind of going back to what Michelle 

was saying about maybe a soil, you know, like an 

overall soil system, you know, an NOP that would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

allow for better soil health really what it should 

be looking--and I realize it's diverse across the 

country, but really what the organic program should 

be looking for is less soluble nutrients every 

year. 

How can we shift all of the fields and 

all of the organic production away from soluble 

nutrients to, you know, things that you put in the 

soil before you plant or apply, you know, compost 

or something after you plant rather than liquid. 

You know, anything that's a liquid soluble 

nutrient is affecting your soil biota, which is 

diluting the taste and the flavor of your crops 

and also diluting the organic brand. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Amy has a

question.

MS. BRUCH: Hi Greg. Thank you so much 

for your comments today. I just had a question. 

In the mid west our crop rotations, we usually 

do complementary crop rotations, high nitrogen 

consumer with a low nitrogen consumer crop or a 

crop that actually contributes nitrogen to the 

soil, such as a legume. In your area and with the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

crops that you say you grow, is that possible to 

also do those type of intentional rotations, not 

just a crop rotation to say you're doing a crop 

rotation, but a crop rotation that's meaningful, 

that complementary in terms of soil health? And 

can you speak to that just a little bit for me, 

please?

MR. RAWLINGS: Of course. We do every 

year. We plant everything that's fallow over the 

winter, you know, this area is a little different 

from the rest of the country. We really get only 

rain in the winter time and then all, you know, 

the rest of the season's dry. You know, what I 

figured over time is that we don't have enough water 

to put cover crops in the summer, you know, spring, 

summer, the fall, but in the winter every field. 

We don't have any bare fields. They're all 

planted either with perennials like rosemary that 

we grow or spearmint or they're planted with a cover 

crop. Ninety-five percent of our cover crops have 

nitrogen thick (inaudible) in them and I definitely 

would encourage organic farmers, or really even 

the conventional farmers, to plant cover crops as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

it's a great source of nitrogen and it also builds 

the organic matter which can feed that soil biota 

later on in the crop cycle. So, yes, we definitely 

use cover crops. 

I would highly suggest here, you know, 

the traditional cover crop in this area is maybe 

like 30 percent oats, 40 percent vetch and 30 

percent bell beans, you know, but those specific 

species will change as you go across the country, 

depending on what grows in your particular area 

and when you also get free water. You know for 

us the free water is in the winter so we grow winter 

cover crops, but in other parts of the area where 

you get summer rains and stuff, summer cover crops 

are, you know, cover crops in between seasons in 

the summer is also a great idea in my opinion for 

sure.

MS. BRUCH: Great. Thank you, Greg. 

Appreciate it. 

MR. ELA: Looks like Logan is up next. 

MS. PETREY: So I'm super jealous, you 

said you only get rain in the winter when you don't 

grow. So you don't get much rain during your 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

growing season, is that right?

MR. RAWLINGS: I mean I'm looking at 

like a mist right now. We get a lot of fog and 

mist so we get like disease producing wet spells, 

but there's no moisture actually into the ground. 

So, yes, it's just definitely a mist.

MS. PETREY: Right, so with that 

moisture in the air and you said you have disease 

like on the leaves, so foliar diseases, fungal 

diseases, things like that. You mentioned with 

high nitrogen crops you can have pest pressures, 

like insect pressures that may be worse. In my 

experience, when I get deficient in nitrogen, I 

actually see more foliar diseases. Do you see that 

also? It's like once I get, because I do get rain, 

once we get rain, nitrogen is gone, that's when 

the onset of plant diseases actually can occur. 

Do you see that--like if you ever have any nitrogen 

deficient plants, it seems like you get a lot of 

fog, I can see it right there, but do you see that 

the diseases are worse?

MR. RAWLINGS: You know traditionally 

we have a really different climate than you do, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

so you know it's really very different. I haven't 

noticed nitrogen deficient plants get more 

disease, particularly foliar diseases, but we 

don't like nitrogen deficient plants. We want to 

supply enough compost pre plant that we survive 

through those times, yes, you know, for sure. 

MS. PETREY: And your fertility 

program is a pre plant program and you're able to 

maintain that nitrogen all the way through your 

crop? I think cilantro--I remember speaking with 

you last spring. You grow a lot of cilantro?

MR. RAWLINGS: Yes.

MS. PETREY: And mint?

MR. RAWLINGS: So we have like cilantro 

and dill are 60 day crops and then we go all the 

way up to rosemary and we have five blocks of 

spearmint that have been in the ground for 30 years. 

You know, so generally what I picture is, you know, 

something that if we need nitrogen in a field, we 

can put some pelletized, you know, like 7-5-7, 

which would be blood meal and bone meal to get 

something that we need within like 45 days. You 

know, something that's like, you know, 45 days to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

three months, seven meal is good stuff to do. Then 

anything more than three months, you really want 

to jump into compost because that's more of like 

instead of a month time period that kind of starts 

in two months, but it goes for like two or three 

years, you know, so when I'm timing the fertility 

for the specific crops, you know, when we're 

picking that crop is really important.

MS. PETREY: Right.

MR. RAWLINGS: And then once we get to 

perennial crops, then we're applying compost 

between our harvest. So we'll harvest something 

and then we'll apply compost, you know, generally 

over the top of a perennial field and then wait 

for the next, you know, harvest kind of thing. 

MS. PETREY: Okay. Thank you.

MR. RAWLINGS: Thank you. 

MR. ELA: Thank you. Make you want to

move to California, Logan?

MS. PETREY: It's tempting.

MR. ELA: I know. Rick and then Asa.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay, am I on?

MR. ELA: Yeah, you're on, Rick.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. I just wanted 

to make a comment. We've spent a lot of time 

talking about fertilizer and crop rotation. I'm 

an organic tree farmer, avocados. We can't rotate 

our trees and so it makes a very different kind 

of farming. I think it's important for all of us 

to recognize when we start talking about soil 

standards and national standards and all the 

others, it's important. There's so many regional 

differences in terms of soil and how you manage 

your crops. I can't even put cover crops under 

my trees because it's all shaded. Also, Logan, 

we only had four inches of rain last year. So, 

it's all irrigation. I just think that's an 

important point because we are a national program 

and a national organization and there are an awful 

lot of regional differences that we need to take 

into account when we start coming up with standards 

and regulations. Thanks.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: I meant to ask this 

question of Robert Long, too, but the AE extract 

has really brought up a lot of discussion about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

nitrogen and you know I'm interested, you know, 

if we're using manures for conventional 

agriculture , we're essentially recycling 

synthetic nitrogen into corn into cows and they 

poop it out or chickens and then we use that poop 

to grow organic crops. I think that's really 

important recycling it, but I'd like to see and 

I'm curious, do you have estimates of the nitrogen 

for your crops that come from crop rotation and 

legumes and nitrogen fixation versus manures and 

blood meal and things like that, that are from 

conventional animals.

MR. RAWLINGS: You know in some ways 

the feedstock of our compost, we do two different 

types of compost, but the feedstock of our 

fertility based compost is cow manure and green 

waste. But in many ways I consider compost to be 

a bacteriological and fungal product and not 

really, you know, it's changed from--

MR. BRADMAN: Sure.

MR. RAWLINGS: What the feedstocks 

were. To give you a general idea, when I take soil 

I usually take soil samples before I fertilize at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

all and when I first stocked the fields that I'm 

currently working about 10 years ago, we were 

seeing maybe 15 pounds an acre of nitrogen when 

I did the pre soil samples. Now after years of 

compost and organic methods, we're seeing 50 to 

75 pounds of nitrogen, pre plant and pre 

fertilization. We tripled the amount of nitrogen 

and that's from compost of previous years, that's 

from a good soil biota, that's from the soil biota 

moving through the organic matter and transferring 

that into the plant. That's kind of one of the 

things that I really like to see. 

I use nitrogen as a limiting factor for 

the growth of my plants. I want to see that cycle 

of that nitrogen between the organic matter and 

the biota breaking it down so I want to see it, 

kind of think of it as instead of just feeding the 

water, I'm drip feeding the nitrogen to the plants 

over time. The best way to do that is with compost, 

a good biota and then you're breaking down the 

organic matter that's there as you keep adding more 

and then you're talking the lifetime of that cycle 

is years, even a decade before you really see the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

end results of what your soil is going to eventually 

be like full time. 

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you. 

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. RAWLINGS: Does that answer your 

question?

MR. ELA: Nate, your hands been going 

up and down, so.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I know. Everyone 

like I just have another question after everyone 

asks these good questions, so mine's going to be 

quick. 

MR. ELA: Okay. 

MR. POWELL-PALM: So, Greg, would you 

describe that your inputs, like the blood meal you

mentioned and everything that's more an acute 

fertilizer for your plants' needs, would you 

describe them as contributing much to the building 

of your soil?

MR. RAWLINGS: You know we try to use 

as little as possible so we're trying to use the 

longer--I used to use (inaudible) nutrients a long 

time ago when I was a young organic farmer. As 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I learned more and as I saw the effects of those, 

especially on the flavor, I moved completely away 

from them. Ideally I'm putting in as little of 

the blood meal and stuff as I can for that 

particular crop. 

MR. POWELL-PALM: Sure.

MR. RAWLINGS: However, if you're 

planting like a cilantro or a dill crop, and it's 

only 60 days in the soil you can't hope that your 

compost is really going to supply a lot of that 

nitrogen need of that crop, so you do have to put 

it in. So it's really like the windows of the crop, 

but I'm trying to get the most insoluble, hardest 

to break down nitrogen for each crop window, for 

the crops that I'm growing if that makes sense.

MR. POWELL-PALM: It does. 

MR. RAWLINGS: So always looking to use 

insoluble.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Just a quick follow 

up to that, would you say that the real work of 

building your soil comes from that need to 

incorporate nitrogen fixing plants, like your 

vetch that you mentioned and your beans, that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that's where the real workhorses exist?

MR. RAWLINGS: No, I would definitely 

say sure, those are building, those help. I would 

say it's the soil biota which starts--

MR. POWELL-PALM: Sure, yep, yep.

MR. RAWLINGS: Some soils have it, 

other don't. You can apply if you have a good 

diversified source of compost that is maybe 30, 

40 percent animal manure and 60 to 70 percent green 

waste and made well, that's generally going to be 

your best source of the biota, which is going to 

be the best. That's the most important thing in 

your soil is the biota (Simultaneous speaking.) 

MR. POWELL-PALM: Sure and that biota, 

I apologize for interrupting you. I want to keep 

it quick. The biota is really from the manure 

contributing to that compost, but that biota 

wouldn't carry over in the AE. You lose basically 

all of that really, you know, interacting biota 

that ultimately goes to be an important component 

of soil building. Is that correct? 

MR. RAWLINGS: I'm not sure about the 

production of AE. However, it's the soluble 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

nitrogen itself that's going to, you know, I 

seriously doubt although I don't know how they make 

it.

MR. BRADMAN: Sure.

MR. RAWLINGS: I seriously doubt that 

much soil biota would transfer through that but 

the problem itself is the actual material breaking 

the symbiosis between the soil in your 

field--there's soil biota in every field that could 

be better or it could be worse and it can always 

get better by adding compost, a good and I'm going 

to define that as a well made compost. The problem 

with soluble nutrients is that it's breaking that 

symbiosis that's already in the soil. I don't know 

what the AE bring with it, but I know that's going 

to damage the soil that's already in your field 

and the biota that's already in your field.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Appreciate it. 

Thank you.

MR. ELA: I'm going to jump in. Thank 

you, so much, Greg, appreciate it. We're going 

to go to one more speaker before the break. We've 

been doing really well and staying on time and now 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

we're lagging a bit. After the break, we'll have 

Jerry Hatfield and Mark Kastel, but Jill, state 

your name and affiliation and give us your 

comments.

MS. SMITH: Hi, thanks everyone. I'm 

Jill Smith representing the Western Organic Dairy 

Producers Alliance and come from organic dairy and 

crop production myself here in Washington state. 

I thank you all for the opportunity to provide 

comments today. I'll try to be quick so we can 

get to that break.

I've actually revised my comments as 

we've gone along today to further address comments 

submissions and organic producer participation in 

general and I think Greg was a great example of 

that with all of the information that he just 

shared. I think that was hugely valuable. 

Looking at organic dairy, we've 

recently seen the irreparable damage within the 

industry with the loss of milk contracts in the 

northeast. Contracts continually lost over the 

years in the western states and the continued 

consolidation making for fewer markets available 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

for organic dairy families. We're actively losing 

families and farms who have served as role models 

within organic agriculture. Many point to this 

damage being caused by a lack of regulations and 

enforcement in areas such as origin of livestock. 

I truly believe this has discouraged many of our 

dairy producers from engaging with the NOSB or 

continuing to provide comments. There's a growing 

feeling of not being heard or seen with their time 

and opinions not leading to change or results. 

I know personally our organic dairy producers have 

become completely frustrated with this process 

after fighting for a final OOL rule for years. 

Yet, I think it's a huge benefit to every single 

one of us to hear from our organic producers and 

I would encourage everyone to consider how we can 

get greater involvement again from them, given that 

they're the ones who are directly impacted by these 

changes.

I personally would like to see specific 

time set aside for organic producers to provide 

comments and I think our great advocacy groups can 

aid in recruitment of farmers and helping them 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

prepare their thoughts and express their 

information. I think we need to change the feeling 

that producers aren't being heard and better relay 

information to them about open topics and how they 

may impact them directly on the farm. I'd 

encourage the use of virtual comment periods so 

that we have accessibility and as we seek a diverse 

group of voices, I think we also have to consider 

how we financially support producers who share 

their time at NOSB meetings or even look to serving 

on the board moving forward. A producer's time 

is valuable, especially the time of year when we 

have these meetings and I think we need to discuss 

how we can support their participation.

With fairness, accessibility and time 

constraints in line, we may need to consider 

limiting the number of comments made by a single 

organization. Having a diverse group of 

commenters will lend itself to a broader discussion 

and more information being shared. We appreciate 

your support in highlighting the value of organic 

agriculture in your letter to Secretary Vilsack 

and feel like organic agriculture serves as a model 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to show others how we can use climate-smart 

practices. 

Thank you, again, for your work and 

commitment to the organic dairy industry. I 

appreciate the time today to offer my comments. 

Thanks everyone.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Are there 

questions? (Pause.) I am not seeing any. Thank 

you so much, Jill. We really appreciate your 

thoughts. 

MS. SMITH: Thank you.

MR. ELA: So we're running 20 minutes 

behind at this point not an unusual situation, so 

let's just take a 10-minute break and then we'll 

jump back into it and go through our final list 

of speakers for today. If we have a little bit 

of time, we'll try and catch some people on the 

wait list as well. So, let's come back, let's just 

say at the top of the hour, that's actually 11 

minutes, we'll be generous. Easy to say. See you 

at the top of the hour.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 3:49 p.m. and
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

resumed at 4:02 p.m.)

MR. ELA: Okay sorry about that, 

nothing like a call from Farm Service Agency to 

happen in the middle of an organic meeting. We'll 

jump back into it here. 

First of all, let's start off with Jerry 

Hatfield and then we're going to move to Mark Kastel 

and then Waldo Moraga. So, Jerry, state your name 

and affiliation and you can make your comment, 

please. 

MR. HATFIELD: Yes, I'm Jerry 

Hatfield. I'm a retired USDA ARS plant 

physiologist and I thank the NOSB and the NOP for 

allowing me to make comments and everything.

I'm going to approach this from a 

scientific point of view and I probably will step 

on a lot of your toes, but so be it. That is the 

fact that as I've gone through the technical report 

and I've gone through the minutes, I think you've 

come up with a conclusion that's now looking for 

evidence. If we take a look at this from a 

science-based perspective, I don't consider what 

you've done as a thorough review of the literature 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and a comprehensive review of the analysis of all 

of this and I think there's a lot of perception 

more than factual evidence of what's going on.

I'm going to point out a few of these 

because I did go through those reports very clearly 

because I wanted to see what the scientific 

evidence who are looking at ammonia extracts and 

their positive or negative effects on all of this. 

On page 29 of your Minutes, it talks about more 

research is needed and if more is needed, why can 

you come up with the very definitive conclusions 

that you have in this whole report? For example, 

on page 40, there is no reference to support this 

very definitive statement does not contribute to 

plant health. It just makes that statement but 

there's no reference to it. Another is on page 

28 and 37, it's in reference to weighing. It talks 

about nitrogen influencing the denitrifiers in 

there. But as you start looking at this system 

and the degradation of organic matter, there are 

other complicating factors. You've got tillage. 

You've got the crop rotation. You've got all 

these other factors. Nitrogen is not the only 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

factor and the form of nitrogen is not the only 

factor. 

In fact, you cite me in that report and 

some of the comments that I gave originally in terms 

of looking at a meta-analysis in all of this and 

I think this is what this whole approach needs. 

If you look at another case, there's a lack of 

evidence, there's a lack of references that are 

cited in there, but I couldn't find them that I 

could go back and see what those studies originally 

did in terms of their complications and looking 

at their interactions going on. So, I think the 

overall scientific basis needs to be looked at much 

more thoroughly than what you've done to do a real 

thorough analysis on all of this. I've served 

30-some years as journal editors and various 

editorial roles, if this was a scientific paper, 

it would be rejected for the lack of having strong 

conclusions that support your arguments. That's 

really a very strong point that I think you need 

to make to understand the integrity of (inaudible). 

MR. ELA: Great. Thank you, Jerry. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Questions from the board? Brian has one.

MR. CALDWELL: Thanks, Jerry. I'm 

wondering when I read through it, the only positive 

facts that I could see from you know sort of strong 

ammonia fertilizers would be increased plant 

growth and sort of an indirect soil benefit by 

having more organic matter in the crop. Can you 

point to any direct positive soil benefits from 

ammonia extracts, the products that we're talking 

about here? 

MR. HATFIELD: Well if you look at the 

direct effects of ammonia extracts in terms of 

plant growth because if we want to feed the biology 

of the soil, one of the things that comes with 

biology, we increase the biology when we increase 

plant growth because 50 percent of the root 

exudates are coming out as sugars that feed that 

soil biology. So the bigger we make the plant, 

the bigger we make the root system, the higher the 

amount of exudates going into feed that biology. 

But it's a very complex process. It's that hey, 

what form of fertilizer because it really depends 

upon how we've changed the soil biology, how we've 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

done our tillage operations, how we've managed the 

soil is part of that profile. When you start 

looking at this, it really becomes a series of 

interactions that are going on. I think everybody 

wants to relate it to one single factor, but that's 

really not the only factor that's influencing this, 

particularly in the soil biological system.

MR. CALDWELL: Yes, as a quick follow 

up, so if you grow a bigger plant it's going to 

have a benefit no matter what the source of nitrogen 

was that helped that plant grow big, right? And 

so I think the question that we get down to a lot 

is long term studies showing whether increased soil 

carbon, increased organic matter because of 

ammonia type fertilizers. Personally I don't see 

that, but maybe you do and you can cite some.

MR. HATFIELD: The bigger factor that 

influences soil carbon is how we till the soil. 

I mean if you really look at this, we see a lot 

of oxidation when we stir that soil up, we begin 

to disturb that overall system, that's where we 

see the big flush of soil organic carbon come back. 

I can manage soil carbon a lot more effectively 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

or negatively by how I manage the tillage system. 

If you look at the one meta-analysis I've put 

together and cited on there in the report is that 

it wasn't so much the form of nitrogen fertilizer, 

it was crop rotations, tillage practices, 

diversity of that cropping systems, the things that 

we attribute to soil health as influencing the soil 

biology more than just the form of fertilizer 

that's going on.

MR. CALDWELL: Thanks, Jerry, 

appreciate it. I'm going to move onto other people 

because I bet there's even better questions coming 

up.

MR. ELA: We've got a question from Amy 

and then Logan and then Sue.

MS. BRUCH: Thank you, Jerry, for your 

contributions today. I appreciate your 

references to the complete soil system. I am going 

to go a little bit more finite and ask you a 

question. It's actually in the written comments, 

there was another professor cited and I just was 

curious on your opinions of this quote that was 

given to us. It said there could be some initial 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

differences depending on the source, so whether 

the source is ammonia, your VR digested manure, 

but once the ammonium is applied to the soil, the 

microbial nitrification process would be the same 

and any long term soil effects would be the same. 

So they are kind of indicating that no matter how 

the product was synthesized, the formulation could 

be slightly different but how the ground and soil 

processes the ammonia would be the same. What are 

your thoughts?

MR. HATFIELD: Well, again, you know, 

it's where you start and again it's how it's 

managed. How much exudate are you putting in 

there? I mean you can modify all these different 

things. I mean it is so complex below the soil's 

surface, Amy, in terms of looking at this. I mean 

I could change that whole dynamic by going into 

a dry period or a wet period or excessively wet 

period that would change all that dynamic. And 

again, you just can't draw it in a black and white 

way and say this is the only factor because you've 

got so much interaction going on within that soil 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

system. Even how we've aggregated that soil in 

terms of oxygen content, if we put a small crust 

on that soil surface and we block oxygen, you know, 

we completely change that dynamic of the soil 

biology. So you've got all these factors that 

interact and so you're absolutely right in this 

report saying that there's more research needed 

because we understand so little about how soil 

biology is working in organic systems, in 

synthetically fertilized systems, what we see in 

terms of tillage or no tillage. All these other 

things and even what the role of crop diversity 

is. I mean it's a complex world and I think that 

we need to be looking at it and quantifying the 

interactions that are going on. 

You just touched on a few of them that 

are out there and so I don't disagree with those 

statements, but I think we really need to figure 

out what starting point we have and what changes 

over time. Because we've actually seen changes 

in the microbial activity within two weeks of 

changing that overall system. I mean it occurs 

quite rapidly in a lot of cases.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BRUCH: Okay, thank you. 

MR. ELA: We've got two more questions 

and, Jerry, I appreciate your thoughtfulness, but 

if we can keep the answers a little shorter, just 

because we do have a limited amount of time. I 

have no intention of cutting you off, but also be 

fair to our other speakers. 

MR. HATFIELD: Sure.

MR. ELA: We've got a question from 

Logan and Sue. 

MS. PETREY: Gotcha, I'll try to be 

quick. So, Brian asked can you point to the 

positive effects. My question is can you point 

to negative effects of having ammonia extracts 

added to the soil, especially if we were to put 

on a 20 percent rule to limit to when it might be 

needed and still use carbon-based products as the 

main base, but can you point any negative effects 

that you would think would happen?

MR. HATFIELD: I don't think there 

would be a negative effect, Logan. I think that 

what we would see is that we would change that 

biology very quickly. Again, you're putting into 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the system that has the compost. I think that's 

really what we're looking at, as saying how do we 

put this in combination with other things we know 

that are soil building, soil biological improving 

practices.

MS. PETREY: Okay, thank you.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: I think Logan asked my 

question, but I do want to say how much I appreciate 

this comments, Jerry, because I know you've been 

involved with the organics for quite a while and 

friends with Dr. Michaels, so absolutely. I 

really appreciate that your comments were 

very--they helped me a lot to understand this whole 

process. So just to put you on the spot, are you 

advocating maybe we should go back to get some more 

clarification on this particular issue?

MR. HATFIELD: I think that's what's 

needed. I think really, Sue, it takes a much 

stronger analysis. I mean the pieces that were 

there, I can cherry pick literature and I can 

substantiate every point pro or negative, so that's 

when you sort of stand back and say what's the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

aggregate set of literature showing.

MS. BAIRD: Right.

MR. HATFIELD: And what are the pieces 

and you go back to the points that Amy was making. 

What are some of those interactions that are going 

on and how do we quantify those? So you can say 

in this case, you're going to see a negative impact. 

In this case, you may see a positive impact and 

it so depends on how this whole system is operating.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you. 

MR. ELA: Nate? Quickly before we 

move on?

MR. POWELL-PALM: So quick. 

MR. ELA: You're always in this 

position, Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: (Simultaneous 

speaking.) I know. Would you be able to speak to 

is there a difference between ammonia extracts 

effect on soil and anhydrous ammonias effect on 

soil?

MR. HATFIELD: I believe there is. I 

mean ammonia extracts haven't been around long 

enough, I mean we know a lot about anhydrous ammonia 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and those negative impacts. Ammonia extracts 

because we're talking about low rates that go in 

along with organic systems. Short lived as you 

point out in some of your technical reports. You 

know, I don't think we're going to see the same 

level of effects, but I think that's where you need 

that research before you come to a conclusion. 

(Simultaneous speaking.) 

MR. POWELL-PALM: But we (Simultaneous 

speaking.) Oh, sorry I was going to say, but we 

might see that we know a lot about anhydrous and 

its negative impacts on the soil, so it would be 

reasonable to say that we should be watching out 

for similar negative effects from ammonia 

extracts.

MR. HATFIELD: If you put it on the same 

rate and everything, but ammonia also goes on with 

this very heavy intensity tillage and I think 

there's a lot of degradation that's occurring 

because of the tillage system that's associated 

with ammonia that's causing our problems as well. 

So, I won't just paint it and say fertilizer 

absolutely causes all these negative impacts 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

because it's a systems effect.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: All right. Thank you, 

Jerry. We're going to move on. Appreciate it. 

We will go next to Mark Kastel and then Waldo 

Moraga and then Nicole Dehne. So, Mark, state your 

name and affiliation and you have the floor.

MR. KASTEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Hello, everyone. My name is Mark Kastel. I'm the 

Director of Organic Eye, which is a project of 

Beyond Pesticides and acts as its investigative 

arm. We are chartered by the IRS as a tax-exempt 

public charity working in the public's interest. 

I'm going to assume that all of you on the Board 

here are working in good faith.

Why should organics be any different 

than any other regulated and corrupted industry? 

Do you think that employees and members of the 

American Petroleum Institute should have more 

power in terms of promulgating regulations and 

protecting the environment and climate impacts 

from gas and oil exploration than the public? 

Should they be appointed to run the regulatory 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

agencies and disproportionately sit on the 

advisory panels? How about crop life? Should the 

lobbyists for pesticide manufacturers be calling 

the shots at the EPA? All these are 501(c)(6) 

business lobbies, as is the Organic Trade 

Association. Their job is to represent corporate 

interests not the public. I would encourage 

members of the NOSB, the vast majority of whom have 

current or past professional relationships with 

the OTA, to seriously balance businesses' 

legitimate voices against those individuals and 

organizations representing ethical family-owned 

businesses that are not OTA members, farmers and 

consumers.

The OTA represents enterprises that buy 

from farmers not farmers. They represent 

manufacturers and retailers that sell to 

consumers, not consumers. Our interests might not 

always coincide; often they do not. 

Whose definition of organic are you 

going to accept and respect? The OTA advocated 

for organic hydroponics, although it seems to be 

in conflict with the law, foundational beliefs 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

underpinning what organics are really all about 

and virtually every 501(c)(3), public interest 

charity, that oversees organics disagreed with the 

OTA. CCOF, the largest USDA accredited certifier, 

last I checked about 18 billion dollars worth of 

revenue a year, happens to certify the largest 

berry producer, Driscoll's. It accepts 

advertising contributions and sponsorships from 

(Simultaneous speaking.) 

MR. ELA: Mark? (Simultaneous 

speaking.) I'm sorry, I'm going to cut you off 

there. We're bordering, we're on the 

disparagement side there (Simultaneous speaking.) 

MR. KASTEL: (Simultaneous speaking.) 

It's a fact and in the questions, I'd welcome 

anybody who would, including you, Steve, who would 

like to have (Simultaneous speaking.) 

MR. ELA: You need to rephrase it 

(Simultaneous speaking.) We're going to cut you 

off.

MR. POWELL-PALM: We can't call folks 

out by name.

MR. KASTEL: Okay, the last thing I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

want to say, I'm a citizen of the United States, 

this is a public meeting. You cannot censor 

information just because you don't like it. 

(Simultaneous speaking.) 

MR. ELA: Okay, Mark. You knew the 

ground rules. We set them very clearly up front. 

We're not going to argue it. We're going to move 

on.

MR. KASTEL: All right.

MR. ELA: (Simultaneous speaking.) 

Nate, did you have a question? (Simultaneous 

speaking.) 

MR. KASTEL: That's unfair, Steve.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Just a quick one for 

you, Mark. And that was, could you speak to how 

we address concerns of consolidation in 

agriculture? From an organizational point of 

view. I think you're talking about, you know, what 

groups like how do we think about addressing 

consolidation and protecting family farms?

MR. KASTEL: Okay, well it goes into 

just what I was talking about.

MR. POWELL-PALM: And please refrain 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

from calling out certain groups.

MR. KASTEL: Okay so I'll use generic 

groups. When you have certifiers accepting money 

outside of the certification fee from who they 

certify, when you have groups representing 

themselves as public interest groups that are 

business lobbies that also have PACs and give money 

to politicians, we now have people from these lobby 

groups in the secretary's office and other 

political appointed positions. 

MR. POWELL-PALM: I apologize, just 

for time, more so on the farmer. Like what should 

farmers be doing to address consolidation in 

agriculture?

MR. KASTEL: Pleading with you, Nate, 

to listen to--there are a number of groups and I 

can go down the list, that are true public interest 

groups that have been fighting. You know, talk 

about hydroponics, real soil grown farmers cannot 

economically compete. We have organic dairies 

managing as many as 22,000 head of cattle. I have 

a bridge to sell, Nate, if you and your other 

colleagues think that you can move cows two or three 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

times a day into a milking facility and also 

appreciably ingest any amount of dry matter from 

pasture.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I'm sorry, Mark. 

It's really more the action, but that's okay I don't 

think you're going to answer the question 

(Simultaneous speaking.) 

MR. ELA: I'm going to interrupt. 

Time's up. I think (Simultaneous speaking.) it's 

time to move on. (Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. KASTEL: Can I finish my--

MR. ELA: (Simultaneous speaking.) So, 

Mark, thank you. Thank you.

MR. KASTEL: Can I finish--

MR. ELA: Thank you for your comments, 

but it's time to move on. So, next up we have Waldo 

Moraga and Nicole Dehne and John Foster. Waldo, 

please state your name and affiliation and make 

your comments.

MR. MORAGA: Thank you. Good 

afternoon. My name is Waldo Moraga. I'm one of 

the founders of Eco2Mix and thank you for letting 

me participate in this meeting. I'm excited to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

see the possibility of a safer, more sustainable 

and more affordable alternatives to treat water 

pH in organic agriculture. Next slide, please.

Right now synthetic carbon dioxide is 

permitted to treat produce, which means that you 

can grow organic tomatoes and ripen them using 

carbon dioxide or even use carbon dioxide for 

disinfection. It's also permitted to carbonate 

juice and drinks while keeping the organic label. 

Next slide, please. 

In 2016, we started using carbon 

dioxide in the form of carbonic acid. Next slide, 

please. A carbon-based acid. Next slide. In 

combination (inaudible) to adjust water pH and we 

believe that it's time to let organic operations 

reap the benefit as well. Next slide, please.

What are the actual options for organic 

farmers? Sulfur burners? It's hard to even stand 

near one of those. They smell like rotten eggs 

and you can see the yellowish smoke coming out from 

the vent pipes. That's sulfur dioxide going 

straight into our atmosphere. In the end, a sulfur 

burner is the same as using sulfuric acid. It's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the same chemical going to the soil. Next slide, 

please. 

Going back to carbon dioxide, I want 

to point out the improvement we have seen so far 

using water treated with carbonic acid. Using 

synthetic carbon dioxide, we saw an increment of 

at least one percent in soil organic matter after 

four to five months of irrigating with water 

treated with carbonic acid. Next slide, please. 

We can assume that carbonated water improves the 

carbon sequestration process. More organic 

matter in the soil means more carbon that's coming 

from the ambient carbon dioxide. It seems that 

the water treated with carbon dioxide stimulates 

the natural microbial activity in the soil. 

Therefore, accelerating the natural carbon 

process. Next slide, please.

Speaking with farmers that have been 

using water treated with carbonic acid for a couple 

of years now, they told us that their plants looked 

better, healthier than ever before and more 

resistant to diseases. Another one told us that 

he has never seen his pistachios look so good, so 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

green and so healthy in a region that has been 

dealing with all trees poor soil quality for more 

than 15 years. Now carbonic acid is solving all 

those problems. Better water penetration, no more 

water runoff, more soil aggregation and increase 

on (inaudible) just to name a few.

Carbonic acid is the only process that 

really mimics nature to adjust water pH. Next 

slide, please. I would like to thank you again 

for the opportunity to share our experience in this 

field. Thank you. 

MR. ELA: Thank you. Are there 

questions? (Pause.) I am not seeing any. Thank 

you so much. Much appreciated.

MR. MORAGA: Oh, thank you very much.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on next 

to Nicole Dehne then John Foster and Jo Ann 

Baumgartner. So, Nicole, please state your name 

and affiliation and you have the floor. 

MS. DEHNE: Great, thank you. My name 

is Nicole Dehne. I'm the Director for Vermont 

Organic Farmers. We represent 800 organic 

producers in Vermont. I want to thank the NOSB 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and the NOP for all of your hard work and for the 

opportunity to give comment today.

I should also thank the NOP for this 

great mask with the USDA logo on it that I wear 

off to network. 

VOF is part of an informal group who 

agree that soil is the foundation of organic 

agriculture and who also strive to achieve 

consistency in our policies and our certification 

decisions. In the absence of clear guidance about 

what container production is allowed, our group 

has come together to try to establish consistency. 

We agree that the following list of 

crops has historically been allowed to be certified 

and should continue to be in the future. This list 

is sprouts, microgreens, fodder, transplants and 

mushrooms. Based on our reading of OFPA and the 

NOP, our current consensus is that this list is 

a complete list of crops that should be allowed 

to be certified when grown in containers. These 

items still require NOSB discussion, 

recommendation and rule making. The 2010 NOSB 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

recommendation on terrestrial plants in containers 

and enclosures should be used as a starting point 

for that discussion. 

We also urge the NOSB to activate the 

agenda item field and greenhouse container 

production which was listed on your work agenda 

from 2017 until Spring 2021 as on hold, but which 

recently has disappeared. So I plead with the NOSB 

to tackle this issue with the goals of 

transparency, consistency and hopefully to bring 

the NOP standards into greater alignment with the 

global organic movement including the recent IFOAM 

position on hydroponics.

My other comments are on biodegradable 

mulch. For too long, we've been postponing a real 

solution to address our industry's dependence on 

polyethylene mulch. The use of this nonrenewable 

petroleum-based product is problematic for both 

soil health and plastic pollution. The NOSB's 

proposal to allow a biodegradable mulch with 20 

percent of the non-bio-based material is an 

important step to providing a solution. So since 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

this issue was voted on by the NOSB in 2012, some 

stakeholders have been saying that BBM is not ready 

for prime time because more long-term research is 

needed. Nine years later, that research still has 

not materialized. We agree that we want to be 

careful about the effect of these synthetic 

polymers and their potential to accumulate small 

particles of plastic in the soil. We think 

research on this topic should continue but the 

research should include the effects of PE mulch 

and other areas of risk for microplastic 

contamination. The design of the national list 

allows for reexamination of materials and this 

issue can, and should be, a consideration that's 

addressed when this material comes up for 

re-review. 

It should be noted this proposal is 

still aspirational. No manufacturer has 

indicated that they can make a product that is 80 

percent bio-based, but it is a goal that is 

achievable with manufacturers.

MR. ELA: Thank you so much. Are there 

questions? Oh, Nate has one for you, Nicole.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yeah and I am on the 

front end this time. I'm going to be quick. 

Nicole, one thing that has been rolling around in 

my head is we get to the 80 percent bio-based, only 

have 20 percent not and a corn farmer in Vermont 

decides that, you know, that's cheaper than taking 

care of weeds with cultivation. I'm going to do, 

you know, 1,000 acres of bio-based mulch with that 

20 percent synthetic. Just tell me your thoughts 

on that.

MS. DEHNE: Right. It's kind of an 

easy question because it's one of those theoretical 

questions. We don't have a lot of corn growers 

in Vermont.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I've inspected corn 

growers in Vermont (Simultaneous speaking.) 

MS. DEHNE: I'll go there with you, 

Nate. I'll go there.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I'm just kidding.

MS. DEHNE: I think you raised a valid 

point like this doesn't necessarily solve all of 

our problems, but so, yes, theoretically it could 

be used in that manner. I think we're still going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to really see it being used in the organic vegetable 

production department. In there, it really is 

addressing a problem of this use of PE, which we 

just continue to see increasing. So it is, you 

know, you're right, theoretically it's possible 

that we could create another problem with allowing 

a material like this in that it would be replacing 

tillage, but there might be problems with tillage, 

too. I don't know if we have a perfect solution 

out there for any of this.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you. 

MR. ELA: Then we have, Amy and then 

Logan. 

MS. BRUCH: Yes, just a quick comment 

there, Nicole. Thank you for your organization 

putting in your written comments, the article for 

the bio-based mulch. I thought that was really 

interesting. There were some indications on 

China's long-term use of plastic films, so that 

was a really good article to read and understand 

how decades of plastic in the soil, not removed, 

really contributes to longstanding problems and 

inhibiting plant growth. So, thank you for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

including that.

MS. DEHNE: Great. I'm glad that was 

useful.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Hey, yeah, so kind of a 

comment on like a corn grower using plastic and 

in Vermont, I'm not sure, but the weeds can be bad 

in the summer and so trying to get rid of those 

would be there. But you said there's not a lot 

of row crop in that area so you're probably not 

very familiar with those growing practices. Is 

that right? 

MS. DEHNE: Generally we don't get a 

lot of our producers growing organic corn. 

There's more grains here.

MS. BRUCH: Yes and so with that 

equipment you have specific type plants or do you 

have specific type equipment that is gauged towards 

plastic. It's really hard to switch everything 

to that honestly. As it transplants, I don't even 

know how we'd put a corn planter in a plastic field.

MS. DEHNE: Yeah, that's a really good 

point is that it'd be different. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BRUCH: That's right and 

(Simultaneous speaking.) Sure and also you're 

with irrigation and so a lot of, I would think, 

grain commodity, I mean I'm sure there's a lot of 

irrigation, there's probably a lot of dry land, 

too, but if you're putting that plastic barrier 

over that on a row crop, you're limiting a lot with 

your soil moisture right when it's young and I just 

don't think that that's really applicable and so 

saying that the plastic would go across those type 

of commodities, I just don't know if that's really 

a concern. Even though we may think that it could 

exponential, you know, increase on acreage, I don't 

know that that's really applicable.

MS. DEHNE: Yeah, I think you answered 

that much better than I.

MS. BRUCH: Oh, that's okay. That's 

all right. (Simultaneous speaking.) I do grain 

and veg and so I kind of understand. I just don't 

think that I could do that with corn or soy beans.

MR. ELA: Kyla, go ahead.

MS. SMITH: Hey, Nicole. I don't 

think that VOF put comments in on this so if you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

choose not to comment. But I just wanted to know 

from your certification perspective on the 

re-listing of sodium nitrate and challenges with 

you as inspectors calculating that annotation as 

it was previously listed, although sort of now, 

you know, we're sort of looking at this motion for 

all nitrogen fertilizers, and I just wanted to hear 

your thoughts about also certifiers in listing 

that.

MS. DEHNE: Sure. We never had an 

issue enforcing the 20 percent of the nitrogen 

needs of the crop. We had the calculations. We 

had kind of an assumption chart for our inspectors 

and our producers, you know, to gauge, like, what 

the nitrogen needs were for certain crops. So we 

could certainly go back in that direction. I'm 

not totally excited about doing it, but, you know, 

it's very doable.

I do think that there is need to resolve 

this issue. We actually got cited on it in our 

internal audit this year which is, you know, a 

private auditor, not an NOP auditor. But it 

does -- the fact that it does live in limbo is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

problematic and can be problematic when we're 

describing, when we're trying to talk about it with 

inspectors and producers and the regulations don't 

match what we're seeing so.

MS. SMITH: Any further comments about 

the fair practice standard at (simultaneous 

speaking)?

MS. DEHNE: Yes. Yes, as far as, you 

know, using sodium nitrate, our producers have 

historically used it only in situations when there 

have -- like in cold wet weather, if there was a 

cold wet spring, they would use it to, you know, 

increase growth to sort of like, and oftentimes 

to compete with, you know, veggie production that 

was coming from the south, right?

So we have not seen its use abused in 

Vermont. You know, we're checking to make sure 

that our producers have soil building practices. 

And we would always make sure that if the use of 

sodium nitrate is happening that it is not in place 

of those other very important pieces. So we're 

not against the idea of having that potential tool 

to use in those kind of more emergency situations.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: I've got one question myself 

before we move on, and it's kind of addressing just 

that. How would you determine what a level of 

non-compliance would be? You know, how far would 

be too much of not having enough soil building 

practices and how would you enforce that?

MS. DEHNE: Yes. I wish I could answer 

this question, Steve. We are having -- after this 

training that we are about to do because we are 

just designing a training with UVM Extension to 

talk about -- for our inspectors to talk about 

verifying soil health practices. I think it's a 

really good question.

As we're putting together this agenda 

of, like, what are red flags, you know, for 

inspectors to identify that would maybe -- you 

know, because you're right, it is difficult right 

now. Like, do we need, like, under the checklist 

to make sure, you know, there's crop rotation? 

Should we be looking at organic matter and if that

increases but that depends on soil type?

And so let me get back to you on that 

after we develop this training because it is a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

question that we kind of grapple with and, you know, 

we'll hopefully come to more of an answer after 

I think about it a little more.

MR. ELA: And it's one, honestly, I 

grapple with. And I kind of wanted to ask every 

inspection agency the same question because I've 

heard from inspectors or from agencies, well, you 

know, we can issue a notice of non-compliance but 

how do we justify it because there's no, you know, 

black and white answer there? So I was just 

curious, you know, for you all, where that comes 

down.

MS. DEHNE: Sometimes it's easier to 

see it when it's an infraction, like when it's a 

clear infraction, you know? So, like, we did have 

a producer that was using sodium nitrate. And we 

questioned this because there weren't -- that was 

all the producer was using.

He was using it on a routine basis. 

And it really looked like it was being used, like, 

you're switching from conventional production and 

using this tool. So, you know, there have been 

more clear-cut cases where we have issued, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

know, conditions for continued certification in 

those cases.

MR. ELA: Yes. The gray areas are the 

tougher ones, I think.

MS. DEHNE: Gray areas are the tougher 

ones, yes.

MR. ELA: So thank you. Yes, I'd be 

curious what you come up with so. Any other 

questions? Thank you so much. I appreciate your 

comments.

MS. DEHNE: Yes. Thanks, everyone.

MR. ELA: We're going to move on to John 

Foster then Jo Ann Baumgartner and then Shelly 

Connor. So John, state your name and affiliation.

MR. FOSTER: Hello. Greetings all. 

John Foster. I work with Wolf & Associates and 

speaking just for us, no particular client in mind 

here as you will see.

Let's see, I should say I spent about 

10 years as a farm, livestock and food processing 

inspector. I was on NOSB 2010 to 2015. So thank 

you all for your service and patience. I know 

better than most how taxing it is. So thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Let's see. As tempting as it is to wade 

into specific materials, again, I'm going to avoid 

that and try and shoot for something a little more 

aspirational today. I hope it's a welcome relief 

to you all.

Next slide, please, Michelle. First, 

a couple little notes. These seem to be common 

threads over the last few years.

I'd really like to reiterate, I feel 

like the National List should be more of a toolbox 

and not a place to make a point about others. It 

should be about the material and utility of that 

material for the operation. That really should 

be the main question in my mind.

I'm going to focus on the second point 

in a little more detail. I do feel like there needs 

to be a more programmatic approach to triaging 

priorities that are key to organic standards. I 

don't know what the answer is, but I'd be happy 

to have more conversations to help ferret that out.

Where I'd like to spend most of my time 

is on the last point so next slide, please, 

Michelle. Oh, you can move on. I've already said 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

my piece on this. Next slide. Thanks.

So I do want to reiterate comments I've 

made in the past and Wolf has made in the past, 

too. I feel like there could be a lot of benefit 

for the NOSB in providing some support, 

professional support, to help amalgamate and 

aggregate comments, summarize the commentary and 

create actionable proposals and recommendations.

Next slide, please. And you can go to 

the next one, please. One more. Back two, 

please. I seem to have dropped a slide somewhere.

So I'd like to put in a plug to apply 

more broadly commercial availability to 605 

materials. We're edging toward that already with 

flavors in yeast and actually collagen gel even 

on 605(b). I think I'd love to see more 

incentivizing for operators to search for and 

create a market for more organic options under 605, 

which is possible with new technologies coming out. 

It's an opportunity for regulation to lead instead 

of follow. And I'd love to see that happen as soon 

as we can. Thanks.

MR. ELA: There's a question from Wood.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. TURNER: John, thanks a lot. You 

know, I appreciate the comments. And I'm curious 

what you think additional support to the Board from 

USDA would look like. I take a lot of issue, I 

take an enormous amount of issue, with some of the 

suggestions that are made to this Board that we 

are somehow not independent, not operating in good 

faith. It irritates me to be completely honest 

with you.

So I want to just -- I don't even know 

how to say what I want to say about this because 

it's so frustrating. But I sense in what you're 

saying that a better connection to the program, 

a better connection to the USDA would be beneficial 

to this community and beneficial to this Board.

And I'm just curious how that would work 

because I think we are trying to operate as 

independent individuals, as people operating in 

good faith and I just want to be sensitive to sort 

of a suggestion otherwise. And so talk more about 

that if you don't mind.

MR. FOSTER: Sure.

MR. TURNER: (Simultaneous speaking.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. FOSTER: Sure. Yes. That wasn't 

my suggestion at all. My suggestion comes from, 

or my observation comes from, experience for one. 

For those of you, you know, in the gallery, you 

will remember 2010 to 2015 was among the most 

contentious periods of time in NOSB history 

certainly.

And part of that was the evolution of 

a couple of things. One, more data available that 

was casting new light on materials, particularly 

around sunset review. And, of course, sunset 

review there's this big slug. That's always going 

to be the case.

So there's a lot of demand for a lot 

of technical attention by people who are not 

trained technical people. They're just, I think 

like you said, you're representing certain 

constituencies and doing the best as you absolutely 

can. And I know that from personal experience as 

well as observation since then.

So my thought was that it is almost -- I 

think it's too much to ask now when the volume of 

comments is much greater than it was 20 years ago. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

The amount of, what, the amount of angst around 

the decisions of NOSB. There's a heightened sense 

of urgency and anger on certain people's parts that 

I think are driving too much. It's asking too much 

of the Board frankly.

And I feel like the level of 

technicality that is being demanded by the 

community is to a much greater degree than 

originally intended. And there's more comment to 

read. And there's more pressure on.

And I think it would be helpful for this 

FACA Board, like others. You know, this is a 

unique Board in what it does and what it's asked 

to do and how it does it. It's not unique in being 

a FACA Board. But there are some services -- oh, 

sorry, Steve. I'll roll a little faster. I'll 

roll it up faster. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Yes. And Kim's got a 

question for you, too. So if you just want to move 

it on.

MR. FOSTER: Okay. I think it can be 

done with very -- to wrap it up, Wood, to help 

consolidate and amalgamate, aggregate the public 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

comment and allow you to do the judgment part and 

less of the kind of accounting of it.

MR. ELA: Kim and John, make this 

fairly quick if you can.

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes, thanks, Steve. And 

this might be more of a rhetorical question about 

reading through a lot of comments. I'm just 

curious, when we talk about commercial 

availability, whose responsibility is that 

towards -- is it the producer? Is it the consumer?

It just seems that when we start 

speaking about commercial availability being a 

bottleneck or a barrier, there's a lot of opinions 

as to whose responsibility is that to help expose 

commercial availability?

MR. FOSTER: The operator and the 

certifier, I mean, by regulation it's that. The 

operator has the requirement. Whether you're a 

producer using seed or a manufacturer using 

flavors, you still have to show, you know, to 

demonstrate to the certifier to their satisfaction 

as part of your organic system plan that you've 

done your best effort to find organic alternatives. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

That claim is made in modifying the OSB, the 

certifier says yes or no. So (simultaneous 

speaking) --

MS. HUSEMAN: And maybe --

MR. FOSTER: -- (simultaneous 

speaking.)

MS. HUSEMAN: Thank you. Thank you. 

And I completely agree. I guess, overcoming 

commercial availability in the organic spectrum. 

So, you know, I'm sure -- I think it falls on all 

of us. But I'd like to -- at some point your 

comments on commercial availability just brought 

that to my attention. So thank you.

MR. FOSTER: Sure, sure.

MR. ELA: Thank you, John.

MR. FOSTER: You bet you.

MR. ELA: I appreciate it. I'm just 

going to make a time note to the Board. I don't 

want to limit comments, but we're also about a half 

hour behind. I want to give due respect to the 

following commenters. So feel free to ask your 

questions, but let's make sure they're concise, 

which they have been. I'm not getting on anybody.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So we've next got Jo Ann Baumgartner, 

Shelly Connor and Julia Ranney. So, Jo Ann?

MS. BAUMGARTNER: Hello. So, let's 

see. They were going to put up my slides. Jo Ann 

Baumgartner with the Wild Farm Alliance. We --

MR. ELA: Jo Ann, could you speak up 

a little bit. You're a little hard to hear.

MS. BAUMGARTNER: How about this? Is 

this better?

MR. ELA: Much better.

MS. BAUMGARTNER: Okay. We and many 

organic farmers, farm and conservation 

organizations and consumers urge the NOP to 

immediately implement the 2018 NOSB 

recommendations to protect native ecosystems 

thereby ending the current perverse regulation 

that incentivizes the destruction of native 

ecosystems and conversion to organic production 

as a cheaper and faster option than transitioning 

existing conventional farmland over a three year 

period.

Next. OFA mandates environmental 

protection, and it sets the precedent for going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

back in time. It does not attempt or need to 

address every issue. Rather OFA provides a 

foundation for organic regulation and gives the 

NOP broad authority to write them.

The NOP can implement the NOSB 

recommendation. And the only thing stopping them 

is if the will of the people doesn't support it, 

but it does.

Next. We have the power of the organic 

community behind us as seen with the recent 

submission of letters and almost 3,000 petition 

signatures. Previous to the 2018 vote, close to 

1,000 supportive comments were received by the 

NOSB.

Next. The NOP should not delay 

implementation. Our planet is on fire. USDA is 

planning to integrate climate adaptation into its 

mission and all of its programs. And the NOP's 

continued incentive to destroy native ecosystems 

goes against these efforts and makes the agency 

look bad when all they have to do is implement this 

recommendation. We have the tools and support to 

conserve these carbon rich ecosystems.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Next. We have been hosting meetings 

with organic certifiers, getting their input and 

preparing them for this much needed regulation.

Next. Using Wild Farm Alliance's 

toolkit, we go over examples of how to efficiently 

and effectively determine where land has or has 

been a native ecosystem.

Next. We also discuss Wild Farm 

Alliance's draft native ecosystem guidance, the 

contents of it, which was written for the NOP to 

use as a starting point for this regulation.

Next. The 2018 NOSB has made its 

recommendation. Next. And we stand behind it. 

We do not support any efforts for the current NOSB 

to re-analyze their suggestion. It would only 

slow down or stop the process.

Next. The NOP should act now to 

implement the proposed rule by capturing the NOSB's 

intent, if not their exact wording.

Next. Let's get this done. The 

integrity of the organic program is at stake. The 

organic community and the warming planet cannot 

afford to wait.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Thank you so much. 

Questions? Wood?

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Jo Ann. I 

appreciate your comments. I fundamentally 

believe there should be no circumstance under which 

we should be losing native ecosystems for organic 

agriculture. It flies in the face, I think, of 

what we're trying to do here.

Can you give me a sense of how many 

native ecosystems or some sense of the scale of 

native ecosystem destruction that's happened, that 

happens yearly as organic grows and sort of the 

implications of sort of what's happened in this 

delay of acting on that previous decision?

MS. BAUMGARTNER: Well, you know, the 

problem is because this is not a regulation nobody 

is tracking it. And we have asked the USDA to 

conduct a survey, which they decided not to do so 

we don't know.

But from talking to lots of people, 

including lots of certifiers, we think that it's 

probably 5 percent of the organic farming parcels 

that are coming into new certification could be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

native ecosystems.

So most of it, it's going to be a fast 

turnaround. You know, if it's not a native 

ecosystem, you can go into the system, and it's 

not a problem. But when it is -- when there are 

native ecosystems, we have to protect them. We 

have to -- because organic consumers think that 

the organic program is conserving by diversity and 

because of climate change.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Jo Ann.

MR. ELA: All right. I do not see any 

other questions. Thank you so much, Jo Ann. We 

do appreciate it. We're going to move on to Shelly 

Connor, Julia Ranney after that and Patty Lovera. 

So Shelly, please state your name and affiliation 

and give us your comments.

MS. CONNOR: Thank you. My name is 

Shelly Connor. And I'm the assistant director of 

Wild Farm Alliance. So protecting native 

ecosystems gives organic farmers many reasons to 

feel good. And doing so is good for people, good 

for the planet and good for the farmers themselves.

While most of it is a fairly limited 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

mix of plants, worldwide people eat thousands of 

wild plants, which are typically higher in, like, 

more nutrients and vitamins and are better adapted 

to local conditions than cultivated crops.

Next. Western Medicine derives 40 

percent of drugs from plants and more are yet to 

be discovered.

Next. By conserving the wild areas 

where these species reside and taking care not to 

overexploit wild species, the world could expand 

its diet and medicine chests, which is especially 

important as climate change disrupts crop 

production.

Next. Native ecosystems store carbon 

in woody plants in the soil's duff layer and its 

deeper horizons.

Next. But every day, more native 

ecosystems are eradicated, putting us deeper in 

peril. Destruction is happening on an 

international scale. Critical ecosystems that 

store carbon and much of our biological heritage 

are crumbling under the plow. Carbon stored in 

prairies, forests and many other precious habitats 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

is being off-gassed more than converted farmland 

could ever hope to recover.

Next. Our native ecosystems and the 

species they support are dwindling at an alarming 

rate. Insects, which are the basis of our food 

web, are declining and with them many other species 

who rely on this food source.

In the last 50 years, we've lost an 

enormous part of our wild animal populations in 

the world and 3 billion birds in North America.

Next. Growers see direct benefits 

when they use native ecosystems for production 

gains while preserving the integrity and function 

of the land for the future.

Next. Farms next to natural areas have 

a greater diversity of native bees, beneficial 

insects and birds and increased pollination of pest 

control services.

Next. The NOP should implement the 

proposed recommendation now. Organic agriculture 

will then become part of the solution to the climate 

crises, helping to store carbon and slow down the 

mass extinction, which will protect organic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

integrity and give everyone reasons to feel good 

about. Thank you so much for your time.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much. Are 

there questions for Shelly? I am not seeing any. 

Thank you for your presentation, Shelly.

We are going to move on to Julia Ranney, 

Patty Lovera and Jake Evans. So Julia, please 

state your name and affiliation.

MS. RANNEY: Hi. My name is Julie 

Ranney, and I'm the Research and Policy Associate 

at the Center for Food Safety.

Thank you so much for the opportunity 

to speak with you today. I would like to address 

the use of kasugamycin.

Antibiotic use is not compatible with 

organic production nor has it been shown to 

markedly improve crop disease prevention. 

Further, should an antibiotic be approved under 

the organic label, the standard consumer 

assumption is that they are prohibited.

This would confuse and mislead 

consumers. Antibiotic resistance is a serious 

public health threat, and its application in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

agriculture need not be increased.

Given the important role that 

antibiotics play in world health it is crucial for 

organic production to eliminate their use for the 

benefit of human health worldwide.

As noted by Beyond Pesticides in their 

spring 2021 comments to the NOSB, now that we have 

learned what a pandemic looks and feels like with 

the astounding levels of infection, 

hospitalization and death from COVID-19, we must 

take serious steps to prevent another pandemic on 

the horizon, this one tied to bacterial resistance 

and antibiotics.

An important article in The Lancet 

points to a living potential pandemic resulting 

from a rise in a multi-drug resistant bacterial 

infections that are undetected, underdiagnosed and 

increasingly untreatable which threatens the 

health of people in the U.S. and globally.

Kasugamycin is critically important 

for veterinary and medical purposes. Medically, 

kasugamycin is an important drug for treating 

urinary tract infections, COVID-19 and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

tuberculosis. There are various mechanisms for 

this. But this is meant to acknowledge the need 

for kasugamycin in addressing common and 

potentially life-threatening medical concerns.

For animals, kasugamycin is also 

applied to treat disease. The need for effective 

antibiotics is an important reason for avoiding 

agricultural uses that can lead to resistance of 

potentially valuable antibiotics.

Field application of kasugamycin have

shown the development of resistance in several 

plant pathogens. Given kasugamycin is utilized 

to address fire blight, it is of great note that 

every other antibiotic application for fire blight 

has failed and the disease has only proven to 

develop stronger resistance.

This suggests the approval of this 

antibiotic will do nothing more than support the 

development of resistance in pathogens and make 

a more resilient disease.

Since the prohibition of the 

applications of streptomycin and tetracycline, 

organic apple and pear production has not ceased. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

There already exists other more effective fire 

blight mitigation tactics. Integrated organic 

approaches attack fire blight before it can get 

a foothold by exercising controls throughout fruit 

development.

Cultural controls can be combined with 

application of fixed copper sprays in dormant and 

pre-bloom period, application of lime sulfur for 

mildew control and thinning of apple blossoms, 

biological control, such as Blossom Protect during 

bloom time and biocontrol antagonists later in the 

blooming period.

While these alternatives are not 

perfect, they do not exhibit the same level of 

concern instigated by antibiotic use in the fields.

In conclusion, kasugamycin does not 

meet any of the OFPA criteria for the National List. 

It poses health and environmental dangers. It 

is not necessary and is incompatible with organic 

practices. Thank you for your time. MR. 

ELA: Thank you for your comments. Brian has a 

question for you.

MR. CALDWELL: Thanks very much, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Julia. I think we need a general definition of 

the word antibiotic to help us kind of discern 

between microbial products. A lot of new 

microbial products are coming along all the time 

that have really good efficacy for disease 

management. Then how do we know -- how do we 

determine if they are actually an antibiotic or 

not, like, falling into that class? Because, of 

course, the word antibiotic really evokes a strong 

response.

And so I'm just wondering if you have 

some ideas -- I'm kind of putting you on the 

spot -- but if you have some ideas that would kind 

of guide us between kind of telling the difference 

between an antibiotic and some other bacterially 

derived fungicides for instance or bactericide.

MS. RANNEY: That's an interesting 

question. I don't know that I can answer it fully. 

But what I will say in terms of guidance is as 

far as I'm concerned in terms of antibiotic 

resistance, the concern primarily has to do with 

whether or not the overuse of a product will end 

up endangering its use for other purposes, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

particularly in public health settings.

So if the antibiotic has a known 

application in the public health world and we know 

what we know about antibiotic resistance, then 

there is cause for concern, particularly in the 

case of this antibiotic and from what we know about 

streptomycin and tetracycline.

MR. CALDWELL: Great. Thank you very 

much.

MR. ELA: All right. I see no further 

questions. Thank you very much. We do appreciate 

your comments.

We're going to move on to Patty Lovera 

then Jake Evans and then Meredith Stevenson. So 

Patty, please state your name and affiliation.

MS. LOVERA: Great. Hi, everybody. 

My name is Patty Lovera. I'm a policy director 

for the Organic Farmers Association. So I'm going 

to cover mostly one topic and if there's time one 

more.

We're happy the Board is discussing how 

to deter fraud and improve traceability. Dealing 

with fraud has been a top priority for OFA members 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

since OFA was founded.

We provided more detailed comments in 

writing but wanted to offer up some general 

thoughts that we had about how to approach this.

One, so we think it's really important 

to ensure that any new traceability requirements 

don't create additional burdens on farmers who are 

already doing a lot of recordkeeping. So we think 

that means we can't require the use of a specific 

software, a specific technology or require things 

beyond certification in order to comply. And we 

have to always remember that paper-based systems 

need to be allowed for those who don't have internet 

access or choose not to use electronic systems.

We really think it's important as this 

has developed, we're going to need to assess the 

likelihood that buyers will impose traceability 

requirements on their suppliers, whether or not 

it's part of the regulation. If your buyer makes 

you do it, it may as well be.

And we have seen this in other venues 

in traceability and from safety metrics and things 

like that. We just have to think of that in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

beginning about what that could look like. And 

we don't want farmers to be left being forced into 

something they can't afford that they're not 

necessarily getting paid for.

The NOP also needs to consider if 

technical assistance is going to be needed for 

farms or certifiers to comply with new traceability 

requirements.

And then specifically for Question 6 

in your discussion documents, what are additional 

areas we need to improve on? We would say, yes, 

absolutely. We wrote quite a few comments about 

that.

Obviously, we need to strengthen 

organic enforcement finalized as soon as possible. 

We want to see NOP continue to coordinate with 

other parts of the USDA and Customs and Border 

Protection.

And we also think that NOP could start 

to develop investigative procedures that are 

really triggered by import data. So if we 

see -- such as automatically starting an 

investigation if there's a surge in imports for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a specific product.

And we also really want to emphasize 

being more creative about our trade partnerships 

and our relationships. So if there's a way for 

NOP to collaborate not just on standard setting 

with our equivalence partners but also on 

enforcement.

If they are taking an enforcement 

action, it would be good for NOP to know that to 

put that into NOP's calculation of risk so we don't 

become the path of least resistance if a product 

or a certifier or a company is no longer allowed 

into another market like the EEO.

And then for the question about 

requiring registration of land 36 months before 

certification, we would support that because it 

would allow better audits to deter and detect 

fraud. And it also, we hope, could help farmers 

see what's coming in their marketplace.

And we had some additional comments in 

our written comments just being mindful and being 

smart about that data and aggregating it in a way 

so there's not market manipulation happening 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

there. So thank you.

MR. ELA: Nate has a question and then 

Logan.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Hi, Patty. I don't 

know if I saw this in your written comments. But 

part of what I'm really interested in getting out 

of the discussion document about traceability is 

ideas. What does work for farmers? I think a lot 

of folks are saying, don't burn the farmers. Don't 

make this too hard. But I'm really interested in, 

like, what are those farmer solutions?

And it would be awesome if OFA could 

do a survey or ultimately provide us with more of 

that information because I know, you know, farmers, 

they have unique recordkeeping systems. They have 

really innovative ways to keep track of this data. 

It would be awesome to, like, pick from that 

existing infrastructure to try to inform this 

process.

MS. LOVERA: Yes. I would love to do 

that. I think it's a good time of year for us to 

do that. We tend to ask people this kind of stuff 

in the winter.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And when I was writing this comment, 

I was pulling from some comments we did earlier 

for the year and the FDA is never not having a 

conversation about traceability on farms. 

They've been doing it for two years now. So we 

do have some thoughts that we want to probe further.

But I think what we're going to hear 

from people is build it into my certification, 

like, set me up with, you know, the logs I'm already 

doing, the records I'm already doing to show you 

my inputs. Like, set me up to do it that way so 

that the records I'm keeping can do double duty 

and not have a separate track that I'm doing for 

this traceability, whatever happens.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Boy do we hear that. 

Yes, thank you.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Yes. For about the 

36-month, like, heads-up, you know, we've got an 

organic piece coming onboard, you know, it kind 

of aligns with the transitioning part. I'm 

curious, do most of your growers have the 

transitioning part or are they going on new pieces 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of land that wouldn't require necessarily the 

36-month wait period?

MS. LOVERA: Yes. We need to -- we've 

had a mix. We were trying to -- we didn't have 

a ton of time to really ask people about that part. 

We were mostly talking to folks who are already, 

who are current organic farmers.

And so they were worried about a sudden 

arrival of, you know, in two years we can see this 

coming. They would appreciate that if somebody 

was, you know, certifying -- you know, we've seen 

some of these big corporate announcements that, 

you know, we are going to do 50,000 acres, and we're 

starting to process now. Like people are tuning 

into that as they're hearing more and more 

encouragement for transition. And, you know, 

they're worried about their existing markets.

So I think at this point folks were 

reacting positively just to the concept that maybe 

there's a chance for a heads-up. It wouldn't be 

complete. You could still have surprises in some 

years, but it would be something you could keep 

an eye on.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. PETREY: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ELA: All right. I'm not seeing 

any other questions. Thank you so much, Patty.

MS. LOVERA: Thanks.

MR. ELA: It was much appreciated. We 

are going to move on to Jake Evans followed by 

Meredith Stevenson and Adele Durfey. So Jake, 

state your name and affiliation, and you've got 

your three minutes.

MR. EVANS: I'm Jake Evans, owner and 

CEO of True Organic Products, the petitioner for 

the prohibition of ammonia extract.

I'd like to thank the Board and the Crop 

Subcommittee for their work on the petition. We 

fully support Motions 1 and 2 as well as the ideas 

of combining them in regulation.

We also strongly support OPWC's 

exclusion clause to ensure completely clarity when 

this docket moves to rulemaking.

When I drafted my original comments, 

I touched on all the points the Board should 

consider in making this critical decision, but it

just didn't feel right. So rather I decided to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

tell you about my 25 years of experience with 

ammonia in organic farming.

In the late 90s, I started this 

business, making one of the best fish fertilizers 

I've ever made derived from sardine waste. As I 

went to sell the product, we struggled. The 

product didn't get the instant response like 

synthetic fertilizer does.

A few organic pioneers figured out how 

to apply this product properly to get great 

results. Some were the Indians burying a fish 

below the roots of the plant. Feed the soil, not 

the plant.

Unfortunately, many organic farms 

preferred to use a so-called fertilizer high in 

ammonia. This ammonia-based fertilizer would 

give an instant response. No one can debate the 

response a plant has to ammonia nitrogen. There's 

no need to focus on organic principles. Just feed 

the plant.

In the early 2000s, this led to an 

explosion of so-called ammonia-based fertilizers 

on the market. And the cheaper the price, the more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

ammonia used except for the best organic farmers 

from the late 90s to 2010, a majority of organic 

farming in the West put a little dry carbon-based 

inputs in and poured on ammonia-based liquid 

fertilizer. No innovation, just conventional 

farming practices with an organic sticker on the 

product.

This led me to start True in 2003. The 

name of the company stood for what I believed in. 

It was a brutal experience to watch consumers get 

duped day after day and see people turn their head 

and organic principles essentially just frowned 

upon. Feed the soil. No synthetic fertilizer to 

grow our food.

In 2006, I started the journey to stop 

ammonia use. For years, I went to multiple ACAs, 

MROs, State Departments of Ag and organic farmers 

which led nowhere. Finally, after we funded a

multiyear private investigation, the FBI put an 

end to ammonia-based organic fertilizers.

Instantly, the organic farmers who 

lived off ammonia focused on the principles of 

organics. This led to incredible innovation in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

organic farming. More carbon-based inputs, more 

cover cropping, better crop rotation, improved 

fertilizers and fertilizer application 

techniques. The soil became the focus and not the 

plant. And most of all, the consumer was getting 

what they paid for.

The decision you have in front of you 

today is a turning point for industry. Do we 

honestly believe the organic consumer wants their 

food to be grown with ammonia? I spent nearly 20 

years of my work life fighting ammonia in our 

sector, to maintain our organic principles and 

uphold the tenor of our seal. That's what this 

petition is about.

If these motions fail, we fail as 

stewards of our organic principles. There will 

be everlasting damage to our industry. And we will 

lose 30 years of progress in the crop input sector.

With the passage of these motions, the 

Board will make a clear statement. We will adhere 

to organic principles. We will foster continued 

improvement to our industry. And most 

importantly, we will maintain the integrity of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

organic seal.

And one last question. Have we heard 

one farmer say, I will be out of business without 

ammonia extract? Thank you for your time.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Jake. Are 

there -- Logan has a question for you.

MS. PETREY: Hi, Jake.

MR. EVANS: Hello.

MS. PETREY: Yes, thank you. Can you 

differentiate, like, the sodium nitrate used and 

ammonia extracts at least -- is there a difference 

to you in how they work in the soil and is one more 

detrimental than the other?

MR. EVANS: Well, I think they both 

plant available nitrogen. But sodium nitrate, the 

farmer still has to pay attention to their soil 

because they're putting so much sodium out. And 

the sodium level doubles the amount of nitrate in 

the product.

You've got to keep it really high on 

sodium, which everybody is very familiar with. 

And if you keep putting sodium out, you're going 

to kill your soil. So soil health still is the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

driver. Where ammonia is no different than 

ammonia fertilizer.

MS. PETREY: Okay. Yes, so, I mean, 

where we are tending soils, we don't have any threat 

to the sodium buildup. However, you know, even 

if there weren't the 20 percent restriction, we're 

still not going to use a lot of sodium unless it 

was absolutely, you know, necessary to maintain 

the crop when we have that gap of, you know, where 

nitrogen is not available. Because, I mean, you 

sell a lot of fertilizers. What is the expected 

release time of most of your fertilizers, nitrogen 

fertilizers.

MR. EVANS: Well, all the -- different 

soils, different temperatures, all the release 

times they're different. But I think the 

challenge is with ammonia, as you know in 

conventional farming, the more you put out, you 

always get a response. And then you have to put 

more and more out, right? That's why there's so 

much leeching of ammonia nitrate in groundwater. 

That's why there's so much in streams. So ammonia 

is different than sodium nitrate because you can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

just keep putting it out.

And especially as you all know, Logan, 

you can't save a crop with fish, right? The crop 

gets hammered with rain over there, you can't save 

it with fish because you can only put so much fish 

out. It just won't give the response.

MS. PETREY: Right. But I --

MR. EVANS: But ammonia, you can save 

a crop. You really can put hundreds of gallons 

out just like you do conventionally if you have 

to.

MS. PETREY: Right. Unless there's a 

restriction, I mean, then I can't unless I'm going 

to break an organic rule. So there's a restriction 

on how much I can use on the percentage of nitrogen 

then I can't.

MR. EVANS: Well, there's no 

restriction on sodium nitrate right now, right? 

I mean, there's no restriction on sodium nitrate 

as we speak.

And I think with ammonia, the problem 

with the restriction is, is it what the plant needs? 

Is it the total needs? When you put the manure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

out, is it total needs? Is it plant needs? Who 

figures that restriction out? That's another 

challenge I'm trying to figure out.

MS. PETREY: Yes, right. So, I mean, 

trying to feed this into the crop and, you know, 

trying to be sustainable on that, you know, can 

be important. And so I think it's allowed and then 

it's restricted so that we don't come into, you 

know, that we continue to use those carbon based.

But the use of that ammonia extract or 

the sodium nitrate, you know, it is not to build 

soil health. That's not the intent of its use. 

The intent of its use is for the immediate 

supplement that may be needed because there's been 

a leeching event where fertilizers that are carbon 

based are going to give me a two week gap, one week 

gap, you know, without nitrogen that can be 

detrimental to the crop itself. But (simultaneous 

speaking).

MR. EVANS: Well, my response to that, 

Logan is that right now we've seen more crops on 

the market. And this last summer, the price of 

berries and produce crops were some of the least 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

organic pricing we've seen. And ammonia extract 

is just hitting the market. It's less than one 

1 percent of the market as we speak today --

MS. PETREY: Right.

MR. EVANS: -- even (inaudible) is 

common. So we've been able to produce great crops 

with products that feed the soil at a price point 

that's getting cheaper and cheaper without the use 

of these ammonia tools.

So we should jeopardize soil health for 

the 1 percent of the market -- for the 1 percent 

of the market we should jeopardize soil health. 

And maybe we should figure out, because we're not 

sure, but we do know ammonia. And ammonia, no one 

can say he doesn't know the difference with 

recycled ammonia.

So, I mean, we're growing great crops. 

We're benefiting the soil. The nutrition and the 

taste is there. And it's going just fine. So we 

need these really for money, right? Because the 

money is going to be good for everybody if the 

yields go up, right?

MS. PETREY: Right. Yes, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

typically more money is, you know, an investment 

back to the farm where there's better cover crops 

and better practices, things like that. Even 

using beneficials because they're very expensive, 

you know, so if you make good yield then you can 

invest back into the crop. But, I mean, it --

MR. ELA: I'm going to jump in. Sorry.

MS. PETREY: Go ahead, yes.

MR. ELA: It's a good debate, but fewer 

questions. Nate has got a question actually. So, 

sorry, Logan, I didn't want to cut you off but.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes. Just building 

on Logan's a little bit. I guess with -- you know, 

in the world of fraud and organics, and all organics 

farmers and really organics is really concerned 

with fraud, could you speak a little bit to, if 

you know, or have any data that's just kind of 

referencing your written comments, but the 

presence and potential for exacerbated fraud in 

fertilizer would be the explicit allowance of 

ammonium extracts?

MR. EVANS: Yes. Thanks for that, 

Nate. Yes, I mean, fraud, what's happened with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

fraud in our sectors, it's always been on the 

fertilizer side, the blending of synthetic with 

organic. That's been the history of fraud.

And we made a lot of progress. And 

right now I think OMRI has -- if you take 80 products 

out of the equation out of 1,000 products, there's 

1 or 2 products that have any considerable levels 

of ammonia.

The minute AE is allowed, the blending 

of synthetic fertilizer with organic, and 

especially organic AE and synthetic AE, there's 

no test. There's no way you can tell.

And when organic AE goes for $50,000 

a truckload and its counterpart goes for $2,000 

a truckload, the multiple and the incentive to 

commit fraud is out of this word.

We already have challenges. There's 

already products out there. There's a very easy 

right now to detect if there's ammonia and if there 

should be. It should be based on the ingredients.

With this tool, you will not be able 

to tell the difference in ammonia. And, you know, 

it really concerns me when we talk about the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

international. In the international marketplace, 

there's been no commenters from the international 

fertilizer suppliers.

They're growing millions of acres 

outside of the U.S., not one comment. That makes 

me wonder, who is supplying the mainstream 

nutrients outside the U.S. or is there any 

suppliers? We've got a long ways to go in our 

sector. And I'm really scared this will open the 

door to something you cannot control because 

there's no test to control the mixing of synthetics 

ammonia with so-called non-synthetic ammonia.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Jake.

MR. EVANS: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We're going to move on, but 

I appreciate your comments.

MR. EVANS: Thank you for your time.

MR. ELA: We're going to move on to 

Meredith Stevenson then Adele Durfey and then 

Justin Bruch. So Meredith, state your name and 

affiliation, and you have the floor.

MS. STEVENSON: Good afternoon. My 

name is Meredith Stevenson. I'm an associate 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

attorney at Center for Food Safety.

Center for Food Safety continues to 

support this Board's 2010 recommendation, that 

hydroponic production systems cannot be classified 

as certified organic to their exclusion of the soil 

plant ecology intrinsic to organic farming systems 

and required by the plain language of the Organic 

Foods Production Act in the National Organic 

Program regulations.

In 2019, the Center for Food Safety 

submitted a rulemaking petition to USDA requesting 

that USDA conduct rulemaking to prohibit 

certification of hydroponic production, revoke 

hydroponic operations existing certifications and 

ensure that ecologically integrated production 

practices are required for all organic 

certification as defined by OFPA and its 

regulations.

USDA denied this petition. And after 

litigation, the Northern District of California 

ruled that USDA's decision to deny the petition 

was not arbitrary and capricious under the 

Administrative Procedure Act.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

This ruling allows for certifications 

to continue until the National Organic Program 

initiates a rulemaking to prohibit certification 

of hydroponics in alignment with this Board's past 

recommendations and the plain language of OFPA or 

until a decision is made on the ongoing appeal.

Ongoing certifications of hydroponic 

production fails to take into account the essential 

functions of complex soil ecosystems in 

production.

Additionally, existing 

inconsistencies among certifiers with respect to

certifying hydroponic systems diminishes the value 

of the organic label and reflects poorly on the 

organic industry as a whole.

Without a clear definition and 

guidelines from the National Organic Program, 

certifiers must not be allowed to move forward with 

certifications of hydroponics.

The Center for Food Safety continues 

to urge the National Organic Program to initiate 

a rulemaking with clear criteria for certifiers 

that follows the National Organic Standards 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Board's 2010 recommendation, adheres to the 

definition of organic production presented in the 

organic regulations and requires producers to 

foster soil fertility as is mandated by the plain 

language of OFPA.

MR. ELA: Great. Thank you. Are 

there questions? Thank you so much, Meredith. 

I don't see any. We appreciate your comments.

MS. STEVENSON: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Okay. Next we are going to 

go to Adele Durfey then Justin Bruch and then Jennie 

Landry. So, Adele, please state your name and 

affiliation and give us your comments.

MS. DURFEY Hi, there. My name is 

Adele Durfey. And I am the director of 

sustainability here at Clear Frontier. Thank you 

for your time today.

I just wanted to first commend you on 

your work that has been done to bring forth a 

proposal for a fully traceable food system 

utilizing the electronic organic link system. 

Aligning a system of infrastructure to better able 

fraud tracking and provide transparency on today's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

standards and available technology is really a 

great first up.

But I also did want to bring to 

attention, as my colleague did earlier in the day, 

that there's very large quantities imports that 

adhere to potentially suspect standards and also 

lack of regimented proof of organic tracking 

system.

And there are several points why I think 

this is important. And the first is the economic 

repercussions. If economic percussions are 

strong enough, this affect can be felt twofold. 

One on the current organic producers bottom lines 

as well as a potential deterrent for those that

are looking to make the transition.

So that brings me to my second point, 

which organic agriculture has been shown to be 

highly beneficial to the environment climate and 

society in general and any unnecessary potential 

deterrents should be mitigated.

So my last point is I feel like this 

is also unfair to U.S. growers considering the 

stringency in certification and the penalties and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

potential revocation that American buyers face. 

It's unfair to bring in products that are issued 

the same label where production methods may or may 

not have the same standards.

On a last note, it has recently been 

brought to my attention that countries which are 

importing organic products often are 

considered -- the default production is considered 

organic because they might not, you know, be as 

evolved. But having spent eight years working in 

Eastern Europe, helping to manage 150,000 acres, 

I can absolutely say this is not the case. Their 

enthusiasm to adopt Western practices, equipment, 

technology and cutting age fungicides, herbicides 

and insecticides is quite widespread. And their 

access to these products is not limited.

So I do think the issue of supply chain 

traceability on imports is an issue that needs to 

be addressed as well. But it's my hope that the 

organic link system is just the beginning, and this 

will allow us to put kind of a foot in the door 

to address these issues as well.

So those are my comments. Thank you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

for your time.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Adele. Nate has 

a question for you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you for your 

comments, Adele. Could you speak a little bit more 

to -- I think this is a common maybe 

misunderstanding based on your comments that 

certain production areas of the world somewhat may 

be considered poorer production areas of the world 

just don't have access to synthetic fertilizers, 

pesticide programs, crop protection packages and 

so they're organic by default.

Could you speak a little bit more to 

that, of what we should be looking for and thinking 

about when we consider, you know, the greater 

global organic marketplace?

MS. DURFEY: Sure. So, as I said, it 

was only just recently brought to my attention 

that -- my experience was in Eastern Europe. It 

was brought to my attention that, you know, a lot 

of people think that this is kind of still in a 

Soviet cultivation era. And so the access to these 

chemicals and fertilizers, seeds, technology and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

equipment is limited. So, like I said, by default, 

their products are most likely organic.

But having worked there, it is 

absolutely not the case. It was my job to be 

purchasing for 150,000 acres all of our input 

supplies. And we would have, you know, multiple 

fungicides, multiple herbicides. And it's a very 

widespread use.

In addition to this, it would be -- the 

motivation to move to organic in these countries 

is very limited just by the structure in the 

company, in the country in general. I think the 

people would require it. But because of the 

stratification of the working class and the poorer 

class, I don't see organic markets particularly 

in Ukraine developing at the rate that they are 

here in the U.S. because they don't really have 

that consumer support in terms of, like, a pricing 

mechanism.

So when we see large volumes of organic 

product coming from these countries, it just is 

a little bit suspect because internally, they 

aren't really set up to have those regulations and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

those rules. They don't have a market that 

supplies it.

But yet, when it comes across the 

border, you see paperwork that says organic from 

the Ukraine, for example, or Romania or Serbia, 

wherever. Whereas, if you talk to many of the 

growers that we're still in connection with over 

there, there's very few farms that we actually are 

aware of. So if that helps to answer the question.

MR. POWELL-PALM: That's very 

informative. Thank you.

MS. DURFEY: Yes.

MR. ELA: All right. Thank you very 

much. We are going to move on to Justin Bruch 

followed by Jennie Landry and Bryce Irlbeck. 

Justin, please state your name and affiliation. 

You have the floor.

MR. BRUCH: Hi. Thank you. My name 

is Justin Bruch. My company is Clear Frontier 

Ag Management. I'm a colleague of Adele's. She 

just stole some of my thunder for the record. I'm 

also an organic operator in Northwest Iowa 

where -- I'm looking at this both from an investment 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

standpoint in organic as well as from a farm 

operator standpoint.

My focus for a topic for this 

conversation is really just around the fraud issue 

that is happening in the U.S. and partially to what 

Ms. Adele just spoke about on that piece.

I spent seven years actively farming 

in the Ukraine. And I can tell you that in seven 

years, and as an American, I traveled the country 

very well. I never saw one single organic farm 

in seven years in the Ukraine. And yet today, you 

have 100,000 acre or 250,000 acre farm pop up that's 

certified organic in the Ukraine.

The manure source is not there. 

There's very little bit of manure really, hog 

manure in the west and a little bit of chicken in 

the east. It's not there nor is the technology 

there. And there is -- in much of Central Eastern 

European there's a lot of things that are done 

illegally in process.

So I want to bring that as a calling 

point because I think it's a key issue as we look 

at commodity pricing coming to the U.S. farmer or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the North American farmer that's following the 

regulations, following the rules and doing it the 

way that it should be done and the way that the 

consumer expects it to be done while knowing from 

firsthand experience of hands on the ground for 

multiple years that's not what's happening in a 

lot of our Eastern European areas.

So I look at that piece. I think it 

comes back to transparency. And I like the idea 

of documentation around acres going through 

transition as well as really bidirectional 

verification so that it goes both ways from the 

farmer side as well as through the inspector side 

and all the way through.

Because I really think there's too many 

cases where the links get broken, and it's easy 

for someone to cheat the system. I don't believe 

it happens often in the U.S. from my experience 

from a farming standpoint. But I do know from the 

way agriculture is done in other parts of the world 

that it does happen there.

And probably my last piece is, kind of 

following along with what Adele said, there is in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

my experience, and I've spent years working in 

Africa as well, there is no organic by default in 

these countries. They actually have more things 

available to them that are not legally registered 

here than we do on a large scale basis because of 

their regulations.

So it is by choice, and they have the 

tools, the technology and equipment today to be 

able to operate organically if they wanted to. 

It's not a path in my opinion that they've actively 

taken with an honest approach.

So those are my comments. Thank you 

for everything you guys do. I appreciate it.

MR. ELA: Thank you for your comments. 

Nate has a question for you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: You mentioned that 

idea of a farm, a 100,000 acre farm, popping up 

overnight. Do you think the idea of registering 

acres during the transition would influence that 

ability to pop-up as you mentioned?

MR. BRUCH: Yes. I think it would 

drastically help if you had to register those 

through transition and so they were on the radar. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Yes, I think that would make a big difference in 

trying to curb some of those issues that you're 

going to see from the Ukraine and Russia 

specifically.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much. We do 

appreciate your comments and you taking the time. 

We're going to move on to Jennie Landry and then 

Bryce Irlbeck and Steve Sinkula. So, Jennie, 

please state your name and affiliation and start 

your comments. You are still on mute.

MS. ARSENAULT: Jennie, we can't hear 

you.

MR. ELA: Not yet.

MS. ARSENAULT: I don't see a red mark 

for your microphone. Possibly the volume on your 

laptop could be -- do you want to skip over, Steve? 

You can come back to Jennie. We'll figure out 

your mic problem.

MR. ELA: Yes. Jennie, we won't lose 

you. We'll take the pressure off of you here for 

a second. We'll jump down to Bryce Irlbeck and 

then we'll come back to you, Jennie, so.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

After Bryce and Jennie, we'll have 

Steve Sinkula. So let's go to Bryce Irlbeck. 

Please state your name and affiliation.

MR. IRLBECK: Yes. So thank you for 

allowing me to speak today. My name is Bryce 

Irlbeck. I'm an organic row crop producer in West 

Central Iowa as well as a co-founder of AgriSecure 

that worked with about 70,000 organic acres in the 

Midwest. And I'm here today because I'm against 

ammonia extract being used the way it is.

It will be -- first and foremost, I 

trialed it this year so I have had a little bit 

of experience with it, just wondering what the 

product was and getting to know it. And I trialed 

it as a starter.

As I'll talk through a little bit later 

in what I'm trying to discuss here is we trialed 

it as a starter because of viability as a product 

to replace any nitrogen as a broad-based program 

with the current price point seems nearly 

impossible. So it's not going to be effective for 

a Midwest crop producer.

And the only merit I could see was a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

starter and that's why we used it. And just to 

make a point that we realized while, you know, 

handling the product, and this isn't all ammonia 

products. It's one that we handled. It is nearly 

impossible to use it due to the ammonia and the 

ammonia is real. Our eyes were watering, and we 

got nausea. It won't be on our crops no matter 

if it works or if it's legal or not. It's just 

it's impossible to stay in the tractor after 

utilizing the product. So not hugely important, 

but just a point that I wanted to make that we 

noticed.

And so one of the things that I thought 

about this fall as I was purchasing manure for my 

organic row crops is there's not an abundant 

supply. There's not enough of the supply for the 

organic row crop producers in the Midwest as there 

needs to be. So it's one of those resources that 

is a limiting factor.

And so after using the products and 

thinking to myself, we spent countless hours, 

traveling, listening, learning, doing all that 

stuff, to building long-term rotations that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

provide for soil health and good yields. And we've 

been able to do it without that using manure and 

that's how I feel organic has been intended to do.

And so it brought me to the conclusion, 

which I'll get directly to the point here, 

essentially we are taking one of the most vital 

resources for the Midwest organic row crop farmer 

and putting it in control of a few hands and 

exporting it out of the region.

And that is devastating for us as our 

input prices go up and we are trying to do soil 

health. And we're left with the byproduct of this 

ammonium nitrogen really going to have an effect 

on an already limited resource in the Midwest.

And so the three points that I thought 

of is ammonia extracts are going to be, as we talked 

about, too expensive for the row crop producers 

and really meant for the high value crops. And 

we're going to extract this ammonia from the manure 

that is being created by chickens, cattle, whatever 

you want to say in the area where it's needed and 

exporting it to higher value crops and essentially 

leaving the Midwest Farmer through control price 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

availability with little to no options in that 

space.

So finally the concept of ammonia 

extract varies from the spirit of the organic 

movement. As we talked earlier, I took about five 

years learning the organic industry and putting 

this all together to make my farm work without it 

using manures.

And so I come out against it today as 

I think it will hurt the farmers in the area that 

I'm in.

MR. ELA: Okay. Thank you very much, 

Bryce. Nate has got a question for you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Hi, Bryce. Could 

you speak a little bit to if there was any human 

health effects of the product you used as your 

starter? Did it seem benign? Kind of like what 

was your experience?

MR. IRLBECK: Yes, I mean, I don't 

think there was long-term health effects. But it 

definitely is unbearable to handle and to sit in 

a tractor with that ammonia. As anybody would know 

that has filled tanks or anything in agriculture, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

you always have spillage.

And it's just something that we 

couldn't even do it. We had to get out of the 

tractor. Let it sit. And then be able to come 

back in a few hours. And if we got it on our hands 

or washed it off before we got in the tractor, it 

isn't always an option where we're at. So that 

was our final straw on it before anything else.

MR. POWELL-PALM: And just as a 

follow-up, Steve, to that, when you are looking 

at your rotation, could you describe your rotation 

a little bit? But I think when I hear you say it's 

priced out of being reasonable for you, it sounds 

like you don't need even if it was widely available?

MR. IRLBECK: Yes, I mean, in our 

rotation, it's three years of alfalfa a year of 

corn and maybe a year of soybeans. And so we 

produce a lot of our nitrogen with alfalfa in that 

rotation and weed control.

Honestly, I mean, we wouldn't really 

need a lot of it if we still had manure available.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: I have a question for you. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

In our written comments, there were a number of 

references to Nebraska farmers growing corn and 

things. I guess, you know, from the Midwest, I'd 

like to hear from somebody who is actually doing 

it, you know, what -- you're growing corn. Do you 

feel like you're not getting the yields you should 

because you don't have the nitrogen?

MR. IRLBECK: So when I don't get the 

yields I should, it's because of my rotation. And 

I've learned that the hard way. If we have the 

right rotation, the right balance, the right amount 

of chicken manure, our yields this year will be 

within 5, 10 percent of conventional in a really, 

really good year. So it has more to do with the 

rotation.

And honestly, in my opinion, ammonia 

is not going to solve any of the issues of why we 

weren't getting yields. It might help it a little 

bit, but it's not going to solve that issue in my 

opinion.

MR. ELA: Asa also has a question for 

you.

MR. BRADMAN: It's kind of a question 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I've asked before. But I'm just really 

interested in nitrogen cycling. If you look at 

the planetary boundary maps for exceeding the 

capacity of the earth in terms of nitrogen cycling, 

and one role that organic plays I think is recycling 

conventional nitrogen, you know, into organic 

agriculture, which I think, is a good thing. It's 

a healthier soil system.

But I just wonder. You're saying 

manure is a limitation. And, you know, maybe this 

is a discussion for somewhere else, but are you 

able to use nitrogen fixing rotations and, you 

know, can you minimize manure and other 

conventional sources of nitrogen, at least 

originated nitrogen, in your production?

MR. IRLBECK: Yes. That's a very good 

question. So what we do in our rotation is the 

three years of alfalfa. Alfalfa is a nitrogen 

producing plant and the longer you leave it in, 

the number one thing the more nitrogen it produces 

and the more weed suppression it adds.

And so we already replaced 50 to 65 

percent of our nitrogen with alfalfa. And so we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

are using less manure. But it's still a vital 

product for us, N, P & K being one of those, with 

our alfalfa rotations.

MR. BRADMAN: It sounds like great 

progress.

MR. ELA: Great. Well, thank you very 

much, Bryce. We appreciate your thoughts and 

comments.

MR. IRLBECK: Thank you. And thank 

you for all that you guys do. I appreciate it.

MR. ELA: We are going to come back to 

Jennie Landry. Did we get that figured out?

MS. LANDRY: Hello. Can you hear me 

now?

MR. ELA: We can.

MS. LANDRY: Yes. Great.

MR. ELA: Thank you for being patient.

MS. LANDRY: No problem.

MR. ELA: Go ahead.

MS. LANDRY: My name is Jennie Landry. 

I represent DSM Nutritional Products, who 

manufactures omega-3 EPA and DHA based products 

from refined fish oil.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

DSM strives to support a renewable and 

sustainable environment. And we welcome the 

opportunity to provide comments to the NOSB 

regarding a fish oil annotation to address 

environmental concerns and ensure that fish oil 

is compatible with organic practices.

The handling subcommittee's most 

recent annotation proposal sourced from fishing 

industry byproduct only and certified as 

sustainable against a third-party certification 

that is ISEAL code compliant or GSSI recognized 

is fully supported by DSM.

As previously stated, sourced from 

fishing industry byproduct only will clarify and 

solidify the fact that fish oil production 

represents an efficient use of fish caught for 

other purposes. Also requiring third-party 

sustainability certification directly impacts and 

improves the sustainable sourcing of fish oil for 

human consumption.

Certifiers will ensure practices are 

in place for both the fishery and fish oil 

manufacturers to ensure sustainability throughout 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

their specific supply chain.

The condition of ISEAL code compliant 

or GSSI recognized third-party certification is 

an additional measure to ensure a certifier's 

legitimacy and compatibility with NOP's organic 

expectations.

DSM would like to emphasize that both 

ISEAL and GSSI organizations are maintained in the 

annotation to ensure as much flexibility as 

possible for fish oil manufacturers who have to 

manage a diversified and complex supply chain.

In summary, the proposed annotation is 

supported because it's clear, enforceable and 

effective. DSM understands protecting our marine 

environment is an important issue that requires 

global attention, and we are committed to producing 

fish oil products to be among the most sustainable 

on the market.

I would like to thank the NOSB for your 

time and opportunity to provide comments in this 

webinar.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, Jennie. 

Are there questions?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: I feel like I should ask 

a question, but I don't have one.

MR. ELA: I was waiting for you, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: I had to say something.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Jennie. We sure 

appreciate your comments.

MS. LANDRY: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Just as a note, we're running 

overtime. We've got three more speakers. So I 

think we're going to do our next three speakers 

because they're on our official list and then we're 

probably going to call it a day. It's been a long 

day for everybody.

So people on the waitlist, we will do 

our best to get to you on Thursday. I apologize 

that we didn't get to you today. We do our best 

to get to the waitlist. But we'll do the next three 

people and then take a break, and we'll start 

tomorrow again and see how far we can get through 

the list.

So the next person we have up is Steve 

Sinkula and then Kris, oh, man, I'm sorry, Kris, 

Klokkenga and then Aaron Zimmerman. So Steve, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

please state your name and affiliation and you have 

the floor.

MR. SINKULA: Thank you. My name is 

Steve Sinkula, and I'm a co-founder and CEO of 

AgriSecure and also a colleague of Bryce Irlbeck, 

who just spoke a few moments ago.

AgriSecure was founded with the 

singular purpose of helping farmers in the Midwest 

transition into and succeed at organic row crop 

production.

I want to thank everyone here for the 

opportunity to comment on the modernization of the 

organic supply chain, traceability discussion 

document. And I really want to share four thoughts 

for the group.

First, I believe that the SOE proposed 

rule is an important first step but only a first 

step in the U.S. organic industry maintaining the 

NOP standards and more importantly maintaining the 

trust of consumers and the integrity of the organic 

seal. And it's only that in my perspective a first 

step.

I also think that right now is the right 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

time to begin discussions and start efforts on 

implementing electronic systems to improve 

traceability of crops and products in general but 

specifically with U.S. organic supply chain being 

the right place to start. And that's because 

technology that didn't exist five years ago is 

readily available and has the ability to make it 

minimally invasive for the supply chain 

participants and in particular for farmers.

And the organic industry also has the 

right building blocks in place in terms of what 

is required for recordkeeping already and is of 

a manageable size to take on this effort. I used 

to work for Cargill and trying to take on the effort 

for the conventional supply would be a beast, but 

the organic supply chain while being big is still 

manageable.

The third point I want to make is that 

the organic link system along with requiring 

equivalent organic standards across countries that 

import into the United States would help level the 

playing field for all farmers participating in the 

U.S. organic supply chain.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Currently, U.S. farmers are at a 

disadvantage and no amount of transition support 

in the form of training materials, expert support 

or financial support can deliver the type of 

desired growth we want to see in the U.S. organic 

sector.

The market prices are set based upon 

the least common denominator. And as others have 

talked about in those four markets they truly are 

the least common denominator in terms of what is 

an organic standard or if there is an organic 

standard.

And finally I'd like to encourage NOSB 

as we move forward on this effort hopefully to not 

only think about it as a point of traceability but 

also think about the value that this sort of system 

can have for the supply chain.

In our experience at AgriSecure, we 

have developed a tool to track all of the records 

for certification, but we also use that to help 

our farmers with execution and analysis. And I'm 

sure a tool like this could deliver a lot of value 

to the supply chain beyond traceability.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So with that, thank you for your time 

and consideration.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Steve. Are there 

questions from the Board? I don't see any, but 

we appreciate you taking the time to comment to 

us. Thank you so much.

MR. SINKULA: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on next 

to Kris Klokkenga and then finish up with Aaron 

Zimmerman. Kris, state your name and affiliation 

and give us your comments, please.

MR. KLOKKENGA: Hi. My name is Kris 

Klokkenga. I am the president of Klokkenga 

Corporation. I am an organic row crop farmer here 

in Central Illinois. And I just wanted to thank 

you for your time to let me speak. And just to 

let you know that I oppose the use of ammonia 

extracts.

I currently work in an area that is not 

readily available for chicken litter. So I'm 

trying to -- I have an established relationship 

with my chicken litter supplier. And I'm 

experiencing just a lack of raw chicken litter 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that's available at this time.

The last few years I've not had any 

problems sourcing this litter. But this year, my 

supplier did put a quota on me. And my concern 

he's only supplying organic farmers now whereas 

he had done this with conventional farmers before.

I'm concerned that if ammonia extracts 

are approved, this would drive the price up for 

the chicken litter. On my farm, I implement crop 

rotations by using cover crops, alfalfa, corn and 

soybeans. I try to do my best to be a steward of 

the land. I feed the soil and not the plant. I 

believe that by building healthy soils we can raise 

good crops. Ammonia extracts would allow farmers 

to feed the plant and not the soil and take away 

from the principles of organic farming.

I also believe that by applying manure 

to my land that I have the opportunity to build 

up my organic matter through the application of 

raw manure.

And so just in general, I believe that 

the ammonia extracts are too expensive to use in 

my row crop operation here in the Midwest. I chose 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to -- I worked in Africa in Ghana, West Africa. 

I farmed there for four years and worked for ADM. 

I ran a plant there for them.

I chose to come back and be a part 

of -- transition my farm over to organic because 

I felt that it gave myself and my wife and my family 

an opportunity to come back to the United States 

to live here and to have the life that we wanted. 

And I just believe that by having the ammonia 

extracts, it takes away from that -- it just makes 

it more expensive to try to make a livelihood from 

organic farming. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Kris. Nate's got 

a question for you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I really appreciate 

your testimony, Kris. One thing that just caught 

me right at the end there was this idea of expensive 

fertilizers.

I think -- I wish I had it with me. 

But there's this graph that shows, you know, over 

the last 30 years gross farm income has steadily 

inclined while net farm income has plummeted. 

That's not the case with organics.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And so I would love for you to speak 

about sort of how organics is different when the 

value of the commodities are placed with the 

farmer. The farmer gets a lot more value for the 

commodities because they don't have a big expensive 

fertilizer bill. And that's partly the mitigation

of inputting and bringing on nitrogen through crop 

rotation. Could you speak to that at all?

MR. KLOKKENGA: Well, I mean, yes. Of 

course, we're paid more for our products. But just 

for me, if you go with the expensive -- when I say 

it's expensive, I mean, I just am saying, it just 

costs me more to bring in the product. And I would 

like to be able to -- and, of course, if I have 

to go out and use ammonia extracts, I'm against 

that but that also raises my price. I want to do 

what's best for the land and, of course, I can do 

my crop rotations and that. Maybe I -- I probably 

didn't answer your question.

MR. POWELL-PALM: No, you're doing a 

good job. I think my question is a little 

confusing. So you're relying on crop rotation a 

lot it sounds like with alfalfa --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. KLOKKENGA: Yes.

MR. POWELL-PALM: -- a lot of legumes. 

You're not really using a ton of manure. And 

you're feeding the soil it sounds like. And that's 

ultimately seeming like because of that crop 

rotation you don't have a big fertilizer bill at 

this point. You supplement with the poultry 

litter, but you're not left with a giant fertilizer 

bill at the end of the day.

MR. KLOKKENGA: Well, comparatively to 

a conventional farmer, no, I'm not. I'm not. 

But, I mean, I also farm conventionally, and I mean, 

I have that and that's a big bill, too. But, yes, 

you're right. But everything is relative, 

correct?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you. I 

appreciate that.

MR. ELA: Logan has got a question for 

you as well.

MS. PETREY: So I pulled over for this 

one to make sure we had good service. Okay. So 

when you say it's expensive or it's going to be 

expensive, does that mean that the use -- or the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

oncoming of ammonia extract should make manure 

limited kind of like the other corn grower, I think 

he was a corn grower, stated? Or are you saying 

that ammonia extract itself is expensive and so 

it would make your fertilizer bill expensive? 

Which?

MR. KLOKKENGA: Okay. You know, maybe 

expensive wasn't the right use because the problem 

that I'm facing here is just the availability of 

a chicken litter source in general. And so my 

apologies to the Board for maybe saying that it 

was expensive.

My issue right now that I'm facing is 

that there's a limited supply of chicken litter 

in my area. And if we go and approve ammonia 

extracts, what's to say that that litter doesn't 

go and is used --

MS. PETREY: I see.

MR. KLOKKENGA: -- to extract that 

ammonia away and then I'm stuck using the 

leftovers, and it takes more of that product. They 

can extract the good, give me what's left over, 

and it takes more time and energy for me to make 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

it work.

MS. PETREY: Okay. Thank you. I was 

going to say we wouldn't make you use it if it was 

the ammonia extract being expensive. So, okay. 

I was just clarifying that.

MR. KLOKKENGA: Sorry about that.

MS. PETREY: No. That's okay.

MR. ELA: Any other questions for Kris? 

I don't see any. Thank you so much for taking 

the time --

MR. KLOKKENGA: Thank you.

MR. ELA: -- to tell us about what you 

do. That's greatly appreciated. We are going to 

finish up with Aaron Zimmerman. So, Aaron, state 

your name and affiliation and let us know what 

you're thinking about.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, hi there. My 

name is Aaron Zimmerman. I farm in Northeast 

Nebraska. My brother and I are somewhat new to 

the organic world, and we just completed our 

transition of all of our acres, and we're sure 

excited about it.

I want to talk about the ammonia 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

extract. This is something that was just 

presented to me, you know, a day ago so forgive 

me. I haven't had a ton of time to prepare. But 

I want to come out and say that I do not support 

this ammonia extract concept largely because of, 

you know, kind of echoing what Kris and Bryce before 

me had talked about, just supply availability.

That is our limiting factor is access 

to a nitrogen source. And from what I understand 

that ammonia is going to be too expensive for row 

crop farmers to cash flow. So, I mean, we'd be 

out.

And I think, you know, as far as from 

a growth standpoint of this industry, this sector, 

I mean, it's exciting. But in order to maintain 

that growth and the success of the organic, you 

know, I don't even want to call it niche, but growth 

is paramount to that. In order to grow, we need 

to have access to nitrogen sources.

So that's why I just can't support it. 

I think you should do things, you know, the 

old-fashioned way and use crop rotations 

obviously. But it's kind of cheating a little bit.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And when you're extracting just one 

component of a naturally occurring manure, it kind 

of turns it into a piecemeal concept just like, 

you know, when you go to, you know, in conventional 

ag you go to your co-op, and you buy your N, P and 

K separately. And I just don't think that really 

fits with the whole mantra of what we're trying 

to do in organic. So that's all I have to say.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much. Wood 

has got a question for you.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Aaron. I should 

have asked this of Bryce. I thought about asking 

when Bryce said it, and now you're the third person 

that said it. So I'm going to ask you. Is this 

manure shortage issue unique to the Midwest?

I mean, I must admit I wasn't aware 

there was a manure shortage issue. And so I'm 

curious about whether you could speak to that. 

Is that something other folks are experiencing? 

Is it something that you guys experience?

This is a new one for me. To be honest 

with you, I'm asking the question both in the 

context of AE, of ammonia extract, but also in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

context of utilizing manure for measure.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Sure.

MR. TURNER: The notion that we're 

losing manure in certain parts of the country to 

maybe that's necessary for growers and it's getting 

exported to other places for whatever the use may 

be is concerning to me. So I was just wondering 

if you could speak to that in more detail.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: It is concerning. And 

I wish I could give you a definitive answer. But 

I can only attest to what I deal with in my area. 

And what we're dealing with now since conventional 

crops have run up their prices and their input 

prices have shot through the roof because that's 

just the way that world works. Your input supply 

will gobble up any hope of profitability you could 

possibly have. And so they're looking for 

alternative sources.

And so we've got conventional guys are 

now coming after chicken litter, which is basically 

our only nitrogen source. So it has created 

somewhat of a scarcity for us. So, you know, that 

just compounds what we're dealing with and talking 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

about with this ammonia extraction concept 

because, I mean, gosh, it sure sounds to me like 

we would have one or two large companies that are 

going to end up controlling nearly all the chicken 

litter in the area and that sounds a whole lot like 

the world that I just tried to escape. So that's 

why I do not support it.

MR. ELA: Nate, you have a question.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Just one point of 

clarification. I think, is it that chicken litter 

is the only source of off farm nitrogen? I think 

you said that you grow nitrogen facing crops like 

alfalfa as well?

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Sure, yes. And 

forgive me, I should have clarified, yes. I mean, 

you can only grow so much nitrogen. So, yes, we 

use legumes and whatnot to supply a big majority 

of it. But bottom line it takes chicken litter 

to take the rest away, you know, to get to your 

yield goal.

So, yes, we do. We piece everything 

together with growing it on the farm as well as 

bringing it in on the truck.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: And it looks like Logan has 

a question as well. Logan, are you there?

MS. PETREY: Okay. I'll be quick. 

What percentage of the pre-plant over crop -- how 

much do you think that you actually can get out 

of a legume?

MR. ZIMMERMAN: We do two years of 

alfalfa so I estimate -- that's really tough. You 

know, I want to say conservatively about half, a 

little over half of what my nitrogen need would 

be for my yield goal.

MS. PETREY: Okay.

MR. ELA: All right. Any other 

questions? It doesn't look like it. Thank you 

very much, Aaron. I appreciate you taking the 

time --

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Thank you, everybody.

MR. ELA: -- to give us your thoughts. 

That was great. Well, with that, we have had a 

nice six hours of public comments. I'm sure 

everybody is spritely and fresh and ready for 

another day tomorrow. But we're going to call it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

good for today.

I just want to say thanks for everybody 

that called in. Amazingly, we didn't have very 

many glitches today, and I don't think we had very 

many speakers that weren't here when we called on 

them. So that's a little different than 

sometimes.

So thanks to the NOP staff for all the 

background work. It takes a lot to get people 

ready and get them on at the same time and keep 

all of us in line as well and get slides up. So 

thank you to all the background people and thank 

you to the Board.

We all know this is a great way -- you 

know, it's one of the ways to get a pulse of the 

feeling of our stakeholders in addition to written 

comments.

So we will adjourn for now. And we're 

going to reconvene tomorrow, Thursday, October 14, 

at noon Eastern. You will use the same link you 

used today to sign in. And we'll look forward to 

hearing more and talking to you all tomorrow. So 

thank you much.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 5:58 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + + +

PUBLIC COMMENT WEBINAR

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

OCTOBER 14, 2021

+ + + + +

The Board met telephonically at 12:00 

p.m., Steve Ela, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT

STEVE ELA, Chair

NATE POWELL-PALM, Vice Chair

MINDEE JEFFERY, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

AMY BRUCH

BRIAN CALDWELL

JERRY D=AMORE

CAROLYN DIMITRI

RICK GREENWOOD

KIM HUSEMAN

LOGAN PETREY

KYLA SMITH

WOOD TURNER

STAFF PRESENT
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, Advisory Committee 

Specialist, Standards Division

JARED CLARK, National List Manager, Standards 

Division

DAVID GLASGOW, Associate Deputy Administrator, 

National Organic Program

ERIN HEALY, Director, Standards Division

ANDREA HOLM, Materials Specialist

DEVON PATTILLO, Agricultural Marketing 

Specialist, Standards Division

DR. JENNIFER TUCKER, Deputy 

Administrator, National Organic Program; 

Designated Federal Official
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

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

12:04 p.m.

DR. TUCKER: All right. Good 

afternoon and good morning and good evening 

wherever you are. 

Thank you very much, Michelle. 

Michelle got some nice praise at the top of the 

meeting for her masterful logistics here so I want 

to echo that, and the entire NOP staff that keeps 

us running so smoothly.

My name is Jennifer Tucker. I'm the 

Deputy Administrator of the National Organic 

Program. Welcome first to all our National 

Organic Standards Board members. As I mentioned 

yesterday, we are very practiced now in this online 

mode of engagement, but we do genuinely miss the 

in-person connections and hope we'll be able to 

return to that in the spring.

We want to, again, particularly 

acknowledge our three board members who have now 

started the last meeting of their terms; our chair 

for the last two years, Steve Ela, Sue Baird, and 

Asa Bradman. Let's give them all a round of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

applause. 

In Zoom we applaud by waving two hands 

into the camera. Thank you Steve, Sue, and Asa, 

and the rest of the Board. I do wish I could give 

you all a big hug of thanks. Thank you for your 

hard work and service over the last five years.

To our public commenters, thank you 

for, again, engaging in this process, and thank 

you for signing up to have your voices heard. I 

also thank the audience, as always. You are, and 

continue to be, important witnesses to this 

process. We are happy that you're here.

This webinar continues a series of 

virtual webinars that will occur over multiple 

days. This is the second day this week, and there 

will be three days next week. Meeting access 

information for all meeting segments is posted on 

the NOSB meeting page on the USDA website.

Transcripts for all segments will be 

posted once completed. This meeting, like other 

meetings of the National Organic Standards Board, 

will be run based on the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act and the Board's Policy and Procedures Manual. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I will act as the designated federal officer for 

all meeting segments.

Steve will take the helm for this 

session, and I would like to again preview and 

strongly uphold something he is going to review 

with you. In an open transparent process mutual 

respect and professional is critical. I will say 

what I said yesterday. I was disturbed by some 

of the disparaging comments made in written

comments. 

If oral comments cross the line into 

disparagement and personal attacks, the Chair, or 

another Board members, are allowed to speak up and 

stop it. These comments are for them and they do 

have the ability to intervene. Yesterday the 

Board did intervene. My advice to you is if you 

do not want to get cut off, then avoid approaching 

that line.

To close, again, I want to thank the 

National Organic Program Team. It's an amazing 

team and I am honored to work with each day. 

Michelle is our fearless leader in running all of 

these program logistics. Jared Clark, our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

National List manager; Andrea Holm, Devon 

Pattillo, Dave Glasgow, and our fearless Standards 

Director Erin Healy. Thank you to all of you.

I want to, again, thank Steve Ela, Chair 

of the Board, who is about to continue to lead his 

fourth virtual meeting and the final meeting of 

his term. A big round of applause for Steve, 

please. Thank you very, very, very much. 

I am now going to hand the mic over to Erin 

Healy, Standards Division Director, who is going 

to do a roll call of NOSB members.

Take if away, Erin.

MS. HEALY: Thank you. Good morning 

or afternoon everybody. I'm going to start the 

roll call. The first is Steve Ela, NOSB Chair.

MR. ELA: I am here again.

MS. HEALY: Nate Powell-Palm, Vice 

Chair.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Present.

MS. HEALY: Mindy Jeffery.

MS. JEFFERY: Good morning. Thank 

you.

MS. HEALY: Sue Baird.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: I'm here.

MS. HEALY: And I do see Asa Bradman.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MS. HEALY: Amy Bruch.

MS. BRUCH: Good morning from 

Nebraska. Thank you.

MS. HEALY: Good morning.

Brian Caldwell.

MR. CALDWELL: Yes, I'm here.

MS. HEALY: Jerry D'Amore.

MR. D'AMORE: Good morning. Here.

MS. HEALY: Carolyn Dimitri.

MS. DIMITRI: Good afternoon.

MS. HEALY: Rick Greenwood.

MR. GREENWOOD: Here.

MS. HEALY: Kim Huseman.

MS. HUSEMAN: Present.

MS. HEALY: Logan Petrey.

MS. PETREY: Present.

MS. HEALY: Kyla Smith.

MS. SMITH: Hi everybody. Ready for 

day 2.

MS. HEALY: And Wood Turner.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. TURNER: Good morning. Here.

MS. HEALY: I also just wanted to 

quickly announce that I think most all of the 

Standards Division is probably listening in today. 

In addition to our national manager Jared Clark, 

I want to introduce the rest of our Standards 

Division staff who will be listening into the 

meeting.

So Andrea Holm, Megha Even, and Sam 

Schaefer-Joel are material specialists. Cameron 

Small is our policy analyst. Devon Pattillo, 

Vallerie Francis, and Kenny Wilburn are 

agricultural marketing specialists. Martin 

Hensley, Adam Diamond, and Jason Edmondson are ag. 

marketing specialists -- sorry, agricultural 

economists. 

I believe I got everybody. Of course, 

Michelle, already mentioned, our NOSB liaison. 

She has been just instrumental in making sure that 

we are able to quickly switch to a virtual meeting 

this year so I just want to say thank you to all 

of our team as well.

I'm going to hand it over to Steve Ela. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

You have the virtual mic.

MR. ELA: Virtual mic. Wow, I like 

that. Yeah, thank you. I just want to say thank 

you again to the program. We've already said that 

these public -- oral public comments, as well as 

the written public comments, are really a big deal 

for NOSB to get a sense and share our stakeholder 

thoughts and things. 

It makes a huge difference in how we 

deliberate and possibly the votes that we take. 

Thank you to all for taking the time. I know it's 

a huge lift to try and do everything in 30 days 

but we do appreciate it.

I'm going to quickly go through our 

policies and procedures again. We did this 

yesterday but we probably have new people on the 

call. Again, we are only calling on speaker who 

did sign up during the registration period. We 

do have a wait list. 

We were not able to get to that wait 

list yesterday due to the time we went through. 

We did go overtime a half hour for a full six hours. 

Again today if we are able to get to some of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

people on the wait list, we will do our very best 

to do that. We try to hear as many comments as 

we can. 

I'll just, you know, to the Board in 

respect to that, I thought the questions were great 

and don't want to cut anybody off in any way in 

terms of questions. The Board did great yesterday 

but make sure we don't give comments and do ask 

questions of the speakers.

Since we want to get through as many 

people as we can, ask the questions that are 

pertinent to you. I think people did that 

yesterday but also be aware of the time. If 

anything starts to go too long, I will interject 

and try to limit and move on so all speakers do 

have equal time.

For all the people that are speaking, 

please give your name and affiliation for the 

record at the beginning of your comment. If you 

are consulting for somebody, it really is helpful 

for us to have you identify that as well.

We do not allow proxy speakers. If you 

signed up, you are the one that has to give the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

comment. We ask you to clearly define and 

succinctly state the issues so we have a 

comprehensible understanding of your concern.

It's already been mentioned but in our 

policies and procedures manual, which we do follow, 

part of that is that individuals providing public 

comment shall refrain from making any personal 

attacks that might impugn the character of any 

individual. 

Jenny mentioned that. We did have to 

do that a couple times yesterday. That is part 

of our policies and we will monitor that. Please 

keep things professional and refer to the actual 

issues that you have problems with, not the actual 

people or companies.

Finally, Michelle will set three 

minutes. You'll have the timer to see it. After 

your three minutes are up, please finish your 

comment and give the Board a chance to ask 

questions. The Board members will raised their 

hands or, if I don't see your hand, please interject 

and let me know that you want to ask a question.

With that, are there any questions from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the Board before we jump into the oral comments?

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve, can we test the 

timer before we start so everybody knows what it 

sounds like?

MR. ELA: Yes. Everybody knows what 

the end of time beep is. 

MS. ARSENAULT: It should be on your 

screen counting down.

MR. ELA: With that and, as you said, 

as the speaker you should be able to see the timer. 

When that occurs, finish your comments.

Okay. With that we are going to start 

with public comments. The first speaker we have 

is Eugenio Giraldo. And then following we will 

have Gina Colfer, and Barbara Wingler.

Eugenio, please start us off with your 

public comment. State your name and affiliation 

and proceed with your comments.

DR. GIRALDO: Thank you everyone. My 

name is Dr. Eugenio Giraldo. I'm speaking today 

from Webster City, Iowa. I'll try to be brief on 

the unintended consequences of the stripped 

ammonia motion that is proposed right now.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Next slide, please. Next one, 

Michelle, please.

So I'm going to read -- no, the previous 

one, Michelle.

MS. ARSENAULT: Sorry, there is a 

little bit of a delay.

DR. GIRALDO: I'm going to read 

directly from the definition for stripped ammonia 

which is created by separating, isolating, or 

capturing ammonia or ammonium from an agricultural 

feedstock or other natural source, and I have those 

two highlighted by me, using methods such as, but 

not limited to, steam stripping, pressurized air, 

heat, condensation, and/or distillation.

If you look at this, there are three 

basic questions you ask. If you answer yes to 

those questions, you will fall into a prohibited 

substance. 

Basically you ask if it's an 

agricultural feedstock or natural source material, 

if you are separating ammonia or ammonium from said 

starting material. Then you have ammonia in the 

final product and you capture that ammonia, then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

you will be prohibited as stripped ammonia.

The next one, please. So I have that 

table here where in each of the columns I have a 

final product that is currently used in agriculture 

as an amendment or fertilizer. In this first 

column you have final product and you have compost 

heat, soybean hydrolysate, fish hydrolysate 

compost, concentrated digestate, food hydrolysate 

and feather meal.

You have starting material which is 

agriculture feedstock or natural source in this 

column. In the second column, the third one is 

whether you have ammonia or not in that product. 

Finally, if you separated ammonia from the 

starting material.

For example, in compost tea, the 

starting material is compost and you have a final 

product that contains ammonia, yes. It separates 

ammonia from the starting material, yes, and it's 

stripped ammonia extract, yes. You go through 

each one of them and all of them would qualify.

The next 10 slides in there, and also 

in the public record of the written comments for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

anybody to see, has the production methods for each 

one of them to support the table that I have in 

here. I won't in 12 seconds go through the next 

10 slides so I would like request the Board to 

consider the impact of this motion on the organic 

market if it becomes a rule. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much. Are 

there questions? Logan has a question for you.

MS. PETREY: Yeah, sorry. Couldn't 

find it. This is actually -- I was looking at the 

public comments -- the written comments. Excuse 

me. I was going to ask a question on that 

submission if that's okay.

MR. ELA: Yep.

MS. PETREY: Okay. Right at the end 

it states, "Making these products unavailable for 

organic production" meaning AE. "Making these 

products unavailable for organic production could 

unnecessarily eliminate an effective tool to help 

overcome barriers to the expansion of organic 

agriculture." How do you think this could if we 

had AE expand organic agriculture?

DR. GIRALDO: Well, in the majority of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the products that we would be -- with ammonia 

extracts making available to organic growers would 

be local products from manures that are widely 

spread throughout the United States and they would 

be substituting products like the ones I have on 

that table. 

In particular, the fish hydrolysate and 

the soybean hydrolysate and the concentrated 

digestates. Those would be in competition in the 

market. A lot of what I think we are seeing here 

is an economic discussion around the competition 

in the market. 

Ammonia extracts would make this widely 

available throughout the nation in watersheds that 

are currently impacted by excess ammonia in manures 

and other products that would benefit the 

environment and make it widely available and more 

affordable to organic growers.

MS. PETREY: And all of those are the 

liquid products, correct, that you're saying would 

substitute?

DR. GIRALDO: Right. And we'll see in 

some of the next presentations that in the majority 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of cases when you have an ammonia extract from a 

manure, you also have a dry product along with that 

manure that captures the carbon, the phosphorus, 

and micro nutrients that are so valuable. The 

ammonia would allow you to split those two and apply 

them in a precise manner and timely manner and 

improve in general the application of manure.

MS. PETREY: Right. On that part two, 

we had a grower yesterday concerned with using all 

the manure available if there's a shortage. There 

seems to be possibly some in some areas that would 

limit the amount of manure they have. But if you 

are stripping the ammonia, what is the final 

analysis of the --

DR. GIRALDO: So the --

MS. PETREY: Does it have nitrogen in 

it?

DR. GIRALDO: So the majority of that 

ammonia is ammonia that is being wasted right now 

and goes into the environment as a waste product.

MS. PETREY: Okay.

DR. GIRALDO: Seventy percent is our 

calculation of ammonia that otherwise would be in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the air impacting public health and the 

environment.

MS. PETREY: So there is an analysis 

of nitrogen in the by product, I guess you could 

say, or in the solid that's left. Okay. Thank 

you.

DR. GIRALDO: The solid is the classic 

4-4-3 that you see in our case.

MS. PETREY: Okay. 

DR. GIRALDO: It's very similar for 

diary manures. I would like to comment that the 

USDA has a very extensive analysis of watershed 

throughout the United States when there is excess 

of manures or deficiency of manures in the 

watersheds. There is an ongoing program for this 

called manure sheds to optimize the use of manures

in general in agriculture in the United States. 

This program would fit very well with that.

MS. PETREY: Thank you.

MR. ELA: I want to move on to Amy.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Thank you, Steve.

Thank you for your written and public 

comments. Appreciate it. I have a question. In 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the written comments as well you had mentioned that 

your suggestion would be to allow this and have 

it approved for 30 percent of crop needs, but it 

sounds like based on what your answers were to 

Logan, this is a direct replacement of maybe 

products that are being currently used and not 

necessarily an additive. Can you just expand on 

that? I just gathered that from your answer to 

Logan's previous question.

DR. GIRALDO: So as some of the 

speakers from yesterday mentioned, a lot of these 

products that I have on the table that the ammonia 

extracts are substituting do not have a real limit 

in terms of application. You can add as much fish 

hydrolysate as you want. 

By putting a limit on ammonia extracts, 

you would in that case minimize any impact of 

ammonia in soils. It would be used only as needed 

precisely and in a way that will be compatible with 

soil health and other benefits, carbon-capturing 

soils. There is plenty of information to support 

that.

Unfortunately, the review was very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

limited in the analysis of that existing 

information on how to use ammonia properly and 

other soluble substrates to optimize the use within 

the frame of the FDA. 

MS. BRUCH: Just to confirm, this is 

the use of the replacement, in your words, to 

additional products that are on the market?

DR. GIRALDO: Right. It is, I think, 

like the way Vermont Association mentioned 

yesterday, we would be -- for example, a substitute

for sodium nitrate or for other liquid products. 

Somebody else mentioned in their experience these 

products would be substituting other liquid 

products.

MR. ELA: Sue, very quickly. We need 

to move on so we give time to other speakers. 

You're on mute, Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Would I want to do anything 

different on my last one? I said I was listening 

to what you were saying now, and perhaps you've 

answered it, but I was also listening -- did you 

hear Dr. Jerry Hatfield's testimony or comments

yesterday? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

That's basically what he said. This 

should not be used as a full fertility product. 

It should be used in coordination with all the 

things that we in organic would demand, crop 

rotation and those kinds of things. Do you agree 

with that?

DR. GIRALDO: Absolutely. 

Absolutely. It has to be used only when needed 

to overcome some of the limitations that we see 

in some areas of the country, not all. Somebody 

else mentioned yesterday that due to the diversity 

of climates and crops you need -- in some crops 

and areas you might not need these at all, while 

in other ones you do.

MR. ELA: Thank you so much, Eugenio. 

We do appreciate your comments.

We're going to move on to Gina Colfer, 

followed by Barbara Wingler, and then Nicolas 

Giraldo-Wingler. 

Gina, please go ahead and state your 

name and affiliation and start your comments.

MS. COLFER: Thank you so much for 

allowing me to speak today. I'm humbled by your 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

selfless service to the NOSB Board so really, thank 

you.

I work with Wilbur Ellis on the central 

coast of California concentrating on organics as 

a pest control adviser and certified crop adviser 

with specialties in sustainability and nitrogen 

management. I have worked in this space for over 

30 years. With this history, it has brought me to 

where I am today with a deep passion for organic 

agriculture, soil science, and sustainability. 

These comments are my opinion backed by science.

I'm here to speak to the ammonia extract 

issue, but first I'll focus on what synthetic 

ammonia is. Hydros ammonia is derived from 

atmospheric nitrogen mixed with hydrogen from 

natural gas using a catalyst with pressure and heat 

that produces an 82 percent ammonia nitrogen. It 

is the granddaddy of all synthetic nitrogen 

products as other synthetic commercial fertilizers 

are derived from this.

Ammonia extract is a concentrated 

ammonia that has been captured and concentrated 

from animal manure or animal protein through a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

variety of methods. It is a recycled material that 

captures ammonia from manures and concentrates it 

into a liquid at percentage levels a fraction of 

anhydrous. 

It is not meant to be the main source 

of nitrogen. It is meant to be a whole system's 

approach for building soil health. There are many 

methods to building soil health but the most 

effective method is reduced tillage and, better 

yet, no till. But one of the main limiting factors 

in that practice is nitrogen.

Cover cropping, planting into cover 

crop residue is no till and other methods to reduce 

tillage by utilizing these soil conversation 

techniques are approaches that have garnered a lot 

of interest by large food companies. 

The best cover crops to sequester 

carbon are the grasses. The grasses are also very 

big users of nitrogen so within that system the 

limiting factor is getting enough nitrogen to the 

crop when it needs it.

We now have new technology that can 

produce a stable liquid, non-synthetic, animal 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

manure derived ammonia that is not meant to be the 

sole source of nitrogen, especially in a whole 

system's approach. Ammonia extract can aid the 

grower in utilizing the appropriate amount of 

nitrogen at the time where vegetative growth is 

rapid feeding the plant and soil what it needs, 

when it needs it, with the sustainable material 

that has not been proven to cause harm to the soil. 

Too much of any one type of fertilizer 

can be detrimental to the soil and microbes, but 

when growers use these types of fertilizers 

thoughtfully, they can be beneficial to the whole 

system. Give the organic grower the tools to grow 

profitable crops to feed the world. 

If we want organics to expand and be 

sustainable and accessible to everyone, like I 

think we all want, then we need to give our growers 

the choice to use the products that work in their 

systems. Do not limit the tools in the toolbox 

but trust the grower to do what is best for their 

crop. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you so much. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Do we have questions? I am not seeing 

any questions. Thank you for your comments. We 

do appreciate it.

MS. COLFER: Great. Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

Barbara Wingler and then followed by Nicholas 

Giraldo-Wingler, and then Alan Lewis.

Barbara, please state your name and 

affiliation and proceed with your comments.

MS. WINGLER: Hi, everyone. My name 

is Barbara Wingler with NuOrganics. I'm a civil 

engineer with a masters degree in environmental 

engineering from the University of Massachusetts 

in Amherst.

As an environmental engineer I've 

dedicated my career to the improvement of the 

environment in the water and waste water treatment 

industry. I've recently become involved in the 

agricultural sector and my work in organics.

Environmental engineers have 

traditionally worked in the municipal and 

industrial manufacturing power sectors since these 

sectors are regulated in terms of permissible 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

discharges and pollutants. We consider 

agriculture to be the next big challenge in terms 

of environmental impact. 

It's even more difficult to address 

since the agricultural sector is not yet regulated. 

That being said, there's a lot of opportunity for 

the agricultural community to be proactive in terms 

of environmental improvements.

Next slide, please. I will started by 

acknowledging that the USDA definition of organic 

production is environmental friendly. According 

to the definition, organic agriculture needs to 

foster cycling of resources, promote ecological 

balance, and conserve biodiversity.

Next slide, please. But is it 

important to the consumer that organic is 

environmentally friendly? As an organic consumer 

I agree with the others that the answer is yes. 

The consumer expects organic product to be 

environmentally friendly. There have been many 

surveys done to define what the consumer expects 

from the organic label. 

This one shown here was performed by 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Earthbound Farm. It shows that the new organic 

normal consumer is more mainstream and more diverse 

than one would imagine. Of interest here is that 

40 to 50 percent of consumers purchase organic 

products because they believe that they are better 

for the environment.

Next slide, please. You can see a few 

advertisements here on the slide that show that 

producers and organic advocates market their 

organic products as environmentally friendly.

Next slide, please. However, there 

have been several studies presented by high 

credibility institutions such as MIT, Columbia 

University, Princeton University, that question 

the environmental friendliness of organic farming. 

Numerous studies conclude that decreases in crop 

yield in organic farming versus conventional 

result in higher environmental impact from organic 

farming.

The purpose of my talk is not to discuss 

the results of these studies but just to bring to 

people's attention there are doubts related to the 

environmental friendliness and impact of organic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

farming. Several speakers during yesterday's 

session also confirmed that.

Next slide, please. I'll conclude 

just by saying that as an environmental engineer 

and as an organic consumer, I fully believe that 

everyone in the agricultural community needs to 

work together to make healthy organic food 

available to everyone, improve soil, mitigate 

climate change, foster recycling of nutrients, and 

decrease production of synthetic fertilizers, and 

reduce the environmental impact of farming 

practices. Thank you for your attention.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Barbara.

Are there questions for Barbara? I am 

not seeing any. Thank you so much, Barbara. We 

do appreciate your comments.

MS. WINGLER: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

Nicholas Giraldo-Wingler, and then Alan Lewis, and 

then Sarah Pinkham.

Nicholas, please state your name and 

affiliation and proceed.

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Hi. I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Nicholas Giraldo-Wingler and I'm a chemical 

engineer and I'm the technical services manager 

at the Farm Nutrients Clarion nutrient recovery 

facility.

Next slide, please. This is the 

Clarion nutrient recovery process. Poultry layer 

manure is received and passed through a manure 

dryer and the ammonia-rich steam is captured and 

processed. This results in three products; dried 

solid fertilizer 4-4-3, that also contains carbon 

and micronutrients; clean water; and, finally, a 

nitrogen-rich liquid fertilizer which contains 

humified carbon and micronutrients. All three 

products are pathogen free. 

This process enables us to capture 

ammonia that would otherwise end up in the 

environment minimizing environmental impacts and 

enhancing the cycling of local resources. It also 

allows us to create pathogen-free products that 

can get applied in a timely and precise manner which 

minimizes phosphorus and nitrogen leaching.

Next slide, please. Here we have a 

diagram that shows the fate of nitrogen in typical 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

layer manure. For every hundred pounds of 

nitrogen in fresh manure, only 25 pounds actually 

makes it to the plant. Twenty-five percent 

flashes off while awaiting collection in the barns. 

Another 25 percent is lost during storage. 

Finally, another 25 percent is lost 

following field application in the form of ammonia 

nitrate and nitrous oxide. By collecting the 

fresh manure directly from the barns and drying 

it to halt degradation, and finally collecting the 

nitrogen and the gas stream, we estimate that 60 

to 70 percent of these losses can be avoided.

Next slide, please. Ammonia recovery 

allows us to avoid a cascade of public health and 

environment impacts like air aerosols which can 

cause acute respiratory disease. This is the most 

socially costly impact. Ammonia deposition that 

creates ecological imbalance. 

Nitrous oxide emissions that impact 

climate change. Ammonia and nitrate in water 

which induces eutrophication and creates massive 

losses and ecological diversity. Finally, 

nitrate in water which impacts drinking water 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

sources and requires expensive treatment.

Next slide, please. The NOP final rule 

for organic production states that organic 

production must foster cycling of resources, 

promote ecological balance, and conserve 

biodiversity. We believe that Clarion nutrient 

recovery fulfills all three of these objectives. 

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Nicholas. Are 

there questions from the Board? Wood has one, and 

then we'll go to Rick.

MR. TURNER: Thanks Nicholas. You 

make some very strong statements about the 

environmental impact of not recovering ammonia. 

And then just, I'm interested in that.

And I'm curious if you have any sense 

of the scope that this kind of ammonia recovery 

while not occurring, what is the real impact on 

the district that you just described?

I mean, it's easy to extrapolate to 

large global issues related to one, you know, one 

application or one product. I'm just curious if 

you can sort of speak to what kind of impact not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

having this kind of ammonia recovery could have 

on some of those issues?

Do you have a sense of that scope?

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Yeah. I think 

that in terms of organic agriculture you know, 

this -- that the scope isn't as large.

But, I think in general, manure 

presents large potential -- I'm sorry, yeah, I 

believe that in terms of scope, we can avoid a lot 

of potential emissions of ammonia -- sorry, I'm 

blanking out here.

Can you -- can you rephrase your 

question?

MR. TURNER: I'm just trying to 

make -- I'm trying to get some understanding about 

the potential impact of not having this kind of 

ammonia recovery on some of those global challenges 

that you asserted in your presentation.

I just want to understand that better. 

Because I'm here on the Board because I'm 

concerned about -- I'm here to protect the 

environment, here to protect the --

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Yes, sir.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. TURNER: Our natural resources. 

That's my job. So, I'm trying to understand how 

we can make that extrapolation between a product 

and those global challenges.

And I'm trying to understand the scope. 

That's simply what I'm asking. Is, I can --

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Yeah, yeah. 

So, --

MR. TURNER: Hear it from anybody, but 

I just wanted to hear it from you.

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Yeah. I'm 

sorry. So, obviously, you know, manure is used 

wildy as a source of nutrients, you know, in all 

sorts of agriculture, not just organic 

agriculture.

And generally, it is over applied to 

meet certain nitrogen demands of crops. Usually 

it has a lot more phosphorus than nitrogen.

Having this product, and not only that, 

but there's a lot of losses involved before the 

product even makes it to the field itself. Not 

even factoring in the over application of manure 

just to meet the nutrient, or demands.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So, in terms of global impact, I think 

one product can't make a huge difference. But, 

I think it's a step in the right direction.

And banning all products that are 

derived from manure and use ammonia that would 

otherwise end up in the environment and cause a 

cascade of environmental impacts, you know, --

MR. ELA: Yeah, let's say --

MR. TURNER: I didn't mean to ask an 

impossible question. I just was as -- I just 

wanted to -- I think it's interesting to sort of 

think about this in the context of two ways of 

looking at environmental issues.

And I'm -- I found your comments 

interesting. And I wanted to ask that question.

MR. ELA: Yeah. Well, 

let's -- let's --

MR. TURNER: I didn't mean to make it 

impossible.

MR. ELA: Let's move onto some other 

questions. Rick, go ahead.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. Nicholas, on 

your first slide, you showed one of your end 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

products. And the process was something you 

called clean water.

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: That's correct.

MR. GREENWOOD: So, I have a couple of 

questions. What's your definition of clean water? 

And what do you do with it?

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: So, all of our 

clean water is used onsite. Our clean water is 

water that comes from -- so, we use a reverse 

osmosis process to concentrate our product.

It starts at .3 percent nitrogen. And 

then we concentrate it all the way up to 4 to 6 

percent through a reverse osmosis.

It's a five stage process. And the 

clean water is the water that comes from the first 

stage of the RO process.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. But, it doesn't 

go back into the environment. So, it's not really 

a product of your process. It's just part of your 

recycling program.

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: That's correct. 

No, it's not released into the environment anyway. 

It's all used internally. In our storage, our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

cooling towers, and it's also sent back to our 

nitrifier tank as well.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. But, you still 

use water. I mean, you're hooked up to municipal 

water for the process and then recycle some of it.

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Um --

MR. GREENWOOD: You're not 

self-sufficient, I guess, is what I'm trying to 

say.

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: No. We are not 

100 percent self-sufficient in terms of water. 

But, a lot of our water does come from the manure 

itself.

MR. GREENWOOD: Um-hum.

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: But, we do 

supplement it with well water that is also passed 

through a separate reverse osmosis process to strip 

out a lot of the minerals.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. So, RO is 

pretty energy intensive though, correct?

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: That's correct. 

It is energy intensive. But, in terms of 

concentrating on the product, it's a lot less 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

energy intensive then evaporation.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. No, that was my 

question. Because it looked like you had a product 

with clean water. And that was --

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Yeah.

MR. GREENWOOD: Or so it benefits part 

of your process. That's a different issue. 

Thanks.

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Yep, no problem.

MR. ELA: Nate and then Amy.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Would it be possible 

to advance the slides, I think one, Michelle? Or 

the slide-master. Only one more.

So, when we're talking about these very 

acute and really real environmental costs as you 

had mentioned, in looking at these, these are sort 

of all the results of conventional ammonia usage.

And so, it's a -- I find it a little 

bit -- I would be interested in your take on it. 

It sounds like organics is supposed to clean up 

for conventional pollution.

But, it's not manure that's doing these 

problems, it's ammonia. And so why would organic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

want to use a product that's so, you know, 

destroying the Des Moines watershed and ultimately 

leaving, you know, Iowa with a real risk of blue 

baby syndrome?

What would be the reason to switch from 

manure to a more toxic, more environmentally 

problematic fertilizer that costs more for 

farmers?

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Yeah. 

That's -- so, I think this is related to my response 

to Wood's question.

I think when manure is used to provide 

the entirety of the nutrient requirements for 

agriculture, it tends to be over applied. Just 

to --

MR. POWELL-PALM: And if I may stop you 

right there real quick.

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Sure.

MR. POWELL-PALM: So, in the over 

application, that seems like it's going to be a 

problem no matter where we are. If we're actually 

engaging in proper crop rotation, usually we don't 

run into over application when we're relying on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

input spaced.

So, what's to stop a producer from over 

applying a much more acute, much more soluble, 

really, you know, I'm really interested in sort 

of the water effect of ammonia.

So, when we over apply ammonia 

extracts, isn't that a little more scary than over 

applying manure as far as an environmental point 

of view?

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: I think yes, if 

it is over applied. But, I think part of the 

organic program almost requires proper management 

and application.

If you're -- in the spirit of organic 

agriculture, that's something that you are trying 

to avoid when you're --

MR. POWELL-PALM: Right. If you're 

going to over apply manure though, would you not 

over apply ammonia?

If you're not -- if you're not in the 

spirit, because I think over application of manure 

would land in not being in the spirit of organics.

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Yeah.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. POWELL-PALM: So, why would those 

folks be any better having ammonia at their 

fingertips rather than just using manure, which 

is a little more stable in the soil?

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: So, manure 

contains pathogens. So, it's a lot harder to plan 

in terms of your application. It can only be 

applied up to 120 days in advance due to that 

pathogen content.

This product can be applied when you 

need it, as you need it. So, it's a lot less 

susceptible to over application.

I think also the intent of this product 

is not to supply the entire nitrogen demand for 

a crop.

It's only to -- it would actually be 

used in conjunction with manure, just to kind of 

fill that extra gap in the nitrogen demand. 

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you. I won't 

take up any more of your time. I appreciate your 

answers.

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy? And then we'll 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

probably -- we need to move on a little bit. So, 

go ahead, Amy.

MS. BRUCH: Sure. I'll try to make it 

brief. Thank you, Steve. Thank you Nicholas. 

I appreciate your time today.

I believe you're located in Iowa. And 

I just have a question --

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Sure.

MS. BRUCH: For you, okay, on this, 

fellow Midwesterner.

We did hear some concerns yesterday 

just on the byproduct. And it was mentioned before 

that byproduct needed to, I think it's two slides 

back, at 443.

Our current litter, or my current 

litter that I have accessibility to, it's at 334. 

So they're, you know, similar -- similar analysis.

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Yes.

MS. BRUCH: But, my 334, in terms of 

costing, because I have -- I believe this 443 is 

called a crumble maybe?

I be -- and I did some past analysis 

for my own farm with this, and it was four times 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

higher than me just using the normal litter.

And the normal litter that I have is 

actually very low percentage of the ammonia and 

very high percentage of organic stabilized 

nitrogen.

So, I know that's a big concern from 

Midwest producers that we're taking, you know, not 

necessarily changing too much the product, the 

initial product.

But the cost is unattainable for a 

normal producer. To even afford the base product, 

your byproduct, not even the ammonia extract.

Can you just talk to that real quick?

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Yeah. I think 

as I mentioned before, I think having the product 

be pathogen free, really goes a long way to aid 

all those environmental impacts.

I think it gives you an extra amount 

of flexibility that, I think, really makes the cost 

worthwhile. I think -- yeah.

MR. ELA: So, and I have one very quick 

question myself.

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: Yeah.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: And need to do it in 20 

seconds. Aren't the barn losses of ammonia going 

to be the same either way?

MR. GIRALDO-WINGLER: In this case, we 

have contracts with the egg layers themselves. 

So, we receive very fresh litter that's only days 

old.

Usually it will be sitting in a barn 

for months at a time. So, a lot of these losses 

would be minimized.

MR. ELA: Thank you. We're going to 

move on. Thank you, Nicholas for your comments.

Next up, we have Alan Lewis, Sarah 

Pinkham, and then Doug Crabtree. So, Alan, please 

state your name and affiliation, and take it away.

MR. LEWIS: Yeah. Alan Lewis, Natural 

Grocers. Sound, is that good?

MR. ELA: You're good.

MR. LEWIS: Good day. And thank you 

for your service. Natural Grocers now operates 

over 160 health food stores across 20 states west 

of Mississippi.

We only sell organic. And our stores 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

are all certified as organic handlers. We focus 

on the niche of nutrition deserts where people in 

need of special dietary supporting counseling 

have few other options besides the Dollar Store, 

Walmart, and other conventional supermarkets.

Today I want everyone to check in with 

Natural Grocer shoppers, who are core buyers of 

organic products. How do shoppers currently 

understand organic practices and the organic seal?

Here are just three reminders. First, 

organic production systems are a personal health, 

public health imperative. The soil biome and the 

gut biome are one in the same.

We can't conceive, have healthy babies, 

or ensure thriving generations, unless we remove 

toxic contaminants, including pharmaceutical 

residues, synthetic materials and pesticides from 

our air, water, soil, and food.

Second, what we now refer to as organic 

production systems are most valued by shoppers when 

they are just equitable and exclusive.

Our price premium depends on upholding 

and communicating through social cost accounting. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Lowering costs by avoiding social standards may 

kill the sale.

Third, what we call organic cropping 

is an ancient and indigenous practice. We can't 

forget that. It's not owned by anyone and never 

depended on government sanction and oversight. 

Into a larger scale, trading worsens codification.

It has always been inseparable from 

community culture. And thus, mutual beneficial 

exchange of efforts and resources.

And yet, here we are. We have boxed 

ourselves into an organic standard that 

circumvents the discussion of public health. It 

stumbles and fumbles through frameworks of 

inclusivity and justice.

And to this day often acts as if it has 

been ordained to impose organic practices on the 

communities who have most fervently developed it 

and protected it long before the OFPA was passed.

Consider many of the debates over 

materials and practices underway at this meeting. 

I can assure you that for our customers they sound 

parochial and self-serving to the average shopper 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

who must decide what food or fiber or other products 

to buy, and how much to pay for them.

So, let's not forget this consumer 

context. It's changing faster than we're keeping 

up with it. We need to be better and broader if 

we want to stay relevant and valued.

Thank you. And I yield my last time. 

Thanks.

MR. ELA: Thanks for 22 seconds, Alan. 

Are there questions for Alan? It looks like Nate 

has one for you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I'm going to steal 

those 22 seconds. We can't get too far ahead now.

So, Alan, I was wondering, and this 

isn't necessarily germane to any of our talks at 

hand. But, the idea of growing the organic 

marketplace in an equitable way.

I really appreciate, like you said, the 

location of Natural Grocers, I often find them in 

places where I'm doing organic work. I'm either 

inspecting, or I'm, you know, just living.

And it's really awesome. And I was 

wondering what it's -- like what you see as this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

means of growing?

It's only 6 percent of the food market 

right now. I think we should be, you know, eyes 

on the prize for figuring out how do we get it to 

be 50 percent of the food market.

But, I think if we only grow, you 

know, -- in a certain way we miss a lot of 

opportunity to get organic foods in everyone's 

bellies, rather than just those who can afford a 

premium.

So, I was just wondering, and I don't 

mean to take up too much time with this. But, if 

you could just give a little, if you have any 

insights on that?

MR. LEWIS: Well, let me try to bundle 

it this way. COVID in particular has driven home 

the problem of public health.

And the people who do worse with 

infection or a pathogen like COVID, are the ones 

who have bodies that are already in distress.

And it's not about a price premium. 

We do not have affluent customers. We don't have 

new cars in our parking lot.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

We have people that clearly understand 

that they are -- they can't poison themselves and 

stay healthy. And they can't afford the 

healthcare system such as it is. So, that's kind 

of a moot point.

But, the core problem we're having is 

that they're demanding far more than clean food. 

And we are struggling to meet that demand.

And yeah, I'm dodging all these other 

complicated bureaucratic technical issues that are 

under discussion or equally important.

But, I think we're -- we've lost sight 

of what this new generation of consumers is really 

looking for and where we'll really see the growth. 

Or we'll miss the boat in the next decade.

Does that help answer your question?

MR. POWELL-PALM: And I apologize. It 

does, yes. I wasn't meaning to call you out for 

not being germane. But, my question wasn't 

germane.

So no, I really appreciate your 

comments and your response. So, thank you.

MR. LEWIS: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Are there other questions for 

Alan?

(No response)

MR. ELA: Thank you, Alan. We sure 

appreciate it. We are going to move onto, and get 

my list here. And I looked out my window and it 

just started to snow. So, how about that.

We're going to move onto Sarah Pinkham, 

Doug Crabtree, and then Jen Berkebile. So, Sarah, 

state your name and affiliation and take the floor.

MS. PINKHAM: All right. Hello, I'm 

Sarah Pinkham, the OEFFA Certification Program 

Assistant Manager at the Ohio Ecological Food and 

Farm Association. Sorry, I'm a little nervous if 

I stumble over my words.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak 

today and for all of the good work that you do to 

continuously improve organic standards and 

practices.

OEFFA supports all three motions of the 

crop subcommittee on ammonia extracts, which are 

neither necessary for, nor compatible with systems 

of organic agriculture.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Together with the brilliant addition 

of 205.203(f), prohibiting ammonia extract and 

reinstating the defunct sodium nitrate annotation, 

will ensure that farmers feed the soil not the crop.

OEFFA previously developed a resource 

for nitrogen needs of common crops to verify 

compliance with the 20 percent restriction for 

sodium nitrate. And we can use that as a starting 

point for all high nitrogen fertilizers.

Some producers need assistance in 

determining crop needs. And we request that prior 

to implementation, the NOSC make publically 

available an educational tool to determine the 

nitrogen needs of individual crops based on region, 

climate, soil type, and other growing conditions.

We are confident that such a tool will 

enable farmers, inspectors, certifiers, to share 

a consistent approach in calculating crop needs 

and verifying compliance with this rule.

Two other proposals before the crop 

subcommittee are equally important to organic 

principals. Kasugamycin and cow manure-derived 

biochar must remain prohibited.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

The farmer would introduce a dangerous 

new class of materials to the national list. And 

the later would simply provide CAFOs a lucrative 

way to offload their environmental harms onto 

organic farmers. These materials are 

incompatible with organic agriculture.

We're grateful to the NOSC for 

creatively seeking solutions to organic fraud. 

And we're intrigued by the proposal to develop a 

software tool hosted by USDA to provide greater 

supply chain oversight and traceability.

We're weary however, of adding any 

burden to farmers' record keeping requirements. 

And we also see them as a crucial first link in 

the supply chain, whose data is needed to anchor 

the whole enterprise and production facts.

Moving this burden to certifiers would 

be even less feasible, as we would need to enter 

and verify data for every single sale.

So, we provide additional responses to 

NOSC in our written comments. But, fundamentally, 

we think that there are other solutions more likely 

to affect and prevent fraud, including storage and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

pest management requirements, developing better 

regional yield data, tracking food and feed grade 

sales distinctions and that influence.

Additional boots on the ground at ports 

and more in-depth onsite inspections for high risk 

entities are the strongest tools we have.

Finally, please consider the creative 

ideas being suggested to improve participation in 

the NOSC process by all members of the organic 

community, and especially farmers.

Thank you for your time.

MR. ELA: You did great Sarah. Always 

remember, we're just like you. Even though we seem 

scary, we're just the same.

Just the same people as if you were 

talking to your compatriots at the office. So, 

great job.

Nate has a question.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Similar to my 

question to OFA yesterday, I would be really 

excited for OEFFA to bring forth really, you know, 

very specific suggestions for this idea of 

traceability because of your portfolio with plane 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

community clients. I think that would be an 

important piece that we haven't addressed yet. 

And we want to get that right.

So thank you for the comments. And 

more specificity would always be appreciated for 

ideas to how to do this right.

MS. PINKHAM: Well, thank you for your 

suggestion. And we'll try to incorporate that 

into our next written comments.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Other Board members? Sarah, 

I've got a question for you.

You said OEFFA supports all three 

motions under the ammonia extracts. And you 

referred to the crop use, you know, that those 

charts could be made up or -- well, I'm not going 

to say guidance, but certifiers could agree on 

that.

We've certainly had comments where the 

certification of those motions could be tough in 

terms of certifiers. But you're saying, and I just 

want to make sure, you're saying that you don't 

see those as insurmountable.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. PINKHAM: Yeah, it's not easy. 

Obviously, there are a lot of different growing 

conditions and hundreds of different crops that 

could be grown with slightly different needs.

But we had some more nervousness when 

the Pasture Rule came out that, oh no, there's all 

of this verification we do, we need to do for dry 

matter intake. And the NOP published some 

guidance for that that's been incredibly useful 

and has basically resolved all of that.

Back when we were verifying compliance 

with the sodium nitrate requirements, MOSA had a 

tool and we had one that listed just a dozen or 

so common crops and the nitrate requirements of 

those. And we sort of went off that for other 

similar things.

Obviously, something that contains the 

nitrate, nitrogen requirements of every single 

crop is probably unfeasible. But you could get 

a ballpark for your brassica plants. You could 

get a ballpark for potatoes. You can get a 

ballpark for corn.

And if you know the maximum nitrogen 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

needs of a crop in a given region, it's not that 

difficult to calculate a fifth of that.

MR. ELA: Great. Thank you very much. 

Any other questions? Thank you so much, Sarah, 

for your comments. We do appreciate it.

MS. PINKHAM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

Doug Crabtree. It looks like Jen Berkebile has 

cancelled, so we won't go to her. So after Doug, 

Hamsa Shadaksharappa, and then Erika Rohr Luke 

after that.

I do want to just note for the record 

Asa has had to drop off for some academic purposes. 

He won't be back in for a couple hours. But I 

just want to let everyone know that. We'll note 

when he comes back in.

So, Doug, please go ahead with your 

comments, and name and affiliation.

MR. CRABTREE: Good morning. And 

thank you for the opportunity to comment.

My name is Doug Crabtree. My wife and 

I own and operate Vilicus Farms, a dry land organic 

crop operation in north central Montana. Our farm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

currently encompasses approximately 12,000 acres.

Before starting the farm, I managed the 

organic certification program for the Montana 

Department of Agriculture for 11 years. This 

background informs my knowledge of OFPA and the 

NOP standards.

On the farm, we grow a mix of 20-plus 

annual, grain, pulse, broadleaf, and oilseed crops 

in a 7-year rotation. Our soil building system 

includes integrated cattle grazing, green manure 

crops in the rotation, and application of compost 

and manure once per rotation cycle where the soil 

tests indicate lower declining phosphorous 

availability.

We strive to develop a self-sustaining 

system. Our diverse crop rotation is the basis 

of that soil building system.

Nitrogen is not a limiting factor, as 

it is easily supplied by pulse and legume crops 

in their symbiotic relationship with soil 

bacteria.

The only off-farm inputs in our system 

are legume inoculants, seed, and the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

aforementioned beef manure. We aspire to reduce 

and eventually replace all of these.

I want to specifically comment on the 

motions prepared by the Crops Subcommittee to 

prohibit stripped ammonia, prohibit concentrated 

ammonia, and limit by annotation the use of all 

nitrogen fertilizer substances with specific 

parameters.

My understanding of crop production and 

certification standards are that the basis of an 

organic system is to feed the soil, that all aspects 

of a correction system must maintain or improve 

that soil, including its organic matter content 

and the surrounding natural resources, and that 

off-farm inputs, particularly fertility 

substances, may only be tertiary to supplement when 

necessary the primary components, rotation, cover 

crops, and plant and animal materials.

I believe that those stripped and 

concentrated ammonia products, AEs as I'll refer 

to them, are incompatible with these standards.

Are we good?

MS. ARSENAULT: We're good. Sorry. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Let me buy back you a couple seconds there while 

we --

MR. ELA: Yep. We'll give you a little 

extra time, Doug. Sorry about that.

MR. CRABTREE: No, no problem.

MS. ARSENAULT: All right. Go ahead.

MR. CRABTREE: I said I believe both 

stripped and concentrated ammonia products, AEs, 

are incompatible with the standards.

AEs cannot maintain or improve natural 

resources, as they are a direct and likely 

contaminant to water quality. They are by 

definition highly soluble and thus likely to move 

into and with water.

AEs cannot maintain or improve natural 

resources, as they are a direct and likely 

contaminant. They cannot maintain or improve soil 

organic matter.

Indeed, the only justification for 

their use, the use of any highly soluble 

fertilizer, is when the crop rotation and green 

manures, which build organic matter, are 

inadequate to replenish soil nitrogen.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And AEs present a clear threat to 

organic (audio interference) enforcement (audio 

interference) they are practically 

indistinguishable from synthetic ammonias, which 

are prohibited. And there's no way that 

certifiers or inspectors could tell the 

difference.

In short, they're likely to do more harm 

than good. They're absolutely unneeded. And 

they are a clear threat to organic integrity. 

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Doug. And I do 

apologize again. It's hard to keep your train of 

thought when you're interrupted. And I will 

remind everybody to please stay on mute so we can 

get the full presentation from our speakers.

Nate, please go ahead.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you for your 

comments, Doug. Could you speak a little bit more 

to this, the fact that you sound like you're able 

to come up with most of your nitrogen needs through 

a really robust crop rotation? And if I 

understood, you have 16 different crops that you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

incorporate in there.

MR. CRABTREE: We generally grow 

20-plus individual crops and --

MR. POWELL-PALM: Okay. So I was 

underselling you a little bit.

MR. CRABTREE: Yeah, I find that, you 

know, adding fertility for nitrogen is absolutely 

unnecessary because nature provides for that with 

the natural fixation that if you just grow the right 

kind of crops and have a rotation that's easy to 

provide.

You know, I can only speak to our 

ecosystem. But it seems that's a pretty universal 

truth.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Sue has a question, and then 

Logan.

MS. BAIRD: Hi, it's good to see you 

after all these years, Doug.

I don't think, and I may be wrong, but 

I don't think you're growing corn in some of the 

very high nitrogen crops. Is that correct or not?

MR. CRABTREE: No, we're too far north 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

for much corn.

MS. BAIRD: Yeah, I thought. I know 

that you use Austrian winter peas and wheat 

probably and some of those crops.

MR. CRABTREE: Yeah --

MS. BAIRD: And those are not --

MR. CRABTREE: -- small grains.

MS. BAIRD: Yeah, right. Those are 

not nearly as needful for nitrogen. And I applaud 

you for using crops that are eco-friendly for your 

particular area.

But, you know, a lot of people do grow 

corn, and they do need high nitrogen. So how would 

you address that?

MR. CRABTREE: Well, my experience, 

you know, in other areas is that places that are 

able to grow corn also are able to grow more 

voluminous and productive legume crops. And they 

can be added to the rotation either in sequence 

or through intercropping or through green manuring 

and provide much more nitrogen than we can from 

the productivity of our legumes.

MS. BAIRD: Yeah.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CRABTREE: So nature generally 

provides what one needs if you design an adequately 

diverse system.

MS. BAIRD: Yeah, a lot of people 

rotate into soybeans, corn, and then into a red 

clover or something like that. But it's still not, 

they say it's not sufficient to add enough nitrogen 

as needed.

MR. CRABTREE: I hesitate to criticize 

anyone else's system. But --

MS. BAIRD: Thank you.

MR. CRABTREE: -- my belief and our 

philosophy is that diversity is the answer. And 

if you provide an adequately diverse rotation, you 

can definitely and fairly easily provide the 

nitrogen needs.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Logan's got a question for 

you, Doug.

MS. PETREY: Hey, Doug, a question. 

When you said that you take -- you're only applying 

when needed. You take a soil analysis and you 

find, you know, you'll be applying the manure where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

phosphorous may be low, right? Is that correct?

MR. CRABTREE: Yes.

MS. PETREY: Yeah.

MR. CRABTREE: We use the soil tests 

once per rotation to determine where we need to 

apply manure and at what rate.

MS. PETREY: Okay. And that's, and 

you don't want to apply it where phosphorous may 

be higher because you don't want to overapply 

phosphorous.

MR. CRABTREE: Well, we want to limit 

the use of all off-farm inputs --

MS. PETREY: Okay.

MR. CRABTREE: -- for various reasons.

MS. PETREY: And, okay. And so, with 

rotation, you know, I know crop rotation is 

extremely important. I mean, we have to use it 

where we are for disease and pest management.

And so, and we, you know, our farm has 

six-plus crop families. Not only are we growing 

a lot of different crops, but we are, I mean, 

extensively being diversified among that.

But legumes are the only crop family 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that will provide, will fix nitrogen. There's no 

other crop that fixes nitrogen except legumes, 

which there is no rotation in that. But that's 

the only crop family. Even though you may have 

ten different types of peas or whatever, it is one 

family.

But do you see any problems with using 

legumes, because you're probably mostly pro-ac of 

the legume family, do you see any issues with just 

having the two families rotation, or do you have 

more rotational crops in there?

MR. CRABTREE: We've designed our 

system to separate sequentially legumes, because 

as you suggest they are subject to some of the same 

diseases. We don't put a legume crop any less than 

three years apart in our rotation system.

MS. BAIRD: And that carries you all 

the way through. Just doing one legume crop for 

three years will provide --

MR. CRABTREE: Well --

MS. BAIRD: -- your nitrogen?

MR. CRABTREE: -- it's a rather complex 

system that's difficult to explain.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: Sure.

MR. CRABTREE: But if you add the crop 

rotation, the green manures in between, the 

livestock integration --

MS. BAIRD: Okay.

MR. CRABTREE: -- and deleted the 

compost, but --

MS. BAIRD: Sure.

MR. CRABTREE: -- for nitrogen needs, 

the legumes are adequate in our ecosystem.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Okay. Thank you, Doug. We 

do appreciate it.

MR. CRABTREE: Thank you --

MR. ELA: We're going to move to Hamsa 

Shadaksharappa, then Erika Rohr Luke, and then 

Stephen Walker. So, Hamsa, please state your name 

and affiliation and proceed.

MR. SHADAKSHARAPPA: Okay. Thank 

you, Steve.

Hamsa Shadaksharappa from ReNewTrient. 

We're in the business of producing organic 

fertilizers and have been for the last five years.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Ammonia extract is a complex issue to 

resolve. We totally understand that. However, 

the rushed definition of AE as currently drafted 

is unclear, impractical, and a bit unfair. I will 

focus my comments on the definition.

If NOSB rushes forward with this 

definition, it will create confusion in the market. 

And, therefore, it will be contested for the 

reasons I will describe. Please consider fixing 

the definition collaboratively and with the 

technical focus it deserves.

First, the definition is unclear. 

Prohibiting ammonia captured from natural sources 

will affect many superior products that are not 

intended to be eliminated. Prior speakers, 

including I think Dr. Giraldo, have described which 

type of OMRI and CDFA listed products would get 

affected and probably eliminated.

Also, it is confusing to simply lump 

in processes like heat and concentration as part 

of stripping. Stripping is considered an 

industrial process.

For example, where do you draw the line 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

between heating, drying, and composting? This 

definition leaves no choice to producers and 

consumers but to contest it in order just to get 

clarity.

Second, defining the production method 

is an impractical solution. There are high 

nitrogen products in the markets that have exactly 

the same product characteristics in the soil as 

other products that are produced in a different 

way.

By ambiguously defining and then 

prohibiting certain processes and manufacturing 

but allowing others, NOSB is arbitrarily picking 

winners and losers. But in many cases, the winners 

and the losers have the same end product with 

similar characteristics. Trained soil scientists 

have confirmed this.

For exactly this reason, we have 

continuously proposed and supported prudent 

application limits, like 25 percent of the nitrogen 

needs. This is the most objective, quantifiable, 

and practical solution for this issue.

Third, this definition has been rushed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

in our opinion and a bit unfair. It is absolutely 

untrue when the Petitioner states that NOSB should 

rush to ban these products right away so that there 

will be minimal impact in the market.

We know of eight to ten producers and 

dozens of customers that have invested in 

significant assets and logistics that will be 

severely and unfairly treated by the proposal as 

currently drafted.

In closing, please understand this is 

a flawed definition. And it's the exact opposite 

of a quick resolution. It could get muddled and 

contested indefinitely.

Please make some effort to work with 

us to get the definition right. We want to support 

you. And we will if we get a definition that works. 

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Are there questions from the 

Board? I have a question, a quick one.

MR. SHADAKSHARAPPA: Sure.

MR. ELA: So we're getting to me 

opposing feedback. One, you know, some commenters 

as yourself said we shouldn't give an exact 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

definition because that limits one thing and not 

another. Other people have said we should give 

those definitions because a more process-oriented 

definition doesn't meet the, isn't appropriate as 

well. How do we balance those?

MR. SHADAKSHARAPPA: It's a tough 

balance. And I think it's going to be very 

difficult to get a definition that is process or 

manufacturing related.

I think the issue is -- I think there's 

a consensus that there should be limits. There 

should be application limits. And this should not 

be a substitute or fulfill your total nitrogen 

needs. I think everybody agrees with that.

The question is how do you regulate it 

then. And so we have been a strong proponent of 

whatever the standard is, 20, 25, 30 percent. We 

have proposed 25 percent.

When you try and go into a specific 

definition of the manufacturing process, people 

are going to get around that. People are going 

to find a different way to manufacture the same 

product.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

There are multiple products, as I 

mentioned, in the market that have the same 

characteristics in terms of the end product.

When you try and focus on the 

definition, it excludes certain processes of 

plants that have already built, which requires 

people to then just rebuild in a slightly different 

process. But you're going to end up with the same 

product.

So our strong suggestion to get 

something objective and quantifiable is to stick 

with the application limits.

MR. ELA: Great. One other question, 

I mean, you just said that people are going to be 

innovative to work around whatever definition we 

come up with, which, you know, was one of the 

points. And, you know, I fully believe in 

innovation. And I don't mean, you know, to say 

we should be sticks in the mud.

So, in terms of the limits, you've 

mentioned, you know, 25 percent of crop needs. 

We've heard that crop needs are very hard to, for 

certifiers to define. How would you say that crop 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

needs? Do you think those can be defined or not?

MR. SHADAKSHARAPPA: Yeah, I am not an 

expert in that field. So I would hesitate to 

comment.

I do think that -- I will say we are 

a believer that this should not be used as the sole 

resource. But there is a definite need for it. 

We have many, many customers that have asked for 

the product. In fact, the Petitioner tried to get 

an exclusive rights to our product. We won't go 

there.

But this is widely wanted in the market. 

And I don't think anybody wants to use it as a 

full substitute for what they're doing, just a 

complementary.

And I think it's going to be some 

judgment. It's going to be somewhere between 20 

and 30 percent. And, you know, we would be happy 

for the Board to decide that in its own discretion.

MR. ELA: Okay. Thank you very much. 

Any other questions? All right. We appreciate 

your presentation.

MR. SHADAKSHARAPPA: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: We are -- and I apologize for 

butchering your name.

MR. SHADAKSHARAPPA: It was very 

close. I appreciate the try.

MR. ELA: Thank you. We are going to 

move next to Erika Rohr Luke. We have Stephen 

Walker, and then Emily Musgrave.

So, Erika, please state your name and 

affiliation and proceed.

MS. ROHR LUKE: Hello. Is everyone 

able to hear me?

MR. ELA: We have you. Go ahead.

MS. ROHR LUKE: Awesome. Thank you 

for the opportunity to comment to the National 

Organic Standards Board at this Fall Meeting.

My name is Erika Rohr Luke. And I am 

speaking today on behalf of Marrone Bio 

Innovations. Marrone develops and manufactures 

effective and environmentally responsible 

microbial and plant extract products for 

integrated pest management, most of which are 

compatible with organic farming practices.

I would like to speak to you today about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the sunset of the EPA List 3 inerts.

Marrone requests that this Board, one, 

does not recommend sunsetting List 3 or List 4. 

Instead, we recommend taking actions which 

encourage EPA to reengage on maintenance of lists 

of allowed inerts.

Two, does not recommend sunsetting List 

3 or List 4 without replacements in place.

Three, we recommend that USDA and NOP 

and EPA work together with the biological products, 

registrants, and manufacturers, growers, and 

certifiers to update the current lists of NOP 

compliant inerts.

We make these requests because it is 

clear that an entity needs to maintain an 

encompassing listing of the substances allowed for 

use in organic inputs.

As all List 3 and List 4 substances are 

already reviewed on an established scheduled by 

EPA for use as inerts in products, EPA seems the 

most equipped for this review. They already have 

data on all the substances.

Ideally, EPA could add classifications 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to their inert tracking database and reestablish 

a system for maintaining a list of allowable inerts 

for use in organic compliant inputs.

Marrone is also working together with 

OTA, the Organic Trade Association, to generate 

options to consider for replacements of the List 

3 and List 4 references. And we're also working 

with BPIA, the Biological Products Industry 

Alliance, to work towards evaluating options to 

support and contribute to a successful replacement 

of the List 3 and List 4 references.

In summary, Marrone does not support 

sunsetting List 3. MBI advises it is necessary 

to renew List 3 allowance to support products used 

by growers.

We strongly urge NOSB to require any 

updated references be in place ahead of sunsetting 

List 3 and List 4 references in order to limit the 

negative impact to product manufacturers and 

users.

Thank you for your time and 

consideration of our comments. And I yield the 

rest of my time for any questions.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Thank you so much. It looks 

like Amy has a question for you.

MS. BRUCH: Hi, Erika. Thank you for 

your time today with your comments in regards to 

the inerts.

I apologize in advance. I want to take 

a right turn here and ask you about another subject. 

And if you need to get back to the Board or, with 

more information, that's completely fine. You can 

email it to Michelle.

But I know, I'm familiar with Marrone 

Bio and the innovations that you have for 

biological and botanical solutions to crop 

stresses and integrated pest management.

Something that's happening in 

California, and we have various comments on this, 

is copper sulfate use in rice production and the 

mitigation of algae and also tadpole shrimp 

control.

And I didn't know, again I apologize 

for the right turn on this, if Marrone Bio has had 

any advances on solutions to substitute out copper 

sulfate for other potential products.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ROHR LUKE: Are you asking if

we're, if we have plans to develop or introduce 

any algaecides for rice production?

MS. BRUCH: Um-hmm, um-hmm.

MS. ROHR LUKE: I cannot speak to that 

at this time. I will definitely get in touch our 

R&D department. And I will certainly email 

Michelle to follow up on your question.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Thank you so much. 

And I apologize again for going off topic.

MS. ROHR LUKE: Yeah, no worries. 

Thank you for your question.

MS. BRUCH: Thank you.

MS. ROHR LUKE: I appreciate it. And 

I'm glad you're familiar with our company and our 

mission.

MR. ELA: Other questions? Erika, I 

have a question myself. Given that an advanced 

notice of rulemaking is coming out, as Dr. Jenny 

Tucker has mentioned, are you going to submit a 

concrete plan for, that will help the NOP figure 

out how to navigate this difficult process?

MS. ROHR LUKE: Yes, we would like to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

communicate with them and provide any, you know, 

answer any questions that they may have, provide 

any insight that they ask for. And we definitely 

are available to provide any support that we're 

able to.

MR. ELA: Great. Yeah, I would 

strongly encourage you just because this is, as 

noted in our previous sunset process, a very 

difficult process to navigate of how to replace 

these listings even though we're invalid.

So I would suggest the more concrete 

you can be in how they should do this the more help 

it will be. And that will make your comments much, 

taken much more, you know, as advice. So thank 

you very much.

MS. ROHR LUKE: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We do appreciate your 

comments.

MS. ROHR LUKE: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Next we have up -- oh boy, 

I got to find it here. Sorry. We have Stephen 

Walker, Emily Musgrave, and then Keith Jones.

So, Stephen, please state your name and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

affiliation and proceed.

MR. WALKER: I'm Steve Walker from 

MOSA. Our certification agency was founded on 

balancing sound enforcement with practicality. 

We appreciate the ongoing discussion --

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve?

MR. WALKER: -- of modernizing 

enforcement systems.

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve, can I interrupt 

just for a second?

MR. WALKER: Yes.

MS. ARSENAULT: The audio connection 

is not great. To note, it was all broken up there.

MR. WALKER: Okay.

MR. TURNER: Also, the clock is not 

moving, Michelle.

MR. WALKER: Is that any better?

MR. ELA: Yeah, actually, I was hearing 

him fine, Michelle. Go ahead, Steve.

MR. WALKER: Okay.

MR. ELA: We'll try it like this.

MR. WALKER: Okay. Our certification 

agency was founded on balancing sound enforcement 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

with practicality. And we appreciate the ongoing 

discussion on modernizing enforcement systems.

But we have concerns about questions 

of balance, ever increasing regulatory burdens 

versus keeping certification accessible. We 

cannot pass more enforcement costs to farmers. 

Certification cost share helps our movement 

maintain its heart.

The potential value of an organic link 

system is intriguing, but we're wary of its scope. 

We suggest comparing data upload requirements to 

risk and considering reasonable exemptions from 

reporting mandates.

We will need a mechanism like an OLS 

system for certifiers to easily access 

traceability cross-check information, otherwise 

unpredictable info requests will hurt our 

capacity.

We appreciate your affirmation that 

technology must play an essential role in supply 

chain traceability. The international organic 

community also supports the use of technology and 

innovations as organic moves forward.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

But technology can also be a barrier 

to accessibility. It seems difficult to design 

a single system that's practical for global use 

and the diversity in our movement. The system must 

be adaptable and useful while protecting 

confidential business information.

We suggest leveraging data and tracking 

systems already in use. If multiple systems are 

used, they must be able to interface with each 

other.

We also stress the value of process 

driven certification decisions. Data cannot by 

itself be the basis for certification.

Looking at processes allows for 

situational adaptability, critical thinking, and 

a socially conscious human element in enforcement. 

Organic production is art and science in a living 

system of changing variables.

We also suggest considering public 

messaging regarding fraud and stressing the 

positives of our current enforcement system. 

Successful enforcement should be seen as a 

positive. But instead, too often the press 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

portrays the existence of fraud as a systemic 

failure.

In our experience, there are far more 

success stories of robust enforcement and 

commitment to integrity.

We must also consider our transparency 

regarding the soundness of organic enforcement. 

If we overstate organic's attributes or 

overpromise our capabilities, that's not being 

transparent. Good public relations and integrity 

with organic values needs self-assessment and 

honesty.

Thank you for your forward thinking as 

we continuously improve our enforcement work and 

aim toward a thriving organic world with balance.

MR. ELA: Thank you so much, Steve. 

I know just for everybody that Michelle just 

dropped off, which is why you couldn't see the 

timer. But I will keep time going forward until 

she gets back on.

It looks like we have a question from 

Brian for you.

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah, thanks, Stephen. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I'm wondering, are there ways that enforcement 

recordkeeping could be targeted at the places where 

we've seen the most issues with fraud?

Like, for instance, I may be naive but 

it doesn't seems to me that produce would be a big 

source of fraud. Whereas, it seems like imports 

of grains are. So is it possible to target 

reporting requirements in a way like that?

MR. WALKER: I think that targeting is 

embedded within the standards, the recordkeeping 

section of the standards where it talks about 

records being adapted to the particular operation.

Certification, the standards are scale 

neutral. But indeed, enforcement can be scale 

critical and can and I think should be adapted to 

the risk level of the operation.

However, what we often see when 

regulations are developed is kind of an umbrella 

approach to deal, that applies to everybody in 

regulatory language, yet it's really trying to 

target a few where more enforcement is needed. 

So that's a long answer, a short answer, yes.

MR. ELA: Amy has a question as well.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BRUCH: Yeah, thank you, Stephen, 

for your comments. This is a discussion document. 

So I appreciate, you know, just the ideas that 

you were able to exchange.

My question is, is there enough 

information established to do risk assessments in 

the most equitable way, or do we need data first 

in order to establish risk assessments?

MR. WALKER: It's a work in progress. 

There was an -- I don't want to misstate. But 

I believe there was an ACA working group on risk 

assessment.

And it kind of looks at different 

factors and assigns a little bit arbitrary number

to those factors. And then you maybe get a 

numerical rating at the bottom. And based on that 

you can say, well, this one's really risky, this 

one isn't so risky.

MS. BRUCH: Okay.

MR. WALKER: That's a method. But it 

is in progress.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Thank you.

MR. WALKER: Yeah.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Are there any other questions 

for Steve? Thank you so much, Steve. We 

appreciate it --

MR. WALKER: Yeah.

MR. ELA: -- and appreciate you being 

flexible on the audio.

MR. WALKER: Thank you. Not a

problem.

MR. ELA: We're going to move on to 

Emily Musgrave, and then Keith Jones. And then 

we have Harpal Singh Grewal on our list. Harpal, 

if you're out there, please let us know. We don't 

see you.

After Keith Jones, if Harpal isn't 

there, we were going to take a short break. And 

then we'll move on to David Epstein after the break.

So, Emily, please go ahead and state 

your name and affiliation.

MS. MUSGRAVE: Can you hear me all 

okay?

MR. ELA: You're good. Go ahead.

MS. MUSGRAVE: Great. Good day. My 

name is Emily Musgrave. I'm the organic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

regulatory manager at Driscoll's.

As always, I would like to thank the 

NOSB for their commitment to protect the integrity 

of the organic program and uphold the vital 

regulatory processes of the NOP.

My comments focus on the ammonia 

extract proposal, the sodium nitrate proposal, and 

the continued allowance of the following sunset 

materials, peracetic acid and the four chlorine 

materials up for sunset review.

First, Driscoll's has concerns with two 

of the three motions set forth in the petition to 

ban non-synthetic forms of ammonia extracts. This 

is a complex subject. And we do not believe there 

has been enough time for the Board to do a thorough 

literature review on this subject.

During this public comment period, you 

have heard from scientists, experts in this field, 

who are plant physiologists and soil acrotomists, 

saying this proposal has not done a thorough review 

of the scientific literature.

Regulations that growers of the organic 

community must follow should be verified by 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

research and based on sound science.

In our written comments, we stated we 

support motion one, prohibiting stripped ammonia 

extracts, because they are not in line with organic 

principles.

We do not support motion two to prohibit 

concentrated ammonia. And we do not support 

motion three to prohibit nitrogen products with 

a C:N ratio of 3:1 or less.

We support further research on this 

subject to understand the many nuances of these 

motions. The intricacies of the science within 

these motions are key to drafting meaningful 

regulations and accomplishing the goals the NOSB 

set out to meet with this proposal.

As it is currently written, we do not 

believe the NOP would act on this proposal if passed 

by the NOSB. We are urging the Board to take 

motions two and three back to the Subcommittee.

Driscoll's supports the Crop 

Subcommittee's proposal to bring parity to the 

status of sodium nitrate on the National List. 

The current listing is ambiguous. And the NOSB's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

proposal should alleviate this confusion.

Driscoll's supports the continued 

listing of peracetic acid on the National List to 

disinfect equipment. It is an extremely important 

tool for our organic berry growers and for organic 

producers across the industry.

Driscoll's supports the continued 

listing of the four chlorine materials on the 

National List that are up for sunset review. 

Chlorine materials are essential for complying 

with national food safety regulations and are an 

important tool to ensure the organic food growers 

are selling to consumers is safe.

I thank the National Organic Standards 

Board for your service and for consideration of 

my comments.

MR. ELA: Are there questions for 

Emily? Amy has one for you, Emily.

MS. BRUCH: Emily, hi. Thank you for 

your comments, both written and oral. And I 

apologize again. I was going to take this one in 

a right-hand turn. I appreciate the comments that 

you did provide. But I was going to ask you on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

biodegradable biobased mulch.

In the written comments, I love that 

you put that you pave the way for innovation in 

organic berry markets. And I was just wondering, 

has there been any work at Driscoll or any other 

companies that you know of that are researching 

true alternatives to plastic, such as the, oh, just 

maybe through a cropping form or things like that?

MS. MUSGRAVE: Yeah, that's a great 

question. Thank you, Amy. Are you asking, 

referring to instead of plastic, like not a 

biodegradable biobased mulch, but something else 

for dumpling the beds?

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MS. MUSGRAVE: You know, that is a 

really good question. We are really looking for 

alternatives to plastic across the board within 

Driscoll's.

It's actually one of our initiatives, 

I mean, whether it be reducing plastic clamshells, 

reducing plastic in the field. You know, you've 

got plastic tunnels. You know, agriculture, in 

general, uses a lot of plastics. But we know that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

berries are fully guilty of using a lot of plastics.

So I know we have many initiatives that 

we're looking at. And I'd be happy to connect you 

with either folks on our R&D team or others. I 

am not certain to that exact extent, you know, as 

far as alternatives to plastic mulch. But I bet 

we may be doing something.

So I'll connect you with the right folks 

to give you a right answer on that. And I'll let 

you know, Michelle, for you.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Perfect, Emily. 

Thank you so much. I appreciate that.

MS. MUSGRAVE: You're welcome. 

Thanks for the question.

MR. ELA: Okay. Any other questions? 

Thank you so much, Emily. We appreciate your 

comments.

We are going to next move to Keith 

Jones, Harpal Singh Grewal, if they are there, and 

then we're going to take a break. And after break, 

we're going to do David Epstein and Patrick 

Kerrigan.

So, Keith, please state your name and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

affiliation and proceed.

MR. JONES: Can you hear me?

MR. ELA: We can hear you.

MR. JONES: Fantastic. Good 

afternoon. This is Keith Jones. I'm the 

executive director of the Biological Products 

Industry Alliance.

BPIA is a non-profit association 

dedicated to promoting the responsible development 

of safe and effective biological products, 

including biopesticides, biostimulants, and 

biofertilizers.

Our members include large and small 

producers of biological products used extensively 

by organic growers in the United States.

We greatly appreciate this opportunity 

to provide public comment today. We previously 

submitted written comments. And I just want to 

briefly augment those comments.

We respectfully request that you 

continue listing EPA List 3 inerts until an 

alternative has been established. We make this 

request not only for our members but also on behalf 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of their customers who rely on their products in 

their organic operations.

Previously, BPIA submitted written 

comments regarding List 4. In those comments, we 

outlined the history of List 3 and List 4 references 

and made recommendations for going forward.

BPIA is in favor of updating or even 

replacing the List 3 and List 4 references with 

listing references which can be updated as time 

goes by.

We strongly encourage you to first put 

in place updated or new references before 

sunsetting List 3 and List 4 references to limit 

the negative impact on product manufacturers and 

more importantly the organic growers who depend 

on their products.

BPIA recognizes the critical role of 

these references and wants to provide the 

perspective of manufacturers for possible 

replacement references. So BPIA has been actively 

working with the Organic Trade Association to 

evaluate possible options.

Early in our discussions with OTA, it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

became clear that asking the NOSB or USDA to 

evaluate every inert individually may not 

feasible. However, it is clear that some entity 

must maintain a listing of the majority of inert 

substances allowed for use in organic inputs.

As all List 3 and List 4 substances are 

already reviewed on an established scheduled by 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

for use in inerts, as inerts in products, EPA seems 

the best equipped for this review since they 

already have data regarding all these substances.

Ideally, EPA could add a new 

classification to its inerts tracking database and 

reestablish a system for maintaining a list of 

allowable inerts for use in organic compliant 

inputs.

If it's not feasible for EPA to add such 

a classification, BPIA and OTA have discussed if 

some other already established or published 

listing of inert classifications by EPA could be 

referenced.

Since EPA no longer maintains List 3 

and List 4, perhaps 40 CFR Part 180 listings, which 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

designate various tolerances and exemptions, could 

be used as a replacement reference.

However, we do have a concern that if 

40 CFR 180 listings were used as a replacement 

reference, it would not include a significant 

number of non-food use inerts that are currently 

included in products under List 3 and List 4 

references.

BPIA is committed to working with OTA 

and any other interested stakeholders to find a 

workable alternative to List 3 and List 4. But 

we, again, ask that you continue listing List 3 

until such alternative is established. Thank you 

very much.

MR. ELA: Well done. You even had nine 

seconds left. So are there questions from the 

Board? Brian has one for you.

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah, thanks, Keith. 

I have two questions. The first one, is it correct 

that there are only four EPA List 3 materials that 

are, that we're talking about here?

MR. JONES: I don't believe so. At 

least one of my members said that I believe that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

company alone has five.

MR. CALDWELL: I see. I'm just 

thinking it might be possible to just, for the List 

3 ones, to just identify them and just, you know, 

review them --

MR. JONES: It might be -- certainly 

for those three, it's much shorter than List 4. 

So it might actually be possible for List 3.

MR. CALDWELL: Right. Good. Okay. 

The other question is more general. I'm sure 

you're working with a lot of companies that produce 

a lot of new microbial products for pest 

management, in particular for disease management.

And what I'm wondering is if you have 

any ideas of how we could make sure that any 

materials that we consider to be antibiotics that 

we don't capture other materials that could be used 

for microbial pest control and they kind of fall 

under the blanket of an antibiotic definition.

Is there some way of differentiating 

sort of antibiotics from the rest of microbial pest 

management tools?

MR. JONES: I'm sorry. You were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

cutting out a little bit there. So I'm --

MR. CALDWELL: Sorry. I think I can 

rephrase that. Can you hear me now?

MR. JONES: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah. Is there a way 

of sort of defining antibiotics in such a way that 

it doesn't include other types of microbial pest 

management products?

MR. JONES: Well, I have to say, I mean, 

that's certainly out of the scope of what we were 

here to comment on today.

The best I can tell you is I can go back 

to my members and follow up, because I'd be, I'm 

reluctant to speculate. And that's all I could 

give you would be speculation right now. But I'm 

more than happy to take that back to my members 

and follow up, if that would be acceptable.

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah. Okay. Great. 

Thank you very much.

MR. ELA: Keith, I'm going to ask the 

same question I did before.

MR. CALDWELL: Oh, please, I want that 

question.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Are you going to submit 

detailed comments with a process for dealing with 

this issue when the ANPR comes out from USDA?

MR. CALDWELL: You better believe it. 

And hopefully it won't be just BPIA. Like I said, 

we're working with OTA and other stakeholders.

And that is absolutely our goal. We 

want to be ready for that. And we want to come 

forward, you know, with at least the start or the 

outline of a plan. But that is something we are 

actively working on.

MR. ELA: Great. That's awesome, 

because this is one of those things. As I said 

before, we know the problem. We need to find the 

solution. So --

MR. JONES: I agree 100 percent.

MR. ELA: Great. Well, thank you so 

much for your comments. I don't see any further 

questions.

MR. JONES: Thank you.

MR. ELA: With that, we are going to 

move to a break. We are on time. But after 

yesterday's experience where we were doing so well 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

early on and then went off the rails later in the 

day, I'm going to limit it to a 15-minute break 

instead of 20.

So let's come back at five minutes to 

the hour. Stretch your legs. Thank you.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 1:40 p.m. and resumed at 

1:55 p.m.)

MR. ELA: All right, it is five 'til. 

We're going to move on down the list. I hope 

everybody stretched their legs. We're going to 

start with Dave Epstein, go to Patrick Kerrigan, 

and then Amber Pool. So, David, if you're ready, 

state your name and affiliation and go ahead with 

your comments.

MR. EPSTEIN: Hi, Steve. Yeah, Dave 

Epstein with the Northwest Horticultural Council. 

Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me this 

opportunity to represent the organic tree fruit 

growers of the Pacific Northwest.

I call your attention to the written 

comments the NHC submitted regarding the materials 

and proposals currently under consideration by the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

board in which we detail how these materials are 

used by our growers pastures.

For my allotted time today, I would like 

to focus on the List 3 inerts of unknown toxicity. 

The importance of the List 3 inerts cannot be 

overstated. They are essential to the proper 

performance of pheromone products, used in mating 

disruption, and in monitoring products for 

(inaudible) pests.

The leading pheromone manufacturers 

are all on record stating that there are no natural 

alternative ultraviolet stabilizers available 

today that could be used to replace the List 3 

inerts.

Without them, pheromone dispensers and 

lures will not remain viable, at least by organic 

growers. The growers I represent produce 95 

percent of all of the organic apples grown in the 

United States, and there are more than 7,500 acres 

of organic pears and cherries also grown in the 

Pacific Northwest.

I understand that the EPA no longer 

maintains its overview of List 3 inerts and that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

this presents a concern to the NOSB in evaluating 

these substances. Quite simply though, a decision 

to delist the List 3 inerts --

(Telephonic interference.)

MR. EPSTEIN: This decision will upend 

pest management in tree fruits where use of mating 

disruption is near universal in organic apple and 

pear production.

Before mating disruption, growers 

relied on 20 to 30 applications a year of botanical 

insecticides in codling moth injury to fruit, 

typically arranged up to 50 percent. Today's 

organic palm fruit producers target managing 

codling moth injury at below one percent to remain 

economically viable.

There are no current effective 

alternatives to List 3 inerts, and the decision 

to delist will lead to a dramatic decrease in 

organic palm fruit production and an increase in 

food waste as fruit are left unharvested due to 

insect injury that makes them unmarketable.

We strongly encourage the NOSB to 

follow this statute which allows for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

continuation of the synthetic products on the 

National Lists when there is no wholly natural 

alternative, and retain the List 3 inerts.

A vote to delist is not just a shot 

across the bow of the NOP. This decision will have 

direct negative impacts on organic growers. Thank 

you.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Dave. Are there 

questions from the board? I have a question, and 

I will just note that I was sufficiently beat up 

on List 4s, so. I don't know whether to ask you 

or Harold when he comes up later, so I'm curious 

about your position on chitosan.

MR. EPSTEIN: On chitosan, I do have 

written comments on it. We support adding it to 

the list. We have concerns with some of the claims 

that the manufacturer is making that it's going 

to replace, you know, sulfur and other products. 

They don't need to lift themselves up 

by tearing down other products. It's not proven 

in many ways yet. 

So, we do agree that it should gain on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the National List, but we also -- you know, it's 

a new product. It's not really clear how it's 

going to be used yet. 

It's got a history. I've looked up 

some of the research papers in certain crops where 

it was found to be used. Those are not yet known 

in tree fruit. We would like to find out how it 

works, so we support it getting on the list.

MR. ELA: Great, and one other question 

that I will admit that I have not made my way through 

all of the written comments and I'm slowly working 

through them, so I'm sure it's redundant, but with 

kasugamycin --

Obviously as the tree fruit grower in 

fire blight, I know the issue very, very well, more 

than I ever would like to, and I've known it my 

whole life, but yet the (inaudible) is also on 

record starting with streptomycin and tetramycin 

as not approving antibiotics. You know, there's 

a very strong tension there. How do you reconcile 

that?

MR. EPSTEIN: Well, we reconcile it by 

acknowledging reality. We've read the tea leaves. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

We see it has zero support on the board, and so 

we put our efforts elsewhere. For us, it's very 

important to keep these List 3 inerts or our growers 

are going to suffer big time.

With the addition of kasugamycin, it 

would give an additional tool, but it's a -- there's 

a philosophical battle of another order. Folks 

don't see a place for it in organic, and we're not 

looking to fight that battle today because we don't 

see that it has the necessary support to even begin 

that conversation, so we acknowledge reality and 

move on, Steve.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Dave, a very 

pragmatic approach. So, any other questions for 

Dave? I don't see any. Thank you so much for your 

comments. We do appreciate it.

MR. EPSTEIN: You're welcome. Thanks 

for the opportunity.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

Patrick Kerrigan, Amber Pool, and then Harold 

Austin. Let's go ahead with Patrick. Patrick, 

state your name and affiliation, and you may 

proceed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. KERRIGAN: Yes, greetings, fellow 

organic stakeholders. My name is Pat Kerrigan 

with Organic Consumers Association.

We have been pleading with the NOP for 

years to push through a final origin of livestock 

rule that protects family farmers and organic 

consumers, and it is now more important than ever 

to get this across the goal line.

With the announcement of the Danone 

Horizon Organic Dairies terminating the contracts 

of 87 northeast organic dairy farmers, this has 

been now a -- the dairy crisis has now moved into 

a full-blown dairy emergency.

The loss of thousands of family farm 

organic dairies in the century, and the loss of 

consumers being able to access the products from 

these regional family farms that are so healthy, 

has come in large part from the NOP allowing a small 

handful of CAFO-lite mega dairies such as Horizon 

located with not that many dairies being located 

throughout the Midwest and southwest, to annual 

game the system and enjoy an unlevel playing field 

that really has to end.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

The continuing loss of small organic 

dairy farmers is not only a huge loss for those 

families obviously, and the heartbreak of losing 

their family dairies, but also for the communities 

and the rural economic health of those communities.

It's also the loss of the purchasing 

options for organic consumers. Now, this is 

really important in that the number of farms is 

already shrinking and consumers are having less 

and less purchasing options.

The NOP needs to enact the NOSB's 

recommendation. I'm switching gears. The NOP 

needs to enact the NOSB's recommendation for 

protecting native ecosystems for their own value 

and also for the carbon sequestration services they 

provide. Great job, Jo Ann, of Wild Farm Alliance.

And then finally, the NOSB, as it digs 

into its work agenda in determining which inputs 

should be banned and which should be prohibited, 

you know, shouldn't the impact on small family 

farms' soils and the health of the ecosystems 

around them be at the top of the list for

considerations?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And finally, please, I know NOSB 

members take immediate action, sending a letter 

to the NOP urging swift action in origin of 

livestock as you did with the climate crisis 

letter, which was fantastic. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Patrick. 

Questions? I am not seeing any. Thank you so much 

for your comments. We do appreciate it.

MR. KERRIGAN: You're welcome, Steve. 

Thanks, all, for your work, NOSB folks. I know 

this is an enormous job, so I just wanted to show 

my appreciation.

MR. ELA: We very much appreciate that. 

Thank you. We're going to move to Amber Pool, 

then Harold Austin, and then Caleb Goossen. 

Amber, please state your name and affiliation and 

take the floor.

MS. POOL: Hi, my name is Amber Pool. 

I work for CCOF in our farm certification 

departments. I wanted to thank the board for 

continuing to offer this public commenting via this 

online Zoom platform. 

I talk to a variety of farmers every 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

day, and from time to time, the NOSB agendas come 

up, and I encourage them not to only submit written 

comments, but to sign up for these online public 

comments. I think it's so important for the entire 

organic community for the board, the NOSB board 

to hear from these farmers.

Today, I'm going to comment on the 

NOSB's question of whether the industry should 

require other registration of land 36 months before 

organic certification.

Currently, CCOF does require existing 

farmers in our certification program to disclose 

any land to us that they're managing organically 

with the intention of transitioning the land to 

certified organic status.

I am concerned that new farms who are 

not yet working with a certifier wouldn't know 

about the registration requirement of 

transitioning land, and a new requirement like this 

could increase the three-year transition to a 

six-year transition if the farmer didn't register 

in time.

Recently, the organic community has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

been having many conversations about diversity, 

equity, and inclusion. Beginning in historically 

underserved farmers may most be impacted by a 

36-month land registration requirement. 

These farms tend to be smaller organic 

farms who seek to expand their operations through 

leasing land. So, organic farmers and ranchers 

who don't own land would be disadvantaged by a 

36-month registration requirement because that 

requirement presumes that a farmer would know the 

land is going to be available, coming up available 

to be leased three years in advance.

I work with a lot of vegetable farmers 

in California who get super short-term leases, one 

to two years, before the land owner decides to lease 

to a different farmer.

So, I just encourage the board to think 

about the unintended consequences of a 36-month 

land registration, and with that, I'm complete. 

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you so much, Amber. 

Nate has a question for you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thanks for those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

comments, Amber. And like Amy said before, this 

is an info gathering opportunity, this discussion 

document.

So, the question I want to pose to you 

about transition is right now, on the whole, we 

basically allow immediate certification via 

affidavit, and I do appreciate CCOF's work trying 

to keep, you know, a better eye on current farmers 

and their transition ground.

How can we do better than just an 

affidavit so that we don't have, you know, the 

opportunity just to, you know, pop in, there's not 

very much oversight with the affidavits, but maybe 

not experience those unintended consequences?

And you don't necessarily have to 

answer that, but it's sort of a question I'd like 

the community to think about. What's something 

better than just an affidavit saying that we've 

been prohibited substances free for 36 months, but 

maybe less cumbersome than needing to register for 

36 months?

MS. POOL: Are you concerned that 

people are lying on the affidavits? Because lying 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to their organic certifier is the same as lying 

to the government, so that's kind of like on our 

affidavit, like, you know, if you do this, you could 

be in a lot of trouble, and we've caught people 

lying on the affidavit, but it's not common at all.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yeah, so just sort 

of thinking about that, is the current system 

sufficient and is there a way to make it to 

ultimately improve it?

MS. POOL: I mean, it's really helped 

CCOF a lot to require our existing members to 

disclose land to us right away, and it's helped 

with like scheduling inspections and impending 

harvests. Because in the past, the farmers would 

just add it, try to add it like right before harvest 

and it became --

MR. POWELL-PALM: During inspection?

MS. POOL: Yeah, it became a logistical 

nightmare for us, so we were like, no. As soon 

as you start managing land organically, you 

disclose that to us, like you're required to 

disclose that in your OSP.

I'm just concerned about farmers who 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

aren't working with a certifier not knowing about 

this requirement or farmers who don't own land. 

If you own land, you can know you're going to 

transition it, but if you're -- I've seen like 

really late, last-minute leases approved, and --

MR. POWELL-PALM: I've gotten some of 

those, yeah, yeah. 

So, just one more question for you on 

that front then, what do you think is the best way 

to get, you know, awareness about the certification 

process in front of folks, getting them talking 

to certifiers?

Not necessarily picking a certifier, 

but ultimately, you know, trying to get how the 

system works in front of more people so they are 

more aware of the process and everything?

Not that anything needs to change now, 

but it seems like that interaction is somewhat a 

stumbling block for getting folks to transition, 

that they're just not really familiar enough or 

close enough to the process.

Like, I guess, outreach and 

communication to potential organic farmers, what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

do you think about how we can improve there?

MS. POOL: It's hard because I attended 

the National Organic Coalition's pre-meeting last 

week and the farmers, they had a farmer panel on 

transitioning, and a lot of those farmers were 

hesitant to transition because they thought of the 

paperwork burden, and it is a burden initially, 

but it's not an impossible burden.

So, but I see that there's a lot of 

people that would qualify for organic 

certification and they're just scared to jump into 

the paperwork, so, and I've been hearing that the 

last 20 years, so I don't know how to get over that, 

but I don't know.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MS. POOL: A social media campaign?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yeah, I think it's 

going to take all heads to figure it out, so thank 

you.

MR. ELA: Sue has a question for you. 

Sue, guess what? We're not hearing you.

MS. BAIRD: Of course. Are you the 

correct person to ask about livestock material?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. POOL: No, I just work with our crop 

growers, but --

MS. BAIRD: Yeah, I've been --

MS. POOL: -- if you have a livestock 

question, I can put you in touch with somebody who 

can help you.

MS. BAIRD: No, I wanted to just hear, 

and I suppose this could be anything, but CCOF made 

a real impassioned plea, or at least, to me, I read 

it that way, to really consider taking sunset 

materials off the list.

They've stated that many times, these 

materials were site-specific, and what might be 

used in one area of the nation could be really 

important on the other side of the nation, and I 

just wondered if you would elaborate on that.

Because I hear that all the time, well, 

this is redundant. We have another one just like 

that. We should just take this one off, and I 

thought that was --

MS. POOL: Yeah.

MS. BAIRD: -- really important.

MS. POOL: We certify a variety of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

farmers would be for and against removing things, 

so we don't typically comment like specifically, 

like keep this product --

MS. BAIRD: Right.

MS. POOL: -- don't keep this product, 

but we will report the numbers of --

MS. BAIRD: Right.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. POOL: -- the products that are in 

use. You know, we started in California, so most 

of our producers are California based, but we are 

now operating across the U.S.

So, yeah, I think it's important to 

consider site-specific and, you know, just for you 

guys to hear from as many farmers as possible. 

So, I appreciate the conversation about 

how to get more farmers to participate in these 

meetings. I think it's important to hear directly 

from them.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you. I appreciate 

that. I just found that very compelling to me, 

that statement that you made or that somebody from 

CCOF made.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Rick has a question.

MR. GREENWOOD: More of a comment. 

I'm a CCOF certified grower and I'm transitioning 

one of my grows that was organic then went 

conventional. I'm transitioning it back to 

organic and adding it to my OSP.

I have to say it's a good process 

because you get things in order, and it's not really 

that onerous. Now, maybe it's because I've done 

organic for a long time, but it really isn't that 

bad, but it sets a really nice baseline for going 

forward. 

And with the discussions with the 

inspector, you get things in order so that when 

the three years are up, you're going to be in good 

shape to do the organic. 

So, and you pick your date when you're 

going to be able to harvest, which is also something 

you have to certify for California organic, but 

I guess it's more of letting people know rather 

than the process itself, at least from my 

experience.

MS. POOL: Yeah, I think it's a good 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

requirement for farmers who are in an existing 

certification program. I'm just worried about 

people who are transitioning and not yet working 

with a certifier, like how would they get this 

information to register their land 36 months in 

advance.

MR. ELA: Quick question from me and 

then we'll move on. I'm very curious. You said 

you have found fraudulent affidavits. How did you 

find those?

MS. POOL: In California, we have 

the -- in the state of California, and I think other 

states too, farmers have to disclose all of their 

pesticide use application records to the county, 

and so if we see like a very vague affidavit or 

we're questioning it, then we would contact the 

county and pull those records. 

Also, we've found out like during a 

complaint and investigation. It's not common, 

but, you know, I've been -- I just celebrated my 

15-year anniversary at CCOF last week, so I've seen 

a lot of things. I would say 99 percent of people 

are not lying on their affidavit, but I have seen 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a couple. 

But I think it's the best we got, and, 

you know, if somebody is willing to lie to, you 

know, somebody who is accredited by the government 

to do this work, then what can you do?

MR. ELA: No, I was just curious the 

process and, I mean, in Colorado, we don't have 

that reporting, so, and I think that's -- I mean, 

there are some places, as you say, but not in all. 

So, Nate, very quick, if you still have your 

question?

MR. POWELL-PALM: I was going to say 

I'm jealous of that backstop with the pesticide 

reporting, because I think in most other states, 

we don't have that, unfortunately.

And so thinking, just creatively 

thinking about what are those kind of backstops 

we can utilize for double-checking affidavits 

would be a great, I think, a great thing for us 

to all put our heads together on.

MS. POOL: Unannounced inspections are 

helpful too, and, you know, inspecting people's 

materials, storage, and, you know, affidavits from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

neighbors who might have knowledge of the land. 

And, you know, there was conversation 

earlier about risk assessment, and so we might 

require extra information from farms that we deem 

to be higher risk, and we use the ACA guidance 

document to assess risk assessment of our clients.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you so much, 

appreciate it.

MR. ELA: Well, thank you so much, 

Amber. We appreciate your comments.

MS. POOL: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move onto 

Harold Austin, Caleb Goossen, and then Otto Kramm. 

So, Harold, name and affiliation and take the 

floor.

MR. AUSTIN: Thanks, Steve. Good 

morning. My name is Harold Austin. I'm a former 

member of the NOSB from the Pacific Northwest, and 

I am the chair of the NHC's Organic Subcommittee.

I'll start with two general comments. 

First, please see my written comments in support 

of a relisting of the four chlorines currently 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

under sunset review for crops, handling, and 

livestock use.

Second, I do not support changes to the 

current status between the NOSB and the NOP, well, 

except maybe for just a little bit more 

transparency. Other than that, I think we're 

fine.

Crops, peracetic acid, I support both 

listings under the sunset review for use in organic 

crop production. This is a key material listing 

for organic tree fruit producers in controlling 

the fire blight pathogen in apples and pears, and 

for the control of Western X-Disease in organic 

cherry production.

This is probably the most benign of all 

the sanitizers that we have for use in organic crop 

production as well as handling.

EPA lists three inerts for use only in 

passive pheromone dispensers. I support the 

relisting of this material. Until the NOP, NOSB, 

and EPA have come together with a rational solution 

on how to replace this listing, this material 

category truly needs to stay on the National List.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

The pheromone dispensers are one of an 

organic tree fruit grower's primary means of 

detection as well as defense of those insect pests 

that plague them in their specific geographic 

areas.

These are used to monitor the insect 

population levels, helping the grower to identify 

what thresholds that have been met and organic 

spray must be applied, as well as helping to assist 

in the mating disruption process, thus helping to 

reduce the overall number of targeted pest insects.

Calcium chloride, the annotation of 

this prohibited material that allows for its use 

in organic crop production as a foliar spray is 

important to organic tree fruit growers, and I 

support its continued relisting.

This is an even more important material 

now than when it was first listed. It's used to 

prevent bitter pit and other calcium disorders in 

organic applies, cracking, splitting, and other 

disorders in organic cherries, as well as cork spot 

in d'Anjou pears.

New varieties, new root stocks, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

more pedestrian types of orchards all have had an 

impact on the severity and prevalence of these 

disorders.

Consumers expect the organic crop 

producer to be able to provide them with the same 

type, quality, and variety of fruit that is 

available to them conventionally. 

Thus, when somebody comments that we 

would simply change or just not farm these 

varieties, they simply are not in tune with the 

organic consumer of today and their expectations.

This is one of our most effective and 

also most economical sources of calcium, and used 

by organic tree fruit producers across this 

country.

For handling, I support the relisting 

of organic --

(Telephonic interference.)

MR. AUSTIN: -- agar-agar, 

carrageenan, cellulose, potassium, and sodium 

lactate. These materials are still in use by 

organic handlers today. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Harold. Logan has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a question for you.

MR. AUSTIN: Hi, Logan.

MS. PETREY: Hi, thank you. Calcium 

chloride is one of my materials and actually it 

was interesting when you said it was going to be 

more important than before and that's due to 

consumer demands of having almost perfect produce, 

just, you know, like you can attain more easily 

with conventional.

And actually, since you're a board 

member, I know you're used to tackling a lot of 

different products, so we're going to go to the 

AE part if you don't mind.

All right, so with AE being listed, and 

it is a nitrogen, almost kind of a use -- I kind 

of visualize it as a use like calcium chloride, 

to be very limited and only when you're deficient 

and you need it, but the calcium that you need is 

to provide you a fruit that has great quality.

I'm a leafy green farmer. I need green 

leaves, right? I need it to have good quality. 

I would love to do things the old-timey way. 

However, the old-timey way does not exist in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

consumer expectation. 

Unfortunately, it wants perfection, or 

we get crop loss and we get rejections. I mean, 

those things are real for us organic farmers on 

the leafy side as well. So, what's your opinion 

on that from that standpoint?

MR. AUSTIN: Yeah, and I would say 

that, you know, on the calcium, just for that one, 

it really can get tied up easily in the soil, so 

the reliance on a foliar application, especially 

with the newer varieties that we have, it's 

imperative that we have some source of calcium, 

so I'll lay that one to the side.

Now, on AE and nitrogen source, we need 

healthy green leaves on our crops too, to support 

them. Our problem is that we're a crop that's 

planted in the ground and it's going to stay put 

for 25, maybe 35 years. We don't have the luxury 

of putting in alternative crops. 

We use composts. We use manures. We 

use the fish materials, you know, but it takes a 

long time to get those types of materials to take 

and breakdown, get into the soil profile to where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the soil microbials are going to begin the 

breakdown process and make that available for our 

trees.

So, having materials that we can use 

during the growing season to take and feed our 

plants on a very select, very specific process. 

I think there's a need. 

I think with the AE discussion document 

that's before you, I think I'm more concerned about 

the unintentional consequences with the materials 

that we're currently using, utilizing, if we're 

not careful on the verbiage and the wording that 

you guys are using.

That would be my biggest cautionary 

statement is be careful on the language so that 

you don't unintentionally have a negative impact 

on something else.

MS. PETREY: Thank you, Harold, 

appreciate it.

MR. AUSTIN: You're welcome.

MR. ELA: We have Rick, Amy, and then 

Jerry, and just, yeah, keep questions succinct 

where we can.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay, my question, 

Harold, is very succinct. How about a quick 

comment on kasugamycin because you're in the area 

that grows apples and pears? I thought you might 

mention that in your oral comments.

MR. AUSTIN: So, I left it out of my 

oral comments strictly because of time constraints 

on what we can achieve with three minutes, and 

you're talking to -- my first year on the board 

back in 2012, I had the antibiotics, oxy, tet, and 

strep, so I fought the antibiotic fights in-depth.

Fire blight is a big concern for us in 

the northwest, as well as it is in your geographic 

location. For the types of new varieties of apples 

that we farm, they're highly susceptible. 

A lot of the pears are highly 

susceptible to fire blight, and it will destroy 

a tree. It will destroy a field in just very little 

time once it gets started under the right 

conditions.

Kasugamycin, I think, you know, looking 

at how the proposal came out of the subcommittee, 

I really felt that the writing was on the wall, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

especially reading written comments. I think it 

would be a material that we could benefit from its 

usage in tree fruit production.

It does not have crossover with human 

health uses and concerns, so that, unlike 

streptomycin that we dealt with in 2012, I think 

there's merit for taking a serious look at allowing 

kasugamycin onto the National List.

I know there's a lot of people that 

just, they say carte blanche antibiotics, don't 

list them. I think this one has relatively minimal 

human health concerns associated with it, so I 

really honestly think it's one that we could merit 

from having it on the list.

But with the politics that are in play, 

I don't give it a snowball's chance that it's going 

to make it onto the National List just to be 

realistic about it.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay, yeah, and the one 

thing you didn't mention, which I think is a concern 

for the subcommittee, was its effect on changing 

soil microorganisms, which appears to be pretty 

well documented in the literature, but, no, thanks 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

for your comments. I appreciate it.

MR. AUSTIN: Well, Rick, and just to 

answer that one real quickly, I think because of 

the level of rate of application and how we would 

be targeting it into the tree canopy with our new, 

you know, electrostatic sprayers and stuff, 

honestly, I think the amount of it getting into 

the soil conditions and stuff, I really think would 

be very minimal at best. I don't think that would 

be a concern.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay, yeah, the 

literature seems to say there's a lot of runoff, 

and maybe not in your area, but in other areas that 

don't have the modern equipment.

MR. AUSTIN: Yeah, we're applying 50 

gallons to the applied acre, maybe 75 gallons.

MR. ELA: Let's go to Amy and then 

Jerry.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. 

MR. AUSTIN: Hey, Amy.

MS. BRUCH: Hi, Harold. Thank you for 

your prior service to the board and thanks for your 

comments today. I just had a question on calcium 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

chloride for you. 

I know you were mentioning about the 

need to foliar feed, and as I read through some 

of the comments, they say even on well-managed 

soils, soils that have had lime applied and this 

and that, there's still a need to foliar feed.

And I was just wondering are the soils 

being managed to a PH-type basis or a base 

saturation when they're evaluating calcium?

MR. AUSTIN: So, we're pulling samples 

and we're going to take samples and look at our 

crops and the needs from a standard soil test.

 We're also going to take and use the 

test, the water bioassay test, so that we're using 

the irrigation water plus the soil so that we see 

true what's available for the crop to utilize.

We also pull fruit analysis. So, we're 

pulling an apple sample when the fruit's about the 

size of a golf ball, and then we'll pulling it again 

two weeks prior to harvest.

So, we're tracking what we're doing 

fertility wise in the ground, as well as foliar, 

plus what the tree and the fruit are utilizing and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

what they're needing to make sure that we're 

meeting what we need.

Calcium, in our soil profiles here in 

the Northwest, calcium is extremely hard to get 

it to translocate through the root system up into 

the tree canopy to where the apples can utilize 

it.

If we don't have the proper calcium 

ratio to potassium ratio established by the time 

that apple is about two inches in diameter, we 

couldn't physically apply enough calcium to 

displace the potassium, not in a tree fruit.

MS. BRUCH: Are you looking at also 

magnesium --

MR. AUSTIN: Yes.

MS. BRUCH: -- when you're looking at 

the calcium ratio as well? Okay.

MR. AUSTIN: Correct.

MS. BRUCH: Okay.

MR. AUSTIN: We're doing a full 

analysis and the correlation to make sure 

that -- we're trying to keep everything in balance 

that we can.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BRUCH: Okay, that sounds good. 

Thank you.

MR. AUSTIN: Okay, thanks.

MR. ELA: All right, Jerry, and then 

we'll move on.

MR. D'AMORE: Harold, I'll echo Amy's 

thoughts in thanking you for your comments. I'd 

like to start with a comment of my own which is 

I appreciate what I understood to be your thoughts 

on the interplay between the NOSB and the NOP, and 

I agree with what I heard.

As you were running out of time, you 

actually got the word carrageenan out of your 

mouth, so I'd like to hear your short version on 

that if you would, please?

MR. AUSTIN: Okay, well, that was my 

first handling material back in 2012. So, 

carrageenan is a material that's still widely used. 

It's a material that is recognized by 

certifying bodies around the globe, and I've seen 

the testimonies from the people out of Indonesia 

and elsewhere that crop it, that farm it. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

They actually farm it. They're not 

just out openly harvesting. They actually have 

farms where they get the seaweeds that they utilize 

for the carrageenan production.

This is a material that has been proven 

that they can be safe. There's science that can 

prove -- anybody can take and pull the science data 

out and they can say that it's this or they can 

say that it's that.

The scientific data that we've had 

before us -- and the board, when I was on it, we 

had carrageenan in front of us twice, and the data 

substantiated the need for it and debunked a lot 

of the negative. 

There was a lot of misinformation that 

was being applied, you know, trying to associate 

carrageenan with poligeenan or the other materials 

that were possibly linked as a carcinogen, but 

carrageenan is not, and you can see that, the 

comfort in it, as its listed globally everywhere.

This is a safe compound. This is a 

material I'm glad that the NOP chose to not adhere 

to because the NOP -- the NOSB is an advisory board 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to the NOP or to the Secretary and to his duly 

appointed representative, which in this case would 

be Jenny Tucker.

And so, simply, the recommendations 

that you guys put forward are just that. Your 

motions are recommendations. I'm glad that the 

NOP chose not to follow that recommendation when 

it was last voted to delist because it's still used 

widely in organic handling and it's used widely 

abroad, and it impacts not only --

They looked at the global allowance. 

They also, I'm sure, looked at the economic impact 

that that would have on the handler, as well as 

the manufacturer using the ingredient as well as 

the people that are harvesting it. So, myself, 

I support the continued relisting of that material.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you.

MR. AUSTIN: That's my opinion.

MR. D'AMORE: No, no, that's why you're 

there. Thank you very much.

MR. AUSTIN: Thank you, guys.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Harold. We're 

going to move on, and appreciate your thoughts. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

 And I will just remind the board that 

we're starting to drift behind a little bit. It's 

your choice what questions to ask, but just to be 

aware of where we are as a time check.

We're going to move on to Caleb Goossen, 

Otto Kramm, and then Bryce Lundberg. Caleb, name 

and affiliation, and take the floor.

MR. GOOSSEN: Hi, I'm Caleb Goossen, 

crop specialist for MOFGA, the Maine Organic 

Farmers and Gardeners Association, which is one 

of the country's oldest organic associations.

I'm grateful to be speaking after Doug 

Crabtree, who spoke to the mismatch of ammonia 

extracts with the founding principles of organic 

agriculture more elegantly than I believe that I 

could.

It's suffice to say that myself and 

MOFGA view these materials as incompatible with 

organic farming and must be highly restricted, if 

not prohibited outright.

These materials appear to be a 

byproduct of a broken livestock system, and organic 

agriculture is not obligated to subsidize their 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

self-imposed waste stream issues.

It is heartening to see so many 

speakers, including many supports of ammonia 

extracts, in agreement that highly available 

sources of nitrogen, with carbon to nitrogen ratios 

of three to one or less, should be greatly limited 

to ensure that organic fertility management 

remains true to the principle of feeding and 

building soil.

Carbon to nitrogen ratios are the best 

method that I'm aware of to ensure a natural 

fertility's material, sorry, a natural fertility 

material's rate of mineralization and properties 

as a food source to soil life, and subsequently, 

it's plant availability.

The current proposal would do an 

excellent job of providing much needed guardrails 

while still allowing organic growers flexibility 

in different growing conditions.

Many thanks to the board for your

service. I focused on nitrogen fertility here, 

but many of my other comments are reflected in the 

written comments of the National Organic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Coalition. 

I'm happy to take questions on this 

topic or any other, and I'll be quick to say where 

I am out of my depth.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Caleb, appreciate 

it. Questions from the board? I am going to ask 

a question seeing no others.

But there's certainly been a lot of 

discussion in the comments about sending the three 

to one ratio back to the subcommittee to work on 

further. If it gets sent back, what would you 

change in it to improve on it?

MR. GOOSSEN: I have to be honest. I 

missed a lot of the commenting yesterday, so I'm 

not sure where everything went, but I wouldn't -- I 

can't think of what I would change immediately. 

It seems pretty close to me to what I would want 

to come up with.

MR. ELA: Sounds great. Wood's got a 

question for you.

MR. TURNER: Caleb, do you have any 

concerns that the proposal has -- some people have 

said that the impact, that it's going to impact 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

compost teas, and composting, and issues like that. 

What's your read on it?

MR. GOOSSEN: Well, in terms of the 

definition of stripped ammonia extracts, I saw some 

comments there. I think that's interesting and 

maybe that definition needs to be clarified, and 

I'm sure that could be done.

In terms of a compost tea, I think you 

could look at -- I mean, they're almost already 

described pretty well in the standards. It could 

get a carve out if you really needed to, but I also

don't see it as a major obstacle.

Compost in general, you're going to 

have some ammonia that's produced naturally, but 

most of the nitrogen fertility is going to be in 

an organic form. 

When you're making a tea, you're going 

to be taking out nitrates and ammonia, the soluble 

parts. Whether that's going to be an ammonia 

extract, you know, that's -- some clarity maybe 

could be useful there.

MR. ELA: Any other questions? Thank 

you so much, Caleb. We appreciate it. We are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

going to move on to Otto Kramm, Bryce Lundberg, 

and then Gwendolyn Wyard. 

Otto, please state your name and 

affiliation and take the floor. And Otto, you, 

unfortunately, are on mute.

MR. KRAMM: All right, here we go. 

Hello, my name is Otto Kramm. I'm speaking as a 

member of the general public concerning organic 

and conventional farming. Thank you for the 

opportunity to address this board on the ammonia 

extract issue.

I have been farming for 35 years, 22 

of those years as managing partner of Mission 

Organics, the farming arm of Earthbound Farms. 

I'm currently directing a large convention farming 

operation.

Sodium nitrate 1600, Biolizer 521, 

Vitamin 800, Agrilizer 725, all high nitrogen 

products, which only sodium nitrate remains.

We have seen two major Department of 

Justice cases of fraud come out of the organic 

fertility industry in the past 10 to 15 years.

So, my point is how will the integrity 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of these products be verified on a continual basis? 

I mean, good hard inspections throughout the 

manufacturing process, not sure. You know, a bad 

apple can easily cheat the system without being 

detected? I don't know.

The end user, historically, the end 

user has been the best resource for questioning 

authenticity. These new products are way above 

what we can verify from the field level.

Organic farming is about building 

healthy soils with the use of natural organic 

products. Readily available N will detract from 

this fundamental law of organic farming.

For 2022, here in my current position, 

we will be operating a 250-acre farm under a hybrid 

program. All of the soil and fertility inputs will 

be organic. Pest control will be a soft program.

You know, we're a conventional farming 

company which sees the benefits of good organic 

soil building practices. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, Otto. 

It looks like Nate has a question for you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Otto, could you tell 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

us just a little bit about your crop rotation and 

what you rely on for fertility?

MR. KRAMM: Well, here in the 

conventional system or back when I was farming 

organically?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Ideally when you 

were farming organically.

MR. KRAMM: Well, yes, I mean, when we 

farmed organically, you know, we relied on -- we 

got a cover cropping program. We were -- highly 

used -- I guess I'll say we used quite a bit of 

pelleted material, chicken pellets mostly, chicken 

manure, chicken pellets.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I'm sorry, in that 

cover crop, was that legumes, grasses? What would 

have been incorporated in that cover crop?

MR. KRAMM: You know, it depended on 

the field. I mean, if we're going after soil 

building, if the field needed, you know, help, 

yeah, you'd go after a good soil building mix.

 If we're going after disease, we'd be 

looking more for a mustard, mustard blend, trying 

to get something in there to be a little hot kind 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of feel in the ground somewhat. You know, in the 

desert, we solarized, you know, for pathogen and 

weed control. 

But, you know, cover cropping, you 

know, pelleted material, you know, a good solid, 

I guess I'll say dry program with pellets, and 

liquids were very scarce in our program. 

I mean, we farmed thousands of acres 

of spring mix, you know, broccoli, cauliflower, 

you know, the whole program with Earthbound. We 

were successful and, you know, liquid was here and 

far between, and it was typically a fish-based 

product.

MR. POWELL-PALM: And with those leafy 

greens, were you able to meet consumers' 

expectations? Did you feel like you were doing 

well on that front?

MR. KRAMM: We were one of the best. 

I mean, day in and day out, we were one of the 

best.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I think I've seen 

that product a time or two in the store, so I don't 

mean to be totally rhetorical here, but --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. KRAMM: You know, I'm not there 

now. I'm not leading that program now. So, when 

my team and I, we led that, I mean, we were the 

best. We did it. We had millions of pounds of 

solid leafy greens coming off our ranches with a 

good solid organic program.

You know, did we -- like I say, we, 

because we were the new guys on the block back in 

1996, we knew everybody was looking at us, so we 

fully investigated these products that were on the 

table to use and vetted them ourselves.

And, you know, guys would try to sell 

us easy N. If they couldn't prove it to us, we 

didn't use it. Guys used them because they were 

on the OMRI list. Well, until it comes off the 

OMRI list, I'm going to use it. I mean, they had 

no soul.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I appreciate that.

MR. KRAMM: There was an emotional part 

to farming organically. It's for real. I mean, 

you're trying to change something, trying to make 

the earth better, that piece of ground. So, 

readily available N defeats that purpose in my 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

mind.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you, Otto. 

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Otto, and we 

appreciate your passion. I don't see any further 

questions, so we are going to move on to Bryce 

Lundberg, and then Gwendolyn Wyard, and then 

Johanna Mirenda.

Bryce, name and affiliation, and take 

the floor.

MR. LUNDBERG: Thank you. I am Bryce 

Lundberg with Lundberg Family Farms, a 

multi-generation farm in northern California.

Our family started growing organic rice 

in 1969. We've worked hard to improve organic rice 

farming practices. We seek alternatives to copper 

sulfate, but at this time, we still need it.

Copper sulfate use is consistent with 

organic standards in the U.S. and internationally. 

When our farm was certified organic by OMIC in 

Japan, OMIC allowed the use of Bordeaux mix in our 

rice fields. 

The EU and other countries allow copper 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

sulfate as Bordeaux mix and do not prohibit it for 

rice. With this in mind, we request renewal of 

copper sulfate to control algae and invertebrate 

pests.

We prefer not to use copper sulfate, 

using only as needed to save a newly planted rice 

crop. If newly seeded rice needs protection from 

algae or shrimp, copper sulfate is an essential 

input.

Our experience leads us to believe 

copper sulfate is safe. I have never seen an 

impact to birds, fish, frogs, or snakes. If 

required, it is applied in small amounts and is 

only active for a short period of time.

We have tried drill seeding and 

transplanting. Neither system worked as an 

alternative to planting rice in water.

When we drill seeded, weed pressure was 

insurmountable. We spent years trying to control 

the weeds, but the remaining weeds intermingled 

in the rice were so thick, the rice could not 

compete.

We tried mechanized transplanting. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

The rice plants did not establish before weeds 

overtook the rice. Most rice growing regions that 

transplant do so in shallow water and rely on hand 

weeding or herbicides.

Weeds are our biggest challenge. We 

manage grass weeds by drowning grass during the 

first three weeks. Rice can survive underwater 

about 48 hours longer than grass.

If rice seed develops chlorophyll 

before shrimp hatch, the rice is safe. However, 

if shrimp appear before seedlings turn green, the 

crop can be destroyed.

Algae does not form in windy or cool 

weather. If algae grows across the top of the 

water, young rice plants cannot push through, 

causing the rice to die.

When copper is used properly, algae and 

shrimp can be controlled without adverse 

environmental impact. Copper sulfate is allowed 

in organic around the world. 

The EU and other countries list it as 

allowed as Bordeaux mix and do not prohibit it for 

rice. The NOP allows copper use in row crops and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

orchards for disease.

 Every organic farm and region face 

different conditions and need tools that enable 

them to carefully respond to challenges. 

Therefore, we request the NOSB approve copper 

sulfate as an algaecide and to control invertebrate 

pests.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Bryce. It looks 

like Nate has a question for you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Bryce, would you be 

able -- and this is a theme of my questions 

recently. Just tell us a little bit about your 

crop rotation. What all is involved and how do 

you utilize crop rotation?

MR. LUNDBERG: Thanks, Nate. You 

know, we grow rice on our soil or on our farm and 

we've done so since the '30s, and in our region 

back around 1910, rice started growing. 

We have heavy clay. Underneath the 

heavy clay is hardpan, and in our area, you know, 

rice is the predominant cash crop. 

We grow rotational crops, oats, vetch, 

fava beans. Most of the time, it's as green, a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

green shop, right, and we grow them in the winter, 

and then put them in as fertility for the rice crop. 

We generally try to grow two to three 

rice crops and then lay a field out a third or fourth 

year depending on how the field is handling the 

production, but kind of reminding that the rice 

crop is the cash crop. 

The rotational crops are soil building 

crops. We also try to harvest the cover crop on 

those fields that are out to hold seed to seed the 

rest of the crop.

The other thing that we do in our fields 

is, you know, we're part of the Pacific Flyway, 

and we do have fields then that go into flooding 

after harvest as habitat for birds. 

The bird rotation is very positive for 

the fields as well. It has its own form of adding 

fertility that depends on how many birds and how 

concentrated they are in the winter time.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Brian has a question.

MR. CALDWELL: Thanks, Bryce. I was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

just wondering, you mentioned that the activity 

of copper sulfate is pretty short, and I'm 

wondering what causes it to -- what sort of 

terminates it and what is the fate of the copper 

sulfate that's applied?

MR. LUNDBERG: Well, it gets diluted 

into the water, and I think it settles out and 

adheres to the soil. The California Rice 

Commission has done significant testing with 

CalEPA on testing, you know, water that might be 

released, and don't find very much of it in the 

water.

We test our soil for copper and we don't 

see it building up in the soil, but it is a 

requirement of use of copper and it's just good 

practice to be testing our soils for, you know, 

a whole host of nutrients and elements.

But I think over time, it can -- I don't 

think it builds up in the soil. When we test soil, 

it can come up and go down. Usually, you know, 

it ranges from three to seven parts per million 

and it can come up from three, to four, to five, 

and then come back down to four. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

It isn't something we see building. 

There is, you know, discussion about it being 

toxic. I don't know that anybody knows what a 

toxic level is. 

Certainly, I search for that online and 

look for that, and I think with all of the testing 

going on by organic farmers in our country, we would 

have some more benchmarks for what copper levels 

in soil look like, but anyway, I hope that gets 

to your answer.

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah, thanks very much.

MR. ELA: One last question from Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Hey, Bryce. Good 

afternoon. You were kind enough earlier in this 

process to provide the history of your farm over 

nine to 11 years, depending on where, you know, 

which field it was in, and it certainly bore out 

that over that period of time, the accumulation 

was somewhat up and down, but always within a 

certain parameter.

The one question that I have, Bryce, 

that I have not had a lot of success in determining, 

you mentioned between three and seven percent PPM. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Is there a number that constitutes a red flag for 

you or your certifiers in that PPM ratio?

MR. LUNDBERG: Good question, Jerry. 

You know, I think if we -- I think the answer is 

no. You know, I look for what, you know, what would 

be on the upper level or too high. 

I have heard that, you know, the grape 

growers in Europe who have used copper for, you 

know, I think, close to 100 years or maybe more, 

you know, have levels that are much more elevated 

than ours.

But I talked to Cooperative Extension 

about what sort of level would become problematic 

in the soil and I think that the Cooperative 

Extension would talk about levels of maybe 50 parts 

per million, but I don't have one, Jerry. That's 

a good question. 

I've talked to our inspectors when they 

come and look at our soil work, and they generally 

say it's not elevated. It looks just fine. Of 

course, we're not the only ones that use copper, 

right? Orchardists grow crops, you know, 

tomatoes, apples. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Different crops use copper for disease, 

and I imagine, you know, you'd ask well, where does 

that copper end up, and it probably ends up, you 

know, in the soil, the same place copper that we 

use, and so I think it would good to look at that. 

It's a good question, Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Well, thank you for that. 

Good question or not, it's an unanswered one, and 

I've tried, and I guess I would say to the community 

it might be nice -- and I'm talking the certifying 

community as well. 

It might be nice as we look at this to 

have something that says it's worthy of further 

investigation, and I have failed to do that, to 

find that number, so thank you.

MR. ELA: All right, thank you, Bryce. 

We appreciate your comments.

MR. LUNDBERG: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

Gwendolyn Wyard, Johanna Mirenda, and Wanda 

Jurlina. So, Gwendolyn, name and affiliation, and 

make your comments.

MS. WYARD: Okay, sound check, coming 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

through?

MR. ELA: You're good.

MS. WYARD: Okay, fantastic. All 

right, well, good afternoon, NOSB members. My 

name is Gwendolyn Wyard. I'm vice president of 

regulatory for the Organic Trade Association.

 Today, I'd like to take a couple of 

minutes to share some thoughts on ammonia extract. 

My colleague, Jo Mirenda, is up next, and she will 

be presenting our full position as detailed in our 

comments.

First, to correct the record, I'd like 

to state that ammonia extract was not elevated to 

the OTA board level. Our board did not take a 

position on it, and in any case, we have a robust 

conflict of interest policy.

Further, NOSB did not engage with or 

seek special guidance from our ammonia extract task 

force, and we were not chosen as an inside advisor. 

The meeting minutes need to be corrected. 

I'm happy to answer any questions you 

have on how we develop our policy positions. 

Frankly, I'd like to not take up your time on it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

because what I'd like to focus on are some lessons 

that we've drawn from what has been a really 

difficult process and an unusual circumstance 

prohibiting a natural.

We are challenged by the fact that 

products produced by the ammonia concentration 

method have been allowed for nearly a decade, and 

yet the organic sector is just now addressing these 

materials as a result of the petition.

We're challenged knowing that stripped 

ammonia was brought to NOP's attention in 2018 

before any of these new and novel products were 

approved, but no action was taken to require NOSB's 

evaluation, and now as of 2020, at least six 

products and counting are approved.

We're challenged because while we are 

firm in our position that ammonia extract, stripped 

and concentrated, should be prohibited in organic 

farming, we do not take lightly the significance 

of removing farmer tools, especially when they've 

been in use for more than a decade.

We know that innovation is happening 

all of the time and we want this. New materials 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

are going to continue to emerge and we're bound 

to bump up against additional non-synthetics that 

are inconsistent with organic farming.

So, how can we do better and how can 

we get out ahead of controversial products? A few 

thoughts. First, perhaps we need to look at the 

construct of the National List and explore an 

ongoing mechanism for proactively identifying and 

reviewing incompatible natural substances instead 

of waiting for individual petitions.

I'll note that the development of the 

National List included a proactive review of 

certain types of non-synthetic materials, the 

botanical pesticides specifically.

We believe the NOP framework needs to 

be evaluated for improvements to the feedback loops 

between certifiers, MROs, and NOP when a material 

review decision is questioned or a concern is 

raised. 

Again, stripped ammonia was brought to 

NOP in 2018. NOP intervention could have ensured 

timely review of these substances prior to 

commercial proliferation.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And finally, on a related note, we also 

want to reemphasize our longstanding position that 

MROs must be formally brought into the 

certification system via accreditation.

 Consistent with the 2011 and 2012 NOSB 

recommendation, we believe that NOP oversight of 

certifiers and MROs is the most effective way to 

ensure consistency and integrity in the organic 

input material supply chain, and would provide the 

most powerful set of tools to prevent fraud.

And finally, finally (inaudible) on 

behalf of the Organic Trade Association, I'd like 

to extend a huge hug of appreciation for your 

service on NOSB. Thank you. Get that in there.

MR. ELA: Thank you. We do appreciate 

it. Questions for Gwendolyn? I've got one seeing 

no others. 

Yeah, in terms of natural or 

non-synthetic natural substances and that 

basically they are fine in our program until 

prohibited, my understanding is the Canadian and 

European lists are kind of the opposite. They're 

not allowed until they are listed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

How, you know, how do we move forward 

and really address that in a meaningful way without 

just a complete shift of the law?

MS. WYARD: Well, I think that's a good 

question and I don't have, you know, specifically 

what it would look at, but I think the suggestion 

that we have is, you know, if it's natural, it's 

allowed, but, of course, there's the rest of the 

context of the regulation, and with nitrogen 

products, what we look at.

But I think that there could be a way 

for a periodic proactive review of incompatible 

natural substances. I mean, that's a process, 

right, to figure out, you know, how frequent that 

periodic review would take place, how we could go 

about collecting that information.

But it just seems that if we continue 

to stay in a mode where petitions need to be 

submitted to prohibit a non-synthetic, we're going 

to just keep running up against this issue that 

we're in.

You know, commercial interests are 

almost always the case when you're talking about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a National List material. That's just how, 

unfortunately, how it's set up. So, it doesn't 

seem like it would be so difficult to develop some 

kind of a proactive review.

Again, this was in place during the 

development of the National List, which took place 

over a course of a long period of time. So, I mean, 

that's really as far as I have gotten at this point, 

but that's our suggestion at this point is a 

proactive periodic review.

MR. ELA: And just I want to be clear. 

Am I understanding right that some of the other 

lists in terms of natural materials have to be added 

versus being okay to use? Am I understanding that 

right?

MS. WYARD: You're talking about the 

Canadian or --

MR. ELA: Yeah, like closed lists 

versus open lists.

MS. WYARD: Ask some questions to Jo 

about that who has a little bit more understanding 

of how those lists are structured. I'm quite the 

domestic regulatory person. I don't want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

misspeak on that.

MR. ELA: Fair. Yeah, I'm just -- it's 

a topic that came up in my last year's on the board 

here, and I think it would be useful for other board 

members to understand when we're looking at 

equivalency, so I'll ask Jo.

MS. WYARD: Absolutely, all right. 

Well, thank you so much, everybody, appreciate your 

time.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Gwendolyn. With 

that, we will move on to Johanna Mirenda, then Wanda 

Jurlina, and Jessica Shade. So, Johanna, name and 

affiliation, and take the floor.

MS. MIRENDA: Okay, I'm here, can you 

hear me okay?

MR. ELA: Yes, you're good now.

MS. MIRENDA: Hi, I'm Jo Mirenda, the 

foreign policy director for the Organic Trade 

Association continuing our comments on ammonia 

extract. We support NOSB voting at this meeting 

to pass a proposal to prohibit stripped ammonia, 

and concentrated ammonia. Using the Organic Foods 

Production Act criteria, and the NOSB's own 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

guidance, we believe it's not compatible with 

organic principle.

The unrestricted allowance of plant 

available nitrogen fertilizers is a practice we 

believe will move the organic standards farther 

away from, not closer to the principles of 

fostering soil systems as the basis of soil 

fertility, and plant fertility. A healthy market 

for organic products into the future requires a 

clear market distinction backed by strong 

standards.

The organic sector is already 

threatened by a stagnant standards development 

process failing to keep pace with consumers, 

industry, and the environment. Ultimately our 

concern is that the allowance of ammonia extract 

will erode consumer confidence in organic 

integrity, drive proliferation of add on labels 

that fragment the organic market, and could 

threaten the long term viability of the organic 

sector.

Our written comments fully analyze the 

compatibility criteria while also acknowledging 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

some of the positive aspects of ammonia extract, 

and our comments provide technical background on 

impacted products. The cross board committee's 

proposal on stripped, and concentrated ammonia are 

an extension of a year long discussion about the 

definition of quote unquote ammonia extracts. At 

the last meeting, NOSB was clear in its intent to 

narrow the over-broad definition from the 

petition, and avoid implicating non-target 

materials, which we agree is so important. 

We believe that reasonable 

interpretations of the proposal here have achieved 

this goal. For stripped ammonia, we understand 

the proposed listing in the phrase separating, 

isolating, or capturing ammonia to be describing 

the ammonia stripping process that removes, and 

purifies ammonia from an agricultural feed stock.

Ammonia is separated from the feed 

stock by evaporation, captured through 

distillation, and isolated so that the purified 

ammonia can be used independently from the rest 

of the feed stock constituents. We don't see it 

applying to products where the ammoniacal nitrogen 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

phase with other constituents of the feed stock 

like compost T, or fish emulsion, nor do we see 

it applying to forms of nitrogen that are not 

ammoniacal, like protein, and soybean hydrolysate, 

or feather meal.

For concentrated ammonia, the proposal 

includes numeric thresholds which are much more 

straight forward to verify. If the stripped, and 

concentrated motions both pass, what's left are 

products that are not stripped, and do not exceed 

3 percent ammoniacal nitrogen, which we believe 

protects non-target material. Lastly, the 

proposed new practice standard for nitrogen 

products is an important topic that still needs 

work, so keep it on the work plan, and we support 

the sodium nitrate proposal to reinstate.

MR. ELA: Thanks Johanna. Questions 

from the board? Wood has one for you.

MR. TURNER: Forgive me if this is in 

detail in your written comments Jo, I'm still 

working through them myself. You said it there 

in your brief comments, but I'm just again asking 

the question, how is your read so clear that the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

motions are not going to affect compost Ts, fish 

emulsions, compost, and the like?

MS. MIRENDA: Well, I myself want to 

make really sure that the definitions are clear, 

that was one of our main points in our spring 

comments, being really careful about the 

terminology. So, I fully am aware of, and want 

to avoid any unintended consequences. I feel that 

the use of the term stripped ammonia in the motion, 

as opposed to ammonia extract is one way to hone 

in on the particular manufacturing process.

And throughout the last two discussion 

documents at the board level, there's been this 

distinction between stripped, and concentrated. 

And so you'll see it in the last two discussion 

documents, as well as the proposal at this meeting, 

and I'll also point to some of the other commenters 

who raised questions about the implementation of 

the stripped ammonia definition, acknowledged what 

they saw the intent to be.

Thus these unintended consequences 

weren't the intent. So, I feel like there is a 

thread good enough for the board to make a proposal 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to the NOP, which can then use its standard division 

to take hold of the technical aspects, and really 

clarify it. So, I do think that if the board were 

to vote on these, it would be important to reiterate 

through narrative commentary in your cover letter, 

really what the intent is, so that none of that 

is lost.

But I do feel like a reasonable 

interpretation of the language in context of the 

past year of discussion about these products is 

enough for, at least from my perspective, and 

others that I've talked with from our membership, 

and other certifiers, and mature reviewers that 

confidence in the outcomes ultimately is going to 

be a decision between the material review 

organization reviewing the manufacturing process 

of the brand name material.

So, there's a lot of information in that 

exchange that we don't have at this point. And 

so, I would encourage you to direct questions to 

mature review organizations to really stress test 

not just the language of the motion, but are we 

common in our understanding of this intended 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

outcome.

MR. TURNER: Thanks.

MR. ELA: That was going to be some of 

my question as well about exact language versus 

intent, since NOSB doesn't write the rules. But 

where do you see, in sending the final motion back, 

how do you think it could be improved, or is it 

just a matter of having more time to really review 

it, and see where it falls?

MS. MIRENDA: Yeah, for us it was 

really just more time to review it. At this point 

we were really focused on the first two motions, 

and trying to really thoughtfully respond to the 

two motions that directly address the petition. 

And then for that third motion, it was the first 

time we were seeing it. It is substantial, and 

we want to have a really good understanding of what 

implementation actually looks like on the ground.

So our comments are mostly questions 

to try to understand what materials would get 

restricted, especially for materials that are on 

the borderline of this 3 to 1 carbon to nitrogen 

ratio, and then the calculation method, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

understanding that certifiers were already 

weighing in with a need for guidance on the sodium 

nitrate 20 percent, and recognizing that this 

practice standard would exponentially increase 

that calculation to all nitrogen materials on all 

operations.

And then questions about the 

applicability of that restriction across different 

production systems given that we don't have 

standards for many types of production systems like 

containers. So, mostly just questions, we want 

to sit with it, but we absolutely want to have those 

conversations, and come up with some good standards 

for the use of highly soluble nutrients, and so 

we hope that you'll keep this on the work agenda.

MR. ELA: Anything else from the board? 

Kyla has a question.

MS. SMITH: I just didn't know Steve, 

if you wanted to ask Jo about the closed list for 

international standards, so since you didn't, I 

will. Jo, can you speak to that?

MR. ELA: Thank you, because I was 

going what question that I forgot to ask was I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

supposed to ask Jo. Go for it Kyla.

MS. SMITH: Anyway, yeah, Jo, if you 

could provide any more context to what Steve was 

asking about the difference between our national 

list here, with the USDA organizations versus other 

lists in Canada, EU, or other equivalent regions.

MS. MIRENDA: So, each scheme has its 

own flavor, but the common theme with most other 

international standards is to have a closed 

positive list. Meaning you can't use it, unless 

it is explicitly listed in the regulations. Now, 

it's been awhile since I've worked directly with 

the Canada standards, and the EU standards, and 

there have been some significant updates to both 

of those standards, so we're a little bit jealous 

of their continuous improvement in their 

standards.

But in my past experience, the closed 

positive lists do provide a lot of clarity, but 

they don't resolve all questions about materials 

that are allowed, because you have to look at the 

practice standards, and hierarchical systems 

leading up to the use of a material, and appropriate 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

restrictions. And there is less flexibility for 

materials being allowed.

So, the closed positive list does also 

have some unique considerations for new materials, 

new innovations, and you really have to wait for 

the periodic reviews to add new materials. So, 

it's worth looking at as a solution in some areas, 

and then recognizing that not any system is going 

to be perfect.

MR. ELA: Yeah. I guess one of the 

reasons that I asked is hearing that more recently, 

as we look at international equivalencies on all 

our materials, sunsets, and proposals, that really 

changes how you interpret whether something is 

listed, or not listed. We tend to assume 

everything is the same as our list, so I think that 

probably the board needs to be a little more 

educated on that, so that we really understand how 

to interpret those.

So, thanks for fielding that question, 

and thanks Kyla for reminding me what I was trying 

to wrack my brain for. So, any other questions? 

All right, thank you so much Johanna, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

appreciate it. We are going to move onto Wanda 

Jurlina, Jessica Shade, and then Thomas Buman. 

Wanda, name, and affiliation, and take the floor.

MS. JURLINA: All right, I think 

Michelle's going to put up a couple slides for me. 

My name is Wanda Jurlina, I work with IMCD, they're 

a global distributor of ingredients across food 

in a wide range of different industries. My area 

of focus is on ingredient essentiality. I have 

over 30 years of experience in developing, and 

processing a wide range of food products.

Next slide please. The first thing I'd 

like to remind the board, as we're looking at where 

we are today in this industry with carrageenan, 

I want to remind you that this is a functional, 

and empowering ingredient for many parts of the 

world. I've included a chart here from IMR 

International, they've also shared it in their 

written comments, but reminding folks that 

carrageenan, and in turn the seaweed farming that 

was mentioned earlier is a huge source of cash crop 

in many world regions.

Particularly in Southeast Asia, and off 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the coast of Africa where women can generate cash 

for their families to help support their families 

in today's day, and age. It's an amazing story 

if you ever take the time to learn more about it. 

On my part, I'm going to focus on the next couple 

of slides, and help you understand what makes 

carrageenan unique. Next slide please.

Plant based milks has been a category 

that has grown significantly in the last 15 years, 

with folks looking for options that they feel are 

more sustainable than the current dairy products 

that are on the market. Many different types of 

proteins are being used in these particular 

products, but they all come down to the same sets 

of challenges. They need suspension of insoluble 

proteins, or particulates of the insoluble calcium 

that they add to try and reach some nutritional 

equivalency with dairy based milks.

They look to seek some body mouth feel 

so that they taste like dairy milks. They need 

to emulsify the plant based oils that are used in 

them, and then I've added a category here, because 

not all of these options that I've listed here are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

suitable in organics. We really only have three 

choices in creating suspension in these plant based 

milks. Carrageenan is one of them, high acyl 

gellan gum, that is listed as a suitable 

ingredient.

And colloidal microcrystalline 

cellulose, which is labeled as cellulose gel, 

cellulose gum, which is not a choice for organic 

products. If you go through, and look at the 

parameters that suitable to this application, 

you'll see that carrageenan alone can meet all of 

these needs. 

MR. ELA: Thank you very much. Are 

there questions? Wood has a question for you.

MR. TURNER: Wanda, I appreciate your 

comments, I'm just curious about the impact that 

you see to the global production of carrageenan 

from organic restrictions versus conventional. 

I just don't quite understand how much of the 

production that you're describing from a global 

economic development standpoint is organic versus 

conventional.

MS. JURLINA: So, if you look at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

seaweed sourcing in the last 15, or 20 years, the 

amount of seaweed that continues to be pulled from 

the environment, so not farmed seaweed, has 

remained relatively consistent. The piece of the 

puzzle in meeting the demands of today has really 

come from farmed seaweeds. So, overall the growth 

in the carrageenan market has been supported by 

those farmed products, because there are limits 

to what can be taken from nature.

MR. ELA: Any other questions? Thank 

you very much Wanda, we do appreciate your 

testimony.

MS. JURLINA: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move onto 

Jessica Shade, Thomas Buman, and if Shanice, or 

Shanice Anderson is out there, can you please let 

the program know we don't see you. So, if Shanice 

is not there, we will move to Heather Spalding after 

Thomas Buman. So, Jessica, name, and affiliation, 

take the floor.

MS. SHADE: Great. Hi everyone, my 

name is Jessica Shade. I'm the director of science 

programs for The Organic Center. We are a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

nonprofit organization that communicates research 

on organic, and collaborates with academic, and 

governmental institutions to fill gaps in our 

knowledge. I'm going to try, and combine info on 

three topic areas that we commented on, so bear 

with me. 

First of all, I want to say thank you 

to the materials subcommittee for recommendations 

on research priorities. There was a questions to 

our stakeholders section of the document that we'd 

like to respond to, supporting investigations into 

benefits, and risks of livestock integration, and 

crop rotations, nutritional value of organic 

animal products, comparisons of pesticide, 

antibiotic, and synthetic growth hormone residues 

in organic, and vegetable products, and research 

into the effects of organic crop production on 

water.

We also encourage you to include 

priorities focused on how to protect organic 

farmers from chemical contaminants, and 

alternative to conventional celery powder for 

curing organic meat. We're also really happy to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

see the letter to Secretary Vilsack regarding 

climate change, and organic agriculture. We 

support the letter, and the proposed 

recommendations in response to the USDA's 90 day 

progress report.

We also had some additional points for 

consideration, and clarification with additional 

references that will emphasize the benefits of 

organic as supported by science that wasn't 

included in the final proposal, such as clarifying 

the impacts on the ban on synthetic fertilizers, 

and a stronger emphasis on higher levels of soil 

organic carbon in organic farms.

Finally we provided comments on ammonia 

extract, and would like to note that based on 

personal communication with researchers, and our 

review of the scientific literature, we found that 

ammonia products resulting from extraction are 

chemically the same as synthetic ammonia products, 

and their environmental impacts will depend on the 

chemical formula of the resulting product from 

extraction.

There's also a paucity of peer reviewed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

science on the environmental impacts of ammonia 

extract, so it's difficult to draw conclusions 

without a consistent analog, especially because 

the majority of available research hasn't been 

conducted in organic systems, the impacts of 

ammonia on soil health, and soil biodiversity are 

really variable across studies.

And research suggests that negative 

impacts of adding nitrogen fertilizers could be 

reduced if applied simultaneously with other soil 

amendments. So, thank you all so much.

MR. ELA: Thank you Jessica, very much 

appreciate your comments. Looks like we have a 

question from Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you for your 

comments Jessica. Could you speak, I think The 

Organic Center has put out papers describing how 

organic soils have a pretty incredible claim to 

being more, ultimately sequestering more carbon 

than conventional soils. What role do you think, 

on the conventional side, and ultimately AE, since 

as you just said, they're basically the same

chemical, what role do you think that might have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

on a declining ability to make that claim? 

Ultimately a reduction in carbon sequestration on 

organic farms.

MS. SHADE: Well, one of the easiest 

ways to see that organic adds carbon to soil is 

through the actual addition of carbon in compost, 

manure, et cetera. So, that's the number one thing 

that is building that carbon. There is also 

feeding the microbes, et cetera. That all has 

impact. But we did this review recently that 

looked at not just the impacts of each of these 

best practices, but also how long each of those 

took to show benefits to carbon in the soil.

And the best practices when it came to 

soil amendments had the biggest impact, and the 

fastest impact. And I think one of the things that 

contributes the most to that is the physical 

addition of carbon. And that's not to say that 

other forms can't have positive impact, and feeding 

those soil microbes does have a big impact, it just 

takes longer to see. So, I think when you start 

relying, especially exclusively on practices that 

don't include that addition of carbon, you're not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

going to see as much in the soil.

MR. POWELL-PALM: So, if I may follow 

up to that, there's more to manure, if I hear you 

right, than nitrogen, and phosphorous, which I 

think are kind of the two things that have been 

big in a way, that we have phosphorous pollution, 

and we need nitrogen, but there's food for microbes 

that exist only with manure in its original state, 

is that correct? Is that what you've seen in the 

research?

MS. SHADE: So, I think that the food 

for microbes is more complex. What I'm talking 

about is the actual carbon of the manure, inside 

the manure. So, it's not just feeding the 

microbes. Because straight nitrogen can do that 

too, but when you're really looking at things, the 

more complex that that food that's available for 

the microbes, and the actual structure that you're 

adding to the soil, you're going to see this whole 

suite of benefits for the soil.

It's not just the nitrogen, and 

phosphorous as you say Nate. It's really this more 

complex system that we have to think about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

holistically.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you so much.

MR. ELA: Other questions? I have a 

question Jessica, well actually two questions, one 

extremely technical, and one very, very broad. 

So, I'll try and hit you on both sides here. I'm 

not a biochemist, and it was not my best class in 

college, but I do have vague memories of it. Is 

there inherently a carbon to nitrogen ratio in a 

material that's protein, or amino acid based?

They have carbon structures, they have 

to to have a protein, or amino acid. And don't 

feel like you have to answer this, but it's my own 

curiosity of when we talk about the three to one 

ratio of whether you're using a protein, or amino 

acid, is it inherently above a certain C to N ratio?

MS. SHADE: That I don't know off the 

top of my head. But if you email me, I am happy 

to look into the literature, and try, and find that 

out for you.

MR. ELA: Yeah, that is a curiosity 

that when you're going to sleep at night, it pops 

into your brain, and keeps you awake. The much 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

more broad philosophical question is regarding 

climate change, and the NOSB, what would you 

suggest to us as a board if we were to start talking 

about, beyond just the organic systems plan, or 

as you say, the addition of actual organic matter, 

and I guess I'd like to know if cover crops include 

that versus manure.

But where would we go for continuous 

improvement if the board were going to put out a 

discussion document, or move forward on it, what 

would you do?

MS. SHADE: So, you're thinking about 

continuous improvement on the standards?

MR. ELA: Yeah, in pushing organic, how 

would we continuously improve with regard, 

specifically regard to climate change, and how 

could the board work on that?

MS. SHADE: Yes, I love this question, 

because one of my favorite things about the organic 

standards is how dynamic they are. And so I think 

that being able to be flexible as new research comes 

up is really important. And including things that 

we're starting to see as the specific strategies 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

within organics that are having those beneficial 

impacts. Because there's a plethora of research 

that shows that organic does better at having more 

carbon in the soil.

And now we're starting to have enough 

studies that we can actually piece out the pieces 

of the puzzle as to why organic is better. And 

if we can push for inclusion of those strategies 

that are having the biggest impact, I think that 

that would be the best way for continuous 

improvement. The complexity is that it's going 

to be different depending on where you live, what 

kind of soil you have, et cetera.

So, I can give my easy answer, but it's 

more complex than that, and I think it's going to 

be difficult to have a blanket improvement for the 

soil, for the NOSB just because if you're living 

in an area where erosion is your biggest problem, 

then you need to focus on reduced tillage. If 

you're living in an area where there isn't 

enough -- where soil compaction is a problem, then 

that's going to be a whole different strategy when 

it comes to building carbon.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So, there's my easy answer, and then 

the it's actually going to be more difficult than 

that answer.

MR. ELA: Yeah, it's a huge subject, 

I just kind of wanted to get your sense of where 

we might go if we were to work on it, and obviously 

Logan, and Nate, and Rick have all very much noted 

that oh my goodness, there are regional differences 

for some reason, so thank you. Two, and even 

though I'm my own worst enemy in trying to stay 

on time, two more questions, one from Nate, and 

one from Asa, if we could keep them tight.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Real quick Jessica, 

there's been a lot of talk about tillage in 

organics. And I was wondering if you could speak 

to kind of the relative relationship with tillage 

between organic, and conventional, and 

specifically that due to crop rotations, does 

organic till more than conventional?

MS. SHADE: So, if you look at the data 

that's released by NASS, organic doesn't actually 

use less conservation tillage than conventional. 

They're both kind of around the same amount, 40 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

percent, so not great, there's still a lot of room. 

But this is kind of one of those fallacies that

I hear over, and over again, that organic uses so 

much tillage, so it can't be that good. But when 

you actually look at the numbers, there isn't that 

big of a difference between organic, and 

conventional.

And I also will throw in a plug, just 

because this is another method that I hear, that 

the USDA ARS did this amazing study many years ago 

now that played to the critics, that actually 

looked at the difference between full till organic, 

and no till conventional, and still found that 

organic sequesters more carbon. So, even if that 

were the case, we'd still see higher carbon levels 

in organic soil.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Interesting. Asa? Asa, 

you're on mute.

MR. BRADMAN: Sorry. This is a little 

bit of a comment Steve, but I'll make it a question. 

I think in your letter highlighting the problems 

with inadvertent contamination of organic products 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

is an important one, and there's both contamination 

of the food itself, but also as we've seen with 

dicamba, and other risks related to impact on 

plants as well, I'm curious if you could tell us 

a little more about some of the work you're doing, 

and where you think that research needs to go.

MS. SHADE: Yeah, so we have a planning 

grant that's funded by the OREI that we're working 

on with Washington State right now that is doing 

this big survey of organic producers to see how 

many of them have experienced contamination. And 

one of the things we're hoping is that we'll get 

some baseline of data that we can write a full grant 

to address this issue.

Because it's something that I hear 

about a lot when I'm talking with farmers, but there 

hasn't been a lot of data collected, and the only 

data that I've actually seen is the most recent 

NASS data, which isn't that helpful, and also I 

get the feeling like organic producers are not 

eager to tell the USDA when they might have had 

a contamination event.

So, we're hoping that it'll be, we'll 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

make sure they know it's completely anonymous, et 

cetera, get some honest answers, and start looking 

at what kind of impacts they're having. So, is 

it monetary, are they losing crops, are they losing 

certification? Is it more a time issue? And then 

we're going to put together a full OREI proposal 

trying to drill into each of those issues 

individually.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you. And full 

disclosure, I've provided some advice on that. 

Also, I think another important place to go is to 

take advantage of monitoring, and testing that's 

been done by certifying agencies, and those of you 

who are listening, I think that we have an 

opportunity to conglomerate all the data that may 

be already existing.

Perhaps we can do it in a way that is 

confidential, but there's a lot of integration that 

may be out there that just really needs to be 

deidentified, and then analyzed to inform this 

issue.

MS. SHADE: Yeah, one of the points we 

want to make is that no matter whose fault it is, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

it's the organic farmers that end up paying for 

it. So, that's kind of our bottom line, is the 

organic farmers are the one paying for this. Let's 

figure out how that doesn't have to be the case, 

and, or how to make it stop.

MR. ELA: Perfect, well thank you to 

both of you for those thoughts as well. We're 

going to move on, thank you so much Jessica, we 

do appreciate it. We're going to move onto Thomas 

Buman. Again, if Shanice Anderson is on the line, 

let Michelle know, otherwise we'll jump over, and 

then Heather Spalding, and Jason Ellsworth. So, 

Thomas, name, and affiliation, and give us your

comments.

MR. BUMAN: Yes, are you able to hear 

me okay?

MR. ELA: You're good, go ahead.

MR. BUMAN: Okay, I cannot start my 

video, because it says the host has stopped it, 

so I'm not sure -- there I go, perfect. All right, 

thank you for the opportunity to provide oral 

comments. My name is Tom Buman, I'm the CEO of 

Precision Conservation. Today I'm asking you to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

spend a little more time considering the petition 

to eliminate the so called ammonium extracts based 

on four concerns I have.

First, the misinformation surrounding 

this issue. Second, the collateral impacts from 

this petition. Third, the environmental need for 

novel nitrogen products. And fourth, prohibiting 

nitrogen products based on the scale of livestock 

operations from which these products are derived. 

First I'm concerned about the misinformation 

surrounding the term ammonium extract. As far as 

I can tell, there is no evidence that any scientific 

researchers have attempted to define the term 

ammonium extract.

The definition provided in this 

petition is vague at best, and open to much 

interpretation, that will be a lot to ask of 

certifiers. The second issue is the collateral 

impacts from prohibiting ammonium extracts. I am 

concerned that the current wording would 

unintentionally affect organic products currently 

marketed. The definition does not make it clear 

which products would be prohibited, and what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

products would be allowed, at least to me.

The third issue I want to address is 

that organic environmental need -- the agronomic 

environmental need for novel organic nitrogen 

products. Organic farming should be considered 

the flag ship of environmental protection. 

Raminer (Phonetic.) and cover crops will always 

play an essential part of building soil fertility, 

and soil health in organic farming. However, to 

have the best environmental outcomes, organic 

farmers need access to an adequate supply of 

nitrogen sources that are reliable, immediately 

available, and naturally occurring. 

Only this will stop the guesswork in 

nitrogen crediting, and therefore leeching of 

excess nutrients. Fourth, there are many oral, 

and written comments calling for the prohibition 

of ammonium extracts because they are derived from 

so called conventional factory farm waste. If you 

are going to apply this standard to ammonium 

extract, then I suggest that you should also apply 

this standard to all organic products derived from 

animal byproducts including bloodmeal, bonemeal, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

feathermeal, compost, pelleted chicken manure, et 

cetera.

This seems like an incredible double 

standard. I encourage you reject all comments 

that are predicated on the scale of livestock 

operations, or apply the same standard to all 

organic products. Based on these four concerns, 

and other concerns voiced both yesterday, and today 

in oral comments, I strongly encourage the NOSB 

to setup a technical advisory panel that is 

educated, and trained in soil science, organic 

farming, and environmental outcomes, and can 

provide accurate, precise, scientific advice. 

Thank you for your efforts on NOSB.

MR. ELA: Thank you Tom, are there 

questions? Yes there are, one from Wood, one from 

Nate.

MR. TURNER: I totally appreciate your 

last comment about the double standard, I think 

it's really amazing to hear in the comments that 

somehow this is a different issue than so many other 

applications of manure. But I did want to ask you 

another question about, I sound like a broken 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

record here, but why is your reading on the 

collateral impacts different from some of the other 

folks that we've heard?

I'm very curious as to why you're 

reading that certain products, and I want to make 

sure I'm speaking clearly, there's things that I've 

mentioned before, I'm concerned about compost Ts, 

fish emulsions, compost. Less concerned about 

brand name products that may be of consideration. 

So, can you speak to that a little bit, and why 

your read of it is different than some of the other 

folks we've heard from?

MR. BUMAN: Yeah, I think when I speak 

to some of the people that kind of have had products 

out for awhile, they don't know if they're in, or 

they're out, right? They've been selling it, it's 

been listed by OMRI as approved, and they've been 

following under the guidelines, and they're just 

uncertain of whether they would be in, or out based 

on your petition.

MR. ELA: All right. We'll go to Nate, 

Logan, Amy.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I was just hoping to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

see, I believe -- or rather from yesterday we had 

a group of farmers talking about basically needing 

to compete with AE customers for the chicken 

litter. And I was wondering if you could speak 

to sort of the availability, and kind of what you 

see that impact as being. Obviously the costs of 

AE, and the value derived from processing manure 

into AE is really good for the processor, but also 

very much more expensive for the farmer.

And I was wondering, when we're talking 

about manure restrictions, and limitations as far 

as availability, what you're seeing out there.

MR. BUMAN: Well, I think there is 

certainly manure available out here. But I think 

my comment addressed that if you're going to let 

large animal operations provide manure for organic 

farmers, how is that different than this? Or 

bloodmeal, or feathermeal, or anything else? I'm 

just saying it either needs to be a standard when 

you consider large livestock operations, or it is 

not a standard that you apply.

Because certainly when you look at 

bloodmeal, feathermeal, bonemeal, all those are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

outputs of slaughterhouses that rely heavily on 

very large livestock operations.

MR. ELA: Okay, we're going to go to 

Logan, then Amy.

MS. PETREY: What is nitrogen 

crediting?

MR. BUMAN: Well nitrogen crediting is 

that how much you credit for your legume, how much 

you credit for your cover crop, how do you come 

up with that credit? And any time you're dealing 

with a cover crop, or legume, it depends on the 

warmth of the soil, the rainfall, there are a lot 

of factors that go in to make that nitrogen either 

available, or not available.

And so in certain years, or in most 

cases, the best way to mitigate that risk is to 

apply extra manure so that if the breakdown is slow, 

you've got enough nitrogen out there readily 

available right from the start, or whenever you 

need it. But in a good year, where a lot of 

nitrogen is released, then you have an 

overabundance of nitrogen. And balancing that 

nitrogen credit out is very difficult, impossible 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

from year to year.

So, with a readily available nitrogen 

source like ammonium extract allows you to be much 

more precise in getting your nitrogen right, and 

not having that leeching.

MS. PETREY: How much credit do you 

typically get from a legume? Does it vary a lot, 

or are you working with a pretty tight range?

MR. BUMAN: Well, I recently looked at 

all the states surrounding Iowa, and everybody is 

difficult. If you just take alfalfa, some states 

give alfalfa one year credit, some of them will 

give two year credit. Some states it depends on 

the quality of the stand, how many plants per square 

foot you have. Other states, they don't have that.

So, the recommendation of how much 

nitrogen is available after a legume crop is very 

much up in the air. It is a complicated issue.

MS. PETREY: So, in California they're 

starting to be really restrictive on the nitrogen, 

actually using the nitrogen credits, for growers, 

the legume as a cover crop, they're actually be 

used again, some percentage of nitrogen that they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

can apply on a crop, and it's going to be monitored. 

So, if it's not exactly very reliable, or hard 

to -- it may be hard to measure.

But it's still going to be used against 

the grower for total nitrogen in a crop, I can see 

that being kind of problematic to make sure that 

that crop is getting what it needs. But, so do 

you think it might be an unreliable measurement, 

at least to standardize it?

MR. BUMAN: I think you're facing an 

impossible task to decide how much from year to 

year in advance, how much your legume crop is going 

to release immediately available, and then how much 

manure you have to substitute along with that to 

be able to comply with your water quality 

standards.

MS. PETREY: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Yes, thank you Steve. 

Thanks for your comments today Tom, and your 

written comments. I saw that you're from Iowa, 

I'm from Nebraska, and there was one comment that 

was written that talks about cold, wet soils in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the spring, and how the amount of nitrogen maybe 

doesn't mineralize right away in those conditions.

And from my standpoint in our crops, 

and I know it's all regional based, but the amount 

of nitrogen we need early on is very low, especially 

in the spring for our crops. And when I look at 

root cause analysis, it's not necessarily I need 

to have more nitrogen to put on my soil to make 

it available, it's actually identifying what the 

root cause is, if it's mineralization, and it's 

cold, wet soils, it's probably mycorrhizal fungi 

not functioning versus the lack of nitrogen 

available, because it's in the soil.

So, I just wanted you to comment a 

little bit more on how your process is on root cause 

analysis versus just assuming that it's a nitrogen 

deficiency association, or a mineralization of 

nitrogen deficiency.

MR. BUMAN: So, I am not a soil 

scientist Amy, but from my standpoint, when I look 

at the research, some of the availability is based 

on the weather events, and not the soil type. Now, 

if there is information on the soil type that is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

readily available, and it helps people hone in on 

that, I have not seen that information, I don't 

think that's readily available.

I don't know how robust it is, I just 

think that the real concern for most farmers is 

do I have enough nitrogen when I need it, if the 

weather conditions are bad, or if I get a really 

wet spring, and I have a lot of leeching, and I 

run out in that three, four week period, there's 

a lot of things going on. I know the rainfall in 

Nebraska certainly isn't what it is in Iowa, you 

probably have a little more leeching issue with 

the heavier rainfalls, but I think that is still 

a very difficult thing to plan out, even if you 

said I have healthier soils.

MS. BRUCH: Sure. Thank you for your 

comment, appreciate it.

MR. ELA: I know we need to move on, 

but I'm going to again be my own worst enemy. A 

different type of question, you mentioned that we 

should convene a technical advisory panel rather 

than relying on the TR, and I know in the written 

comments that came up any number of times, that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the NOSB should be using TAPs, and not TRs based 

on past history. I guess do you agree that that, 

or it seems like you're alleging that that's kind 

of a procedural violation of how we look at things? 

Is that correct?

MR. BUMAN: I am not at all. I'm just 

saying that I think that this is a complex issue 

that deserves a deeper dive. How you deal with 

the implementation is not my call, so I don't see 

that as procedural, or not. I just think it's 

something that requires a deeper dive.

MR. ELA: Great, okay, I appreciate 

that, because certainly some commenters were 

accusing us of lack of -- or improper procedures, 

so I just want to double check. All right, thank 

you so much, we do appreciate your comments.

MR. BUMAN: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Next up we have Heather 

Spalding, then Jason Ellsworth. After Jason, 

we're going to take a break, we're definitely 

running behind time. After the break, we're going 

to go to Meghan Germick, but -- and I do want to 

mention that Asa is back on the call. I noted when 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

he had left, he's actually been back on the call 

for, I don't know, 15, or 20 minutes, but just to 

note that for sure for everybody to note.

You saw him ask the questions, so I 

guess that's inherent, but Heather, please state 

your name, and affiliation, and take the floor.

MS. SPALDING: Good afternoon 

everyone, I'm Heather Spalding, deputy director 

of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardener's 

Association. Thank you for the opportunity to 

speak, and for your tireless efforts to keep 

organics strong. MOFGA turned 50 in August, we're 

a broad based community working to create a food 

system that's healthy, and fair for all.

We started organic certification in 

1972, certifying 27 farms, and now we certify more 

than 500 (Inaudible.) We're a member of the 

National Organic Coalition, which has submitted 

detailed comments on our behalf. Here's what we 

want USDA to prioritize. Reinstate the organic 

livestock, and poultry practices rule, finalize 

the origin of livestock rule.

Finalize strengthening organic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

enforcement rule. Restore, and consider 

expanding the Organic Certification Cost Share 

program. Embrace organic agriculture as a key 

climate change solution, and build our food system 

back better with bold infrastructure investments. 

We also want USDA to honor, and elevate your role 

by increasing transparency about prospective 

members, providing financial support as needed for 

members to attend meetings.

Clearing the back log of your 

recommendations, allowing you to set your own work 

agenda, and reversing the 2013 policy change to 

the sunset process for synthetic materials on the 

national list. We urge NOSB to develop social 

justice standards for the NOP based on IFOAM's 

Principle of Fairness. Ensure fraud prevention 

through NOSB congressional funding rather than 

leaving it to certifiers, and operations.

Adopt the crop subcommittee proposals 

for ammonia extracts, and sodium nitrate as 

written. Require crop production to be based in 

the soil. Please add back to your work agenda, 

the (Inaudible.) production item. Require 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

further research to understand the long term 

effects of adding BBM film to the soil with 

petroleum based plastics. Soil contamination is 

a big topic in our neck of the woods.

Maine farmers are extremely worried 

(Inaudible.) fluorinated forever chemicals. 

PFAS contaminated farmland through decades of 

spreading sludge from municipal wastewater 

treatment facilities. PFAS is linked to many 

serious human health problems, we all have a PFAS 

body burden. Industry assured farmers that 

spreading sludge was safe, and now some have lost 

everything, including because of the PFAS 

contamination.

Organic farmland is not immune to this 

legacy. We also urge you to learn more about the 

growing threat of these ubiquitous forever 

chemicals, including their allowance as inerts in 

organic production. Thank you again for the 

opportunity to share our comments.

MR. ELA: Thank you so much Heather, 

are there questions? Asa has one for you.

MR. BRADMAN: I just want to thank you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

for raising again, issues around origin of 

livestock, and the poultry standards, there hasn't 

been so much talk about that at this meeting so 

far, but it's really tragic that the origin of 

livestock in particular after the Seattle meeting 

some time ago has not been implemented. And I 

think that is a real stain that needs to be 

addressed.

MS. SPALDING: Yes, thank you Asa, 

we're really feeling the effects of that. The 

dairy farms in Maine are feeling the effects of 

that right now with the pending loss of the horizon 

contracts.

MR. ELA: Other questions? I have a 

quick one, and I don't know if you can address it. 

But as a certifier involved in that, I know NOC 

came out with saying the ammonia extracts, they 

were in favor of all three motions. From the 

certifier perspective, do you see issues with how 

you would interpret those, or look at them when 

you're out on a farm?

MS. SPALDING: I don't know the answer 

to that, I'm not going to fudge that one. But we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

are fortunate in that we have, as you heard from 

Caleb Goossen, who is our organic crop specialist, 

we do have a very well established farmer programs 

division that's sort of between the firewall of 

MOFCA, and MOFCA certification services, so 

there's a lot of that that we can do to help farmers 

navigate that.

I'm not exactly sure how that would work 

with the certifier. And Chris Grigsby has 

submitted more detailed written comments, so he 

may have addressed that, but I certainly could try 

to get that information to you.

MR. ELA: Yeah, I'd be curious, and I 

didn't mean to put you on the spot, and I didn't 

know if it was an answer you could answer anyhow, 

but I was compelled to ask, so thank you so much 

Heather, we appreciate your comments.

MS. SPALDING: Thank you. 

MR. ELA: We are going to go to Jason 

Ellsworth, take a break, and after the break, 

Meghan Germick, if you're out there, we don't know 

where you are, and the same for Gladys Cooper. 

If neither of those two are there, then we'll go 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to Steve McCorkle after the break, and then Mike 

Menes.

So, just to give Steve, and Mike a 

head's up, you may bump up the schedule. But we 

will go to Jason Ellsworth. Jason, name, and 

affiliation, and give us your comments.

MR. ELLSWORTH: Good afternoon, my 

name is Jason Ellsworth with Wilbur-Ellis Company. 

I have a PhD in soil fertility from Iowa State 

University, I spent my time there, and my time since 

looking for ways to improve fertilizer, and 

nutrient use efficiency in rural crops. In order 

to continue the trend of double digit growth the 

organic industry has enjoyed these many years, we 

must increase the number of organic acres in the 

U.S., and the production on those acres.

As stewards of the land, we must 

continue to enhance the soil with sustainable 

practices, reduce our carbon footprint, and 

increase the sustainability of our soils, and 

protect our environment. Now, the criteria for 

the selection of fertilizers for use within organic 

production seems to be based on fundamental 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

misunderstandings of where, and how plants acquire 

nutrients. 

And these criteria are then implemented 

arbitrarily, and inconsistently across nutrient 

sources. We have to increase the nutrient use 

efficiency from fertilizer products we currently 

have if we are going to continue to rely on animals 

as the basis for plant (Inaudible.) while at the 

same time increase yields, and the availability 

of organic food, we must capture, and use every 

bit of nutrients, nitrogen in this case, from every 

source we have at our disposal.

Now, what better way to accomplish all 

of the objectives of organic agriculture than to 

capture nutrients normally lost to the environment 

in a natural, and sustainable way from common waste 

sources. Enabling these nutrients to be used 

judiciously, and appropriately with greater regard 

to the environment. Not one proponent of ammonia 

extracts, or manure derived products has suggested 

that soil health is not a concern.

Every one of them, in both written, and 

oral comments, has said that the additions of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

carbon to soil practices to maintain, and improve 

soil health with such things as cover crops, and 

no till, and the judicious use of fertilizers are 

paramount to soil health, and the integrity of the 

organic program. I worry that the NOP will not 

take up anything the NOSB sends forward because 

of the clear, and plentiful comments on both sides 

of the issue.

While this would seem a win for some, 

I believe it is in the best interest of the NOSB 

to come up with a proposal that could be agreed 

upon by all parties. These proposed rule changes 

must be reconsidered, and I encourage you to send 

it back to committee. Thank you for your time 

toady.

MR. ELA: Thank you, appreciate it, and 

Nate has a question for you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I just wanted to 

explore a little bit more, your statement of waste 

streams. It sounds like from the commenters 

yesterday, that there's a bit of a shortage of 

manure, that folks are having a hard time getting 

their hands on it. But you're saying it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

something that's just kind of thrown away. And 

so, I'm curious as to why don't we just put the 

manure on the land?

Why do we need to have this intermediary 

step if we're trying to ultimately clean up the 

environment as best we can? If we're seeing it 

as a means of dealing with excess manure.

MR. ELLSWORTH: That is a good 

question. So, one of the issues is that while people 

have manure, they're limited because of, for 

example their soil test phosphorous levels, so they 

can only put down enough manure to satisfy their 

soil test phosphorous requirements, and they're 

still left with the nitrogen shortage. We're in 

a situation now with fertilizer prices, and along 

with everything, but fertilizer prices especially, 

that are just incredibly high now.

And so manure has a new found value. 

In fact we know of conventional growers who are 

putting down manure because the phosphorous, and 

potassium is less expensive than their traditional 

sources of phosphorous, and potassium. So, that's 

really been a source of frustration, and caused 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

some concern among organic growers, because it's 

harder, and that is driving the prices up. The 

other thing --

MR. POWELL-PALM: Let me follow up on 

that thread real quick. Would you say that the 

competition for manure then would not increase? 

Because there's now raw manure competition from 

both manufacturers, like Wilbur-Ellis as well as 

conventional growers. I think something that's 

always struck me about organics, is that the power 

of the organic dollar is left really to the farmers, 

because there isn't this big fertilizer bill to 

pay.

And we also have a lot of stability in 

organics, because there's not this deep 

correlation between inputs, and the nitrogen used 

to grow the food. Do you see us going more towards 

purchased fertilizer playing a larger role across 

the board with the allowance of ammonia extracts, 

or are we safer to have more stable fertilizer usage 

just through manure with farms using manure 

directly?

MR. ELLSWORTH: Well, stable becomes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a relative term, especially when you start looking 

at manure applications in the Delaware Bay, and

up around Ohio. So, some of those issues that 

we've had with nutrient contamination can be 

pointed back to phosphorous, and nitrogen release 

from manure. But I mean in my comments this time, 

and especially the one in April where I talk about 

some verify specific cases where these products 

would be used in addition to manure.

So, as an example, the 4-4-2 that is 

the byproduct, or the end result of one of these 

processes still has the same nitrogen 

concentration of the raw product. And that's 

because we're capturing what's normally lost in 

that process. And so we have to consider the whole 

system, and how all of those things work together.

MR. POWELL-PALM: And this is my last 

follow up Steve, I promise. The 4-4-2 product, 

pellets are 45 bucks a ton direct from the barn 

to the farmer, that 4-4-2 product is about 165 

dollars a ton, what's the benefit to the farmer? 

Where do we see this as, if you need to have long 

significantly diverse crop rotations, and manure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

just becomes very, very expensive, how are we 

helping organics grow in a meaningful way? As 

opposed to just propping up conventional?

MR. ELLSWORTH: If you're getting raw 

manure for 45 bucks a ton, there's a lot of growers 

that want to talk to you, because that's not the 

case. The biggest thing is, is that with the 

crumbles, and the pellets, it gives growers a wider 

latitude in how they can apply it, and how they 

can store it. It's drier, and it spreads easier, 

so they have less passes through the field. It 

comes down to a logistics thing.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you for the 

comment.

MR. ELA: We're going to jump to Amy, 

and then Logan.

MS. BRUCH: Hey, thank you Steve. 

Thanks Jason for your time today, and your written 

comments. I must admit, I went to Iowa State, took 

agronomy 212, and I don't remember this pneumonic 

device that you share in your written comments, 

but anyway, I learn something new every day. But 

I wanted to follow up on your answer to Nate. You 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

had mentioned that some producers fertilize, or 

apply their manure based on their phosphorous 

content, and that might be excessive.

So, at the end of the day though, just 

applying ammonia extract to give you more nitrogen 

still doesn't get rid of our phosphorous problem, 

and when we're trying to troubleshoot, and do root 

cause analysis in our organic systems, we still 

have a problem with phosphorous. So, how do you 

long term think your way out of this phosphorous 

problem?

Because I don't see it being solved 

necessarily just because you're adding in a 

nitrogen source. So, I just wanted to hear your 

thoughts on that.

MR. ELLSWORTH: Well, I mean the two 

are different. We're using two tools to satisfy 

a crop need. So, in terms of solving the 

phosphorous, that's just going to take time. And 

through crop removal, we'll mine that phosphorous 

down. What we're doing, or what we suggest with 

the ammonia extract is that my soil test is high, 

and so I can't put anymore manure down, but my crop 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

still needs that nitrogen, and potassium for that.

And let's talk about potassium, another 

mined soluble nutrient that we put into the soil 

that doesn't necessarily fit the feed the soil, 

feed the plant mantra. But one of them, we're 

trying to limit the environmental impact of the 

phosphorous, and the other one, we're just trying 

to supply the crop need for nitrogen. And we're 

applying products that have NPK in them, then we 

have to limit the one that's going to contribute 

to the most damage, and in this case it would be 

the phosphorous.

MS. BRUCH: And I think that's the 

differentiating factor here. With organic 

farming it is this long term thought process, and 

it's not always feed the plant, because we do have 

to solve some of these nutritional balances. So, 

I think that's why producers are starting to opt 

to grow the nitrogen out, and not necessarily plant 

the high nitrogen demanding crops to then reset 

themselves to square one. So, okay, thank you, 

appreciate it.

MR. ELLSWORTH: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Hi. Okay, so we grow a 

lot of high nitrogen crops as vegetables, but to 

point out on the application methods of the end 

product, yes, you can use it in season, where if 

you're using a raw product, you're actually going 

to be using a completely different spreader, I mean 

the row spacing on it, you would run over the crop 

if you were to apply this because of the type of 

spreader that you have to use.

So, your process is giving something 

that is pelletized, or of course that can be used 

in season, and there's a lot of that product already 

out there, that pasteurizer, that cooked litter. 

Could you -- people are concerned with taking the 

raw that may be used by commodity type growers that 

need a lower cost around the 45, or 50. I mean 

we're getting litter about the 45, or so as a raw 

product.

So, the fear is that we're going to take 

away that product, and turn it into this expensive 

cooked, or pasturized product that is very needed, 

or essential for vegetable growers because of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

food safety concerns. I mean you have to use these 

pasturized products in season, and because we need 

sidedress applications for linking stuff, but 

could you partner with people who are already 

making that product to make the ammonia extract, 

and then there's not that threat to the other 

growers that are relying on that raw, and think 

that it's going to become a limited source?

MR. ELLSWORTH: One of the things that 

I see is that there's a real disconnect between 

the (Inaudible.) treated, finished product. And 

so to build a system to connect --

MS. PETREY: Did y'all miss that? Did 

everybody miss that? Okay, can you go back about 

a minute, it paused for a little bit.

(Simultaneous speaking.) 

MR. ELLSWORTH: I muted it there --

MS. PETREY: Just start over with my 

answer, yeah, thank you.

MR. ELLSWORTH: I'm getting an 

internet unstable error. There's a real 

disconnect between the manure producer, and the 

grower that needs it. We've seen situations where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a chicken, a hen house, or an operation is shipping 

manure to the east coast, or a swine operation is 

shipping manure 3, and 400 miles away, because the 

person who needs it, that's the only person they 

know to go to.

And so there's a disconnect in that, 

and that's one respect, but somebody that could 

develop a tool that could connect either the raw 

product, or a finished, heat treated product with 

producers that are closer, I mean then we're 

limiting the carbon consumption in all this 

trucking, but we're getting people connected with 

a product that they need. And to me, we're just 

not doing enough for that.

When we're shipping raw manure, we're 

shipping all that water, and dry material hundreds 

of miles for the sake of storing carbon, but how 

much are we burning in that process? So there

really need to be something done to hook up those 

growers with a provider that's quite a bit closer.

MS. PETREY: Also is your nitrogen 

content higher in the end part because you are 

pulling the water out of it, so it is a drier source?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELLSWORTH: That adds too, so it's 

the -- I mean you're going from a 30 to 35 percent 

moisture down to a 12, or 13 percent moisture in 

that. You're only --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. PETREY: (Inaudible.) water, 

correct, yeah.

MR. ELLSWORTH: And that's just one of 

many, it would be the same with dairy, or swine 

as well.

MS. PETREY: Yeah, thank you Jason.

MR. ELA: One quick question on 

economics that we've been kind of questioning on 

here, but if the price of manure is going up because 

of conventional demand, that's one outlet, so 

wouldn't the price of manure to make ammonia 

extracts also be going up? Because your 

alternative market would be the higher priced 

material.

So, it seems to me that it wouldn't be 

suddenly that ammonia extracts would be more cost 

competitive, because the base material is also 

going up. Am I thinking correctly?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELLSWORTH: You are right. 

Everything, anything that's used as a nutrient in 

agriculture is going up across the board. I mean 

the growers that 20 years ago were looking at this 

as waste are saying hey, I can get a little extra 

income here, and they're starting to charge, and 

that's economics, capitalism.

MR. ELA: Yeah, so I know, you can look 

at my (inaudible) but thank you so much, we do 

appreciate you.

MR. ELLSWORTH: Thank you, appreciate 

your work.

MR. ELA: We are going to take a short 

break. Because our next, the two speakers aren't 

here, it's going to really help us. On the other 

hand, it would be great to get at least a few people 

on the wait list, so I'm going to say let's take 

a ten minute break, and then settle in for the last 

lap here. So, let's come back at a quarter after 

the hour, and dive back into it.

If anybody needs a little bit longer, 

go ahead, but we'll start working down the list 

at a quarter after. All right, take care.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 4:05 p.m.)

MR. ELA: I know that was a really short 

break for everybody, but we're going to dive back 

into it. And so we're going to start 

with -- Michelle, Meghan Germick and Gladys Cooper, 

you haven't found them yet, have you?

MS. ARSENAULT: I have not, nor have 

I seen their phone numbers. I checked to see if 

they were just on the phone, but I don't see them.

MR. ELA: Okay. So we'll just say, 

Meghan Germick or Gladys Cooper, if you're on with 

us, somehow please let Michelle know. And if you 

are, we'll come back to you.

So we're going to go to Steve McCorkle, 

followed by Mike Menes and then Zen Honeycutt.

So, Steve, name and affiliation, and 

give us your comments, please.

MR. McCORKLE: Okay. Well, good 

afternoon. Can you all hear me okay?

MR. ELA: It sounds great. Go ahead.

MR. McCORKLE: All right. So my name 

is Steve McCorkle. I'm founder and CEO of Ag Waste 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Solutions, which is a company formed to produce, 

actually, cow manure biochar and carbon-negative 

transportation fuels.

So I'm going to comment today on Listing 

205.602(a) in support of the proposed annotation 

from the Crops Subcommittee. The sustainability 

of the food production and animal agricultural 

industry will be significantly enhanced by this 

new adaptation.

As most of you know, Nestle, the largest 

food company in the world, is now requiring their 

150,000-some-odd providers to reduce their carbon 

emissions to achieve net zero compliance. As 

Nestle goes, the rest of the industry will soon 

follow because the goal is driven by consumer 

demand, the most significant economic driver in 

any industry.

Dairy digesters are often seen as the 

only solution to promote sustainability and carbon 

neutrality in the cow manure industry. However, 

digesters are only one piece of the puzzle required 

to bring the industry to sustainable carbon 

neutrality performance. Improved raw manure and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

digestate management practices are the other 

pieces of the puzzle, and cow-manure-derived 

biochar completes the puzzle.

Organic classification of 

cow-manure-derived biochar opens new 

opportunities for smaller-scale, regional farms 

to more sustainably manage their raw digestate and 

manure digestate as valuable resources rather than 

as waste to be disposed of, especially in regions 

where digesters are not feasible or cannot be 

permitted due to the digestate issues. And then 

seeing high greenhouse gas manure sources in the 

cow-manure-derived biochar significantly reduces 

greenhouse gas emissions.

The integration of biochar production 

with anaerobic digestion increases the conversion 

efficiency of manure feedstocks into 

carbon-negative products, thus decarbonizing the 

environment while enhancing financial incentives.

Cow-manure-derived biochar from a true 

pyrolysis process increases soil organic matter 

and can convert dying or dead dirt into healthy, 

productive soils. It has positive impacts on crop 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

yields, provides an effective sorbent for 

nutrients and contaminants, improves water quality 

and availability, and generates carbon credits and 

offsets.

Products generated from the syngas 

coproducts of biochar productions, such as 

low-carbon transportation fuels, reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions even further. Burning 

the syngas instead of petroleum fuel as the 

pyrolysis heat source reduces the carbon intensity 

of the entire process.

Thus I hope you can see the benefits 

of organic classification of cow-manure-derived 

biochar far outweigh any perceived disadvantages. 

New precedents and bold actions are required to 

achieve our decarbonization and sustainability 

goals, and it is time to remove the 26-year ban 

on the organic classification of 

cow-manure-derived biochar.

Thank you for hearing my comments and 

for all of the good work of the NOSB.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Brian has a 

question for you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CALDWELL: Thank you, Steve. I 

really appreciate the comments. In the past, I 

think that one of the objections to burning manure 

was the loss of nitrogen that would happen because 

of that. And so I'm just wondering, what is the 

fate of the nitrogen that's originally in the 

manure in your process?

MR. McCORKLE: Well, in our process, 

we have a slow pyrolysis process that does 

volatilize some of the nitrogen off, but it also, 

if you properly form the biochar matrix in the 

process, retains quite a bit of nitrogen. So you 

will lose some, but it retains some more.

But in our model for working alongside 

of an anaerobic digester, for example, where we 

take the more than 50 percent carbon that is still 

remaining in the digestate, we dewater that and 

create a nutrient-balanced fertigation water. 

And then, from the solids that are separated from 

the liquids, we make biochar and transportation 

fuels.

But as we apply or the farmer applies 

the fertigation water, which is nutrient balanced 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and nitrogen rich, that will also be not 

volatilized as much as it would be if it was just 

land-applied, and the biochar will kind of soak 

it up and retain it, giving more available 

nutrients, and nitrogen in particular, to the 

crops.

MR. CALDWELL: That sounds good. What 

is the actual nitrogen content of the biochar 

product?

MR. McCORKLE: I don't have that right 

in front of me, but it varies with the quality of 

the manure and the availability of the manure, that 

kind of thing. But it's about one part nitrogen 

to three or four parts phosphorus and potassium.

MR. CALDWELL: Just one last question. 

I'm sorry to draw us out, but is the potential 

for organic toxins to be produced, like creosote 

type of materials, higher in high-temperature 

pyrolysis or low-temperature pyrolysis?

MR. McCORKLE: Well, in both, if you 

are -- it's kind of a hard question to answer 

because if you're talking about PAHs and other 

aromatics, those are typically produced more in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

lower-temperature pyrolysis than in 

high-temperature pyrolysis. But in 

high-temperature pyrolysis, they will be 

volatilized more and retained in the solids.

So, in low-temperature pyrolysis or in 

slow pyrolysis, which is our process, we have to 

remove all of those potential contaminants before 

they have the opportunity to get into the solid 

biochar product.

MR. CALDWELL: Thank you very much.

MR. McCORKLE: You're welcome.

MR. ELA: Other questions?

Two quick questions for me, and then 

it looks like Asa has one. So when you say you 

have to remove those contaminants, where do they 

go?

MR. McCORKLE: So they get removed in 

a water treatment process, and they basically go 

into an agglomerated solid that is -- it's our only 

waste product, actually. We can send it back 

through the pyrolysis unit to make more syngas, 

or we can crack it to make transportation fuels 

or fuel for the pyrolysis burner.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So cracking it is kind of an expensive 

process. It can be landfilled as well, but again, 

it's a very small volume in comparison to the rest 

of the manure. But we do have the technology to 

crack it into more syngas to fuel the process.

MR. ELA: And then you mentioned 

nutrient-balanced water, but then -- what does 

nutrient balanced mean?

MR. McCORKLE: Well, it means that 

we -- through a centrifugal process, we remove 

about 90 percent of the total suspended solids, 

over five microns in size. And we've tested the 

machinery and the process through many 

accreditation agencies.

And in doing so, the science has shown 

us that we can remove about 90 percent of the 

phosphorus from the water, about two-thirds of the 

TKN nitrogen, and about 40 percent of the salt, 

basically, depending on what kind of polymer you 

might use.

If you don't use a polymer, you're going 

to have more nitrogen into the water, which is 

probably good for nitrogen-starved environments. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

But that's the process we use, basically, to 

produce this -- what we call a nutrient-balanced 

water.

MR. ELA: Okay.

Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah, I just want to 

follow up on Steve's question. He kind of asked 

my question. When you say PAH is removed by water 

process, if we look at the (inaudible) of PAHs that 

are like three to six -- so how efficient is that 

water process? I would think you would need some 

other kind of solvent. Do you use solvents beyond 

water?

MR. McCORKLE: Well, the PAHs are in 

the gas as it was produced, the syngas. So the 

first part of the water treatment system basically 

blasts some high-pressure streams of water through 

the gas to drop out all of the solids, and the PAHs 

would be in those solids. It converts into solids 

at that point, and then they're fairly easily 

removed.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay. Thank you.

MR. McCORKLE: You still have to treat 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the water further to produce recyclable water 

because we have a closed-loop process that can cool 

itself based on that treated water and recycle the 

cooling water.

MR. BRADMAN: And when you say it can 

be cracked for fuel or landfill, how much is used 

for fuel and how much is landfill?

MR. McCORKLE: Well, we can use it all. 

If we crack it all, we can use it all for fuel 

for the process.

MR. BRADMAN: But a local producer is 

probably not going to necessarily have that 

equipment. So if you don't crack it -- you talked 

about this being a resource for local producers. 

If it's not refined -- I guess what -- you're 

saying it all can be cracked, but I guess how common 

is it for facilities who do this to produce fuel 

versus essentially a toxic landfill material?

MR. McCORKLE: Well, it can all be 

cracked through our proprietary process, but we 

operate with a build-own-operate model where we 

are operating the equipment, so we don't have to 

depend on local producers in order to crack the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

PAHs or the tars into more syngas to fuel the burner 

or the process or for any other purpose.

So I'm a little confused by your 

question about local producers.

MR. BRADMAN: Well, I guess, you said 

that it could be cracked for fuel or landfill. 

How much is actually -- do you crack for fuel, and 

how much do you landfill?

MR. McCORKLE: Well, it's a more 

expensive process, obviously, to crack it into 

fuel. But it can all be cracked into fuel, 

depending on the capital resurgence of the product 

itself.

MR. BRADMAN: I guess I'm not 

saying -- I understand it can be, but I'm just 

interested, like on a given operation, how often 

does that happen, and how much is landfilled? Do 

you have a proportion, or it just some/all goes 

to landfill, and some/all goes to fuel?

MR. McCORKLE: Yeah, we don't have a 

proportion yet because we haven't actually done 

that on a commercial basis yet. But we're starting 

a commercial project now; we will be doing that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And I can't give you those exact proportions.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay. Thank you.

MR. McCORKLE: Mm-hmm.

MR. ELA: All right. Thank you very 

much, Steve. Appreciate it.

We are going to move on to Mike Menes, 

Zen Honeycutt, and then Zea Sonnabend.

So, Mike, name and affiliation, and 

start your comments.

MR. MENES: Good afternoon. I just 

want to do a quick sound check. You guys can hear 

me okay?

MR. ELA: You're good.

MR. MENES: Good. Thank you.

My name's Mike Menes, VP of Food Safety 

and Technology at True Organic Products. Thank 

you to the NOSB for your tireless efforts in 

protecting the organic seal. I want to thank you 

for your complete review of ammonia extract. Your 

review was very in depth and included the 

discussion document, technical review, and the 

detailed proposal with multiple opportunities to 

publicly engage in the process.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

The result was the Crop Subcommittee 

proposal that captured the intent of the petition. 

As a petitioner, I can say that we fully support 

the three motions outlined in the proposal. The 

Crop Subcommittee was effective in producing 

definitions that encompass the current and future 

forms of ammonia extract.

In addition, comments from OMRI, the 

ACA, and it turns out the OEFFA have said that AE 

definitions are complete, sufficient, and clear 

and verifiable. Our hope was to bring to light 

that a nonsynthetic source of ammonia had begun 

to be used in organic crop production.

Our position is that there is no place 

for AE in organic. Our organic approach is very 

simple. An ammonia or ammonia fertilizer is 100 

percent time available. Other organic 

fertilizers are protein based and require soil 

organisms to help them break down.

Ammonia is direct, just like a 

synthetic fertilizer, while traditional organic 

fertilizers are slower acting and rely on 

biological-based cycles in the soil.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So the assertion by the TR that AE is 

chemically identical to synthetic ammonia and 

ammonium compounds is absolutely correct. There 

is no debate that the plants cannot differentiate 

between AE and synthetic ammonia.

A recurring topic is the concern of 

unintended consequences for non-targeted 

materials. As a fertilizer manufacturer, we would 

naturally have concern for this. Our analysis of 

many nitrogen-containing inputs shows that the 

proposed definition of AE will not affect the other 

fertilizers used by organic growers.

The key concept provided by this Crop 

Subcommittee is separating, isolating, and/or 

capturing of ammonia or ammonium.

Next slide, please.

For example, manure slurry requires 

only the removal of solids, not the separation, 

isolation, or capturing of ammonia. So it's not 

prohibited. Protein hydrolysates, fish 

emulsions, does not require separation, isolation, 

or capturing of ammonia. It's not prohibited. 

None of these exceed three percent ammoniacal 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

nitrogen, and they don't separate ammonia.

We agree with OMRI and the ACA, and the 

definition is clear. And the definition is clear 

and produced the desired results.

I'll leave you with this. If you put 

a protein in the ground with no plant, the soil 

gets richer. It's being fed. If you put AE in 

the ground with no plant, ammonia will just 

dissipate.

In closing, don't get distracted. AE 

is 100 percent plant-available nitrogen and will 

take us a step closer to conventional farming 

practices. Continue to build consumer confidence 

and protect the seal by prohibiting AE in organic.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Mike. Appreciate 

that.

Are there questions from the Board? 

Let's hear Logan.

MS. PETREY: Hi. Can AE be added to 

one of your products with a carbon base to raise 

the nitrogen level so that the available nitrogen 

would be higher? Could you use it in that way?

MR. MENES: We're the petitioner of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

ammonia extract prohibition, so I haven't 

considered combining any of those. We haven't 

traditionally combined anything including sodium 

nitrate in any of our blends, and so haven't 

considered blending --

MS. PETREY: You do add guano in?

MR. MENES: Absolutely. The guano is 

included in some of our --

MS. PETREY: Why do you add guano?

MR. MENES: We add guano because it's 

a good source of -- it makes a great fertilizer.

MS. PETREY: Right. I mean, it has a 

very high availability, nitrogen availability, in 

its contents. Is that one of the main benefits 

that our growers want in the guano?

MR. MENES: Well, we use it because 

it -- again, it just makes a great fertilizer.

MS. PETREY: I mean, I agree with you. 

I order it during the winter when I get (inaudible) 

from you guys so that I can get an available 

nitrogen from it. And I've seen on your website 

that it has the benefits of guano added to your 

products.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And so I just -- I don't know what the 

difference would be. It's also evading the 

microbial breakdown. It's going straight to the 

plant. And so, if you're using that, I don't know 

the difference of using ammonia extract.

MR. MENES: Under the current 

definition, guano is not separating, isolating, 

or capturing ammonia. So we are able to use it 

in that regard --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. PETREY: No, you're certainly able 

to use it. It's just the concept of using it is 

where it's the -- you know, the nitrogen and the 

readily available nitrogen source that we could 

get out of it as a consumer.

MR. MENES: We haven't considered 

combining it at this time.

MS. PETREY: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Brian and then Nate.

MR. CALDWELL: Thanks, Mike. I'm a 

bit concerned about some of the definitions. And 

in particular, you showed us a slide saying that 

there could be manure, and then water would be added 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to it, and then the slurry then would be -- the 

solids would be removed, and then the liquid would 

be applied to the field. Is that right?

MR. MENES: Can you repeat that again, 

Brian? I'm sorry.

MR. CALDWELL: Am I breaking up? I 

hope not. But -- there we go. This slide that's 

up there right now, it says manure -- you add water. 

You got manure slurry. Then you filter it, and 

the filtered slurry is applied to the field. Is 

that right?

MR. MENES: Yes. That's my 

understanding.

MR. CALDWELL: So how is that not 

separating a bunch of nutrients via water, via just 

adding water, from the original feedstock and then 

applying to the field, including some ammonia?

MR. MENES: Okay. That's great. 

You'll see that the difference is, in some of the 

other examples that I give, that the ammonia is 

very low. Ammonia is not the purpose -- manure 

slurry, I don't believe, is purpose (inaudible) 

for getting nitrogen content out there. Again, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

you have a lot of other techniques to be able to 

use that.

I think the focus there really is -- and 

this is in the case of compost tea also -- is the 

biological activity that we'll be using there. 

Certainly, nitrogen is certainly part of it. But 

I'd like to focus on the separation, isolation, 

and capture of ammonia itself.

So if we're looking at the filtering 

process, is there truly separation there? What 

we learned today and in a number of cases is that 

when you filter it, the remaining solids will have 

ammonia, and in fact as high as four percent. 442 

and -- or 443, I think, was mentioned earlier.

That four percent, that means that 

there's nitrogen or ammonia in there, in that 

solid. So that ammonia has come from somewhere 

when you start filtering it off. Sure, there will 

be some ammonia that goes with the water side of 

it, but there's also some that stays with the solid 

part of it. So it's not separating.

I don't see that as separating. That's 

why I feel that the definitions are appropriate: 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

separating, isolating, and capturing of ammonia.

MR. CALDWELL: So, in your mind, you 

would have to be removing all or virtually all of 

the ammonium from the original substrate in order 

for separation to have occurred?

MR. MENES: Yeah, I would look at, 

also, the -- well, for example, the soybean 

example --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. CALDWELL: I'm just -- I guess, in 

my mind, just kind of reading things very 

literally, it seems like some ammonia is being 

separated from the original substrate, and then 

it -- so it seems to me that that material that's 

applied to the field would be considered stripped.

So I'm just -- I don't want to nitpick 

anymore, but I just want to kind of have that out 

there. And I see what your response is. So thank 

you very much. It's just kind of a confusing 

issue.

MR. MENES: Yeah, absolutely. I see 

it being very -- thank you for your question.

MR. ELA: Anything else?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Thank you, Mike. We appreciate it.

We are going to move on to Zen 

Honeycutt, Zea Sonnabend, and Doug Currier.

Zen, name, affiliation, and start your 

comments.

MS. HONEYCUTT: Hi, everyone. Thank 

you. I'm Zen Honeycutt, and I'm the founder and 

Director of Moms Across America, and I'm speaking 

on behalf of moms. I appreciate everything that 

you do so much.

You may not know today is Children's 

Environmental Health Day. So I find it very 

fitting that I'm speaking to you about keeping 

toxins out of our children's environment and their 

food. And we would like to ask you to please 

continue to keep these following toxins out of our 

food supply and work harder to keep them out of 

the organic food supply.

And that is heavy metals, especially 

in baby food, and we ask the NOSB to support testing 

and the legislation which is going on right now. 

Also, carrageenan, which can lead to stomach 

ulcers and stomach cancer. My son has a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

carrageenan allergy, and the only way that we could 

determine that was through extensive alternative 

testing, not Western medical testing. And most 

people cannot afford that, so this is really a 

socioeconomic issue to continue to allow 

carrageenan in the food supply and for people to 

be able to respond in a way that takes care of their 

health.

Number three, antibiotics, which 

clearly weaken the immune system, and that's 

something we do not need right now around the world. 

And copper sulfate. We also ask you to consider 

that -- continue testing for glyphosate herbicide 

contamination because you may not know that 

glyphosate herbicides, Roundup, contains PEG, 

polyethylene glycol, which the FDA acknowledges 

has been connected to anxiety, tics, seizures, 

irritability, hostility, aggressive behavior, 

homicidal and suicidal ideation, emotional 

blunting, and depression -- so obviously not 

something we need in America right now.

I would ask you to consider that we have 

a crisis in trust in America right now, and that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

particularly in the food system. Too many of our 

moms and parents question the integrity of the USDA 

organic symbol, and it's heartbreaking because I 

personally have been working on it for nearly ten 

years of my life to promote organic. We've put 

up billboards in 191 locations, five of them over 

the period of a year, getting millions of eyeballs 

to learn about the benefits of organic, and parades 

and millions of social media posts.

And to be really honest with you, we 

do not want to have to do this all over again for 

real organic or regenerative organic. We prefer 

that organic processes just evolve to become real 

and regenerative. And we submit that it does not 

have to be either/or.

So I respectfully request that the 

industry stop fighting and start working together. 

Consumers are exhausted by the drama in our lives, 

and we don't need more from the very groups we 

depend on to keep our children healthy.

So we ask you to do what you do best, 

which is create healthy, nutritious food that 

literally keeps our children out of the hospital. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Our children cannot live without you, so please 

do continue to do your jobs in that way in keeping 

our food safe.

And we assert that if a farmer says that 

they need a chemical to grow a food, that is a 

desire, not a need. They need to grow food to keep 

that is safe and healthy for consumers, especially 

for our children, and we need you to make sure that 

our food stays safe. And thank you very much for 

doing so.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Zen.

Questions?

MS. HONEYCUTT: Thank you for your 

time.

MR. ELA: I'm not seeing any. Thank 

you so much for sharing your thoughts. We 

appreciate it.

We are going to go on to Zea Sonnabend, 

then Doug Currier, followed by Bill Wolf.

So, Zea, name and affiliation, and give 

us your thoughts.

MS. SONNABEND: Okay. Can you hear 

me?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Yeah, we can. Go ahead.

MS. SONNABEND: Okay. Hi. My name is 

Zea Sonnabend from Fruitilicious Farm in 

Watsonville, California. I was on the NOSB from 

2012 to 2017, and so I know exactly how much work 

you all have to do. And I would like to applaud 

you for taking up the mantle after I left the Board 

to continue on this important work.

I also spent a career working as an 

organic inspector and materials wonk. I'm one of 

the cofounders of OMRI and worked for CCOF for a 

number of years, both as an inspector and in policy. 

So I have a little background in this.

I only want to speak today about two 

subjects. One of them is the ammonia extracts. 

You've already heard a lot about it, so I'm not 

going to go into detail, but I do agree with the 

proposal to prohibit the ammonia extract products.

These products are incompatible with 

the original philosophy behind organic farmer, and 

I'm kind of an old-school girl. As an inspector 

and policy specialist, I've seen a lot of fraud 

in the fertilizer realm in the past, and I'm sure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

it's still going on now.

The products are ripe for fraud, and 

especially if you adopt any kind of rule that would 

allow 20 percent like Chilean nitrate, that would 

just make it easier to do fraud because even though 

it's agronomically feasible, from an organic point 

of view, it's very much harder to detect.

Now on to excluded methods. I was one 

of the co-originators of having the NOSB look at 

GMOs and excluded methods terminology, and I wrote 

the recommendation that still hasn't been adopted 

yet by the NOP for guidance on the subject, and 

definitions and criteria.

At each meeting, I make the point that 

it's very important for this issue to stay in front 

of the public, the NOP, and the USDA as a whole 

at every meeting. Otherwise, the forces that want 

to contaminate us with GMOs will think we're not 

paying attention, and they will only creep more 

insidiously into every aspect of our organic 

integrity.

However, now that we've tackled most 

of the most straightforward terminology and now 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that we have adopted criteria and definitions, 

what's left is complicated. So it might be time 

to change strategies and work on other aspects of 

GE issue, such as how to deal with testing, how 

to set thresholds, how to evaluate new methods that 

we don't have enough criteria for.

So I suggested some of those in my 

written comments, and I think it's very worthwhile 

to keep working on it, but some creative thinking 

is needed how to go forward. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Zea. Brian has 

a question for you.

MR. CALDWELL: Thanks a lot, Zea. I 

know you've thought a little bit about this, and 

I really would love to hear you expand on it, but 

what are the best ways to move forward to make sure 

that we can prohibit some of the novel new gene 

editing and other types of excluded methods as we 

move forward?

MS. SONNABEND: Yeah. Right. Well, 

we have been urging the NOP -- and while I was on 

the Board, we tried to do it through the NOSB, which 

I hope that you continue to do, to just pressure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

them to create some type of genetic integrity task 

force because you guys, and even I, do not have 

the expertise to know what the state of testing 

is for all the novel methods, for instance, what 

the state of enforcement or not is.

And yet there are many stakeholders out 

there who are more on the cutting edge of this, 

and it's a very, very complicated, involved 

subject. So I think trying to get some sort of 

test -- whereas originally we wanted to call it 

seed integrity, but really, it has to do with all 

of genetic integrity. They can deal with testing. 

They can deal with how to enforce anything that 

is adopted about keeping organic integrity pure.

And so that would be my number-one 

recommendation. But you can also do things like 

we did when I was on the Board of having expert 

panels convene during NOSB meetings, if we ever 

have them in person again, to discuss these issues 

and any number of other things like that.

MR. ELA: Mindee has a question.

MS. JEFFERY: Thank you, Zea, for all 

your work on this issue. Just thinking about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

looking at what to do moving forward, a lot of the 

public comments suggested that we don't develop 

new criteria.

And I think, for me, I'm looking at that 

in that most of the TBD list terms deal more with 

plant reading, but to me, the marketplace looks 

like we're developing into things more like 

California's considering releasing GMO 

mosquitoes, and then we have mRNA sprays on the 

horizon that could manipulate the microbiome.

I'm just wondering if you have any 

perspective on how we can move forward in this work 

as a Board. We're going to need additional 

criteria for determining excluded methods that 

aren't just directly plant breeding techniques.

So if you have any perspective on that, 

I'd really love to hear it.

MS. SONNABEND: Yes. And I think I was 

one who put in my comment, my written comment, that 

there's no need for an additional criteria right 

now, but as the new cases come up, there may be 

in the future to handle those specific cases.

And I think that most of the new things 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

in plant reading are already handled by the 

existing criteria such that you don't really even 

need to have all of the complex definitions and 

synonyms that I put in that original table of the 

things that were already decided, because those 

are obviously prohibited by the criteria as soon 

as the definitions and criteria are adopted.

So I think you just have to look at it 

like -- say the case of GMO mosquitos. There, 

the issue is, can you prevent them from flying onto 

an organic farm? And is that, therefore, 

prohibited if they do fly on an organic farm? And 

so you have to look at the case and then look at 

what criteria you have and see if you can apply 

those criteria to that situation. And if not, 

maybe there's another one about air trespass, say, 

or something like that that you need at the time.

MS. JEFFERY: Thank you. I appreciate 

that. Just sort of in the higher-level thinking 

about democracy in general, I look at this issue 

from the perspective of organic has its place in 

democracy and in our regulatory frameworks. And 

I really see the USDA as being the most coherent 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

place to provide us with transparency in the 

marketplace.

And I love all the creative work that 

organic has done to protect ourselves from genetic 

transgression, but do you see another way for us 

to produce transparency and protect ourselves 

other than grand assistance from higher regulatory 

bodies?

MS. SONNABEND: Yeah, really, keeping 

shouting about it. You know, I have a hard 

time -- and if I had longer, I'd tell you about 

the event we went to about coexistence that several 

of us organic people went to with all the 

conventional industry. But it's very much of an 

individual rights issue because we as individual 

organic farmers have the right to farm without 

contamination, in my opinion, in which case it's 

a lot like gun control.

The Second Amendment, for organic, 

should enable us to be able to not be contaminated. 

However, how you get there, I think, is just 

keeping working on it and keeping shouting about 

it as loudly as possible.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. JEFFERY: Thank you, Zea.

MR. ELA: All right. Thank you, Zea. 

As always, we appreciate your comments.

We are going to move on to Doug Currier, 

then after Doug, Bill Wolf, and then Jackie 

DeMinter.

Doug, name, affiliation, and start with 

your comments.

MR. CURRIER: Thank you very much.

Hi, everyone. My name is Doug Currier, 

Technical Director at the OMRI, at Organic 

Materials Review Institute. I'm presenting 

comments today on ammonia extract and sodium 

nitrate.

OMRI supports the definitions of 

stripped ammonia and concentrated ammonia as 

proposed. Our staff reviews detailed 

manufacturing processes every day, and we seek 

advice from our advisory council and user review 

panels as needed to ensure our quality of analysis 

is high, and our recommendations are supported by 

the USDA Organic Standards.

We are confident that we can use the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

same level of expertise we've developed over the 

years and use these proposed definitions to 

identify materials which are now under petition. 

We see there being an important reason why there 

are two definitions being proposed, one which 

identifies specific manufacturing processes and 

one that focuses on the quantity of ammonia.

As I think should be clear by now, there 

are many materials which contribute ammoniacal 

nitrogen as a fraction of total nitrogen and 

undergo a concentration step, which are not under 

petition. While the levels of ammonia are 

expected to rise in these materials as a result 

of that concentration step, the levels do not rise 

to those which could lead one to reasonably want 

them in with the materials under petition.

A specific numerical figure in the 

proposed definition of concentrated ammonia is 

needed in order to avoid applying a definition to 

materials beyond those under petition. We looked 

at nitrogen values of products on the OMRI list 

while reviewing the proposals.

And I just want to be clear we do have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

products that likely meet the proposed definitions 

on the list right now. They're all (inaudible) 

and subject to NOP Guidance 5012.

OMRI also has concerns regarding the 

proposed addition to the soil fertility and crop 

nutrient management practice standard. The use 

of the term nitrogen fertilizer in the proposal 

is too broad. We encourage the development of a 

resource, such as a closed list of fertilizers of 

concern, i.e., those that are expected to have C:N 

ratios at or below three to one, to help narrow 

the focus of that broad term.

We're also raising concerns about the 

shifting focus to the ingredient level there and 

understanding that the carbon contribution of a 

nitrogen fertilizer when applied is of interest. 

So, for that reason, we support the evaluation 

of the C:N ratio of final fertilizers rather than 

at the single- or multi-ingredient level.

And finally, sodium nitrate, we support 

reinstating the listing, as it'll get it back on 

the sunset schedule and will clarify the status 

of the material under the USDA standards. We never 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

stopped restricting the products that are 

contained sodium nitrate because it never went to 

rulemaking.

But we have a question for the Board, 

though: what effect the prior recommendation will 

have to remove the annotation, and what effect that 

will have on the vote to reinstate sodium nitrate. 

And we were wondering if a vote is needed to 

withdraw the previous vote, and recognizing 

clarification might be needed on that.

So thank you for your time and for 

listening.

MR. ELA: Well timed.

Questions? Amy has a question for you.

MS. BRUCH: Hi, Doug. Thank you for 

your written and oral comments. Appreciate it. 

I just had a question for you in relationship to 

your spring comments and then tying them into the 

current comments.

In the spring, you had mentioned -- or 

OMRI in general, your organization, 

mentioned -- about isotope testing and mass 

balancing when it came to these complex 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

formulations was very tough to understand what was 

all involved in the product.

So then, looking at the current 

comments and the practice standards, we are getting 

into a more ingredient-type focus. And there are 

some comments on your side about maybe we need to 

shift our focus into the overall product.

So can you tie that all together for 

me?

MR. CURRIER: Yeah, I think for the 

practice standard recommendation, I was looking 

at it as a contribution from the final fertilizer 

product. And you could have a fertilizer 

component that might not be meeting that C:N ratio, 

but something else in the product is going to push 

that carbon content up. And so we weren't really 

quite sure if moving to the ingredient level would 

be necessary at that point.

The testing -- carbon testing is not 

one that we normally see. And so, just to be clear, 

we're getting nutrient analysis on a certain set 

of fertilizers and not all of them. So the 

high-nitrogen liquid fertilizers, we're getting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a good profile on the product. But for other 

fertilizers, it's not part of our requirements any 

longer to get labs. Oftentimes, they're sent in, 

and manufacturers are likely to have them.

But the burden -- we saw the burden on 

review staff, at the certifier level and our level, 

increasing if there's a new requirement to look 

at carbon. And because of that, that kind of leads 

into that question about which fertilizers are of 

concern.

And getting to that broad definition, 

I thought, was kind of untenable because there are 

some that are obviously going to be above 3:1 

carbon-nitrogen, others that are going to be 

borderline or below.

So that kind of ties into the 

terminology there and then the testing and the 

evaluation at the product level rather than the

ingredient level.

MS. BRUCH: Mm-hmm. Would it be 

easier if you tested the actual nitrogen components 

at a broad product level than looking at nitrate, 

nitride, ammonia, urea, those type of ingredients 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of the final product? Would that be easier, then?

MR. CURRIER: I don't think so. I 

guess I was looking at it -- you're looking at the 

total end contribution carbon content. But the 

ingredient level, I don't think, gives you the full 

picture because you've got that blended fertilizer 

that's being applied.

And there could be -- I'm thinking 

about -- there's a manure slurry/bark fines 

combination. And if you're testing the manure 

slurry, you're going to get one result. If you're 

adding bark fines to it, you're going to get 

another.

And ultimately, it's the manure 

slurry/bark fines product that's being applied.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Thank you, Doug.

MR. CURRIER: Sure.

MR. ELA: Kyla has a question.

MS. SMITH: Hey, Doug. So there's 

been so much focus on these non-target materials. 

And so I just wondered, from your expertise as 

a material reviewer -- or material review 

organization -- how you would interpret and review 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

those examples and whether or not you feel as though 

they would be included in the definition of 

stripped ammonia or the annotation. So if you 

could speak to that, that would be great.

MR. CURRIER: Yeah. I might be 

looking at this a little differently or maybe 

incorrectly, but if you get tied up in that 

definition of stripped ammonia and start talking 

about is it isolating, is it -- I don't have the 

terminology right in front of me, but there could 

be some borderline there. I've heard those 

arguments today.

But then, if you look at the 

concentrated ammonia definition, that's when you 

could say, well, it's not meeting that. And we 

looked at the nutrient components of a lot of these 

products that are of concern, meaning they're of 

concern because they're going to get potentially 

tied into this, the fish fertilizers, the manure 

teas. And their ammoniacal content is far below 

three percent. And it doesn't seem to be fitting 

the materials that are under petition.

And so if you're getting caught up in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the, is it stripped ammonia, well, it may or may 

not be. But then you could say, well, it's not 

meeting the concentrated ammonia definition. And 

so that's where I kind of come to, is it's not 

meeting that, so it's not of material concern.

MS. SMITH: I think that would be 

assuming that the Board votes and passes both, 

and --

MR. CURRIER: Yeah.

MS. SMITH: -- that could not be the 

path, right? So we could be left with a split vote 

or -- I mean, who knows? Whatever -- where one 

would get voted through and one wouldn't. And so, 

in that case, I think then you don't have those 

percentages to fall back on. So does that make 

it more complicated, or --

MR. CURRIER: Yeah, potentially. But 

again, I think it comes down to looking at the 

manufacturing process and being able to use the 

definition. And again, I think that definition 

is sufficient to end up looking at the ammoniacal 

content of the product, looking at the steps that 

are taken to make it, and then being able to say 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

these are the ones of concern and these aren't.

MR. ELA: All right. Other questions? 

Doug, I've got one. OPWC, you know, kind of 

looked at this too and had some similar questions. 

I mean, I'm very heartened to hear you say there 

is, as an MRO it's straightforward because we know 

you all are the front line for these things.

But OPWC said, okay, even if there were 

these questions that, to, in the cover letter that 

put our intent, and I think she said, Lynn said, 

specifically to exclude filtering or removal of 

water that is not augmenting the ammonia 

concentration preferentially.

Would that make it even clearer to NOP 

for us to put in, we're not intending this like, 

compose you would add water. You may be capturing 

ammonia but we're capturing everything else with 

it. You're not, you know, filtering is okay as 

long as you're not preferentially trying to isolate 

out some of these materials.

Do you think that would address those 

other, the questions that maybe these other 

compounds could be snared in the process?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CURRIER: I'd have to think about 

that a little bit. Potentially, yes. I think 

that, yes, there needs to be some acknowledgment 

that, yes, there is going to be some of these 

filtering steps that might elevate the ammonia 

that's already there.

But yes, I think, yes, I have to think 

about it a little more.

MR. ELA: Good.

MR. CURRIER: Yes.

MR. ELA: Good.

MR. CURRIER: Sorry. Yes.

MR. ELA: No need to apologize.

MR. CURRIER: Okay.

MR. ELA: But for you, I mean, 

certainly the combination of the two motions really 

makes you feel quite comfortable?

MR. CURRIER: Yes. I think it's 

important that there are two there. And again, 

I think that it would be workable on a review scale.

MR. ELA: Okay. And then coming back, 

your sodium nitrate comment where the 

recommendation to the Board was to prohibit, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that never went through. And technically the 

product had been sunsetted because that was the 

process then.

To me it, once it's sunsetted and it's 

off the list and then we just go forward. So, if 

we look at it that way, do you think that takes 

away your concern about kind of competing, 

competing Board motions?

MR. CURRIER: Yes. I've more often 

heard it say, or phrased, as an invalid listing 

rather than it's been sunsetted.

I believe it would have to go through 

rulemaking in order for that sunset process to have 

wrapped up under the provisions at the time. But 

yes, if it is sunsetted, than yes, that makes it 

clearer that it would need to go back on the list 

at that point.

MR. ELA: But if it were, given that 

technicality, if it were added back on the list, 

and you said you've been reviewing products with 

that in mind, it would give you the iron clad 

backing to say, yes, this is how we have to review 

things?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CURRIER: Yes. Yes, absolutely. 

It would make things a lot clearer. Again, we 

have never stopped restricting it but I know some 

have. And so, getting it back on is going to get 

it on the sunset process again and make it clear 

what the standard is.

MR. ELA: Sounds great. Any other 

questions from the Board? Thank you very much, 

Doug.

MR. CURRIER: Sure.

MR. ELA: We certainly appreciate your 

comments.

Next we are going to go to Bill Wolf, 

then Jackie Deminter and then Lawrence Carlson. 

So, Bill, name and affiliation and give us your 

thoughts.

MR. WOLF: Okay, you should be able to 

hear me now.

MR. ELA: Yes, we can.

MR. WOLF: Okay, great. I'm Bill Wolf 

with Second Star Farm and Wolf & Associates. I've 

been an organic farmer, entrepreneur and 

consultant for organic for 50 years. All those 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

years working to increase organic acreage.

NOSB topics were much simpler in 1992 

at the very first NOSB meeting I attended. Today 

you tackle the most complex issues of any FACA.

I thank you for your awesome volunteer 

work. And I suggest that you need the support you 

deserve.

Slide 2. Organic has grown 

exponentially, but this support to infrastructure 

has not kept up. Wolf & Associates submits many 

written comments, including ways to address this 

growth.

Among then we recommend prioritizing 

and sometimes rejecting non-essential topics. We 

also request that commercial availability apply 

to Section 605, which will be encourage organic 

and reduce your workload.

I'll go into more detail on two more. 

One, view the national list as the toolbox for 

growth and improvement. And two, get critical 

expert support for your work.

Slide 3 please. The national list is 

a toolbox, not a soapbox, to attract political and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

non-organic social agendas. The goal is not to 

make it smaller.

Farmers and handlers need a complete 

and robust set of materials that meet the strictest 

evaluation criteria in the world. Annotations 

should clarify, not complicate. And the decisions 

you make should protect choices. Materials not 

widely used now may be useful in the future. 

Organic farmers deserve and need a robust toolbox.

And when publishing proposals for 

comment, please make sure the information is 

accurate, which takes me to the next slide.

As an expert, as an advisory board your 

job is to make recommendations and difficult 

decisions, not be experts on everything or to 

manage the process. Three areas where expert 

support will help you do your work.

Verify facts, help prepare 

subcommittee recommendations. Summarize and 

accurately report on the content of oral and 

written public comments.

Three, draft your recommendations and 

regulatory language so that it can be accepted, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

implemented and enforced. You need their support.

Next slide. Earthworms are our 

defacto mascot of organic agriculture. I've 

brought earthworms to many in person meetings as 

commenters. When you vote, please consider what 

would be good for them.

Slide 6. Applying all of these 

principles we prepared and submitted comments on 

numerous topics, some listed here.

Slide 7.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: Nice animation, Bill. Thank 

you for your comments. Are there questions? It 

looks like Sue has one for you.

MS. BAIRD: Yes. Hi, Bill. It's 

great to see you again. And I've read all your 

comments and I do appreciate them.

You mentioned that we, and I totally 

agree, that we need a lot of expert support. And 

can you give some examples of how you think that 

would come about?

MR. WOLF: Well, I think, for example, 

one of the places where you have to do a lot of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

work in a very short period of time, is to review 

all the comments that have been submitted.

And there are experts who do that 

professionally for the government. For federal 

register rulemaking processes.

And you could, the NOSB could ask the 

NOP for help for summarizing and organizing all 

of the comments, first the written comments, and 

then again the oral comments. So that you are 

freed up to actually hear that information earlier 

in the process. And you can have more dialogue 

between you about what should be in here.

My observation about the summaries of 

the comments is that they have not been accurate. 

Recently. Especially when the issues became very 

controversial and complex and many people were 

speaking about them.

I've had a number of people come to me 

and say, I heard summaries of these comments that 

didn't include the facts that we had presented. 

For example, we submitted comments, and this is 

another area where that expert support would help.

We submitted comments in the spring 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

about copper sulfate. That the information about 

copper sulfate was not accurate being published 

by the subcommittee. That it was claiming that 

copper sulfate was not a permitted material in 

other countries. In Europe, Canada, Japan, et 

cetera.

And we submitted written comments 

saying that's not correct, it's just not listed 

that way. Because they have a positive list. 

They list it as Bordeaux mix, and they do allow 

Bordeaux mix. And Bordeaux mix is essentially 

copper sulfate.

In addition, the information about, 

just continuing with copper sulfate, didn't 

include the fact that copper is also an ingredient 

that is on the national list separately as an 

allowed fertilizer, based on soil tests. So, just 

looking at that and saying those kinds of things 

could be captured would help.

And then the other big issue is the fact 

that many times the language that's been drafted, 

won't make it through regulation. Or can't be 

enforced.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And so, the experts that would 

understand the regulatory process, which is 

challenging, and actually somewhat broken right 

now, you need help with that language to make sure 

that it is viable.

MS. BAIRD: Wow.

MR. WOLF: So that's kind of two 

examples.

MS. BAIRD: Well, I appreciate that. 

I also appreciated your comment on, that we need 

to consider the toolbox for farmers. I say that 

all the time.

Since I've been around, not as long as 

you, but echoed by CCOF, but I think it's something 

that we need to take with careful thought at NOSB.

MR. WOLF: I've seen a couple of 

materials since that now off the list that in fact 

had a great deal of potential, but because they 

never completed the process of being used, and 

adequately implemented. The manufacturer 

actually just backed away from the organic market 

and now they feel off the list.

MS. BAIRD: Right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. WOLF: So we lose tools pretty 

regularly.

MS. BAIRD: Right.

MR. WOLF: And we need more.

MS. BAIRD: Yes. I actually, I'm in 

agreement with that. Thank you.

MR. ELA: A quick question from Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you very much for 

your comments. The toolbox is a favorite of mine 

but it's got a counterpart, which is continuous 

improvement.

And on your specific example of copper 

sulfate, again, I agree with everything you've 

said. But on that example, I'm finding, you know, 

I have found it tough to strike a balance because 

we're being accused of kicking a can down the road 

for years and years and years.

And I would have to agree, to a large 

extent, that our ability to promote continuous 

improvement, vis-a-vis the toolbox, and again, I'm 

a toolbox guy, has been difficult.

MR. WOLF: Interestingly, the 

challenges of the vagueness about inerts has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

actually held back developing replacements for 

materials like copper sulfate.

I've worked with pest control 

manufacturers who have also backed away from 

development work because they didn't know what the 

formula would be. And the EPA process takes years 

and years. Even longer than putting something on 

the national list to go through.

And so, they have been hesitant. There 

are people like Marrone and others who are 

dedicated to developing organic products.

But I would agree with you, that we do 

need better tools. And the less toxic the better. 

I mean, obviously our fist choices are biological 

management, integrated pest control systems that 

don't use anything that has a negative impact.

But then we do have situations where 

we need even pyrethrin. It's actually not on the 

national list at all because it's a botanical. 

But it does need the list 4's.

I've used copper sulfate myself for 50 

years, and I haven't considered it to be the highly 

toxic dangerous material that it was represented 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to be in some of the language published by the 

subcommittee.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you for that.

MR. ELA: All right. All right, Kim, 

like micro quick.

(Laughter.)

MS. HUSEMAN: Thanks. Okay, this is 

actually quite quick, and maybe slightly 

rhetorical.

Bill, you mentioned that in the comment 

time period it's a very small time period and 

quantity of comments doesn't necessarily equate 

to if this should be accepted or not accepted. 

But we have heard from stakeholders that because 

of the short time period, maybe that doesn't give 

stakeholders the ability to comment.

Any ideas on, because I do think even 

though the quantity of comments isn't necessarily 

dependant upon the decision making process, it is 

in the best interest to try to reach as many of 

the stakeholders as possible. Any thoughts on how 

that can be done outside of the 21 day process, 

twice a year?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. WOLF: One of my pet peeves is the 

fact that there isn't a winter meeting. The 

meetings are currently timed to absolutely 

conflict with busy farmer schedules. So I would 

take a look at that.

And maybe have a virtual meeting in the

winter, like these, that's focused on comments, 

and a longer comment period. And then a longer 

consolidation of those comments and an opportunity 

for you to review. That's one suggestion.

I agree that it's a challenge. I 

certainly wouldn't, I wouldn't make your decisions 

based on a vote count --

MS. HUSEMAN: Absolutely.

MR. WOLF: -- of how many comments were 

submitted, but rather, what is the information 

being provided. And what sources of technical 

expertise we're sharing information for you as 

well.

MS. HUSEMAN: Thanks, Bill.

MR. ELA: All right, thank you, Bill. 

Much appreciated. We are going to go --

MR. WOLF: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: -- on to Jackie Deminter, 

then Lawrence Carlson and Mike Dill. So, Jackie, 

go ahead.

MS. DEMINTER: Good afternoon. My 

name is Jackie Deminter. I am the certification 

policy manager at MOSA. We certify approximately 

2,050 organic operations throughout the U.S., and 

including over 1,800 with crops.

I'll summarize our written comments on 

mulch film, sodium nitrate and ammonium extract. 

Thank you for your work and for providing this 

meeting in a virtual format.

Mulch film. We support the proposal 

to change the bio-based content requirement. And 

we continue to encourage a review of currently 

manufactured mulch film products to see if there 

are any with a potential for compliance with all 

parts of the standards. Including the 

composition, the new proposed 80 percent bio-based 

content and the biodegradation and compostability 

parts of the requirement.

If none are found, we think the listing 

should be allowed to sunset at the next review. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Our written comments note a couple of additional 

considerations.

206(c)(6) allows for plastic or other 

synthetic mulches if removed at the end of the 

season, which is not applicable to this synthetic 

mulch. And (c)(1), which allows for mulching with 

fully biodegradable materials. Our written 

comments gives suggestions for revisions.

Sodium nitrate. MOSA is clear on the 

requirements for the verification of sodium 

nitrate use.

In our experience, the sodium nitrate 

in blended fertilizers would not exceed the minimal 

expectations for use by a longshot. As a primary 

input, as part of the fertility program, we have 

no clients exceeding the minimal expectations 

either.

In short, we do not see abuse of this 

input. If the materials should not be allowed, 

then we encourage the NOP to act on the existing 

recommendation. But in the meantime we are okay 

with the status quo.

Ammonium extract. The third motion 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

introduces new thinking, and we are concerned with 

the proposed calculation requirement for us of 

fertility inputs.

The term nitrogen product and the C:N 

ratio for some ingredients needs further 

discussion and definition. Who supplies the C:N 

verification.

It is our understanding that to 

calculate the cumulative total of the 20 percent 

measure, we would need to have a total quantity 

of each of the nitrogen containing ingredients with 

a C:N ratio of 3 to 1 or less, or any nitrogen 

product. The nitrogen analysis of the ingredient, 

the rate of application for each input, as well 

the crop the input is applied to and the desire 

yield of that crop.

This also needs further discussion. 

We encourage the NOSB to vote on the petition as 

submitted. And if there is an additional 

discussion to be taken up on the broader topic of 

highly soluble nitrogen fertilizers then that 

should be added to the NOSB's work plan for future 

consideration.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

In closing I'll draw your attention to 

the remaining letters we submitted. We appreciate 

some additional clarifications where a few gene 

methods. And we encourage the NOSB to revise and 

improve the public comment process. Thank you for 

the opportunity to comment.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Jackie, we 

appreciate it. And are there questions for 

Jackie? I am not seeing any, so thank you so much.

MS. SMITH: Oh, Steve, sorry, I was 

late.

MR. ELA: Oh, Kyla's got one.

MS. SMITH: I couldn't get my raise 

hand. Hi, Jackie.

You were talking about sodium nitrate 

and like not seeing abuse of that by a longshot, 

and so I just wondered if in general you're seeing 

noncompliances or it being hard to enforce the 

other soil fertility requirements at 203?

MS. DEMINTER: Well based on that, the 

old calculation, the way we used to do things, we've 

never given a noncompliance for over use of Chilean 

nitrate or sodium nitrate. Nor are we seeing that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

farmers use it in excess of the old way we used 

to calculate.

Like I think, let me put my chart away. 

I got that old chart out recently and I was looking 

at it and doing some math and comparing field plans 

and input inventories to what we see on what the 

farmers are using. And it just wasn't happening 

where there was a overuse. I mean, they're using 

it well within the recommendations that we used 

to calculate to.

So, in our experience, in our area on 

the farms that we certify, we didn't see the 

calculation measures as necessary.

MS. SMITH: I think that maybe what I 

meant to say, or meant to ask, was just a little 

bit more broadly enforcing soil fertility, the soil 

fertility requirements and if you all find that 

to be challenging to enforce those aspects in a 

operator's organic system plan?

MS. DEMINTER: You're talking overall 

soil building practices and things like that. I 

want to go to, or point back to, Nicole Dehne made 

a comment yesterday, and in that comment she said, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

it's easier to see the infractions than to measure 

compliance.

And I liked that statement because it 

is easier to see the red flags when they pop up 

rather than to try to measure an absolute 

compliance on whether or not they're using a 

suitable amount of the different types of 

fertility.

On the operations we certify we 

definitely see blended fertilizer programs. 

Like, there is multiple inputs, there is not just 

a single use of sodium nitrate, as the only 

fertility input.

So as part of the overall program, Kyla, 

I definitely think it's not something that we're 

seeing as excessive use. And if there is a red 

flag for, we haven't seen red flags really with 

just specifically sodium nitrate use.

I think we see overuse of manure more 

frequently on some of the fields that are up close 

by the barn or those areas that we've concerned 

with more frequently than we would for a purchase 

fertility input. I don't know if that answered 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

your question better.

MS. SMITH: Thank you. Yes.

MR. ELA: Logan, then Nate.

MS. PETREY: Hi. Okay. Conner 

brought up a question, but, all right.

So you're saying that your growers, 

they have the use of sodium nitrate, which is 

readily available. And so, it seems like your 

growers are only using it when they really think 

it's necessary. And they still use other things 

for nitrogen. For nitrogen management. Probably 

to cover crops for rotation and other carbon-base, 

like manures and things like that.

Would you expect the same management 

if they were to be, let's just say it were to be 

allowed, do you think that growers would use it 

in the same sense, in the same way, and not over 

use it because they do need the carbon-based 

products and the other rotational? And to cover 

crops as well.

MS. DEMINTER: Well, as related to AE, 

I think our experience is very limited. Actually, 

it is an allowed input right now. It's a natural 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

material.

And we're aware that it's included in 

some un-relisted products, but we don't have a 

quantity of how many farmers are using un-relisted 

products with AE as an ingredient.

I'm aware of one in our database that 

is in use. And I think I put how many clients. 

It was maybe two or three clients. A very small 

amount of clients using that as part of their 

fertility program. And that's as part of a 

multi-material fertility program.

MS. PETREY: Yes, ma'am.

MS. DEMINTER: And so, it's related to 

that. In our experience with what we're seeing 

on input inventories, we also see many and multiple 

inputs in a --

The one client that is using an extract 

product that is from a manufacturer that is selling 

both the solids as well as the liquid product there, 

it is just one of like 15 inputs on there. Input 

inventory in combination with manure and compost 

and all of the other things that we expect to see.

MS. PETREY: Okay, thank you, ma'am.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Just wanted to see 

if you could talk a little bit, Jackie, about your 

regionality.

I think most is really lucky to have 

a lot of farms that are integrated with livestock. 

It's not a livestock desert. And so you have 

manure in cover crops, is that correct?

MS. DEMINTER: Yes.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Am I reading that 

right?

MS. DEMINTER: Yes.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Okay.

MS. DEMINTER: We certify, it's many 

hundreds of livestock farmers. It's our primary 

business.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Right. And so your 

client portfolio might not be those cash croppers 

who don't have a cow within a hundred miles, as 

sort of a reference point.

One question I was hoping to touch on 

though is, given the current status of sodium 

nitrate, do your inspectors actually do any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

calculations on sodium nitrate, on inspection?

MS. DEMINTER: No, we don't require 

that anymore because it's not part of the 

requirements. But we do collect information on 

field applications and verify that through audit.

So we're able to see the rate of 

application that people are using inputs, as well 

as compared to their input inventory. And do a 

little assessment internally with our review staff 

to ensure that the overall standard is being met, 

that they're not contributing to contamination in 

any way through the use of a single input.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Okay. So it's 

really just looking at, are they single, are they 

using it as a single input rather than a mass 

balance on it that would probably be more 

appropriate at inspection to really get the 

granularity of it, is that correct?

MS. DEMINTER: Yes.

MR. POWELL-PALM: That you're looking 

at it as tracking their input list, so they say, 

I bought this material, and then the next material 

they say I'm out of this material. But we have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

other options.

Do you have any growers that use sodium 

nitrate without livestock integration?

MS. DEMINTER: Oh boy. I could get you 

that information but it would take a little bit 

of extrapolation from our database.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Okay.

MS. DEMINTER: I'd be sure that they 

would because one of them was an in-house grower 

that used one of these similar products. So with 

that one I could assume that they might not have 

livestock.

We do certify a large number of 

vegetable operations as well, and those would be 

the operations that I could see using these inputs 

as part of their package for fertility inputs.

MR. POWELL-PALM: But those 

operations, like you're saying report, do have 

pretty good access to manure being in southwest 

Wisconsin?

MS. DEMINTER: Right. Well, we 

certify nationwide but, though primarily in the 

mid-west. The upper mid-west here. So in this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

area we do see a lot of availability. We don't 

have farmers unable to secure their manure inputs 

or otherwise.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Okay.

MS. DEMINTER: At least not that I've 

heard in my role at MOSA.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I appreciate it. 

Thank you.

MR. ELA: All right, thank you so much, 

Jackie.

MS. DEMINTER: Yes, thank you.

MR. ELA: I appreciate it. We are 

going to move on to Lawrence Carlson and then Mike 

Dill and then Jeremy Rowland. So, Lawrence, name 

and affiliation and give us your comments.

MR. CARLSON: Absolutely. Good 

afternoon. My name is Larry Carlson, I'm the CTO 

VP of Quality and Regulatory for Tygrus, LLC here 

in Troy, Michigan.

First of all, we commend your hard work 

and expertise and due diligence in reviewing our 

petition. The following comments offer objective 

evidence to the three objections that were raised 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

with our petition and for reconsideration of your 

vote.

First, a little bit of background. 

This is from the requester, Mr. Bill Prosser, 

president and CEO of Winterfalls Ranch in El 

Dorado, California.

We produced a liquid fertilizer derived 

from composted llama manure. One of the 

challenges we constantly face is shelf-life for 

our products.

With our current process we can expect 

approximately eight month self-life for 70 percent 

of our unopened consumer bottles before the 

microbes take over. Once the microbes gain ground 

in our bottles, the product is no longer appealing 

to our consumer due to the offensive odors, et 

cetera.

With the addition of your chemistry to 

lower the ph, we see an increase of the self-life 

to 24 months in 99.6 percent of our bottles. This 

allows us to reduce our waste and cost due to 

recycling of the destabilized product bottles and 

less energy and resources used to replace the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

products and bottles, product line, delivery 

trucks, et cetera.

Other products used to stabilize, such 

as citric acid, were not effective and harms the 

environment when allowed in the ecosystem. 

Another benefit of your product and chemistries 

and fish emulsion hydrolysate, phosphoric acid is 

currently used in our products to stabilize the 

product.

We have found that stabilized hydronium 

is very effective in stabilizing fish emulsion, 

at the same time, not harming the environment the 

way phosphoric can and does due to the overuse of 

leaching from the fish emulsion. The use of 

stabilized hydronium in fish emulsion will allow 

for a reduced footprint in the agricultural and 

consumer industry.

So, the three objection points that 

were raised in the response of the petition was, 

number one, that it's not been approved by the EPA 

because its, hydronium is a biocide expected to 

have an impact on the biodiversity, it's 

microorganisms with unknown effects. And the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

concentration.

The answer to that is in their liquid 

Peruvian Gold Copal products, it's used in 0.98 

percent. And I do have a letter, which I don't 

think you have the benefit of receipt thereof, from 

the EPA and the inerts branch, from Lisa Austin.

Who is in the inerts branch at epa.gov 

saying that we are approved under 40 CFR 180.910 

as a ph control agent for non-aerosol formulations.

The EPA considers it as an inert with non-biocide 

properties whenever the end use concentration over 

1.40 material is at or below 0.98 percent volume 

for volume.

And so, the second objection that was 

raised were many organic acids could probably be 

used as hydronium as described.

Mr. Prosser has been testing for over 

three years the things on the national list that 

are available and found that they did not meet 

performance expectations.

Thirdly -- thank you very much for your 

review and your comments. Thank you for your 

consideration.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Thank you, Larry. 

Questions?

MR. BRADMAN: Larry, do you want to 

make your last third point there?

MR. CARLSON: Yes, just briefly. The 

biocide, the objection with the biocide activity, 

the product and the lack of EPA approval make it 

incompatible with the system of sustainable 

agriculture.

And I just wanted to point out the 

product has been registered with the U.S. EPA as 

an inert ingredient and not an active biocide.

MR. ELA: Okay, thank you so much, 

Larry. Very much appreciate it.

MR. CARLSON: Absolutely. Thanks for 

the opportunity. Good afternoon.

MR. ELA: Or Lawrence, I'm sorry, I 

mispronounced, I just identified you wrong.

MR. CARLSON: No, Larry is just fine.

MR. ELA: Okay. Next up we have Mike 

Dill, followed by Jeremy Rowland and then John 

Wicks. Mike, are you out there?

MR. DILL: I'm here. Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: I know you're under some time 

constraints, but I think we got enough time for 

you.

MR. DILL: All right, perfect. Thank 

you. Hi, my name is Mike Dill and I'm representing 

the Organic Produce Wholesalers Coalition. My 

comments today are on the topics of modernization 

of supply chain transparency as well as oral and 

written comment submissions.

We really appreciate the CACS focus on 

traceability, fraud prevention and even capitol, 

as well as continuing emphasis on organic integrity 

and eliminating fraud in the supply chain.

However, we do no support the concept 

of the organic link system because we think it would 

create undue reporting requirements, especially 

for handlers. Further, we do not believe the OLS 

would detect or prevent fraud with any better 

reliability than the oversight procedures already 

in place.

What the organic trade really needs is 

more focus on proactive systems as opposed to 

reactive measures such as reporting purchases and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

sales long after the product has entered the supply 

chain.

We feel that practices, such as those 

outlined by OTAs organic fraud prevention 

initiative, provide tools and guidance that could 

be tailored to each operations unique means. 

Performing commodity specific vulnerability and 

risk assessments and then addressing those risk 

through mitigation and monitoring practices is a 

more proactive system for identifying fraud and 

for preventing fraudulent product from entering 

the supply chain.

In our opinion, widespread adoption of 

this program would have greater impact than the 

OLS proposal. That's because OLS would require 

documenting millions of transactions but would not 

make that data visible to those in the supply chain 

who are in the position to react in real time.

As referenced in our written comments, 

OTA's fraud initiative is just one of several 

traceability and anti-fraud initiatives already 

in motion. Let's not duplicate or undermind those 

initiatives and instead focus on alarming the trade 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

with tools that can detect and deter fraud before 

it happens.

In our opinion, an important element 

of overseeing the supply is the need for standards 

for non-processing handling activities. So 

everything from post-harvesting handline, 

packing, storage and transportation to receiving 

handling work in progress and, of course, 

sanitation.

We offer draft handling standards in 

our written comments as a starting point for future 

board work topic.

Lastly, on the topic of oral and written 

comment submissions, we had some time after this 

daunting comment period to give it more thought. 

We suggest there is a need to reduce the stress, 

pressure and overall burden to board members, NOP 

staff and the public that comes with such heavy 

NOSB agendas.

From our perspective there is a need 

to allow the public adequate time to analyze the 

subcommittee positions, engage with stakeholders, 

develop meaningful feedback, and wherever 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

possible, contribute viable solutions or 

alternative concepts.

So in the spirit of new ideas, how about 

the idea of spreading the workload across four 

meetings annually. Two meetings dedicated to 

sunset materials and petitions and two meetings 

for topics geared toward advancing organics. 

Thank you. And sorry for the interruption.

MR. ELA: No worries. My (inaudible) 

is going to get on you for a proxy speaker there 

on your lap, but no worries.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: Kyla has a question for you.

MS. SMITH: Hi, Mike. I just wanted 

to say thanks so much for including the proposed 

handling requirements. Was I understanding the 

written comments correctly that you all had 

submitted those in response to the SOE proposed 

rule?

MR. DILL: That's correct. Yes.

MS. SMITH: Okay.

MR. DILL: As we were going through SOE 

and kind of analyzing the whole purpose of it, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

felt that there was one big missing part. And that 

is, you know, the way that it all applies to 

handlers who kind of have, play a big role in 

organic integrity.

And as you know, every operation, 

regardless of skill, performs some function of 

handling. And if you've read the regulations you 

know there is not much in there specific to 

handling.

MS. SMITH: Yes, you bet. As a 

certifier I'm a big fan of like more clarity and 

more, in the regulations that makes our job a lot 

easier.

So anyway, we'll see, I guess I was just 

going to say, we'll see what comes out in SOE. 

But depending on what, or if, or what was included 

or not included, being on the handling 

subcommittee, I would be definitely excited to 

explore this more and take this up.

MR. DILL: Thank you. And if you have 

any questions, feel free to reach out to us.

MR. ELA: Any other questions? It 

looks like you're off the hook, Mike. Thank you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

so much.

MR. DILL: All right. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Take care. We are going to 

go next to Jeremy Rowland and then John Wicks and 

then Russ Hamlin.

It looks like we're skipping over Bob 

Quinn because he is not able to be on the call. 

But if that changes, let me know. So, Jeremy, 

name and affiliation and give us your comments.

MR. ROWLAND: Okay. Can everybody 

hear me okay?

MR. ELA: You're in good shape. Go 

ahead.

MR. ROWLAND: Good, okay. Thank you. 

And thank you to the Board for your work in this 

marathon few days and everything you do behind the 

scenes.

This is Jeremy Rowland, I'm with Bion 

Environmental Technologies. It is our position 

that the nonsynthetic ammonia fertilizers are 

compatible with organic agricultural production. 

They provide a sustainable recycled source of 

nitrogen produced from a renewable resource, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

manure.

Today there are ten nonsynthetics 

prohibited for use in organic crop production. 

Eight of these have been prohibited since the NOP 

final rule was published in the year 2000.

There was no opposition to the 

subsequent addition of the other two. Calcium 

chloride in 2003 and rotenone in 2018.

The ammonia extract petition, the 

technical report and the resulting subcommittee 

proposal are unprecedented and misguided with that 

perspective. Adding ammonia fertilizers to the 

short list of prohibited non-synthetics would be 

arbitrary and capricious and would lack a rational 

comprehensible and consistent legal foundation.

OFPA is clear that a substance may only 

be added to the prohibited list if the USDA 

secretary determines in consultation with HHS and 

EPA that it is harmful to human health or th 

environment and is inconsistent with organic 

farming practices.

Ammonia fertilizers cannot clear these 

hurdles. And it's not reasonable to conclude that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

ammonia fertilizers are harmful to human health 

or the environment.

Indeed, the proposals discussion of 

human health effects is minimal and does not 

seriously raise any issues. Further, the proposal 

does not demonstrate that the production or use 

of ammonia fertilizers causes environmental harm.

Regardless, I want to note that the 

burden is on the NOSB, and ultimately the NOP, in 

consultation with HHS and EPA to determine that 

ammonia fertilizers are harmful. That is the 

burdens of proof and persuasions are on the 

proponents of the proposal.

This particular proposal improperly 

attempts to shift the burdens of proof and 

persuasion for adding a nonsynthetic substance to 

the national list from the proponents to those 

using the approved nonsynthetic product.

Further, the NOSB, as a federal 

advisory board, doesn't have legal ability to make 

law or issue regulations. The NOSB is used to the 

compatibility criteria are merely guidance. From 

what I've been instructed, the application of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

compatibility criteria here is legally deficient.

Finally, I want to say the proposal 

ignores the fact that nonsynthetic ammonia 

fertilizers at issue will only be applied under 

a certifier approved organic system plan. This 

application reality almost certainly means that 

in the alleged environmental concerns for ammonia 

extract use would be mitigated or eliminated by 

its use within the OSP.

So it's our position that the NOSB 

should reject this proposal or in the alternative, 

return it to the ammonia, return the petition to 

the crop subcommittee for further consideration. 

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Jeremy. Are 

there questions? Asa has one for you.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes. I just want to get 

your concerns about environment and human health 

effects.

I mean, we are talking about a soluble 

nitrogen that is similar to, chemically to other 

synthetically derived nitrogen fertilizers. And 

of course, nitrogen leaching is a huge issue in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

terms of effects on surface waters, rivers, the 

ocean, drinking water with a lot of environmental, 

and public health, factors.

I mean, I've reviewed cases in 

California where kids have died from nitrogen 

contamination.

So maybe you're trying to limit your 

comments to the ammonia extract in particular, but 

there are a lot of concerns about nitrogen 

fertilizers that are definitely legitimate. 

And --

MR. ROWLAND: Yes.

MR. BRADMAN: -- and how they apply to 

this, maybe that's more in question. But nitrogen 

fertilizers in general have --

MR. ROWLAND: Yes.

MR. BRADMAN: -- substantial and major 

impacts on the environment and health.

MR. ROWLAND: Yes. No, that's a great 

point, Asa. I a hundred percent agree with you. 

And I think you're right.

The origin of what we're doing is in 

an environmental restoration activity. We are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

remediating nitrogen in groundwater. The 

nitrates. We're remediating the nitrogen that 

gets lost downstream that goes into the rivers.

On our project in Pennsylvania we were 

able to obtain environmental credits for our 

project. So what we're doing is we're taking that 

nitrogen that's lost downstream, that's lost into 

the groundwater that you referenced, and we're 

capturing it for a more efficient use.

This is manure nitrogen, so instead of 

it being lost downstream, we're capturing it and 

being able to use it more efficiently. And that 

is what we're doing. So this is an environment 

restoration exercise, what we're doing.

MR. ELA: Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Just a quick 

question on that last point you just made there. 

Are you saying that you actually pull the nitrogen 

from the water?

MR. ROWLAND: No.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Or you pull it from 

the manure so it doesn't end up in the water?

MR. ROWLAND: No. The manure, or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

nitrogen, as everyone here knows, is extremely 

reactive. And it gets lost quickly.

It volatilizes in the barn, it 

volatilizes in the lagoon, it volatilizes after 

it's on the field. It dissolves, goes to the 

ground where there is a lot of pathways.

What we're doing is capturing the 

manure quickly. We're getting it captured 

quickly, and we process it before the nitrogen can 

escape to the environment. So we're not creating 

a new nitrogen source we're just capturing the 

ammonia nitrogen before it's lost.

And as far as the data behind that, that 

was part of our Pennsylvania project where we got 

environmental credits for that because we showed 

the just applying manure, what happens. The 

various agronomy guys say, you know, maybe 15, 20, 

25 percent of the nitrogen is taken up, the rest 

is lost.

We're intervening in that process. So 

the nitrogen we have is manure nitrogen and it's 

restoring the land while it's enhancing the use 

and efficiency of unfarmed nitrogen.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: All right. I have one quick 

question myself that I've been puzzling over. So 

you're talking about the nitrogen use efficiency 

but how is the ammonia extract, when it is applied 

to the crop, how is, I mean, some has got to be 

lost in that application as well.

I mean, you keep noting that manure and 

these other are losing ammonia at the application 

as well. But if I were to going to put it through 

a micro-sprinkler or something like that, it seems 

like it would be susceptible, that same potential 

loss.

MR. ROWLAND: Yes. So that's up to the 

agronomist and the organic system planner to put 

it on at the right time. Manure, as you know, isn't 

always placed on the land when it's time for uptake. 

So you can put it on at the optimal time and that 

enhances the efficiency.

MR. ELA: Okay. But it seems like that 

each, and I'm a little unclear. I mean all these 

things, if properly applied, is the mantra.

And we keep applying, it seems like we 

keep comparing something that's improperly applied 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

with something that's properly applied. So I 

guess, I'm not in love with the comparisons that 

aren't apples-to-apples, but --

MR. ROWLAND: Yes.

MR. ELA: Well, I got a couple other 

questions for you. It looks like Amy and then Sue.

MS. BRUCH: Yes. I just, thank you for 

your comments today. I just had a question about, 

and we actually asked this earlier, I think in the 

meeting, about, just how do you stay in your 

capturing some of the ammonia because you're 

getting after the product in the barns.

But how I understand, every time you 

move a pile of liter that ammonia is released. 

So how many touch points would you estimate are 

done with the primary product prior to you 

processing and capturing the ammonia?

MR. ROWLAND: Well, it depends on the 

species in the barn, et cetera. But the quicker 

you capture the manure and get it in a digester, 

the less nitrogen is lost to the environment 

through volatilization.

So it just depends what kind of scrap 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

systems. In California, the central coast, a lot 

of flush systems, et cetera.

If it's from egg layer manure it can 

be captured one way. So it just depends on the 

species.

The bottom line though, what's 

consistent, the quicker you capture it and get it 

stabilized in a digester the less nitrogen is lost 

to the environment.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. And then I know on 

conventional systems when they're applying some 

of these higher concentrated liquid streams of

nitrogen, they're actually applying stabilizers 

with them.

And unfortunately in organics I don't 

believe that there is a stabilizer for these liquid 

components. So would you agree that there is a 

chance for this product to leach fairly quickly 

without a stabilizer once it's applied?

MR. ROWLAND: Well, if it's applied in 

the ground, inconsistent with an organic systems 

plan, I think all of that is worked in, in a more 

controlled environment than dealing with manure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

in a lagoon or manure in a barn. So, yes.

I mean, you're not -- we're a 

nonsynthetic process, as are the others. We're 

verified nonsynthetic, so we're not creating a 

conventional fertilizer with this.

So we stabilize the nitrogen with a 

bicarbonate ion. That's why we have ammonia 

bicarbonate. But I know there are other ways to 

do it.

But yes, once it interacts with water, 

say, that will start to break down and become 

available.

MS. BRUCH: Okay, thank you.

MR. ELA: Okay. We are running well 

over time here, so Sue and then Logan. But really 

quick or I'm just going to say we'll have to end.

MS. BAIRD: I'll just pass. I think 

that, and maybe ask my question. I guess I'm a 

little conflicted on this application.

It does seem like if you got ammonia 

product that would create less nitrate runoff than 

a manure would that runs into our stream, you know, 

we have a lot of poultry in our area and it's a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

huge issue. But maybe not. I'm really 

conflicted, so sorry.

MR. ELA: Logan, did you have 

something? It doesn't sound like --

MS. PETREY: Sorry. Yes, sir, I'm 

sorry. I'm trying to hit my unmute button. Yes, 

okay.

So, with the fact that you're able to 

create a product, the ammonia extract product and 

it has nitrogen in it, and the fact that you're 

also able to have a solid with nitrogen in it, 

doesn't that prove that you are capturing ammonia 

that would otherwise be released into the 

atmosphere?

MR. ROWLAND: Just by the massed 

balance, Logan, thanks for the question.

MS. PETREY: Correct.

MR. ROWLAND: Yes. So just from the 

massed balance, if you follow what the nutrient 

management planners have as far as what gets land 

to pipe, from the lagoon for example, and you 

compare it to as voided nitrogen from the manure, 

it's about, in general, half the nitrogen is gone 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

before it's even land applied.

So the nitrogen that we're dealing with 

in our product is a lot of that delta. That's stuff 

that's lost in the air, we're stopping that ammonia 

loss and we're turning that into a stabilized 

manure, nitrogen product. So that's what I mean 

when I talk about a renewable enhanced nitrogen 

use product.

When you use, I'm not familiar with all 

the states agronomy guys, but in Penn state it's 

15 percent or so of the nitrogen is assumed to be 

taken up from the manure. And so, yes, we have 

a lot more nitrogen available then would otherwise 

be available.

MS. PETREY: Yes. Thank you.

MR. ELA: All right. Just to give 

people information, we've got three more speakers. 

We're just a little bit before the hour, and we're 

already a half hour over time.

So I think the, I just want to let the 

wait list people know, I don't think we're going 

to get to you. We always try to, but 98 speakers 

later here we've made a pretty good cut at it. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I apologize to the wait list people.

One thing you can do is, in order to 

try and honor you're wanting to comment is, if you 

do want to submit any further written comments, 

send them to Michele and she will get them on the 

public docket for us. So again, apologize not to 

get the wait list people, but we're going to go 

through our last three speakers and call it a day.

We got John Wicks, Russ Hamlin and then 

the final, Harriet Behar. So, John, go ahead.

MR. WICKS: Hello. My name is John 

Wicks. I've been running the family farm in 

Montana since the passing of my father in 2006. 

I farmed strictly conventional till 2016 when I 

began experimenting with organics to break free 

from the high input conventional model that was 

bankrupting so many family farms around me.

I do not support the use of ammonia 

extracts and organic. I got organic to escape high 

input use and costly fixes of throwing money at 

the problem, while throwing management out the 

window.

I do not use any purchased organic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

fertilizers. I believe over time these ammonia 

extracts will become cheaper and more widely used 

if approved for organic.

This will not only entice get rich quick 

farmers to look to take advantage of organics, but 

it will soon be used in large scale operations 

flooding the market with cheap commodities hurting 

prices across the board. I don't believe that 

chasing yield is the answer.

I also got into organic to combat 

climate change by improving soil health. I don't 

believe that applying purchased fertilizers is the 

best for soil biology.

Making cheap fertilizer is more 

available for farmers that will make them pressured 

by bankers and others to give up on good stewardship 

practices of growing their nutrient, which helps 

the environment. Instead they will go with the 

easy fix that over time will seal the fate of family 

farms and the integrity of the organic label. 

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you so much, John. 

Questions? Nate has one for you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes. I like to 

think that all Montanans are as thrifty as you are, 

John, but I feel like I have proven that wrong.

But thank you for your comments. I 

think that the question I, the piece of your 

comments that stood out to me was this idea of 

needing the ammonia extract.

Could you describe your crop rotation 

a little bit, and sort of, you went from that high 

input style, when you were conventional, over to 

organics. What was that change like for you and 

what practice did you have to figure out and learn 

about in order to be organic?

MR. WICKS: So, yes, I guess I'll start 

with the crop rotation and things. I got out of 

that because it was just kind of bankrupting our 

farm.

And I used cover crops with nitrogen 

fixing legumes, which then I used cattle to graze 

down. So we do have cattle on the farm, but I'm 

getting paid to have them run rather than paying 

for their, another byproduct of them.

And I just, I guess some of my views 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

don't really go towards feedlots and some of their 

byproducts, so I don't buy anything from any 

business that I don't deem sustainable that I 

wouldn't do. I guess I forgot the last part of 

your question.

MR. POWELL-PALM: That's okay, that 

covered most of it. I was just thinking about, 

what practices did you have to learn about, and 

ultimately adopt?

Because you probably weren't doing all 

of these different rotations when you were 

conventional --

MR. WICKS: No.

MR. POWELL-PALM: -- what did you have 

to learn to become organic?

MR. WICKS: I basically had to learn 

to farm again. And start over with soil health 

in mind.

And, I mean, all the, I had to go back 

to square one and it was rotations, cover cropping, 

what do all those cover crops do, integrating 

livestock. And it was a lot.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Do you think you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

would have done all of that work and learning if 

you could have just gone from anhydrous ammonia 

over to ammonia extract?

MR. WICKS: No, I don't think so.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you. Really 

appreciate your comments.

MR. WICKS: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Okay, Logan.

MS. PETREY: Do you grow vegetables?

MR. WICKS: I do not, no. I grow small 

grains, legumes and oil seeds.

MS. PETREY: Okay, thank you. Because 

of the, which I assumed so just because of the 

livestock. There is a lot things to take into 

concerns with vegetable growers, we can't really 

use that source of nitrogen. But thank you.

MR. WICKS: Yes.

MR. ELA: All right, thank you, John.

MR. WICKS: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Much appreciated.

MR. WICKS: Yes.

MR. ELA: Glad you called in. We have 

Russ Hamlin and then Harriet Behar. So, Russ, name 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and affiliation and the floor is yours.

DR. HAMLIN: Yes, can you hear me?

MR. ELA: Yes, we've got you. Go 

ahead.

DR. HAMLIN: All right. My name is Dr. 

Russell Hamlin, I'm the general manager of farming 

for Grimmway Farms in Bakersfield, California.

I only have a few comments today that 

I want to discuss. Grimmway has submitted other 

written comments. And I would encourage the Board 

to reflect on those as well.

Grimmway Farms is the largest vegetable 

producer in the United States. The largest 

organic vegetable producer.

We supply over 65 different vegetable 

varieties for our customers year round. We grow 

in eight different states under a variety of 

different field and environmental conditions.

We use hundreds of millions of pounds 

of carbon-based traditional organic fertilizers 

and soil amendments every year. And to be sure, 

we know their benefits and their limitations.

We recognize that some growers do not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

want or need soluble nitrogen products in organic 

farming. Our message to the NOSB is that we do 

need these products and so do many other farmers 

across the United States.

Available nitrogen, like that found in 

guano and ammonia extract, is imported in organic 

crop production. The foundation of our need 

relates to crop quality and customer expectations.

And fortunately, the conventional 

market has created the expectation of perfection 

when it comes to the appearance of fresh organic 

fruits and vegetables. Like it or not, that's the 

standard.

Because of this standard, any shortage 

of plant nutrients may threatening the 

marketability of entire fields. And traditional 

carbon-based fertilizers do not always deliver as 

expected.

We cannot afford, ever, to have 

periodic nutrient deficiencies and organic 

vegetable production if we are to meet customer 

expectations. The limited use of ammonia extract 

products would help solve these problems.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Our message to the NOSB is that without 

soluble nitrogen fertilizers, like sodium nitrate 

and ammonia extract, farmers will be limited in 

their ability to expand this category, 

particularly into nontraditional growing areas.

If the goal is to expand the organic 

market and our footprint, if the goal is to provide 

healthy organic food to the masses and not just 

those with means, then we must give organic growers 

the tools that they need to succeed. Ammonia 

extract could be one of those tools.

The only other point that I wanted to 

make was that if we continually decide to limit 

the amount of available nitrogen and organic 

fertilizers, it may inadvertently lead to the over 

use of permitted organic fertilizers by farmers.

This overused of carbon-based 

fertilizers could stain our reputation of being 

sustainable. It could lead to environmental 

problems and pollution. And would effect the 

ability of some farmers to comply with regulatory 

standards in states like California.

Our advice is that the NOSB would table 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

their decision on ammonia extract to gain more 

information about how your decision will affect 

the industry as a whole. And I absolutely 

appreciate all of your help on this subject.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Russell. Good 

timing on that. We've got a question from Nate 

and then Amy.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Russell, could you 

describe, say, your complete rotation. So 

year-to-year, what is your crop rotation?

(Laughter.)

DR. HAMLIN: Nate, we have 6,000 

plantings a year. We grow 60 to five different 

crops. We try to rotate eight to ten different 

plant families.

If you could pick a particular planting 

I could tell you the rotation.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Totally. How about 

nitrogen feeder versus nitrogen fixer?

DR. HAMLIN: Nitrogen, I'm sorry, can 

you explain?

MR. POWELL-PALM: A legume, do you have 

any legumes in your crop rotation?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

DR. HAMLIN: We do.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Okay. And where 

does those land? How often do, by plantings, if 

you pick just any of them, how often do they get 

planted?

DR. HAMLIN: The legumes are planted 

often. They are typically planted in front of the 

longer season crops that we have, like carrots, 

of which we're largest producer in the world. But 

we also rotate with other cover crops.

Something that's important to mention 

is that the ability to plant cover crops in 

California is also very largely dependant on water 

availability. It is not always guaranteed that 

you have the ability to do that.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Yes, thank you, Dr. Hamlin, 

for your participation today. Sorry, I was going 

to build off of Nate's question in regards to these 

crop rotations. And not necessarily thinking of 

the crop rotation, just your cover crop, but just 

actually complementary crops.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

We heard the mid-west does crop 

rotations because of nutrition. And then the east 

and west coast are using crop rotations mainly to 

suppress disease and pests.

So when we think about your operation 

and the soil quality of California, or Florida, 

or some of those places with the lighter soil, 

sandier soil, some get more rain, some don't. Do 

you see the need to maybe alter some of the crops 

that you're growing, because it seems like fruit 

and veggies really need a lot of nitrogen. 

Especially if you're growing them consecutively.

So I was just questioning the longevity 

of your soil over time. Are you seeing some 

advancements, improvements, et cetera?

DR. HAMLIN: Well, you know, I come 

from the southeast where Logan is, on beach sand. 

And so anything is an improvement on that.

And so as far as I'm concerned, 

California has some of the best soils in the world. 

And in California, I would bet my paycheck that 

Grimmway has some of the best soils of any organic 

farmer.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Do we need to add to our crop portfolio, 

we're always looking to add to our crop portfolio. 

We can, you know, a lot of the driver is what 

customers want. If customers don't want certain 

crops, they're not in consideration.

And then the other option is just adding 

different cover crops that may add value to our 

growing operation. But yes, we're always on the 

lookout for other crops.

MS. BRUCH: Okay, thank you.

MR. ELA: Sue, last question.

MS. BAIRD: I do a lot of inspections 

in California, Salinas Valley and Arizona. And 

I know that it's pretty common for you guys to have 

to use sodium nitrate.

When the NOSB did their vote, did you 

stop using it for a while or has it always been 

still allowed for you?

Did you get decent carrots and/or leafy 

greens during that time?

DR. HAMLIN: Yes, Ms. Sue, I wish that 

I could speak to that. The truth is I've only been 

in California for about two years and so if you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

would like, I could get others who have been here 

longer to write you the answer to that. But I don't 

know that I can answer it well.

MS. BAIRD: Yes, I think that would be 

a valuable input to this discussion. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you so much, Russell, 

we do appreciate your input. We are going to go 

to our final commenter of the day. Former Board 

Member Harriet Behar. Harriet, name, affiliation 

and make your comments. You know the drill.

MS. BEHAR: Okay. Hello, NOSB 

Members, I am Harriet Behar, organic farmer, 

inspector, educator and advocate, and a former NOSB 

chair.

Once the materials are added to the 

national list it is quite difficult to remove or 

improve its sanitation because producers have 

become reliant on the material, as well as the high 

barrier borrower of a two-third affirmative vote 

to remove.

Proposals should be sent back to 

subcommittee rather than pass something that does 

not address the issues.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

More organic products in the 

marketplace is a good goal, but we cannot let the 

integrity of the organic standards be lowered to 

meet this goal. The many organic producers whose 

operations meet or exceed the standards are already 

experiencing a lower trust in the organic label 

and a lower price for their products in the 

marketplace due to fraud, allowing some organic 

hydroponics and inconsistent enforcement of the 

pasture rule and origin of livestock. You must 

always err on the side of strict and enforceable 

standards.

Ammonia extract. Highly soluble 

inputs do not encourage an agricultural system 

based on healthy soil biology and tilth.

As a farmer, I know there are times when 

extreme conditions can lead to lost production.

So I think a small allowance, but only 

in times when the extreme conditions can be proven 

to exist should be developed. The current 

allowance in the proposal, even at only 20 percent 

of the nitrogen needs, does not sufficiently limit 

the use.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Biodegradable mulch film. I do not see 

that many of the issues have been answered in a 

satisfactory way. Since the mulch does not 

degrade in water, why do pieces of it blow into 

a body of water causing harm to many types of 

wildlife.

We do not understand the effect of use 

year-after-year on this sensitive balance of the 

soil food web. The material will be degrading into 

much larger tracks of land and that cannot be 

compared to paper pot use.

The NOSB needs to express their support 

for rulemaking on the disincentive to destroy 

native ecosystems. These precious ecosystems 

show us how to repair our environment, and provide 

for a beautiful and diverse planet.

The NOSB must also have greenhouse and 

container growing systems added to their work 

agenda. This is an area of inconsistent and 

questionable enforcement in organics. Thank you 

for your time and commitments.

MR. ELA: Thank you so much, Harriet. 

Very much appreciate. Questions for Harriet?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BEHAR: Everybody is tired.

MR. ELA: That is true. But just 

trying to think how to phrase my question, Harriet.

Back to the soluble fertilizers. In 

the upper mid-west, and there is certainly 

speciality crops up there as well as row crops and 

dairies, et cetera. I mean, it's probably one of 

the more diverse cropping areas I know of.

With really, with good crop rotations, 

and I think several people mentioned management, 

do you think the nitrogen needs can be pretty mild 

met up there by thoughtful management?

MS. BEHAR: Yes. Yes, I do. But I 

know that there are times when we can have a very 

cold July and a lot of plants flowering. I mean, 

we're talking not only about nitrogen but other 

soluble fertilizers too.

And so, I think that having some 

allowance, especially with climate change to have 

a variance to allow for its use, but I don't want 

to see producers become reliant on the soluble 

fertilizers because they will actually then end 

up missing out on the beauty of organic farming. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Which is having nature's tools provide what we 

need and mimicking those interdependent systems 

that we get from healthy soil, native plants, all 

of that in the system.

But that we get heavy rains, we get 

unexpected colds, that sort of thing, where a 

little shot could make the different between having 

a crop for the season or not. But I do want it 

to be very clearly spelled out that it's used only 

in those emergency situations.

MR. ELA: Great. All right, thank you 

so much, Harriet. We appreciate it. We 

appreciate your thoughts.

MS. BEHAR: Thank you. Good seeing 

everybody.

MR. ELA: Okay. With that, and again, 

I apologize to the wait list people that we couldn't 

get there, but I think we made a pretty good cut 

across the spectrum.

So that completes our public comment 

webinar. Thank you to the Board for staying with 

us this whole time, that's very impressive. And 

for the stakeholders, I know many of you listened 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the whole time too, so that's particular 

impressive.

We are going to reconvene on, help me 

out, Tuesday. I don't know the date off the top 

of my head but --

PARTICIPANT: Tuesday --

MR. ELA: -- there we are. Thank you. 

On Tuesday, October 19th. All the Zoom links are 

on the website. And we will have the Board 

deliberations based on all the written and public 

oral comments we've received.

Jenny, do you have anything to add 

before we adjourn?

DR. TUCKER: Steve, I just wanted to 

say thank you. That was a remarkable two days of 

public comments. We appreciate the range, the 

diversity of feedback.

And we so, so, so are grateful for your 

leadership, Steve. So big round of applause for 

Steve's leadership as we all exit this phase of 

the meeting. We look forward to seeing all next 

Wednesday.

So thank you so, so much for everyone 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

who spoke up, for everyone who listened. And just 

for the entire community. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Yes, thank you to everybody 

as well. It's wonderful hearing all the diverse 

comments and thoughts that we all do take into 

consideration.

So with that, we will see you next 

Tuesday. And hope everybody has a good weekend. 

All right, take care.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 6:11 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + + +

FALL 2021 MEETING

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

OCTOBER 19, 2021

+ + + + +

The Board met via Videoconference, at 

12:00 p.m. EDT, Steve Ela, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT

STEVE ELA, Chair

NATHAN POWELL-PALM, Vice Chair 

MINDEE JEFFREY, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

AMY BRUCH

BRIAN CALDWELL

GERARD D'AMORE

CAROLYN DIMITRI

RICK GREENWOOD

KIMBERLY HUSEMAN

LOGAN PETREY

KYLA SMITH

WOOD TURNER
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

ALSO PRESENT

JENNIFER TUCKER,Deputy Administrator, 

 National Organic Program, USDA; Designated 

 Federal Official

JENNY LESTER MOFFITT, USDA Under Secretary, 

 Marketing and Regulatory Programs

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, Advisory Board Specialist, 

 USDA

MARNI KARLIN, Senior Advisor for Organic and 

 Emerging Markets, USDA

KAREN ROSS, Secretary, California Department of 

 Food and Agriculture

JARED CLARK, National List Manager, Standards 

Division

ANDREA HOLM, Materials Specialist

DAVID GLASGOW, Associate Deputy Administrator, 

National Organic Program

ERIN HEALY, Director, Standards Division
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

CONTENTS

Call to Order ................................. 5

Welcoming Remarks ............................ 11

Agenda Overview, and National Organic Program

(NOP) Introductions .......................... 31

NOSB Introductions ........................... 34

Steve Ela, NOSB Chair

Secretary=s report (acceptance of Spring 2021

meeting summary as official record)

Mindee Jeffery, Secretary .................... 44

NOSB report

Steve Ela, NOSB Chairperson .................. 54

AMS, National Organic Program Update/Open

Discussion -Key Topics of Interest ........... 65

Policy Development Subcommittee (PDS)

Topics:

Discussion Document:

Public comment process ...................... 113

Livestock Subcommittee

Topics:

2023 Sunset substances reviews:

Activated charcoal .......................... 140

Calcium borogluconate ...................... 144

Calcium propionate .......................... 145

Chlorine materials (Calcium hypochlorite,

Chlorine dioxide, hypochlorous acid, sodium

hypochlorite) ............................... 150

Kaolin pectin ............................... 162

Mineral Oil ................................. 165

Nutritive supplements ....................... 169

Propylene glycol ............................ 172

Sodium chlorite, acidified .................. 174

Zinc sulfate ................................ 177
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Materials Subcommittee (MS) ................. 182

Topics Proposal:

Research Priorities 2021 .................... 183

Discussion Document:

Excluded Methods Fall 2021 .................. 211
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

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

(12:01 p.m.)

MS. ARSENAULT: Well, I have the top 

of the hour, so I think we can get started now and 

it looks like some folks are still joining us. 

Welcome everybody to day one of the National 

Organic Standards Board meeting. I am going to 

now hit the record button. So we are going to get 

started there. All right. All the attendees for 

the Board meeting beginning today are in 

observation mode only, so you guys don't have 

access to camera or mic. But at the bottom of your 

Zoom screen -- I'm just going to take a peek at 

mine Zoom screen -- you should have a chat feature. 

So you're welcome to chat with each other.

The Board does not take questions from 

the audience during this portion of the meeting 

these three days, but feel free to chat with each 

other, say hello. We'll also add the Zoom phone 

numbers in case you are having audio issues and 

you want to dial in on the telephone. If you're 

having issues with Zoom, you can also contact their 

support. The help center is very helpful, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

actually. The address is on the screen there or 

if you search for support.zoom.us.

After the conclusion of the meeting on 

Thursday, we will have transcripts available. 

They take a couple of weeks to come to us and we'll 

post those on the NOSB meeting page once the meeting 

is complete and we have the official transcripts 

available. Right. I'm going to turn it over to 

Jenny Tucker to reconvene us from comment webinars 

last week. Jenny.

DR. TUCKER: Okay. Thank you, 

Michelle. Michelle, I can't find Jenny Lester 

Moffitt on the list. Can you see if you could find 

her and take over that process for me?

MS. ARSENAULT: Will do. Thank you.

DR. TUCKER: Yes. So she says she's 

on but I can't find her on the list. So between 

Michelle and Marni, if you guys could kind of figure 

this one out while I am kicking off the meeting 

that would be very very helpful.

MS. ARSENAULT: We can't lose Jenny.

DR. TUCKER: Okay. All right. So I 

will put finding Jenny Lester Moffitt in Michelle 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and Marni's capable hands. I've been looking for 

her under the J's and don't see her. So you guys 

take over there and in the meantime, I will kick 

off the meeting. So again, Michelle, thank you. 

My name is Jennifer Tucker. I'm the Deputy 

Administrator of the National Organic Program. 

Welcome to all our National Organic Standards Board 

members and our public audience. After two days 

of successful public comment webinars last week, 

I am very much looking forward to being with you 

these three days.

I'd first like to again acknowledge and 

celebrate our three Board members who are beginning 

the last meeting of their terms. First, our Chair 

for the last two years, Steve Ela, Sue Baird, and 

Asa Bradman. So I want to thank you for your hard 

work and service for the last five years. So this 

is also where we get to practice our Zoom applause, 

and so everybody, let's applause to our hands into 

the camera and you can do this at home even though 

we can't see you. We know you're there in spirit. 

So let's give our outgoing members of a round 

applause.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And so this webinar continues our 

public meeting that started on October 13th and 

runs through October 21st. Meeting access 

information for all meeting segments is posted on 

the NOSB meeting page on the USDA website. 

Transcripts for all segments will be posted once 

completed. This meeting, like other meetings of 

the National Organic Standards Board, will be run 

based on the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 

the Board's Policies and Procedures Manual. I 

will act as the Designated Federal Officer for all 

meeting segments.

So we are very lucky to have two very 

special guests with us for opening remarks. So 

originally we were planning on having this meeting 

in Sacramento, California so we wanted to have a 

California state leader at today's meeting. As 

such, we're going to hear from Karen Ross who is 

the secretary of the California Department of Food 

and Agriculture. Then we're going to hear from 

Jenny Lester Moffitt, who was recently confirmed 

by the Senate as the USDA Under Secretary for 

Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

After we hear from these speakers, I'll 

review the agenda and introduce the federal team. 

So before I introduced Secretary Ross, let's see 

if we have figured out how to find Jenny Lester 

Moffitt. Have you guys figured that one out? We 

good?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. She is on the 

call under somebody else's name and we're going 

to rename her now.

DR. TUCKER: Yay. Okay. And so our 

Zoom glitch for the morning fixed. Yay. Not bad 

for only, you know, 12:06. We're doing very, very 

well. So now I will turn to introducing Secretary 

Ross. And so Secretary Ross was originally 

appointed as Secretary of the California 

Department of Food and Agriculture in 2011. When 

she was reappointed in January 2019, the governor 

cited her strong leadership in both national and 

international agricultural issues in areas 

including environmental stewardship, climate 

change adaptation, and trade.

Before joining CDFA, Secretary Ross was 

Chief of Staff for USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

during his first term. Before that, she was 

President of the California Association of Wine 

Grape Growers from 1996 to 2009, and was Vice 

President of the Agricultural Council of 

California from 1989 to 1996. So during Secretary 

Ross's tenure, the department is focused on core 

functions to protect and promote California 

agriculture.

She has strengthened partnerships 

across government, academia, and the non-profit 

sector to maintain and improve environmental 

stewardship and develop adaptation strategies for 

the specific impacts of climate change. She has 

also initiated programs to provide greater 

opportunities for farmers and ranchers to engage 

in sustainable environmental stewardship 

practices through water conservation, energy 

efficiency, nutrient management, and ecosystems 

services. So please all join me in a Zoom round 

of applause to welcome Secretary Ross. Welcome.

MS. ROSS: Thank you, Jenny. I am so 

happy to be here for just a couple of minutes. 

Very briefly, of course. I was so looking forward 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to welcoming you in person over a great meal of 

California certified organic healthy food and 

wine. I do have a passion for the food and wine 

sector of California agriculture. So I'm hopeful 

that in the near future we will all be able to gather 

together, but welcome to California virtually. 

Look forward to your next visit.

And I wanted to spend just a few minutes 

to talk a little bit about agriculture here in 

California, and specifically the importance of the 

organic production that we are very proud of here 

in California. We are a $50 billion industry. 

That's just the farm gate value without value 

added. And we have had the state organic program 

in place -- which many of you are probably very 

familiar with -- for over 30 years.

And we work very closely with 

stakeholders led by our California Certified 

Organic Farmers about ten years ago during my first 

term in office, to really streamline that program 

and really re-evaluate, do we still need a state 

organic program?

And we came to the conclusion that for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the consumer trust and to make sure that we could 

use our boots on the ground to ensure the integrity 

of organic, it was an important program for us to 

continue. But we have streamlined it and we have 

really improved, I think, coordination with our 

advisory council, which is a very important part 

of our committee.

In this past year, our state organic 

program and our county staff -- our county 

agricultural commissioners make up a very 

important part of our ability to enforce and 

maintain the integrity of the organic program.

We actually conducted 1571 

inspections. We investigated 129 complaints, and 

we collected 514 samples for residue testing. 

That's an important snapshot of what our staff does 

in cooperation with our county commissioners. And 

I would add our analytical chemistry lab is an 

important tool for us to be able to use, not only 

for our programs, but with our partners at the 

Department of Pesticide Regulation. Out of the 

work that was done this year, there are two very 

high profile cases that many of you may have read 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

about.

One was early this year, and I will say 

it was a bit of a shock to me. After doing our 

investigation, we actually had to do a stop use 

notice and a state wide quarantine of a product 

that was found to be adulterated with diquat and 

glyphosate. I don't know. It's too early in the 

morning for me. I know it's noon for some of you, 

but it's still 9:00 and I've only had one cup of 

coffee. That was an alarm to us, but it also 

reinforced the importance of the investment we've 

made in our state organic program and having the 

capability both through boots on the ground, as 

well as -- I'm going to stress again, the importance 

of our chem lab to being able to quickly move when 

we found this.

And now we are in the process of working 

very closely with our Attorney General's office 

on this very serious case. One that really set 

off our alarm bells. And unfortunately later this 

year in June, we had a second case where we're 

working in conjunction with the Department of 

Pesticide Regulation on weed and grass killer that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

were also found to be adulterated with a number 

of products including glyphosate, carbaryl, and 

several others. So we continue to embrace boots 

on the ground, responding to complaints as they 

come to us. And using science to be able to do 

the best enforcement job that we possibly can.

That's so important to us because 

California is the largest producer of organic 

crops. We have grown 40 percent. In 2014, we had 

1.6 million acres, and now we have 2.8 million acres 

and we continue to grow that. It's important to 

us to be able to have a program that supports our 

5400 producers, our 1300 handlers, and our 216 

processors. I wanted to chat and close my comments 

with the importance and the appreciation that I 

have for our advisory committee. This is made up 

of people from all of our stakeholders, farmers, 

processors, handlers, some public members.

The purpose of our advisory committee 

is to give me updates on where they would like to 

see the program go. But we have increasingly been 

focusing on how to improve enforcement and make 

sure that we're as effective and as efficient as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

we can be; what we can do to improve education 

outreach to really sing the praises of all that 

organic production and processing in organic 

products contribute to our way of life; and we are 

increasingly focused on research and what we can 

do to help grow this sector.

So the COPAC -- we call them COPAC -- the 

advisory committee has formed recently a 

subcommittee that's really going to be digging into 

what is the next chapter here in California with 

regard to research, with regard to outreach and 

education, and to continually improve our 

standards and the enforcement of those standards. 

So I'm looking forward to working with that 

subcommittee and the recommendations that it comes 

up with.

And then I went to close around the very 

important topic of climate change, the importance 

of our organic producers, and the role that they're 

playing with that. We have in our budget that was 

just signed by the governor several weeks ago, we 

have a total of $1.1 billion to invest in climate 

smart agriculture.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

This includes on-farm water use 

efficiency that reduces energy use and it reduces 

overall water use and reduces greenhouse gas 

emissions; our Healthy Soils Program, which the 

momentum behind that has just exploded, will have 

a $160 million for incentive grants for that 

program over the next two years. Methane 

reduction.

And we have a couple of new programs 

I'm especially proud of. One for pollinator 

habitat will have $30 million. We have a newly 

established California Pollinator Partnership. 

Obviously our organic producers are critical 

player in all of that that we do for native as well 

as all those domesticated pollinators that we 

shifted to the state of California.

And a new program will have $42 million 

for ag conservation planning grants. This could 

be a carbon farm plan. It could be a whole farm 

conservation plan. We could focus exclusively on 

nutrient management. But guess what? In the 

first year of this program, the legislature asked 

that we prioritize $7 million for those farmers 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and ranchers who want to do an organic transition 

plan and I'm very excited about us being able to 

bring these resources to the table to leverage what

our federal park natural resource conservation 

service do.

As we know that farmers and ranchers 

can lead on solutions to climate change. We are 

the ones with our on-farm practices, especially 

with our intent to do soil health that can actually 

sequester carbon and create resiliency to climate, 

resiliency to drought. And I'm really proud of 

all the work that we do and the staff that we have 

and the partnership with you, Jenny, and everyone 

at USDA. Looking forward to the outcomes for the 

National Organic Standards Board. I know you 

always have lots to discuss and vigorous debate.

I appreciate our ability to progress 

for science, but never abandon those indigenous 

practices that have made agriculture the great 

contributor to the quality of life that every 

person on the globe gets to benefit from. So 

thanks for holding your meeting virtually in 

Sacramento. I hope we get a rain check for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

in-person meeting so we can share some good food 

and wine next time you are in the state. Thanks 

for giving me a few minutes. I really appreciate 

the opportunity.

DR. TUCKER: Thank you so so much, 

Secretary Ross. Let's all give Secretary Ross 

some Zoom applause. Ms. Ross, you have to imagine 

like a 160 people all waving at their screens and 

thanking you. So thank you so much for being with 

us and we do look forward to coming out and seeing 

you in person in California in the future. So 

thank you.

And now I will introduce our new Under 

Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, 

Jenny Lester Moffitt. And so Jenny Lester Moffitt 

is again our new Under Secretary. She previously 

served as Under Secretary of the California 

Department of Food and Ag, where she was also Deputy 

Secretary from 2015 to 2018. So before that, Jenny 

spent ten years as managing director at Dixon Ridge 

Farms, which is her family's organic walnut farm 

and processing operation. So growing up and 

working on the farm, Jenny learned firsthand the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

importance of taking care of the land and the people 

who farm it.

So additionally, Jenny served on the 

Central Valley Regional Water Control Board from 

2012 to 2015 and worked for the American Farmland 

Trust from 2002 to 2005. As a farmer and policy 

maker, Jenny is engaged with agricultural 

stakeholders on critically important balance of 

sustaining our environment, strengthening our 

rural economies, and building healthy communities.

A former 4-H and FFA member and current 

4-H volunteer, Jenny grew up raising market lambs 

and learning about the value of hard work and 

working together. Jenny is graduate of Brown 

University and the California Agricultural 

Leadership Program. Outside work, she spends time 

with her husband and daughter. So let's welcome 

Jenny Lester Moffitt, and please take it away.

MS. MOFFITT: Thank you, Jenny. And 

it is truly a pleasure for me to be here with you-all 

today. I just want to first off, echo what you 

said Jenny, about thanks to the outgoing -- to all 

of the NOSB members, but especially to the outgoing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

ones whose last meeting is today. When Jenny and 

I talked about this about a month ago, I said, so 

what are we doing to make sure that we celebrate?

Because I've been to a few NOSB Board 

meetings in my time and I know how much work is 

involved in serving, and so we want to make sure 

that as Secretary Ross said, as we get together 

and enjoy the beautiful organic bounty of food and 

drink that we do so and also recognize and thank 

everyone who's served and who hasn't had the chance 

to be recognized in-person once we can do so. But 

then also just thank everyone for your service in 

this.

The NOSB is such an important dialogue 

and an important forum for the organic industry. 

I know I went to my first meeting, I think in the 

Woodland meeting, a few years ago and have been 

to about a few since then. And I just know how 

important the work is of the Board members as well 

as the organic industry, both producers, 

consumers, and everyone in-between in engaging in 

the dialogue about organic production and what does 

that mean. And really continuing the projection 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

as was designed from the beginning of moving 

organic and in shepherding the organic process.

So thank you for all of your 

perspectives. And Steve, particular, thank you 

for your services as Chair for these past two years. 

As I mentioned, and as Jenny mentioned, I 

previously was an organic farmer and I know how 

important organic production is to the livelihoods 

of all of our communities, to markets, and 

everything in-between. And so I really do want 

to thank you guys for again, that service.

And let's just say the robust 

conversations that do happen here at the NOSB, but 

then also across the department of the USDA as well. 

I want to just say that as I started in August, 

one of the first things that I heard and one of 

the first conversations that I had with the 

Secretary was on organic production. This is 

something that is of particular interest to him, 

certainly particular interest to me. It is about 

growing all markets in the United States, 

especially our food markets.

But organic production is key part of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

all of that. So we want to make sure and he is 

certainly interested in the work that you guys are 

doing and the work that we're doing across the 

department in organic production. We have some 

big priorities. No surprise. We have certainly 

some big priorities in the Biden-Harris 

administration under Secretary Vilsack at USDA 

that I just wanted to highlight and share with all 

of you.

As Secretary Ross mentioned, climate 

smart agriculture, that is definitely a key 

priority within our administration at USDA and at 

the federal government as well. It was just 

announced last week that we're going to have 12 

cabinet members attending the UN Climate Summit 

next month in Glasgow, just shows the commitment 

that the administration has in climate change 

generally. And we know how essential and key 

climate change solutions are in agriculture and 

how key agriculture can be to those climate 

solutions.

So just at the end of last month, at 

the end of September, Secretary Vilsack in Colorado 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

made a big climate announcement. We're really 

looking to solicit opinions and ideas and concepts 

on that climate announcement. There is a lot going 

on in the climate space really about how do we use 

the power of government in partnership with 

industry as well as the private sector and private 

investors to really spur and leverage and grow 

climate smart agriculture across agriculture and 

organic is a key part of that.

We know, as Secretary Ross mentioned, 

all of the things that we talk about in the organic 

system plan -- I had ten years of writing organic 

system plans and going through inspections, and 

there's so many pieces in organic system plan that 

really are healthy soils practices, hedgerows, all 

of these different soil building, and other 

practices that are important for climates, for 

agriculture. So organic is a key part of our 

climate solutions and I know you guys are planning 

on having a conversation later today about that 

and I look forward to getting a report back from 

Jenny and the team about just what you guys are 

looking.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Really, we do seek your guidance and 

we are interested in hearing from you on this. 

Equity is a key priority as well for our 

administration. We want to make sure that as we're 

serving agriculture, as we are serving the food 

system, that we're not leaving certain groups 

behind. And so really casting our net wide in 

casting and making sure we don't have any gaps. 

And so equity is an important part of what we talk 

about and what we're doing. And so that's another 

key thing.

Really our goal within the agricultural 

marketing service and then also across USDA is 

building climate smart, resilient, and a more 

equitable food and agriculture system. That is 

really what we're focused on. And that includes 

things like support for fair and competitive 

markets. We're doing that in the meat and poultry 

industry. As many of you might have heard, we've 

made some big announcements on that and we're 

working on that as well. Again, really much more 

focused on not just regulatory approaches, which 

is definitely key, but it's a whole suite of thing.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So it's also investment in new 

processing capacity in the meat and poultry 

industry. As we do that, we're very mindful of 

all of the markets that are available, including 

organic market. And so that's another important 

place that, you know, we certainly hope that the 

organic industry is participating and I know many 

have. So we want to thank you guys for that.

We have $4 billion total for Build Back 

Better system work. One part of that was an 

announcement Secretary Vilsack made earlier this 

summer, which is $200 million of that for organic 

transition support. So we're working with our 

team now on what does that mean. What are the key 

parts and components and what is needed and desired 

from the industry. We're also hearing and 

soliciting feedback from the industry as well 

because you guys know what you need and we want 

to hear from you guys about what that looks like.

And then the other thing I just wanted 

to -- as we think about transition, you know, we're 

hearing market development is key. Also as key 

is, again back to equity, making sure that we have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

systems in places to support all producers who are 

interested in becoming certified and helping to 

shepherd through that process.

Finally, I wanted to just share that 

we're really excited and I know she'll be 

participating later on in the meeting that we now 

have as Senior Advisor for Organic Markets, Marni 

Karlin. She's probably no stranger to many of you. 

We're really thrilled to have her on Board. 

She'll talk a lot more about what she's working 

on. But key to this is of course shepherding a 

lot of the processes that I just talked about, but 

also the work across the department. So that we're 

taking a whole government approach to organic.

As a farmer, I know how important it 

is that we're not just in one area, one area, one 

area, but that all of those different areas are 

working and conversing across the department to 

best serve organic producers, organic processors, 

and organic consumers. So I'm excited to have her 

on board. I know you guys are going to be hearing 

from her later today. Another thing I wanted to 

just talk about is, as we talk about all these other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

great things across the department, we know the 

work of NOSB, the feedback, and the work that you 

guys have had on informing us on different rule 

making has been as crucial and important and 

valuable to us.

So Strengthening Organic Enforcement 

final rule, which is something I'm sure you're all 

very familiar with, as well as the Origin of 

Livestock Final Rule have been written and we're 

starting the USDA review process. I'm moving 

those ones forward. In June, the Secretary 

announced that the National Organic Program would 

work on Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices 

rule. This rule has been written and is based on 

the 2017 Organic OLPP -- we'll just shorten it 

down -- final rule and that has also started the 

review process. All three rules will go through 

the office of management and budget process later 

this year and early next year, and we're hoping 

for Spring 2022 publication dates.

We are committed to tackling the 

complicated issues of inner ingredients as well 

and the ongoing national rule making. So that is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

also an important live as we all know of producers. 

I know a lot of what you guys do. It's the bread 

and butter and some of the key things that you guys 

spend a lot of time on the NOSB doing. And so we're 

committed to keeping those processes going as well 

as we move these other three big packages along 

through the process.

So I just want to thank you again for 

your service to us. We hear you and we value the 

great work that you're doing, and so thank you to 

the service to both us at USDA, as well as to the 

organic industry. Thank you for all of the 

stakeholders, all of the people who are on as 

participants, who are participating in the 

process. It is so valuable to us and I'll just 

turn it back to Jenny who is our key champion in 

all of this and thanks again also to Jenny for the 

work that you've done.

DR. TUCKER: Well, thank you, Jenny, 

and it's a pleasure, pleasure, pleasure to have 

you here today. Thank you so much for joining us. 

Let's all give a big Zoom applause to Jenny Lester 

Moffitt. And again, Jenny, you have to imagine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

now 159 people all waving in the camera. Thank 

you. Again, thank you so, so much. It is a 

pleasure working with you.

And that closes our welcoming speaker 

segment of the meeting and so, Secretary Ross and 

Under Secretary Moffitt, thank you again both so 

much for being here. You're welcome to listen in 

for a bit or log off for the rest of what I am sure 

are very, very busy days for you starting your day 

on the west coast. So thanks again for giving us 

your time and being with us to say hello to the 

Board and we really appreciate your comments. So 

thank you. Okay.

Now we will switch to taking a look at 

our meeting agenda and I'm going to introduce some 

other members of the team. So first, the agenda. 

We are meeting from 12:00 to about 5:00 or 6:00 

Eastern today, tomorrow, and Thursday with an hour 

break in the middle of each day. Today, the Board 

Chair will get us started. We'll have some time 

for a USDA update and NOP/ NOSB discussion. Then 

we'll move into the subcommittee's work which will 

extend into Thursday. We will close Thursday with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

board elections, a recognition of our outgoing 

members, and a look ahead.

So turning to team introductions, I'd 

like to introduce, as Jenny Lester Moffitt just 

did, the newest member of our political appointee 

team, our Organic Policy Advisor, Marni Karlin. 

Marni will say hello in a bit at the beginning 

of the USDA and NOP update. Next, I'd like to thank 

the National Organic Program team. Michelle 

Arsenault is our advisory board specialist.

And I think as folks who have been to 

these meetings before know, Michelle is fully 

devoted to the Board and makes the management of 

all the countless subcommittee meetings and these 

public webinars look easy. So Michelle, thank 

you. I'm going to do a special round of applause 

for Michelle because we would not be able to do 

any of this without Michelle. So Michelle, thank 

you.

I am also very, very grateful for the 

leadership of our Standards Division Director Erin 

Healy. Erin has been leading the team well, as 

we've engaged with multiple rule making projects 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

this year -- you've just heard from Under 

Secretary. Erin came in at the beginning of 

January this year and it has certainly been a very, 

very full nine or ten months for her. Jared Clark, 

our new National List Manager, continues to do 

amazing work. We're very, very lucky to have him.

Andrea Holm is one of our three 

Materials Specialists in the program, has been 

doing fabulous behind the scenes work and Andrea 

is skilled in a lot of different areas. And it 

just makes a lot of things move more smoothly. 

And then Devon Pattillo is our lead role writer 

in the division working extensively on our current 

livestock rule. So thank you, Devin. Let's give 

a round of applause to all the staff that worked 

really, really hard to make not only these meetings 

successful, but also do all of this rule writing 

to meet industry needs.

So thank you to the team. Next, I'm 

going to turn it to Steve Ela, Chair of the Board, 

who will be introducing Board members. All of 

these representatives devote hours and hours and 

hours of volunteer time to serve the organic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

community. And many of them have never met each 

other in person face to face yet, which is really 

quite incredible given what -- it's amazing what 

they've been able to build given that reality.

And so let's give the whole Board a 

round of applause as I hand it over to Steve. And, 

Steve, thank you in advance for a great meeting. 

Take it away. It's all yours.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, Jenny, 

and I just really wanted to say thank you to the 

program staff. You all make it look easy on the 

virtual meetings, but also just the amount of 

background support and initially reviewing 

petitions and TR reports and the rule writing and 

such. And I think despite all the -- sometimes 

the comments from stakeholders about NOSB 

independency. I think, you know, as a Board we 

are independent and also it's so nice to have the 

background of all of you that are often very quiet, 

but make this all work, so.

And I'm especially excited to hear from 

Jenny Lester Moffitt and Karen Ross. Those were 

nice presentations and thank you for organizing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

those. We're going to move onto the Board members 

of the NOSB and I'm just going to -- in general, 

like I'm voting, we're going to go alphabetically 

because that is really the only way we can do it 

virtually. And as you know, we start with a 

different person each time in the voting, but in 

the roll call, I'm just going to go alphabetically 

as well. So Sue Baird, which you introduce 

yourself and say just a little bit about you.

MS. BAIRD: Hi, I am Sue Baird. I'm 

from Missouri. I'm currently not, but I was at 

the time the Executive Director of the Missouri 

Organic Association. We also have a food hub. 

I serve in special interests group and I've 

especially been active with the livestock 

committee.

MR. ELA: And Sue serves in the 

consumer public interest seat. And, Sue, thank 

you for five years. It goes quickly and it takes 

a long time. Asa Bradman.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you, Steve. I'm 

Asa Bradman and I am a Professor of Public Health 

at UC Merced, moved over here from UC Berkeley. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I've worked for many years on issues around 

agriculture and health in real communities, 

looking at the relationship of pesticides and other 

environmental factors related to child health and 

development. I've also worked in many other 

aspects in agriculture.

And back in the day, I picked grapefruit 

and apples for export. Back when I was young. 

And also worked on a chicken farm and managed the 

produce area -- produce department for a small 

grocery store. And I've been excited to be on the 

Board and looking forward to this meeting. So I 

currently serve on the resource and conservation 

seat.

MR. ELA: Another shout out for Asa for 

making it through five years as well with his 

expertise. Thanks, Asa, it's been a very, very 

deep pleasure to serve with you and get to know 

you. Amy Bruch.

MS. BRUCH: Thanks, Steve. Hi, 

everybody. My name is Amy Bruch. I serve in the 

farmer seat. I'm a sixth generation farmer and 

president of my family farming operation that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a 100 percent organic or transitioned organic 

located in East Central Nebraska and we grow 

various different row crops, small grains, pulses, 

and oil seeds there that are irrigated.

In addition to my family farm, my 

background's agri engineering, and I've had over 

20 years' experience with various agribusiness 

opportunities and farm management opportunities 

both domestically and internationally. Very 

happy to be here and to be able to serve on the 

Board. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Amy. And you're 

in your first year of the five-year term and thank 

you so much for jumping into the fray with all of 

us. Next, Brian Caldwell.

MR. CALDWELL: Thanks Steve and hi 

everybody. This is my first year also. I'm in 

the consumer and public interest seat on the Board. 

Located in central New York, near Ithaca, New 

York. I retired from Cornell University a couple 

of years ago, and I have a small farm where we grow 

organic apples and chestnuts. So I'm very excited 

to be in my first fall meeting.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: And like Amy, Brian, it's 

great to see you on the Board and we're going to 

wish you the best of luck in your next four years. 

Thanks for signing up for the program here. Jerry 

D'Amore. Jerry, we're not hearing you.

MR. D'AMORE: Sue, I'll carry on your 

legacy when you depart. Thank you, Steve. Jerry 

D'Amore. I sit on one of the handling seats in 

NOSB, and I live in Watsonville, California. For 

much of the 1970s I built and operated hydroponic 

greenhouses in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. For 

all of the 1980s, I constructed, owned and operated 

hydroponic greenhouses in Virginia. In 1991, I 

moved for six years with my family to Turkey, 

working for Chiquita Banana. I was responsible 

for all the Black Sea ports for the delivery of 

the product. So it would be Bulgaria, Romania, 

Ukraine, and Russia. I spend a total of six years 

with Chiquita.

In the year 2000 I joined Driscolls 

where I participated in a wide variety of posts 

harvest responsibilities including sales and 

marketing. From 2006 onwards, I spent most of my 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

time engaged in the blueberry industry, both in 

the growing of the varieties and got deep into the 

cold chain management about that point. 

Agriculture has been a wonderful career and I'm 

honored and sometimes overwhelmed to be on this 

advisory group. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Jerry. And 

you're one of the group that we did new member 

training in person and then promptly went to all 

virtual. So thanks for trying to figure out all 

this on the fly and in the virtual environment. 

Carolyn Dimitri.

DR. DIMITRI: Hi everyone. I'm 

Carolyn Dimitri. I'm a faculty member at New York 

University. I'm an applied economist and I am 

extremely interested in the social and 

environmental costs of the food system. Before 

I joined the NYU faculty, I worked for the Economic 

Research Service as the organic marketing person.

And when I was hired at ERS, they 

basically said, under no circumstances are you to 

work on organic, and then I spent a good dozen years 

developing a rich and robust research program on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

organic. And like everyone else before me and 

following me, I'm very honored to be on this board.

I sit in the consumer seat and I feel that organic 

is such an important part of our food system. And 

I'm excited to be here.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Carolyn. And you 

as well were one of the new members that got to 

do your new member training virtually which was 

a new experience for all of us. But thank you for 

doing what you do. And I think I'm especially 

excited to have your perspective on the Board 

because you bring a very important other side of 

organics to our experience. Next, Rick Greenwood.

MR. GREENWOOD: Hi, everyone. Rick 

Greenwood. I'm in the environmental protection 

resource conservation seat. Had sort of a split 

career. I'm a public health professional, 

epidemiologist, infectious disease person by 

training and been involved in disease control for 

years. Transitioned into environmental 

protection, environment health and safety. At the 

same time, I'm CCOF certified avocado grower in 

Southern California. And so I've struggled with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the drought and all of the things that are involved 

with agriculture for over 20 years.

Happy to be on the Board. I think of 

myself as the new guy, but actually I'm just closing 

out four years. So I'm in my final a year. My 

day job is I'm on the California Governors COVID 

task force, which I started back in March, over 

a year ago, and also work on other infectious 

disease programs. So happy to be here and it's 

been an interesting and fun time. I'm going to 

be sad to see Steve leave because I won't have 

anyone to kid about apples. I thought I'd get my 

shot in now, but I guess they're okay. But, you 

know, avocados are much better.

MR. ELA: Thanks Rick. I'll see if in 

my final days as Chair if I can keep the playing 

field even here, but yes. Rick serves in the 

environmental resource conservation seat. And as 

he said he's going to be the lone fifth year person 

next year. Our board rotation is a little bit 

skewed as you can all tell. But Rick, I'm sure 

you'll bring the historical perspective of the 

Board to all the rest of the folks. So it's good 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to have you staying on one more year. Kim Huseman.

MS. HUSEMAN: Hi. Good morning from 

Colorado. My name is Kimberly Huseman. I sit on 

the --

MR. ELA: Sorry, Kim. We can hear you, 

Kim. Oh, now we can't hear you.

MS. HUSEMAN: Okay. Can you hear me?

MR. ELA: Yes. You're on.

MS. HUSEMAN: Okay. You scared me 

there. Steve. Try that again. So good morning. 

I'm from Colorado. My name is Kimberly Huseman. 

I sit in the handlers seats. I've been on the 

Board -- this is my conclusion of my second year. 

I work for Pilgrim's. We are a poultry production 

company. I've been with them for a little over 

seven years and I am the Director of Specialty 

Ingredients. So I've developed all the input 

program for the organic poultry operations that 

Pilgrim's has.

I grew up production agriculture on a 

farming and ranching facility in southeast 

Wyoming. A proud member of both the 4-H and FFA 

organizations all through my years of schooling 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and still support them both today. It's been a 

very interesting two years on the Board with the 

virtual environment. But I am very proud to serve 

with the members that we currently have, although 

I've only met in-person six of them. One of which, 

my other fellow Coloradan, is fixing to go off the 

Board. So thank you to everybody.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Kim. Kim was 

another member that we got the initial training 

in person and then promptly went virtual after 

that. So Kim, it's great to have another 

Coloradan, and it's also great to have a livestock 

and handling representative on the Board. And 

certainly your past experiences is very 

interesting and useful. Mindee Jeffrey.

MS. JEFFREY: Good morning. I guess 

it feels early here still, but you guys are really 

in your days already over there in the east coast. 

I sit in the retailers seat in Good Earth Natural 

Foods in Northern California. I've done a lot of 

work with the Independent Natural Food Retailers 

Association. So it's really fun to interact with 

retailers all over the country and a little bit 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of experience working in the co-op space. Really 

big fan of all the work that goes on out there in 

the retailer landscape.

So yes, I'm happy to be here and I'm 

having a good time and thanks for everybody's hard 

work and all the program people making the virtual 

world work for us. Thank you very much. I look 

forward to hearing all the debates.

MR. ELA: Yes. And there will be some. 

Mindee also serves in the secretary position for 

the last year and is another member of the group 

that we got to meet in person, before everything 

fell apart. So Mindee, thank you for serving as 

secretary and giving your input into the executive 

Board. It's wonderful to have you. Logan Petrey.

MS. PETREY: Hi. Thank you. I'm 

Logan Petrey. I'm with Grimmway Farms. Serving 

in the farmer seat. I'm actually the southeast 

ranch manager for Grimmway and we've been over here 

for -- Grimmway has been over here just a couple 

of years trying to figure it out. It's got its 

challenges for sure. We grow organic vegetables, 

the leafy vegs. Carrots are our main thing. We 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

are also in rotation with corn and actually trying 

out some peanuts this year. And so yes, just 

trying to work all that together, fill up this plan, 

and do our job. We are on the subcommittee for 

materials and for crops. And I'm happy to be here 

and I'm happy to serve.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Logan. It's 

wonderful to have somebody from the southeast and 

you bring a great perspective to the Board. A very 

different farming perspective from that part of 

the country, which is always interesting to hear. 

I do have to comment that you all, you and Amy, 

also represent the flatlanders side of things. 

Looking at your pictures amazing that you can see 

that far without a hill. That's very different 

for me as well.

So thank you and thank you for jumping 

in the fray as well. And thank you for serving 

despite new changes of life with a new baby. So 

I know that's its own challenge. Nate 

Powell-Palm.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Hi everybody. I'm 

Nate Powell-Palm. I'm based out of Bozeman, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Montana and I raise organic pulse crops, oil seeds, 

and zero grains, but got my start in organic beef 

cattle. And so I've been certified organic since 

2008. And since 2012 have worked as an organic 

farm inspector and am now an organic inspector 

trainer. So my world is organic and I'm really 

grateful for such a dynamic and interesting world 

to be a part of. I serve on the farmers seat and 

have served for last year as the Vice Chair of the 

NOSB.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Nate. Your 

diverse experience between pulse crops and 

livestock brings a great perspective to the Board. 

And thank you for serving as Vice Chair and 

contributing to the executive calls and such. 

It's been great to have you. Kyla Smith.

MS. SMITH: Hi everybody. My name is 

Kyla Smith. I come to you from central 

Pennsylvania State College area. I'm having some 

resurfacing of my road done in front of my house 

so hopefully it doesn't get too noisy. I am 

serving in the certifier seat. I work for PCO, 

Pennsylvania Certified Organic based here out of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Pennsylvania. We certify nationwide, but mostly 

in the Mid-Atlantic region.

I've spent my entire career pretty much 

in certification, doing most of the jobs from 

inspecting to reviewing to material input 

reviewing to policy development. I often joke 

that I've done almost every job at PCO except for 

accounting and like HR.

But yes, I'm really honored to serve 

on the Board. I'm ending my first year and just 

really grateful for the opportunity. And, you 

know, we as certifiers try to come together and 

be as consistent as possible and this is a great 

way for me to carry that forward in a much bigger 

way. So that's sort of my goal of being on the 

Board is to really promote that consistency and 

transparency across certifiers, and working with 

the Board and the NOP to drive that home. So 

thanks. Looking forward to the meeting.

MR. ELA: And Kyla's another one that 

only knows the virtual environment and hopefully 

that can change. But has very ably taken over for 

Scott Rice and I agree that the certifier position 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

is huge and helping the Board understand and 

sometimes clarify what the things that we do, how 

they apply going through the systems. So thanks, 

Kyla. Wood Turner.

MR. TURNER: Steve, I'm keeping my 

fingers crossed that a future member of the Board 

will be late in the alphabet so I'm not the last 

one, always dream this will be, but we'll see what 

happens. I'm Wood Turner. I'm Head of 

Environmental and Social Impact for Agriculture 

Capital. I'm based in the Bay area, but my heart 

is always in North Carolina where I grew up, and 

in Seattle and New Hampshire where I spent most 

of my career.

I've been here in California for about 

seven-and- a half years now. We're a grower of 

organic blueberries, organic table grapes, as well 

as citrus and hazelnuts. I spent my career focused 

on sustainability in climate solutions. I'm 

trained as an environmental planner and landscape 

designer. And really love this experience and 

love being a part of -- you know, this close to 

the organic food community is just a huge honor 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and really a powerful experience for me to serve 

this way. So thanks to all of you for being here 

and letting me be here.

MR. ELA: Thanks Wood. And as a group 

that -- the last of the group that we got to meet 

in person, it's been in pleasure and I especially 

appreciate your deep thinking on so many issues 

pertaining to the environmental seat. It's 

wonderful to interact with you. And I will put 

in a plug for to the program for somebody whose 

name starts with a Z in the nomination, as far as 

board diversity goes.

And finally, I'm Steve Ela, serving as 

Board Chair for the last two years and served as 

Vice Chair before that. I'm an organic fruit 

grower. Apples, pears, peaches, cherries, plums, 

and heirloom tomatoes -- which are a fruit, just 

to be clear -- out here in Western Colorado in a 

little town of Hotchkiss. We always say it's a 

town of 800 as long as it's tourist season and 

nobody has died. But I have been -- well, fourth 

generation grower here in Western Colorado.

Obviously we've been through all the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

changes. You know, through the lead arsenic for 

codling moth control, through conventional, and 

then we started transitioning in 1994 and became 

a 100 percent certified, I believe it was in 2004. 

It's been just a real pleasure to serve on this 

Board. It's always a learning curve from all the 

other Board members. So it's been fascinating and 

lovely to hear all of the things that goes on.

With that, I'm going to just do a little 

housekeeping things before I turn it over to Mindee 

for the minutes. I do want to point out, due to 

some board member travel arrangements and 

constraints -- which I have to laugh, in a virtual 

meeting we're having travel constraints, but that 

is true.

So we're going to, on the agenda, we're 

going to swap the materials and CACS time frames. 

We did have a CACS scheduled for this afternoon 

at the end of the day and materials on Thursday 

afternoon at the end of the day. So we're swapping 

this. So the Materials Subcommittee will be at 

the end of the day today and CACS at the end of 

the day on Thursday. Just to be very clear. And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

all these of course, the Board -- for anybody that 

messes up in terms of listening, all the Board 

meetings will be available by transcripts so you'll 

be able to hear exactly what was talked about.

And then within the Handling 

Subcommittee, just a minor change where we're going 

to move -- Wood's going to present his two materials 

and then carrageenan will follow that. But that's 

quite a minor change. So just to pay attention 

to those scheduled changes. As always, to the 

Board members, stay on mute unless you're talking. 

And it's wonderful if you'll open up your camera 

when you're presenting and talking just so 

everybody can see your faces and get to know you 

as best we can in this environment.

I already mentioned we'll be voting 

alphabetically and then moving one-person down on 

each vote. And often the nominations for the new 

Board -- four new people that will be coming on 

are announced at this meeting. That didn't work 

for various reasons and administration changes 

exactly. So we'll look forward to the new board 

members whenever they're announced and then we'll 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

see what expertise they will bring to the Board. 

So with that, I am going to turn it over to NOSB 

secretary Mindee Jeffrey, to give the secretary's 

report.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you. NOSB 

members, do you accept the meeting minutes from 

the April 21, 2021 NOSB meeting as written, and 

are there any concerns?

MR. ELA: Any additions or 

corrections? Not seeing any, so --

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you. Then minutes 

are accepted.

MR. ELA: That's great. Thank you so 

much, Mindee, for like I said, serving on the 

executive committee and giving your thoughts and 

input. I think some people don't realize the input 

that the secretary gives in all the leadership of 

the Board. So very much appreciate you're willing 

to do that. All right. This is the chance for 

the Chair to give my report. In the past it's 

always, you know -- sometimes it's been 

very -- poking at the program asking for things 

to be done. Sometimes it's very relaxed in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

general.

You all know my personality, so I don't 

think I will be inflammatory in my final chance 

on the soap box here, but I do want to point out 

some things that are of importance to me. And I 

would like to start off with, when I was a graduate 

student in soil science, my office was in the bottom 

of Borlaug Hall, the University of Minnesota.

It was always kind of striking to be 

in Borlaug Hall because Borlaug was one of the 

authors and proponents of the green revolution back 

in the '60s, I guess it would be late '50s. And 

the green revolution really was to bring, you know, 

highly bred seeds and fertilizers and to a certain 

extent, pesticides to the world with the philosophy 

of feeding the world and helping the world be 

self-sufficient in all areas in terms of food.

And that to a certain extent worked and 

to many extents did not. It certainly disrupted 

traditional cultures in many places and 

traditional agricultural systems that were 

developed specifically for certain areas. And as 

we know to this they, there are still many, many 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

parts of the world that experience hunger and lack 

of adequate food production.

And so, you know, to me that feed the 

world philosophy that started with me in Borlaug, 

has not really come to fruition. And so I think 

that's really important as we, as organic growers 

continued to realize that because we often hear 

a many number of topics that we have looked at and 

debated on that this will help feed the world.

And while I applaud that philosophy, 

we do want food security for the whole world. I 

will just point out that conventional agriculture 

is also failed in that endeavor to feed the world. 

And I think that's really important. We do want 

food for everybody. But it's going to take a lot 

of thought and a lot of work and embracement of 

what people already know and working within they 

systems.

And so, you know, I really feel like 

the organic philosophy of approaching things as 

an ecosystem is really important to how we're going 

to provide food security to people, and not trying 

to solve things with one magic bullet or two or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

whatever. But that we really look at production 

over the long-term. And production that embraces 

the native ecosystems and that provides resilience 

to the climate change that we're all experiencing.

And I know that climate change will 

affect our agricultural system. I feel it 

personally right where we farm with more variable 

temperatures. So sitting in the basement at 

Borlaug Hall just gave to me a great perspective 

on how we approach food production. And I just 

want to point out that organic, I think, is very 

much a part of how we're going to approach food 

production across the world.

I also want to note that, you know, 

despite the sometimes, I don't know -- concern 

about the organic program being part of the federal 

government and sometimes being very slow. And for 

example, with the rules that we've asked for the 

whole time I've been on the Board that they're 

finally making it through the rulemaking process. 

And we certainly heard about the backlog of things 

that haven't been acted on.

And I think those are really important 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

topics, but I also know that the power of the 

federal government is something we wouldn't have 

if the organic program were private. We get to 

work with the border and customs service in terms 

of working on organic certificates, and that would 

never happen with a private company. We also get 

the legal teams of the federal government. And 

all those things, I think, would be very difficult 

to fund if we were private.

Despite the criticisms, and some that 

I very much recognize and agree with, I also think 

we have to remember some of the benefits that we 

have in terms of the interaction with the program. 

And I have to thank Jenny Tucker, Dr. Jenny Tucker, 

at least the past several years as Board Chair, 

I so much appreciated the conversations with her 

and the back and forth with how the Board can 

interact with the program, how we can stand up for 

ourselves, and at the same time find ways to 

accomplish some of our shared goals.

I also really want to think, and I think 

this is the most sobering part and fun part of 

serving on the Board is we all bringing ourselves 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

credible expertise to the Board. And I've heard

criticisms that this Board does not have the 

know-how to understand complex subjects and 

interpret data and look at scientific reports and, 

you know, provide adequate interpretation of all 

that.

And I looked down the list and we have 

three PhDs, a member of master's people, and people 

that have had 20 years of experience in working 

within ecosystems. And I just have to say I'm 

stunned by the capability of this Board and I 

completely reject any assertions that we do not 

have the capability to look at things, read them, 

interpret them both scientifically and such.

And then I also am stunned by the 

stakeholders that we have. Even within the 

expertise of the Board, we have hundreds of people 

out there providing their input and working on, 

for example, the paper pots proposal. There were 

so many people giving really good thoughts and 

inputs of how things could be interpreted and how 

things should move forward. And we've seen that 

with biodegradable mulch. We've seen that with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

so many other topics. Sanitizers, we're going to 

see it with ammonia extracts, and the other things 

on the Crops Subcommittee.

And I just really want to applaud this 

process of a huge collected wisdom that feeds 

through the system of stakeholders, really 

thinking about these big topics, and the Board with 

the expertise on it and that total synthesis of, 

you know, really trying our best as a community 

to advance organics in the best way we know how. 

So I just think we have this tremendous system 

of stakeholder input and Board input that I hope 

brings forth the best of collective wisdom.

And I know on the Board we've had very 

strong disagreements on certain topics and I just 

want to encourage future boards to have those 

strong disagreements, to honor them, and once a 

decision is made on them to move forward as a 

collective group and not let those decisions 

interfere with respect to the next topic that comes 

up, to the form new groups and new alliances and 

really keep the personalities out of it. And I 

think that's been the best part of serving on this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

later board. I've seen split boards. I've seen 

people go to dinner in their own groups and they 

don't cross-pollinate.

And I just encourage future boards to 

really try and reach across the aisle even on 

difficult topics with respect and be friends and, 

you know, learn about each other and how you farm 

or what you do in your day job. And let that be 

the parameter of how this Board works. I think 

that's just so critical and I really applaud the 

Board members that serve now in terms of doing that. 

I really wish we could meet in person and just 

get to know each other on a deeper level of what 

we all do and what we all believe in. That is very 

difficult to do virtually.

The final thing I want to say, we have 

often had criticism in terms of the work agenda 

items that the Board doesn't get to set their work 

agenda at this point. The program has to approve 

it. And I'm excited to say that Jenny and I've 

been talking and we've agreed that I think the Board 

can find a couple of topics that they can work on 

that don't go through the formal work agenda 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

process per se. That the Board can pick.

And I really hope the Board will pick 

a couple of topics and only keep it to a couple 

of topics so we keep our focus and keep the energy 

on them. But that will help truly in the 

advancement of organic and continuous improvement 

that we all talk about. I know the Board in working 

with materials in the national list, we end up often 

working on very specific things and not looking 

at the big picture, how organics can continuously 

improve.

So with that, you know, I hope the Board 

can select a couple of topics to work on that are 

in this bigger picture. We're talking a lot about 

climate change. I hope it will be one of 

those -- that will be one of the topics that the 

Board can philosophize and strategize and work 

beyond a particular material to how as a system 

and as a group and as stakeholders that we're all 

in, how we can move forward on those topics. I 

don't know that there's any specific answers and 

I wouldn't expect it, but I think the debate and 

the discussion could be very important.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And my hope the Board, as I say, will 

stay focused so that it energize all of us and gives 

us a chance to think collectively. And I hope we 

don't go too wide because that can also burn people 

out. But I think the program is in support of that 

at this point. And so the Board does have a chance 

to develop your own work agenda on at least a couple 

of specific things. And I'm sure we'll talk more 

about that, but I think that helps address a little 

bit of the answer of board independence, but also 

interaction with National Organic Program.

So use this chance well and I hope to 

see what the Board and what stakeholders can come 

up with in terms of the continuous improvement. 

We know organics isn't perfect or aren't perfect. 

But to me, I'm always willing to accept the warts 

that we have and say, well, we're not perfect, but 

we're going to try and make ourselves move in that 

direction with continuous improvement.

And I think that's something that we 

all accept and address, and it's one of the things 

that excites me about being in the organic 

movement. Just looking at things as a system and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

as a grower. I've so much come to appreciate my 

farm and all the things that happened to it that 

I can't see and that I can't control.

And if anything, I've learned over my 

time as a farmer is to step back and keep my hands 

out of the system and let it do its own work. And 

then, when I have to intervene for specific 

reasons, to try and do that in a very specific way 

that doesn't mess up the whole rest of the system. 

And so in terms of how organics moves forward, 

I would kind of apply that philosophy. It works 

so well.

And when we look for continuous 

improvement to change things, make sure that really 

doesn't disrupt the programs that we already have 

and the philosophy we already have, but does move 

things forward. So that's two cents in my final 

soap box.

I'll just say, it really has been a 

pleasure to serve as Chair and be a part of what 

all of you think about. With that, we will move 

on. And I'm going to turn the mic back over to 

Dr. Jenny Tucker to give her program update and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

introduce Marni Karlin and move on with key program 

updates and questions and answers. So, Jenny, 

take it away.

DR. TUCKER: So first, Steve, thank 

you. That was really an amazing, amazing talk and 

it is such an honor to work with you. So thank 

you for all you do and for the wonderful person 

that you are. So thank you. I'm going to turn 

to some very brief USDA updates here. And I'm 

going to actually open by introducing Marni Karlin, 

the new organic policy advisor, and have her say 

a few words to the Board and our audience today. 

Then I'll come back and give a couple of quick 

updates and then we'll open it up.

So Marni was recently appointed as USDA 

senior advisor for organic and emerging markets. 

With over two decades of experience in the 

private, non-profit, and government sectors, Marni 

is passionate about creating a healthier and more 

sustainable food system using advocacy, strategic 

planning, law, policy, and communications tools. 

She has over 20 years of experience in food, 

organic, and emerging agricultural markets, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

organizational management, policy, law, and 

legislative and administrative process.

Marni graduated from the George 

Washington University with a degree in 

international economics and received her JD from 

the University of Chicago Law School. She also 

earned a certificate in global organic leadership 

from the International Federation of Organic 

Agriculture Movement's Organic Leadership 

Academy.

Her experience in the organic sector 

runs deep from her service as Vice President of 

government affairs and general counsel for the 

Organic Trade Association, to her consulting work 

with stakeholders across the organic supply chain, 

from producers to certifiers. So please join me 

in welcoming Marni. Marni, you want to take the 

mic?

MS. KARLIN: Happy to. Thank you, 

Jenny. And are you able to hear me all right? 

All right. So thanks, Jenny, and hello to 

everyone. I wish that I could be saying hello to 

you all in person. My name is Marni Karlin, as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Jenny said, and I was recently appointed as USDA's 

senior advisor on organic and emerging markets. 

And I'm really happy to be with you guys here 

today. I'm coming to you from my house in 

Washington DC, but I've spent half of my life in 

Louisiana.

So I will bring a little bit of Cajun 

perspective to the meeting and was really happy 

to hear that we've got some southeast 

representation on the Board. So looking forward 

to the opportunity to meet you, Logan, at some 

point. Members of the public who are here to 

participate in the advisory process to ensure that 

organic remains strong, I want to thank you for 

your engagement. I have been a member of the 

public at these meetings before, and that role is 

critical to keeping organic strong.

And of course to the NOSB members, I 

want to thank you very much for your service and 

particularly those of you for whom this will be 

the last meeting. Very much appreciate your 

service over the last five years.

Wanted to take just a couple of minutes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to talk a bit about our vision for ensuring that 

organic is a critical component of the Biden and 

Vilsack pledge to build a more resilient, more 

equitable, and more climate smart food and 

agriculture system.

So what does this look like? Well, 

first, and in some ways, perhaps most important, 

it looks like more meaningful engagement with all 

stakeholders in the context of meetings like these, 

and in the context of other opportunities that we 

can create for us to engage in respectful dialogue 

with stakeholders from every point along the supply 

chain, who are diverse in every way, including 

geography, size, and personal background.

It also looks like continuous 

improvement of organic standards, enforcement, and 

market development to ensure that organic is 

responding to the challenges it faces and the 

demands of consumers in a way that remains rooted 

in strong regulations and enforcement. It looks 

like devoting critical thought and energy to how 

to support transition to organic in a way that is 

intentional, transformative, and strengthens the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

resilience of the organic sector as a whole.

And it looks like doing all of these 

things using the lens of equity, casting our net 

wide. And as Under Secretary Moffitt said, being 

sure to not leave any groups behind. One of the 

really exciting opportunities that I have in this 

role is to work across the entire department and 

across the whole of federal government, to ensure 

that organic is at the table.

So that means making sure that organic 

is in the conversations with folks at the 

department who handle research, crop insurance, 

costs share, conservation, to make sure they're 

taking into account the organic perspective and 

the needs of the organic sector.

It also means, as you've heard repeated 

over and over again today, ensuring that organic 

is at the table in cross cutting conversations 

across the entire federal government about things 

like climate, resilience, competition, and equity. 

As our sector has grown, it is critical that our 

perspective is heard. And I especially want to 

touch on climate smart agriculture, where so many 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of our organic practices already meet that charge.

On that front, I did want to turn your 

attention to what I'm sure you've already heard, 

which is the new climate smart agriculture and 

forestry partnership initiative that Secretary 

Vilsack recently announced. There is a public 

comment period which I know everyone loves, 

especially on the heels of NOSB comments.

But there's a public comment period 

open until November 1st, and that comment period 

will inform the development of a notice of funding 

availability soliciting project proposals, that 

encourage the adoption of climate smart practices 

and promote markets for climate smart commodities.

We'll see an announcement of that 

funding opportunity hopefully later this year, and 

project proposals due early next year. And I am 

really energized to try to ensure that we see a 

lot of organic stakeholders submitting project 

proposals to be funded. We have a lot of 

experience, knowing a lot of tools that will work 

to build a more climate smart agriculture, and we 

should absolutely be an active and vibrant part 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of this conversation.

Steve just mentioned actually that he 

hopes to see the Board leaning in on this topic 

and I'll just echo that hope. Our work in ensuring 

that organic is incorporated into the 

Administration's work on climate smart agriculture 

will be better if it is informed by the Board and 

by stakeholders.

So I know you have a packed agenda and 

I really appreciate you offering me just a couple 

of minutes to say hello. I wish you a very 

productive and great meeting and I look forward 

to continued opportunities to connect with each 

of you. I am really energized and honored to be 

doing this work together with you and I look forward 

to working together.

DR. TUCKER: All right, Marni, thank 

you so much and we very much appreciate you being 

here. So welcome to the team. It's great to have 

you. Okay. I'm going to turn to a couple of 

National Organic Program updates. So first, there 

is a full NOP update in the Organic Integrity 

Learning Center. There's a course in there called 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

NOP presentations. And so if you access the NOP 

presentations in Organic Integrity Learning 

Center, you will be able to see about a 38 minute 

long video. So it is voice over slides that gives 

an update on our goals, priorities, and some recent 

successes.

I'm not going to repeat all of that here 

because we would like to be able to open up a 

dialogue here for the remainder of the hour. And 

so a very quick reminder, a sort of update on 

regulatory priorities. I'm going to echo what 

Jenny Lester Moffitt already told you, but just 

want to make sure for those kind of keeping their 

rule making scorecard at home kind of where we are 

with stuff.

So Origin of Livestock Final Rule. 

Again, has been written and is in the review 

process. Strengthening Organic Enforcement Final 

Rule has been written and again is in the review 

process. So those have left the program. The 

Organic Livestock and Poultry standards. So that 

is also written and we are currently going 

back-and-forth with the legal team on that rule. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

That's the rule that the Secretary charged us with 

working on in June. So things are moving along.

We are continuing to investigate the 

problem of inerts. We have had interesting 

conversations with EPA that I think will better 

inform an advanced notice of proposed rule making 

on that. And then we do continue to move along 

national list rules as the Board makes 

recommendations.

So just a high-level reminder of where 

we are with rule making. And so now I'm going to 

turn it back to Steve to facilitate any questions, 

feedback from the Board. And we'll move to a more 

kind of open discussion between the program and 

the Board. And Steve, take it away.

MR. ELA: Thanks so much, Jenny. And 

I appreciate you -- I know it takes a fair amount 

of time to make the video that you put up there 

for people to watch, and I'm glad that people can 

continue to go back and forth to it, not just a 

one-time issue here. And I know you help highlight 

other parts of the program. I think that's great 

to have people see all you do, but also other parts 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of the program that are extremely active and make 

a difference to the organic community.

So with that, this is a chance for the 

Board to have some questions and answer interaction 

with Jenny. And if you would raise your hands if 

you'd like to ask a question, then please go ahead 

and do so. I know there are some out there. Wood, 

go ahead.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Steve. Jenny, I 

want to bring up an issue that I've discussed 

previously and I just want to say I continue to 

be concerned about these two, biodiversity and the 

potential impact of organic agricultural on 

biodiversity and native ecosystems. We're all 

concerned about this. We've heard Karen Ross, 

Jenny Lester Moffitt, all talk about this.

We're seeing this every day as climate 

change becomes a tragic part of how we live. And 

I'm reminded there's nothing more important than 

to sequester the atmospheric carbon in the native 

ecosystems that are in peril around the globe. 

We're spending tons of blood, sweat, and tears on 

our farms trying to restore native ecosystems to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

regenerate ecosystem service function.

You know, we shouldn't be 

simultaneously allowing incentives to exist in 

organic that pushes growers to destroy what are 

effectively clean native ecosystems as a means of 

accelerating their organic transition.

So I just want to understand, you know, 

before I joined the Board, the NOSB made a 

recommendation to the NOP in 2018 after spending 

six meetings on this to remove the incentive 

loophole to allow organic to play a role in this 

entity. But nothing's happened in Rule making. 

I'm curious what the status of that is, what you're 

thinking about it, what do we need to do to bring 

some real urgency to the issue?

Do we need to survey to understand the 

annual impact that organic is having on threatened 

landscapes and their biodiversity? If so, when 

can we see that? And I frankly welcome hearing 

from any other board members about this issue and 

help me think about it differently if I'm thinking 

about it the wrong way because there's really 

concerns me and I just feel like this is just an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

issue that's sitting out there and not really 

moving anywhere.

DR. TUCKER: So, Wood, thank you very 

much for bringing up the issue and the question. 

This is an outstanding upward recommendation. 

And so part of what we have been doing since the 

new Administration came in, in January is really 

taking a look across what all the different 

priorities should be moving forward.

And so the top rulemaking priorities 

that were selected to move forward right 

away -- mainly because a lot of them were already 

in progress, was Origin of Livestock, 

Strengthening Organic Enforcement and OLPS and the 

Nationalist Rule. So those are the first line 

priorities. Once those rules get out of the 

building, then we are able to take a look at what 

the next line up of priorities will be. What's 

the next sequence of rules?

And so those are decisions that we will 

work very closely with the Administration on to 

determine where the priorities should be for the 

program. Now we have staffed up the standard 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

division and so I know for a while standards was 

fairly short-staffed. We weren't writing a lot 

of rules. And so there is now, as you can see by 

the progress, a significant emphasis on rule 

making. The fact that, you know, three rules are 

currently in clearance right now and they're three 

significant practice standards are in clearance 

right now, I think shows the added capacity that 

has been added.

So then the question becomes, what are 

the next priorities that we'll take on? And so 

that's a conversation that we will be having over 

the next few months with the Administration. And 

so I think what we're seeing is a lot of folks 

writing in with their kind of roles of interest, 

and this is certainly one of them. So this will 

be one of the options for rule making that is 

discussed as we set priorities. We've got to get 

the key priorities that are on the plate now 

complete and then we can start new rules.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Jenny. I just 

want to flag that there's that connection here 

between this issue and the climate change issues 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that I know we're all concerned about, but I just 

want to make sure that that's very clear, you're 

thinking it through. Thank you.

DR. TUCKER: Appreciate that. Yes. 

And agree.

MR. ELA: Looks like Amy has a 

question.

MS. BRUCH: Yes. Thank you, Steve. 

Thank you, Jenny for the updates on the rules. 

I'm glad to see them advancing. It's really 

important. I have an issue that's a little bit 

separate from that. It's an important issue 

that's on the minds of many Midwest organic 

producers all the way stretching to the delta. 

And that's the non-direct contact drift, dicamba, 

that really volatilizes and vaporizes. The 

challenge with this is that it can travel over two 

miles and really hit crops within two weeks of the 

application.

So really point of source of where this 

originates is unknown, which creates a lot of 

challenges for producers because there's no 

liability policies, no crop insurance, that can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

be accounted for in this process. So the whole 

costs of impact falls on the shoulders of the 

organic producer or the specialty crop producer. 

At the end of the day, I really truly believe it 

impacts many many crops. Unfortunately, we can 

only see it happening on the crops such as legumes, 

soy beans, and those fruit and veggies in these 

regions.

I just wanted to see your thoughts on 

this subject in particular, because it does create 

a lot of barriers. It's extremely expensive. 

It's turning people away from even transitioning 

the organic. Because if they do get impacted, they 

either have to start the transition process over 

again, or they might have to sell their current 

organic crops as conventional. So just wanted to 

raise the issue and see what your thoughts and 

guidance are for both inspectors, certifiers, and 

farmers.

DR. TUCKER: Appreciate your bringing 

up that topic and we talk often all the rules, and 

it's so important to remember the challenges that 

producers and certifiers are facing every single 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

day out there. And so this is a very important 

one. Drift is something that organic farmers very 

much have to contend with and certifiers have to 

contend with in terms of working with producers 

to determine whether a crop has been impacted and 

what the path forward is on that.

There aren't any easy answers on this, 

and I wish that I had kind of the silver bullet 

or the magic bullet. There have been I think, 

different certifiers and producers -- their 

communication about buffer zones, about what the 

dynamics are in the surrounding environment, 

different kinds of preventative practices that are 

available, talking to neighbors. There is the 

suite of communication and management tools.

And I understand that they don't all 

answer all of these problems when it comes to some 

very significant chemicals out there. And so 

again, I'm not going to lie and say there's an easy 

answer because there isn't. And it's very 

important that we continue to talk about the 

problem and share what some of the tools might be. 

So I know this is something that certifiers talk 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to each other about, and again, active 

communication with their producers and vice versa. 

Liability question is real.

I have seen times where instead of an 

operator choosing to withdraw a field, for example, 

they will actually request that the field be 

suspended instead of withdrawing it to 

re-transition. Because if it's a suspension of 

a field, then they have some kind of document that 

shows they've been adversely impacted and that 

gives them kind of better leverage if they want 

to seek some kind of conversation or damage. But 

as you mentioned, sometimes it's really hard to 

know where it came from.

So I think I want to acknowledge that 

this is a real problem for many, many farmers. 

We're open to ideas on what the solution may be 

that are within the program's kind of control or 

that we can communicate to other parts of the 

department and the government. And it's a good 

reminder of just how hard this is for everyone out 

there every day.

MS. BRUCH: Thank you, Jenny. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Appreciate it.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Amy. Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you. I just want 

to comment on an issue related to diversity in 

membership on the Board. And basically it relates 

to whether there should be some support for people 

to participate on the Board that don't have the 

financial and time resources to devout this time 

without, you know, from their current work or 

personal situation. I've talked to a lot of people 

who I think would be valuable candidates for the 

Board and could contribute so much to organic 

policy and rules, and we're kind of leaving them 

out.

I understand that in OFPA there's, you 

know, specificity that membership of the Board 

should been voluntary. But I think there might 

be a way of developing policies and approaches that 

would allow some support for people who otherwise 

cannot participate on the Board. You know, in my 

situation for example, and others, you know, I have 

a day job and I can afford to spend my late nights 

working on this, but I have other support. Losing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

time right now does lose -- me losing income. For 

many people, that's the case.

So it's a discussion that's kind of 

emerging in the community. And I think we should 

all be thinking about how to move forward on that. 

Also, very specifically is a way to increase 

diversity in the board membership.

DR. TUCKER: Yes. That is such a 

valuable source, a point, and there are lots of 

folks in the community raising the same question. 

We have seen over a time -- we've heard the stories 

and just numbers applies. It is hard for small 

farmers to apply -- for any size farmer to apply 

and successfully serve on the Board because of 

those challenges. Now, the reality is that the 

OPFA has a line about shall be reimbursed for travel 

and such. OPFA does not include a provision for 

board stipend.

So what are the creative solutions on 

that one? I don't know is the answer. The answer 

that we've gotten when we've asked in the past and 

we have talked to the liaisons office that deals 

with boards about this problem and we've been told, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

you know, absolutely it is not allowed by your 

statutes.

So I do think OPFA is real in terms of 

what it allows for with respect to the Advisory 

Board. I also do agree there may be other creative 

solutions out there for reimbursing expenses, 

time. I know that just the replacement labor 

needed to be able to attend meetings or 

subcommittee, those are real. Those are expenses 

that are involved in board participation.

So I'm very open to considering what 

the options might be within kind of the legal 

allowances of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

and OPFA itself. And I appreciate that this topic 

is becoming more prominent in the dialogue by the 

community and the Board because I completely agree 

with the desire for diversity. And it comes in 

many, many, many, many forms, as illustrated by 

this group. And again, this administration's 

commitment to equity.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

DR. TUCKER: Thank you.

MR. ELA: I think that's a great 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

question. I mean, I can highlight that in my own 

situation in the fall, just hiring replacement 

trucking alone. We're not talking laborers. A 

minimum of $1000 per meeting, just to subsidize 

that. That's the most obvious bill that we pay, 

but there certainly many others and we willingly 

done that.

But I think Asa's point of it does for 

smaller farmers, as you mentioned Jenny, that have 

to hire replacement labor. There is a bottom line 

impact on that. You have to be in the point that 

you can handle that. So it looks like Carolyn has 

her hand up. 

DR. DIMITRI: Hi. Hi, Jenny. I have 

two very poorly formed questions and they're 

related to the Under Secretary's comments about 

that pot of money for transitioning producers. 

And something that I learned in my research this 

past year is that we have a lot of BIPOC farmers 

who use like certified naturally grown labels 

instead of organic labels because they just don't 

see any reason to get engaged with the National 

Organic Program.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So I know the NOP is more about 

rulemaking, but I do know you have a couple of new 

economists on board. And I just wonder, are you 

able to use their brains in thinking about these 

questions or like, how does the NOP fit into like 

these broader questions of like expanding access 

to organic to people that are kind of left out at 

this moment.

DR. TUCKER: That's really where 

Marni's role comes in and why we wanted Marni to 

come and talk to the group. So her role is to do 

that inter-agency coordination on organic issues 

including, you know, what are the barriers and the 

programs that are best for transitioning farmers? 

Or how do we support more local structures that 

can facilitate conversations?

You know, maybe people don't 

necessarily want to hear from the National Organic 

Program on that, but are willing to listen to folks 

who are in their local geography or have had more 

similar life experiences, and that can really 

understand what the barriers and perhaps sell 

points might be to those populations, better than 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

me sitting here in the South Building in Washington 

DC.

And so I think one of Marni's really 

important roles is to help coordinate those 

conversations. We do have ag economists and so 

our ag economists right now are split between 

standards, where they do all those cost-benefit 

analyses that I keep talking about with these kind 

of pesky costs benefits that we have to do for 

rulemaking. And they also do a lot of work in our 

compliance and enforcement division. Doing yield 

analysis, trade studies to see where organic is 

growing and therefore we should be going.

So right now that's where our ag 

economists are focused. I think this is something 

we can certainly, you know, offer some expertise 

in. And this is really the policy 

advisers -- transition is one of the things that 

Marni is particularly interested and focused on 

because there are a lot of other USDA agencies very 

vested in that problem as well. So I think there's 

an interest in pursuing those kinds of 

conversations. They don't always live within this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

program specifically.

DR. DIMITRI: Thank you, Jenny.

DR. TUCKER: Thank you. Great 

question.

MR. ELA: Further questions from the 

Board? Jenny, I have a quick one. It's in part 

to update our stakeholders on what was a fairly 

fiery debate on List 4s, and we've got List 3s 

coming up. Could you just give us an update on 

your ANPR and where that is and such?

DR. TUCKER: Yes. I'll give a little 

bit of kind of a preview on kind of where we are 

with that at this point. So we have, based on the 

conversations that we had in past board members 

and based on my commitment to maintain this as a 

priority at the program level, we have gone ahead 

and we've drafted a draft advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. And so I've introduced that 

as a potential path forward in a previous meeting.

Before we're ready to publish that we 

wanted to kind of socialize that proposed role with 

EPA because an awful lot of the Board's 

recommendations on this in the past have really 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

relied on EPA and particularly the Safer Choice 

Program. And so we have had conversations with 

senior folks over at EPA that lead both Safer Choice 

and a different part of that world that deals with 

lists, like the List 3 and 4. And those have been 

interesting and enlightening conversations.

I think while Safer Choice sounds like 

it would be the right place, it may in fact not 

be. And so I think there have been some community 

members who've started to say, yes, I'm not sure 

Safer Choice is where this lives. And I think the 

message that we're getting from EPA is there is 

a theory of the program, right? Our theory of our 

program is that we are a regulatory programs and 

Safer Choice is not. It's not a regulatory 

program.

They have a certain criteria and 

approaches to criteria and approaches to list that 

are different from something that is codified in 

the CFR, Code of Federal Regulations, and that's 

how that program was designed. And they have a 

very different set right now of focus points in 

terms of just the types of products that they're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

looking at. They're primarily cleaning focused. 

And so there's also the how is EPA approaching 

lists in general? So what is its philosophy of 

lists as part of its regulatory framework as an 

agency?

So I think that those conversations 

have been useful in helping us understand EPA's 

perspective on both lists and the different 

programs it has, but it has left us -- there are 

no easy answers here. And so I understand there's 

a lot of interest in the program sort of solving 

this problem. We will have to solve this problem 

together and there will be tough trade-offs that 

will have to be made between how the list making 

process works. So we are still moving ahead with 

an ANPR. It is going to summarize the challenges 

that we have identified so far.

And, Steve, you actively said during 

the public comment period, which I really 

appreciated, please come with solutions. And so 

that's the comment to the public is, please come 

to solutions. And remember that EPA, while linked 

to us, is its own independent agency. We can't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

go to EPA and say, you know, do this. That's just 

not how the government works.

And so we have been very impressed with 

the EPA folks that we have met. They have all cared 

a whole lot about this issue. And they also have 

their regulatory responsibilities and mandates and 

missions as well that need to be balanced with other 

agencies' sort of interests and needs.

So that's maybe more data than you 

wanted, but it's a bit of a preview as to where 

we are. And I do think it reflects that we are 

doing a lot of background work on this to make the 

best ANPR that we can put out there for comment. 

This is going to be a long road guys. And I just 

want to be very honest. I hope that people 

remember the straight shooter part of Jenny. This 

is going to be a long road.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Jenny. Yes. And I 

will again put in the plug to stakeholders that 

we know the problem. We've identified that. 

We've heard about it many times. And so this is 

the chance through the ANPR to help solve the 

problem, not identify it anymore. And I think it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

going to -- we talked about the collective 

stakeholder wisdom, this is a place that we really 

need it. So when that comes out, put your best 

thoughts forward to help the program along this 

path because without that, I don't know that any 

of us alone can necessarily come up with the best 

path to solve this problem.

So put your heads together in the 

collective wisdom and put your thoughts in the 

public comments on the ANPR because that is needed 

and very important on this topic. I see Asa's got 

his hand up.

MR. BRADMAN: I just want to come out 

a little bit more about that issue. I think that 

the Safer Choice Program in any way was kind of 

conceptually a potential model, but not 

necessarily the ideal regulatory environment for 

inerts. I really appreciate Steve's comments 

about input from the community and stakeholders. 

And I just want to mention that we've had some 

excellent comments on this already by 

stakeholders.

Last spring, I think, Beyond 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Pesticides, National Organic Coalition, OTA, and 

others have really articulated some clear paths 

forward and in the planning process on that, you 

know, I think we should go back and read all those 

comments and then also makes sure that and I'm sure 

everyone will make sure, but that that input is 

incorporated into the program development.

But we do already, I think, have some 

excellent road maps. And that was the word I use 

last spring, and I think going forward we actually 

have some good guideposts to move ahead on that.

DR. TUCKER: One of the challenges is 

going to be balancing the criteria for 

decision-making in the workflow with the resources 

required to implement them. We have x dollars, 

x staff. How do we balance resources to get the 

absolute best outcome we can without us, you know, 

frankly meeting inerts division. And so how do 

we do that?

And so there's going to be some kind 

of trade-off between what are the technical choices 

and the criteria with what are the realistic number 

of staff members either here or at EPA or anywhere 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

else that would need to be funded to work on this 

problem. You're talking about list that 

essentially gone away. It's going to take labor 

to figure out what to do about it.

And so figuring that trade-off of labor 

versus the technical criteria and what exists that 

we can use. So we already know about some existing 

resources. And then what's the delta, the work 

that would have to be done? Who would need to it? 

How many people it is and how much is that going 

to cost? So they really do become operational 

management questions as well as technical criteria 

questions and they have to be considered together.

MR. BRADMAN: yes, and I really 

appreciate that having worked in state government 

and now as advisor post-date in other levels. And 

you know, one argument to kind of perhaps move that 

ahead a little bit is looking at the scale of the 

organic market in terms of food production and how 

research and regulatory dollars are spent. And 

I think even if organic at its percentage right 

now is even proportional to that, there would be 

a lot more resources to help create that regulatory 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

framework you're talking about.

MR. ELA: Right. Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: I would like to change 

the topic a little bit. Jenny, I wonder if you 

could give us a more precise timeline for the Origin 

of Organic Livestock. I mean, I guess I bring it 

up as I think about the Northeastern farmers who 

have lost their buyers. And I think of that as 

like a huge failure of policy and the regulatory 

activities. And so I just wonder if you can give 

us a little bit more information. I mean, I know 

you personally did not do that. So --

DR. TUCKER: At this point in the game, 

I can tell you where it is and I can tell you what 

the next steps are. I get in lots of trouble when 

I start reading crystal balls that are 

fundamentally inaccurate, so I can't describe the 

process. So Origin of Livestock, Strengthening 

Organic Enforcement final rules are both in legal 

review right now. And so the next step after legal 

review is they will go to our agency agriculture 

marketing service, then to marketing regulatory 

programs which is where Jenny Lester Moffitt is.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And then everybody else in USDA gets 

an opportunity to weigh in on them and then they 

go to the office of management budget. Office of 

management budget has 90 days and so I think that 

the timeline that the Under Secretary shared was 

Spring 2022 for Origin of Livestock and 

Strengthening Organic Enforcement just to get 

through those processes. And it is also 

side-by-side with Organic Livestock and Poultry 

Standards. So that's the other major rule.

So you have three major rules, that are 

going alongside a lot of other rules in different 

parts of the department into -- so when I start 

talking about clearance pipelines, this is it 

folks. This is the clearance pipeline. And that 

makes it so I can't be more specific about time 

frames because I don't control once it leaves the 

program. I think certainly the administration is 

very, very aware of what is happening with the New 

England dairy farmers and is very concerned about 

it and understands the link to Origin of Livestock.

There's also a lot of interest in 

Strengthening Organic Enforcement for the imports 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

oversight, which is part of that broader question 

of compliance and enforcement. And then certainly 

the Organic Livestock and Poultry Rule was not even 

on our list at the beginning of this year. And 

we're meeting with EPA on inerts and so there's 

a lot going on.

DR. DIMITRI: Well, maybe there will 

be some synergies for having like organic things 

going through together so that there isn't all of 

that startup thinking for people who don't really 

live organic.

DR. TUCKER: Yes, I do think that 

helps. Certainly having a Under Secretary who 

used to be an organic farmer helps, right? Because 

she already understands the framework. And the 

Office of General Counsel has already looked at 

a lot of these rules before. And so I think that 

king of also makes me more optimistic. These are 

very visible rules within USDA. So even Spring 

2022 is kind of fast tracking from a rules 

perspective. They're three major rules scheduled 

for only a little bit -- after one year of being 

in an administration is pretty assertive.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

DR. DIMITRI: Okay. Thank you, Jenny.

DR. TUCKER: No. Thank you. Good 

question.

MR. ELA: Other questions? I am not 

seen any more. Jenny, thank you so much for 

putting yourself on the spot for some pretty 

difficult questions from the Board. I always look 

forward to this Q&A question. And also within Ex 

Comm meetings, I know we have on smaller topics 

Q&A as well. It's very much appreciated to hear 

kind of what your world looks like, I guess.

DR. TUCKER: I appreciate the 

thoughtfulness of the questions. So this 

dialogue's important to me.

MR. ELA: We've got it looks like 12 

minutes remaining. I'm just going to throw it out 

to the Board. As I mentioned a little bit about 

kind of bigger topics that the Board might like 

to work on in terms of continuous improvement. 

Obviously, I won't be in on this conversation too 

much. That will be up to the new Board Chair to 

lead that and the Vice Chair.

But I guess I'd like to just in the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

little bit of remaining time, you know, brainstorm 

with the Board about what might be potential topics 

that you-all would like to work on in terms of how 

continuous improvement would happen. It doesn't 

mean they will be the topics. But it just opens 

the discussion a little bit in a very short time 

to see what's all on your minds of where we need 

to go as an organic system.

I mean, I've already thrown up climate 

change as a big one. I think Carolyn's brought 

that up. It seems logical but maybe there are 

others out there. So does anybody want to raise 

their hand and jump into starting a list of what 

you-all might want to pick from? I was going to 

say, I know you aren't all shy. Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: Speaking to what Asa said 

earlier, trying to maybe link biodiversity a little 

bit more explicitly into climate change.

MR. ELA: Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: I'd like to work on 

organic seed requirements.

MR. ELA: Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: In the written 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

comments, one of our stakeholders brought up the 

issue of all the -- what I consider nasty chemicals 

that can be in packaging. And I wish I could even 

remember some of the names of these things, but 

BPA I think is one. They all have acronyms of 

different kinds. And some of these forever 

chemicals that we're concerned with that are 

related to nonstick surfaces and that sort of thing 

that seem to be potentially ubiquitous.

I don't really understand what the 

extent of this, but it makes me quite worried. 

And I'm sure that there's a history of this with 

the NOSB that I don't know what it is. And it feels 

like a big Pandora's box. And yet, I think it's 

very important and I think that our stakeholders 

are expecting that they are not going to be 

encountering toxic materials just in what we might 

consider contact surfaces or packaging.

So I don't know where we can go with 

this, but it's something that that written comment 

brought up and it's been on my mind since.

MR. ELA: Yes. I mean, in terms of 

this being kind of a brainstorming session that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

totally fine. Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. I'm interested in 

the sunset review process. It seems like we spent 

a tremendous amount of time on the sunset reviews, 

but at the same time it seems very perfunctory. 

So it takes a lot of time out of the Board and

I'd like to look -- and this is more operational, 

I guess, but I think we spend a huge amount of time 

and I don't know what it gets us or the stakeholders 

after we vote. So I would just like to see if 

there's a better way to do it or how can we look 

at it and make it more relevant?

MR. ELA: Sure, I mean in terms of being 

able to talk about continuous improvement, having 

more time, and calls to talk about the bigger 

picture could be important. We might go back to 

the review all of them in one year and then have 

three or four years to do other topics.

MR. GREENWOOD: I'm just thinking 

about Rotenone, which is I think we do it, we spent 

a lot of time on it. We looked at it and talk about 

it. And I think everybody pretty much knows where 

it's going to go. So I would just like to see if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

there's better ways to do those things.

MR. ELA: Yes. Just time management 

issues. You're right. An hour on each call for 

each subcommittee goes by pretty fast. So great 

point. Kyla.

MS. SMITH: Yes. What was coming to 

my mind, was there's so much prior work of the Board 

that we keep talking about this backlog and, you 

know, Jenny was talking about USDA or the program 

working with the wider USDA about priorities and 

wondering if there's a way that we can get into 

that conversation so that we're not just adding 

to the backlog, but also trying to help like 

prioritize to clear the backlog. So anyway, just 

a thought.

MR. ELA: Throwing it out there. 

Sure. Yes. Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Steve, I wasn't going to 

say anything in this section because I've got a 

topic that I'm really confused about the timing 

on the appropriateness of even bringing it up at 

this point in our history. But I am absolutely 

convinced that the broad topic of containers, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

hydroponics, and greenhouses is not going to go 

away. That this movement towards controlled 

environment agriculture is a juggernaut that will 

either run us over or we'll grapple with it. And 

again, where I just can't get my arms around it 

is when might this become a topic given where things 

are right now.

MR. ELA: Yes. Fair enough. Sue.

MS. BAIRD: When I first started in 

organic in 2000, the Department of Ag asked me to 

develop an organic program and I said I don't even 

know what that is. But then when I started 

reading -- they said well, read the proposed 

standard and I said, Well, this is just another 

HAZOP. Not a big deal I've done HAZOP, you know.

But then when I really started to 

understanding what organic was I said, this is the 

right way. As I've aged significantly since that 

point, I still feel like this is the right way. 

My concern is for future generations. The health 

of the children, my grandchildren, 

great-grandchildren is imperative on my mind. The 

health of our mother Earth is imperative and I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

not sure how -- if this is too broad of a subject, 

but I was just listing to what Brian had to say, 

and the loops that we're seeing that the Earth is 

doing somehow organic is the right way.

It's the only answer we have for the 

health of our children. Because we do recognize 

the issues with the GMO methods and pesticides and 

the neurological damages and the autism and all 

of these things that we're seeing that somehow we 

as a human race thinks it's okay. You're saying 

you're asking for a broad picture. That's what 

we really need to do, is focus on -- I so appreciated 

your speech, Steve, because you brought the 

positive. And that's what we got to do.

We hear so many people within our own 

ranks more than outside our ranks, who knock what 

we're doing as an organic world, and we're failing 

on this and we're failing on that. And yes, we 

do fail. But oh my gosh, what we are doing right 

is amazing. And let's learn to market ourselves. 

That's maybe not a great suggestion, but that's 

really what I'm seeing. 

MR. ELA: Yes. It's important. This 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

is a brainstorming session to let a future chair 

figure out how to navigate. Nothing like having 

a brainstorming session and then going here, it's 

your ball. I love this. Let's just take a couple 

more and then we'll break for lunch. So Amy.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Steve, That's 

great. Yes. Just a comment. Brainstorm. Just 

to always keep organic oversight integrity and 

enforcement in the spot light communally. It's 

great and tremendous that the SOE is going to be 

on the docket hopefully here in the spring and we 

have an agenda item on CACS for modernization of 

the supply chain transparency.

But just to keep up with the 

globalization of our industry and the size of our 

industry and try to be staying ahead of things 

versus catching up. So just always kind of keeping 

that as a continuous agenda item, I think is 

important to our stakeholder community as well. 

There was fantastic comments that we received and 

it's not an easy job by any means to solve all the 

issues that we face. So --

MR. ELA: Okay. Makes sense. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Mindee, one last one.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you. I feel very 

passionate about the excluded methods issue, and 

I see consumers in and outside the organic 

landscape also seeking transparency in the 

marketplace for how and where those technologies 

are showing up in the food system. And I respect 

all of the work that has gone on in this community 

so much and all the relationships of working on 

that issue.

But I don't think that we have really 

achieved a level of assistance in democracy for 

our place in the food system. And I hope that 

there's some way that we can find a way to achieve 

transparency in the food system for where excluded 

methods are coming into the marketplace because 

we're seeing rapid developments and many new kinds 

of technology and we struggle to keep up with naming 

those technologies and finding them in organic 

systems.

And so for me that's a big issue and 

I think the community continues to express that 

as a big issue. And I do see organic as the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

opportunity for regulatory bodies to help achieve 

transparency in the marketplace. And so however 

that can work, I hope that we find graceful path 

forward.

MR. ELA: Great. Well, thank you to 

everybody for throwing those thoughts out. Like 

I say, I don't have to try and shepherd them or 

narrow them, but I think it will be, you know, 

probably a good debate maybe in the executive 

committee where various people can chime in.

But as I said before, I would suggest 

pick one, maybe pick two, throw your backs into 

it, see what you can get and, you know, if something 

else comes up that's higher priority, discard one 

and move on and throw out some discussion documents 

to the stakeholders for everybody to chime in and 

then maybe summarize those and go from there.

But I'd love to see stakeholders 

engaged and our collective thoughts and collective 

wisdom in something that, like I say, that isn't 

specifically on our work agendas, but that gives 

us a chance to have some free will and some free 

thought. So I'm excited to see what this Board 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

comes up with.

With that we are going to take a lunch 

break. I know I'm hungry. For some of you, maybe 

a tea break at 2:00 with some scones. So we will 

come back at the top of the hour in whatever time 

zone you're in. And then we're going to jump into 

Policy Development Subcommittee, and then, as I 

said before, instead going into CACS at the end 

of the day we're going to go into materials. We 

swapped places with those two subcommittees for 

various reasons. So enjoy lunch and we will see 

your back at the top of the hour.

DR. TUCKER: Thanks for great 

discussion everyone.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 2:03 p.m. and resumed at 

3:01 p.m.)

MR. ELA: Well, hello everyone, again. 

Top of the hour and the moment you have all been 

waiting for where we actually jump into the 

business of the NOSB. Get down to subcommittee 

reports and proposals and sunsets and votes. I 

know you've been on the edge of your seats waiting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

for this. So we're going to first jump into the 

Policy Development Subcommittee. Mindee Jeffrey 

is the Chairperson and, Mindee, I will turn it over 

to you to lead this forward.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you. This was a 

fun one honestly, talking about virtual and oral 

comments. Honestly, I'm going to skip right to 

the questions and just kind of go through some 

summaries. Steve, you're going to help me if some 

hands get raised, right?

MR. ELA: I will.

MS. JEFFREY: So question one, should 

the Board move to an entirely virtual format for 

oral comments a week before in-person meetings or 

maintain the pre pandemic format of hearing virtual 

comments, both virtually and in-person? And I 

really loved the responses to all of the questions 

and there's a lot of creative ideas and suggestions 

for how we can move forward.

People really expressed gratitude for 

the seamless transition to the virtual format for 

the meeting and for all the work done on the program 

side to wade through the details on preparing us 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to do this. And the support was really for both.

The value was expressed for the virtual format 

especially in accessibility. And I liked the 

discussions and the people really understanding 

the importance of in-person comments, but also 

balancing that with the importance of the virtual 

format, providing massive amounts of people 

opportunities to listen in to the meeting and 

participate in the meeting so access.

And then the other major side of it was 

that they liked the pre meeting virtual format 

because it offers the Board an opportunity to 

digest oral comments before going into the 

deliberations. And definitely the value of 

in-person is expressed and people expressed that 

they want us to retain the in-person oral comment 

format so really balanced responses on that side. 

Does anybody have any other reflections that they 

wanted to share? Go ahead, Jerry. I'm sorry. 

We can't hear you, Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: I really and going to 

replace Sue, aren't I? I just want to support the 

comment that you made emphatically that the ability 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to incorporate the oral into our thought process 

I think is invaluable. I thought the oral comments 

this time around were very, very enlightening and 

would hate to be going before the world without 

the benefit of those.

MS. JEFFREY: Great. Any other 

reflections on that? Okay. So just looking at 

the second question. If the meetings moved to a 

model where all oral comments are heard virtually 

the week before the meeting, would it reduce the 

attendance of stakeholders at the Board meeting? 

Again, I really enjoyed how people responded to 

these questions.

You know, definitely folks reflected 

that it may reduce attendance, but it will most 

likely increase participation. People are really 

looking at the carbon footprint of traveling to 

the meeting. And that access is a really important 

issue, especially farmers overcoming the barrier 

of harvest schedules. Sometimes that can be 

really difficult.

We've heard that a lot and that this 

provides an opportunity for access, especially to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

farmers. There was a little bit of concern 

expressed about, you know, what would the impact 

be if people in larger organizations who could 

afford to send attendees might have more informal 

access. But it was really a balanced 

understanding that that might be true, but that 

there's value in in-person attendance and that 

there's value in the virtual in both formats.

So really stakeholders illuminating a 

lot of great dynamics on both sides of all the 

perspectives offered back to us in this document. 

Actually can't see the hands now on my screen so 

chime in if you want to reflect on this part of 

the document.

MR. ELA: I can help you out, Mindee. 

I'll chime in if nobody else is. I totally agree 

with all those comments and I think it's hard to 

balance all the pluses and minuses because they're 

all there. We often cite the pineapple growers 

coming up from down south to testify on their behalf 

of ethylene. And I have to say it was much more 

powerful to see them in-person in the meeting, 

their effort to get there, then it would have been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

on a webinar.

But yet, I totally see the other side 

of, you know, as a farmer, these are my busiest 

parts of the year, spring and fall. And to access 

via virtual webinar and having that be balanced 

for everybody, I think is really important too say. 

I'm not making a statement of one is better than 

the other, but in my head I see both sides of that 

coin.

MR. D'AMORE: Mindee. I for one would 

bet that we won't lose but 10 percent on the 

in-person. The in-person is special. And those 

that can do it and value it, I think will be there. 

I just think we'd get much greater access to the 

broader public.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Mindee, Kim's got a comment.

MS. JEFFREY: Yes. Go ahead, Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: Thanks, Steve. So 

Steve's point, I think we will find people in both 

segments of this that would find benefit. So I 

don't know if there's a way to incorporate both 

potentially in an in-person and also a virtual 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

setting. One day a virtual, one day an in-person.

As a stakeholder who also is the 

majority of us, you know, our 100 percent job and 

what we do on a daily basis doesn't revolve around 

the NOSB all the time. Does this allow entities 

who aren't able to carve out ways of travel to be 

able to make comment? I guess where I'm going with 

this is: Is it possible to develop like a 

SurveyMonkey from all of the commenters in this 

last round or the last two rounds and just poll 

them. You know, if this were to be in-person 

versus virtual, would you have commented?

I don't know if that's feasible or not 

feasible. I think we're going to get answers on 

both sides of this regardless. But maybe just to 

know that of the people that commented last week, 

would they have or would they not have.

MS. JEFFREY: Yes. I hear you. I 

think that sort of dovetails into the next question 

in a way. I think backtracking a little bit, you 

know, some of the highlights were really that 

multiple people from organizations can listen in 

on the meetings when it's virtual and that people 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

really appreciate that. And so I do think that 

the virtual was really spoken to in that it creates 

a bigger audience and more people can comment 

orally and that they don't want to lose the 

in-person.

And they had a lot of creative ideas 

for how we could incorporate time for in-person, 

like maybe more expert panels or more specific 

comment subjects if they happened during the 

meeting. So some of those ideas are there to, and 

yes, I really appreciate this community and all 

the wisdom and perspective that we have here on 

that.

People weren't really taking a side. 

They're illuminating all the sides and the 

importance. And I think that's really going to 

help us as we look at meetings and meeting agendas 

going forward to say, Oh, this great idea could 

apply here and we can structure the agenda like 

this. So some great creative stuff here.

MR. ELA: I'll just jump in. Since 

most of you haven't been to in-person meeting 

unfortunately, but I really believe that the format 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

we've used in the past where we did have two 

webinars that were virtual and then in-person oral 

comments as well. I think that does satisfy 

somewhat both sides of the coin.

If you can't travel you're still in the 

virtual webinar, which we did have two of them. 

They didn't always fill up, but it certainly 

gave -- and when they didn't fill up, I mean, we 

didn't have a wait-list. Everybody really did 

have a chance to speak and the oral comments 

in-person satisfied a different need. I'd have 

to look back. I would tend to say the bigger 

organizations would wait until the in-person and 

on the virtual we got more individuals.

So to make sure we balance those 

equally, I think is important, but I just want to 

say we have had a hybrid model in the past for at 

least all the meetings I've been at. I know it 

was different before that, but there's three years 

of precedent before that.

MS. JEFFREY: Yes. Thank you, Steve. 

That perspective is important and so strange to 

be in the pandemic reality. Think about the past 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and what the future will look like. So I do think 

we see people really liking both in the oral 

comments. So I'm going to go ahead and look at 

question three.

Restrictions due to the pandemic aside, 

would the availability of a live stream meeting 

discourage in-person attendance? And live stream 

meetings should be the baseline. It was sort of 

the preference expressed that some people like Zoom 

better than a live stream because they see it as 

more interactive. They value the in-person 

connection. But they will send more folks to 

listen in on the meetings if it's available after 

the pandemic.

And I liked that people reflected that 

having the virtual format doesn't intrinsically 

discourage in-person attendance and that they 

really support the hybrid as a service to the 

community and the Board.

MR. D'AMORE: Hear, hear.

MS. JEFFREY: Okay. So moving on. Is 

the practice of scheduling multiple oral comments 

by a single organization inherently unfair, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

is there a path by which the Board can field 

multiple areas of expertise from a single 

organization while balancing the limits of time, 

fairness, and the importance of receiving a wide 

range of stakeholder feedback?

Stakeholders really understand that 

there's a lot of diversity of expertise and folks 

where many hats in organic landscapes. So the 

expression that everyone deserves their three 

minutes to comment, regardless of affiliation was 

strong in the public comments. Folks see the value 

of a certifier or a scientist, you know, even if 

they are working in the same organization, having 

time to comment.

Subject matter experts is important and 

happens a lot in the organic landscape. There was 

some suggestion that perhaps we could construct 

a more equitable distribution of oral public 

comment slots. And if we are looking at dividing 

them. And so if we're going to look at crops, then 

maybe an organization could comment on crops and 

maybe they couldn't be allowed a second slot for 

a crops comment unless those slots didn't fill up 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

kind of suggestions.

And then there was some strong support 

for the possibility of allotting a stable 

percentage of oral comments slots for farmers. 

So again, I really appreciate the tenor of this 

community in that people don't see multiple oral 

comments by a single organization as inherently 

unfair, and they understand the value of many 

experts. Sorry, I lost my train of thought there. 

Does anybody want to chime in and I'll see if I 

can get it back. Go ahead, Rick.

MR. ELA: You know, it's really a tough 

situation. And I know we've talked about this on 

some of our crops calls when you go through 

comments, especially on the written ones but oral 

too, how do you balance a comment from an 

organization, say OTA, that has hundreds of 

members? Does that count as one or 50 when you're 

trying to figure out the preponderance of evidence 

for and against a proposal or something else?

And so I really like having more people 

speak because it seems to balance the playing field 

a little bit, but it really is a tough situation. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And also when you have somebody, any organization, 

you don't know, unless they explicitly say, well, 

75 percent of our members are for this and 25 -- it 

usually comes across as one voice. And so that 

makes it hard to do too.

It's also the same difficulty we have 

balancing form letters. You know, if you get a 

100 letters that all say the same thing, is that 

really just one comment or does it really mean a 

100 people care about it? So I'm glad we're 

discussing it, but I find it difficult when I 

evaluate things.

MS. JEFFREY: Yes, totally. I think 

the encouraging thing for me in this discussion 

is that the community sees the difficulty. And 

I didn't see any reflections from the community 

that we are way out of bounds or that things are, 

you know, really negative and that there are some 

in the weeds solutions potentially that we could 

do to help elevate some diverse voices and that 

it's a pretty great dialogue. Wood, did you want 

to go next?

MR. TURNER: Sure. To Rick's point, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I actually think that that issue, for me at least, 

could be addressed by organizations that do have 

that broad representation indicate that. I think 

we generally know those organizations that have 

broad membership. So being able to have some 

organizations simply say this is on behalf of this 

many entities in this many categories or whatever, 

we'd sort of capture that.

And I think for me, the weight of those 

comments are, you know, just as strong in that 

scenario they would be by stacking a big block of 

time in the oral comments for one organization. 

I think what concerns me is that the repetition 

that you see sometimes on these multiple comments 

among organizations.

And I do wonder, Mindee, I don't 

remember seeing this in the comments, but I do 

wonder if there was ever any consideration about 

or any suggestion that if there are larger 

organizations -- who is to say what the size of 

membership would be -- but larger organizations, 

we could block those all together.

So maybe it's not, you know, multiple 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

three-minute presentations over four or five or 

six or that many people, but maybe there are 

ten-minute blocks of time for larger organizations 

that can come in and really put together a 

presentation that, you know, maybe all those voices 

can be heard in say, you know, in that ten minute 

block at the same time, at the eight minute block 

at the same time and make sure that the views of 

the organization are expressed.

But then we don't kind of mix it in 

with -- it's hard sometimes for me to kind of 

balance large organization with sort of really 

short one-off presentations by people that are just 

speaking for themselves. And so I don't think we 

heard that in the comments at all, that there might 

be a way to think about larger organizations with 

large memberships in a different block in the oral 

comments. It concerns me.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you, Wood. I 

appreciate your perspective on the subject. I saw 

one suggestion that maybe if an organization signs 

up, you know, 123 and they get three in a row and 

they're commenting on the same subject that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

potentially they could sort of be de-escalated to 

the bottom of the list, and then if there's a slot 

open. So that suggestion was there are in some 

ways. But go ahead. I think Sue was next.

MS. BAIRD: See, Jerry, you can't have 

that role yet. That's still mine. I agree, 

Mindee, that it was interesting to me that people 

did not find that large organizations that had 

several speakers was inherently a conflict. I 

thought that was great. I did also though find 

interesting some commenters who expressed concerns 

that maybe we're losing our farmer voice and maybe 

we could find a way to just give a certain block 

of time just for farmers to express their opinions.

And I felt that was a valuable thing. 

I hear that a lot of times. I'm in rural Missouri 

and they'd say, well, you know, I don't, you know, 

(audio interference) count any way, my voice why 

should I even try? I don't have to time to get 

signed up because I don't find out about it and 

by the time I find out about it, all blocks are 

already done anyway. So I think that's valuable 

and something we need to work on, finding a way 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to give rural America their voice. But overall, 

I felt very positive about the comments and the 

commenters who felt that we were doing a pretty 

good job. So --

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you, Sue. I do 

hope farmers feel encouraged to apply for oral 

slots. Kyla, go ahead.

MS. SMITH: Yes. I think that, again, 

it was encouraging to me to see that in large part 

the stakeholders didn't necessarily feel like 

there was, you know, a big tip. And so I guess 

I was trying to think about the amount of like 

logistic for enforcing of having to like make sure 

people signed up for the thing or like the props 

and then what did they changed their mind or 

whatever. And if it really was worth all the 

effort to go into this policing if the stakeholders 

didn't really find it to be that big of a deal.

And then just want to, you know, I 

certainly want to hear from all different kinds 

of stakeholders and farmers are large and small 

and handlers are large and small. And so I think 

it's really important that we remember that our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

industry is sort of skill neutral in a large aspect, 

especially within certification.

And I don't know, how can we raise up 

all the voices in a -- I don't know. I guess I'm 

just concerned about what percentage for farmers. 

What if those are large farmers and smaller 

handlers at this place or whatever. So just trying 

to think out loud for everybody.

MS. JEFFREY: Yes. You're right. 

Logistics are real in that situation. Amy, I think 

you were next.

MS. BRUCH: Yes. Thank you, Mindee, 

for leading this conversation. I think the hybrid 

approach and getting back into being able to meet 

in addition to the virtual be a great situation. 

I love the community's perspective and just having 

greater farmer participation. I think with both 

avenues that'll be helpful. But it's almost like 

the outreach and just making folks aware -- some 

these small stakeholder groups aware of the 

opportunity, I think, potentially is a little bit 

of a bottleneck.

You know, farmers are busy this time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of year, but you know, now with all the virtual 

connections we can do there's some multitasking. 

I believe some of them even did that this last 

comment round because several were off camera as 

they were commenting, working on their farms.

But yes, I just think maybe there's a 

little bit of a need to just do the outreach because 

these issues do impact the smaller farmers and 

larger farmers, and, as Kyla mentioned, small and 

large handlers as well and their voices are really 

beneficial. So maybe that scenario we can look 

at too.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Mindee, I'll just do a time 

check in about ten more minutes. I don't know how 

many more questions you have. It's great hearing 

from the Board members.

MS. JEFFREY: So yes, that was our last 

question. So we're just having discussion now. 

I think we'll be fine. Nate, why don't you jump 

in?

MR. POWELL-PALM: I just wanted to 

piggy back off what Amy said. That I thought it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

was one of the coolest things to get a text after 

oral comments being like, yes, I was on my tractor 

the whole time I was commenting. And I think that 

is exactly like the creative solution we need to 

help farmers be engaged.

But I also thought it was helpful that 

I saw some organizations, you know, try to help 

synthesize for the farmer members what their voice 

could sound like. Like, what does their 

commentary -- what impact does that have? And a 

little bit of coaching on how you get up in front 

of the NOSB and say your piece. So I'm excited 

to see that.

One idea though is, I would be really 

grateful if larger organization members did call 

out how many members do -- or sorry, larger 

organizations call how many members they are 

representing in their calls because, you know, I 

struggle with that a little bit, and I think Rick's 

point to how much weight to give to different 

comments.

It'd be really nice to have the stats 

on the front end to be able to, you know, accurately 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

weigh how many farmers are speaking to this unified 

voice, and to the good democracy that a lot of these 

organizations have, they are member approved 

policies and positions.

MS. JEFFREY: Yes. I did hear sort of 

some cautionary statements to the Board in comments 

that our stakeholders worry that in-person 

comments have more weight than an oral, virtual, 

or maybe even a written comment. So I did take 

that to heart and I do think about holding myself 

accountable for equal weight across stakeholders. 

So appreciate those comments. Amy.

MS. BRUCH: Yes, Mindee. Had one 

additional thought. A comment that stood out to 

me, and I know this is a discussion document, so 

a little bit exploratory, was maybe extending the 

time frame in which written comments can be 

delivered. Or, you know, there was some comments 

on the sign up period.

But anyway, written comments because 

these larger groups that aggregate farmer voices 

or multi-stakeholder voices, you know, it does take 

time for them to reach out to their communities 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and summarize that information. So I thought that 

that was a good comment that was raised by 

stakeholders is just to maybe look at the time frame 

in which we're asking for this information.

MS. JEFFREY: Yes. Agreed. I loved 

the depth of sincerity and the amount of work that 

goes in on all sides. As a new Board member, I 

was really struggling with the time frame of 

receiving the written comments. And then I 

realized how hard everyone out there is working 

to send us written comments so I appreciate that 

on all sides. Sue, did you have one more?

MR. ELA: I'll go ahead and count that 

out for Sue.

MS. JEFFREY: Okay.

MS. BAIRD: Follow-up to what Amy said 

because one of the commenters actually made that 

point of putting too much emphasis on the limited 

comments received during the 30 day period might 

be dangerous because it says not in the best 

interest sometimes. Maybe the only organizations 

or the only people who had the staff and the time 

to actually comment. And so I thought that was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

an interesting comment. And just a follow up to 

Amy's comment.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you. And I think, 

Steve, you're going to wrap this up if nobody else 

feels -- Oh, we got Jerry. So --

MR. ELA: Yes, that's why I don't need 

to wrap this up. But I guess on two things -- I've 

always valued the written comments a little more 

than the oral comments just because -- I mean, I 

value both. I don't want to give the impression 

I don't value one, but because the written comments 

people have time to write them and then go back 

and look at what they said and edit and run it by 

a couple of other people.

So I've always felt maybe they were a 

little more just thought out. I'm really on 

dangerous ground here because I think oral 

commenters think things out too, but just, you 

know, edited, I guess, and, you know, for real 

intent. Some people just get nervous in front of 

the camera on an oral comment. Yes. I don't want 

their nervousness to come across as not being as 

focused or whatever.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So I think balancing both is, you know, 

necessary and the oral comments do have a little 

bit more time for people to consider. But Amy's 

point would be great to give people more time. 

I'm sure all the organizations would love that. 

But you have to look on the backside. You went 

15 days earlier to have everything in and what does 

that mean for the Board in terms of the Board having 

time to think about things too.

So it's this real challenge of enough 

time for our stakeholders to comment and get enough 

time for us to, you know, really look into proposals 

and such. And we have had times where I think they 

were only 25 or 20 day comment periods and that 

was ugly. We really heard about that. So the 30 

days is really critical and more would be nice, 

but it has a trade-off.

The other thing that I would really like 

to see and I think would be valuable, especially 

during oral comments, but even written is that we 

have, you know, identify your name and affiliation, 

you know, as people are introducing themselves, 

but consultants are a real tough one because often 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

consultants won't identify who is paying them for 

their consulting. And they can often come across 

as individuals when in fact they're actually 

representing another organization.

And I think that it would be so nice 

for the Board that know that because it changes 

to me the tenor of how you take those comments. 

And so I'd really like to see more identification 

of who you're working for or if it's truly an 

independent comment.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you, Steve, I 

appreciate that. Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Do we have two minutes, 

Steve, or I can yield it back. How are we doing?

MR. ELA: Go for it, Jerry. You're 

fine. We'll cut it off after you.

MR. D'AMORE: Okay. Thank you. In 

terms of giving voice to the various categories 

of stakeholders, I think there's one thing to 

consider, then another thing that's within our 

power to do. Just harkening back to the oral 

period that we just went through, comment period 

that we just went through, I think what's on our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

agenda as hot items would drive a lot of that.

So this time, I thought, weight to the 

farming community was rather extraordinary, but 

it made sense to me because of what we were talking 

about as hot items. And I think the other thing 

too which was done really well by our team is, you 

give broader voice when you ask a question. And 

we did do that and we did give broader voice to 

particularly this time, again in terms of hot 

topics, to the farming community to really express 

themselves, I thought. Thank you.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you. Appreciate 

everybody's passion on this subject. It was fun 

synthesizing for perspectives and writing the 

documents and I really enjoyed hearing the 

integrity of the organic community come through 

in this document. So thanks, everybody and I look 

forward to some more digesting when we go back to 

subcommittee. Thank you, Steve.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Mindee. I think 

that was a great job and something the Board has 

kind of debated and I too was a little surprised 

by some of the -- I thought there might be more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

in favor of limiting comments. And it was great 

to see that maybe we're doing pretty well. It's 

not always like that. So thanks for your work on 

it, Mindee, it was great. We're going to jump into 

the Livestock Subcommittee. And Kim, you are the 

Chair, So taken away.

MS. HUSEMAN: Right. Good afternoon. 

I think it's the safest thing to say for everybody 

now it's 1:30 Mountain Time at least. So we are 

going to start off with our sunset review process 

with activated charcoal. Reference 205603A6 

activated charcoal must be used from vegetative 

sources. And this sunset review item belongs to 

Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: Thanks, Kim, and thanks 

for reading that in. I was getting ready to do 

that. So I think this is a benign substance that 

seemed to come through in the discussions and the 

TR. Activated charcoal is used to treat poisoning 

of animals and is pretty much the treatment of 

choice for that.

So I think I can make this pretty quick. 

Only a small amount of it is used. And there was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a little bit of a question as to disposal of it 

in manure, but it seems to me that having some 

activated charcoal in the manure was neutral at 

worse and it actually could be positive in terms 

of binding up toxins and that sort of thing. So 

I think it's good.

There were about 11 comments in the 

written comments and none of them were opposed. 

And as I said, there was only one that considered 

an annotation for the handling of manure with 

activated charcoal. But I personally don't see 

that as an important issue and that could be brought 

up separately later, but we can't change the 

annotations now.

And finally, I just wanted to read the 

second part of the discussion that's in the 

proposal and it says, Comments on activated 

charcoal received for the Spring meeting -- just 

to reiterate that one too -- were strongly in favor 

of continued listing as an approved synthetic 

substance for use in livestock care. It is used 

infrequently in relatively small amounts. It has 

little environmental impact.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Furthermore, its use can reduce or 

prevent livestock distress and death. So I think 

that's it for my summary and it's back to you, Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: All right. Thank you. 

Brian.

MR. ELA: Are there any questions? I 

don't see anything. So we can move to the vote 

on it. First vote. So the motion is for activated 

charcoal. Just a reminder to the Board that a yes 

vote is to de-list it. A no vote is to keep it 

on the list. It is a reverse of what it seems like. 

I even had to pause to think about it myself.

So if you want it off the list, vote 

yes. If you want it to remain on the list, vote 

no. We're going to go in alphabetical order here. 

Mindee, are you ready for vote counting? Okay. 

So we're going to start with Sue.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: The Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: We are unanimous.

MR. ELA: Why don't you read in the 

actual vote count for the record?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes. Fourteen no. 

Zero abstentions. Zero recusals and zero absent. 

The motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: Good job, Mindee. Good 

language. Okay, Kim. Next.

MS. HUSEMAN: Next we'll be moving to 

calcium borogluconate. Reference 205603A7. 

Treatment of milk fever only. And the substance 

belongs to Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: Wow, you guys are keeping 

me busy today. So a high-level of support from 

stakeholders seeking to relist this substance. 

There was a note that it might be redundant given 

the electrolyte listing, but that redundancy isn't 

problematic. A stakeholder put a little pressure 

on the use of boron and suggested that future Boards 

might consider annotating for a withdrawal period 

after use.

Another stakeholder noted that future 

Boards should pay attention to whether there is 

a commercially available form of calcium 

borogluconate formulated with a fermentation step 

that could involve a genetically modified form 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of -- I cannot say the name of that bacteria so 

I apologize. Either which way, strong support for 

the necessary use of this substance as a treatment 

for milk fever.

MR. ELA: Any questions? Sue has one 

for you. Guess what, Sue?

MS. BAIRD: I don't know why I do that 

every time. This was a comment from OPA and I felt 

it very pertinent both for the calcium 

borogluconate and calcium propionate. And they 

made the point that these materials are not 

redundant. Each of them have its own mode of 

action and each of them may work for different sites 

specifics including in different regions of the 

country.

So I thought that was a great 

observation. And something that we need to 

remember is that we are a international 

organization and we need to really think about 

those things. That was a comment from OPA that 

I thought pertinent.

MS. JEFFREY: Yes. I totally agree 

with you, Sue. The overall tenor was that we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

addressing milk fever well, and that all of the 

substances on the list are necessary as they can 

treat differently in different times.

MR. ELA: Other questions? All right. 

We'll move to the vote on calcium borogluconate. 

First off will be Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: No

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry? Jerry, we didn't 

hear you.

MR. D'AMORE: That's a no, sir.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Chair votes no.

MS. HUSEMAN: Okay. I'll wait for 

Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: Again. Zero yes. 

Fourteen no. Zero abstentions. Zero recusals. 

Zero absent. The motion to remove fails.

MS. HUSEMAN: The next sunset review 

we have is calcium propionate. Reference 

205603A8. For treatment of milk fever. And this 

substance is Sue's.

MS. BAIRD: Yes. Calcium propionate 

is a synthetic material. It is produced by 

reacting propionic acid with a solution of calcium 

hydroxide. Again, it is an electrolyte. We did 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

have a few commenters who said it was redundant, 

but then we had those compelling arguments that 

they're not redundant, we have to look at 

site-specific conditions and the different modes 

of action.

It treats milk fever. The point is if 

you don't treat it, you're usually going to lose 

your cow. And that's not what we want at all. 

We treat our animals humanely. So same comments 

basically as the calcium borogluconate.

MR. ELA: Any questions? I'm not 

seeing any. So we will move to the vote on calcium 

propionate.

MS. BAIRD: Could I make one more 

point?

MR. ELA: Sure.

MS. BAIRD: Just as an aside. But I 

love it when the different organizations quantify 

how many in their -- farmers that are using them, 

you know -- CCOF did it, PCO did it, OPA did it. 

I have these many farmers using the product and 

that's very helpful to us as we read those comments.

MR. ELA: Fair enough. All right. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

We're going to move to the vote and we're going 

to start with Amy this time.

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Again. Zero yes. 

Fourteen no. Zero abstentions, recusals or 

absences and the motion to remove fails.

MS. HUSEMAN: Okay. Next up is 

chlorine materials including calcium 

hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, hypochlorous acid 

generated from electrolyzed water, and sodium 

hypochlorite. Reference 205603A10. Chlorine 

materials disinfecting and sanitizing facilities 

and equipment. And this belongs to Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you, Kim. The 

comments were fairly consistent in both saying that 

these are needed materials, that they're really 

an integral part of a good sanitation program. 

I think folks highlighted that as it's ongoing 

discussion on the Board figuring out how we have 

a well-rounded sanitation program that doesn't 

rely on any one material too much and really 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

understand sanitation kind of from a 

microbiological-ecological point of view, is the 

direction that the organic community should be 

moving. But overall, folks were feeling pretty 

good about keeping these on the list.

MR. ELA: Questions? Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes. I have a lot of 

thoughts with respect to chlorine sanitizers and 

that applies to, you know, the whole list and not 

all of them -- some of this have been coming up 

when we talked about research priorities. But in 

general, I think sanitizers, you know, have raised 

concerns among a lot of folks given they're 

probably the most serious conventional type 

pesticide that we use in the organic sector.

And yet they're also essential for 

complying with FSMA and other safety standards. 

So I really like the idea of, you know, a 

comprehensive review these compounds and at risk 

of repeating myself because we have these compounds 

covered several days this week. You know, again, 

I said earlier about public comments. There's 

been some excellent public comments on sanitizers 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and their use and how to evaluate them.

I think especially that was a highlight 

to me are from NOC and from OTA. And about how 

we should be thinking of these, how they're listed. 

In particular I think both comments last spring 

from NOC. And also I encourage everyone to kind 

of reread the OTA comments, the additional comments 

on chlorine materials on page 6 of comments from 

last spring.

Because I think that really outlines 

and puts into a thought perspectives from a lot 

of members of the stakeholder community in looking 

at different ways of listing materials. Have a 

section that's dedicated to specifically 

sanitizers given that that's a, you know, important 

pesticides that we used in organic. And that 

within that listing, we kind of distinguish between 

what has food contact and all the contexts which 

they're used and have a real -- my image is kind 

of a table that lists with a check off, you know, 

what they're being used for.

And also I think it links also into a 

general understanding of materials that are used, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

you know, with and without a rinse. There's some 

materials of course, that don't have to be listed 

if there is a rinse, so I think there's a work agenda 

item here going forward that is important for the 

NOP and the Board to work on.

And again, I encourage people to go back 

and review these comments. I think the ones from 

last spring were especially comprehensive on these 

issues. At the same time, these materials are 

essential and I certainly wouldn't vote to remove 

them. But I think more work needs to be done on 

these. And also just clarify our understanding 

of how they're used.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you for that. 

Yes, absolutely agree. And I think that's a theme 

even since the SAM Hazard panel last fall. Growing 

awareness and kind of coming up with a strategy 

as a group for how we deal with not just individual 

materials as they come up, but sanitizers as entire 

work agenda item. So thank you.

MR. BRADMAN: And also just reminder, 

we have two new materials that are under petition 

right now.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: All right. Anything else? 

We're going to spin through these. I had made 

the executive decision that we would vote on each 

one separately. Just to be very clear on the 

record that we're in favor of them all, but it means 

we're going to spin through some votes here. So 

the motion is to remove calcium hypochlorite from 

the national list. Help me out here, Michelle.

MS. ARSENAULT: Brian.

MR. ELA: Yes, but I'm actually trying 

to get the right one that we're voting on first 

here. 

MR. BRADMAN: Chlorine dioxide.

MR. ELA: Okay. Chlorine dioxide. 

We'll start with Brian.

MS. SMITH: Sorry, I think calcium 

hypochlorite is at the top of the slide.

MR. ELA: Okay. Thanks. Motion to 

remove calcium hypochlorite. Thank you, Kyla. 

So we'll start with Brian.

MS. ARSENAULT: Sorry, Steve, can I 

just interrupt for one second because I don't think 

we verbalized it for the record. Who brought the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

motion and who seconded it? It's on the screen 

so hopefully the transcriptionist is capturing it 

but --

MR. ELA: No. You're totally correct 

on that. So the motion was by Kim and seconded 

by Nate. And we'll move to the vote on calcium 

hypochlorite and we'll start with Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: So I'm voting no 

somewhat reluctantly. I really strongly echo what 

Asa said.

MR. ELA: Okay. Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes. Fourteen no. 

Zero abstentions, recusals, or absences. The 

motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: Okay. We're going to move 

next to the motion to remove chlorine dioxide from 

the list. Again, motioned by Kim, seconded by 

Nate. We will start with Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: It's a no.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes. Fourteen no. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Zero abstentions, recusals, or absences. Motion 

to remove fails.

MR. ELA: Okay. We're going to move 

onto the motion to remove hypochlorous acid. 

Motion by Kim, second by Nate. And we are going 

to start with Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes. Fourteen no. 

Zero abstentions, recusals, or absence. Motion 

to remove fails.

MR. ELA: Okay. We're going to move 

to the last one of chlorine materials. Motion to 

remove sodium hypochlorite from the national list. 

Motion by Kim, second by Nate. And we are going 

to start with Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: And Rick?

MS. JEFFREY: No. It's you.

MR. ELA: Yes. I'm sorry. Chair 

votes no. Put a check mark in the wrong spot.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes. Fourteen no. 

Zero abstentions, recusals, or absences. Motion 

to remove fails.

MR. ELA: Right. I think that gets us 

through the chlorine materials. So thank you, 

Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: Awesome. Thank you, 

Steve. Okay. So next up is kaolin pectin. 

Reference 205603A17. As a disinfectant -- sorry, 

I was looking in the wrong spot here. So kaolin 

pectin for use as an absorbent, anti-diarrheal, 

and gut protectant. This particular substance is 

mine.

At the time of voting out of 

subcommittee, we were still waiting on the TR. 

Since we voted it out of subcommittee, the TR had 

been deemed to be sufficient. So kaolin pectin 

is another tool in the toolbox for livestock 

production or sorry for producers as an absorbent 

anti-diarrheal and again I'll just reiterate, a 

gut protectant. So just yet another way that we 

can combat acute issues.

There were a few comments very similar 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to the screen meeting overwhelmingly in support 

for relisting kaolin pectin. To note, both kaolin 

and pectin on their own are already also on the 

national list. Kaolin was reviewed last year as 

my first year on the Board, and pectin will be up 

for sunset review for the 2024 sunset process. 

So the only alternatives I guess that were listed 

on the TR that were brought about, were mostly 

listed as preventative care as feed additives and 

then other products that we're already currently 

utilizing that are listed on the national list.

But in addition to what Sue had said, 

PCO specifically notated that there are 23 

operators that have approved kaolin pectin in their 

operating plan. Of all of the sunset review items 

that I have that was overwhelmingly one of the more 

prominent ones to consider. Other certifying 

bodies also listed the number of members that they 

had.

You know, one comment was made that 

pectin if used one form is non synthetic. If 

that's the only form of pectin that's utilized, 

kaolin pectin can be considered non synthetic and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

would not be listed at 205603, but to me that's 

just not an item up for debate today. I think that 

would be more along the pectin review process 

before we'd be able to circle back to that. So 

that's really the summary of my review today.

MR. ELA: Questions. I don't see any. 

So we're going to move to the vote on kaolin 

pectin. The motion was made by Sue, it was 

seconded by Mindee. And we're going to start with 

Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: And the Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes. Fourteen no. 

Zero abstentions, recusals or absences. The 

motion to remove fails.

MS. HUSEMAN: Moving forward. 

Mineral oil. Reference 205603A20. For treatment 

of intestinal compaction, prohibited for use as 

a dust suppressant. This is Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Hi. Mineral oil is used 

as an internal lubricant in the case of impaction 

of the omasum and the third stomach, the abomasum. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Many times suspicion frame the cow as eating a 

lot of grasses that comes impacted. There were 

comments stating that -- well, we asked for a 

limited TR. We got one back again between our

spraying and we got one in -- it was due late 

February.

So we did get a new TR. The TR didn't 

shed any real, new, significant difference. It 

did point out some preventative measures that could 

be used, such as instead of a seed, a lot of fibers 

that perhaps it would -- when they're over --

pregnant be, it would prevent that impaction. And 

they made the comment that producers using local 

quality roughage should augment the ration with 

grain to meet those energy and protein 

requirements, and that might prevent the 

impactions.

It's also used for bloat. It's 

commonly used for bloat. And again, that occurs 

in animals after grazing that lush spring pasture. 

The real crux of the matter is if you don't treat 

either that impaction or that bloat, you're going 

to lose your animal.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And one livestock veterinarian, Dr. 

Hugh Karreman said that mineral oil has the 

property of not being absorbed by the gut. Because 

also they said that we could use different types 

of oils. And he said that did not work because 

it'll just get passed through. So he said that 

is the only one that's not absorbed by the gut and 

thus can coat the gut so there's no absorption or 

possible re-absorption downstream for toxins. It 

can be used for frothy bloat.

It is indispensable to me as a 

practitioner. Can quickly reverse digestive 

upsets. That's pretty powerful. And so, end on 

that note.

MR. ELA: Questions? Right. We will 

move to the vote on mineral oil. It was motioned 

by Kim, seconded by Brian. And we are going to 

start -- as soon as I get my page turned 

here -- sorry about that.

MS. HUSEMAN: With me, Kim.

MR. ELA: With Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry? Jerry, you must be 

on mute.

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Oh, sorry. Rick?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes. Fourteen no. 

Zero abstentions, recusals, or absences. Motion 

to remove fails.

MS. HUSEMAN: All right. We will be 

moving forward to nutritive supplements. 

Reference 205603A21. Injectable supplements of 

trace minerals per paragraph D2 of this section. 

Vitamins per paragraph D3, and electrolytes per 

paragraph A11 with excipients per paragraph F in 

accordance with FDA and restricted to use by or 

on the order of a licensed veterinarian. This is 

for Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you, Kim. I 

really enjoyed this random semester on Livestock 

Committee because we got to talk about materials 

that highlight the really focused efforts by 

organic farmers to maintain good animal welfare. 

And I think nutritive supplements very much fall 

into that category. It's one of the limited 

numbers of tools that producers have to treat acute 

illness, but also to help boost immunity and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

ultimately make for a more resilient and robust 

animal health and welfare program.

Very consistent comments from the 

community. Nutritive supplements are a critical 

toolbox and no one is really looking for them to 

go away. I think that there was no further 

clarification and emphasis on the fact that with 

injectable nutritive supplements, they really are 

a last ditch effort to help an animal that's sick 

when they're at the point of refusing feed. So 

it seems like, across the Board, critical and well 

received comments on keeping these on the list.

MR. ELA: Questions? All right. 

We'll move to the vote for nutritive supplements. 

Motioned by Nate, seconded by Brian. And we get 

to start with Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes. Fourteen no. 

Zero abstentions, recusals, or absences. Motion 

to remove fails.

MS. HUSEMAN: Okay. We'll move 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

forward to propylene glycol. Reference 

205603A27. Only for treatment of ketosis in 

ruminants. Mindee, you're up.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you. 

Stakeholders see the substance as essential for 

the treatment of ketosis. There's good discussion 

on prevention by proper nutrition is the best 

practice for avoiding the need for propylene 

glycol. And I appreciated the stakeholders 

eliminating other methods for ketosis recovery 

that they've tried, and that the emphasis really 

is that the alternatives are not always as 

effective in all situations and that this material 

is essential.

MR. ELA: Questions? All right. We 

will move to the vote for propylene glycol. 

Motioned by a Mindee, seconded by Nate. And we 

are going to start with Logan.

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes. Fourteen no. 

Zero abstentions, recusals, or absences. Motion 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to remove fails.

MS. HUSEMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

Mindee. Moving forward. Next on the list, we 

have sodium chlorite acidified. This is in two 

different references. We'll start with reference 

205603A28. Allowed for use on organic livestock 

as a teat dip treatment only. Do you want me to 

read in B as well or should we review A, discuss 

it, and go to B? They're very similar.

MR. ELA: You can go for both.

MS. HUSEMAN: Okay. Also for review 

is 205603B10. Allowed for use on organic 

livestock as a teat dip treatment only. So these 

are very similarly written. But the delineation 

between the two is one is as a pre-teat dip. and 

the other is as a host teat dip. And so one from 

an infection standpoint, I guess, and one as a 

sanitation standpoint.

So there were a few comments very 

similar to the spring. There are operations who 

utilize ASC in their program. They consider the 

solutions as superior anti-microbial activity 

against E. coli and a preventative measure for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

infections, especially mastitis. It's highly 

effective and according to, you know, Crop Cop, 

environmentally friendly as it breaks down in 

water, citric acid, and salt.

I would say of the individuals that did 

comment the one mention of -- I think as Asa pointed 

out earlier -- utilizing chlorine materials and 

just encouraging the community to take a harder 

look at chlorine materials in general. Just 

trying to become as chlorine-free as possible. 

This can fall under that particular realm as well. 

But as it stands today, by removing ASC or 

acidified sodium chlorite would prevent some 

operations from having this tool and could impact 

milk quality. That's the conclusion of my 

summary.

MR. ELA: Questions? Right. Motion 

to remove sodium chlorite acidified was made by 

Kim and seconded by Nate. And with everyone's 

permission, we will vote on these as a group. Does 

anybody object to that? Okay. We will start with 

Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes. Fourteen no. 

Zero abstentions, recusals, or absences. Motion 

to remove fails.

MS. HUSEMAN: We're ahead of schedule. 

And we will finish the Livestock Subcommittee with 

zinc sulfate. Reference 205603B12. For use in 

hoof and foot treatments only. Brian, this is your 

substance.

MR. CALDWELL: Thanks, Kim. This is 

a little bit more problematic than some of 

the -- certainly the activated charcoal that I also 

worked on just because it's manufacturers creates 

more toxic byproducts and things like, you know, 

aspects like that. Zinc is a micro nutrient, but 

it also can build up in the soil. So of the 11 

comments that we got in the written comment period, 

none were for de-listing zinc sulfate.

There were a couple of comments that 

it should be used in rotation. Soil should be 

monitored for zinc levels after use to make sure 

that they're not going up. And that's similar to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

what's done with copper sulfate which is also used 

for the same purpose. And also one said that it 

should be used only after all other alternatives 

had failed.

So the pluses for zinc sulfate are that 

it's less toxic or tends to have less impact on 

the soil than copper sulfate, which is probably 

the number one product that's used for this for 

foot rot in ruminants. So it is probably a more 

positive alternative. Formaldehyde is also used. 

I don't think it's allowed in organic production. 

So there are a few other possibilities as 

alternatives. But as far as I could tell from the 

TR and from other reading, none of those has really 

strongly come out as a good treatment.

So on balance, to me it's a positive 

material that should be relisted again. And I 

think we should in the future think about possible 

annotations for monitoring soil zinc levels.

MR. ELA: Questions? All right. We 

will move to the vote. The vote is on zinc sulfate. 

Motion by Brian, seconded by Kim. And we will 

start with Kyla.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes. Fourteen no. 

Zero abstentions, recusals, or absences. Motion 

fails.

MR. ELA: Do you have any last words, 

Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Just quickly, I guess. 

Yes. Just real quick since we have some time. 

I'll give most of it back though. I do agree with 

Nate. I think the sunset review process for the 

livestock end of things this time around did have 

a lot of meat substances that are very critical 

for the continued support in this industry.

And as Sue mentioned, not only do we 

need to think about this on a national level, but 

there's a significant amount of USDA or NOP 

certified facilities outside of the U.S. too. 

And from an international scale it's always good 

to see that. We're taking that into account. At 

that, I will turn it back over to you, Steve.

MR. ELA: I was worried that by noting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that Livestock was ahead of time that you would 

completely jinx it and zinc sulfate would turn into 

an hour long discussions so I'm very relieved. 

Thanks, Kim. Good job. Thanks to the Livestock 

Subcommittee.

As I mentioned at the start of the day 

today, we are for various reasons, we have swapped 

the Materials Subcommittee with Compliance 

Accreditation and Certification Subcommittee. So 

CACS is going to go at the end of the day on Thursday 

and we are going to move on to the Materials 

Subcommittee today. So, Wood, you are Chair of 

the Materials Subcommittee, so it is yours to take 

away.

MR. TURNER: I am indeed, Steve. 

Thank you. We have a short agenda. I think a 

couple of things to discuss today. One is our 

research priorities and then another is a body of 

work that I'm excited to have Mindee Jeffrey share 

on excluded methods. I just want to say, you know, 

that I really enjoyed this year getting into the 

role of Chair of this subcommittee. I inherited 

it out of the blue when Dave Mortensen left the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Board at the end of last fall and I had no idea 

what it was or what I was getting myself into.

And so, you know, it's been a nice year 

to kind of figure out what needs research 

priorities and some of the things that this 

committee does, you know, what this workflow really 

is. So I appreciate all of your patience as I 

stumble through this at times.

But it's been a learning experience and 

I think, you know, as we've had presentations over 

the course of year from NIFA about the way they 

use the research priorities to kind of stimulate 

real thinking, real big thing, real strategic 

thinking throughout for organic in advancing some 

ideas that are both designed to help us understand 

challenges, understand problems, but also really 

think bigger about the positive impacts that 

organic does and can have on a lot of large, sort 

of localized and even global challenges that we're 

facing as a society.

So really, really have enjoyed kind of 

thinking about that more broadly. Definitely 

reminded of the role that -- as a first step I'll 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

move sort of explicitly into the research 

priorities document and proposal. I'm reminded 

of the role that research priorities, this 

document, every year plays in driving continuous 

improvement and sort of addressing some of the 

bigger issues facing organic. It's really 

interesting to think about how many of these topics 

sort of seem to get relegated to the research 

priorities.

We had a discussion with the program 

earlier about what are the big issues that we want 

to be talking about beyond just what our typical 

workflow is. And I found myself thinking this 

morning as we were talking about that, that a lot 

of those topics really live in the research 

priorities.

And it's interesting to think about the 

role that we might play or how we might play hearing 

some of you speak today about thinking broadly 

about some of these topics that are in the research 

priorities document beyond just sending them over 

to sort of fund and solicit research proposals on 

the variety of topics, but more sort of how can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

we talk about and think about these issues more 

as a work product for us.

So when I say they seem to get relegated 

to research priorities, maybe a lot of these are 

best to be part of our work agenda more effectively. 

We vote on research priorities recommendation 

every year. But a lot of these topics are just 

sort of ongoing topics. They continue to be 

important and then we continue to need to elevate 

these issues and bring them forward and make sure 

the community has an opportunity to continue to 

weigh in on the relative value and to seek research 

on these topics.

I will say that I do think -- and this 

is something for us to think about -- I do think 

that in many ways the feedback loops on some of 

these topics are simply not there. I would love 

to be able to be a lot clearer in some ways about 

sort of -- we're voting on this document and saying, 

let's go get some research done on these topics.

And to create a clearer way or a clearer 

process for becoming more aware of sort of how and

where the research priorities are getting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

addressed in advance so that we really know how 

to really directly use them in the context of what 

we're trying to do. So I just want to say that.

I also want to say that this document 

this year did include -- we did keep a question 

section in the document on a variety of topics. 

And I know a lot of the commenters talked about 

this. We did keep a question section in the 

document because there are a number of topics that 

really seemed to be -- that the community as a whole 

is very split on in some way.

Some people in the community -- a lot 

of the topics in the question section of the 

document are topics that at various points in our 

process since last fall, different voices in the 

community have shown a lot of interest in some of 

those topics, or next to zero interest in those 

topics.

And so that's why we chose to put them 

in the question section, because I really believe 

they really weren't ready to sort of be fully voted 

on or vetted in this document, but are going to 

be things that I really take to heart -- the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

comments that I heard from the community on those 

questions because I really want them to be front 

and center if you are subcommittees workflow moving 

forward.

So we're going to take those, all your 

comments, I just want to say -- we're going to take 

all your comments about items that were in the 

question section of this document proposal and 

really move them into sort of active discussion 

in our subcommittee to make sure that we're not 

leaving these out in the report. And I am going 

to be trying to figure out some way to figure out 

whether we can -- some kind of consensus emerges 

about whether to include them in the next cycle 

and sort of what the implications are about not 

having consensus on some of these topics.

Should we be seeking research on some 

of these topics when the community is split on them? 

You know, I could argue both ways on that. I think 

in some ways, you know, as an advisory committee 

or advisory Board, we have to make that decision 

about whether or not consensus is really necessary. 

So I just wanted to send that signal to the entire 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

community that I'm not presenting a edit to the 

document as it was shared with the community or 

the proposal was shared with community.

But I do take all of your comments to 

heart on the questions section. I really believe 

we're going to bring this forward in the committee. 

So I'll quickly summarize some of the comments 

that we've received. I will say there was one 

high-level comment that I think was an 

unintentional aspect of the executive summary of 

this proposal.

Just to clarify, there is a 

longer -- those of you who were scrambling to make 

comments on all of our workflow this time, there 

was a longer document on this that articulated a 

lot more detail on each of the items that were in 

the executive summary. And one of the topics that 

came up often in comments was that somehow research 

into copper based materials was excluded from this 

document. That is not in fact the case.

And if you look at item 5 under the crops 

section of the document, the bulk of the disease 

management section of the document is really 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

focused on copper research. So I just want to make 

sure that everyone's aware of that. That's still 

in the there. Many of you commented on it and it 

is intended to be there and if there's anything 

necessary to clarify that even by -- I don't know, 

Steve, informing the executive summary so that some 

of that content from the deeper document are 

clearly included the executive summary. We can 

certainly discuss that. So I just want to flag 

that first and foremost.

Got a lot of support across the 

community -- certifiers, farmers, retailers, 

organizations, about strong support for these 

priorities in general. There tend to be a lot of 

agreement on these priorities. And I feel 

gratified by that in some ways. Also, as I 

mentioned though, really eager to sort of figure 

out, are we as we continue to sort of push these 

priorities forward, is there a proper feedback loop 

to make sure we're making progress on some of these 

things.

I did want to point out that a theme 

that kept coming up in some of the priorities 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

was -- you know, there were several organizations 

that mentioned the need to include deeper research 

on social equity and inclusion in organic. And 

that's very much consistent with some of the themes 

we've been talking about today already. I think 

the impact on water quality and water quality 

issues related to organic came up quite a bit in 

the comments.

There were other comments ranging from 

anything from nanotechnology to continue to do 

research into solar power alternatives, research 

into heavy metals, a range of issues that kept 

coming up over and over again. There were a couple 

of comments -- a couple of commenters really got 

into great detail on the questions section, as I 

mentioned, and really wanted to make sure that we 

had some meat to sink our teeth into on some of 

those potential items that might show up in a future 

research priorities document.

So I'm excited about how the 

subcommittee is going to get involved in that 

review moving forward. So again, generally very 

positive support from the community as a whole for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

those who took the time to comment on research 

priorities. And with that I'll ask if anyone has 

any questions of their own related to some of the 

research priorities that are part of the proposal.

MR. ELA: Looks like Jerry has a 

question for you.

MR. D'AMORE: Not a question. 

Actually, it's a comment. Under the broad 

category that we're responsible for continuous 

improvement. I don't know where we'd even start 

without this list of research priorities and the 

ability to tease up some of the issues in a deeper 

sense. So I like the work and will be on record 

that without research priorities, some of what I 

do would be a more heavy lift. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: I also have more of a 

comment than a question and part of it has to do 

with just how research funds are disseminated, 

usually through competitive grant processes. And 

so somehow I feel like if we have a list, we need 

to find a way to make a link to universities so 

that people take this up and then submit grant 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

proposals to NIFA to get funding for these 

type -- for whatever the research priorities happen 

to be.

And I think just having sat on panels, 

I'd give out money. And also as an applicant, I 

know one of the weakest links in many proposals 

is like the link to actually farmers who want this 

kind of work to be done. So I mean, I don't really 

know the right answer to this, but I wonder if there 

is some way to use the networks of farmers to help 

them make links to researchers. So that really 

useful research projects can be developed and 

submitted to USDA. I mean, I don't have the magic 

answer for how to make that happen, but I think 

that that could actually make the feedback loop 

a little bit more effective.

MR. TURNER: Great. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Amy.

MS. BRUCH: Yes. Thank you, Steve. 

And yes, just to echo a little bit more what Carolyn 

said and Wood. You mentioned this is -- I just 

think there's so much importance here. We have 

a great list of research priorities and to just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

reconcile that with the actual activities to 

provide more meaning to our subcommittees and to 

drive some of these issues that we're faced with 

to a finite level that would be excellent. So some 

investigation on the process, I think would be 

really important. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: I just wanted to comment 

on three things and cut me off if I go a little 

long. One, I just wanted to call out the Organic 

Center recommendation to look at inadvertent 

contamination a little bit and full disclosure, 

I'm advising on that a little bit. But I think 

that's an important issue and in the earlier 

comment this morning about dicamba and that 

registration, to me the issues around dicamba kind 

of highlight the potential for drift.

And I think it underscores that 

depending on the physical and chemical properties 

of a given conventional pesticide, they move. 

They move into other people's fields. And in my 

experience when we tested house dust and things 

like that in agricultural areas, you know, 100 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

percent of homes have at least some residues of 

agricultural pesticides in their home.

So to me the dicamba issue in particular 

really highlights the concerns about drift and 

inadvertent contamination. I actually tried to 

find data on drift contamination events and haven't 

found any good databases. I was told that Purdue, 

there were -- or some other states had resources 

and I still haven't found anything that really 

compiles nationwide information on drift events.

There was a comment in the verbal 

comments this week that I thought was really quite 

useful -- I'm sorry, last week -- on the idea of 

more support for food science and that's supportive 

of organic. That came up in the context of 

comments about carrageenan, but I think it's a 

really interesting concept and something that, you 

know, even though I was heavily involved in 

handling, hadn't really thought about.

And I think there's some ideas going 

forward to think about what kind of support can 

be done for food science departments that can 

support handling and processing in a way that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

consistent with organic principles and OFPA.

And then I also want to talk more about 

research priorities for chlorine compounds. I 

really appreciate the in-depth comments by the OPWC 

and always really appreciate your input. You guys 

do fantastic work. And I actually agree with their 

comments that we kind of limited -- some of our 

comments in handling to chlorine compounds. And 

I think that's in part because those are some of 

the most toxic of sanitizing compounds we use. 

But all of these sanitizers raise issues.

And for example, we look at peracetic 

acid and we know that breaks down to acetic acid, 

which we think of often as vinegar. But if you 

can take a huff of pure vinegar, it's not going 

to be good for your breathing. So I think that 

raises some important points. I want to respond 

to one thing, not being critical, but just very 

common in public health research, anecdotal 

information is used to define research priorities 

and hypotheses and studies to initiate. And so 

I would not devalue the importance of anecdotal 

information as a basis for planning future
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

research.

And, you know, for example, I've 

reviewed cases where chlorine materials were used 

in seafood processing environments and people 

there were having long-term damage their lungs. 

Especially their lungs and also ocular and dermal 

injuries because of how serious and powerful 

oxidizing agents these materials are. And to me 

that just kind of underscores the importance of 

occupational and other kinds of studies so we 

understand exposures both to the consumer but also 

in our occupational environments.

I know the comment that a lot of our 

focus on chlorine or perhaps other occupational 

exposures are not necessarily organic specific. 

And I think that's true, but that shouldn't 

necessarily mean we shouldn't prioritize that kind 

of research. When I've evaluated chlorine 

exposures in occupational food processing 

environments, I'm shocked in general by the lack 

of research and published data on exposures. You 

know, we do have guidelines.

I've been in food processing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

environments where chlorine materials were used 

and I felt comfortable, but I also hear many reports 

of illness and impact. And, you know, I have my 

experience with reviewing the seafood case, but 

now I'm in my new region of Merced County in 

California with their huge poultry processing 

facilities.

And I have students in my classes who 

worked in those facilities, and they also 

complained bitterly about chlorine and other 

chemical exposures that they've experienced when 

they're working on the lines. And these 

facilities produce both conventional and organic 

poultry products. So, you know, we have to think 

about all the environments where these places 

occurring.

I really appreciate the pictures that 

were included by OPWC in their comments and I think 

they kind of underscored kind of my concerns. 

There's kind of the small, simple packing 

situations within the highly industrialized 

facilities for large-scale fruit packing. And I 

was particularly interested in the occupational 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

environments for the kind of large-scale meat 

processing.

And then the pictures below that where 

we look at sanitizing food handling equipment 

facilities, now we see pictures of workers they're 

wearing gloves and they're wearing rubber suits 

and boots, but they don't have any respiratory 

protection and yet they're using sanitizers on a 

large scale. Maybe those exposures are 

acceptable. And in a facility like that there's 

probably good industrial hygiene compliance with 

rules.

But still we know very little about what 

the exposures are in those environments. And so 

I think, you know, to me those pictures underscored 

the need for more research, especially on the 

occupational front of chlorine sanitizers, and I 

agree also other sanitizers. Maybe in the organic 

world, we can do better than the overall food 

processing industry and making sure we're 

protecting workers. 

There were pictures also of the salad 

washing and packing is another intriguing picture 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to me and I visited lines like that in the Salinas 

Valley in those situations of course we are -- those 

lettuce leaves are getting washed off in bleach 

or other solutions. And I think it's important 

for people to realize when they're buying like that 

fresh cut or bagged food, that it's really a 

processed product. It's not like buying a head 

of lettuce at farmer's market.

And there should be some background 

knowledge and continuous evaluation of use of those 

materials and intentional exposures. And again, 

I understand the need for these and the necessity 

to comply with FSMA. So again, I think that 

research priorities in handling and sanitizing are 

important. We have great comments.

I also want to call out -- I should've 

mentioned earlier the Ohio Ecological Farming 

Association also had excellent comments about 

policies around sanitizers and many others have 

to, but those are the ones that have stood out to 

me. So I don't want to take up too much more time, 

but I look forward to any discussion.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Asa. I always 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

appreciate your comments, and I'm going to miss 

you on the Board. I do appreciate you calling out 

those organizations by name. I didn't mean to 

exclude folks. There's so many folks to list here 

and I just didn't. I appreciate you mentioning 

those. I also want to say I did have in my notes 

to mention the research suggestion about chemical 

exposure to workers and I overlooked it when I was 

presenting. Forgive me. But thank you.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Asa. Always, your 

perspective is much broader than many of ours in 

terms of these items. So appreciate hearing about 

it. Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: I want to thank Asa too. 

I'm always in awe of, Asa, your knowledge and I 

really appreciate all that wisdom. A couple of 

quick comments. One is that we get technical 

reviews for our civic materials and that sort of 

thing, which is almost like a literature review. 

And I think that for some of these questions, maybe 

we can get some help from the program.

I know there's been discussions about 

different ways that the program could help the NOSB 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

in its work. But getting some specific literature 

reviews in considerable depth and detail on some 

of these research topics so that we would know, 

we would really be up-to-date on where the current 

knowledge is at on some of these things. Certainly,

it's a huge list, we couldn't get everything but 

maybe one or two per year.

If we could get some of those it might 

really inform us and there may be more that's 

already been done than we realize on some of these 

topics. So I want to throw that out.

And the second point was that -- again, 

this is probably passing the buck a little bit to 

the NOP or to the USDA. But if there was a specific 

section of some of the grant programs that was 

targeted at answering some of these questions that 

would make sure that it actually got done. And 

some of these questions have been on this 

list -- and I remember talking about parasiticides 

in livestock in 1985 when we wrote for New York 

organic standards. So these things always need 

more work.

And so anyways, those are the two 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

comments. One is just getting some literature 

reviews targeted on some of these questions. And 

the second one, it would be great if there could 

actually be -- it doesn't have to be big -- but 

a research corridor of grants that was targeted 

specifically at some of these questions.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Brian.

MR. ELA: Yes. Thanks, Brian. I 

think that's a great idea especially on the 

literature reviews and in some cases we'd gotten 

those like biodegradable mulch as part of the 

sunset process. We've gotten reviews and that 

certainly informed our discussion on that. So I 

think that's a great point. Sue. Guess what, Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Just a general comment on 

should following items be considered. Research 

into the economics of organic livestock. I think 

that's not really the NOSB's job to look into the 

economics of organic, but these challenges I have 

to point out are not just organic. Any local rural 

area are having challenges for access to meat 

processing. Meat processors are limited mainly 

to the large stakeholder people. We can't find 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

many local meat processors. Price premiums. 

Disparity between price. We're getting less than 

$2 for our beef, per pound. And you go to the 

grocery store and they're getting $12 for beef per 

pound. So it's there.

The high cost of feed is absolutely 

there both for -- the price of corn and soy beans 

certainly haven't come down. Amy, you're doing 

great. I'm not doing so great as a beef producer 

right now. I don't think that that's apropos for 

our research is where I'm getting at. Thank you.

MR. TURNER: Thank you, Sue.

MR. ELA: All right. Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. Just kind of a 

quick comment about the sanitizers and chlorine 

in particular. My perspective obviously is from 

organic, but as I mentioned in my opening 

statement, I was in charge of disease control for 

Orange County, California. Population of a couple 

of million people.

And I've seen the downside of infected 

produce. So I've been on epidemiologic 

investigations where we've had people die from E. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

coli O157 and salmonella. And I think that we have 

to be very careful when we look at sanitizers 

because we need that level of terminal 

disinfection, I'll call it, to protect the 

population.

We've seen a number of growers go out 

of business when there's been outbreaks and deaths 

because of the negative public publicity. So it's 

just a comment, we need to be very careful. And 

I know Asa looks at this from occupational 

exposure, which is important. Occupation -- and 

I was an EH&S director for a number of years -- can 

be controlled at the site.

So that's one way to do it. And maybe 

we need to look at better ways to protect employees 

from occupational exposure, but we have to be 

careful with the industry. And I'm sure many of 

you remember lots of articles not so long ago about 

how organic was more dangerous to eat because it 

was natural and you had the potential of getting 

infected. So I think we really need a very 

thorough and balanced review of all of this. I 

don't think we want to destroy some of these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

safeguards.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Rick. Anybody? 

I'm going to let Kyla and Nate do their questions 

and then we move on to the next topic; if that's 

okay?

MR. ELA: Yes. That works great. So 

go ahead, Kyla.

MS. SMITH: Thanks Wood. Yes. Just 

quick, I wanted to just double down on the comments 

related to the lack of priorities in coming out 

of the Handling Subcommittee and the gap of 

priorities focused on food science. There was a 

comment somewhere in the written comments that 

wasn't -- I don't remember who it was from and I 

don't believe it was specifically in reference to 

the research priorities, but about more broadly 

applying the commercial availability so it could 

cause a search to items on 605A.

There's already some substances that 

are indicated that way and there are several more 

that come up in public comment about wanting to 

push in that direction. But I do think that that 

would be hard without having some more research 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

into the possibility and the commercial 

availability of those items. Again, this often 

comes up at sunset review, which we can't annotate 

then anyway. And so just a more comprehensive look 

and tie to that idea which I thought was 

interesting, could help us, you know, move in that 

direction if we chose to do that as a Board.

MR. TURNER: Thanks.

MR. ELA: Nate, you want to finish up?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes. I just wanted 

to real quick piggyback on Sue's statement about 

sort of our role in looking at the econ of things 

like livestock production. I think one thing I 

would add to what Sue said though, is that in our 

material considerations on NOSB, we do have a 

pretty direct impact the relationship between 

livestock and crop farmland and whether or not we 

want to contribute to the divorce of livestock from 

crop production or encourage the re-integration 

of livestock.

And so when we look at materials that 

are maybe related to livestock, thinking about and 

using this research questions as a lens through 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

which to evaluate those materials I think can be 

really impactful.

MR. TURNER: Steve, I think that's it 

for comments I think. I would be to remind 

everyone that the subcommittee has made a motion 

to accept the NOSB Research Priorities proposal.

MR. ELA: Yes, thanks. Thanks, Wood. 

That is exactly right. So there's no further 

discussion. We will act on the motion to accept 

our Research Priorities. And that was made by Wood 

and it was seconded by myself, Steve. And we are 

going to begin the voting with Wood.

MR. TURNER: What do you know? Yes.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: Yes.

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: I might have said yes out 

of turn. Sorry about that.

MR. ELA: I thought it was just an echo. 

We know you were warming up, Kim. It's okay. 

Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: I'm sorry, just clarify. 

Carolyn, you did say yes?

MR. ELA: She did.

MS. HUSEMAN: I did. Yes.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you. Mindee, yes.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Chair votes yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. JEFFREY: Fourteen yes. Zero no. 

Zero abstentions, recusals, or absences. The 

motion passes.

MR. ELA: Great.

MR. TURNER: Great. Thanks 

everybody. So now we'll move on to the next topic. 

A really impressive piece of work and just a lot 

of initiative by Mindee Jeffrey to really advance 

this subcommittee and the Board's work on excluded 

methods. I've just been impressed so much over 

the last period of time to see Mindee kind of take 

this issue by the horns and really should bring 

it far forward again, and make sure it's something 

that the community is getting a chance to weigh 

in on and that we're getting a chance to deliberate 

on in a way. So with that, I'll turn it over to 

Mindee to lead us in a discussion of that work to 

date.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you, Wood. I will 

say this is a humbling subject. So thanks for all 

the support from the Board and the community. I 

really appreciate the stakeholders taking the time 

to illuminate all of the background in these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

discussions. And so I'm going to start there with 

my reflections on the written comments.

Many of the public comments took the 

time to really background the discussion and 

emphasize the urgent need for the Board to make 

determinations on the remaining TBD list terms and 

to put the framework in place that the NOSB of the 

fall of 2016 and ask that that be formally adopted 

by the NOP and codified as guidance.

Additionally, the requests included 

that the 11 methods that have been determined to 

be excluded, and the four methods that have been 

determined as not excluded, and the criteria 

developed to determine excluded methods all be 

codified in a guidance document by the NOP. So 

thank you to all the stakeholders for tracking as 

many years of this work and emphasizing pathways 

by which we can achieve consistency and 

transparency in organic systems on the excluded 

methods front.

I really appreciate the creative 

suggestion that including an evaluation question 

and technical reports that explore where and when 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

genetic engineering may be used in the production 

of national list inputs. It could be a creative 

solution to being able to track how and where 

excluded methods are showing up in organic supply 

chains, as accredited certifiers and material 

review organizations are carrying out a lot of the 

work to examine our supply chain. It's 

case-by-case basis and the technical report could 

be very helpful as a resource for folks to be able 

to understand where we might be seeing excluded 

methods showing up in supply chains.

So that said, our first question asked 

the community: If we need additional criteria to 

make determinations on the TBD list techniques. 

And the stakeholders expressed overwhelming 

support for the criteria developed as they stand. 

The feedback noted that the development of 

additional criteria would impede the progress of 

determination and potentially cause re-evaluation 

of methods already listed as excluded or not.

So the list as it stands, is supported 

for being evaluated by the criteria already 

developed. A former Board member noted that there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

haven't been compelling problems in the interim 

that would cause this to rise to the top of the 

NOP work plan. Thank you for the history. And 

yes, that we have the criteria, they're working 

for us, and please move forward with making the 

rest of the TBD list determinations. So that's 

question one. I'm going to stop there and see if 

anyone wants to have any further reflections on 

criteria?

MR. ELA: Are there thoughts for 

Mindee? Brian has one for you, Mindee.

MR. CALDWELL: Hi, Mindee. I want to 

thank you very much for all this work. This is 

amazing to sort through all this stuff. There were 

some comments and maybe you were going to get to 

them -- that the wording of the first criterion, 

and in particular that the genome is respected as 

an individual invisible entity.

A lot of people objected to that. And 

I do too. I just think that there were some 

alternative wordings that were proposed that I 

think would be a lot better and I don't think they 

would change the meaning of these criteria at all. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

But just that when I first read that, it just sort 

of tripped me up right away. I thought, wow, 

that's not right. So anyways, just my thought.

MS. JEFFREY: Yes. Thank you for 

bringing that forward, Brian. I do think it's 

important. I think process wise, I may have 

de-emphasized it's importance because I think that 

we can make those suggestions when we have a 

guidance package that we asked for from the 

program.

So moving through the TBD list terms 

and then being able to have a package for that 

request will then provide us with the opportunity 

for those sort of updates in the language there.

So thank you for bringing it up. And I do think 

there's a path by which we can do that.

MR. ELA: Anybody else? I don't see 

anything else. Mindee, why don't you go ahead.

MS. JEFFREY: Okay. Question 2. 

Just taking a look at the policy memo and the TBD 

list and getting clarity on the functionality and 

consistency there. And is policy memo complete 

and applied consistently and organic systems? Do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

cell and protoplast fusion need to remain on the 

TBD list or they can maybe move to the excluded 

methods section with the notes that allowances made 

for these techniques when employed within 

taxonomic families?

Strong support, nearly unanimous, for 

the dynamics established by the policy memo was 

expressed by Steve Coulter on this question. Seed 

Organization reflected that it's clearly written 

and that the excluded methods list should remain 

aligned with this document. I like that I got some 

clarity historically that at the time that the memo 

came out, the NOSB was just starting to work on 

excluded methods.

So I don't think that the intention was 

to move forward without the Board, but that that 

time and place was the context for the necessity 

for the policy memo and that subsequent work by 

the Board has come down in agreement with the policy 

memo. And the certifiers and material review 

organizations seemed to be functioning well inside 

the parameters clarified by the policy memo.

So seems like we have agreement that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

this cell and protoplast fusion are excluded except 

for when employed within the taxonomic plant

families and that the policy's memo is clear and 

effective for certification enforcement and 

material review. Anybody have reflections on that 

part?

MR. ELA: I'm not seeing any at this 

point, Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: Great. Thank you. So 

looking at question 3. As the NOSB makes excluded 

methods determinations on the remaining TBD list 

techniques, should this organic system include 

allowance for historical use and time frames for 

phasing out excluded uses?

Feedback really is case-by-case. So 

as we go through making these determinations for 

the remaining TBD list, that consideration of 

historical allowance and phase out periods is 

really important and that really understanding as 

much as we can about each particular method and 

where and how it could affect organic systems is 

really important. I didn't really see much more 

in that. If anybody else did, I'd be happy to hear 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

it.

MR. ELA: Anybody. Again, don't see 

any comments. Mindee, go ahead.

MS. JEFFREY: Yes. Thank you. Let's 

see. I think that it's important to note that we, 

looking forward, I will expect to propose that the 

cell and protoplast fusion be closed subjects 

perhaps in the next semester and that we can move 

them into the tables with some clarity.

I do think it's important to know, you 

know, the IFOAM position in that these two 

technologies aren't ideal for organic systems but 

that they're so present in the history of seed 

development that the taxonomic family line is 

something of a compromise and that it's been in 

use historically for so long that it could be 

detection and replacement is potentially complex 

and might not even be possible.

And so I think that while ideologically 

there could be some discomfort with the use of the 

techniques, I think it's a practical compromise 

and that's where I sit at this point on these two 

and look forward to seeing how this subject plays 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

into looking at the next terms on the TBD list. 

And that's, you know, my way of looking at the 

subject in the moment. And I'm happy to hear other 

sides.

MR. ELA: It looks like Brian and then 

Kyla.

MR. CALDWELL: Yes. Thanks, Mindee. 

And Mindee certainly knows that I struggled with 

this. I basically have come down in the same place 

that she just elucidated there. It's a little bit 

of expediency in some of the reasoning, I think 

in policy memo 13-1, I wasn't very comfortable 

with, but I think that overall what Mindee just 

said is correct and the best way forward.

MR. ELA: Kyla.

MS. SMITH: Yes. So I guess thanks so 

much for this very comprehensive and great work. 

And I was really glad to see so much alignment 

on the questions from stakeholders. That's always 

validating. It makes me feel good and probably 

you do too about moving in the right direction. 

So I guess I'm just -- thanks for sort of the heads 

up, at least in the short-term, about moving some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

items from the TBD list.

And I guess because I haven't been as 

close to this topic and I don't serve on the 

Materials Subcommittee, I guess my question is just 

about what do we need to do or what up with the 

other items? Like what more information do we 

need? I don't know if you can talk about that here. 

Maybe it's a big question, but --

MS. JEFFREY: Yes, it's a big question. 

I think it's important to look at the issues 

concurrently with organic seed requirements. And 

I think the stakeholders are giving us similar 

feedback. And so that's an interesting point of 

continuous improvement and potential work agenda 

items that could be interesting to organize in 

between materials and crops. But I'm interested 

in exploring that.

I think for me what was really most 

helpful was reading the IFOAM and the FiBL papers 

on plant breeding techniques and really hearing 

how they look at them helped me really kind of get 

the techniques more solidified in my head. And 

then we're really going to have to rely on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

stakeholders because all the decisions that are 

left on this list are very complicated and 

potentially really difficult to track in organic 

plant breeding.

So that will be an exercise in trusting 

our stakeholders and seeking a lot of information 

and being really careful. I've really heard 

people say, you know, us looking at these in as 

narrow a scope as we can so that we can move forward 

with a lot of agreement is really important. So 

I'm happy that we have clarity on these two 

substances and can move forward with that list. 

And then, you know, I'm hoping for a plant breeder 

for our new nomination.

MS. SMITH: I can't remember. I mean, 

I didn't come into these meetings for a long time 

and sometimes they just all melt together. But 

has there been a technical panel on this topic and 

could that be helpful?

MS. JEFFREY: There's a couple of great 

documents a couple of years ago and that's where 

backtracking into the previous Boards' work on this 

subject and looking towards organic seed is going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to be important part of our work. And we are 

engaged, and Materials has been engaged with plant 

breeders this semester on this subject.

MR. ELA: Anything else?

MR. TURNER: Mindee, do you have 

anything else you want to bring forward in this 

discussion? I just want to say really quickly 

here, you know, maybe it goes without saying, but 

I think the thrust of this work is fundamentally 

about ensuring that one of the principles that 

organic stands for is keeping GMOs out of organic. 

That organic is fundamentally non GMO.

And so I just want to point that out, 

that that's really where this work comes from or 

the clarification that you're trying to bring to 

some of these issues for everyone, what it's all 

about. So I didn't want to get in the way of 

anything else you wanted to share, but I just want 

to make sure that that point is clear, and just 

the level of expertise that's involved in sort of 

understanding these issues and being mentally able 

to lead our committee on this work, but also, you 

know, be the point person for the Board is not a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

small thing. So I appreciate it very much.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you. I definitely 

think about it a lot and tried to find practical 

paths forward on this work. And I think the work 

that has been done here by this community is so 

extraordinary over so many years. And I don't know 

that I think the understanding is out there -- the 

level of work that is going on to make sure organic 

systems are protected.

And I think getting help in the sense 

of a fair and competitive marketplace on the 

transgression of GMO as an organic system is 

really -- you know, what are the creative solutions 

there? I don't know at the moment, but as we see 

developments in synthetic biology, you know, we're 

going to see inputs in organic supply chains 

everywhere and in surprising places because of that 

process.

And looking at, you know, are we going 

to see GMO mosquitoes released in California? And 

I don't think they're going to tell us what counties 

they're going to be released in if they do. And 

are we going to see sprays in the fields and how 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

can we protect organic system for that kind of 

transgression, I think. I really think that our 

parent regulators are, you know, we need our place 

in democracy and we need to be advocated for in 

our corner.

And I hope that we find partnerships 

that can help us do that because I do believe that 

organic being seen by the consumer as the place 

they can trust to live into their food choices 

without genetic transgressions it's immensely 

important for the organic marketplace's 

development.

MR. TURNER: Hear, hear. Mindee, you're 

acknowledging speakers. There's another, Steve. 

Looks like Steve's frozen. Okay. I'll go ahead 

and say, Sue, acknowledge you for comment.

MS. BAIRD: Thanks, Wood. I just want 

echo my admiration for the work that's been done, 

both in the past Boards and for Mindee's work. 

And back to my broad statement I said earlier I 

echo the NOSB -- the organic prohibition against 

genetic engineering is the crux of organic in my 

mind. I've heard so many experts talk about the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

link of genetic engineered crops and foods to the 

health of our children, neurological damages, and 

developmental damage. And if we don't hold the 

line against genetic engineering, then we've lost 

Organic in my mind.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Sue.

MR. ELA: Anybody else?

MR. TURNER: Steve, that's our agenda 

unless Mindee has anything else she was to say. 

I think that's our agenda for the Materials 

Subcommittee.

MR. ELA: Great. Well, I will echo 

Wood's words to Mindee. I am so glad you've taken 

this topic on. I think every Board has had 

somebody a point person on that and this is yes, 

so hard and honestly, because we've talked 

one-on-one, this is a topic that makes my head spin. 

But I also know it's incredibly important. So 

I'm glad you have the passion and the understanding 

to do it.

And Brian as well, I hear you chiming 

in and having read these things and I applaud both 

of you. So thanks for taking the dive. I totally 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

agree with your comments that this is going to 

permeate our society or has permeated at. And I 

think for organics to come out ahead of it, or to 

stay ahead of it, or even catch up is going to be 

a huge challenge. And so you all taking this 

on -- there's only one way to take on the challenge 

and that's to start on it. So thank you.

Does anybody else have anything for 

this afternoon before we adjourn? Well, thank you 

to the stakeholders, to the Board, for today. It 

was a great day to hear from some of our national 

leaders. Hopefully it's inspiring. And also great 

to hear from the Board.

So this will be the conclusion of our 

first day on Tuesday. We will recess until 

tomorrow, Wednesday at noon Eastern Time. And 

tomorrow it's going to be crops all day, all the 

time. And I suspect we may have a few 

controversial topics. But thanks again for today 

and we will see you all tomorrow at noon Central 

Time. All right. Take care.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 5:08 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

OCTOBER 20, 2021

+ + + + +

The Board met via Videoconference, at 

12:00 p.m. EDT, Steve Ela, Chair, presiding.

MEMBERS PRESENT

STEVE ELA, Chair

NATHAN POWELL-PALM, Vice Chair 

MINDEE JEFFREY, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

AMY BRUCH

BRIAN CALDWELL

CAROLYN DIMITRI

RICK GREENWOOD

GERARD D'AMORE

KIMBERLY HUSEMAN

LOGAN PETREY

KYLA SMITH

WOOD TURNER

ALSO PRESENT

JENNIFER TUCKER,Deputy Administrator, National 

 Organic Program, USDA; Designated Federal 

 Official

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, Advisory Board Specialist, 

 USDA

JARED CLARK, National List Manager, Standards 

Division

ANDREA HOLM, Materials Specialist
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

DAVID GLASGOW, Associate Deputy Administrator, 

National Organic Program

ERIN HEALY, Director, Standards Division
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

Crops Subcommittee (CS)

Topics: 

Proposal: Chitosan - plant disease control -

petitioned ................................... 6

Proposal: Biochar - petitioned ............... 34

Proposal: Kasugamycin - petitioned ........... 57

Proposal: Carbon Dioxide - petitioned ........ 80

Proposal: Lithothamnion ...................... 88

Proposal: Biodegradable biobased mulch

film annotation change................. 104

Proposal: Sodium nitrate -

petitioned by NOSB .................... 165

Proposal: Ammonia Extract - petitioned ...... 175

2023 Sunset substances review:

Copper sulfate .............................. 250

Ozone gas ................................... 269

EPA List 3 -Inerts of unknown toxicity ...... 278
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

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

(12:01 p.m.)

MS. ARSENAULT: Okay, folks, I have the 

top of the hour, 12:00 East Coast Time, so I think 

we're going to get started.

Just a couple housekeeping issues, and 

then I'll turn it back over to Steve to resume the 

meeting. If you're online with us -- so attendees 

are in listen only mode, so we can't see you and 

your mics are not live, so don't worry that you 

think you're on camera, you're not. If you're on 

your computer, you should be able to adjust what 

you see on your screen. We have a gallery 

view so you'll be able to see all the board members, 

and we are projecting slides, and if you look, 

there's a borderline between those two things, 

slides and the -- so you can adjust the size of 

the gallery view and shrink the slides if you want, 

and play around with that, and you'll also on your 

screen have a chat button. 

The board is not taking questions 

during this portion of the meeting, but feel free 

to chat into yourselves, say hello to each other, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and such. There was a little chat going on 

yesterday, which was nice to read. 

And we'll also put in any information, 

so I did chat in the phone numbers in case you're 

having audio issues and you want to dial into the 

meeting instead of listening on your computer. 

The numbers are available. You can do that, as 

well. 

Other than that, I think we're going 

to go ahead and get started, so Steve?

MR. ELA: All right. Thank you very 

much, Michelle. And I guess first I'll ask the 

program, Jenny, do you have anything to say before 

we jump into the fray again today? 

DR. TUCKER: Hi everybody. I just 

want to say thank you for a great day yesterday. 

I thought it was a wonderful day of 

engagement and thoughtful discussion, and so I 

thank all of you, and thank all of you for coming 

back for day two.

MR. ELA: Great, and it looks like the 

recording just started, so I would agree. 

Thanks everybody for the Livestock and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Materials yesterday. Just some great 

presentations and discussions, and so very much 

appreciate that. 

So we'll officially call the meeting 

back to order here and reconvene on Wednesday, at 

whatever time zone you're in. And today, just to 

note, today is crops all day. Crops has a bunch 

of proposals and sunsets, so agenda-wise we just 

decided it was going to be easier to put it all 

day and not try and shoehorn, I guess. 

I always mess up my analogies and 

cliches, so not try and force it into a small peg 

and -- okay, we're not even going down to -- no.

MR. GREENWOOD: Enough, Steve.

MR. TURNER: Quit while you're ahead.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. 

MR. ELA: We're just going to do crops 

all day today. 

So with that, unless Michelle has 

anything else to say, we will turn it over to Rick 

as chair of the Crop Subcommittee and start down 

the crops agenda. 

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. Well thanks 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

very much, Steve, for that terrific introduction. 

I appreciate it.

So, as people take a look at the agenda, 

we really covered a lot of territory in the last 

months, and I certainly want to thank the 

subcommittee members because we really did a 

tremendous amount of work, as you can see, on the 

total list of proposals and the sunset reviews. 

So I think I'll just go ahead and get 

started with it. It turns out I actually have the 

first proposal, which was chitosan for plant 

disease control, and that's been petitioned for 

organic crop production to the National List under

205.601(j)(4) for plant disease control. 

And it's an interesting compound. 

It's been approved before as an adhesive adjuvant. 

I like a lot of it because it's a way to get 

something out of a commercial waste stream. 

Chitosan is made from chitin, and it's 

from waste, shrimp, and prawns, crab shell waste, 

and it has some interesting characteristics, and 

it has antimicrobial activity, and it also seems 

to be a plant growth enhancer and plant defense 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

booster.

And so, it has a lot of positive things 

going for it. 

In going through the written comments, 

there's tremendous support for it being added to 

the National List, as people say another tool in 

the tool box. 

I think where we had issues with it as 

a subcommittee was the fact that, do we really want 

to add another synthetic to the National List 

because there are alternatives for using chitosan, 

and it was interesting if you talk about the 

subcommittees, interesting that we split on this 

as a subcommittee where we had four voting yes to 

add it to the National List, and we had four saying 

that we didn't need it on the National List. 

I point to this as showing that the 

subcommittees really do have robust debate. 

Nothing is a given, and I think that's one of the 

good things. 

I think people really feel that they 

can speak their mind and it's always been in a very 

collegial manner. So, what I'd like to do is turn 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

it over to the group for discussion, and get some 

opinions. 

Obviously, we have some people from the 

subcommittee that voted they don't want it on the 

National List. 

It's basically a non-toxic compound, 

but there are, you know, other items on the National 

List that do the same thing already.

So why don't I just stop there, and open 

it up for discussion?

MR. ELA: All right. Are there hands 

raised for discussion?

(No audible response.)

MR. ELA: Well, I'll raise my hand 

myself. 

MR. GREENWOOD: I wasn't that clear, 

was I?

MR. ELA: Yeah, I'll just say, I 

struggle with this one for two reasons. It's not 

the only one I'm struggling with today, but I agree 

with the comments that, you know, it's good to have 

another tool in the tool box. We can always use 

those. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I'm a little unclear as to efficacy 

because we certainly have tools in the tool box 

that I will never use because they just aren't 

showing to be effective, and, you know, I don't 

want to spend money on something that's not going 

to help me, and time.

But, and this kind of falls in that, 

that I'm not completely convinced that it would 

be one that I would use, even if it's available.

And, you know, there were some arguments that, 

well, if we put this on, it might be a reasoning 

to remove sulfur in particular, and I guess I don't 

really see that happening, but, you know, I value 

the comments of trade-offs.

So I'm very conflicted about adding one 

more thing to the list, even though it could be 

widely used, perhaps, but if it's not effective, 

I don't see adding it to the list.

So I guess I'm just stating that this, 

among other things today, is -- I'm very conflicted 

on.

But, so Wood and then Logan.

MR. TURNER: Thanks. I was going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

say, Rick, as a member of the subcommittee, I was 

heartened to see some, you know, some of the public 

comments that suggested, oh, you know, it could 

be interesting. This could be an interesting 

material. Maybe this is worth considering. That 

was helpful for me to kind of sort of gauge that. 

But, on the other hand, I think I'm 

leaning toward, you know, not approving the 

petition because I'm concerned about the black box 

that is the production process of the material and 

I get concerned whenever we're dealing with sort 

of a proprietary, you know, production process that 

just feels like I can't get my head around sort 

of what really is going on here, what the impacts 

are.

So, you know, I'm heartened, but I'm 

not motivated to move forward, frankly.

MR. ELA: Logan, and then Brian. 

MS. PETREY: So, as a (audio 

interference) this is supposed to kind of trigger 

maybe the boom, or of like, microbes that will eat 

chitosan, right, which is also the cell walls of, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

or the membranes of, what, fungi, and maybe 

insects, and things like that?

Isn't that kind of the mechanism of 

action, so it is really stimulating that biology, 

that microbiology going on?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. That seems to 

be the case. There's a huge amount of literature 

about things that stimulate plants to protect 

themselves, but I don't know how important that 

really is in a functional sense.

You know, when you spray it on your 

field, does the chitosan work, or is it really 

making your plants more resistant? And I don't 

think -- at least that wasn't completely clear to 

me on what the mechanism is.

MS. PETREY: Sure, because I think it 

also can trigger -- like you said, plant defense 

mechanisms that they can sense, or that they know 

that chitosan is present, then they will turn on 

those genes that will produce, you know, those 

structural defenses, things like that, to protect 

it against things.

So I mean, I really like the mechanisms 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and think that it is more of a holistic approach 

as far as a pest control mechanism, so. Thank you.

MR. ELA: We've got Brian, then Amy.

MR. CALDWELL: I think I second what 

Logan just said, and I'm in a consumer and public 

interest seat, but I'm also an apple and pear and 

chestnut grower, and I think this seems like a very 

benign material and it's derived from a large, you 

know, store of natural, you know, material that 

it's derived from.

So, to me, I think that this is the kind 

of -- if we're going to be allowing synthetics for 

use in pest management, which I think we are, this 

is really kind of the direction that we want to 

go in.

MR. ELA: All right. Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Sure. Thank you, Steve, 

thank you, Rick. I just had a question. 

There was a written comment actually 

that said the petition use was as a production aid, 

but they explain that as a fungicide/nematicide, 

so there's a little bit of a conflicting statement 

then on this, but in addition to that, I think I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

definitely can see some of the challenges of just 

not having strict definitions regarding this 

substance for use rate, formulation, crop-specific 

recommendations.

I do support tools in the tool boxes 

for farmers, however, I think there needs to be 

a lot more clarity with this tool.

MR. GREENWOOD: Thank you. 

MS. BRUCH: Thank you. 

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah, I think that was 

one of the confusing aspects. 

I mean, I like the fact that it comes 

out of a waste stream, but back to Wood's comment, 

and mainly we don't need to look at this, but we 

are talking about global warming. It takes energy 

and some fairly toxic chemicals, sodium hydroxide 

and things, to produce it. 

So it may be benign in the field but 

I don't if the manufacturing itself if we create 

a market is going to have a bigger carbon footprint 

along the way.

MR. ELA: All right, Asa had his hand 

up initially, and then we're going to go to Sue 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and then to Logan. 

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah, I mean, I'm 

conflicted about this, too. I think I'm right in 

the middle between those two votes for and against, 

but in the written comments, there were concerns 

about, you know, replacing sulfur, that sulfur 

would somehow be eliminated.

You know, just to underscore, you know, 

sulfur has some hazards associated with it, it's 

not benign, and there's a long history of, 

especially occupational and farmworker exposure 

and illness related to sulfur, and perhaps even 

community, as well. 

And, you know, it may not make sulfur 

go away, but if it does reduce sulfur use, I think 

that's a benefit, and so that's why I'm kind of 

leaning towards supporting it, and also because 

of its derivation from, you know, natural 

materials. But, you know, I'm kind of on the fence 

with this vote, as well.

MR. ELA: Sue, and then Logan.

MS. BAIRD: Yes -- actually no, I'm not 

on the Crops Committee, so I've not heard all the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

long discussion on it, so I'm going by what I'm 

reading plus public comment, but I grow a lot of 

tomatoes, and one of the tools that we use for early 

blight and late blight is a copper product. 

I hate it, but I have to say, in my damp, 

hot weather, you have to do something a lot of times 

for those disease.

So if this could replace some of that, 

it would be incredible to be able to replace copper 

sulfates with this kind of a product.

I'm confused by what Kim said, and 

again, I haven't read it all, but it does say it's 

already listed as a plant disease product, so if 

it's already listed, why does it not have the rates 

and everything already defined? 

And I'm asking the question, I don't 

know.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah, I can't answer 

that one either.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. I just wondered if 

I was missing something because it's very possible 

I would be.

MR. ELA: Logan?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. PETREY: Okay. 

So we use like a crab flake or crab 

powder that really has the same principles as the 

chitosan and, you know, there's chitin in crab 

shells, and so broken down, we add it to the plant 

to get that microbial, you know, production going 

on that will inherently I guess feed on or fight 

against the fungi diseases that can get on.

And so, the person who I buy it from, 

they use it on their strawberries, and there has 

been -- I want to say he's taken leaves and sent 

them off, but he's shown me the results and it's 

six times more populated with bacteria species on 

the plants that have been treated with the crab 

flake product.

So it does feed that flora, and he's 

also pulled out copper out of his (audio 

interference) program, and we're talking to 

somebody in South Florida or Plant City area, 

organic, again in Florida, with strawberries.

So, I do think that the use of it, 

getting it in, keeping it on, keeping it coated, 

keeping feeding those microbes can absolutely 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

reduce the sulfur and the copper use.

We've also reduced our copper use out 

here by having that in our tank mix.

MR. GREENWOOD: So, a question for you. 

If you already have this crab shell powder, is 

there an advantage to adding another thing, if you 

already have something that's available? 

I mean, that was one of the crux of the 

questions, do we need another product if there's 

already things available?

MS. PETREY: Sure. 

Well that, as far as whether this would 

provide another benefit, I hate to speculate 

something with this product -- it hasn't been 

proven -- however, we do hand weed, and go in the 

fields, and we've had multiple instances where 

we've had workers swell, and I didn't know if there 

was maybe an allergen to the shellfish, you know, 

that that is a potential.

So I'm just going to say it has happened 

on more than one occasion, you know, a rash on some 

people who will be hand weeding or pruning, or 

anything like that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Not sure that this new product would 

have that, but, so.

MR. ELA: Okay. Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: I have sort of more 

questions for Logan. 

I'm very intrigued by what you're 

saying, but so is that a spray product, or is that 

just like something that is like, locally available 

in your spot? 

I've never heard of this sort of thing, 

so I'm just curious how you use it, and sort of 

along Rick's line, would this be just sort of a 

substitute for the chitosan product that we're 

reviewing? 

Setting aside the possible, you know, 

sort of allergic reaction.

MS. PETREY: Sure. And I don't know 

the potentials of production, but it comes in a 

very fine powder. I guess it depends. 

You can have the flaking, you can add 

it to the soil, and then you can have the, like 

I said, the very fine powder that you add to the 

tank mix itself. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

We are, you know, surrounded by 

coastline. Whether it is a regional thing, I'm 

not certain. 

I have heard that, you know, the 

northern, like Northeastern area would produce it 

and actually produce good chitosan because they 

have thicker shells, so I think that actually might 

be a production area for that.

So to answer your question whether, you 

know, there's enough providers or whether we need 

to add to it, I don't know if I answered your 

question, but.

MR. ELA: So Logan, maybe you can 

answer this, or anybody else.

In the tree fruit world, there have been 

a number of materials that have put out there as 

biodefense stimulators that are on the market, and 

I could say there's a number of them. 

When you look at the data, it's pretty 

inconclusive. 

I won't say for all of them, but at least 

in my experience, many of them that -- yeah, they, 

you know, in controlled situations, yes they do, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

but in actual orchard situations, it's not worth 

your money. 

So I guess coming from that, I have a 

bit of skepticism about those claims. 

I think theoretically, it makes a ton 

of sense and I get really excited about it, and 

practically, you know, from data, it hasn't made 

as much sense.

Do any of you on the board have any sense 

or data that, yes, this elucidation of plant 

biodefense mechanisms actually leads to greater 

resistance to disease or insects? 

And Nate's got his hand up. 

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yeah, I don't have 

an answer to that. I just want to get in the queue.

MR. ELA: So, I'll come back to you, 

but does anybody have a sense of -- Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah, well, quite a few 

growers around here use Regalia, which is an 

extract from Japanese knotweed, and they think that 

it helps sort of stimulate plant defenses, and I'm 

not really up on it, but I thought that there was 

research that showed that it did improve efficacy, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

like when it mixes with other materials. 

Again, I'm not 100 percent sure of that, 

but I do know people are using it.

MR. ELA: Yeah, I would say, in our 

area, it's exactly the opposite, but that's why 

I guess I'm curious about data because it's so easy 

to have people use something for a good reason, 

but not for good results.

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah.

MR. ELA: But, anybody else have any 

thoughts on that? 

It's one of those things that it's so 

-- there's so many products that are snake oil and 

but yet, the concept of doing it makes so much 

sense, and so I get very conflicted.

Go ahead, Nate, with what you have.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Just a similar tack 

onto that line, Steve. 

I think in our cropping systems in 

Montana, as well as the grain productions systems 

that I've seen around the country as an inspector, 

there's always a new sort of biological out there 

that seems to be very -- a very loose relationship 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to actual tested efficacy.

And I wanted to pose a question to 

Logan, just like when you guys are considering a 

new product, what's the bar that a product has to 

get over for proving efficacy to be worthy of your 

purchase? 

If I might ask that, or any of the other 

crop producers. 

Where I'm on this is just that there's 

not a real clear call for this is a critically 

needed product, nor a really clearly effective 

product, so that's just where I'd like -- I follow 

everyone's note that it's benign, but I think, you 

know, kind of having a higher bar for when we bring 

something in, for those two criteria. 

So I'd be really interested in Logan's 

or Amy's thoughts on that.

MS. PETREY: Sure. It's hard because, 

you know, a lot of these things are really dependent 

on weather, the climate's conducive for disease, 

so getting efficacy trials is very difficult. And 

so that is really hard to do. It's much easier 

to do it in a conventional setting, which, you know, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I've actually done some fungicide trials. 

Those are kind of easy to see, since 

you rely so much on the holistic approach with 

organics. 

It's hard to replicate that, you know, 

in trials and try to get those differences. I 

mean, we have the universities that try to do those 

kind of trials for us.

Kind of the rule of thumb is we apply, 

and until it got where it didn't work, you know, 

I drop it, but until unproven, you know, it proves 

itself wrong, I will use the product. 

That is not a very good answer for you, 

Nate, but that is a very difficult -- evaluation 

of fungicide efficacies in organics to me is very 

complicated.

MR. POWELL-PALM: And if I may 

apologize -- one thing on that. 

Is there like something that someone 

has to show you, a salesman has to show you, to 

get that first spray? 

Like you want to see, kind of like you 

were saying, you know, six times as many microbes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

present. Things like that, any sort of threshold?

MS. PETREY: Yeah, so that thing 

absolutely was helpful. If they can explain to 

me -- I don't really like, just get the jug, you 

know, and not knowing what they presume that the 

mechanism is, you know?

 Because, you know, studied biology and 

plant pathology, and so, like Steve said, 

theoretically if it makes sense, you know, we're 

willing to attempt it, so if I can understand how 

the product like the chitosan product, if I can 

understand how it's going to work, that way I know 

how I need to apply it.

Number one, the conditions I need to 

apply it. 

There's certain types of products that 

need humidity, there's certain types of products 

that need it to be arid, need it to be dry, and 

so as long as I can understand the product.

But yes, if they were to approach me 

with, hey, we've had these results and these trial 

based from these universities, then yeah, give it 

a shot. Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: And I just want to say, in 

bringing up that question, I'm asking the question, 

and the lack of question I accept, you know, what's 

out there and what we know. 

Not trying to derail it, it's more my 

own curiosity. 

So, Amy? And why don't we do Amy, and 

then if there's nothing else, we maybe should move 

on, so.

(No audible response.)

MR. ELA: Amy?

MR. GREENWOOD: Amy, I think you're 

muted.

MS. BRUCH: Okay, hopefully that's the 

only time I do that today. 

So, thank you, Rick. Yeah, Logan, 

thank you for your answers. Those are really 

great. 

I mean, it is tough in farming in 

general, you know, just to have that repeatability 

in those same conditions that you could mimic year 

after year to get that trial information, so 

efficacy trials and that repeatability is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

challenging. 

Just on our farm, you know, I don't know 

if there's always a magic bullet out there, either. 

You really have to look at, you know, 

with our soils, the physical, chemical, and 

biological components of your soil, so if you don't 

have physical or chemical, right, you know, 

introducing additional microbes into your 

environment probably isn't necessarily going to 

be the best solution always, so you know, it's just 

a multi-faceted type approach that needs to be 

done.

MR. ELA: Very quickly, Mindee, and 

then we're going to go to the vote.

MS. JEFFREY: So, just to clarify. 

Did I hear Logan and Brian both say that there are 

natural allowed substances that perform similarly, 

so they can use shellfish and it performs like 

chitosan does, and we're considering the synthetic 

version?

MS. PETREY: So, I stated that there 

is a product with the shells and its mode of action 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

is because it has chitin in it, and that is a natural 

product, whether it works as well or similarly as 

a syn product, I don't know, but we do have a product 

with chitin in it.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you, and then just 

for clarity, in the second motion, we're motioning 

for I, 601 I, for plant disease control, and that's 

a minor typo that we're fine with because we're 

100 percent clear that's what we're motioning for?

MR. ELA: I'll just jump in on that and 

say, on any of these things, it is the program and 

the rulemakers and the listmakers that decide 

exactly where to put it, and so I wouldn't get too 

hung up on exact lettering or spots. 

Again, I think it comes back to the 

intent that we have, and let the program decide 

exactly where it's on the list.

So, while I respect what you're saying, 

Mindee, I also think that shouldn't be a reason 

not to pass a proposal. But it's good that you 

brought it up.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you.

MR. ELA: All right --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. CALDWELL: And just to answer 

Mindee, I think Mindee also asked me, and I was 

completely unaware of the material that Logan talks 

about, and I am not sure whether it is widely 

available.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Brian. Rick, is it 

okay to move to the vote?

MR. GREENWOOD: I think it is, if those 

are all the question. So, Steve, do we do the 

classification motion vote first? 

MR. ELA: That is correct. So, I can 

go ahead and read it. 

So, there is a motion to classify 

chitosan as synthetic. It was motioned by Rick. 

It was seconded by Brian, and we will go to the 

vote, and we're starting with Sue, I believe. 

And so, this is the motion to classify 

as synthetic. So, Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Asa? 

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: Yes.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

MR. ELA: The Chair votes yes.

MS. JEFFREY: So we are 14 yes, zero 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

no, zero abstentions, recusals, or absences. The 

motion passes.

MR. ELA: Okay. So, we will next go 

to the National List motion, and the motion is to 

add chitosan to the National List at 205601 J4 for 

plant disease control.

The motion was made by Rick Greenwood, 

it was seconded by Steve Ela. We will start with 

Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: I'm going to vote yes.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: I'm going to vote no.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Mindee?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: And the Chair votes yes. Now 

we're going to make you work, Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: Yeah, you are.

MR. ELA: And take your time, there's 

no rush.

MS. JEFFREY: I have seven to seven.

MR. ELA: Nate, or anybody else, is 

that what you --

MR. POWELL-PALM: That's what I got, 

as well.

MR. ELA: Okay. So, that motion fails 

because we need a ten person vote to pass it. So, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the National List motion to add chitosan fails.

Okay, Rick, I will turn it back to you 

for you to make the proposal. 

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay, thank you, 

Steve. So the next proposal is Wood's, and that's 

for biochar. So, Wood, take it away.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Rick. 

So, we have in front of us a proposal 

to change the annotation at 205602 for 

non-synthetic substances prohibited in organic 

crop production to change the listing for ash from 

manure burning to include the language, unless 

derived as part of the production of biochar from 

pyrolysis of cow manure. 

So, we've been referring to this as CMDB 

throughout our discussions over the last couple 

of years. 

I got very interested in this petition 

only frankly because of the interest I had in trying 

to understand whether thinking more broadly about 

this material and some of the nuances here about 

production might help create a climate solution 

for us here. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

You know, we've been all talking about 

climate change at every step in the process of our 

meeting this week, and so that was absolutely my 

motivation, to kind of understand this more.

I certainly know the history on this, 

and I know you've all had a chance to read it and 

understand it, but, you know, ash from manure 

burning has long been sort of very explicitly 

prohibited under OFPA since 1995.

There have been attempts to petition 

its use at various points that have all been denied. 

You know, most recently, there was 

another effort in 2017 by the board to sort of 

articulate its ongoing position that ash from 

manure burning is incompatible with organic 

production, and burning of these materials is not 

an appropriate method to use to recycle organic 

waste.

I think for me, what I wanted to 

understand more fully is sort of whether we truly 

are considering pyrolysis, you know, which is a 

process that uses no oxygen. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I think it's an anaerobic context where 

heat is applied to a material and it breaks down 

into, you know, whatever form.

In this case, a biochar product that 

can be used in a fairly stable form to support soil 

health and sequester carbon in the soil.

So, you know, I think that what's before 

us today to consider, without going into a 

long-winded discussion -- I've already been 

long-winded -- is whether or not we consider 

burning and pyrolysis one and the same.

Is burning, you know, in the presence 

of oxygen, which clearly produces ash, which I 

would never -- I agree with all the decisions of 

the prior boards and the program to kind of, you 

know, avoid the use of ash in organic. 

But I think we're talking about 

something different here. 

As someone described to me, you know, 

we're talking about almost the roasting of the 

material in some ways, and not the burning of the 

material. 

We're talking about a material here 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that can stabilize -- you know, biochar of all 

forms, but certainly biochar of this form, is a 

way to ensure that there's a stably sequestered 

carbon for a very, very long period of time.

I know there's been a lot of concern 

about whether fuel sources that go into producing 

the biochar ultimately mean that we're going to 

have an impact on climate change, not a solution 

to climate change.

I think I'm persuaded by what I've been 

able to understand about the material that 

ultimately, we're talking about a net negative 

carbon emission context for a variety of reasons, 

but one being that, you know, we're talking about 

taking a material that is, like manure that's going 

to decompose, you know, with some speed and slow 

that decomposition.

So, I'm thinking about this as a means 

of stabilizing what in many case, what in large 

volumes, you know, we know can have an impact on 

the environment in a variety of ways.

So, you know, I also want to point out 

that I share the concern that organic -- you know, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the question that I think we ask philosophically 

often whether organic should be a means by which 

large confined animal operations can neutralize 

their impact.

I think that's a very meaningful 

question. I certainly share those concerns.

At the same time, I think we all know 

that there's a lot of manure that's used in organic 

already, and I think I might be beyond the scope 

of this question, at least from my perspective.

Let's see. 

You know, there's a lot of things we've 

learned about the material that suggests that it 

leads to a less dense soil structure, and that it 

promotes root growth, water retention, lots of 

benefits, including improved microbial health, 

microbial growth.

I'm interested on that CAFO question 

about sort of whether or not the material can hold 

and sequester materials that we're concerned 

about.

So, what we read in the TR -- and by 

the way, we did request a TR on this and had some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

additional questions on the TR, I should have said 

that at the beginning -- that it can sequester some 

of the materials that might be a concern coming 

off of some of those livestock operations, 

including pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, 

and pharmaceuticals. 

So I think that's an interesting point 

from me.

I did want to say, you know, we got a 

lot of feedback from the community on this, or a 

fair amount of feedback from the community on this. 

There were a lot of sort of 

full-throated support for the material and the 

benefits that it can have to crop production. 

There's also, you know, some opposition to 

it, and I will point out that the point I made about 

this distinction between burning and pyrolysis was 

certainly on the minds of organizations like NOC 

and Beyond Pesticides, concerns about CAFOs, 

neutralizing the impact of CAFO operations, 

certainly a big issue.

Other organizations question whether 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

there was enough evidence to suggest that there 

was a, you know, a net carbon benefit, and then 

I will say, you know, OPWC had some really 

interesting comments on this and urged us to 

consider looking at an annotation on this related 

to the temperature at which the biochar is 

produced.

So, there's some suggestion in the TR 

that at higher temperatures, when biochar is 

produced at higher temperatures, it can contain 

a contaminant that can be shown to bioaccumulate 

in food crops.

I will say that my understanding is that 

CMDB is produced at lower temperatures. 

We're talking about a lower temperature 

product here that one could argue that higher 

temperature issue where -- that I think it OPWC 

was flagging may not be a relevant point. 

So I just wanted to point that out, that 

I think it was a suggestion about that annotation. 

I haven't suggested it here as a 

continued work for the subcommittee because I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

we're talking about a material that typically is 

produced at lower temperatures.

So, Rick, I think that's where I want 

to leave it at the moment, and let discussion ensue.

MR. ELA: All right. Carolyn has a 

question or a comment.

And I should be clear that this is our 

time to deliberate. 

It can be a comment, it doesn't have 

to be a question, so this is different than the 

oral comments, so it's a chance for board members 

to state their views, ask question of other board 

members, go back and forth, and everything, so this 

is our time.

So Carolyn, go ahead. 

DR. DIMITRI: Thank you. Thank you, 

Wood, for that very elaborate discussion. 

So the question that I have is, does 

anyone know the difference between this process 

and like anaerobic digestion?

MR. TURNER: No, I'll let Brian take 

that since his hand went up. Rick or Steve.

MR. ELA: Go ahead, Brian, you may have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

your own comment, but I personally don't have an 

answer to that. 

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah, well, I mean, very 

briefly to Carolyn's question, I mean, pyrolysis 

occurs at much, much higher temperatures than 

anaerobic digestion, and the anaerobic digestion 

is a biological process whereas, you know, the 

pyrolysis is pretty much just the physical process 

of, you know, very high temperatures, you know, 

and what it drives off of sort of the carbon 

skeletons there, and it sounds like maybe Asa's 

going to talk more about this, so that's fine, but 

I wanted to just make a comment, and that was that 

the way I understand it, we're not making a decision 

about biochar and pyrolysis in general, it's 

specifically about the biochar derived from cow 

manure. And I think that's really important 

because in my mind, I'm all for biochar. 

I think it is a very, you know, climate 

friendly practice, but manure is an important 

source of nutrients, including nitrogen, and I'm 

not convinced that a lot of nitrogen is not lost 

in the pyrolysis of cow manure, and from that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

standpoint I'm really leaning against this.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: I had a couple comments. 

I think Brian just kind of echoed it, 

and I can't really speak directly to the question 

though about, you know, anaerobic versus, you know, 

pyrolysis, but I think Brian's point that the 

pyrolysis is a physical process, where we're kind 

of like essentially purifying the carbon, and then 

versus anaerobic digestion. 

It's basically an anaerobic method to 

break down carbon and derive nutrients and energy 

from that, and I know of course we get some human 

gases and things like that that are more 

persistent, but, you know, very different.

But I want to get back to, you know, 

my concern about this as a method to kind of recycle 

CAFO waste, and, you know, I think this is coming 

up with ammonium extract, where, you know, a lot 

of organic is recycling nutrient streams from 

conventional agriculture. 

And that's not necessarily a bad thing, 

but I'm concerned that this creates, you know, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

another market for cow manure from a very large 

production facilities, and that, you know, that 

to me is a little bit of a red flag. 

I was also concerned about comments 

about pHs. 

There's good comments in public comment 

from several stakeholders that raised concerns 

about pHs. 

I was a little concerned about the 

comments from someone representing this petition 

and the talk about how we can crack the pHs and, 

you know, basically recondense it as a syngas or 

produce a syngas from it, and that could be a 

potential benefit. 

I'm just concerned that what's kind of 

being proposed there is a hazardous waste treatment 

approach for something quite serious. I 

mean, pHs are benzo(a)pyrene is a carcinogen, and 

if you look at toxic equivalency factors for other 

pHs, there's a lot of concerns about these 

materials, and granted that maybe they're not 

produced at the lower temperatures, but there's 

nothing here that would prevent it being made at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

higher temperatures.

So I'm just concerned that this is a 

method that could produce, you know, as a 

bioproduct a toxic material that requires 

additional treatment, and that's concerning to me. 

So, I'm tending to lean against this 

material.

MR. ELA: Okay. Sue, then Nate, and 

then Kyla.

MS. BAIRD: I've been torn back and 

forth on biochar. 

I've heard a lot of good presentations 

on the benefits of biochar, specifically some of 

them Dr. Bob Rose, who was with the ARS for many, 

many years, research, who's now the professor at 

University of Missouri. 

Biochar is not supposed to add nitrogen 

into the soil. 

Its role is to provide a carbon house, 

per se, that microbes and other things are housed 

into, and there's been a lot of research done, at 

least in Missouri, on the benefits of biochar and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

it does seem to at least enhance the ability of 

the crop to produce and increases soil fertility.

So, for that reason, it's very tempting 

to vote yes. 

The concerns for the pHs is truly 

referent, but pragmatically, we're not going to 

reduce CAFOs by allowing this product. 

CAFOs are here. They're in the 

conventional world, they're going to be here, and 

to say well, if we allow this, we're just going 

to give them a new market and increase CAFOs. Not 

going to happen. 

I'm sorry, it's just, well, they're 

here. 

MR. ELA: Nate, and then Kyla.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Super appreciate 

what Sue just said. 

I think there's a lot of growing 

consensus that biochar is an important tool, but 

highlighting the fact that there's a lot of other 

materials out of which we can make biochar.

We don't have to make it out of manure, 

and I think further facilitating that divorce 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

between cropping systems and livestock systems is 

a move away from the intent and the, you know, 

205203 of OFPA that we want to be using these 

materials, especially manure, for building soil 

and providing nutrients, and I think that there 

is enough here to say that we should encourage 

biochar, but from other materials, and skip manure.

MR. ELA: All right. Kyla?

MS. SMITH: I just have a clarifying 

question, and that is around the specificity of 

pyrolysis of cow manure. 

Am I understanding correctly is that 

because that was specifically how it was 

petitioned? 

I think that that was like how it was 

specifically petitioned versus like pyrolysis of 

other types of manures from other species? So I 

just wanted to ask --

MR. BRADMAN: It's cow manure, yes.

MS. SMITH: If I was correct on that. 

Yeah. Okay, thanks.

MR. ELA: I'll jump in and say I know 

this board and I agree with Asa. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

We've struggled on any number of topics 

with the CAFO uses of manures, and while I agree 

with that organic shouldn't be the disposal system, 

I also know that as others have noted, we don't 

-- I'm sure I've used chicken pellets that came 

out of CAFOs on my own farm, and I've moved away 

from them because that drove me nuts, but there 

was no restriction on that, so I will caution the 

board on -- well, I think it all drives us nuts, 

but I also don't want us to be inconsistent in 

making a decision on one thing where we don't make 

a decision on another.

I think it's unfortunate, but it is the 

way organics works at this point, so.

Other questions and comments from the 

board?

(No audible response.)

MR. ELA: Wood, do you have anything 

else to add?

MR. TURNER: You know, I don't -- well 

maybe I do. 

You know, I'm interested in these 

comments about manure because I think ultimately 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

for me what I'm most interested about this is it's 

just another means of stabilizing the impacts of 

manure. 

If I thought that every pound of manure, 

every ounce of manure being produced in this 

country, in this world, on large livestock 

operations was being used to support crop 

production, I'd be thrilled, but I don't think 

that's what's going on. 

I think we have a lot of material out 

there that we need to find means of stabilizing, 

and whether this is -- it's more than this 

opportunity can do, that's a debate we can have, 

but for me, I'm motivated by I certainly agree that 

manure has value to so many farms and is absolutely 

critical in crop production, but I think there's 

a lot of manure out there.

So that's all I want to say.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Yeah, and good point, Wood. 

Manure is definitely really important to 

operations. 

In terms of this type, though, cattle 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

manure, it is, I would classify it as pretty 

stabilized because of the form that the nitrogen 

is in. 

It's more in the organic form, not 

necessarily the ammonia form like that you can get 

in the chicken litter, so it's pretty stabilized, 

I would say.

Do you know by any chance what the 

nutritional content of the final product is? Was 

that ever disclosed or did you discover that?

MR. TURNER: I don't know that answer, 

Amy. I know there is some nutritional value in 

the final product, but I don't know the actual --

MS. BRUCH: Okay.

MR. ELA: All right. Are we ready to 

move to the vote? Any last comments?

MR. GREENWOOD: No, Steve, I think 

we're ready.

MR. ELA: Okay. Then we have a 

classification motion to classify cow manure 

derived biochar, parenthesis CMDB, as 

non-synthetic. 

The motion was made by Wood -- and I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

have to flip my pages here -- seconded by myself 

Steve, and we're going to start with Amy on the 

vote. So, Amy?

MR. TURNER: Oh, Steve, that's not 

true. Rick seconded the motion.

MR. GREENWOOD: No, the --

MR. ELA: I read the wrong one.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah, the 

classification is different.

MR. ELA: Yep, thank you for that 

catch. So motion by Wood, seconded by Rick. I 

looked too quickly there. So we are going to start 

with Amy.

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: Yes.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kim?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Asa? 

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: And the Chair's going to vote 

no just to be contrary.

(Laughter.)

MS. BAIRD: Shame on you. 

MS. JEFFREY: Okay. Thirteen yes, one

no, zero abstains, recusals, or absences, so motion 

passes.

MR. ELA: Great. All right, back to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

you, Rick, for the next proposal.

MR. GREENWOOD: No --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. ELA: Oh, gosh I'm so sorry. Okay. 

More coffee.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. ELA: I would have changed my vote, 

too.

MS. JEFFREY: Wait --

MR. TURNER: Yeah, do you really want 

to vote against the classification? 

MR. ELA: No, but that's all right. 

It doesn't matter.

MR. TURNER: Yeah. 

MR. ELA: Okay. Eighteen lashes for 

the Chair. It won't matter. 

But, you know, for the future record, 

you know, Steve wasn't totally paying attention. 

But let's move on to the National List motion.

Motion to annotate the listing of ash 

from manure burning at 205602, to read and let me 

-- I've got my screen over here -- ash from manure 

burning, unless derived as part of the production 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of biochar from pyrolysis of cow manure.

Motion by Wood, it was seconded by 

Steve, and we'll try and keep my head in the game 

here. 

Sorry about that. Okay. So we are 

going to start with Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry? 

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes. 

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: I'm going to say yes.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: I'll say no.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: And by gosh, I bet you can 

guess how the Chair is going to vote. No.

MS. JEFFREY: I have four yes and ten 

no. The motion fails.

MR. ELA: All right --

MS. JEFFREY: You got my numbers, Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Correct, yes. I'm 

still just in awe how you're able to do this by 

hand. I'm using the spreadsheet and it tallies it 

for me, so, nothing but props to you.

MR. ELA: Okay. Rick, it goes back to 

you now for the next proposal.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay, and so since 

we're skipping ammonia extract right now, the next 

proposal is kasugamycin, and it turns out that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

mine also. 

I don't know how all this happened to 

me, but anyhow, kasugamycin is an antibiotics that 

inhibits bacteria protein synthesis. 

It's listed by the EPA for control of 

plant disease, especially fire blight, which is 

Erwinia amylovora on apples and pears. It's been 

petitioned to add to the National List.

The problem that I see is number one, 

the whole organic movement really doesn't want 

antibiotics in our food chain, and that was very 

clear in the comments from the written comments 

where the vast majority say, please don't add an 

antibiotic.

The issue with kasugamycin and all the 

antibiotics is that eventually, I think the 

literature's pretty clear when it gets into the 

soil, it changes the soil flora and fauna, 

basically, by developing resistance, and that's 

been shown in a number of real life situations where 

it's been used, and if you read the material, some 

of field resistance where it's been used in Japan 

for years, rice blast disease developed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

resistance. 

When it's used in the field and it's 

sprayed, apparently a lot of it ends up off of the 

leaves of trees and down into the soil. 

Now we had, I think it was Harold who 

mentioned that they use micro sprayers, but I can't 

believe that the kasugamycin doesn't also, even 

if it's very regulated, end up in soil causing 

resistance.

Obviously it's a synthetic. Even with 

EPA use and where it's used in conventional 

agriculture, you need a resistance plan when you're 

using it. 

And I think when we discussed it in the 

subcommittee, it seemed pretty clear that, number 

one, I don't think our organic stakeholders want 

an antibiotic added to it, and also that it doesn't 

seem like it's compatible with the OFPA criteria.

That being said, and Steven can 

obviously opine on this because he's an apple and 

pear grower, there are methods apparently using 

conventional agriculture and other tools that can 

help with fire blight. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Obviously it's not as efficient as 

being able to spray something because there's 

timing issues where kasugamycin can be utilized, 

but it's one of those areas where we talk about 

it a lot, where it's another tool in the tool box, 

and I was thinking about that. 

We say that a lot, and I think maybe 

when we talk about work agendas and a new work 

agenda item, I think we really have to look at that 

because that becomes a catch phrase for so many 

things that we talk about. 

Well, we need another tool in the tool 

box and farmers need another -- now, I'm a farmer. 

I realize I'd love to have some other 

things, but I think we have to be careful with that 

statement. 

So, basically subcommittee seem to be 

unanimous in not adding it to the National List, 

but I'd like to open it open for discussion now.

MR. ELA: I am not seeing questions, 

and since you put it directly at me, I think the 

folks up in Washington, you know, noted that they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

didn't want to go down the path of arguing for this 

because the writing was on the wall, but I do want 

to say for the record, as a pome fruit grower, fire 

blight is a nemesis that has been with us for a 

very long time.

I remember cutting it out as a kid, and 

it was just a terrible job. 

You have to sterilize your pruning 

shears between each cut, so you were carrying a 

can of alcohol at that point to sterilize the 

shears. 

It's just painful. And, you know, it's 

a career breaker for people because you can study 

it, and people have their whole careers, and still 

not solved the problem. 

Organically now, we do have a more 

integrated approach to approaching it between 

using yeast to exclude the niche or fill the niche 

before the bacteria can fill it in the blossoms, 

and reducing the bacteria in the orchard in general 

using coppers and lime sulfur, both of which are 

things that the board and the organic community 

has pushed against.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So, you know, we and others have lost 

-- I got block of trees that we probably lost 30 

percent of the trees to fire blight. 

So it's a real difficult one because 

it would be very useful. I would love to have that 

approach, and the integrated approach can be very 

dicey in terms of timing.

But, you know, the board has certainly 

spoken and stakeholders have certainly spoken 

about the use of antibiotics.

I really do hate to see system 

disruptive materials, and, you know, so I'm 

probably going to vote no, but it is with angst 

of this being a material that I'm sure I would use. 

But I agree with Rick, having another 

tool in the tool box is not always the reason to 

add a synthetic to the National List, and in 

general, I think Rick's comments are very apropos, 

the board in the past has said it's so hard to get 

a material off the list once we add it. 

We need to be very judicious in what 

we add because it will be there for a very long 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

time, so like I say, I'll probably vote no, but, 

you know, this is definitely a material that I could 

use, so I think, you know, the ecological ecosystem 

approach to organic agriculture makes me vote no 

on this, even though as a single material, it would 

be very useful.

Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Just want to say 

thank you to both you and Rick for being the orchard 

folks, bringing a lot of information and light on 

this to us row crop and field crop growers.

I really, really appreciate how Rick 

has framed this, though, in looking at, you know, 

one, hearing stakeholders, and that it's a pretty 

strong consensus that we don't want antibiotics 

in organics, but I think also in a way, organics 

has sort of undersold the lack of antibiotics, I 

feel. 

That when we look at superbugs, we look 

at disruption to soil microbe biomes, when we look 

at how do we ultimately keep antibiotics useful, 

I think, you know, moving them further and further 

away from routine agriculture use is such a strong 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

asset of the organic system, and I think Rick's 

description of this material only plays into that. 

And so, I'm excited to speak with a 

strong voice on this.

MR. ELA: All right, are there other 

comments?

(No audible response.)

MR. ELA: You ready to go to the vote, 

Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. And I'd just 

like to echo what Nate said. 

For literally decades, people have 

talked about overuse of antibiotics in agriculture 

and how it changes the resistance patterns, so I 

think this is just another step in trying to prevent 

that. 

I mean, it's been a problem for decades, 

even many years ago when I was a young 

microbiologist. Maybe decades and decades ago, 

I first heard about it, and it never seems to have 

changed, so I'm pleased at least that we have an 

opportunity to review this and come up with our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

comments.

So, yeah Steve, if you can read the 

classification motion. Can you do that?

MR. ELA: I'll put my glasses on and 

do my very best. Classification motion. The 

motion to classify kasugamycin as synthetic. 

It was motioned by Rick, seconded by 

Steve, and we are going to start with --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. JEFFREY: Jerry.

MR. ELA: My previous -- just a second.

MS. JEFFREY: Jerry.

MR. ELA: My alphabetical order here. 

Yep. We'll start with Jerry. And so, Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: I vote yes.

MR. ELA: Okay. Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: Yes.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: And the Chair will not be 

contrary this time, the Chair will vote yes, as 

well.

MS. JEFFREY: Fourteen yes, zero no, 

zero abstains, recusals, or absences. The motion 

to classify passes.

MR. ELA: Okay. We're going to move 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

on to the National List motion. The motion to add 

kasugamycin to the National List at 205601 J4 for 

plant disease control. 

The motion was made by Rick and seconded 

by Amy, and we will start with Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No. 

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: So, zero yes, 14 no, 

motion fails.

MR. ELA: All right. So we will turn 

it back to Rick to move on to the next proposal.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. How did this 

happen? 

So I also have the next proposal, 

hydronium, and hydronium is being petitioned as 

a processing aid for pH adjustment below 5.0 as 

a stabilizer in the production of animal manures, 

and it would be used to reduce malodorous 

properties of manures.

And basically hydronium is a mixture 

of sulfuric acid and calcium hydroxide. Sulfur 

dioxide's collected from pollution control 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

scrubbers and it's obviously a manufactured 

compound. 

The issue is we looked at this and we 

just didn't find a need for this. 

This looks like -- at least to our 

initial discussion, it is a compound looking for 

a product, and we really didn't see any use for 

it. 

It doesn't really fit into the OFPA 

criteria for improving soil health, and the company 

had also put it into the EPA as a biocide at one 

point, and that part had never been approved, so 

it just seems like it's incompatible with a system 

of sustainable agriculture.

Sort of a simple review. I looked at 

the hydronium and the only public comments were 

to not approve it for addition to the National List, 

so that's a very short introduction, but I don't 

know how much is there based on what the product 

is, and we didn't find anybody that was sort of 

looking for something like that.

So, Steve, why don't you go ahead and 

open it up for comment? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Comments? Nate and then 

Kyla.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Real quick. I think 

that we should remember that manure is a pretty 

hones material, and that when it stinks, 

something's going wrong. 

And so, when we look at controlling for 

that, we're not really acknowledging that I have 

been on dozens, if not hundreds, of chicken farms 

that smell just great. 

They smell great and it's because 

they've got the right balance of nutrients to land 

application, and it's not being aggregated and 

compiled ineffectively.

And so, I think when we talked about 

reducing malodorous properties, we are missing out 

on the chance to remember that good, balanced farms 

smell good.

MR. ELA: Kyla? 

MS. SMITH: Yeah, I just was going to 

comment that in reading the public comments, it 

seemed like there was a lot of confusion as to what 

was actually being petitioned, and so anyway, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

contradictory things -- anyway, all over the place, 

really. 

And so, definitions and clear, like, 

you know, clarity for what compounds we're talking 

about is really important in the material review 

process, so that was like a big sort of red flag 

for me from the certifier and sort of MRO 

perspective is not having that clarity based on 

what was actually being petitioned.

MR. ELA: And I think that's a great 

comment, Kyla. If you look at the actual petition, 

it's not very complete. 

I can vouch for Rick trying to pull a 

proposal out of it that was difficult at best.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah.

MR. ELA: So --

MR. GREENWOOD: Of the ones that I've 

done, it was just very light and very hard to even 

come up with sort of a document.

MR. ELA: Yep. Your comments are 

exactly right, Kyla, and it's very hard to deal 

with the petition that doesn't really give us 

things that we need to have. So, Logan?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. PETREY: Hi, thanks. Just a 

comment on the manure. 

On Nate's comment, the smell, maybe we 

get used to the smells or so if we're on the farm, 

but we use a lot of chicken litter, and I don't 

know how honest it is or anything, but you go jump 

in the back of a chicken litter truck full of 

litter, you're not going to be welcomed around the 

community inside and stuff, so I don't know where 

to go with that, but no, I don't think that we need 

to make applications. 

Now, I do have neighbors around. We 

order a lot of chicken litter in because we do use 

a lot of chicken litter, and, you know, we do turn 

it to try and get it, you know, heat treated so 

that the weed seed's killed. 

There is volatilization, you know, that 

goes on with these types of things, and neighbors 

do get a little disgruntled, and so in fact, that's 

part of being around an organic farm, but you know, 

even if you're doing it right, you know, it's still 

going to be kind of smelly, especially on a foggy 

day when the wind doesn't blow it out of here. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So, I live right on the farm and so I'm 

surrounded by it a lot. Certain times of the year 

can be pretty rough, but that is part of organics.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yeah, I agree, Logan. 

Litter on your ground smells, chicken litter 

smells, but I will say that I have to back up Nate. 

I've done a lot of inspections on humane 

standards, certified chicken houses, and when 

there's enough outdoor access and they've got their 

stocking rate right, you can go in those houses 

and you're not overwhelmed with ammonia, but 

chicken litter smells on the fields. You're 

right.

MR. ELA: Anybody else? 

MS. PETREY: Yeah, just a comment. I 

have heard when you do heat the chicken litter up 

-- like when we heat it, we stack it, we run a 

turn through it, and I've had people say it smells 

like chocolate. 

So when it goes through a certain 

process, and even my husband, who didn't grow up 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

in chicken houses or anything, he says, it smells 

like Hershey's, so (audio interference) the 

smells, but. 

MS. BAIRD: No, I will say that, you 

know, my degree is Master's in Poultry Science. 

You can get used to the houses' smell, even 

conventional that's not balanced out, and kind of 

burn those olfactory whatever, but yeah, no, you 

can't disguise poultry litter when it goes on the 

ground. It's just there.

MR. ELA: Boy, I'm not a lover of 

chocolate to start with, and that just reminded 

me.

(Laughter.)

MS. BRUCH: It's true. I can't resist 

not jumping into here, but yeah, that is a comment 

by some of the folks on our team, too, Logan, so 

yeah. 

I've heard that before and I doubted 

it, but it is true. 

I do believe what Nate said. You know, 

if the practices are being done at the barns 

correctly, there's quite a difference between the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

product you receive. 

Our experience in Florida, handling the 

litter there, my goodness, I think I can still smell 

it versus some of the product we have access to 

around here, so it's not a one size fits all smell, 

so anyway.

MS. BAIRD: They always told me it 

smelled like money. I don't know.

MR. ELA: That I've heard. All right. 

Rick, shall we go ahead and move to the vote?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. No, this is 

more interesting than the product, so.

DR. DIMITRI: I love the farmer humor. 

It's so interesting to me in my urban lifestyle.

MR. GREENWOOD: I use chicken manure 

too and I'm in a more urban setting, and it has 

not made me the most popular neighbor.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. PETREY: I disagree. You're 

probably the most popular, it's just not the fame 

that you want.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah, okay. Okay, 

Steve, so do you want to do the classification 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

motion?

MR. ELA: I do, and I will say as a fruit 

grower, and we're talking about fire blight, one 

of the practices to slow it down is the use of lime 

sulfur when we're trying to thin, and lime sulfur 

and fish oil and a manure application, so you put 

rotten eggs on top of apparently a chocolate smell, 

it becomes quite interesting. So.

MS. PETREY: Wow.

MR. ELA: So, well the motion is to 

classify hydronium as synthetic. It was motioned 

by Rick, seconded by Amy, and we will start with 

Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes. 

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kyla?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes. 

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: Yes.

MR. ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

MS. JEFFREY: Fourteen yes, zero no, 

zero absence -- ARA. None of them. The motion 

to classify --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. ELA: -- did it again. These 

motion classifications cannot fit in my head today, 

but so we'll move to the National List motion. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

The motion to add hydronium to the 

National List at 205601 J7 as an organic processing 

aid, I think. 

I keep having my screen overlapped 

there. So the motion by Rick Greenwood, seconded 

by Steve Ela, and we will start with Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No. 

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No. 

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: And the Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes, 14 no, zero 

ARAs. The motion fails.

MR. ELA: Rick, back to you for the next 

one.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. At least I 

don't have this one. So the next one is a carbon 

dioxide proposal and petition, and that is Logan. 

MS. PETREY: Thank you. Okay, so for 

the carbon dioxide, and the petition is for both 

algicide, a disinfectant sanitizer, including 

irrigation systems, cleaning systems, and plant 

soil amendment.

So, in the subcommittee discussions 

that we had going over the human health, it's very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

low. We all are aware of carbon dioxide. 

I think the concern immediately would 

be for climate change purposes. In the petition 

mentioned the recycled carbon dioxide. 

Also noting in the comments the request 

for this motion to be carbon dioxide as a byproduct, 

that way there's not another production to get 

carbon dioxide to add to it, so we're just trying 

to, you know, at least eliminate some of it going 

into the atmosphere or whatever, so trying to keep 

that from building up.

As far as it is a synthetic, the process 

that we're trying to capture here, the 

non-synthetic comes from fermentation, and due to 

the logistics of it and being feasible as far as 

applying it is we're not able to do that with the 

non-synthetic sources, so that's why we're 

requesting the synthetic there.

As far as for algicide, and a pH reducer 

in the irrigation systems, we did see commenters, 

you know, farmers that are using this. 

I'm not sure if they're on drip, or what 

type of irrigation sources, but it's mostly for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the drip lines and needing it to clean out the 

emitters.

 They do get the algae that's thrown into 

the emitters and will really mess up the 

distribution of water on these fields, and then 

also the carbon buildups and trying to get those 

things clean.

But, as far as the other alternatives, 

we have sulfurs, and there's been some comments 

from the stakeholders saying that this would be 

an easier, safer method of use to draw the pH in 

the water.

Any questions?

(No audible response.)

MS. PETREY: And I do need to add that 

as far as the motion that I have listed, the motion 

to add carbon dioxide, I do not have it broken down 

to the two -- let's see -- to the two -- let's see 

-- I guess that would be 205.601(a), the algicide 

disinfectants, and also as 205.601(j), as a plant 

or soil.

So I will need, before I make the motion 

just in the subcommittee, to get these things 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

ironed out, I do want to open it up to discussion 

for any questions. 

MR. ELA: All right. Wood?

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Logan. Do you 

have any idea -- I just think about this in the 

context of chlorine materials and other sanitizers 

in the context of crop production, and I'm just 

curious if you have any thoughts about whether a 

material like this, if available and widely used, 

could actually have benefits to helping reduce the 

need for chlorine materials and other sanitizers 

in crop production?

I'm just trying to weigh those issues 

because I know there's other sanitizer questions, 

particularly chlorine materials --

MS. PETREY: Sure.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. TURNER: -- the community? 

MS. PETREY: Yeah, I would say that it 

would. 

If they are going for, you know, 

whatever is listed under the control for the carbon 

dioxide, that algicide part, yes, I would say it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

would.

MR. ELA: Anybody else on this? Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: I have a question about 

this was -- I think I was the one absent person 

during what was discussed in the subcommittee, so 

I have an excuse, but I'm a little concerned about 

that we're kind of voting one vote on two issues 

here.

One is as the, you know, disinfection, 

you know, irrigation system, and then the other 

is as, you know, a plant amendment. I wouldn't 

call it the soil. 

And this is mainly oriented towards 

greenhouse production, and I guess my question is 

should we be voting on these separately? 

MS. PETREY: Yes. Oh yes, and so that 

too. 

So, needing to go back to be specified 

because it isn't specified for either of those two, 

and it was also requested in the comments.

I do agree with you to separate those 

into two different motions.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay, so just, yeah. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

mean, you mentioned that, but just to verify then, 

it sounds like ---

MS. PETREY: That's right.

MR. BRADMAN: We'll make a proposal to 

send this back to subcommittee? 

MS. PETREY: Correct, yes sir. And in 

that subcommittee, I mean, we'll go through and 

make that as two separate motions instead of one.

MR. ELA: Yeah, but I would personally 

tend to agree with -- the board has shied away from 

just blanket allowances of carbon dioxide in all 

ways, and I feel like this without the annotations 

is probably too broad, so I'm going to suggest we 

send it back to subcommittee just to get the 

annotations put on, and it should be fairly simple 

for the subcommittee to do, but I would feel much 

more comfortable with the annotations on it.

I saw Nate with his hand up. Nate, did 

you have anything? 

MR. POWELL-PALM: Oh, I was just 

getting ready to motion to send it back to 

subcommittee, but I'm not meaning to jump the gun.

MR. ELA: Mindee, did you have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

something?

MS. JEFFREY: Similar.

MR. ELA: Well, I would accept a motion 

to send it back to subcommittee.

MS. JEFFREY: I'll move that we send 

it back to subcommittee.

MR. ELA: Is there a second?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Nate seconds.

MR. ELA: Okay, we have a motion by 

Mindee, a second by Nate, to send this proposal 

back to subcommittee. 

And just to note, this is a simple 

majority vote, not a super majority. So, we'll 

start with Mindee. 

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: Yes.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

MS. JEFFREY: Fourteen yes, zero no, 

zero ARAs. The motion to go back to subcommittee 

passes.

MR. ELA: All right. So, the Crop 

Subcommittee will work on that, and hopefully bring 

it back up in the spring.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

All right, Rick, back to you again.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. So the next one 

is a proposal on lithothamnion, and that's Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: All right, thanks Rick. 

Yeah, lithothamnion. 

The proposal's a little bit unusual 

because the National Organic Program requested 

that the NOSB basically clarify the classification 

of this, of lithothamnion.

And just as a little bit of a quick 

background, lithothamnion species are a type of 

red algae that on part of its growth, it calcifies, 

and the calcified material turns into these sort 

of balls of high calcium material that is dead, 

and they are shed from the plant, and where it's 

harvested, they tend to be swept by currents and 

concentrated into areas that are not in the same 

place where the lithothamnion algae actually is 

growing.

And then its dredged from the ocean 

floor and harvested that way.

So, it's a little bit complicated. 

Basically, the decision in the subcommittee was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to classify lithothamnion as a non-agricultural 

substance, and second, that it was not a wild crop 

and is not eligible to be certified organic because 

of that.

And we went through the decision tree 

to come to the conclusion that it was a 

non-agricultural substance, and the wild crop 

criteria in particular, the key one is that it's 

not harvested from a plant that is rooted in a 

certain place, so it doesn't qualify as a wild crop.

So I think that's it. I think we were 

pretty clear on those decisions, but I'd be glad 

to have questions.

MR. ELA: Okay. Let's go to 

questions. Asa has one.

MR. BRADMAN: I have a comment more. 

I just want to call out the comments from Beyond 

Pesticides and NOC on this material, and, you know, 

impacts on the environment.

I know several of us, when we looked 

at this, we kind of read about it and there's kind 

of an "ew" factor in terms of, you know, potential 

impacts on the environment with dredging and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

harvesting and things like that, and, you know, 

we just really in this review addressed the 

question we were asked to address, but, you know, 

I agree that those issues raised in comment and 

that we even considered, you know, perhaps not 

fully conscious, but -- well, it did come up, but 

we didn't address it programmatically, that, you 

know, I have concerns about this. 

And some, you know, argue other 

comments that the environmental impacts are 

minimal, but I think this is something that needs 

to be looked at. 

It's another situation where 

extracting, you know, nutrients from one 

environment and putting it in the organic 

agricultural environment, and I hope there's 

future discussion on this.

MR. CALDWELL: Thanks, Asa. Yes, I 

should have mentioned that. I totally agree with 

you. The comments were pretty interesting because 

there were none that disagreed with our 

classifications, and there were a couple from who 

appeared to be producers of lithothamnion, calcium 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

products, who were saying, oh, the harvest is 

non-destructive and one of them said that it's 

harvested with gentle vacuuming. 

And, but this seemed to be beyond the 

scope of the questions that we answered, or that 

we're trying to answer, and I think that we should 

revisit this in the future and decide whether this 

can be allowed at all in an organic product.

But we were trying to stick with the 

specific questions that the NOP asked for us. But 

yeah, a great point, and I totally agree. 

I do think that it would need a lot more 

digging to really suss out all the aspects of the 

harvest and other aspects of the harvest and other 

aspects of this material.

MR. BRADMAN: Thanks.

MS. BAIRD: Digging or dredging?

MR. CALDWELL: I'm sorry Sue, what?

MS. BAIRD: I said, is that digging or 

dredging? I'm sorry.

MR. CALDWELL: Well ---

MS. BAIRD: You said digging, and they 

had said that it was dredged out of the bottom and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

so I was just -- sorry.

MR. CALDWELL: Oh, okay. Well, yeah, 

dredging or gentle vacuuming.

MS. BAIRD: Gentle vacuuming, right.

MR. CALDWELL: Right.

MR. ELA: Yeah, I get in trouble. 

Gentle vacuuming at home doesn't work so well. 

But any other comments, questions?

I did see a little bit of pushback by 

a couple people, and I think you mentioned it, 

Brian, about, yeah, the environmental effects and, 

you know, well, just the whole question of whether 

they were moved and not and such, but, you know, 

I went through the decision tree with you and I 

completely agree with your findings, and so, you 

know, I'm in favor of the motion, but I did see 

a couple comments that had a little bit of pushback 

on the way we went through the decision tree. But, 

Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: I was just hoping to 

make sure folks felt we were consistent with the 

lithothamnion as being dead when harvested. 

I noted in the written comments from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Garth Kahl that they're saying the dead bark of 

the Quillaja saponaria, or Chilean soap bark tree, 

is currently harvested as part of a certified 

organic wild crop project.

So just making sure we are consistent 

with that rooted question. I think that the 

overall point is good, but don't want to be just 

procedurally erring in the idea that it can't be 

wild crop because it's not rooted. It's not from 

a single plant.

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah, thanks Nate, and 

I think that that is correct. 

When I read that comment, I thought, 

oh well, they're coming to the same conclusion that 

the discussion came to through probably a better 

means by, you know, specifically pointing to the 

fact that it's not harvested from a plant that's 

rooted in a specific place. 

And so, that probably is a better line 

of reasoning that probably should've been in the 

discussion. 

It came to the same conclusion, so I 

don't know if we really need to go back and change 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that or not, and I guess I would defer to Steve 

or other folks on that particular one.

MR. ELA: I guess maybe I misread it. 

I thought it came to a different conclusion 

because the -- and I could have misread it.

MR. CALDWELL: No, they said that it 

was not a wild crop because it wasn't, you know, 

harvested from a plant rooted in a specific place, 

and they said that what I wrote in the discussion 

was not really correct because they did have at 

least one example of a dead part of a plant that 

was considered a crop.

MR. ELA: I think --

MR. CALDWELL: Nate, is that how you 

read it?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yeah, the -- oh, 

sorry, go ahead, Steve.

MR. ELA: No, go ahead, Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I was just going to 

say, it's just in conclusion, they say it would 

be impossible to define the area from which the 

algae originally grew, thereby not able to fulfill 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

those two crucial requirements in the OSB for wild 

crop harvest.

I think it's just purely that there is another 

one. It's a terrestrial, though. It's not a 

marine material. 

So when it's not rooted or not on the 

plant, it's just going to be on the ground, so it 

is possible to make that distinction, I think they 

were just highlighting that in that area, to be 

wild crafted, it doesn't necessarily have to be 

rooted on a plant, but it still fails the criteria 

because it could move with tides, and therefore 

not be distinguishable for us to where it was grown 

and how it was impacted.

MR. ELA: Yeah, and I --

MR. CALDWELL: I think just for 

everybody's just consideration, what it seemed to 

me, I mean, was kind of tricky to navigate through 

all this, but the product of lithothamnion seemed 

to be more analogous to peat moss than, you know, 

to soybeans or something like that.

So that's kind of what I was trying to 

get at, but the wild crop issue I think was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

clarified best via the issue of not being harvested 

from a plant that's rooted in a specific place, 

or in the same place as the plant is rooted.

MR. ELA: Yeah, I also think this board 

has recognized and struggled, the difference 

between terrestrial and marine environments and 

our jurisdiction and how we look at things.

Certainly the marine materials 

document that Emily put out a year ago, and Asa's 

got fish oil, and any number of these things. The 

marine environment is certainly much different 

for us to look at than terrestrial environments, 

so I think that is an important distinction. I'm 

not saying it's a good distinction, but it is 

important, so. 

All right, are we ready to move to the 

vote on this one? Nate's got one more comment.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I don't mean to be 

the person who jumps on this, but I would say that 

it is an easy enough fix to just remove the dead 

parts, rather than pass it with that inconsistency, 

with it not -- with it -- us having an example of 

something that is from wild craft that is not rooted 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to the plant, then I would motion to send it back 

to subcommittee, fix that little bit, and then 

bring it back in the spring. I think it's a very 

easy fix, it won't take a lot of time.

MR. ELA: So, well, motion on the 

floor. Is there a second? I am not hearing a 

second.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. ELA: So the motion fails. And I'm 

trying to figure out, Nate, I'm sorry, where --

because in the motion itself, it does not say 

anything about dead. So you're just referring to 

the write-up?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yeah.

MR. ELA: Okay. But it is dead, so I 

guess I'm not entirely ---

MR. POWELL-PALM: I think following 

the wild crafted, that it's not locatable. 

You can't understand the origin, is 

where we should rest on it, rather than the fact 

that it's not tethered to its originating organism.

MR. ELA: Okay. Fair enough. Kyla, 

did I see a comment there?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SMITH: I just was going to wonder 

if, again, the intent could be made a bit more clear 

in the cover sheet?

MR. ELA: Yep. 

MS. SMITH: Something along those 

lines.

MR. ELA: Yep. I was going to say that 

same thing. 

So Brian, maybe you could touch base 

with Nate when you write the cover sheet on this 

just to address those concerns in terms of the 

intent. 

I guess would anybody on the board 

object to that intent? 

Yeah, so get with Nate, Brian, on the 

write-up on that and you can help reflect the intent 

of the board in terms of that quote unquote dead.

All right.

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah, I will. 

I agree with that totally, and the only 

question would be in my mind, along with Nate's 

comments, whether it sort of sets a bad precedent 

to have the actual wording of the discussion kind 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of not reflect the final place where we landed. 

Again, I'm kind of new at this so I'm 

not sure how important that is.

MR. ELA: Carolyn's got a comment.

DR. DIMITRI: Yeah, I think it's okay, 

Brian, because you do have, and is not fixed to 

a defined location, so you have the language in 

there. That's my take on it.

MR. ELA: Good. I was going to agree 

with that. 

I think this doesn't inherently change 

the write-up of the proposal, it just clarifies 

it, so if it were to really change the proposal 

itself, then maybe, but this is more a 

clarification than a big change.

So Kyla, you nodded your head, but ---

MS. SMITH: I was going to say the same 

thing, that like, if there was like, yeah, like 

if this was going to alter the outcome, like 

certainly, it's like, we should be sending it back, 

but this isn't really altering anything --

(Simultaneous speaking.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah, and Steve, I 

think both the motion to classify and the other 

one -- does not meet wild crop criteria are very 

clean and short, so I mean, we can change the 

write-up, but the motion I think is very specific. 

MR. ELA: Yeah, agreed. So, shall we 

move to the motions, Rick? 

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, we shall.

MR. ELA: Okay. I'll have another 

chance to get things right here as well. 

So the motion is to classify 

lithothamnion as a non-agricultural substance. 

It was made by Brian and seconded by Amy, and we 

are going to start with Logan. 

MS. PETREY: Sorry, couldn't find 

unmute. Yes.

MR. ELA: Okay. Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: Yes.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Chair votes yes.

MS. JEFFREY: Fourteen yes, zero no, 

zero ARA, motion passes.

MR. ELA: All right. We are going to 

move on to the motion that lithothamnion does not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

meet wild crop criteria and is not eligible to be 

certified to the wild crop standard. 

The motion was made by Brian, it was 

seconded by Steve, and we are going to start with 

Nate. 

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: Yes. 

MR. ELA: Rick? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Logan? 

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

MS. JEFFREY: Fourteen yes, zero no, 

zero ARAs. Motion passes.

MR. ELA: All right. Back to you, 

Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay, a question for 

you, the next one is Asa and the biodegradable 

biobased mulch. 

I'm just wondering if we should break 

15 minutes early, come back 15 minutes early, 

rather than starting that discussion, which I think 

is probably going to take more than 15 minutes.

MR. ELA: Just looking down the list. 

Sunsets should be fairly quick. 

Sure. Why don't we do that? I was 

trying to decide myself, Rick, where to make the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

break. So let's go ahead and take a break for lunch 

for an hour, and Rick noted we'll come back at 15 

minutes to the hour, whatever time zone you are 

in, and we'll just say enjoy your lunch.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. I think it'll 

make for a smoother transition.

MR. ELA: Agreed. No, I was trying to 

decide that myself, so appreciate it, Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: I'm here to help.

MR. ELA: That you are and you do.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 1:47 p.m. and resumed at 

2:47 p.m.)

MR. ELA: Well, it's quarter 'til or 

a little bit after. Why don't we go ahead and start 

again.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay.

MR. ELA: So, why don't you let go of 

your avocado picture, Rick, and we'll turn it back 

to you for the next topic.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. Sometimes I 

actually wear that downtown as a sandwich board. 

But that, that's for another day.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. D'AMORE: I heard you keep it under 

your pillow, actually.

MR. GREENWOOD: Anyhow, whatever the 

case.

And we're going to do -- Asa has a 

biodegradable biobased mulch film annotation 

change as a proposal. So, Asa, take it away.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you. I have a real 

feeling of deja vu here. And so I just want to 

kind of give an overview and move forward to the 

discussion.

As everyone knows, biodegradable mulch 

has been on the national list for a long time. 

It was changed, there was a limitation put on it 

to make it 100 percent biobased. And the issue 

with that is that there are no products out there 

that are 100 percent biobased. And biobased means 

derived from plant materials as the primary source 

of carbon.

Apparently, right now the best film 

that's out there is 60 percent biobased. And it 

sounds like it is possible to increase that.

But the mulch film, as everyone knows, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

you know, there's kind of a love affair with plastic 

and there, again, it's starting to turn. And the 

mulch films are used extensively, and especially 

also other vegetable and food production as well. 

And the primary films used are the polyethylene 

films.

And I, you know, have concerns about 

that. I actually would like to see them taken off 

the national list, the polyethylene films. That 

could put a lot of people out of business, ranging 

from, you know, real organic programs started by 

people to more large-scale producers. You know, 

the polyethylene films are widely used in the 

organic sector.

I see the biodegradable mulch as an 

alternative to that, that we may have material here 

that, in contrast to polyethylene that is 

degradable in the soil, and not being removed and 

sent to a landfill. Virtually all the 

polyethylene plastics deals with soil contact, are 

not recycled, and they're landfilled.

There are some proposals to perhaps use 

pyrolysis, which has been about to recondense it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and make fuels out of it. But currently the most, 

the vast majority of polyethylene films are just 

thrown away.

A significant portion of polyethylene 

films gets left in the field or the environment. 

There's not great data on that. And kind of the 

review submitted by the folks at Washington State 

and others, there's one study that estimated that 

it's 5 to 10 percent of polyethylene can be left 

in the field. Some of those studies may be from 

China where they're using a thinner material, so 

it's harder to remove.

But I just know from personal 

experience spending time in Monterey and Santa Cruz 

Counties, you know, you see plastic after removal, 

adjacent to the field in waterways and, you know, 

en route to the ocean.

So, I tend to see these, this issue as 

kind of in a comparative risk assessment format. 

And, you know, that's something that people have 

commented in oral comments and written comments. 

And, you know, many folks object to that. And, 

you know, I see the merits of that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

In fact, let me step back a little bit. 

You know, I've tried in this discussion to kind 

of lay out all the reasons for and against the 

biodegradable mulch. And I'm hoping that when 

everyone's done, perhaps we'll be sufficiently 

confused so that, you know, if you weigh the scales 

of justice, so to speak, that there's a lot of 

uncertainties here. And the uncertainty alone 

may, you know, suggest a no vote on this.

In my mind, again, there's this concern 

that the current use of polyethylene films needs 

a replacement.

Now, of course, in this proposal that 

there is adoption of biodegradable mulches we're 

not necessarily going to see -- you know, it's 

possible that increased use of films in general 

may not necessarily decrease polyethylene films. 

And that is a, you know, a factor here. I guess 

I'm hoping that there will be less polyethylene 

film use if this gets accepted.

There has been, you know, a fair bit 

of research on this. They are degradable. And 

certainly in the laboratory setting they are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

biodegradable. You know, there's evidence that, 

based on the quality, that degradation varies in 

the field depending on having moisture content, 

and tillage practices, temperature, a lot of 

factors. In fact, one study suggested that a 

better regime to predict degradability was thermal 

time versus --

OPERATOR: Recording in progress.

MR. BRADMAN: -- thermal time versus 

regular time. You know, the temperature and other 

factors determine rates of degradation that affect 

the rates. But you might not see it in a laboratory 

setting.

You know, when we look at comments like, 

you know, Harriet mentioned, concerns about this 

and, you know, what happens when this blows into 

the water, and it will blow into the water. I mean, 

in some cases if we're using these biodegradable 

films there will be situations where it does blow 

in the water. And that's of concern.

At the same time, again, in my frame 

I see this as an alternative to existing 

polyethylene films which we know are bad for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

environment in many different ways. I really 

don't, you know, don't want to judge what's organic 

and what's not organic. And polyethylenes are 

used. But, again, I think they have a very serious 

environmental impact and should be reduced.

There's been some -- I think I've hit 

on some of the major points.

In terms of public comment, you know, 

I think the public comment represents kind of the 

range of views we have on the board, the range of 

views that I hold inside me that, you know, there's 

benefits and negatives here. And depending on 

where one falls out, one might outweigh the other.

There is quite a bit of support for this 

change, with the hope -- and it's aspirational 

right now because there are not 80 percent biobased 

films available -- but that it will perhaps move 

forward the goal of finding some replacement for 

polyethylene films. And some of the supporters 

include, you know, Vermont Organic Farmers, Oregon 

Till, and OPWC, and others as well.

And then, of course, there's also many 

people who feel that this is not ready for prime 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

time and that, you know, the original intent was 

100 percent biobased material, and we shouldn't 

compromise that.

The 80 percent, I think I mentioned last 

spring, I mean, I kind of came up with that and 

proposed that because that what we're requiring 

for the paper pots. And the paper pot proposal, 

you know, leaves open the door for possibly 20 

percent of material that's actually a plastic 

fiber, so that's that aren't even necessarily 

biodegradable.

You know, I think when we think of 

scale, this is much different. You know, Harriet 

mentioned that, you know, we're talking 

potentially thousands of acres. Right now I think 

in California, I forget the acreage, they have 

2,000 organic acres, something like that. So, 

we're talking potentially a lot of use there. And 

that scale of use, I agree, makes this kind of a 

different consideration compared to the paper pot 

which allows synthetic fibers.

But, again, for me, in my head there's 

this comparative risk compared to the use of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

polyethylene, you know, polyethylene films which 

are essentially in my mind are a containerized 

method of growing, although they're using soil to 

meet, you know, especially strawberry production. 

And films like that, it's basically a container

system, especially if we're using, you know, 

chemigation and fertigation, we're using, you 

know, water soluble nutrients for delivering that 

under the films. To me that's basically what, you 

know, we might call a hydroponic system even though 

it's in the soil.

So, I feel like this is better, and it 

ensures some, you know, recycling of the film, 

whereas right now we have no recycling. You know, 

if you want to get into the hydroponics discussion, 

for example, I think we should have a standard for 

that, we should have recycling demands on those 

materials.

A lot of plastic is used in crop 

production. You know, I see piles of drip tape. 

And, you know, I feel like this is a situation 

where, you know, maybe it's time to make a decision 

one way or another. And ultimately, of course, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

we're not going to have all the information we want 

to have. And, you know, that's one of the rubs 

I think in a lot of decision making around technical 

and, in this case, also philosophical reasons. 

You know, we often have to make decisions about 

all the information we want.

Another piece of this, too, I 

mentioned, you know, the fact that we allow 

polyethylene film, which is introducing 

microplastics and macroplastics into soils and the 

environment. We do allow the application of 

petroleum-derived materials as part of organic. 

I've mentioned this before. But, you know, we 

do use things like mineral oil and things like that 

as really an essential pesticide for organic 

production. And that's, you know, directly 

derived from refined petroleum products.

So, we're not being inconsistent here. 

Although I think all of us, I think, cringe at 

the, you know, the use of the material that has 

a carbon source, that's potentially petroleum 

based. In the original version last spring we had 

an attempt at language for continuous improvement, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

so that if we got to 100 percent biobased, that 

would then be required. We had problems with that 

language. And we kind of took it out in this 

version. And although we explained, put that 

intent into the narrative of the document.

And then we -- also, I want everyone 

to consider this current language, which might not 

be perfect but could, I think, be an approach to 

show our intent for continuous improvement is that 

we move to 100 biobased material, that should be 

required. And that will also be, would also be 

included very clearly in a cover letter to the 

program should we decide to approve this.

So, I think I've covered the bases, and 

look forward to discussing this. Well, I guess 

it's the last time for me.

MR. ELA: Good point.

Are there questions, comments?

Sue.

MS. BAIRD: I detest plastic mulch. 

I used it one time in my fields. I did all the 

correct procedures to try to get it all pulled up 

at the end of the season. And 15 years later I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

still lifting up pieces of plastic mulch.

I realize this is not 100 percent. But 

I believe this is a, truly a step in the right 

direction. I like the fact that we put a 

commercial availability on it. I think that was 

a great move that we did. I'm, I'm going to vote 

for it.

MR. ELA: Kyla.

MS. SMITH: Thanks. So, I first have 

a question. And that is if the annotation change 

passes -- this maybe is a question of the program, 

unless someone on the board knows -- maybe I should, 

but I don't -- anyway, does it get a new sunset 

date or does the old sunset date remain?

MR. ELA: That is a great question for 

the program.

I don't know, is Jarod or Devon, Jenny 

on? Can anybody answer that on the program?

MS. SMITH: If you don't have an 

immediate answer I have some other, like, comments 

to make. So, I can keep talking and then people 

can --

MS. ARSENAULT: I'll let Devon or Jarod 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

chime in. Devon, we had that conversation a lot. 

I think once it went to rulemaking, you set the 

sunset date.

But we'll let Devon or Jarod correct 

me. I'll let them jump on it and correct me if 

that's wrong.

MR. PATTILLO: Yeah, Michelle and 

members, I'll, I'll take a look. We had a number 

of cases like this in 2018. I just want to double 

check.

MS. SMITH: Okay, thanks.

Okay. So, yeah, I felt that there was 

a good balance of comments. I think certifiers 

were on both sides, you know. I do think that there 

was noted that this is a true compromise and, you 

know, where not everybody or where no one's left 

happy.

And it does, you know, on one hand there 

are not commercially available products, so 

there's not -- like, in as far as, like, enforcing 

the annotation, there's nothing to sort of enforce 

against. But, should there become products 

available, this is a clear annotation. We do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

appreciate the continuous improvement language 

that was added.

I want to also call out that there were 

some comments in regards to if -- because this 

continues to come up at least from certifiers, is 

that it's a meaningless listing if there's no 

products that are available. So, what's the point 

of having it on the list?

And so, while it is aspirational, and 

it does seem that, like, based on the way industry 

is moving that they do keep increasing the biobased 

content. So, in looking back at old documents it 

did seem like in 2016 in the TR that we were looking 

at, about 10 to 20 biobased, and that, as Asa said, 

it looks like a product with the most bio-base is 

at 60 percent.

So, you know, over the course of the 

past 5 years we've improved. And so, again, 

hopefully we can get up to 80 percent to make it 

a meaningful listing, if it should go that way.

And then the -- but if there's not, then 

I do think that there were some comments that, you 

know, asked about a time line or, you know, just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

saying, like, once we get around to the next sunset, 

which was why I was asking that question, to let 

it sunset off.

If there continues to be not that 

commercially available product within 5 years, 

then maybe that's enough time. You know, we got 

from 10 to 20 percent to 60 percent, like, within 

5 years. So, maybe another 5 years is enough time.

And then the only other point that I 

wanted to make that spoke to me was the fact that 

there is the national list, but then there's also 

the practice standard. And I have it -- but then 

moved away from my -- But, anyway, there is the 

practice standards, but where it does refer to, 

you know, fully biodegradable mulch as well as 

where plastic is listed with the requirement to 

remove. And so, since this listing would be 

neither of those things that it -- or it's somewhere 

in the middle, or something like that. Anyway, 

I just wonder if there will also need to be a change 

to the practice standards that would align with 

this listing, otherwise it could be a little bit 

weird. So, anyway, just wanted to point that out.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I'll pull up the actual reference to 

the e-code. I had closed that tab. But, anyway, 

I could speak to that more if you have questions.

MR. ELA: Sure. Yeah, thanks, Kyla. 

That's great to hear from the certifier's 

perspective, as always.

We've got Amy, then Wood, and then 

Carolyn. Go ahead, Amy.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Thanks, Steve. 

And thank you, Asa, for all your work that you've 

done over the years on this particular topic. And 

also for the community and all their comments, both 

public and written. That's definitely a tough 

one. I agree with you, Asa, on this.

And ideally, you know, on the surface 

it does to me appear that having the BDM mulch would 

probably be better. But, I do have some deep 

concerns with that as well.

You know, consecutive usage concerns 

me, allowing for that deep plowing below the 

microbial zone. Because that's what plowing is, 

essentially, is getting it below the microbial 

zone, and how will that decompose in that area. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Most of our microbes to do this are in the top 

6 inches. So, I'm concerned with how well will 

it decompose.

Also, there was a comment that 

mentioned, hey, we can reduce our dependency on 

plastic if we approve DBM film. That's an 

important first step. But innovating just around 

plastic solutions I don't know gets us really to 

the end result any of us in the community are 

looking for even as we are considering approving 

this at 80 percent.

There was an article also in the written 

comments that I read, and it was really 

interesting. And it actually started kind of 

comparing and contrasting the BDM films with the 

PE films. And are we really going to get for the 

community the right solution if we do this type 

of replacement?

There was comments that PE films, they 

actually warm up the soil faster than BDM films. 

I know that that's a usage for these films in some 

of the colder production areas that we need to farm 

the soil. And it's saying BDM films actually 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

probably won't do that as well.

Water is maintained better under PE 

films than on these BDM films.

So, I'm not a producer that's going to 

use them. But, are there some drawbacks in this 

direction versus, you know, innovating around a 

non-plastic solution? I don't know.

Another comment's in that written 

article -- and this kind of struck me as really 

interesting, I never thought about it -- said a 

soil toxicity test of several chemicals used in 

bioplastics found that some exhibits a 

concentration that could inhibit plant growth. 

So, just because it is biobased, you know, what, 

what is it contributing to the soil when we leave 

it there for years and years on end?

So, to me, there are some concerns. 

I definitely want to improve the current scenario 

because it's really bad to just have all this 

plastic sitting around. And I'm just concerned 

that this media isn't getting us to where we want 

to be.

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah. I mean, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

totally, you know, I hold those concerns, too, you 

know, about whether this would really -- I mean, 

my, in my ideal world it would reduce the use of 

polyethylene plastic, which I think would be a net 

benefit there.

You know, some of the issues raised 

about the polyethylene plastics in terms of water 

conservation, I think that's important. And maybe 

that would, you know, minimize replacement.

You know, and I agree wholeheartedly 

with the comments about, you know, should we be 

using organic mulches like plant and other 

materials. But the reality is, too, that, you 

know, in organic in many settings plastic is really 

heavily used. And, you know, I think something, 

something better -- I guess I think this is a little 

bit better if it could really replace that.

I should mention, too, that when we talk 

about 100 percent biobased plastic as its current 

listing which is, you know, also aspirational, some 

of the same issues I think would exist with that 

in terms of breakdown, decomposability. And, you 

know, that's not unique to something that's not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

100 percent in terms of the carbon source.

I mean, the papers I've looked at have 

also suggested that, you know, that any breakdown 

products of the process which are biodegradable, 

i.e. the, you know, foods for microbes, that any 

breakdown products were not, were not toxic, at 

least in the microbial setting.

But, you know, I'm not really trying 

to convince anyone. I'm trying to kind of lay out 

the issues. And I think you made some important 

points.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Amy and Asa.

We've got Wood, and then Carolyn, and 

then Logan.

MR. TURNER: Thanks. It's hard to 

follow Amy on that one. She raised a lot of really 

good points.

I've been really pained by this piece 

of work. And I just want to say, Asa, thank you 

for much for stewarding this and everything. This 

process has really been challenging, so I really 

appreciate it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I think for me, I've been really 

struggling with it because I'm, you know, there's 

this state of affairs that you're talking about, 

Asa, which is that we're using so many plastics 

we should be, we should be fundamentally aligned 

around getting plastics out of organics, 

fundamentally. That should be our pathway every, 

every day of the week, in every context.

And so, and yet I know this proposal 

doesn't do that. This is not going to do that. 

But I have to get, in the way I'm thinking about 

this, I have to be focused on forward motion,

forward movement. And I know these materials are 

going to have some value and some use. I know 

they're going to be used.

I know that there's a potential that 

if this middle ground can be achieved by producing 

this material, it's going to create some 

opportunities to move people away from PE, which 

to me is fundamentally the goal.

So, as much as I've struggled with this, 

and as much as I'd like to vote -- as much as I 

would like to take a harder line cant on this, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

feel like we've got to move forward on this. So, 

I'm leaning toward moving it forward.

MR. ELA: Now, Carolyn, and then Logan, 

and then Nate, and then Brian, and then Jerry. 

You've generated, you've generated thoughts, Asa.

Go ahead, Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: Okay. So, I appreciate 

everyone's thoughts on this. And so, I just have 

two short comments. And these comments come out 

of my training as an economist, which really looks 

at the behavior of people and farmers, because as 

we know, farmers are people.

So, my two questions that I don't think 

we have a good answer to is, like, there is no 

guarantee that farmers are going to switch from 

the current plastic that can be used to this 

product, unless that other product is delisted. 

And then that's a slippery slope. You know, we 

have no guarantees that that product will be 

delisted.

So, I mean, whether a farmer switches 

probably will have a lot to do with the price, the 

relative price of these two products.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So, like, well, the concept of having, 

like, a better plastic is appealing, but I'm not 

sure that it will actually do what people are hoping 

it does.

And then my other concern is, if this 

80 percent target, or 20 percent is put in on the 

list, like, what is the incentive for a 

manufacturer to actually try to go up to 100 percent 

or to basically eliminate all plastics out of 

there? And this doesn't even touch the soil.

I, like, I don't know enough to talk 

about the soil. But I do know enough to talk about, 

think about how businesses respond and how people 

respond. And I'm not sure that passing this will 

really move things forward as opposed to just, 

like, introduce another permanent source of 

plastic.

So, like, I'm, I'm leaning against 

this.

MR. BRADMAN: You know, I think the 

points you're raising are really important. And 

that's my concern. In terms of continuous 

improvement, I hope we can frame it. And if we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

don't get it quite in the cover letter, that the 

intent here is that, you know, if a 100 percent 

biobased film was created, that that would be 

required over, you know, over the 80 percent.

So, but, you know, keep in mind, though, 

like I said, the issues around 100 percent 

biobased, the material might have the same 

environmental and other concerns that the, you 

know, the 20 percent does. So, that's something 

I haven't really talked about, but I think that 

should be understood by people.

DR. DIMITRI: Yeah. If I could just 

make one small comment.

I don't think that there is a guarantee 

that someone will bother inventing a 100 percent 

one if there's an 80 percent one that is used in 

the market. That's all.

It's just it's an empirical question 

that we may actually never know the answer to 

unless, you know, you know, time might give us an 

answer.

` Thank you.

MR. BRADMAN: Hopefully, there'd be a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

market incentive, and there could be future 

decisions on the board, too, that would incentivize 

them.

MR. ELA: All right. We've got Logan, 

then Nate, then Brian. And then Jerry, and then 

Amy.

Go ahead, Logan.

MS. PETREY: Yeah. It's a good thing 

we do this after lunch.

Yeah. Okay, so, Carolyn, a potential 

answer for that is competitiveness, I think what 

Asa was pointing to. If one company produces a 

90 percent, and that is appeasing the farmers and 

they want that for their own farm because they don't 

like plastic, I think that we give them a 

competitive edge, so we rely on the competitive 

marketplace to get to the 100 percent.

Because just like we don't like 

plastics around, we don't like dealing with it. 

I grew up on a plastic farm. It does, it hangs 

around on rakes in the yard, and we didn't even 

put plastic in the yard.

And so, we don't like it, nor do the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

farmers that are using it either. So, you know, 

if they're wanting to get to a biodegradable mulch, 

then they want all the way. But it's not there 

now.

The company that I did speak to over 

the summer about this, they have a -- they're 

working on the 80, and they've also been playing 

around working with the 100. So, that they want 

it, too. And like I said, it's a competitive 

thing.

Also, with the mention of organic 

mulches, so, Amy, you're exactly right. People 

like to use those mulches; they're black. You 

can't get the -- you know, we see white in the fall 

season. But it's so hot, we don't want to 

overheat. Those black mulches do heat up the 

ground, you know, when you've got transplants in 

the ground, and you want that protection so people 

can get an edge on the spring market.

So, organic mulches actually, I think, 

kind of do the opposite of that. They don't heat 

the soil, they actually cool it. I would imagine 

they cool it because you're not getting that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

radiate -- you're not getting on that sun to warm 

the soil up.

At least when I speak to no till farmers 

around here, that is kind of a concern that when 

they print down their rye, or whatever, and drill 

into it, that they are kind of concerned with the 

soil temperatures being cold. But as far as 

plastic mulch, it is specific so that you can't 

just be a plastic mulch farmer and then go to an 

organic mulch. If you're going to swap them, 

you're going to need a pretty good substitute for 

that, which I think this 80 percent, you know, it 

has that potential.

And I think we just have to find that 

farmers want to get to that biodegradable and don't 

want the plastic around, just like we don't want 

the plastic around. I think that's what we kind 

of have to hang on.

No, there's no guarantee that farmers 

are going to swap to it, but it gives them an option 

to swap to it. Because the only way you would, 

like Carolyn said, is you would have to take plastic 

out of it. And with as many farms as we have on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

plastic mulch that really rely on it, like 

strawberries, and peppers, and squash, and 

watermelons, there's a lot of things that really 

rely on that plastic mulch or that type of farming. 

And so, doing anything that's really different, 

I don't think they're going to switch to.

But I think if you give them something 

that's similar and then rely on the marketplace 

to get to that 100.

So, I'm going to vote for it.

MR. ELA: All right. We have Nate, and 

then a long list after Nate. Nate and then Brian.

Nate, you're on mute.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Darn. Can't get 

away with it.

So, in looking at the idea that we're 

plowing in, you know, essentially 100 percent 

plastic every 5 years, if we're going to be really 

incorporating this, I want to ask Asa when we talked 

about toxicity to the microbiome, I understand that 

it's not necessarily found to be toxic to the

microbiome, but disruptive. And I think that's 

a question of, like, overall cycling of nutrients 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and the overall health of that active top layer 

of the soil.

If you have any more information, or 

any thoughts on what we're sort of seeing as far 

as soil health if we're plowing in this much 

material that may be too deep to biodegrade, and 

impact the soil in that sense, or be, you know, 

that remaining non-digestible 20 percent better.

MR. BRADMAN: A couple of things. I 

mean, 20 percent would still be digested.

But, I mean, I think that's a good 

question. I've done, you know, some 

back-of-the-envelope type places. I don't have 

them with me. The films are pretty lightweight. 

If you look at that in terms of, say, the mass 

of soil in the top 2 inches, it's a tiny amount 

carbon that's getting added.

So, I don't think seeing, like, that 

huge influx of nutrient or changing the, you know, 

the balance in that sense.

So, another way with it, too, I did some 

calculations a couple years ago, you know, thinking 

about, like, mineral oil. In the heaviest mineral 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

oil applications that I could find, at least on 

the California databases, weren't necessarily 

organic. It was just I was looking for, you know, 

massive mineral oil use per acre.

And then I had some information at that 

point on the weight of the films. The mineral oil 

applications are about one-twelfth of what might 

be the mass of the film, so about an order of 

magnitude difference. So, we're not, like, that 

far off. That was the highest mineral oil use. 

Which may have been on avocados. I'm not sure.

But, you know, we're not that far off 

what might be already being added already in terms 

of other petroleum products.

So, I, you know, I mean there's a lot 

of public comment. There's a long list of articles 

and summaries from the folks from Washington State. 

And, you know, my takeaway is that it probably 

won't disrupt soil microbiology, you know, 

relative to the impacts, say, of just tilling or 

something else which is, you know, of course a big 

impact.

So, I don't think the mass of carbon 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

from it is that large.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: All right. We have Brian, 

then Jerry, and then Amy, and then Sue.

So, go ahead, Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: Thanks, Steve. And 

thanks, Asa, for all this great work. It's really 

impressive.

I'm really, I'm really pleased that so 

many people are chiming in on this one. This is 

great to get everybody's perspective.

I just wanted to speak quickly to the 

whole question of whether if we approve this and 

the 80 percent is obtained, whether farmers will 

switch and use less polyethylene mulch. And I 

believe in the northeast the answer is yes.

I work for a cooperative extension. 

And I was Milton, New York's educational director 

about 20 years ago. And at that point there were 

quite a few growers who did not want to use 

polyethylene mulch. And because they couldn't use 

a biodegradable plastic film, BioTela was the brand 

that was available at that point, they left the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

organic certification. They left the organics 

scene.

And it was really a point of -- they 

were really upset about it because they wanted to 

support it in so many other ways. But that was 

a crucial aspect of their operation, and they 

weren't going to go for plastic.

So, that's one sort of subgroup.

But, also, I remember again a time, so 

my real experience with this is back about 20 years, 

but at that point we were saying our thought on 

extension here in New York State was that if the 

price of a biodegradable mulch was three times or 

less what polyethylene mulch was per acre, that 

people would switch to it. Because the costs of 

picking up and disposing of the polyethylene was 

really significant.

So, so anyways, I just wanted to throw 

those two thoughts into the mix.

MR. ELA: Great, Brian. Thanks for 

that perspective.

Jerry, and then Amy, and then Sue, and 

then Mindee.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. D'AMORE: This is a hard group to 

follow. And I'm not sure we got an answer to 

whether or not we'd be creating a 5-year sunset 

date with this annotation.

MR. ELA: Well, Jerry, if it were, it 

would reset.

MR. D'AMORE: It would reset. Okay.

MR. ELA: It would reset. So, go 

ahead.

MR. D'AMORE: So, I love this 

conversation. And, Asa, I am just in awe how you 

can present all of this and stay on sort of neutral 

ground. And I say sort of neutral ground because 

I read facial expressions pretty well, and I know 

you're not really on neutral ground all the time 

here.

And there's a lot I'd like to talk 

about. But I'd like to focus right now only on 

the annotation itself.

And that is are there unforeseen 

consequences of getting this through? Is there 

messaging that we're giving that might actually 

slow things down with this when we say the community 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

says, hey, you know, we're on the path? Because 

I don't think we're on a path at all.

I listened to you carefully, Asa, and 

part of your message is that at the end of all of 

this we may still have something and still be 

unacceptable.

So, my only question now is, is if we 

go ahead and get this language through have we sent 

a message that we may not want to send?

And if that was too ambiguous, I 

apologize.

MR. BRADMAN: Honestly, I'm not sure 

how to reply. Anyone else on the board have a 

reply?

MR. TURNER: Yeah, can you go further, 

Jerry, on that?

MR. D'AMORE: All I'm saying is that 

we've gone through all of this, and all of your 

testimonies, and what's come out at the end of this, 

as I hear it, is that we're working our tails off 

to get something done that may be an improvement. 

And if you want to correct me and say it will be 

an improvement, then I'll accept that, too. But, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

may be an improvement.

And I'm wondering with resetting that 

clock and the time, have we disincentivized the 

community to really look at the broader picture 

which, in my mind, again, is that we'll end up with 

something else that is -- we're going to be 

scratching our head about in 5 years and saying, 

you know, it didn't do what we wanted. We're still 

in the same quandary in terms of what's in the soil, 

and what gets blown away, and all that.

And if we leave this out and we're back 

to something that we all agree upon that is totally 

unacceptable, might we then send a message that 

it's actually the plastic we've got to get rid of 

in a stronger sense than we ought. Are we offering 

a crutch now to make people feel good about 

themselves?

MR. BRADMAN: I mean, I think the 

points you're raising are important. I mean, some 

of the ways that I think about that, one, you know, 

and the point was made earlier that if this is 

approved is it really going to -- is there going 

to be an overall increase in use of plastic, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

know, polyethylene plus biodegradable?

And, you know, and there is -- and 

that's not good. In my head I do think it as, 

hopefully, a replacement with a biodegradable; 

polyethylene films go to landfill. But that, that 

might be wrong.

And it's true that if we list this, too, 

there's no product out there. And some people feel 

like let's just get rid of it because there's no 

product. And that is another approach.

Although, back to those issues of 

degradability, impacts on soil and stuff like that, 

that would all hold true, and those concerns hold 

true whether it's 100 percent biobased or not. 

So, you know, historically the board did put it 

on the list of 100 percent. I don't know if they 

thought through, you know, that the 100 percent 

has all these same issues. Have an idea that 100 

percent is more benign. I don't know if that's 

true.

But, again, you know, my thinking, 

again, is I'd love to see less polyethylene films 

going to the landfill, say, in Monterey County.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And like I said, too, I'm not trying 

to convince anyone. You know, I think this is just 

an issue that we all have to kind of hold. And 

I know I hold both views in terms of this product.

MR. D'AMORE: Well, in two years I've 

been onto these, you know, look at paper. And I 

think we all deemed that paper was unacceptable. 

It's breakable. You walk through it and all that.

So, my real question is are we allowing 

with all of this hard work to ignore that there 

might be something totally different out there, 

and that's what we should be going for?

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah, that's a good 

point.

MR. ELA: And I want to, I'm going to 

jump in before Amy here. I want to ask the program, 

because my impression was the 100 percent was not 

exactly what the board passed. That was what the 

program came up with in the rulemaking process.

So, anyway, Devon, could you answer 

that? Because I think you were around when that 

happened. I don't know what the board felt.

MR. PATTILLO: Yes. In terms of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

research on it, yes, as I recall it was a little, 

it was a little vague what was intended by the board 

at the time. The board's recommendation made it 

clear that they wanted, they wanted the materials 

to be used, to be allowed.

And then through the, through the 

rulemaking process it was when, you know, they were 

interpreting that as being a 100 percent biobased 

requirement in the final rule, included that.

MR. ELA: Great. Thanks, Devon. 

Yes, that just tweaked a memory of maybe the board 

didn't exactly say 100 percent. They just wanted 

it used. Which I think in terms of thinking about 

board precedents, that might be important to this 

discussion.

So, go ahead, Amy. Sorry to jump in.

MR. D'AMORE: Let me just add one 

sentence.

MR. ELA: Uh-huh.

MR. D'AMORE: Again, for me what we're 

discussing right now is one of the topmost 

important, three most important things we're 

talking about as a group. And I just appreciate 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

all the conversation. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Jerry. Okay. Amy.

MS. BRUCH: Yeah. I just have another 

quick comment. I think no matter what our vote 

is today, plastic will probably be something we 

talk about in the years to come in one way or 

another. And this was really striking to me. I 

just wanted to share this with the full board.

That I recently actually had a call from 

an organic row crop farmer. And he was staying 

very close to this issue. Currently, you know, 

we put the box around these plastics that are being 

used in fruit and veg crops. There is cost 

analysis currently going on today just as can this 

be rolled out on a row crop scenario? And then 

we're going to be talking about massive amounts 

of acres.

So, it's just something to put, you 

know, in the back of our heads that this is an 

aspirational act. You know, what we vote on today 

won't necessarily be how it's applied tomorrow. 

So, just something to put in the back of our heads. 

Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Thanks, Amy. Real quick 

question on that. Would they roll that out with 

polyethylene mulch as well?

MS. BRUCH: You know, currently I don't 

see anybody doing that. It's just more 

conversational. But, you know, as our crop costs 

for crop care go up, and field prices go up, you 

know, there's just that analysis that that's 

happening. But, today I don't see it.

MR. ELA: Thanks.

MS. BRUCH: Uh-huh.

MR. ELA: Sorry to jump ahead of you 

there, Sue. So, Sue, then Mindee, then Kyla, and 

then Rick, and then Logan. It's definitely 

generated some thoughts.

MS. BAIRD: Just a comment. But here 

in my area, the Missouri/Arkansas/Oklahoma, 

basically because of the MLA influence stuff, we're 

not -- landfills are not taking plastic. And 

vegetable product is, if you've got any size at 

all, is being done on plastic. And so, you're 

seeing just piles and piles and piles of this 

plastic everywhere. And there's nothing for them 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to do with it.

That's just an observation. But there 

is a question -- I'm addressing Carolyn now -- is 

if we allow this and we put a commercial 

availability on it, what is the precedent, what, 

what would encourage them to go up to the 100 

percent or whatever? Would we use it?

And I appreciated Brian's answer. But 

I'm also thinking we do have a precedent in 606. 

We put products on 606 saying when it became 

available, is organic, you can source it. It's 

organic but it's not, you can use these products. 

But over time we're seeing a lot of those products 

or all those materials taken off of 606 because 

people have seen an economic reason for developing 

organic products.

So, we have seen over time, and it's 

been a long time, that products, materials are 

being taken off of 606. And I think we will see 

the same thing happen here.

But that's just my suggestion. It may 

not happen at all?

MR. ELA: Thanks, Sue.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Mindee, then Kyla, then Rick.

MS. JEFFREY: I run this one around in 

the analogy of retailing because that's where I 

live. And talking to consumers about plastic, we 

did an initiative about 15 years ago where we spent 

a year asking consumers to choose something other 

than a plastic delivery device. Say, you don't 

need a plastic bag to take a bell pepper home type 

of stuff.

And in that year we got at least a ton, 

more than a ton I think was the number -- it was 

a while ago, sorry -- of, you know, because 

consumers choosing not to use plastic to load a 

vehicle to get produce home, and stuff like that. 

And so, knowing that the consumer responds really 

clearly to the ethos of what we're trying to 

accomplish in climate change and, you know, 

honoring the ecosystem, like, I look at this 

classic issue more as just as, like, I'd rather 

choose to buy berries out of a cardboard container 

than, like, argue for another synthetic mulch in 

a way.

Like, I realize I'm, like, it's a big, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

long analogy there. But for me, because I'm a 

retailer and I talk to consumers a lot, and I know 

how, like, when you give them the tools to make 

a better choice, oftentimes they do.

And I think when they don't, it's not 

that I -- I don't think that organic is in love 

with plastic, I think that organic is born out of 

a response to chemical industrialization such that 

we are constantly trying to figure out how to move 

that needle in a society that might be trying to 

move the needle. And it's a really hard, it's a 

really hard conversation for me because I really 

feel the pain of what happened for farmers, and 

I feel the pain of seeing those piles of plastic.

But I think I have to go out farther 

and say, no, I'm going to hold myself accountable 

for more local berry choices from producers who 

are choosing a container I can take home and feel 

better about, and hope that that then translates 

into the farmer seeing that the consumer wants 

that, and that they can choose organic mulching 

when possible.

And so, for me, I can't vote for this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

annotation change almost from that emotional ethos 

of where we want to go than for any other reason. 

And so I feel almost apologetic about that, but 

it's really true for me.

So, thank you.

MR. ELA: Nice perspective, Mindee.

We're going to Kyla and then Rick. And 

before Wood, I'm going to throw in a comment. And 

then after, Wood. And then after me, Wood.

MS. SMITH: Yeah. I just felt like I 

was, like, fumbling around before about the 

platform. If I could speak about that.

So, at 205.206(c) it talks about any 

problems may be controlled through. And then one 

says mulching with fully biodegradable materials. 

And then six says plastic or other synthetic 

mulches, provided that they're removed at the end 

of the growing or harvest season.

So, I guess, again, this is a question 

in that if we, if this annotation passes, is that 

something that would just get worked out with the 

program during rulemaking on whether or not there 

would need to be a change to the practice standard?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: I can't really answer 

that. Steve, you're muted.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Asa. Yeah, I think 

that's a great question with the polyethylene mulch 

listing still on the national list, too, if there's 

question on interaction between these two, not sure 

how that would be handled.

But, go ahead, Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. I want to go 

back to our desire for continuous improvement. 

And in my thoughts, usually continuous improvement 

takes place in small steps. We don't usually go 

from one thing, to this giant leap to something 

new.

And I see this as part of continuous 

improvement. And reflect on the comment, don't 

let the perfect be the enemy of the good. So, I 

see it as a step forward.

I mean, obviously we're all concerned 

about this. But I do think it's a step forward. 

And I'm in favor of it, even though, like, I can 

see on Asa's face and everyone else, we're not happy 

about it. But I think it, I think it has potential 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to change some of the discussion.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Rick. I'm just 

going to jump in with my own comment. And Sue, 

and Asa, and I, and I can't remember, Rick, if you 

were on the board when we had a panel, informative 

panel of some of the researchers working on 

biobased mulch. But, you know, at that point, so 

that's 4 years ago probably, we were talking about 

this issue and really talking about the research, 

that the board was very much asking do these, do 

these actually degrade in the soil? And, you know, 

what are the effects on soil biota?

And at that point, if I remember -- and 

correct me -- the board kind of came down on, well, 

let's wait for, let's wait for some of the research 

results to come out in those studies. Of course, 

as things be, that those results came out and, you 

know, further studies were going to be done. I 

think some of them didn't get funded.

But, you know, more information is 

always useful, but I'm afraid we're going to get 

caught in that trap of always wanting more 

information and, unfortunately, needing to make 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a decision without it.

But, you know, at that point for me it 

was really -- and I still have the real question 

of whether these will actually biodegrade. I 

mean, in certain soils, absolutely yes. And in 

a lot of soils I'm going to say, hmm, not so sure.

And so, like Sue said about, you know, 

15 years still finding polyethylene in her soils, 

I'm struggling with the fact that I don't think 

-- I think we're going to keep finding those until 

I see research that says we're not. And I haven't 

seen that research. It's still inconclusive to 

me.

But I just wrestle with the fact that 

we are using polyethylene in organics. I know the 

reasons why we use a little bit on our farm. And 

I am trying to use my brain, you know, do we need 

to use it every year? Couldn't we use it every 

third year, you know, to stretch it out in terms 

of weed control. But I'm not proud that we use 

it.

And so I'm just totally conflicted, as 

I always have been, on this, on this topic because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I, I agree with you, Rick, that we should make 

incremental changes. And I also, at least if 

polyethylene mulch we require that it's taken up, 

and if a certifier goes by and sees plastic shards 

in the field, they have a reason to write a notice 

of noncompliance. And the biobased mulch there, 

they don't have that, that ability.

So, so I, you know, a small breeze could 

blow me on either side of this fence. So, Wood, 

go ahead.

MR. TURNER: This is painful stuff, 

obviously.

I just want to go back to something that 

Mindee said. I have mad respect for Mindee, so 

I don't want to just, I don't want to put a line 

in the sand between us. But I do want to talk 

about, I do want to talk about retailers, retail 

for a second.

Because we keep battling about whether 

this is something, whether we can -- whether this 

is the right thing for organic crop production, 

all this. We need innovation across the value 

chain, fundamentally. We're talking about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

organic on farms, and I'm talking about organic 

in stores.

Consumers need to tell, need to go --

they need to tell the stores where they buy their 

products that they don't want to buy things in 

polyethylene to carry. They don't want to buy 

things in poly bags. They don't want these things.

We need more innovation across the 

value chain. And if I, honestly, I'm at the point 

where I feel like if another consumer study tells 

me that the consumer doesn't want to take delivery 

of some berries in a cardboard box because they 

can't touch the berries, they can't see the 

berries, or doesn't want, doesn't want to get table 

grapes in cardboard because they can't touch the 

grapes, they can't see the breaks, I'm going to 

go crazy.

I mean, the idea that we've got to put 

film, film layers in between the cardboard so the 

consumers still have that visual, visual 

experience, I mean it gets deeply frustrating. 

And we're sending so many mixed messages across 

the value chain that I just, at a certain point, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

you know, we've got to, we've got to start 

innovating this. We've got to start thinking 

about the impact of plastics across the value 

chain.

So, I love what you're saying, and I 

love the point you're making, Mindee, on this but 

I, you know, honestly, I want to see more consumers 

say they don't want plastics at all, period. And 

then we're going to see innovation at every, at 

every turn.

So, I just wanted to make a heartfelt 

point that I just -- this, this to me is an imperfect 

innovation, and we need a lot of imperfect 

innovations to get where we need to go.

MS. JEFFREY: Yeah. Thank you, Wood. 

I don't, I didn't take offense to your point.

And I know really clearly that there 

are a huge number of independent natural food 

retailers, and natural coop grocers' associations, 

coops that do have these conversations with 

consumers on the ground.

MR. TURNER: Yeah.

MS. JEFFREY: And they do change the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

choices.

And I think you're seeing people up 

against what society requires of humans to make 

it through the world.

MR. TURNER: Yeah.

MS. JEFFREY: You know, up against 

their choice of can I, you know, do I buy 

convenience food or can I have the time to 

participate in whole foods? And that's where the 

tension is for me, because there is a lot of work 

going on in the retail landscape on this front.

MR. TURNER: Yeah. And we talked 

about -- sorry, Rick; sorry, Steve -- we talked 

about the breakdown of recycling markets. Sue 

mentioned some of that. I'm sure Rick knows this 

very well. The COVID experience over the last two 

years we have taken giant steps backwards in the 

continuous space on plastics. There's so many 

more plastics in the last two years than we had 

before that.

So, anyway, we just have to really get 

serious about this.

MR. GREENWOOD: So, Steve, you want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

call for a vote? Steve, you're muted.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Sue. You're rubbing 

off. Actually, you're not rubbing off, I'm trying 

to be respectful so you don't feel alone.

MS. BAIRD: You're so nice, but I 

really need Jerry following me because he's going 

to follow tradition. You can leave the same time 

I am.

MR. ELA: Well, I want to be a moderate 

here and try to bridge the gap. So we do have, 

I'm just going to point out to the board, we do 

have several choices here.

We can send this back to the 

subcommittee, which we have done many times before, 

as ISO well knows, or we can vote on the proposal 

for the annotation change.

So I am going to pause here and see what 

the feeling of the board is, if anybody would like 

to move it back to subcommittee or whether we should 

go ahead and proceed to the vote.

All right, I am hearing that we should 

go ahead and proceed to the vote. So I was really 

hoping to go back to subcommittee so I wouldn't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

have to wrestle with this.

So the proposal is that the crop 

subcommittee proposes the following annotation 

change for biodegradable biobased mulch film, and 

the change is to demonstrate at least 90 percent 

biodegradation, absolute or relative to 

microcrystalline cellulose in less than two years 

in soil according to one of the following test 

methods, ISO 1756 or ASTM D5988, and both are 

incorporated by reference in 205.3, and must be 

at least 80 percent biobased with content 

determined through ASTM D6866, incorporated by 

reference. 

And I think we did add commercial 

availability clause to that, when greater than 80 

percent biobased, biodegradable plastic films 

become commercially available, our users are 

required to use them given that they are of the 

appropriate quality, quantity, and form. And the 

program did rule that that is a non-substantive 

change, so it is included.

Okay, if we can go back to that other 

slide, the motion was made by Asa. It was seconded 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

by Brian, and we are going to start with --

MS. JEFFREY: Kyla.

MR. ELA: Kyla, thank you, Mindy. So, 

Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Lucky me, first one. I'm 

going to say yes.

MR. ELA: Okay.

MR. TURNER: Yes.

MR. ELA: Okay. Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MS. JEFFREY: Jerry, was that a yes, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes for Rick.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Not perfect, but yes.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: I'm going to express my 

gratitude for the work done on this and say no.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Same comment as Kim, 

but I'm going to say yes.

MR. ELA: The Chair is stepping out of 

the room. The Chair is going to say, oh, man, I'm 

sorry, I should know this before. The Chair is 

going to say yes.

MS. JEFFREY: Well, that's 10. We 

have 10 yeses and 4 noes and zero ARAs. Is that 

what you got, Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: So the motion passes.

MS. JEFFREY: Wow, motion passes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you, but I would 

also say good job. This is a hard issue, and I --

MS. JEFFREY: I really appreciate how 

you help us, all the sides. Thank you.

MR. GREENWOOD: Is that called a 

Pyrrhic victory?

MR. ELA: Oh, my goodness. And the 

Chair was counting votes and realized the Chair 

was the decisive vote at the end of that, which 

made it all that much harder.

So Rick and Asa, you have worked on this 

the whole time we've been on the board, and I don't 

know how much time you've put into it but it's been 

a lot.

Everybody else has recognized that, but 

I'm so glad it didn't have to be me and I'm so happy 

for really the countless hours you have put in.

I can't even imagine how much you've 

wrestled with it yourself, so thank you.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, back to me. So 

first of all, Steve, I know you wanted to send all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of these things back to committee so you could be 

gone while we actually did it, but I'm sorry it 

happened this way.

So actually, the next proposal is 

sodium nitrate, a petition, which is Steve, and

then we have the ammonia extract, whose petition 

is also Steve. 

So why don't you go ahead, Steve, and 

take both of these, unless you want to send them 

back to committee right now, and be done with it?

MR. ELA: And walk away. Yes, don't 

tempt me, although I'm sure a future committee 

member might not be happy with me.

So the proposals for sodium nitrate, 

and it is, we did ask for a work agenda item on 

this that was approved.

And the motion basically is to make a 

technical correction for the listing of sodium 

nitrate. 

It does appear on our national list with 

an annotation limiting its use, but the sunset 

review has been suspended.

It ran into the issue of, and the board 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

often talks about this, we talked about it today, 

of today we vote on the sunset and then if we want 

to make an annotation change, we do that 

separately.

In this case, the board voted 

simultaneously on a listing and an annotation 

change, and also at that point, the board had to 

relist things for them to stay on the list, whereas 

now we have a process where we have to delist them.

Basically, it left sodium nitrate in 

limbo where the program never took action on the 

board's request to prohibit sodium nitrate 

completely and to remove the annotation.

And as such, it technical should have 

sunsetted because it was never relisted as such, 

either as prohibited or with the 20 percent 

restriction.

As you saw in the public comments, 

there's some discussion of that, but in essence, 

for myself and reading the documents that basically 

left the program to take action until I think it 

was 2012, and if after that, and it was supposed 

to be resolved at that point and it never was.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So for me, the intent of this proposal, 

and it is something that since I've been on the 

board, nearly every meeting, if not all, 

stakeholders have requested for us to resolve this 

issue, I would prefer it to be resolved by the 

program acting on the previous board's 

recommendation.

But that has not happened, and so my 

pragmatic side says let's make this listing 

official again so there is no question there is 

at least a 20 percent restriction on the use of 

sodium nitrate.

Because at this point, I think somebody 

could easily make the case that they could use much 

more than 20 percent.

And while we've received a number of 

testimonies saying it's still being used under the 

20 percent, I have heard anecdotally there are 

areas where it might be used well above that, but 

I can't support that with data.

So that is very anecdotal, which I do 

want to stress. But at this point, it can be used 

however it wants to be used, and I'm not comfortable 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

with that.

So I am in favor of this motion to at 

least officially get it back on the list, get it 

into the sunset process so the board can talk about 

it without having to ask for a work agenda item, 

and then I would encourage further work.

Specifically, I would love to see a 

petition that readdresses the board's desire to 

prohibit this material.

And I think that goes into the general 

discussion of highly soluble materials.

So with that, I think I will open it 

up to any discussion, but I purposely did not go 

into or ask for this to be the referendum on the 

value or use of sodium nitrate, but really just 

a technical petition to get it listed and get it 

official recognized as a 20 percent restrict. So 

Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Yes, Steve. Thank you. 

I think it's important to get this back on the list 

and make it official, for sure. 

I just had a sidebar question. Chilean 

nitrate, I believe, is more of the non-synthetic. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

It's the salt recovered from the mine.

Sodium nitrate, though, I believe 

should be synthetic. Not that we work on that now, 

but, I mean, they're chemically one and the same. 

However, they are two different products.

So if this does come up as an agenda 

item, is there ever a way to parcel those two apart?

MR. ELA: That is a good question. I 

think, I mean, the Chilean nitrate is sodium 

nitrate.

And so in the past it's been referred 

to as Chilean nitrate, but more technically, it 

is sodium nitrate.

As you said, there are synthetic forms 

of sodium nitrate, and I think, please correct me, 

anybody, if I'm wrong, but the allowance for sodium 

nitrate has to be the synthetic form, because 

that's written into the rules, non-synthetic forms 

are allowed unless prohibited.

But the assumption is that they are not 

synthetic.

MS. BRUCH: Okay.

MR. ELA: Please, correct me, anybody, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

if I am stating that incorrectly. We have Logan.

MS. PETREY: Question, and hope this 

doesn't take too long. Why did the NOP not accept 

NOSB's recommendation?

MR. ELA: That, by my understanding, 

again, I wasn't there. This is where our 

stakeholders have a huge edge on the board in terms 

of their long-term perspective of people who have 

been watching board meetings for many, many years.

My understanding is that it did not go 

through rulemaking. We do not, as NOSB, do not 

and have no jurisdiction to rule over economic 

concerns. 

That is not part of our analysis. The 

program, on the other hand, has to take into account 

economic concerns.

It did not, my understanding is it did 

not go through rule making because, but 

understanding is he did no rule over because if 

the ethologic impact of taking sodium nitrate away 

because many people were actually using it.

And Kyla, I don't know if you know man 

more than year do? You've watched things longer 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and certainly if anybody from the program was to 

chime in, that would be fine.

DR. TUCKER: Yeah, I'm happy to chime 

in, because that is a question, a programmatic 

question of why didn't we do role-making. 

And I have, I think, in the past 

meetings, talked about the different criteria. 

The board has one set of criteria. When you get 

to rule making, it's another set of criteria. 

It was known born on a number that were 

using this substance, that change thing the rule 

was going to have a significant economic impact.

At the time, the administration decided 

not to move forward with that rule making because 

of that cost analysis.

It was going to be very carefully for 

farmers to change their practices because it was 

in wide use.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Jenny. Much 

appreciate that. Other questions, comments? I 

will say that for the most part, stakeholders were 

in favor of this motion, although certainly several 

brought up the president issue and to honor the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

previous board's wishes.

I guess I agree with that 100 percent, 

and then my pragmatic side says if we had gone for 

a motion to completely prohibit it again that it 

would have, or likely could have ended up in the 

same fate.

And I just felt like we should have some 

restriction on it without taking the chance of 

having no restriction on it again. Pragmatism 

versus philosophy there. 

Okay, anything else? You ready to go 

to the motion, Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, go ahead, Steve.

MR. ELA: Okay. There is a motion to 

reinstate the listing of sodium nitrate at 7 CFR 

205.602(g), prohibited non-synthetic sodium 

nitrate unless use is restricted to no more than 

20 percent of the crop's total nitrogen 

requirement.

Use of spirulina production is 

unrestricted until October 21, 2005. The motion 

was made by myself, Steve, and seconded by Brian. 

And we are going to start with Wood. Yes. So, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

MR. ELA: That was a yes, wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: Yes.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Logan?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: And Steve, the Chair votes 

yes.

MS. JEFFREY: Great, 14 yes, zero no, 

zero ARA, the motion passes.

MR. ELA: Okay. Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay, Steve. This is 

the one that I know you've been waiting for, the 

proposal for ammonia extract. So take it.

MR. ELA: I just have to say, I 

sympathize with Emily at her last board meeting 

having to read materials, and I have complete 

empathy for her position at this point. I did 

then, but even more so now.

So I just want to start off in kind of 

looking at this very difficult topic with just some 

observations on the process first, then really get 

into the comments and various things.

In humor, and also in, well, there are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a couple things that I just really am unhappy about 

in this process in terms of comments, but I'm going 

to say in humor that I am relieved that I won't 

have to submit this to a journal and have the 

editors reject it.

If it were submitted to a journal, I 

would have had to delete all the public comments 

out of it, and I think the public comments are 

really in so many ways the gist of it. So it did 

not go to a journal.

And also, we've already talked about 

the tenor of comments. I value the 

professionalism of this board and the knowledge 

base of the board, and I think that comments that 

address the issues rather than people really do 

help the board more.

I'm also, I'm just distressed, when 

despite the request at the start of our oral comment

webinars that consultants disclose who they are 

working for, that that hasn't always happened.

And this has been especially apparent 

in this round when a prominent scientist gave their 

written and oral testimony without noting that he 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

was a consultant for one of the ammonia extract 

companies.

And so while there are allegations of 

conflicts of interest in many different 

directions, I have to note there's also a conflict 

of interest in supposedly neutral parties.

And I think that does such a disservice 

to the board in making decisions on the facts and 

what is presented and knowing where people are 

coming from. And I just have to say that at the 

start because this has been such a controversial 

issue, I think. It is important that the board 

know where things are coming from.

I also want to address some of the 

comments about me engaging with stakeholders. And 

I will apologize for not catching the subcommittee 

notes, the statement that I was going to engage 

with stakeholders and the OTA Task Force.

That is incorrect. I meant to say I 

would engage with stakeholders and I knew that OTA 

had a task force.

So just for the record, I have never 

engaged with that task force. I do not know who 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

was on it or is on it. 

I don't even know if it's still present. 

So I just want to put that in the record that there 

was no bias toward OTA and their task force because 

there certainly was no contact there.

All right. With that, I'm going to 

call it the housekeeping, I am going to move on 

to a presentation of the proposal.

Obviously, you have all heard that it 

is not a slam dunk in any sense of the word, but 

I think it comes down to, I'm going to give kind 

of, summarize the comments into four main points. 

And I apologize for presenting in this

much longer fashion than on many other proposals, 

but I want to rebound some of the things that were 

presented.

So I want to talk about the stakeholders 

supposed to the manufacturing comments. I want 

to address some of the comments on recycling of 

the ammonia.

I want to address the definition issue 

and unintended consequences on other compounds, 

and then finally tie everything back into OFA and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

some of those criteria.

So just jumping into it, I think you 

can discern from the comments that were made, 

there's often a fairly clear distinction, there's 

not 100 percent either way, of long time organic 

stakeholders saying that this material should be 

prohibited because it does not comply with OFA 

criteria and does not meet the long-time acceptance 

of feeding the soil and not the plant and 

maintaining or improving soil organic matter.

And on the other side, there are many 

of the manufacturers of the materials that are 

arguing very strongly and deeply that this fits 

well into the OFA criteria and with a system of 

organic farming.

And so I think the board has to balance 

that, and I'm just going to put it very starkly, 

it's stakeholders versus manufacturers. 

They both make strong arguments. And 

I want to just say that for long-term stakeholder 

groups, NOC, OFA, OFARM, OTA, Montana Organic 

Association, Cornucopia, Beyond Pesticides, and 

The OrganicEye along with, we did, well, I'll just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

leave it at that.

They have all said they support the 

prohibition on ammonia extract. And I will say 

most of them, some of them support the final motion 

on three to one ratio, but many say send it back 

to subcommittee for more work.

Of the scientists, certainly there was 

a comment from University of California Davis and 

the Organic Center and then also comments by Dr. 

Jerry Hatfield that were on opposing sides of the 

fence, and I just want to recognize that. And in 

the written comments, they certainly go into more 

detail.

So that's the first thing in terms of 

kind of analyzing this issue is looking, and up 

to the board to decide what side of those comments 

you want to consider.

The next point is an unhulling of 

recycling. There's probably a better term, but 

it came up certainly in oral testimony of the 

capturing of ammonia that may be going into the 

atmosphere and the ammonia extracts, in addition 

to the capturing of ammonia from the material 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

itself there, keeping ammonia from out of the air.

And I think that is compelling in some 

ways and then also on the other side, I think we've 

noted that, like with the biochar in particular, 

but others, that organics do not have to be the 

old man recyclers, that when it fits in the organic 

program, yes, it is wonderful when we recycle some 

of these materials and capture them, but we don't 

have to do that. It's not necessarily part of the 

core organic program.

And I would also point to some of the 

other things where the board has made choices on 

this. For example, newspaper.

We do not allow colored papers or glossy 

papers be recycled into the soil as a mulch.

So while organics could be a part of 

that, we have made the statement that we are not 

always part of that.

As we said, biochar, there have been 

comments on that in the carbon dioxide petition 

that Logan is in charge of.

And in terms of energy use of what it 

takes to produce ammonia extracts, what it takes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to ship manures, all those things were made in 

public comments.

The next issue I think really came out 

strongly, and that is on definitions. Of course, 

these motions would come down to definitions, like 

we saw on paper pots.

I keep referring to paper pots because 

I as the lead on that and had to deal with those 

definitions.

And I mentioned a number of times, I 

think on some topics the definitions are very 

important for the board to almost hammer out very 

explicitly, and in paper pots, I think that was 

important.

But on other sides, we are not the rule 

makers and we are not the rule writers and we do 

not have the expertise to write rules.

And so, intent is also very important, 

for us to say what we want, make a good attempt 

at it, and then pass on to the actual rule makers, 

let them wordsmith things.

And so intent, I think, has a huge 

factor and not have the board just spend endless 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

time trying to specifically write a rule that may 

be rewritten.

So on the definitions, there were a 

number of comments that the definition we have 

before us, or definitions, I should say, it 

inadvertently includes other materials such as 

compost tea and feather meal and a number of other 

products.

Having been on this board for a long 

time, and Kyla I hope smiles at this, but the 

certifiers are not shy to let them, and the MROs 

are not shy to let us know when we have been 

ambiguous, and when it will put them in a difficult 

position to interpret.

That, I almost come to expect it on 

almost anything we put forward. And I value it 

because they are the ones that are on the frontlines 

and do have to make those decisions.

The board can do really well with our 

intents there. But if the certifiers and MROs 

can't understand it, it's going to be a difficult 

process.

And I'll point out that OMRI, ACA, PCO, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MOFGA, MOSA, OEFFA, all made comments that this 

definition is easily interpretable, that they had 

no question as to what its intent and how they would 

interpret it. 

And I think that to me it's, I just take 

that to heart, that that means we've done a pretty 

good job and these ascertains that these, the way 

that this is written would have the unintended 

consequences of these other materials. It doesn't 

necessary apply.

And I want to just read one definition 

that is commonly used in chemistry of what 

stripping is, because I think stripping was the 

definition that was pointed to as to having these 

unintended consequences.

And I think the common chemical 

definition of stripping really helps with the 

compost tea and the feather meal and the fish 

debate. 

But stripping is an activity that 

captures and refines vapor coming off on 

agricultural feedstock or other natural source. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

That type of vapor captured is not used 

in the production of manure tea, compost tea, fish 

fertilizers, because things aren't being 

vaporized.

And so I think when you're thinking 

about capturing vapor, that really makes a 

difference from making a compost tea where you're 

just using a feedstock and letting things leach 

into the materials.

You're adding water, not taking away 

in that extent. And certainly, in terms of fish 

fertilizers and feather meals, that also applies.

You're not taking a vapor and stripping 

it out, you're just making another material from 

it. 

So I just have to say I appreciate the 

thoughts on wording. I think that's always 

important, but people that are going to be 

interpreting this have all signed off and said, 

yes, this is a readily interpretable defection and 

they're in favor of it.

Finally, this really comes down to 

probably the gist of the matter and OFPA, in does 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

this fit within an organic system or not? We've 

certainly heard a number of comments on both sides 

of this, and I'm going to really, I think, it does 

come down to the gist of it.

So I'm just going to, from the proposal 

and comments, just read from a few things. 

Certainly not going to read the whole proposal, 

but I was going to, say, digest or strip this down, 

but maybe those are the wrong words. Synthesize 

where things come from.

So, one was a comment on human health 

and what these effects were. Not a lot of comments 

here on either side. The proposal does list here 

that ammonia is a pulmonary irritant and can cause 

bronchial issues. So there are possible effects 

on human health.

I did appreciate, I believe, the one 

farmer who did note that in trying ammonia extracts 

to see how they would do, that they could not be 

in the tractor for a couple hours after they had 

spilled some. And so certainly, from that 

perspective, it's not completely benign with human 

health. So I just wanted to make that note. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

But then, when we go down to the real 

effects on soil and off of, I think, one comment 

started off and it was in reference to the tenets 

of organic agriculture.

And prior (audio interference) 

reactions, so we're looking at precedent and what 

the intent was, it was noted that, in contrast to 

the reductionism of chemical-intensive 

agriculture, the origins of organic agriculture 

are in holistic and ecological thinking. And 

that, to me, forms the basis of how we analyze 

things.

And then, as listed in our regulations, 

that we are compelled to maintain and improve soil 

and organic matter and show how we are doing that.

So, in kind of going through that, one 

thing that came up in the discussion document, and 

also in this proposal, is that much of research 

that has been done has not been done on organic 

soils. And as we all know, that can lead to very 

different results than if they're done on 

conventional soils. So I just want to point that 

out.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

One study by Kramer and Reganold did 

find that leaching increased in conventional as 

compared to integrated and organic plots, that 

nitrogen increased, nitrogen leaching increased. 

Another study did note that the rate of 

mineralization increased when readily available 

fertilizers, such as ammonia, are added.

And you can make the argument that that 

rate of mineralization does release more 

nutrients, but you can also argue that if you 

increase the rate of mineralization, you are 

breaking down carbon compounds, and that, over a 

long period of time, you may be increasing the 

rapidity of mineralization of the system, but you 

are also mining carbon out of the system over a 

long period of time, and that you are decreasing 

the ability of the soil to provide nutrients down 

the road.

Another note that was noted in some of 

the research is that crop rotations that include 

legumes can be especially effective for soil 

health, and that we should encourage and enhance 

preventative techniques and use those materials 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

where nitrogen might be limited.

So it's a reference to, in general, the 

organic principles that you start with legumes, 

you start with crop rotations, and you really work 

through those materials to take care of nitrogen 

limitations.

There's also the dichotomy that I see 

personally, that I also see in the comments, that 

ammonia extracts have been noted to promote soil 

health, but then they also must be used in 

convention with other organic practices. And I 

struggle with, if they help soil health but then 

they also hurt it, it seems like I don't quite 

follow the rationale there.

It's also been noted that while some 

carbon -- or some ammonia extracts do include 

carbon, they don't actually work anywhere towards 

carbon sequestration, which we've been talking a 

lot about in terms of climate change.

A few other comments that were made. 

I believe these were -- one of them was in the 

discussion document, that there is some plant 

yellowing when these materials are applied, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that disappears in a couple weeks as the system 

responds and adjusts to that addition of ammonia. 

But, to me, plant yellowing upon application of 

a material is not an indication that it is 

necessarily beneficial to the system overall.

And then there was one comment which 

bothered me about the use in California with drip 

irrigation where, because water restrictions that 

covered crops were very difficult to use, and that 

does make me very concerned about the overuse of 

ammonia extracts in different forms of growing 

systems.

It was noted by Dr. Jerry Hatfield that 

we needed to use meta-analyses to really look at 

these things, and certainly my review of the 

literature there, there were more than one 

meta-analyses, and we often came up with somewhat 

different conclusions.

But, certainly, one that Dr. Jerry 

Hatfield did note, was that when you looked at the 

various factors of crop rotation, including of 

legumes in the rotation, along with organic inputs, 

were all a significant factors affecting the soil 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

microbial size and diversity. So, in a 

meta-analysis, the traditional organic inputs do 

increase to help microbial size and diversity.

And, coming back to the carbon 

sequestration, the production of these materials 

take carbon value out of the organic feedstock 

through filtration or other methods.

So, just a couple other things that 

people noted or the research noted, is if there 

are nutrient problems on a particular soil, 

avoiding solving them and bypassing the soil biota 

material should not be permitted.

And, finally, in the preamble to the 

publication of the NOP final rule, the NOP agreed 

with the NOSB and recommended to put limits on 

materials of high solubility. And that has come 

up several times, that there has been a distinction 

between, for example, sodium nitrate, calcium

chloride, some of these other materials, that there 

should be a very close look at materials of high 

solubility.

So, with that, the public comments were 

long and large. You all have had the chance to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

read them. We've had two discussion documents 

along with this proposal. It's obviously created 

a substantial amount of controversy.

 And, with that, I will open it up to 

questions, comments, et cetera. And I see Logan 

has raised her hand.

MS. PETREY: Hi, thank you, Steve. 

So, I was looking for the NOP handbook, going 

through a lot of those things. And, a farmer 

myself, so I have an OSP program, I use crop 

rotations, I use cover crops. But I was looking 

at Chapter 5, it was about soil fertility, and it 

says, you know, it just establishes healthy soil.

It says healthy soils is the foundation of 

organics. 

And I think we have this assumption that 

AE is unhealthy to soil. And, I mean, I don't think 

that's the case. I think that it's been compared 

to anhydrous ammonia in our discussions, and 

they're just two completely different products.

I mean, you have ammonia, this is a 

compound, but anhydrous ammonia, it can have a --

I want to say it's like an 80-0-0 product. It's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

very high. And we're talking about like the 

concentrated ammonia, for example, is a 6 percent 

liquid. So they're very different.

And plants need ammonia converted to 

nitrate to be able to use it. I mean, all of our 

organic sources of fertilizers turn into ammonia, 

and ammonium and nitrate. So they're not toxic 

to the soil. 

Yes, it is important that we use them 

appropriately, but they're not going to make the 

soils unhealthy, because that is what you get. When 

you apply a manure, you very well could apply a 

manure at a rate that has available ammonia in it 

at the same rate that you will be using this 

contracted ammonia product.

The Organic System Plan is there to make 

sure that growers are using the (audio 

interference) and using the cover crops and using 

tillage practices.

The holistic approach is supposed to 

be within the program. It's not supposed to be 

within a material itself. Each material is not 

going to necessarily have that holistic approach. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

When we're talking about the needs, you 

know, this is a new product. It's using (audio 

interference), and then NOP looked at the 

concentrated product, I guess it was the 6 percent, 

and deemed it okay. 

And it's not widely used. It is a very 

expensive product. But what is widely used is 

sodium nitrate, which, I mean, we just talked 

about. And even though the NOSB recommended it 

be taken off, it's being widely used, and it's 

widely used because its needed. There are growers 

that need this product. We're not all -- they're 

vegetable farmers that need to maintain that 

quality.

It's not all corn. It's not all cereal 

grains. It's not all peas. There's more, and 

there's more to our entire organic portfolio here 

in the country.

And it's in different areas, too. I 

mean, we're getting 55 inches of rain here. That's 

a little over an inch a week. And if you're talking 

about a crop, even a short crop, like a cilantro, 

a 50-day crop, I mean, you're talking about 7 weeks, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

7 or 8 weeks, if I put three plants down two weeks 

ahead, we're adding on the weeks, you're adding 

on the rain. That's a leaching event. 

So if you look at 00 it's called the 

four Rs, I guess the Stewardship Program for 

Nutrients, you have rights -- and I actually have 

them jotted so I don't get them messed up. You 

have right (audio interference), right time and 

right place. And I can't do that with Legume Cover 

Crops, Incorporated, in all three plant locations. 

We can't do that here in the Southeast and get

that done. We must have anhydrous applications 

or we will lose our available nitrogen. And so 

we can't use -- a lot of the other groups that have 

spoken about their program, we can't use those and 

get the job done here.

And that's actually even within the NOP 

handbook. I mean, it even states that growers are 

unique. Each farm is going to be unique based on 

the practices, based on the crops that they grow.

And so I mainly just want to hit home 

that it's not anhydrous ammonia. I mean, it is 

a different product. If you were to get the same 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

amount of anhydrous ammonia, if you were trying 

to get 100 pounds, then you would have to apply 

about 120, I guess, if it's 80 percent. And if 

you want to do that with the 6 percent material, 

you'd have to put, I think it was 1,600 pounds.

They're very different. And ammonia, 

when it is anhydrous, it has no water in it. It 

has a high affinity to water, which means when you 

add it into the soil, it's going to really strip 

away that water and pull it from membranes. 

That's why it may not -- I don't want 

to say that -- I don't want to say that that 6 

percent, that he might have been mistaken that it 

was that hot of a material, but it seems unlikely 

that something that's not that -- like that 

anhydrous ammonia product, would cause any of those 

issues, human health-wise.

But when you add that type of product 

into the soil, you are going to strip away water 

from those membranes and it's going to destroy 

things. It does, but when you add ammonia to the 

ground, it requires bacteria to convert it to 

nitrate. So it does feed the soil. I mean, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

they're present there to take care of that. 

But, again, it's under that 20 percent 

restriction if we pass that motion. And so, where 

Steve said he was worried about it being overused; 

it's not going to ben overused if we have that 20 

percent with that carbon-nitrate ratio, which I 

think it important. Just about every single 

comment that was pro-AE was pro to restriction 

rule. 

We don't want to rely on this. We use 

it for rescue treatments, just like sodium nitrate. 

And this could be substitute for sodium nitrate. 

We want to get that on and prohibit it because 

it's a non-renewable resource and we want that 

away. I think this is a recycled natural product 

and I think it's a good fit.

So I;d caution us from prohibiting 

something like this so soon, especially when it's 

already being used and we've all seen use of it 

already. I know it was lengthy, but thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Logan. Always 

appreciate your comments. I know we come down on 

opposite sides, but I think I've said it before, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I very much respect your thoughts and I never want 

to take that away.

MS. PETREY: No, thank you.

MR. ELA: You have good thoughts. So, 

Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I was thinking about 

your farewell speech yesterday, Steve, and in it 

talking about Borlaug and this well-intentioned 

but ultimately misguided idea that we can fix these 

really large problems like food insecurity with 

single inputs.

And we have spent the last 70, 80 years 

trying to say we can fix it with hybrid breeding, 

we can fix food insecurity with ammonia, we have 

fix it with the Haber-Bosch process. And what 

we've come down to is that we've failed. The Green 

Revolution has failed. There are still millions 

of people going hungry, as you well mentioned.

But what we have found is that organics 

in a system works. If we engage a system and really 

honor the system of soil building, feeding a 

natural ecosystem, and taking to task that idea 

that organics can't feed the world.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I really love that myth, because 

organics is going to be the only thing that feeds 

the world. It's the only thing that will create 

a resilient system that doesn't rely on 

processing-intensive inputs that ultimately make 

the soil, make the system, hungry for inputs rather 

than able to generate their own nutrition.

I have more to say, but I'm going to 

get back in the queue.

MR. ELA: At some point I'll interject 

myself, as well, but as Chair, I also want to be 

respectful of not interjecting myself all the time. 

And so, Kim, you have a comment.

MS. HUSEMAN: Thank you, Steve. I'm 

going to start by saying I don't know exactly how 

I'm going to vote on this. I've gone through it 

with several individuals and tried to figure out 

where I stand. I wish I could say that by 

prohibiting ammonia extracts it's going to create 

every U.S. farmer to plant soybeans so we can quit 

being dependent on global soybeans and reduce this 

$35 per bushel soybean or $35 per bushel soybean 

prices, but it's not.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I think that Logan really hits a chord 

to say you cannot grow any product that you want 

to in any inch of the soil in the U.S.

So what works in the south may not work 

across the Midwest, which may not work in 

California or in Colorado.

Being mindful that in certain areas, 

there's a need more so than in others, leans me 

in one direction versus another. 

But then I go back to another chord, 

which is fraud. And if someone can answer to me 

how we can unequivocally understand and identify 

when and when not there's fraudulent activity, that 

would definitely swing my decision. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Kim. Very much 

appreciated. And Logan again, then Amy, and then 

Nate, and then Sue.

MS. PETREY: Thank you. And I do want 

to state -- I don't know if I said it again --

because you use a water-soluble nitrogen does not 

mean that you don't build up the soil with other 

things. And testimony to that is we do use water 

soluble with sodium nitrate on things when we need 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

it, but we still are building our soils.

And an example of that is that we grow 

carrots here. We don't have a nematode issue, and 

it is a phenomenon to all the growers around here. 

We cannot believe these conventional farmers. 

They have to use toluene at a very high rate.

The reason we don't have to use any 

nematicide here, and have had no incidence of it, 

is because we have such an incredible microbiology 

going on in the soil, even though I have to use, 

at times, sodium nitrate to get some of the -- to 

not dis crops because the leaf looks pale, because 

the consumer demands almost perfection from our 

crops.

I mean, but to that, Kim, as far as the 

fraud, it was sudden in some of those comments but 

also when we were talking about subcommittee, I 

mean, to my knowledge they said they would be able 

to detect it.

They would be able to decipher what that 

is, I guess, based on the isotopes. But we can't 

-- I mean, I just don't think we can prohibit 

something based on we think that people are going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to cheat. People are going to commit fraud and 

prohibiting something based on that -- I really 

appreciate your support on the other side, and I 

hope that we don't lose this base because we can't 

prove that fraud's not going to happen, because 

fraud's always going to happen. And I hope that 

we always catch it. There's people who are going 

to commit fraud. There's no stopping them from 

ordering conventional fertilizer when nobody's 

looking and putting it on.

And so now I know that the fraudulent 

concerns are probably more so on the manufacturers. 

But as far as that, it is hard preventing something 

or prohibiting something based on that concern.

I think it's something that we do 

monitor and we are aware of it, but if we do have

the restriction, like the 6 percent liquid rule 

and it's undergoing manufacturing, it has to be 

overlooked, I think that that will help.

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve, you're on mute.

MR. ELA: Okay, we're just going to be 

that way. So we're going to go to Amy and Nate 

and Sue, and I'm going to interject myself, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

then Kyla.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Well, Steve, thank 

you so much for how you're addressing this. It's 

very balanced.

I appreciate you conveying both sides 

of the equation. I think that's important for the 

stakeholder community.

A couple things that come to mind here, 

I think you made a good point earlier and I 

anticipate a conversation about just having those 

integrated systems and focus on the overall ecology 

of the system.

And I think that rings true here, as 

well, and across all of our products that we're 

analyzing.

To me, a lot of this comes down to root 

cause analysis. What is the learning factor 

that's preventing people from hitting their 

production goals? There were several comments, 

written comments, that doesn't necessarily look 

at getting after the root cause. We're using 

nitrogen sometimes as a substitute. There was a 

couple comments on Nebraska and you can't grow a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

certain yield without ammonia extract. There were 

two, actually. 

And I can say, the one thing that they 

were missing was that crop rotation credit. They 

were accounting for manure, they were accounting 

for cover crop, but they didn't have that total 

integrated system of an actual complementary

rotational crop. That was missing in both 

instances.

Another thing was on climate 

challenges. I've had the opportunity fortunately 

to farm in a few different areas, and it is truly 

root cause analysis. What's preventing you from 

hitting your yield?

And there's some comments on wet soil, 

cold soil, and I already had my nitrogen out there. 

Well, adding more nitrogen is probably not the 

solution because you already had the right amount 

in there anyway and your weather changed.

So you need to look at what's preventing 

the yield that's not necessarily adding more 

nitrogen sometimes. 

So I think this product could be maybe 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

misused and the total analysis of finding the root 

cause might not be done.

Logan, I have to have a couple questions 

for you, because I most recently, my last place 

I farmed outside of Nebraska was Florida. And it 

was south of you.

I was there for four years. And you 

made some comments about rainfall there. And I 

know from our experience, we found two rotations, 

but we did that on both sides of the hurricane zone.

So we were before, we got our crops out 

before May and then we planted in September again, 

so we were kind of in that fine fold cropping during 

that purgatory period.

And that's where most of the rainfall 

hits. It's not necessarily dispersed one inch per 

week.

So I was going to ask, like, your crop 

rotations, how many of them fall in that hurricane 

time period?

MS. PETREY: So we grow 12 months of 

the year. We are growing all the time. And that 

is also because we rotate with, for example, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

grow sweet potatoes and peanuts and the summer 

months with the most rain. Those are actually our 

low nitrogen crops.

So we do rotate with some low nitrogen 

crops, and their growing season, I can't change 

those.

They are in the summer. And some of 

these are long crops. You'll have crops that are 

150-day crops. And so they are taking up 

significant amount of the year.

And then also the prep, it can be a 

monster fire to that. And so we do grow, we are 

harvesting 12 months of the year.

We are planting about 10 months of the 

year, and so growing all of it. Carrots will grow 

through the winter on that.

Some winters are relatively dry and 

then some can be very wet. I mean, it is, there 

is no, as far as the hurricane season, May is 

typically very dry.

We can bank on that, but it's also very 

hot and it's very hard to grow in that May and June 

window, unless you've got something that salvaged.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Under the carrot crop, like I said, it 

could be 120 days to 150 days depending on when 

you plant because the days get shorter in the 

winter. 

And then you have other crops that are 

shorter. We tried to, I'd love to be able to grow 

a lot of green beans.

That's the easiest crop. I mean, one 

of them. It's 60 days and I don't have to put any 

nitrogen on them. I mean, man, it's great, but 

I can't.

And then we have vegetables. We have 

a spring season and a fall season. It's dependent 

on the temperature and the pest pressure.

So we have other things to work with 

because it is a holistic system. So we've got 

those other things that are important to the 

growing of it. We can't plant and avoid leaching 

events. 

No, you are correct. We do not get that 

much rain per week, right. So we'll have, we'll 

have like, we've had two weeks now with no rain.

But then that usually builds up to get 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to be about a two-and-a-half-inch rain because of 

all the heat. I mean, that happens especially in 

the late spring.

And it's dealing, even though we enjoy 

it, and we're like, just get ready, guys, get ready. 

Start over right when we get out there.

And the leaching, it doesn't matter how 

much I put out ahead, I get that leaching event, 

nitrogen is gone.

So the root cause of that fall, like 

you were talking about, is the absence of nitrogen 

because it has leached.

Now, there are parts in Florida that 

have a mock soil, and so they don't really have 

those problems as strong as the sandier soils that 

are kind of up, not necessarily the Panhandle but 

up in the northern part of Florida, and in the 

southern part and parts of Georgia and parts along 

the coast of Carolina and stuff like that.

And so in that leaching event, nitrogen 

is gone. And so it is a nitrogen problem that we 

can't immediately fix with that limited use. 

And we'll still make an application of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the slow release fertilizer. It's just the issue 

is it's not going to be available for at least a 

week, temperature dependent, if it's even the right 

temperature to do that.

But our weather is not consistent 

enough from year to year. It is consistent enough 

in the year to get 55 inches, 60 inches or rain.

It's not consistent enough by the month 

to be able to say, well, I'm not going to plant 

in the second week of September because I'm going 

to get this much rain.

Hurricane season, we had Hurricane 

Michael come through, what, three years ago, four 

years ago, and it was in late October. So it rained 

inches and inches of rain.

So again, it's not predictable enough 

for us to change our farming practices to that.

MS. BRUCH: Sure. No, I just wanted 

to ask a little more clarification on your rain 

comment. Okay, I'm just going to pass it to, I 

think Nate's next.

MS. HUSEMAN: Amy, can I ask you a 

question in that same realm?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MS. HUSEMAN: Sorry to interject, 

Nate. Is your farm in Nebraska? Are you guys 

under irrigation or are you dry land?

MS. BRUCH: We're irrigation, but 

we're east central Nebraska, so we get very similar 

rainfall in our rain.

I guess in our cropping season we're 

getting about seven to 32 inches of rain a year. 

So it's just supplemental irrigation versus out 

west where you're crop dependent on irrigation.

During our season, we get a fair amount 

of rain.

MS. HUSEMAN: Thank you.

MS. BRUCH: And like Logan, (audio 

interference).

MS. HUSEMAN: Sorry, Nate, I'm not 

trying to hijack this. I think it's interesting 

to see the, we're (audio interference).

MR. POWELL-PALM: We aren't trained to 

go in and take those samples. If they were going 

to take those samples, we don't have a test to do 

it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So we're really bound by not having a 

good way to prevent fraud in this fertilizer. It 

opens the gates to seeing rampant fraud across the 

board.

So one thing I wanted to also touch on, 

Kim, that you had mentioned, is how do we get 

farmers to grow soybeans and not have soybeans 

hover at $35 a bushel?

And I'm going to say, because of crop 

rotation, that's how we get farmers to grow. If 

you're able to get 300 bushels of corn because 

you're pounding it with AE and you're able to not 

need to realize a good crop rotation in order to 

have good yields, there's going to be no incentive 

to grow legumes. 

You're going to have no incentive. 

You're just going to grow those high yielding, high 

dollar nitrogen feeders.

If I may just real quick, though, Logan, 

could you speak real quick to, and I know you, I 

think you have said this, but do you grow anything 

on your farm that's a nitrogen fixer?

MS. PETREY: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. POWELL-PALM: And how many pounds 

of nitrogen do you fix with those nitrogen fixers? 

What part of the credit do they make up?

MS. PETREY: All right, and I want to 

comment on soybeans, I think three years, and it 

almost ends up in a crop failure because of the 

pest pressures that we get in the fall.

They are so significant and -- or I say 

in the fall; it's actually in the late summer. 

We get stink bug issues that sting the pods. I 

mean, and defoliators, we get a lot of issues with 

soybeans.

So there's not much growing during that 

time, during that July period, August period. And 

I've had crop failure. I mean, just absolute. 

It was very bad.

Okay, so other pictures. So we're 

looking at growing peanuts. We grew some this 

year. And then we also have the cover crops. Some 

hemp, we use it. That's our main summer cover 

crop. And I've got it all out here. It's 

beautiful golden flowers that I see all fall.

And then we have -- we use yeast as also 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a rotation and then we grew green beans and we do 

edamame. And so those are the three crops that 

we have for production: peanuts, edamame, soybean, 

edible soybean, and green beans.

MR. POWELL-PALM: And so when you said 

you get a lot of rain and there's a lot of leaching, 

it seems like AE would be a really prime candidate 

to experience significantly, in a much more 

volatile form than, say, processed manure.

MS. PETREY: Sure. Well, okay, go 

ahead.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. POWELL-PALM: Saving our 

waterways, saving, I mean, it seems like we've --

in regenerative agriculture, which is this 

Bioblast of terms and everything, but the idea of 

regenerative, as I understand it, folks are 

recognizing that organics is the golden standard.

And in that recognition, they're saying we should 

start limiting as much as we can our ammonia use. 

Let's figure out how to cut our ammonia use.

So I'm really stuck on why as organic 

being the gold standard we would go in the opposite 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

direction using a material that could respectively 

contaminate waterways, leach out, is very volatile 

compared to our manures, and also is recognized, 

I mean, it's, to your acknowledged point, it's not 

anhydrous, but it's recognized as being, ammonia 

is damaging to soil.

It causes microbial blooms, yes. 

That's how they feed in the soil. Because once 

that microbial bloom is over, it's over.

It needs another dose of ammonia to go 

again. And so it's not systemic and it's not 

sustaining.

MS. PETREY: Not using AE solely, it 

is only a part of the program, and it is actually 

used whenever the nitrogen, the ammonia that has 

been broken down from the organic sources like the 

manures, has become that product, and it is 

leached, too.

And so it's when it leaches from, those 

organic fertilizers leach, then I use AE and 

there's a supplement, or I would use it, to 

supplement, just like the sodium nitrate.

I don't go out and throw sodium nitrate 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

out as a pre-plant. It is strictly there to help 

mitigate quality losses due to nitrogen losses from 

a leaching rain.

But, I mean, we are using those other 

fertilizers. It's not one or the other. It's a 

blend. It's part of the organic system plan.

And so it's not moving backwards. It's 

preventing that loss. And I mean, we will 

continue, and I don't even, when I write programs 

for the season, I don't even put those types, those 

high soluble or the ready available nitrogens in 

there.

I use, or I have the compost, I have 

bloodmeal, feathermeal, bonemeal, and pasteurized 

chicken liver, those are part of the program. And 

when we run into those unpredictable events, then 

we use those sources.

And that's what I'm asking for. I'm 

asking for, and growers like me, asking for that 

material to (audio interference) sodium nitrate 

use, which is obviously needed.

If the NOP could not follow through with 

it because of the economic issue, it's obviously 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

being used, being needed. 

I don't like using it. I wish I could 

just use organic for us, because I don't put it 

on anyway.

MR. ELA: I want to be very fair here, 

but I also, and to the board, I don't want to make 

this a referendum of, this is against Logan.

MS. BRUCH: Yes, I don't mean to make 

that at all.

MS. PETREY: That's great. I 

appreciate the dialogue because I've been wanting 

the answers to the questions they've been asking 

of the farmers, so I don't think they're attacking 

me.

I do think that it is important they 

ask these, because I've been wanting to answer some 

of those questions.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. ELA: I just want to keep also the 

discussion on not just your program but --

MS. PETREY: On the material and not 

just Logan's farming practices, got it.

MR. ELA: And I also want to give all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the board members a chance to talk here because 

I think that's important, too.

So I don't mean to cut you off, Logan. 

I just want to make sure we get to everybody. 

So Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Hi. This is interesting 

material, and I've flipped back and forth and back 

and forth on the thing.

I've been an organic inspector, Nate, 

since 2000, so that's 21 years. So you've been 

inspector for 12 years.

We were taught when I went to IOIA to 

calculate 20 percent nitrogen, or sodium nitrate, 

based on the crop needs, and based on mass balances, 

and based on invoices that documented what controls 

were bought.

I think it's very, you don't catch fraud 

every time. You never will. Fraud happens, but 

it's very doable to be able to do these 

calculations.

We've done it in the past and we will 

do it again. One of the points that I would like 

to say is that some of these materials, according 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to OMRI, are already in production. 

Probably are sure mixed with other 

products. But they're already there. We're 

already using them. So there's that.

I'm torn because my first understanding 

was that this was going to be used as a total soil 

production product, and not at all.

This is intended to be, from what I'm 

hearing, to be just a supplement source of nitrogen 

on an as-needed basis, just as farmers use sodium 

nitrate, as Chilean nitrate, could sodium nitrate 

be used fraudulently? Absolutely, because there 

are synthetic forms out there.

And some people don't even realize 

that, so they may be using Chilean synthetic sodium 

nitrate instead of the Chilean nitrate, which is 

natural.

I don't know. I know that 

pragmatically, I do a lot of inspections in Salinas 

Valley, Florida, I do inspections in Florida, I 

do inspections in Arizona, a lot of those leafy 

green areas, and they use sodium nitrate. It's 

as simple as that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Do the people who are consumers 

understand that? Maybe not. They see the word 

organic and they think it's all done by crop 

rotation, you're putting alfalfa or you're putting 

in clover or you're putting in all of these things 

in between. 

They're using crop rotation but it's 

not what we consider to be, we being in the Midwest, 

as putting in those legumes. They're using other 

rotational plants.

I personally, for many, many years, I 

hate the idea we're destroying bats' natural 

habitats down in Chile and we're pulling out their 

bat poop and we put it on because it's such a great 

source.

I would like to find another 

sustainable, local, domestic source for those 

farmers that I'm not one of. 

I think we could find a source of 

nitrogen for when it's needed to add that extra 

oomph to those plants, because you're right, I 

don't want to go to the grocery store and see yellow 

leafy greens. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I just don't. I like seeing those 

wide, green little leafy greens that I inspect from 

California and from Arizona, Uma Valley or wherever 

those inspections are.

And I'm told that doesn't happen 

without an additional injection of some nitrogen. 

Now in my part of the world, we grow, if you're 

a crop grower, you're growing soybean, corn, wheat, 

clover, sometimes two years of soybeans, corn, and 

even though they're rotating into red clovers or 

alfalfa, they still never meet the demand for 

nitrogen in my part of the world.

So in my part of the world, a lot of 

farmers are flying on the higher plains and they 

fly on liquid fish, and that's their source for 

additional nitrogen.

And it's harvested from Manhattan Fish 

or wherever, out of the oceans. And is that

sustainable? I don't know. They say not.

But if I could get that from a local 

manure hearing that needs to be gotten rid of 

anyway, because in my part of the world, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma, has sued Southwest Missouri, Northwest 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Arkansas, because of all the poultry litter that's 

getting into their water stream, including the 

water. 

If we could get rid of a little bit more, 

big producers in Southwest Missouri would be happy. 

Now, is that supporting tables? Maybe, but 

tables are there.

Just, I don't know, just the way, time 

to put all this to mind.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Just real quick, 

Sue, to the, I actually went in addressing audits. 

To your point, we're trying to do the mass 

balances. 

That's not where fraud exists. It 

exists in the source of ammonia on the farm. If 

there's suddenly ammonia on the farm in the form 

of AE, we don't know, we have no way to show, is 

it from AE? 

Is it actually from the legitimate AE 

process? Or is it just anhydrous mixed with 

composting or mixed with manure. There's no way 

to know that.

MR. ELA: I want to move on to --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: CDFA says there is testing 

for that, and that's all I know, that they said 

they can determine it.

MR. ELA: Okay, I would like to jump 

in with my own comments. I have my own thoughts

and I try to be respectful of everybody else's, 

but I do want to have the floor a little bit.

I guess in all this, and Sue, to your 

point right there, CDFA says they can and OMRI says 

they can't. So it's a mixed bag there and I worry 

about international use as well and fraud.

I guess to Logan's point, and I really 

don't want this to be about Logan versus everybody 

else, and I want to keep it on a higher end, and 

I think we had several specialty crop growers, 

Jacob's Farm, Taylor, some others, I believe, who 

said they don't need this.

And I guess, I look at that, there's 

some great farmers out there that don't need it 

as well. But I think coming back off it, for me, 

it's maintain or increasing soil organic matter.

That is what the regulations read. And 

so how can, do these materials help us maintain 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

or improve soil organic matter? I don't see it 

personally.

On my own farm, I would love to have 

something that would push things in the spring on 

the treatment, because they're high nitrogen use, 

but we haven't because I've really tried to work 

with cover crops and make sure that we go with more 

the cell route.

So I still come back to maintaining or 

increasing soil organic matter as the base. And 

Sue, to your point that there's some products out 

there, one of the problems we have on the NOSB is 

that we're reactive, not proactive, and that's one 

of the reasons I wrote the last motion with the 

three to one soil ratio is to try and help put us 

in front so that products don't get on the market 

and then we're trying to pull them back, and that's 

the case with sodium nitrate as well. 

It's so heavily used that the economic 

impact that prohibits it is very difficult to 

cover.

So to me, this discussion on ammonia 

extracts is let's get ahead of them before they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

become widely used and don't have that economic 

impact.

But I guess, I just, I think it comes 

down in my thoughts to, in terms of feeding soil 

health and biota, it comes down to protein and amino 

acids versus plant-available nutrients.

And anything that's a protein and amino 

acid has to go through the soil biota to become 

available. 

And Logan's exactly right, plants use 

ammonia and nitrate. But to get there, it's not 

just a simple mineralization process of ammonia 

to nitrate.

It's a feeding of the soil with carbon 

and then a breakdown into mineralization and 

proteins at their bases make it happen.

And so I just feel very strongly about 

that. And to me, that's how we do approach the 

soil organic matter issue.

I know there were some comments that 

were suppressing these novel, innovative ideas. 

I would rather see novel, innovative ideas of how 

we deal with these issues in cover crops. What 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

kind of cover crops can we use that are more readily

available?

How can we approach these through the 

uses of amino acids and proteins? And so I think 

organic is extremely novel.

I know how we've, on our own farm, what 

we've done is very innovative and novel. So I just 

want to see that go to a different direction than 

something that immediately substitutes for what 

eventually are conventional materials.

So I just, I guess I want to keep it 

not just Logan and ammonia extracts, but I think 

there's so much of a bigger issue beyond just Logan 

and so many other farms and stakeholders feel that 

this is a real important topic.

And yes, it may hurt Logan, but we're 

talking about all of organics here and not just 

one farm. And I want to keep that in perspective.

And Logan, I never want to hurt you,

I'd never want to tie your hands and I never want 

to hurt you, but I do want us to see the big picture 

of organics move forward and such. So I'll move 

on to Kyla.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SMITH: Thanks, Steve. Yes, I'm 

really enjoying this discussion and everybody's 

point of view and the professionalism. So I really 

appreciate that.

So one of the big things again from a 

certifier perspective that Steve already brought 

up was around the definitions and making sure that 

we felt those were enforceable.

And that was consistent within the 

public comment. And then in written public 

comment, and then there was some things that came 

up in oral public comment.

And so I just, in looking back through 

the document and stuff, I just, the intent is really 

important and I'm confident that this subcommittee 

has consistently described and carried the thread 

through in how they've been talking about these 

different definitions.

And so I feel very confident that 

because of that and because of the confirmation 

in the written comments by certifiers that the 

definitions are sound.

The second thing that I've been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

thinking about during this conversation is 

especially with the stripped ammonia process is 

new, right, we're talking about new and novel here, 

and so at least from my understanding, that these 

products that are in the marketplace now are new, 

even only like two years old. 

And so there's been a lot of years of 

production, not having these products. And so I'm 

not a farmer myself but I'm just like, we got this 

far not having these available to us, and so the 

necessity part is something I'm grappling with.

Like, now why do we need these products 

when we've not had them for lots of years? And 

one last thing --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. SMITH: Again, with the 

inconsistent comments from the wider stakeholder 

community, farmers saying, I don't need it, anyway, 

so --

MS. PETREY: I can answer that 

directly. It's not that, you're right, it is new 

and a lot of growers are not using it.

I haven't even used it. It's not the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

need of AE, it's the need of water soluble nitrogen 

for those things, and it's obviously needed because 

of the sodium nitrate issue that we've had with 

NOP.

To me, that shows the need, and this 

is another option for that, and it could phase out 

sodium nitrate because we're going to use a natural 

recycled product for that.

MR. ELA: Let's see. Nate, I'm going 

to jump over you just so Mindee has a chance to 

say something.

She hasn't had a chance yet. And I do 

want to do a time check on this. It's a great topic 

but we don't have infinite time. So, Mindee, go 

ahead.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you. I can't 

express my respect for the conversation, enough 

respect for the conversation that's going on, and 

I really appreciate everyone on all sides of this 

conversation.

And I think for me, the battle for 

understanding of how we can best impact soil in 

the nation is where I go, and that organic is having 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to work harder than it should have to work to 

convince people that we are the soil health system 

of agriculture across the most widest scale of this 

country.

And so that's where I hear all the sides 

and I am compelled by how the material review folks 

have gone about looking at this natural substance 

and the allowance and the limitations of the 

farmers and hearing that the definitions are 

functional, I have to go with that.

The work that organic needs to do to 

help people understand that we are a soil health 

emphasis system of agriculture succeeding at the 

widest scale with the best levels of transparency 

and enforcement, and I don't want to take a hit 

on that from a perception perspective.

And so for me, I'm really for those 

first two and open to hearing about the third 

motion, but that's where it comes down to for me. 

As painful as it is to disagree with the side I 

disagree with, that's where it lands for me.

MR. ELA: All right. I had another 

comment, but Nate, why don't you give a quick one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and then I think we'll try and move on.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes, I just wanted 

to think back a little earlier today on the 

kasugamycin vote.

You said that material itself would be 

super helpful to you, but we're going to put the 

standards over our own personal needs.

And I think that's what this really 

comes down to, is in the face at competing at 

labels, like regenerative, how do we keep organic 

the gold standard, as opposed to cede that ground 

to folks who want to differentiate and split the 

community.

And I think this is a clear example of 

how, with a strong voice, we can say organics is 

the gold standard for soil health and soil first.

MS. PETREY: And, I mean, Steve is 

doing that based on an antibiotic and the human 

health potentials for not using, for 

pharmaceutical issues. I don't like saying that 

I'm putting my --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. PETREY: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: So I have one very quick last 

comment and then I think we should move on. And 

the only comment really at this point, and I know 

there's so many variations and things, I just 

ultimately look at the public comments and it's 

the stakeholders that have been around for a long 

time, pretty universally saying, no, we don't want 

this, and it's the manufacturers who are making 

these, saying, yes, we want this.

And so, I guess just like on so many 

other materials that maybe I would like to see in 

my toolbox, I really appreciate the stakeholders' 

opinions.

And they've been in this thing so long 

and they don't have a vested monetary interest in 

it, quite honestly. They didn't even go opposite 

that.

That's a big deal for me. If I had 

stakeholders coming out and saying, yes, these are 

really valuable, I would probably have a very 

different opinion.

So with that, I think that it's 5:13. 

We still have the sunsets to move forward on. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I think we should move on.

So Rick, shall we go to the --

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. Steve, go ahead 

and --

MS. PETREY: I'd like to make a motion 

to move this back to subcommittee, because 

concentrated ammonia is a product already listed 

and I think that we need to understand it further. 

So I'm going to make the motion to send it back.

MR. ELA: Is there a second? I am not 

hearing a second so --

MR. BRADMAN: I'll second it.

MR. ELA: Okay. There is a second from 

Asa, so motion made by Logan, second by Asa, to 

move this back to subcommittee. And is there any 

further discussion on it? Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Is this to move the whole 

thing back or --

MS. PETREY: Yes. Yes.

MR. ELA: So just to move the whole 

thing back, it looks like we start with Sue, is 

that correct?

MS. JEFFREY: I thought it was Wood. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I could be wrong. Wood, did you go first last 

time?

MR. TURNER: I did.

MS. JEFFREY: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Okay. Sue, this is on to 

send it back to subcommittee.

MS. BAIRD: Oh, my gracious. Way to 

start it off. Yes, I think it needs to go back. 

Let's say yes.

MR. ELA: Okay, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry, are you there?

MS. BAIRD: I surely am, and the answer 

is no.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. HUSEMAN: On the basis that it's 

anhydrous? Yes.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: NO.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: And Chair votes no, and just 

note this is a simple majority.

MS. JEFFREY: I have 10 noes and 4 yes.

MR. ELA: So the motion fails. We will 

proceed with the motions. And I will note that 

if, since we have, well, we had a classification 

motion and then we had three other motions, if in 

one of those motions we need to revote as to sending 

it back to subcommittee, because normally we just 

have one motion, I would entertain a motion each 

of the individual motions.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So we're going to go to the 

classification motion. And the motion is to 

classify ammonia extract as non-synthetic.

And I want to clarify this for the 

record. Since there are synthetic ammonia 

extracts out there, just like the sodium nitrate, 

the assumption is that in classifying them as 

non-synthetic, it is using only non-synthetic 

processes and not classifying all ammonia extracts 

as non-synthetic.

And so the motion was made by myself, 

Steve, seconded by Jerry, and we will start with 

Asa on the classification motion.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: Yes.

MR. ELA: Rick?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

MR. ELA: And Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Okay. And Chair votes yes.

MS. JEFFREY: 14 yes, zero no, zero 

ARA.

MR. ELA: Okay. The next motion is to 

add 205.602, Non-Synthetic Substances Prohibited 

for use in Crop Production, Stripped Ammonia, 

created by separating, isolating, and/or capturing 

ammonia or ammonium from an agricultural feed stock 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

or other natural source using methods such as but 

not limited to steam stripping, pressurized 

air/heat condensation, and/or distillation.

The motion was made by myself, Steve, 

and seconded by Jerry and --

MS. BAIRD: Could we advance the 

screen, please?

MR. ELA: Say that again.

MS. BAIRD: Could we please advance the 

screen?

MR. ELA: The screen is correct on my 

computer.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ELA: So we will start the vote with 

Amy.

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: Yes.

MR. ELA: Rick?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Logan? Logan, are you 

there?

MS. PETREY: Yes. No. I am here, but 

the answer is no.

MR. ELA: Yes, you are here, and then 

you were voting no. Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No. I'm sorry, yes. 

Yes.

MR. ELA: So Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: I'll vote --

MR. ELA: What was that again, Sue?

MS. BAIRD: I'll say --

MR. ELA: I still didn't catch that.

MS. JEFFREY: One more time, Sue.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: I'm not muted. I am not 

muted.

MR. ELA: Okay, you're voting yes, 

okay. Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

MS. JEFFREY: 13 yes, 1 no, zero ARAs. 

Motion passes. At 205.602 Non-Synthetic 

Substances Prohibited for Use in Organic Crop 

Production, Concentrated ammonia contains greater 

than 3 percent ammonia ample nitrogen and the total 

nitrogen content is predominantly, i.e., greater 

than 50 percent, in the ammonia or ammonium form. 

The motion was made by myself, Steve, and it was 

seconded by Asa. And we are starting with Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: Yes.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Mindee?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

MS. JEFFREY: So I have the only no as 

Logan, is that what you have, Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Correct.

MS. JEFFREY: Okay. Thank you. So 

13-1, zero ARA, the motion passes.

MR. ELA: And Kyla, I see you have a 

question, or raised your hand.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SMITH: Yes, before you called the 

next vote I wanted to move to send this motion back 

to subcommittee.

MR. ELA: Okay, is there -- was that 

a second?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: And that is Nate, correct?

MS. JEFFREY: Okay, hold on one second. 

Just let me get some notes on the first and second. 

So that was a first by Kyla and a second by Nate?

MR. ELA: Is that right?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: Okay.

MS. JEFFREY: And this is for the third 

motion?

MR. ELA: Actually, fourth, but I'll 

say this clearly. So can we go to the next slide? 

Okay.

So this is a motion made by Kyla, 

seconded by Nate, to send this motion to add at 

205.203(f), matching products with a C to N ratio 

of 3:1 or less, and I won't read the rest of it, 

to send this back to subcommittee. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And we are starting, well, I guess is 

there any discussion on this? We will start 

with Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: And the Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Was that a yes from 

Jerry?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, ma'am.

MS. JEFFREY: Yes from Jerry, no from 

the Chair?

MR. ELA: Correct.

MS. JEFFREY: I got ten yeses and four 

noes, Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: So this last motion is sent 

back to subcommittee. All right. Thank you, 

everybody.

I know the angst that went into this 

on all members, and, well, I appreciate the thought 

that went into it on everybody's part.

I know it's a big issue for organics 

and I'm glad we were able to work through it in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a civil manner.

I think I just have so much respect for 

this board in terms of disagreeing, but doing it 

in a very appropriate way. 

With that, Rick, I believe that 

finishes all the crops proposals, doesn't it?

MR. GREENWOOD: It does. So how do you 

want to manage time now? We have eight sunsets 

to go.

So do you want to do a few of them and 

then pick them up tomorrow morning? Let's do a 

time check.

MR. ELA: It's 3:25. We've got until, 

well, it's 5:25 Eastern time, we have until 5:30, 

but I would like to make sure we get time to 

handling, so I would rather go a little bit longer 

here and see if we can at least, I think they may 

go fairly quickly.

MR. GREENWOOD: Dream on, Steve.

MR. ELA: It will be what jinxed it. 

They will take forever. But let's plan to go a 

half hour longer and put our takeaway time from 

tomorrow.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. TURNER: If you choose to, Rick and 

Steve, if you choose to make a motion that we, 

unlike yesterday, can we consider forwarding 

materials in a single vote stream, please?

MR. ELA: Yes, when we get to that we'll 

just --

MR. TURNER: You want to do it then?

MR. ELA: Yes.

MR. GREENWOOD: At 9:00 tonight when 

we get there, we'll do it.

MR. ELA: Okay, great. There you go, 

Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: It's up to you. 

Copper Sulfate, and that's Jerry for a sunset.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you, Rick. Quick 

note of how I appreciated listening to this last 

go round. It's truly respectful and a lot covered. 

So here we're reviewing two uses of 

copper sulfate, one at 205.601(a)(3), is an 

algicide, and two at 205.601(a)(4), tadpole 

shrimp. This is obviously for aquatic rice.

Both of them are limited to one 

application per field during any 24-month period. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Both are also limited to rates that do not increase 

based on soil test values over a timeframe agreed 

upon by the producer then a credited certifying 

agent.

There appears to be broad consensus 

through the United States, the E.U. and Canada, 

that copper sulfate is hazardous to both human 

health and the environment.

Despite this, the use has been 

repeatedly extended in all three jurisdictions, 

as there isn't yet a viable alternative for copper 

sulfate in certain applications.

Despite the above, public comment and 

interviews with organic rice growers, certifying 

agencies, and former board members, have all 

highlighted the ongoing need for copper sulfate 

until an alternative herbicide or insecticides are 

available.

According to all of these sources, an 

abrupt delisting would have a tremendous negative 

impact on U.S. growing organic rice.

As reported under subcommittee review 

in the document used here today, much of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

subcommittee's review centered on written and oral 

comments presented during our spring meeting.

There were an excess of 25 comments with 

the overwhelming majority in favor of keeping 

copper sulfate on the national list.

The written and oral comments presented 

prior to this fall meeting also numbered about 25,

and were also mostly in favor of relisting.

So I'm heartened by this next one. 

What has been a common theme in both 

periods is that generally, even those 

organizations most opposed to the continued use 

of copper sulfate, did not have advocate immediate 

delisting but rather strongly encouraged that the 

program get, quote, serious about continuous 

improvement and put real effort into finding 

alternative methods for materials that would limit 

or end the use of copper sulfate.

The crop subcommittee recommends 

relisting copper sulfate. It has called for a 

comprehensive review of copper sulfate as part of 

these research priorities for 2021.

During the written comment period, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

there was some confusion as to whether or not copper 

sulfate actually made it onto the list.

Please understand that it is indeed a 

research priority for 2021 timeframe. I think I'd 

like to open up for comment at this point.

MR. ELA: All right. Nate is first.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Jerry, just wanted 

to sort of, I don't know if it's a specific 

question, but I think talking about hitting that 

critical level of parts per million that is toxic 

or that threshold of what is too much, and I was 

wondering if you could just speak to that a little 

bit about what your research showed and ultimately 

where you think we might be able to do some work 

as forward on discussion of possible residues in 

the environment from pesticides.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Good question, 

Nate. Thank you. It's one I wrestled with, and 

I'll give you a two-part answer.

When I came to, after being educated 

in dialogue with certifiers on our own board here, 

is that the most critical piece of this is a 

baseline established over years. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And during subcommittee review, I 

actually went through that and was quite heartened 

to find that over the records that go sometimes 

as much as 11 years, sometimes as little as four, 

that in each generic case, the progression from 

1994, for instance, to 2021 actually found a 

decline, and those numbers read 4.8, 6.6. 7.4, with 

a low of 3.5 for the largest farm I have on the 

list, the one that's got the most complete records.

And the second part of my answer, Nate, 

is that I was frustrated in this process, and that's 

why I reached out to certifiers, because 

universally, I could not get certifiers or farmers 

to give me a red flag indication number of any kind 

that caused concern for a deeper dive into this, 

and the answer that came back from the certifying 

community, or colleagues, if I may, is that 

certifiers and farmers predicated on crop, 

particular seasonality, soils, timing of emerging 

of the chutes, were reluctant to put themselves 

in a corner.

So during stakeholder review, there 

were some thoughts that 50 parts per million were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

acceptable. 

That sounds high, but not from a 

scientific point of view when you've got a 3.5 as 

the lowest of the base over that period of time.

So I don't have red flags. I'm told 

that I probably won't get red flags. And I'm not 

sure that that's a good answer, but I took great 

heart in the values themselves, the PPM values, 

and I take real stock in over a period of time, 

like I said, as much as 16 years, that the 

progression wasn't linear. 

It did vary up and down, but the first 

year was at 8.4 and the biggest farm at 7.1 in 2021. 

So that's my answer.

There may be room for something that 

would give us internally an ability to look at this 

and at least say, hey, it's worthy of a deeper look. 

Does that help?

MR. POWELL-PALM: It does, yes. I'm 

ruminating on a possible work agenda item, because 

this seems like a broader question, in a way lightly 

linked to the idea of looking into sanitizers as 

well, overall toxicology for these materials that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

we do use, and kind of taking a deeper drive, what's 

a good procedure that we can start setting up?

Both from a certifier's point of view 

but also just from a hunting for better information 

by which to make these decisions. So thank you.

MR. GREENWOOD: No, thank you. Thank 

you for the question.

MR. ELA: Wood and then Amy.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Jerry. I had 

problems with the material but also certainly aware 

that the community had made their voices heard 

about what impact it can have if it's removed.

I think where I'm hung up is on the 

language because of what Nate was saying. I find 

the discretionary nature of this kind of discussion 

between the producer and the accredited certifying 

agent, it's too murky.

There really is almost this negotiated 

agreement. It doesn't feel like we're, it feels 

loose to me and I feel like I'd be a lot more 

comfortable understanding real thresholds of 

concern related to what's happening in this world, 

for example. So that's a lingering issue for me. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I don't know if anybody, Kyla or anybody 

from the certifying committee could speak to an 

example of that, that negotiation or that dynamic. 

That's on my mind.

MS. BAIRD: Kyla, I don't want to put 

you on the spot, but you were one of my sources 

and if you'd be willing to comment to that, I'd 

appreciate it.

MS. SMITH: Yes, so I don't actually, 

for PCO we don't actually certify any rights.

And so these two listings of copper 

sulfate, I don't have experience with in this 

negotiating part.

There's a third listing of copper 

sulfate on the west that's not up for sunset review 

this go, and that's my experience, and it's not 

annotated in the same way.

And I'm going from memory here. I 

don't know that it's annotated at all, actually. 

And so, it just says to not accumulate in the 

soils, but it doesn't talk about a baseline goal 

at all.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And so that, when I read these, I'm 

like, oh, you have to do that up front with the 

certifier and the producer to establish that 

baseline whereas the other listing, at least in 

my experience, we've had to sort of go back when 

we've noticed a problem, and that's been a bit 

challenging.

So maybe even something to consider 

future work is to align annotations because they're 

not all the same.

So anyway, and what I've seen in regards 

to the other listing is just that it is really 

dependent on where in the world you're using said 

materials across the specific crops, the site 

specific conditions, which is part of an organic 

system plan. 

So that's not a very good solid answer. 

This is something that comes up between certifiers 

consistently and the stakeholder community at 

large is where we really want, sometimes we really 

want prescriptive things within the regulation, 

because it certainly make it easier to enforce, 

but when it gets prescriptive, everybody goes crazy 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

because it doesn't allow enough flexibility.

So somewhere striking a balance between 

providing some guidance without being overly 

prescriptive so that it can be applied in the 

various different site specific needs that we need 

to work with.

MS. BAIRD: Well, it's on the docket, 

copper sulfate for disease control was on the 

docket for the coming year, so maybe that's 

something you'd like to look at.

MR. ELA: There's a lead in. Amy and 

then Brian.

MS. BRUCH: Sure. Jerry, thank you 

for your sincere work on this. I know you've put 

a lot of research and time into this particular 

product.

I just want to say, I mean, the 

stakeholder community, they resonated loud and 

clear the necessity of this.

This is a challenging type product. 

I know there were references that, well, it was 

used and real crops are being, and there's no issues 

or less issues in this particular function.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

But the functionality of copper sulfate 

when directly applied to soil is very different 

than when it's absorbed into water. 

So I just wanted to point that out that 

there is definitely a distinction there. But 

anyway, that's all. Brian, you can go ahead.

MR. ELA: Go ahead, Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah, Jerry, thank you 

so much for, I know, I got a little glimpse of all 

the work and it's really great how you did this.

I think it's very encourage that soil 

test numbers sort of pretty much hovered around 

the same value sand weren't increasing. And I 

would think certifiers would be really looking for 

increasing soil test numbers as they key indicator. 

But one thing about that is that of 

course most soil tests use a certain extraction 

to try to approximate the available nutrients that 

crops see.

And maybe, as something that certifiers 

and maybe should think about in the NOP is testing 

for total copper, zinc, and some of these other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

materials that could be problematic along the way.

And just the last thought, and this may 

be part of the continues improvement five years 

from now if this comes up again, and that is that 

if so, soil copper levels are not increasing after 

applications, I think the question is, well, where 

is the copper that was supplied going?

And I see that it could go out in the 

crop and it could go into other water channels. 

And that's beyond us I think right now, but 

something to think about as continuous 

improvement.

MS. BAIRD: No, thanks to your prodding 

last time around, I could spend time with 

certifiers on Water 2 and I'm not sure if you call 

out names.

We certainly have, so I will, CCOF, was 

very robust on the findings that they were getting 

through the water.

They were even more, again, robust 

about that than the soils and they were very happy 

with the soils.

So thanks to your prodding at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

subcommittee. That's when we've also looked into, 

but it was also an area where I was not able to 

get that red flag indicator.

MR. ELA: One more comment from Asa and 

then if we can, we'll move on. I don't want to 

cut anybody off.

MR. BRADMAN: No, I think Brian just 

made an excellent point of measuring total versus 

extractable content in the soil.

Total would be you have a very strong 

acid, and you adjust your sample to mobilize it 

and then you test that extract for copper, and the 

bio veil would be a weaker acid where that 

approximates.

So I wonder if maybe some of that copper 

that we're not finding or maybe it's just going 

in the soil but it's not available for the 

extraction, I'm a little concerned about whatever 

contamination.

And I don't know if, Jerry, you can 

speak to that a little bit more about, for example, 

there's a lot of, very well-known projects right 

now, and Central Valley to flood.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Rice fields flood, a habitat for birds, 

and salmon fry and things like that. And I'm 

curious, do we have any information on that?

MS. BAIRD: Yes, there I was prodded 

by Ph.D. biologist daughter who was quite offended 

by what it might do to birds and aquatic, amphibious 

creates.

And the farming community 

particularly, even without my prodding on that, 

sort of turned that around on me and said that they 

will leave fields fallow and untreated under 

programs of rotation that would be a net benefit 

primarily to regulatory birds.

Asa, I don't know that I can go much 

beyond that, but I'd like just to read, and this 

is a little off topic to your question, of a long 

dissertation that came to me.

Just one thing that I don't think I said 

quite clearly enough, but maybe it's assumed. So 

the one sentence in conclusion is it should not 

be assumed that copper sulfate is used as a 

preventative measure against the shrimp by aquatic 

rice growers, as this would be indeed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

non-compliant.

The only other thing I can add is 

interviews with half a dozen of the producers, and 

they're all there in California that I talk to.

They have through documentation 

indicated to me that they have taken a real stab 

at, again, crop rotation, fetch being perhaps the 

biggest one, where it's the residual from the rice 

farming is actually quite conducive to the 

production of that crop.

And my sense of it is that the community 

has not ignored this issue. I think our community 

here has asked itself a lot of these questions and 

has made some pretty robust attempts at trying to 

do their own mitigation there.

MR. ELA: All right.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you, Asa, 

particularly for not following on with the fact 

that I didn't quite answer your question.

MR. ELA: I do share some of the same 

comments. My brain of mass balance says if you 

add it, it's got to come out somewhere. Copper 

does not volatilize well, so I am very curious what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the fate is and someone named it that it is 

non-bioavailable. So let's go ahead move to the 

vote.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Wait a second. So let me 

just, okay, here we are. Sorry, it's moving down 

through it.

So there is a motion to remove copper 

sulfate from the national list at 205.601(a)(3) 

and 205.601(e)(4). It was made by Jerry, motion 

was made by Jerry, seconded by Rick, and I guess 

if anybody has an objection to voting on both of 

these at once, you've got a very short time here 

to say so. All right.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. And Steve, do 

you want to remind people this is the reverse vote, 

so we're voting no to keep it on the list, yes to 

remove it.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Rick, for saying 

that. Yes. So everybody --

MR. GREENWOOD: I'm watching out for 

you, Steve. 

MR. ELA: Yes. Okay, we're going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

start with you, Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. No.

MR. ELA: And then Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: I'm putting yes to send 

the message that we need copper alternatives.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Yes, as well. Same 

reason.

MR. ELA: Yes. Brian?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: I'll put a yes in there 

for the same reason.

MR. ELA: Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: I have three yes and 11 

no. Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero ARA, motion to 

remove fails.

MR. ELA: All right. Back to you, 

Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay, so the next 

sunset turns out to be mine, and it's for ozone 

gas. And it's ozone, as I think all of us know, 

is a strong oxidant and it's for use as an 

irrigation system only.

And I think that's important to keep 

in mind because ozone is reactive and people worry 

about the ozone layer and adding ozone.

But this is a reactive compound that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

is generate electrically, basically, within the 

irrigation system.

So it reacts very quickly. So it never 

really escapes from the system. In terms of our 

stakeholders, virtually everyone was in favor of 

keeping it on the national list because it's very 

useful.

And the other issue is, as opposed to 

chlorine compounds, there's no residual because 

it's basically active oxygen, which when it 

destabilizes turns back into basically water.

So I think I'll stop there. I think 

it's a fairly simple compound. Open it up for 

discussion.

MR. ELA: Any discussion on this? I 

don't see any, Rick. Should we move to the vote?

MR. GREENWOOD: Sure.

MR. ELA: I don't know what I'd do if 

you said no. So the motion is to remove ozone gas 

from the national list.

The motion was made by Rick, seconded 

by Amy, and we are going to start with Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No. 

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No. 

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No. 

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No. 

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No. 

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: And Chair votes no. 

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes, 14 no, zero 

ARA. The motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: All right, Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. Next sunset 

review is peracetic acid. And that's Wood.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Rick. I'm going 

to try to keep this one short and sweet, if folks 

are okay with that.

So, an important sanitizer. We talked 

at length about sanitizers, in this particular 

case, on crops, it's used for disinfecting 

equipment, it's used as a copper headed cleaning 

material permitted in hydrogen peroxide 

formulations as well.

Also used to control fire blight 

bacteria. This has gotten wide support across the 

community, not just for this use but for all uses.

I'll channel my inner Asa and just 

reiterate the fact that we've got, these materials, 

peracetic acid, the core materials that we'll talk 

about later are all part of a larger conversation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

we're having later about sanitizers and the like, 

and even though strong support across the community 

for relisting, also strong support for a different 

way of thinking about how we do these evaluations.

So I'll cut it off there. Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. Take care. So 

discussions?

MR. ELA: I am not seeing any raised 

hands. So either raise your hand now or hold your 

peace. All right. Shall we move to the vote?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Okay, the motion is to remove 

peracetic acid from the national list. It was made 

by Wood and it was seconded by Jerry. And we will 

start with Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes, 14 no, zero 

ARA, motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: Back to you, Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay, so question for 

you. Do you think we have enough time to do EPA 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

List 3 or should we hop to another quick one lie 

rotenone and call it quits?

MR. ELA: I think we'll go for EPA List 

3.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. In that case, 

it's Asa and Steve.

MR. ELA: And I will do that 

presentation. So I think it actually can be fairly 

straightforward. The comments given to us are 

very similar to what we saw for List 4 last year.

There's pretty much a universal opinion 

that List 3 is obsolete and we should not be 

referencing on the national list, that there should 

be a better way. 

And there are several member 

stakeholders that say just delist it and then solve 

the problem, and then I would say the majority of 

the stakeholders, they're begging us not to disrupt 

and leave, relist List 3 but note the problem does 

need to be solved.

And I think we discussed at the start 

of this meeting with the ANPR coming out, the 

program is working on that list 3 and 4 listings 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and trying to find a way to solve it.

As I said before, it's up to the 

stakeholders in many ways to come up with solutions 

to this problem and this is very stakeholder 

engaging, and I just implore stakeholders to be 

creative and thoughtful in the solutions to this. 

But because of that, I am in favor of relisting 

them even though there are the issues of reference 

to List 3.

It should be noted that there are only 

four, I believe, materials on this list because 

it is limited to passive pheromone dispensers. And 

so this is one where it could be conceivably 

possible to review each of the inerts on their own, 

but I guess I would prefer to see it done as part 

of the larger package with List 4.

The other aspect of this is because they 

are passive pheromone dispensers, they do not 

actually contact the consumer product, in our case 

it would be apples, or other materials. So there 

is some separation there of the actual materials 

and the crop.

And so with that explanation, I will 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

turn it over to questions. All right. I don't 

see any. I don't think you could have done -- oh, 

wait, Asa's got a question. I was thinking you 

could have done voting faster, but I wasn't so sure, 

but now Asa --

MR. GREENWOOD: Let's see what Asa says 

before you gloat.

MR. BRADMAN: I won't be too 

loquacious. I think that's the important part 

with these, that they're not in direct contact with 

food, and I think maybe it makes it less conflictive 

than with the List 4.

And at least my feeling is that we 

should really move fast to address the inerts issue 

in general. Although I think, in principle, 

there's the same issues here. And like I said the 

other day, we have a road map on how to move ahead. 

There's been great outlines and inputs on that 

from stakeholders and I feel like the path forward 

is clear.

We just need to put the resources into 

it. I know I'm going to vote to remove this but 

I think if we're going to grow, we need access to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

pheromone dispensers and just the base materials 

should be regulated in a different way.

MR. ELA: Anybody else? All right. 

We will move to the vote if that's okay, Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, it is.

MR. ELA: The motion is to remove EPA 

List 3 from the national list. It was made by 

myself, Steve, seconded by Asa, and we are going 

to start with Logan. Logan, are you there? Just 

as a reminder, a no vote would be --

MS. PETREY: I'm sorry, I kept trying 

to hit it. No.

MR. ELA: Okay. Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No. 

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No. 

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MS. BAIRD: Jerry says no.

MR. ELA: Okay. Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan? No, we started with 

Logan, didn't we? Sorry. Chair votes no. And 

I love the panic when people can't find the unmute 

button and finally hit it.

MS. JEFFREY: So one yes, 13 no, zero 

ARA, the motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: All right.

MS. BAIRD: It's possible, Steve, that 

you put this stuff in that we're all so brain-dead 

we really can't see, maybe.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: I didn't say it.

MS. PETREY: Even my wi-fi is 

brain-dead. It's like running out. iPad is 

almost dead. The whole thing.

MR. ELA: Okay. On that note, I think 

we have gone a half-hour over. Looking at the 

schedule tomorrow, I think we should be in good 

shape. So I'm going to suggest that we respect the 

braindeadedness and finish with chlorine 

materials, magnesium oxide, calcium chloride, and 

rotenone tomorrow.

We can probably go through this fairly 

quickly, although I've been wrong before, and then 

we will move on to the Handling Subcommittee 

followed by CACS and then our various, any deferred 

votes and elections and work agendas and such 

tomorrow.

So let's call it a day. We don't want 

Logan's internet to wear out. And we will come 

back tomorrow. So we will recess now and we'll 

come back tomorrow at noon Eastern Time. So, long 

day, everybody. Thank you so much.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14TH ST., N.W., STE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

went off the record at 6:00 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + + +

FALL 2021 MEETING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

OCTOBER 21, 2021

+ + + + +

The Board met via Videoconference, at 

12:00 p.m. EDT, Steve Ela, Chair, presiding.

MEMBERS PRESENT

STEVE ELA, Chair

NATHAN POWELL-PALM, Vice Chair 

MINDEE JEFFREY, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

AMY BRUCH

BRIAN CALDWELL

CAROLYN DIMITRI

RICK GREENWOOD

GERARD D'AMORE

KIMBERLY HUSEMAN

LOGAN PETREY

KYLA SMITH

WOOD TURNER
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

ALSO PRESENT

JENNIFER TUCKER, Deputy Administrator, National 

 Organic Program, USDA; Designated Federal 

 Official

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, Advisory Board Specialist, 

 USDA

JARED CLARK, National List Manager, Standards 

Division

ANDREA HOLM, Materials Specialist

DAVID GLASGOW, Associate Deputy Administrator, 

National Organic Program

ERIN HEALY, Director, Standards Division
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

CONTENTS

Handling Subcommittee

Proposal: Zein - Petitioned .................. 29

Proposal: Fish Oil Annotation ................ 61

2023 Sunset Substances Reviews:

Agar-agar .................................... 83

Animal enzymes ............................... 87

Calcium sulfate - mined ...................... 90

Carrageenan .................................. 99

Glucono delta-lactone ....................... 134

Tartaric acid ............................... 134

Cellulose ................................... 140

Chlorine materials (Calcium 

 hypochlorite, Chlorine dioxide,

 hypochlorous acid, sodium 

 hypochlorite .............................. 145

Magnesium oxide .............................. 13

Calcium Chloride ............................. 17

Rotenone ..................................... 25

Potassium hydroxide ......................... 153

Silicon dioxide ............................. 163

Potassium lactate ........................... 166

Sodium lactate .............................. 171

Compliance, Accreditation, & Certification

Committee (CACS)....................... 176

Nate Powell-Palm, Chairperson

NOSB Officer Elections ...................... 248

NOSB Work Agendas/Materials Update .......... 273

Recognition of Outgoing Members ............. 284

Other Business and Closing Remarks .......... 293

Adjourn ..................................... 293

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

(12:01 p.m.)

MS. ARSENAULT: Welcome, everybody, to 

day three, the last day of the NOSB board meeting. 

We'll get started in just a minute. 

I just wanted to let folks know who are 

with us on Zoom if you're on your computer screen, 

attendees are in listen-only mode and 

observation-mode only and you don't have access 

to your camera or mic. Trust that we cannot see 

you either, so don't worry if you think you're on 

camera, you are not. 

At the bottom center of your Zoom 

screen, if you cover over it, you have two widgets

available to you. You have the chat widget and 

please feel free to chat to each other. You can 

chat to everyone in the room which includes all 

the NOSB panelists, NOP staff and everybody that's 

an attendee or you can chat individually to one 

another as well.

The board members don't interact with 

the public during this portion of the meeting, so 

they're not answering questions or responding to 

information that's in the chat. But please free 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to chat amongst yourselves.

There's also a raised hand button that 

shouldn't be there. But it is. We will not be 

answering or you can't raise your hand to be called 

on as an attendee, but board members also have that 

function and that's for the chair to be able to 

call on them to talk. 

So we are recording, just so you know. 

After the meeting concludes in a couple of weeks 

we'll have official transcripts available that will 

be posted on the NOSB website. We don't post the 

recording because it is not compliant with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act until we have that 

transcript.

Thank you so much, and Steve, I will 

turn it back over to you.

MR. ELA: All right, thank you, 

Michelle. I guess it's practically day five if 

we count the two public comment webinars, so kudos 

to the Board for hanging in there. We've had some 

long days. And I've got my shirt on for the final 

day here, a little bit of celebratory regalia. 

But I guess, Rick, Crops kind of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

dominated the show yesterday and you can take a 

little more time. You can blame Asa and myself 

for having some longer-winded materials. But I'm 

going to turn it back over to you to finish up the 

Crops sunsets and then we will move to Handling 

and CACS. 

One thing, just so the Board knows it's 

listed correctly on the website, but in Handling, 

the fish oil annotation is in your Crops --

apparently in your Crops part of your binder so 

if you're looking for it, that's where it got put.

MR. D'AMORE: Steve, may I interrupt, 

sir? It's actually in the right spot but 

improperly named as Crops.

MR. ELA: Oh, got it. Okay. Fair 

enough. Thanks, Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you.

MR. ELA: I appreciate that. So with 

that we'll turn it back over to Rick and let you 

finish up with sunsets.

MS. GREENWOOD: Okay, very good. I was 

hoping to take the rest of the day today on these 

sunsets, but we'll see how it goes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So the next sunset is Wood's and that's 

chlorine materials that we're going to cover as 

one group so that's calcium hydrochloride, chlorine 

dioxide, hypochlorous acid, and sodium 

hypochloride. 

So Wood, do you want to --

MR. TURNER: Yes, thanks, Jerry. So 

to clarify, we are going to -- I'm going to present 

those together and we're going to put all those 

together.

MS. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. TURNER: Great. Super. As we 

continue to discuss every time we bring up these 

materials, it truly came to me that this feels like 

a perfunctory vote in some ways, the chlorine 

materials. You know, in my opinion and I think 

many in the community, chlorine materials shouldn't 

be in organic. 

It's an issue, but as we deal with very 

real safety considerations for those in the 

community who don't know when we mention FSMA, Food 

Safety Modernization Act, it looms very large over 

all of our work and it's our job to make sure that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the food we deliver is clean and healthy and safe 

for consumers. And so thus we have this pesky and 

difficult sanitizer component to what we do. 

And I want to point out that I hear 

everybody in the community. I mean this is so far 

reaching and again, as we continue to say, there 

is clear support for the relist of all these 

materials as part of the Sanitizer Panel that is 

going to ensure all the things that we need to be 

able to deliver in terms of food safety.

But there is also a continued drum beat 

about a need for the process and the need for 

comprehensive review. I know we all know that. 

So many producers are using the materials. Every 

organization almost to a person -- I mean in total 

-- supports the relist.

Again, I'll just mention what we're 

talking about here is chlorine materials, four 

different chlorine materials as in algicides, 

disinfectants and sanitizers including irrigation 

system cleaning systems. Chlorine materials for 

pre-harvest use with residual chlorine levels in 

the water and direct crop contact and as water from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

cleaning irrigation systems applied to this soil 

must not exceed the maximum residuals of the 

disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water 

Day, except that chlorine materials may be used 

in edible crop production according to EPA label 

direction.

So again, I think that's all I need to 

say at the moment. Is there any more discussion 

of this? We're going to -- I think I'd love to 

hear it, but I think we're pretty clear on this.

MR. ELA: All right. Thanks, Wood. Are 

there questions from the Board?

Wood, I am not seeing any, so Rick, do 

you want to proceed to the vote?

MS. GREENWOOD: Yes. Why don't you, 

Steve?

MR. ELA: Okay. There's a motion to 

remove calcium hypochloride from the National List, 

to remove chlorine dioxide from the National List 

--

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve. I see Asa's 

hand up.

MR. ELA: Go ahead, Asa.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: I'm sorry. I feel like 

I have to say something. Just to say I feel like 

we've covered quite a few materials other times 

in this meeting and I think everything that's said 

has been -- should be said has been said from my 

perspective, but I guess I want to have a 

reiteration that by reference I'm incorporating 

all the previous comments to this vote.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Asa. That makes 

sense.

Sue? And guess what, Sue, final day.

MS. BAIRD: There you go. I just want 

to say thank you to Asa. He has certainly 

enlightened all of us to some of the inherent 

dangers of the chlorine materials with human health 

and that has been a big help. Yes, it's needed 

right now, but I hope that we continue to understand 

that we need to do continuous improvement.

MR. ELA: Great. Thanks, Sue. Any 

other comments? 

All right, we will move to the vote so 

there's a motion to remove hypochlorous -- calcium 

hypochloride from the list, to remove chlorine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

dioxide from the list; to remove hypochlorous acid 

generated from electrolyzed water from the 

National List, and sodium hypochloride from the 

National List. They were all motioned by Wood, 

seconded by Logan, and we're going to vote on them, 

all four of them at once, unless there are any 

objections. 

Are there any board members that object 

to voting on all four of them? 

MS. GREENWOOD: Steve, remind people 

since it's a new day that a no vote keeps them on 

the list.

MR. ELA: Why don't you just go ahead, 

Rick, you started it?

MS. GREENWOOD: Okay. No.

MR. ELA: Okay, on sunset, just to mind 

everybody, a yes vote is to de-list, a no vote is 

to keep it on the list. So you all did great 

yesterday on that.

So we are going to start with Nate. So 

Nate, what is your vote?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood.

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy.

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick.

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan.

MS. PETREY: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: And the chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes; 14 no, zero 

ARAs. The motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: Go ahead, Rick. What's the 

next one?

MS. GREENWOOD: Okay, the next item is 

the sunset for magnesium oxide and that's Amy.

MS. BRUCH: All right, thank you, Rick. 

This is in reference to 205.601. And 

this does have, I guess is listed as J as a plant 

or soil amendment. And magnesium oxide is only 

to control viscosity of clay, suspension agent, 

for humates. 

One addition since the spring meeting 

is that we did receive the technical report. So 

that is available. But in general, magnesium oxide 

is to keep finely ground insoluble humate particles 

suspended in water. The water insoluble nature 

of the substance makes it unlikely to enter water 

systems. There were a handful of comments and most 

supported relisting.

A few to highlight is the need for liquid 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

humates, basically as a recycling agent to help 

foster cycling of minerals, conserve water, and 

improve soils in multiple ways. By having 

magnesium oxide, there's tremendous benefits for 

farm workers when they're applying humates in the 

liquid form instead of having to apply humates in 

the dry form. 

And another commenter mentioned that 

it's a valuable part of our tool kit and the 

alternatives to magnesium oxide are not suitable. 

The one cautious comment received was 

just noting that this is the first sunset review. 

Initially, when this product was discussed to be 

listed, there was a minority opinion that supported 

adding an expiration date. Even though it's benign, 

the commenter said that they would prefer 

nonsynthetic acids used in manufacturing as well 

as applying dry humates instead of liquid.

Final thoughts from the FDA and EPA is 

that FDA actually lists magnesium oxide as 

generally recommended to be safe and as a direct 

food substance. The EPA lists magnesium oxide as 

an inert ingredient used pre- and post-harvest and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

exempt from the requirement of tolerance. So it 

is a pretty benign substance and I guess we can 

continue with voting then, Rick, if there's nothing 

further.

MR. ELA: Are there any questions or 

comments?

All right, I'm not seeing any, so shall 

we proceed, Rick?

MS. GREENWOOD: Yes, go ahead to the 

vote.

MR. ELA: Okay, there's a motion to 

remove magnesium oxide from the National List. 

It was motioned by Amy and seconded by Logan. We 

are going to start with Kyla.

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy.

MS. BRUCH: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick.

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan.

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: And the chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes, 14 no, zero ARA, 

the motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: All right, Rick, next?

MS. GREENWOOD: Okay. Calcium 

chloride and this one is Logan.

MS. PETREY: Okay, calcium chloride, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a pretty easy one, reference 205.602 which is 

non-synthetic substance prohibited for use in 

organic production. Calcium chloride is 

prohibited except for foliar treatment to spray 

a tree -- a physiological disorder associated with 

calcium uptake. 

So it is a non-synthetic source. It 

can be obtained by extracting of non-synthetic 

brines and only the non-synthetic is allowed 

although there is the calcium chloride can be 

obtained by synthetic sources, but only the 

non-synthetic is allowed.

Through the public comments, this is 

a very used product. It's used to treat -- it says 

three dozen physiological disorders and possibly 

more. This includes rain cracking in cherries, 

blossom end rot in tomatoes, tip burn in Chinese 

cabbage, bitter pit in apples, and also cork spot 

on pears.

The application of foliar calcium 

spreads release calcium physiological disorders 

because these are local deficiencies due to calcium 

transport issues and there are other alternatives 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to using calcium for soil applications, however, 

those do get bind up and are not available and will 

cause quality issues on the crops.

Again, summary of public comments 

related to calcium chloride as a non-synthetic 

material is widely supported, so the restriction 

is very supported. Calcium chloride material is 

needed to combat physiological disorders and many 

commenters say that calcium chloride is necessary 

to ensure the quality in many crops. Significant 

losses would occur if this substance were not 

relisted.

The current annotation restricted as 

a foliar spray to treat this disorder is also 

supported to prevent the soil build up of chloride. 

Are there any questions?

MR. ELA: I will just make a comment. 

I know in public oral comments, Amy, you had asked 

a little bit about it and I'll explain a little 

bit more. We, for example, on our farm, our soils 

are 7.8 to 8 pH. We have calcium readily available 

which is really fun if you have a little bit of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

acid to pull on it. As a geologist, I still love 

the fizz test.

So calcium readily available, but we 

can still get bitter pit in apples which is a calcium 

deficiency and one of the reasons is calcium is 

moved in the plant by water. It is not 

preferentially taken up like some of the other 

nutrients. So if you run into an issue with drought 

stress or very light crop, the growing tips of the 

plant will actually pull calcium from the fruit 

and if the plant isn't moving enough water to take 

calcium up, it will pull calcium out of the fruit 

and you will get bitter pit and or cork spot in 

pears even though calcium is readily available. 

So it's one of those oddball things that the way 

the plant takes calcium up actually affects the 

calcium level in the fruit, even though it may be 

readily available.

So I don't know if you have any more 

questions on that, Amy, or want to chime in, Brian, 

but that's why it can be very useful, because you 

can put calcium directly on the fruit and the fruit 

will absorb that and avoid those physiological 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

issues.

MS. BRUCH: Thank you, Steve, for 

explaining that, it's good to have some real-life 

examples of this, too, in addition to the public 

comments that we heard.

I believe my question at the time was 

more in regards to are there farmers such as 

yourself indicating or looking at base saturation 

versus pH when evaluating calcium in the soil? 

Because sometimes you do have maybe a higher pH 

indicating that there's probably no need for lime, 

but base saturation, looking at that core space 

might indicate maybe there's still a need for 

calcium.

MR. ELA: Yes, no, it's a good question 

and yes, we have plenty of calcium available to 

say the least.

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. ELA: So yes, when you're looking 

at the other magnesium and potassium, you 

definitely have them, but there's no shortage of 

calcium. Great question, always a good one to ask.

MS. BRUCH: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. PETREY: We also see that -- excuse 

me, we also see that deficiency in very humid times 

because like you said, Steve, the pull of the water 

is not happening, so you're not getting that 

transpiration pull and so when it's not pulling 

water it's not pulling calcium and so those new 

growing shoots, like you said, you can see that 

deficiency there, so again, another example of how 

a deficiency can occur when there's ample amount 

and the soil -- if that flow of water is not 

happening, it's not coming from the soil.

MS. BRUCH: Our soils in Florida, when 

we were down there, I think it was 93 percent calcium 

and still had some deficiencies in our plants. So 

yes, understandable for sure.

MR. ELA: I have to say I find that 

really ironic, that you have calcium deficiency 

from humid conditions and we have calcium 

deficiency from such dry conditions and heat, the 

least amount of clothes in the afternoon and the 

plant quits respiring.

MS. PETREY: If we only both had the 

nitrogen deficiency. I'm playing with you. But 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

no, you're right.

MS. BRUCH: Good continuation, Logan.

MS. PETREY: Just a joke, just a joke.

MR. ELA: Fair enough. All right, 

anything else?

All right, Rick, are you ready for the 

vote?

MS. GREENWOOD: I am and I'd just like 

to make a comment that farming is not easy.

MR. ELA: Yes, we like a challenge.

MS. PETREY: Very humbling.

MR. ELA: Yes, humbling is the right 

word.

Motion to remove calcium chloride from 

the National List is motioned by Logan, seconded 

by Brian. And we are going to start with Wood.

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy.

MS. BRUCH: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick.

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan.

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla.

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes, 14 no. Zero, 

ARA motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: All right, Rick.

MS. GREENWOOD: Okay, last, but not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

least, sunset review is rotenone which turns out 

to be mine. It's on the National List as a 

prohibited substance. Rotenone, I'm sure many of 

you know, is a highly-toxic compound that has been 

used in the past. It comes from a tropical plant's 

root and has been used to kill fish in waters and 

it's also been used on vegetables and berries to 

control pests.

It was once registered by EPA, but it's 

no longer registered as a pesticide, so it's not 

available for purchase in the U.S., but apparently 

can be purchased in other countries, although it's 

pretty much banned everywhere for organic use. 

Documented human health issues, so it's on the 

National List as a prohibited natural substance. 

And so the idea is to keep it on the National List 

like that to prevent people from using it.

So I'll open it up for questions. 

MR. ELA: What I'm hearing Rick, is even 

though it isn't registered for U.S. use, we keep 

it on the list to help prevent any potential 

international use? Is that --

MS. GREENWOOD: Yes. It still 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

currently is available in other foreign countries, 

so potentially could get back into the U.S. And 

it's a pretty dangerous compound.

MR. ELA: And I guess that's a good 

reminder to the Board that our organic standards 

extend beyond our borders.

Any other questions or comments?

All right, Rick, do you want to move 

to the vote?

MS. GREENWOOD: Yes, go ahead, Steve. 

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Okay. There's a motion to 

remove rotenone from the National List. The motion 

was made by Rick, seconded by Amy, and we are going 

to start at the top of the alphabet with Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Yes -- Yes or no. No. No.

MR. TURNER: This is confusing. We 

shifted in these last two materials.

MS. BAIRD: Yes, we shifted.

MR. ELA: Same voting. Yes is to 

remove it from the list which in that case would 

remove the prohibition. No is to keep it --

MS. BAIRD: So the answer is no. Sorry 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

about that.

MR. ELA: No, that's fine. Good to 

explain.

Asa. Asa, we're not hearing you.

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy.

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick.

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan.

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Kyla.

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood.

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes, 14 no, zero ARA. 

Motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: Rick, are there any other 

sunsets that you just want to do ahead of time, 

so you can take up the whole meeting?

MS. GREENWOOD: We're going to start 

on the 2024s if you want to go on to those now.

MR. ELA: I think you're off the hook 

now. Thank you so much for a really long Crop 

Subcommittee report. I'll just have to say you 

did a great job in subcommittee, too, to shepherd 

all these through. It's a bit lift.

MS. GREENWOOD: Yes, it is. But again, 

it goes to the committee members. Everybody was 

engaged and did some great work, so as you know, 

Steve, being the chair of something is just a small 

part of the work.

MR. ELA: So true. Okay, we're going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to move on to Handling and I'll turn it over to 

Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Well, Steve, thank you 

very much. We're starting the day -- and good day 

to everybody out there.

We're going to start this session with 

the petition material. It's Zein and it was 

originally petitioned as a non-organically 

produced agricultural product and after review of 

the petition, the TR, the NOP classification of 

materials guidance decision tree and in 

consideration of past NOSB decisions, it is now 

presented as a nonagricultural substance. It was 

voted through subcommittee as nonsynthetic.

It was specifically petitioned for use 

as a food coating covering issues such as 

ingredients and as a processing aid including as 

a glaze, as a coating, as a taste masker, a wheat 

gluten substitute, and for use in 

micro-encapsulation in the pharmaceutical and 

nutraceutical industry.

The TR notes that it, as a food 

substance, is generally recognized as safe, as a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

direct food ingredient. The TR also identifies Zein 

as an anti-caking agent, a free flow agent, a drying 

agent, and as a humectant. Further, the TR says 

that Zein is also allowed as a direct food contact 

additive, as a compound for adhesives. 

As indicated in the document presented 

for the fall session and referencing written oral 

comments for our spring meeting, there were about 

ten total comments with none in favor of adding 

Zein to the National List. For this fall session, 

we had about seven commentators, again, none 

advocating Zein's addition to the National List. 

I need to put these stakeholder comments 

into perspective. For the spring session, only 

two were actually against the material itself with 

the remainder simply stating that our industry does 

not need another shelf life extender. While for 

this fall session no person or organization is 

advocating Zein's addition to the National List, 

only one group specifically said it was against 

the material and this was specifically on the lack 

of essentiality.

One prominent organization indicated 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

no position as annotated. Another group did not 

support as a coating for fresh fruits and 

vegetables, in other words, they limited it at that. 

Another well-known organization did not advocate 

for or against, but rather challenged the 

classification as non-agricultural. Yet, another 

well-known group disapproved of the non-organic 

agricultural classification which we have 

subsequently changed. Finally, another respected 

company noted if Zein is listed, the NOP must 

explicitly prohibit use for nano-encapsulation. 

I find all the fall stakeholder comments 

to be thoughtful and informative. However, I guess 

I could also characterize this in another way and 

say only one or two organizations are opposed to 

listing Zein on the National List as it is currently 

annotated.

At subcommittee, we had part of three 

full sessions dedicated to this material with much 

of the debate centered around essentiality. We 

determined that Zein's hydrophobic properties 

appear to be unique and preferred. I leave you 

with the last paragraph in our document. Zein is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

created from a renewable source, corn gluten. It 

is fully biodegradable and it represents no threat 

to human health.

Now the substance is created and applied 

in a laboratory, as annotated. It has no impact 

on the agro-ecosystem beyond serving as a vehicle 

for ingesting organic pharmaceutical, 

neutraceutical properties.

I'd like to go a bit off a script as 

I wrote it. I personally feel that we may have 

annotated Zein too restrictively. I think that 

it has unique functionality within the dairy 

industry as a stabilizing ingredient. With that 

said, the majority of the Handling Subcommittee 

felt otherwise and I respect their thoughts and 

opinions.

I note this because I am quite sure that 

the one vote majority to add Zein to the National 

List would not have been achieved had the annotation 

been less restrictive. And I'll open it for 

comments, please.

MR. ELA: All right. Are there 

questions, comments?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Kyla, I'm going to put you on the spot. 

I'll go to you first and then go to Asa.

MS. SMITH: Yes, this material is 

interesting because as Jerry explained, it's maybe 

more complicated than it should be and there's lots 

of nuanced things that come into play here because 

of a previous board discussion on corn steeped 

liquor which is related due to the process.

So I -- anyway, so there's like that 

for past board precedent. There's the decision 

traits which we didn't have the time and there's 

the definitions that we need to look at, so for 

me the classification part is the most complicated 

part of this material before we even get to like 

what it could be or should be used for and I don't 

know that we've -- I feel like -- anyway, I don't 

feel like this is resolved for me, per se, and so 

would recommend that this go back to subcommittee 

to take a deeper dive in looking at the 

classification.

MS. JEFFREY: I'll second it.

MR. D'AMORE: Could we just -- yeah, 

okay, I think we are through it enough to do that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And Mindee, I'll share with you that you beat me 

to that second. 

As a clarification, though, Kyla, your 

reference to no-decision treatment goes back to 

the corn steep liquor, correct?

MS. SMITH: Correct. Yeah, yeah, 

yeah.

MR. ELA: So Kyla, was that an actual 

motion?

MS. SMITH: I can --

MR. ELA: Or a recommendation?

MS. SMITH: It was a recommendation. 

I'll let Asa say his piece, and then I can make 

a motion when everybody's done with the discussion.

MR. ELA: Wanted to make sure. I heard 

it as a recommendation, wanted to make sure I hadn't 

missed something. So go ahead, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah, I just, you know, 

I was one of the people who would vote no on this 

material, except with the very strict annotation 

that we proposed. I think sometimes maybe I'm a 

little more flexible on the five percent for 

processed products than others.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

But I -- the notion that this might be 

able to contribute to more access to vegan, you 

know, nutraceutical-type things, you know, I think 

that's a benefit. I'm really wary of this, though, 

this being an unlabeled ingredient, particularly 

when some of the original proposals suggested for 

coating fruits and vegetables and stuff like that. 

That, I'm not comfortable with.

Also, whether it could in fact be 

produced from organically sourced corn gluten meal. 

But I think for the narrow use that we've suggested 

that it's not such a bad thing.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you for that, Asa.

MR. ELA: I guess I'd like to toss in 

a comment myself, and this is part of the back to 

subcommittee or not. As Jerry noted, without the 

very narrow annotation, this likely would have 

failed in subcommittee. And I think, I can't speak 

for the full Board, but I think likely might have 

failed in the full Board discussion.

So I'm going to throw it out there that 

the Board, if we vote it back to subcommittee, we 

continue to work on it. If we think -- if we think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

it would fail anyhow and we'd like to have it off 

our work agenda, I would suggest we don't send it 

back to the subcommittee.

And we can -- whether or not the 

classification vote sort of is passed or failed, 

we can then vote after the classification vote 

whether to send it back to subcommittee. And if 

it goes back to subcommittee, we continue to work 

it. If it doesn't, then it is off our work agenda 

item.

So I'll just throw that out there. I 

mean, personally, I would rather -- I'm going to 

have a hard time voting for it regardless. But 

if you do, all do want to spend more time on it, 

then certainly send it back at this point.

So Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: Follow up question to 

your statement, Steve. If we don't vote it back 

to subcommittee and we aren't of a mind to pass 

it, then when we vote to classify it, if the motion 

to classify fails, do we then vote on the National 

List motion and that to fail, or do we stop there?

Because I just want to make sure we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

not setting any precedents of classification that 

we're not all totally comfortable with.

MR. ELA: Yeah, great question, so.

MS. GREENWOOD: Well put.

MR. ELA: Yeah, Kyla, do you want to 

jump in, then I'll jump in?

MS. SMITH: I mean, that's my concern, 

is like that because there has been such a reliance 

on precedent, like, for this material specifically, 

I just, I feel irresponsible sort of doubling down 

on it continuing the confusion. And so I'd like 

to get it right. 

And because, you know, for future 

boards, they'll look at this, and it just seems, 

yeah, just irresponsible to, I don't know. Anyway, 

so that's my main thing about it, is wanting to 

continue to work on the classification part to like 

get it right and not continue with these weird 

precedent-setting, confusing, and conflicting 

things.

MR. D'AMORE: Excuse me. I would just 

like to say that I agree with Kyla. I'd like to 

put a little bit different slant on it, having 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

agreed completely with what you said.

As the lead on this one, I would not 

feel right about it just going into limbo and dying 

a slow death or going sort of into the vapors with 

having just failed to get it done. So I as the 

lead would welcome a motion to bring it back to 

subcommittee.

MR. ELA: I just want to jump in and 

to answer Mindee's question specifically, and not 

to disagree with what's just been said at all. 

But Mindee, we could fail the motion to classify, 

which would indicate the Board hadn't come to a 

decision, which obviously makes Kyla nervous and, 

you know, maybe rightly so.

And then so we can fail that vote, leave 

it as the Board has not decided, and then either 

go back to subcommittee to, after that vote, to 

as Kyla said, determine that more and decide whether 

to continue to work on it in terms of passing or 

failing the motion to list it. Or we can send it 

back to subcommittee right now and just work on 

the whole thing.

I personally would rather see it just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

have, well, have the vote on the classification 

whichever way it goes and then not work on it 

further. I don't see that this, just based on the 

subcommittee discussions, I don't see it's a 

material that is going to go forward. 

But so I'd rather have it off our work 

agenda item and spend our time on other things. 

But I'm certainly not going to argue against Kyla 

and her thoughts, so. I do agree with them as well.

Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: So what you're saying 

functionally is by your logic, if we fail the 

classification motion, we fail the petition?

MR. ELA: No, no, and we talked about 

this. If we fail the classification motion, then 

we can take vote whether to send it back to 

subcommittee after that. And if we don't send it 

back to subcommittee, then it just, it just dies 

right there because we've said we're not going to 

work on it further. 

And it leaves the classification motion 

up in the air. But that is one way we can say we 

don't want to work on it further because we're going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to ultimately fail. 

If you really -- if you do want to work 

on it further, get the classification under 

agreement and then take a vote on whether not we 

want it added to the list, that's fine. That's 

the -- we can -- there is a mechanism to take it 

off our work agenda, and there's a mechanism to 

leave it on our work agenda, so.

MS. JEFFREY: Well, does that mean if 

we fail to classify it, then a material review 

organization could view it as a nonsynthetic and 

it could be for use?

MR. ELA: Say that again?

MS. JEFFREY: Go ahead, Kyla.

MS. SMITH: No, the Handling List works 

differently. Like so crops and livestocks lists 

it's like, you know, if it's nonsynthetic then it's 

allowed unless prohibited. But the Handling List 

works differently. So 605 materials have to be 

listed to be used at all.

MS. JEFFREY: Okay, all right, thank 

you. I got -- you got me over in crops land there 

for a second.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Yeah, Rick.

MS. GREENWOOD: Yeah, just a quick 

comment because we've done this before on some 

items. I think each of us have to think about how 

much time we want to spend on something when we 

ultimately think it's not going to be added to the 

National List. 

So we can spend a lot of time on 

classification issues, but if most people don't 

see a need for it and, you know, spend another 

three-quarters of the year and then come up and 

vote it down because nobody really wants it on the 

list. 

So I think that's something that should 

guide our decision on what we do, whether we bring 

it back to subcommittee or we just kill it because 

we know eventually it's not going to go anywhere.

MR. ELA: And I also want to chime in 

and say I actually think the listing motion is 

correct. I went through it myself and I felt like, 

based on the data we had, that I think it's correct. 

I know that is disagreed with by other members, 

but I'm actually comfortable with the listing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

motion, so my two cents.

Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: What do you think, Kyla, 

do you like Steve's plan?

MS. SMITH: I'm like I don't know. I'm 

-- I do agree that I don't want to waste time working 

on something that's sort of moot. On the other 

hand, I do feel like accuracy is important. 

And I feel very conflicted, like, based 

on a read-through of all of the items, the TR working 

through the decision trees the previous stuff. 

Like I feel unresolved about it.

MR. ELA: Mindee, then Nate and then 

Kim and then Jerry.

MS. JEFFREY: I'm good, thank you.

MR. ELA: Okay, Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yeah, I just, I don't 

mean to like sort of belabor this, but thinking 

that the classification I agree, Steve, does seem 

correct. And it seems like an opportunity to at 

least get that part done.

I also, I think looking at the -- I just 

hear both Jerry and Kyla so clearly, that we want 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to do it right, but also the question of resources 

and time. If we're just going to ultimately come 

to the same conclusion, is it better to do other 

things.

So I apologize, I'm not really making 

a comment, I'm more asking a further question to 

those who feel stronger about it.

MR. ELA: Kim and then Jerry.

MS. HUSEMAN: Is it possible to change 

the order of the voting? Okay. Because I think 

that's a kicker, right, is I'm reading through the 

comments, reading back through the comments, and 

what Jerry had mentioned, I don't see anybody other 

than the petitioner promoting this particular 

substance.

So why do we want to add something to 

the National List that is not needed? I go back 

to what our goals and our objective and our job 

is, and I'm struggling without having -- for the 

past year we've asked for input, and there's not 

stakeholder input, other than from the petitioner 

that's positive.

So I'm going to have a hard time voting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

this in anyway.

MR. ELA: Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Well, folks, I'm losing 

just a little bit of steam, and it's not because 

I don't have enthusiasm, because it just dawned 

on me that I can't make the statement that I wanted 

to make, which is hey guys, I'll take care of it. 

Because it may not be mine to take of if I'm not 

on the right subcommittee. I have no idea where 

I'll land.

So I would like to take one more stab. 

First of all, I'd like to answer Kim. I'm not 

sure I see the correlation with a brand new petition 

on something that's so highly specific and the 

notion that there's nobody jumping on the bandwagon 

to say yeah, yeah, yeah, I need it. 

I think its newness and its uniqueness, 

which is where I'm going to land on my final thoughts 

here, it just doesn't -- it doesn't -- I can't 

connect the dots between a you know, an express 

outcry for it or not, because it is unique and it's 

brand new in terms of the annotated uses, I think.

So I would ask to consider one more time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that there is as a hydrophobic, I think a very, 

very compelling set of testimonials that it is the 

best in the industry at that. And if that's it, 

then, you know, I still -- I still feel I'd like 

to go forward with it.

MR. ELA: Um.

MR. D'AMORE: Oh, yeah, left to me, 

Steve, I would ask to have it sent back to 

subcommittee.

MR. ELA: Yeah, I'm just looking at 

OMRI's comments here. Just give me a second here. 

So OMRI says that they would find, and I kind of 

trust OMRI's sense on this, so they find that the 

classification design as both nonsynthetic and 

agricultural, with nonsynthetic classification 

largely based on the NOP's policy on corn steep 

liquor.

So OMRI, I think, agrees with this --

with this classification as nonsynthetic. But 

just to throw that out there. 

Sue and then Kyla and then we should 

probably move down the list. And Jerry's got a 

comment after -- I think Jerry just made his 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

comment, I'm sorry. So go ahead Sue, and then Kyla.

MS. BAIRD: I think I'm comfortable 

with it being classified as a nonsynthetic. Again, 

I've read the comments, and based on history and 

OMRI's comments, which you just read, I think that 

you probably have it right. You guys have done 

a lot of work on it.

I agree. I have vegan friends that it's 

like, at least in their mind, poison in their system 

if they have to intake an animal product. And so 

then, I think they probably need this product. 

The fact that you've got limited in 

scopes by annotation so specifically, I think you 

guys have done great and we need to send it back 

for Jerry to continue working, then I would support 

that.

MR. ELA: Okay. Let's hear Kyla, I 

think I accidentally lowered your hand. I remember 

the process. And then we'll go to Nate and Mindee, 

and then we'll move on to other topics.

MS. SMITH: Yeah, that's okay. I mean, 

Steve, you read OMRI's comment, which said based 

on the NOP's like classification or whatever, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

precedence set with corn steep liquor. 

Well, now we have a new tool in the 

decision tree, we have new TR, and there's, I just 

feel like there's more information that we have 

that I don't know if it would change the 

classification or the listing. I'm just saying 

there's enough for me to warrant a further look. 

That's all.

MR. ELA: Yeah, fair. I just want to 

be clear, they did use the decision -- OMRI used 

the decision trees to result in a nonsynthetic 

classification. So I may not have read that very 

clearly. 

But let's go to Nate and Mindee, and 

then we will decide what to do here, with Jerry 

being the final --

MR. POWELL-PALM: Just wanted to jump 

on a little bit Kim, or not Kim, sorry, Sue's comment 

about the need. I think OTA, if I understood 

correctly, did canvass their members, and 

especially their, I think it was their supplements 

council. And just there did not sound like there 

was anyone coming out strong for it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I think we want to kind of stay within 

what we know to be the need rather than -- I mean, 

it's easy to kind of guess what the industry need. 

But those asked and those stakeholders involved 

really haven't said they need this or really that 

anyone wants it. 

So just sort of putting that to Sue's 

comment.

MR. D'AMORE: Okay, Mindee and then 

Jerry and then I'm going to -- we're going to go 

to decisions on this, so.

MS. JEFFREY: I am of a mind to vote 

on the classification and not work on this further, 

in hopes that we vote it down, frankly. I really, 

I'm not sure that we need the use, and I didn't 

hear that from stakeholders. So for me I just 

wanted to throw that out there.

MR. ELA: Okay, Jerry, one least thing.

MR. D'AMORE: Steve, I'm going to give 

it back to the Chair. I've listened to it all, 

I've said my piece, and I'm happy for the consensus.

MR. ELA: All right. So at this point, 

I know Kyla had a recommendation to go back to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

subcommittee. I'm wondering if there is a motion 

for that or not, and if there's not, we'll move 

to the --

DR. TUCKER: Steve --

MR. TURNER: You have a question from 

the program -- there's a question from the program.

MR. ELA: Say that again? Oh, Jenny, 

sorry, I missed that.

DR. TUCKER: So this has been a 

fascinating conversation, honestly. And I think 

that's why we do board deliberations is to have 

this. And I do wonder if a new option has been 

raised through the discussion that could be 

implemented. 

I think it was a good reminder that on 

this part of the list, that everything has to be 

listed. So it isn't like the other lists where 

you have to decide whether it's natural or synthetic 

before you vote it. On this part of the list, 

everything has to be there, right? Everything has 

to -- you can use it unless it's listed.

So I think from a program perspective, 

given the conversation that has happened and the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

concern about precedent and everything else, I 

think we might be comfortable, if the Board is 

comfortable, voting on the decision to list first 

and then deciding what you want to do. 

And then if you want to send it back 

to the committee for more work on the 

classification, you could do that. But that would 

give you a read of the room as to whether you 

actually want this on the list or not.

So it wouldn't be adding a new motion, 

it would reversing the motion. So it would be, 

you know, take a read of the room of do you want 

this on the list. And that would give you a roadmap 

for whether then you need to continue to work on 

classification, but wouldn't leave sort of a 

mystical classification vote on the table with no, 

you know, bow to tie. 

So I think you're not introducing any 

new motions, we're simply flipping the motions. 

The program is comfortable with that, but only if 

the Board would like to do it.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you very much for 

that input, I appreciate it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Yup, I do too, Jenny. This 

is -- these are indeed very interesting procedural 

topics. I have never been on the Board with a 

classification motion failing. So I think that's 

a great idea, that the program's comfortable that 

voting on the National List motion first and then 

the classification motion.

Is there anybody on the Board that does 

not like that idea, that objects to it?

Okay, I'm not seeing any. So with that, 

it would still, if somebody wants to move to send 

the whole thing back to subcommittee, that is an 

option. Otherwise, we will go to the National List 

motion.

Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Sorry, I have a question 

about 605 and the possibility of organic sources 

of this material. We haven't really discussed that 

kind of piece of it. 

We got -- so I don't know if, Jerry, 

you have a comment on, you know, the possibility 

of sourcing the source material from organic 

source. I know the producer says it's not
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

available, but if it was listed and down the road 

became available, can we influence that with its 

own 605?

MR. D'AMORE: Asa, I think we'd respond 

to that, because it was a two-part question I think, 

as I heard it. In looking at it initially and then 

getting ready for the spring session as well, my 

digging indicated no to availability then. 

However, you've asked two questions. 

Is it possible that it would be available later 

if there's that -- if there's that much of a demand 

for it. Did hear you correctly? I can't hear you, 

Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: I just want to kind of 

note the strains of 605.

MR. D'AMORE: Okay.

MR. ELA: Yeah, 605 does not require 

organic use if it is available I believe.

All right, so back to the motions. I'm 

going to pause to see if there's any desire to send 

it back to subcommittee. Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah, I definitely am 

in favor of sending back to subcommittee. But I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

thought we had just decided that we were going to 

take the vote on the second motion first.

MR. ELA: The order of the motions, if 

we don't go back to subcommittee right now, then 

we'll vote on the national list motion, and then 

the classification motion. So --

MR. CALDWELL: Okay, I will move --

MR. ELA: We have an opportunity to send 

--

MR. CALDWELL: I will move to send it 

back to the subcommittee.

MR. ELA: Okay, is there a second?

MR. D'AMORE: Sure, I'll second it, 

Steve.

MR. ELA: Okay. So we have a motion 

to send it back to subcommittee, made -- motioned 

by Brian, seconded by Jerry. Any other discussion?

Okay, we are going to start with Asa. 

And this is a majority, simple majority. A yes 

vote is to send it back to subcommittee, a no vote 

is to proceed with the National List motion.

Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Okay, Amy.

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

MR. ELA: Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick.

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim. 

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan.

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla.

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Wood.

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: And the Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: I have five yeses, Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes, same.

MR. ELA: Okay, so the motion fails.

MS. JEFFREY: Five yes, nine no, zero 

ARAs.

MR. ELA: Yeah, so the motion fails. 

MR. D'AMORE: Steve, let me just 

comment, if I may, and tell you how much I really 

appreciate this group. This is democracy at work, 

and I appreciate it.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Jerry. We are 

going to proceed with the National List motion. 

And the motion is to add Zein at 205605A, annotated 

as only for use as nutraceuticals or 

pharmaceuticals as a microencapsulation acting as 

moisture barrier and taste masker. It was --

motion was made by Jerry, it was seconded by myself, 

Steve.

And we are going to start with Amy.

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Yeah, to be clear, this is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

a super majority. A yes vote is to add it to the 

list, a no vote is to not add it to the list. So 

Amy voted no.

Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: I'm afraid I'm going to 

abstain. I'm just -- I've been too confused by 

this discussion.

MR. ELA: Abstaining is perfectly okay. 

So Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

MR. ELA: Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick.

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: No,

MR. ELA: Mindee. Mindee, we're not 

hearing you.

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Okay. Logan.

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Kyla.

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood.

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes, for the narrow 

annotation.

MR. ELA: Okay, and the Chair is going 

to vote no.

MS. JEFFREY: So I have three yeses, 

nine noes, one abstention, zero refusals, zero 

absents. So the motion fails.

MR. ELA: I think you missed one vote 

in there. That only added up to --

MR. POWELL-PALM: I think it's ten 

noes, right.

MS. JEFFREY: One, two, three, four, 

five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. I'm sorry, 

you're right, ten noes.

MR. ELA: Okay, why don't you read it 

again for the record.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. JEFFREY: Three yes, ten no, one 

abstention, zero refusals, zero absents.

MR. ELA: Okay, the motion fails. So 

with that, that would take that off our work agenda. 

And we will move on to the next -- to the next 

material.

So thank you, Jerry, and everybody, 

that's a tough one.

MR. D'AMORE: Appreciate it, thank you. 

So next up is Asa with the fish oil annotation. 

And I will just reiterate what Steve said, as it's 

in your binder perhaps, it'll say Crop 

Subcommittee. That's an error, it's definitely 

the Handling Subcommittee's to do, so thank you.

MR. ELA: And that is Asa's.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, sir.

MR. ELA: And Asa, you're on mute. 

There you go.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay, sorry. Sometimes 

I get lost in the screens here.

Okay, so this is another somewhat 

challenging issue. This dates back to a little 

over a year ago when the Board voted on -- I'm just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

kind of repeating some of the stuff from the spring, 

but I'm just going to go over it again -- voted, 

yeah, it's been a year, a little over a year ago, 

voted to renew the listing of fish oil. 

But several members of the Board at that 

time, which I supported, was that that vote to 

relist fish oil was contingent on a work agenda 

to have some assurance that the fish oil sourced 

for organic products came from sustainably --

sustainable fish stocks.

And that led to a process where the 

original proposal suggested using marine 

sustainability standards set by NOAA, the US 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, and then 

FAO under UN for out of US jurisdiction fisheries. 

And issues that came up with that, that 

there was a lack of consistency between those two 

agencies and they use different approaches to 

assess sustainability and different definitions.

And so after a number of -- and then 

I inherited this from, actually it was Tom Chapman 

who originally wrote the original document, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I inherited this and started communication both 

with stakeholders among the organic community, and 

then also with folks at NOA and Seafood Watch and 

the Marine Sustainability Council, as well as, you 

know, we've had a number of public comments from 

stakeholders through the NOSB system.

And we proposed three possible choices 

from last -- for last spring. And those choices 

covered one kind of a generic, you know, fish 

sourced from byproduct only and from a fishery that 

was sustainably -- certified sustainable by a third 

party. 

And then the more specific number two 

option, which is what we're considering today, 

where we -- where we defined it as sourced from 

the fishing industry byproduct only and certified 

sustainable against a third party certification, 

certification that is ISEAL, International Social 

and Environmental Accreditation Labeling code 

compliant for global seafood sustainability 

initiative recognized.

And then the third option to use the 

Seafood Watch standards by the Monterey Bay 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Aquarium. They've been a leader on this issue.

The first one I think was preferred by 

many, especially on the industry side, but also 

felt that it was too weak and that it didn't specific 

which standards would be met. And that there was 

a greater chance, for example, for greenwashing.

The third one seemed, the Monterey Bay 

Aquarium beach is more consumer-oriented, and they 

didn't seem to have, even beyond the consumer and 

in terms of, you know, when people are, you know, 

buying pieces of fish, it didn't seem broad enough 

to cover the range of fisheries that would be 

sourced for fish oil. 

So that kind of left us with the second 

option, which refined the language a little bit. 

And just to kind of summarize some of the public 

comment about this, and there's a range of comments. 

In general I would say there's general 

support for this option. OEFFA Crop, Community 

Grocer Group, and the Puget Sound QAI, and then 

the manufacturers, you know, say they're willing 

to live with number two. They prefer number one, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

but they're willing to live with number two.

So in general, I think there's some 

support for this. I should mention too there is 

some general objection to the listing of fish oil 

on the National List. 

And I do -- I've said this before, I 

do feel like that's a separate issue. And the Board 

did vote to relist it. And I think of fish oil 

as kind of a consumer choice issue and it's a labeled 

ingredient.

Some major concerns about this proposal 

here focus on the reliance on a third party 

certification, and that's the GSSI or the ISEAL 

code-compliant member. And you know, some groups, 

Oregon Tilth in particular and others too are just 

outright opposed to the idea of outsourcing a third 

party certification within the National Organic 

Program standards.

And you know, that's a concern that we, 

you know, highlighted in the write-up and you know, 

I think there's a lot of merit to that. Although, 

to add a little -- I'm trying to stay out of the 

editorial part, but I'll note that I'm going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

get editorial right here. 

That you know, I think that we have to 

realize too that with the food system, organic food 

system production system, we use a lot of resources 

that come from outside the organic system. 

In fact, many or most in some cases I 

think of the resources that go into organic 

production and processing originate outside that 

system. And particularly marine materials, where 

we're taking something from an entirely different 

environment and removing them from that environment 

and putting in both the production and processing 

dimensions, that that is inherently beyond the 

scope of a lot of what we can do as an agency and 

as a program.

I'll go a little bit farther and say, 

you know, there is the wild crop option, although 

I personally don't believe there should be a wild 

crop option within organic, but that's a whole other 

issue. 

There's also a sense in a few comments 

that were expressed in different ways that we should 

really fast track a agriculture standard for fish. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And that that could then solve the sourcing issue 

of material to product fish oil.

And I totally agree with that, and I 

think that that's something that needs to be made 

a priority among others to address kind of the 

backlog of issues. There should be an aquaculture 

standard and a standard for defining organic fish. 

And then in a way that would make this moot, if 

that was also provided material for the fish oil 

production. And I think that's a really strong 

issue.

And some comments were that, you know, 

we shouldn't even bother with this at all and just 

instead of taking time on this, fast track the 

aquaculture standard. 

Others like Crop Valley said, you know, we 

support this proposal for this option two, but we 

would much rather, you know, buy organic, you know, 

fish oil that has the USDA label, it's organically 

approved. So that I think is another comment and 

perhaps something that the program should hear and 

listen to.

Let's see. The third parties that we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

really considered, both GSSI and ISEAL, are pretty 

clear. And I mean, we have some comments and I've 

had discussion personally and there's public 

comments that were submitted by the Marine 

Sustainability Council on this issue. But 

they're, you know, they're pretty clear they're 

public requirements. 

And if you look at the wild caught 

seafood sustainability programs that are covered 

under these two categories, it covers many areas 

of the world and many fisheries. And you know, 

I think addresses a lot of issues around 

sustainability.

They also include, some of them, you 

know, fair trade and other factors around labor, 

which is a big issue in the seafood harvesting issue 

both for, you know, for human and pet production 

and stuff like that. It's a huge issue. 

And I know there's discussion within 

the organic community of how we can 

institutionalize better treatment of workers. And 

I think that would be an interesting component of 

this that at least some and maybe all of the fishery 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

standards actually include some social benchmarks 

for fair trade.

Let's see. I think I've covered most 

of the issues here. So I think maybe we could open 

this up for discussion.

Oh, actually, I'm sorry, there is one 

other issue I wanted to address. There's been some 

confusion about the sourced from fishing industry 

byproduct only. And I want to emphasize the 

difference between byproduct and bycatch. There's 

been some reference to bycatch.

So bycatch would be the harvesting of 

nontarget marine organisms that were, you know, 

not the intent. So the classic examples would be, 

you know, dolphins getting caught in tuna nets or 

turtles getting killed from gill nets. So I want 

to emphasize that this is the intent here is to 

use only byproduct only. 

In other words that the fish oil would 

not be coming from, sourced from marine organisms, 

but they were harvested specifically for fish oil 

production. And there's even some data on that, 

worldwide I think about 26% of fish oil is produced 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

from byproduct versus targeted. 

So about a quarter of all the fish oil 

out there is already produced from byproduct. And 

that is, you know, I think that's a good thing. 

And I think on the other front, we don't want to 

support more harvesting of wild fish specifically 

to provide an additive, you know, an additive, an 

additive to food.

Although of course, you know, of course 

we look for plants, we do allow the harvesting of 

wild populations. But I wouldn't want to -- given 

that it's possible right now for harvesting fish, 

wild fish, for fish oil, I would much prefer that 

the organic community and organic process products 

that we use byproduct and not primary catch.

And then by -- and then of course bycatch 

is, like I said, is the inadvertent harvesting of 

nontarget -- nontarget species. So again, the 

intent of this, and we'd make this very clear in 

our cover letter and this listing is that again 

we'd be sourcing it from byproduct, i.e., what's 

left over after the primary purpose of the fish 

harvesting was complete.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So I think we can open this up for 

discussion now, and.

MR. ELA: Thanks, thanks, Asa. Yeah, 

you picked some -- you picked some difficult topics. 

Or they've been put on you. So appreciate all 

your thoughts on mulch and this. You've done a 

heavy lift on these.

Wood has a comment.

MR. TURNER: Asa, all due respect, I'm 

not totally sure that byproduct, bycatch 

description you just gave is really crystal clear. 

So I might ask that you try to make that -- try 

that again, make that a little more concise, in 

a second.

The other that -- I wasn't clear about 

it, so maybe others are clear but I didn't hear 

it quite right. And then the other issue is, you 

know, I think this is a challenging issue, and I 

think this is sort of a, you know, like many things 

we deal with, is sort of an imperfect solution.

I'm comfortable with the -- and I 

definitely get uncomfortable with the idea that 

we link what we're doing to other standards or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

outside standards. We've done it before, I think 

inert process is a good example of sort of where 

that can go sideways and be complicated.

On the other hand, I've gotten 

comfortable with this, I've comfortable with over 

the course of our discussion and feel, even though 

I'm concerned about the implications of linking 

to outside standards, I think what you've been able 

to navigate here is something that I'm generally 

comfortable with.

MR. ELA: Okay, we've got Brian.

MR. BRADMAN: Can I, before we go there 

can I respond to the thoughts of the definitions? 

And you know, I feel like I perhaps was a little 

remiss on maybe my homework here. But in fall 2020, 

when we were talking about native fish for liquid 

fish, the folks at NOC, you know, reiterated some 

of the definitions that we had included in that 

meeting.

You know, bycatch is the -- is defined 

as incidental or discarded catch that have low or 

no economic value, fish that must be discarded 

because of management regulations, or fish that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

are unintentionally killed by fishing gear. So 

there is kind of a definition. 

And according to the -- and I apologize, 

it probably should have been in the write-up --

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act for the MSA, that bycatch is defined 

as fish that are harvested in a fishery but are 

not sold or kept for personal use, and includes 

both economic and regulatory discards.

So bycatch is pretty well-defined as, 

you know, what were, you know, basically mistaken 

killed animals in the fishing product. 

And byproduct is, again, is material, 

again byproduct is the material that is left over 

as we, you know, cut off the filet from a salmon 

or you know. And then there's this carcass that's 

left over, and that then becomes the raw material 

for fish meal or fish oil or other products.

MR. TURNER: You did a great job of 

dumbing it down. Thanks, Asa, I appreciate it, 

perfect.

MR. ELA: Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: Yeah, thanks, Asa. It 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

sounded like there -- you gave a statistic that 

I heard as the 26% of fish oil is sourced from 

industry byproduct. Is that right?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes, and I can tell you 

where that's from.

MR. CALDWELL: Well, so I -- what I'm 

wondering about, does that mean that if we follow 

these rules, that 74% of the current fish oil would 

not be allowed?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. CALDWELL: Okay, great, thanks.

MR. ELA: We've got Amy.

MR. BRADMAN: I should say too that was 

from about five or six years ago, that data.

MS. BRUCH: All right, thank you, Asa, 

for your work on this. It is a little bit 

challenging, like everything you take on. I just 

had a question. You kind of briefly touched on 

this, but I just wanted to hear additional thoughts 

from you. 

There was a comment linked to this 

specific question that I have. But it just says 

challenges can arise when organic regulations are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

linked to folks outside of NOP jurisdiction. And 

then they made comment in reference to, you know, 

the EPA List 3, List 4 when things change in their 

jurisdiction but not necessary in the NOP.

So I just am real curious on your 

thoughts and to apply that to this particular area.

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah, I mean, that's a 

great question. I think that's a real issue with 

this. And I mean, the original proposal that Tom 

had was NOA and UN, so that was two organizations. 

And here we have a situation with List 3 and List 

4 where we're relying on an agency within the US 

Government, and there's still, you know, lack of 

consistency and management.

So, I mean, I think that's a real issue 

with this. And the notion of, you know, this would 

be a second example, but here we're working, relying 

on kind of a, you know, nonprofit third-party 

system, so it's even outside the government. And 

you know, I think that does raise issues. 

You know, I think there would have to 

be some, you know, ongoing and you know, oversight 

of these issues. And fortunately within the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

context of the National List, you know, these things 

come up for a review every five years. So I think 

every subset review on this there should be a 

reevaluation of this. 

And I think hopefully if there -- we 

get to an organic standard for fish, we can 

ultimately sunset this off as a listing, you know, 

and just specify that, you know, the product used 

for fish oil production should be organic. So I, 

you know, I think there's a challenge there.

At the same time, I, you know, having 

gone through the discussions with marine materials 

and the breadth and depth of materials that come 

from in many cases wild environments that we then 

harvest and put into the organic system, you know, 

in some ways I think that is beyond the scope of 

a lot of what we do and think about.

And so I think there's actually 

potentially a plus for using this kind of external 

validation when the complexity of issue is beyond 

what's really handleable by, you know, the National 

Organic Program. That's of course a personal 

opinion.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BRUCH: Sure. Thank you so much 

for expanding on that.

MR. ELA: Kyla.

MS. SMITH: Thanks. A little bit more 

on that point. To me, it's somewhat similar but 

a little bit different than the listing. So these 

are like referencing like accreditation schemes 

and just being certified to those schemes. 

So like the scheme would sort of have 

to go away is how I was reading it, which seems 

unlikely. Versus just having a list go away. I 

don't know if that is how you guys are interpreting 

that as well. 

But it says that sourced from byproduct 

and certified as sustainable by a third-party to 

these things. So like the certification standards 

could change. It doesn't anything specific about 

the standards, it just says it has to be certified 

to, or like by, you know, to this other scheme.

MR. ELA: So Kyla, can you, this is a 

topic I'm trying to wrap my head around. So to 

that point, you're saying that this is an okay 

listing because of that?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SMITH: It seems less risky in my 

opinion because it doesn't seem like these 

organizations are likely to go away. 

MR. ELA: And they can change, and we 

would still reference them, unlike for example, 

List 3 or 4.

MS. SMITH: Right.

MR. ELA: Okay. Anybody else? All 

right. I will say I still -- we've gotten burned 

enough by referring to outside sources. I'm 

hesitant, and on the other hand I just don't see 

much other solution on this because NOP is not going 

to certify fisheries by any stretch of the 

imagination, so.

And I agree, and I do want to say that, 

you know, this did come up. I know several Board 

members would not have voted to renew the sunset 

material if there wasn't going to be some sort of 

annotation on fish oil. 

I think Lisa De Lima was one of the most 

adamant about that, but there were others. So I 

do want to respect their desire for some limitation 

on fish oil as well, just to make a note of that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Any other comments? All right, Jerry, 

shall we move to the vote?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, we should. Thank 

you.

MR. ELA: All right. We have a motion 

to accept the proposed fish oil annotation as 

written in the proposal. I won't read that whole 

verbiage, but -- actually, I will just for the 

record.

So the annotation is changed to read, 

Sourced from fishing industry byproduct only and 

certified as sustainable against a third-party 

certification that is International, Social, and 

Environmental Accreditation and Labeling, ISEAL, 

code-compliant, or Global Seafood sustainable --

sustainability initiative GSSI recognized.

All right, the motion was made by Asa, 

it was seconded by Kyla. We are going to start 

with --

MR. BRADMAN: Steve, we also have the 

sentence in the future listing of fish oil 205606, 

and the annotation be reevaluated when organic 

aquaculture standards are approved.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Thank you, Asa. So I will 

-- correct. So the annotation does in the future 

listing fish oil at 205606 and the annotation can 

be reevaluated when organic aquaculture standards 

are approved. Thanks, Asa.

We are going to start with Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

MR. ELA: Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: Yes.

MR. ELA: Rick.

MS. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIR GREENWOOD: Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Logan.

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kyla.

MS. SMITH: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Wood.

MR. TURNER: Yes.

MR. ELA: Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Amy.

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

MS. JEFFREY: Okay, 14 yes, zero no, 

zero ARA. Motion passes.

MR. ELA: Great. Again, Asa, thank you 

so much for --

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you, Asa.

MR. ELA: Yup, very hard work on this.

Okay, Jerry, back to you.

MR. D'AMORE: Thanks. A quick hello 

to Kim, who I'm going to introduce. And would like 

to acknowledge how really well she introduced her 

subcommittee. I'm going to be a bit shorter. So 

we have up next Kim, agar-agar at 205605A.

MR. ELA: Kim just let us know she just 

dropped off.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. HUSEMAN: I think I got back on.

MR. ELA: Okay, great, Kim. Go ahead 

then.

MS. HUSEMAN: Okay, thanks, sorry. My 

internet died but I was able to jump back on, so. 

Okay, yes, so sunset review for 

agar-agar. Comments, there were a handful of 

comments very similar to the spring. 

Agar-agar has been used for many, many, 

many years as a food additive. It's a versatile 

ingredient that don't have an organic alternative 

for. And you know, it lists -- it is compatible 

with organic principles.

There's one mention that this could 

potentially be a work agenda item. The 

manufacturing process of agar-agar can be in either 

a synthetic or a nonsynthetic form. And as it is 

listed, it's listed as nonsynthetic. It has to 

do with the type of species of algae that's used 

for the production of agar-agar. And it should 

be taken into consideration.

However, when looking at the way that 

it is listed today and the entities that are using 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

agar-agar, there's overwhelming support for it to 

be relisted.

So that's the (Audio Interference). 

I do think that at some point in time, you know, 

we definitely do look at that listing from a 

synthetic to nonsynthetic and the way that it's 

produced. But today I support the relisting as 

it's written.

Back to you, Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: I would ask if there any 

comments, or comments -- excuse me, or questions.

MR. ELA: I am not seeing any, and to 

your point, Kim, I think that is important. We 

ran into that with ammonia extracts with, you know, 

two different possibilities. 

And I think the assumption is, but it 

always is good to clarify, that if it's listed as 

nonsynthetic and there are two methods, that we 

would reject the synthetic form. But I think it's 

always good to be clear about that and make sure 

certifiers are aware of that.

Anything else before we move to the 

vote? All right, the motion was to remove 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

agar-agar from the National List. It was made by 

Kim, seconded by Jerry. And we are going to start 

with Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Jerry says no.

MR. ELA: Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick.

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan.

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla.

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood.

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy.

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: The Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes, 14 no, zero ARA. 

Motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: Back to you, Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Well, Kim, the seat's 

still warm, so you're up next with animal enzymes 

at 205605A.

MS. HUSEMAN: Thank you, Jerry. 

Animal enzymes is a sunset review. We 

again had a handful of fall comments very similar 

to the comments from the spring. Animal enzymes 

is -- are used for organic cheese production. They 

are, from commenters' standpoints, very vital in 

specific cheese production.

Animal enzymes include rennet, which 

is animal-derived; catalase; animal lipase; 

pancreatin; pepsin; and trypsin, sorry. The TR 

that was conducted did heavily focus on rennet, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and there was a comment made that other enzymes 

weren't covered in the TR.

There's a push to find or utilize 

organic animal enzymes, but I think through the 

comment process there's significant voices 

basically stating that it's not commercially 

available as it stands today. 

This is an area that I would encourage 

the market space, the stakeholders, to put more 

time and effort into. But to delineate organic 

versus not organic animal enzymes just does not 

have the buy-in today.

I would say so from the perspective and 

listening to stakeholders, cheese production is 

a huge component I think to the organic space, and 

this is a vital ingredient in order for that to 

achieved.

That's my summary for animal enzymes.

MR. ELA: All right, are there any 

questions? I am not seeing any. Jerry, are you 

ready for us to move to the vote?

MR. D'AMORE: I would like that, Steve, 

thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Motion to remove animal 

enzymes from the national list. The motion was 

made by Kim, and seconded by Jerry.

We are going to start with Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: If I have this right, Chair 

votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes, 14 no, zero ARA. 

Motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: All right, back to you, Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, sir.

Next up is Wood, calcium sulfate -

mined, 205-605(a),

And, I would like to point out to the 

team here and the world at large, that Wood will 

then present glucono delta-lactone, and what that 

would do is prevent him from being sandwiched in 

between carrageenan.

So, he'll do two in a row. It will be 

one step out of sequence.

Thank you.

MR. TURNER: You mean sandwich and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

carrageenan, Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

MR. TURNER: Thanks.

So, the sunset review is for calcium 

sulfate - mined. This is a coagulate used in tofu 

manufacturing; really essential to, deemed 

essential by many in the community to soft and silky 

tofu types. It can be used in other, have other 

uses as well.

Dough conditioners, perming agents, 

gelling ingredients, and so on.

I think this is generally considered 

to be by the community and a largely essential 

product.

Although the listing doesn't get, it 

doesn't get by comparison if I looked at GDL, the 

next one I'm going to present, it doesn't get as 

many comments as that, and it tends to have sort 

of somewhat similar, somewhat similar uses.

Most of the feedback from the community 

is that it strongly supports relisting, and many 

consider it to be an essential part of organic 

production certainly, in tofu manufacturing.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I have flagged because of my own 

concern about this in the, in the sunset review, 

the fact that you know, this is produced from mined 

gypsum or alabaster, it's calcium sulfate.

And, it is mined in places that are maybe 

considered to be sort of sensitive areas, noting 

that the particular calcium sulfate comes often 

from Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument 

in Utah.

And, I did put that in there because 

I am concerned about this, not just the mining of 

this particular product, for this particular 

product, but sort of mining impacts in general.

And, so I'm not recommending that we 

remove it from the list, but I would never, would 

not recommend it in the current scenario that we 

remove the list.

But I do urge the community to continue 

to help bring forward any indication of, to help 

the board learn more about impacts from mining of 

these kinds of products, and other products in the 

future.

And, you know, there is limited support 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

for that additional research in this in the future 

from some in the community.

So, but in general, strong support from 

the community and that's all I have.

Thanks.

MR. D'AMORE: Okay. Any questions or 

comments, please?

(No audible response.)

MR. ELA: I am not seeing any. Should 

we move to the vote, Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Please do, Steve.

MR. ELA: So, the motion is to remove 

calcium sulfite - mined from the national list. 

The motion --

MR. TURNER: Sulfate.

MR. ELA: -- was made by --

MR. TURNER: Sulfate.

MR. ELA: Did I say that wrong? To 

remove calcium sulfate - mined from the national 

list. The motion was made by Wood, seconded by 

Jerry, and we will start with Rick.

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Sorry, I had to turn my 

phone off.

No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: And, the Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes, 14 no, zero ARA. 

The motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: All right, back to you, Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Okay. Next, as said a 

moment ago is Wood, of glucono delta-lactone, at 

205-605(a).

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Jerry.

The review is for the sensitive glucona 

delta-lactone, which you've been referring to as 

GDL, produced by the oxidation of D-glucose with 

bromine water, and it is prohibited.

Another material used in the production 

of tofu, particularly silken tofu, thought to be 

the only material that can produce some of the 

physical and sensory components favored in that 

product.

Generally considered to be a safe 

product with no risk to, to human health or 

environmental health.

This originally came on the list out 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of a petition for the coagulation of tofu.

There is some ongoing interest in 

annotating this, some limited interest in the 

community in annotating this material, suggesting 

somehow that there's other, other ways to get that 

same, that same characteristic that I described.

But it's very limited, very limited, 

and not a huge outpouring from the community. Lots 

of support from certifiers, from users of material 

obviously, for continuing to relist it.

We continue to ask questions, I think 

as we've said in the sunset documents. We continue 

to have some questions of the community as we try 

to understand this more broadly.

But in general, strong support for the 

material and I, the subcommittee made a motion to, 

moves to keep it on the list.

MR. D'AMORE: Well, thank you, Wood.

I would ask of the full board if we have 

any questions or comments?

(No audible response.)

MR. ELA: I am not seeing any.

So, with that, should we move to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

vote, Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, sir.

MR. ELA: There is a motion to remove 

glucono delta-lactone from the national list and 

I am so impressed Wood, that you just rolled that 

right off your tongue.

Motion was made by Wood, seconded by 

Jerry, and we will start with Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: And, the Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes, 14 no, zero ARA.

Motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: And, Wood, I know you're going 

to have to leave in a little bit. If you would 

just let us know when you need to drop off the call 

so we know what to change the vote counts.

MR. TURNER: I will, thanks, Steve.

MR. ELA: All right, Jerry, back to you.

MR. D'AMORE: Okay. Next up is 

carrageenan, and it's mine to do.

Got to share with you that listening 

to this morning, I do see similarities with some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

of what Asa said with fish oils, and what Ken said 

with agar agar, and the, and sort of the complexity 

around, you know, aquatic products, marine 

products.

Okay, carrageenan 205-605(a), a 

non-organic substance allowed as an ingredient in 

or on processed foods labeled, processed foods 

labeled for organic.

This is a food additive used as an 

emulsifier, thickener, and gelling compound, 

mostly in meat and dairy products. It is not animal 

sourced.

Carrageenan is an acceptable vegan 

alternative.

It is grass or generally accepted as 

safe by the FDA as a food additive.

Carrageenan is manufactured by heating 

edible red algae in a hot alkali solution, mostly 

using potassium hydroxide.

Most of the seaweed sourced from 

carrageenan comes from either China or the 

Philippines. International acceptance and the EU 

accepted for organic dairy foods, including baby 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

formulas.

Canada accept it as a food additive for 

organics without restriction.

Japan accept it as a food additive for 

organic dairy production.

IFOAM accepted -- (audio Interference)

MR. ELA: Did everybody else lose 

Jerry, or is it --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. ARSE ARSENAULT: Yes.

MR. ELA: -- just me?

Okay. Jerry --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. ARSENAULT: Jerry, can --

MR. ELA: -- we lost you.

MS. ARSENAULT: He might drop off. It 

sometimes takes a moment until.

MR. ELA: Let's give him a second here 

and if he doesn't, we will move on to me with 

tartaric acid, and then come back to him.

(Pause.)

MS. ARSENAULT: He just left. Oh, he's 

back.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Okay.

Jerry, we lost you for a minute there, 

so I can't think exactly where you dropped off.

MS. ARSENAULT: Now you're on mute.

PARTICIPANT: You're muted.

MR. D'AMORE: My screen went completely 

blank. I can ask you, please, if you heard anything 

about environmental issues?

DR. DIMITRI: I heard up to IFOAM.

MR. D'AMORE: Okay, thank you very 

much.

And, IFOAM accepts it as a food additive 

with no caveats.

Codex accepts it as a food additive in 

plant based foods, dairy products, and dairy 

substitutes.

Moving on to environmental issues, left 

unchecked, algae farming can be harmful to 

near-shore habitats such as coral reefs, 

exasperated by the fact that the bulk of the source 

products come from overseas and it is most unlikely 

it would be, it is most likely it would be difficult 

to control good farming practices.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

This is further complicated because it 

is relatively easy and cheap to farm algae, and 

it can be quite profitable, even on a small scale, 

thus giving rise to many small and remote farming 

operations.

I'd like to focus a second on the 

environmental pluses, and that they are with good 

farming practices, i.e., locating in deeper waters 

with sandy bottoms; seaweed agriculture can be 

beneficial.

It can oxygenate near-shore waters and 

improve and remove impurities. It can buffer wave 

action; it can stabilize marine pH. Further, as 

a former food production that does not use fresh 

water, and reportedly has no chemical inputs.

Human health concerns. The last sunset 

reviewed, as well as this one did, heavily with 

human health concerns and early studies indicated 

that serious gut issues with the potential to cause 

cancer.

Subsequent studies have indicated that 

the initial studies were flawed, and that 

substitute, and that subsequent studies could not
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

replicate the earlier findings.

In 2014 the Joint FAO-WHO Expert 

Committee on Food Additives, or JECFA, concluded 

that carrageenan is unlikely to be absorbed, and 

unlikely to have a direct effect on the gut.

It is important to note that during the 

last sunset review, the NOSB voted 10-3 to remove 

carrageenan from the nation list. This was with 

one absent, and one refusal.

It is also important to note that the 

NOP did not implement the NOSB recommendation.

Stakeholder input. There are about 14 

stakeholder comments leading into the spring 

meeting. Eight were in favor of keeping 

carrageenan on the national list, with four 

opposed.

The remaining two indicated that 

carrageenan was not used within their community.

It has been difficult to quantify the 

stakeholder responses leading into this fall 

session as they were, as there were well in excess 

of 50 private testimonials that may fall in my mind, 

under the category of form letters, all of which 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

were against relisting with nearly all citing human 

health concerns.

Having acknowledged these 

testimonials, I will put them out of the total and 

report that there were about 25 comments submitted 

for this fall season.

Several were not in favor of relisting, 

excuse me, seven were not in favor of relisting, 

12 supported relisting, and two indicated no 

position.

These 21 responses were mostly 

thoughtful and well-reasoned.

IFAC provided a very thorough written 

document in favor of relisting. During the oral 

comment session, they also shared a statistic that 

I found to be quite compelling. Namely, that since 

2016, 160 new products have been launched with 

carrageenan. Or at least containing carrageenan.

I'd like to tell you that I know exactly 

what the breakdown is between conventional and 

organic. And, I don't know. Initial indications 

are that there are a good number of these newly 

launched products that are, that are organic.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

With that, I'll open it for questions, 

Steve.

MR. ELA: Okay, are there questions, 

comments?

(No audible response.)

MR. ELA: Wow, okay. Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you.

So, one commenter said that most 

commercially available sources -- (audio 

Interference)

MR. D'AMORE: What? I've lost you, 

Mindee.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. JEFFREY: And, I was --

MR. D'AMORE: I'm sorry, say again?

MS. JEFFREY: -- wondering if someone 

--

MR. D'AMORE: Mindee, could you start 

again? I missed that, I'm sorry.

MS. JEFFREY: Oh, sorry. Can you hear 

me now?

MR. D'AMORE: I do.

MS. JEFFREY: One commenter noted that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

most commercially available sources are synthetic.

And, I would love it if someone in 

certification would walk me through that in this 

listing, as a non-synthetic allowed. What's 

happening with that in the sense of like are we 

allowing synthetics?

I'm confused by that is what I'm saying. 

And, I'd love to hear somebody else's wisdom on 

it. And, then I have another point if somebody 

wants to answer that one first.

MS. GREENWOOD: Could you cast a wide 

net on asking that, because I would not give great 

satisfaction to the crowd on that one.

MS. SMITH: I mean, so I would just say 

again not having, this is not my day today of doing 

material review, but as it is listed as a 

non-synthetic, I would assume that MROs and 

certifiers are looking at the manufacturing process 

and prohibiting synthetic, or carrageenan made with 

a synthetic process, because it is prohibited and 

only allowed as non-synthetic.

I did also note that a couple of 

commenters did ask us to look at this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

classification. So, I think that is something that 

the handling subcommittee can take up.

But, I would say that, you know, that 

is part of the process to look at, of doing material 

review is to look at the manufacturing process, 

and to prohibit forms of ingredients that don't 

meet the processing requirements per the list.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you. Do mind if 

I ask a second question?

MR. ELA: Go ahead.

MS. JEFFREY: Just this is a tough one. 

I definitely talk to customers about it a lot in 

the retail landscape, and feel the pain on all sides 

of it. And, it is uncomfortable with me sort of 

no matter which way it goes.

But right now, looking at the many sides 

of it, I am curious about other people's feelings 

on relisting and work agenda item for a 

reclassification, and potentially annotating it 

for some narrow uses where we could maybe make a 

graceful compromise in the dissonance.

MR. ELA: Okay. So, Mindee, I'm 

hearing that you maybe would vote to continue on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the list, but then hope for a work agenda item to 

narrow the, to annotate it more narrowly.

Is that correct?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes, thank you for 

clarifying.

MR. ELA: All right. Next, let's hear 

Nate and then Asa.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I just wanted to 

upvote what Mindee just said. I think that's, 

hearing public comments that there is concern about 

the health effects of the material, and the external 

widespread presence, but also that it is used a 

lot and we don't have really clear stand out science 

about the health effects.

And, so I think to make everybody a 

little bit happy to quote Mindee, would be I think 

a really great work agenda item for us in the future 

having passed this.

MR. ELA: Then, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: I have a couple comments. 

I look forward to people's input on some of things 

I'm going to say, and what their perspective is.

One, for me with this compound, it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

partly is that you know, a previous board voted 

to remove it. And, of course at one point, it was 

also listed.

But I feel like there's a certain 

principle that you know, when a board made a 

recommendation, and even though it wasn't followed 

by the NOP, I feel compelled to respect that 

recommendation.

And, that it concerns me about having 

a political process where you know, we make a 

recommendation and then it doesn't get 

incorporated, or even if it does, and then you know, 

five years later we you know, different people try 

to overturn that.

So, I feel like you know, my vote on 

this would be to just remain consistency with the 

earlier recommendation out of respect for that 

board's deliberation.

But other concerns I have about this 

material is you know, the assertion in this I don't 

know if you could comment on this Jerry, but that 

you know, as a processing aid, it can be an unlabeled 

ingredient in, in foods.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And, the whole notion of unlabeled 

ingredients you know, concerns me. I know I voted 

on celery powder and I said yes to it, and there 

are some potential health concerns with the 

nitrates.

But of course, there's a long you know, 

century long or more, use of that material, and 

it's also a labeled ingredient so there's an 

opportunity for consumer choice.

So, I'd be interested in hearing comment 

on the potential for this being unlabeled if it's 

used as a processing aid.

And, then there is a lot of consumer 

opposition to this. And, one kind of nugget of 

wisdom I got from a previous member of the board 

was that you know, we have a consumer seat on the 

board, and that's to reflect consumer interests.

And, you know, it might be viewed that 

there's a tension there between consumer trends 

and maybe on scientific issues, which you know, 

have been part of the debate around this, around 

this situation of safety that I also think we have 

to respect consumer views.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

But you know, without I think the 

assertion would be from one side that, that consumer 

reviews might be considered like mob rule in some 

cases.

But you know, I think there is a history 

with this material and, and that the consumer 

perspective also deserves respect.

So, I'd be curious to see how other 

people feel about those comments.

MR. D'AMORE: Could I jump in and get 

to you just in a second? I just got on chat, a 

comment how can we dismiss form letters or petition 

signatories when, when counting positions. No 

equal treatment to members of the public.

I honestly try to avoid that. I've 

enumerated it as being well in excess of 50 and 

that each and every one of them were against it. 

And, the overwhelming of those were citing human 

health concerns.

So, I respect that rebuttal and if I 

didn't cover it to the sender's satisfaction, I 

apologize.

Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: And, I want to step in and 

not to admonish you, Jerry, at all, but while the 

public can use the chat, this like if we were in 

session in-person, we would not allow stakeholder 

comments --

MR. BRADMAN: Okay.

MR. ELA: -- to the board.

And, so, I think the chat is between 

our stakeholders but is, and while the board may 

read it, I would caution the board from using those 

comments because we would not allow that in an 

in-person meeting either.

So it's I almost would suggest don't 

pay attention to the chat so we're not influenced 

by that.

So --

MR. D'AMORE: Steve, I will actually 

accept that as an admonishment, and thank you.

MR. ELA: No, it's just that a 

difference in virtual versus in-person meetings. 

So, you know, it's hard.

We're going to go to Brian and then --

MR. D'AMORE: No, I'd like to take it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

back to Asa, please. If I could.

MR. ELA: Oh, did I miss Asa? I'm 

sorry.

MR. D'AMORE: No, he commented and he 

had a number of really good points. And then one 

that plagues me most, and I don't have satisfaction 

in my own mind, is the notion that it could become 

a, an ingredient it would have to be on the label.

In other forms, you know, contact, et 

cetera, it wouldn't. And, I do see that. I want 

to acknowledge to the community and to Asa, that 

that to me is a concern.

MR. ELA: Fair enough.

So we're going to go to Brian, then 

Mindee, then Nate.

MR. CALDWELL: Thanks, Jerry, and 

thanks, Steve.

Yes, I am in one of the consumer public 

interest seats on the board, and I do take those 

comments quite seriously.

A couple of sort of question-comments. 

And, one is that we did see another article, sort 

of research summary article, that seemed to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

indicate that there still were health questions 

raised by the research that were not included in 

the ones that, you know, where they couldn't repeat 

the results and that sort of thing.

But there were still outstanding 

questions with the research. Sort of a literature 

review, these are really valuable for us to use.

And, the second point I want to make 

is that there seem to be a lot of disputes about 

how, what the levels of contaminants and sort of 

secondary compounds were in the carrageenan 

products. And, so that is another, and some of 

them are quite clearly toxic.

So, that was another thing that sort 

of came up to me and raised the question and I don't 

know the answer to it, but I'm wanting to sort of 

lean down on the side of public safety and the 

consumer confidence on this issue.

MR. D'AMORE: Could I have one point 

of clarification, Brian? And, what was the date 

on the reference publication?

MR. CALDWELL: That is a great 

question, and I'm going to have to --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. D'AMORE: Well, it's rhetorical. 

I'm sorry.

And, then I would ask on top of that, 

who were the cited contributors.

MR. CALDWELL: Oh boy.

MR. D'AMORE: And, I read it. It was 

a really well-balanced piece, but it was from 2018, 

which is not ancient.

And there were references to you know, 

to the folks that have been involved all along. 

And, that's not to minimize it.

Thank you.

MR. ELA: We've got --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. CALDWELL: Yes, I am looking, I'm 

sorry, I am looking at it here in 2018 is correct, 

and I am not familiar with any of the authors. 

I really, that's out of my realm.

But it did specifically respond to the 

issue that the claim that some of these studies 

had been refuted because they couldn't be 

replicated. And that was part of the discussion.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. D'AMORE: And, excuse me for 

butting in again. You have honed in on for me, 

one of the two major points: the labeling and the 

human health concerns. And, you could spend a 

career going on the back and forth on human health 

concerns.

It is my opinion that in the intervening 

five years, that they have been not softened by 

the editors, but, or the writers, but softened by 

overall opinion.

But that's just my, that's my 

interpretation.

MR. ELA: All right, let's go to Mindee, 

and then Kyla.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you.

I spent about a year walking Good 

Earth's customers through this one as it was up 

for review last time. Talking to people on the 

ground about their health concerns, and ingredients 

that they needed to be really careful about.

And, Good Earth was able to walk our 

consumers through this one, and help them find what 

was the transparency that they needed.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

In fact to me in the sense of the really 

respected fact that PCC has a prohibition on the 

ingredient, and that their customers support them 

in the prohibition on the ingredient.

So, I don't know if that helps you all, 

but there is a lot of dialogue going on in the retail 

landscape around this one.

And, I appreciate how much 

manufacturers have worked on this, and have solved 

a lot of the problems and made products available 

organically.

And, for me, I sort of come back to the 

international acceptance in that I want to try to 

get this one right.

And, I'm motivated to look at it from 

an annotation perspective, and whether or not you 

could limit it as an invisible processing aid and 

give it a couple of central uses.

I don't know if that's possible, I'm 

just saying in a grand scheme of compromise, I'm 

willing to work on it.

MR. ELA: We have Kyla, and then Sue.

MS. SMITH: Yes. I think that this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

material is the one maybe that I'm struggling the 

most with because of all the things that you all 

have brought up already. The human health 

concerns, the past board vote, the fact that it 

still seems to be used for specific 

functionalities.

And, so I think that yes, I just want 

to reiterate sort of what Mindee had said in that 

maybe there is a way to restrict it that would be 

a compromise since it does seem to be still you 

know, used a decent amount, and you know, some, 

for certain very specific functionalities that we 

heard in the public comment process.

So, anyway, I'm really struggling with 

this one guys.

MR. ELA: Okay, we've got Sue and then 

Jerry.

MS. BAIRD: I set in when this was 

reviewed the last time in St. Louis, Missouri, it 

was when they actually had announced that I was 

going on the board.

The passion that we heard from the 

consumers at that NOSB meeting was incredible, with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

most of the consumers stating we don't want it.

I haven't seen quite the passion this 

time but I'm not on this committee, so perhaps I 

haven't heard feedback.

It's conflict of who puts out the health 

reports, seems to me like. Some say yes, it has 

a lot of health issues; others say no, that's not 

true.

These reports are not vetted through 

the scientific world, and therefore, perhaps not 

valid.

There's been a lot of confusion on how 

it should be listed. I, and yet there are processes 

but certainly that says we need this product.

I'm so torn on this. I was when it first 

came up five years ago, or the first in my life 

at least.

And, now we hear the same confusion and 

passion from those who say it causes health issues, 

to those who say that's not true at all.

MR. ELA: All right, thanks, Sue.

Jerry, then Carolyn.

MR. D'AMORE: Okay, well between the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

last three comments, I think we really have focused 

on the dilemma.

And, one of the things that I didn't 

highlight this time around, which may have been 

an oversight, are those areas where there is truly 

distinct, unique, better than functionality.

And, I am gravitating towards the 

annotations being talked about. I think that 

they're valid.

As I told you, I've got my two top ones, 

which are the human health concerns even though 

I've come to my own position on that, and the 

labeling aspect.

So, I thank you all for your comments 

there.

MR. ELA: Okay, Carolyn.

DR. DIMITRI: I'm actually kind of 

stunned that this conversation has gone on so long, 

and that we're actually sort of talking about 

relisting under certain conditions, a product that 

a previous board has delisted.

And, I just don't think that we'd be 

doing anyone any favors by saying that it's okay 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

even under certain circumstances.

So, I just, there's no way I would vote 

to put this back on the list, or whatever it's fuzzy 

state is.

If the NOP decides you know, to ignore 

what we say, well, they've done that before. And 

that's a whole different story.

But I just, I think maybe we don't hear 

consumer outcry right now because consumers think 

it's a settled deal.

MR. D'AMORE: A settled deal insofar 

as it will not be carried forward by this group.

DR. DIMITRI: No, I mean I think that 

consumers probably you know, don't think it's being 

used. I mean and that's a topic for another day.

But I just think that consumers, the 

board voted on it and it was, and probably in the 

consumer mind that just settled the whole issue 

and they may not you know, follow up with what the 

NOP does.

MR. D'AMORE: So, the other 

conversation I would like to have at another time 

because now is not at all appropriate, is the NOSB 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

NOP discussion.

I don't feel we're ignored. I just 

think there's separate criteria, and I'd really 

love to have that conversation as a group.

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Yes, I want to throw in my 

own comments now.

I've been kind of waiting but to hear 

everybody else's, but I tend to agree with Carolyn 

on this that for me, I want to hear if we're going 

to change what a previous board has said, I really 

want to hear compelling comments about why they, 

why their decision was incorrect.

And, you know, some of the health 

effects that you know, certainly are in that. But 

I guess I haven't seen enough evidence.

If it comes back wishy-washy, then I 

tend to err on the side of caution and agree with 

the previous board.

On the essentiality side, you know, so 

many manufacturers dropped carrageenan out of their 

products in response to the previous board's vote. 

It seems, it makes me question essentiality more.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Not everybody dropped it out of their 

product and you know, I don't want to disrespect 

that, but you know, it seems like one of these that 

you know, we so cautiously add things to the 

national list, and I think we really struggle to 

delist them. This is one I lean towards the 

delisting because this can go on forever.

And, then just as it says you know, under 

the justification for vote, you know, are there 

other alternatives? And, you know, that comes back 

to the essentiality. How many manufacturers quit 

using it, and you know, so then I kind of say well, 

there are availability of alternatives.

Jerry, you mentioned I think it was IFAC 

with the number of products coming on to the market 

with carrageenan. And, I think it is important 

to know which ones were organic, and which ones 

were conventional.

Because if 115 of them were 

conventional, then you know, I think the 

essentiality comes back.

And, just so I take that number with 

it could be 116 organic products, too. But without 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

knowing that breakdown, I have a hard time just 

taking that number at face value.

So, I tend to agree with Carolyn. I 

haven't seen compelling evidence to go against that 

ruling by the board.

And, in fact, I saw on public comments, 

you know, basically again from our stakeholders 

saying please take it off in general.

And, I do recognize that the letter 

writing campaign, you know, it all does the same 

thing but however many consumers took the time to 

let us know about something.

Yes, and so it looks like you have 

another comment, Jerry, and then maybe we should 

move on.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, Steve.

I can't agree more with particularly 

the last comment that you made. And, had hoped 

to cover that adequately, but obviously not.

So, the only other thing that I would 

throw out there Steve, is the distinction between 

essentiality and functionality.

And, the people who got off using 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

carrageenan to move this, and I've done a fair 

amount of interviewing outside of our circle.

And, what I'm getting back is yes, there 

are substitutes but they're nowhere near as good. 

So I'd like just to put that out there and then 

I'll, that's it for me.

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Let's see here. We've got, 

let me, there we go. Nate, and then Mindee.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I was just hoping to 

pose to the program if they had anything to say 

on why it didn't go to rule making from the last 

recommendation by the board.

If Jenny could speak to that at all.

MR. ELA: She may have had to drop out 

--

MS. JEFFREY: That was actually my 

question too, because my, I have a thinly veiled 

recollection of the specifics that could matter 

to me.

So maybe Devon's on?

MR. ELA: Yes, go ahead, Kyla. I know 

Jenny had to drop off --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. SMITH: Yes --

MR. ELA: -- for a half hour there.

MS. SMITH: -- I mean I don't, I know 

what they said and can repeat that, but don't know 

the like, decision making that led to that final 

result.

So, I could at least say that that it 

was explained that they did a review of the public 

comment, and that they deemed there was sufficient 

evidence in the public comment to the NOSB, that 

carrageenan continued to be necessary for handling 

agricultural products because of the, anyway 

because of the unavailability of substitutes. So, 

that's what they said.

What led them there, and like why they 

didn't do a proposed rule to then solicit that, 

that would have been what I would have expected 

and that wasn't what happened.

So, I don't know why they didn't do that.

MR. ELA: Yes, and I guess anybody else 

besides Jenny that, from the program that wants 

to chime in on that?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I don't know if Devon you're on the call, 

I don't have a complete list here.

MR. PATTILLO: I don't know if I would 

have anything to add in addition to what was 

included in the notice itself when we renewed it.

MR. ELA: Okay. Thanks, Devon.

All right --

MS. HEALY: Steve, this is Erin. I 

just wanted to mention Jenny's at another meeting 

until about another 15 minutes. So she's meeting 

with the administrator right now.

We can have her chime in when she gets 

back on line though.

MR. ELA: Okay, I'll just ask the board, 

do you want to defer the vote on this till after 

Jenny can speak to it? Or shall we move forward?

Does anybody object to moving forward?

MR. D'AMORE: The Chair votes to move 

forward.

MR. ELA: With that, I don't see any 

other comments.

Jerry, is it okay to move forward with 

the vote?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, sir.

MR. ELA: Okay, we have a motion to 

remove carrageenan from the national list. It was 

made by Jerry and seconded by Kyla.

We are going to start with Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: Of course you are.

MS. JEFFREY: Um.

MS. GREENWOOD: I think Mindee's 

frozen.

MS. BRUCH: She did that on purpose.

MS. JEFFREY: Respectfully, no.

Can you hear me?

MR. ELA: Yes, we got you.

MS. JEFFREY: I said no. You got me, 

okay, thank you.

MR. ELA: Now we've got you, yes.

Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. TURNER: Yes.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: I'm going to say yes.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Just confirming, yes is 

to remove it from the list?

MR. ELA: Correct.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay, yes.

MR. ELA: Brian, or Amy? Excuse me, 

I about skipped you there.

MS. BRUCH: That's okay, yes.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: Yes.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MS. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Chair votes yes.

(Pause.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Making the secretary do their 

work.

MS. JEFFREY: Yes, come on.

MR. D'AMORE: Steve, I'd just have a 

quick question. Was Wood on this one, too?

MR. TURNER: I voted yes.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you, sir, thank 

you.

MS. JEFFREY: Nate, what did you get?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Nine to five.

MS. JEFFREY: Me, too. So, nine yes, 

five no, zero ARA.

The motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: All right, thank you very 

much.

Jerry, back to you for the next 

material.

MR. D'AMORE: Could we just review what 

was just said about carrageenan on the vote, please?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes, I --

MR. ELA: So the --

MR. D'AMORE: I didn't think you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

counted it.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. JEFFREY: Wait, did I say it wrong? 

I'm sorry, thank you. Please clarify.

Nine yes's, nine yes's to remove, five 

no's, and it needs 10, right?

MR. ELA: Correct, so the motion does 

fail.

MR. D'AMORE: So, moving on I'll remind 

the group that Wood has already done his glucono 

delta-lactone, and that puts us with Steve next 

on the tartaric acid at 205-605(a).

MR. ELA: All right, thank you, Jerry.

So, tartaric acid is made from grape 

wine and is used in a number of purposes, primarily 

as a pH adjuster.

I won't go further into the use but the 

comments really kind of distill, or precipitate 

maybe I should say, out to whether an organic supply 

exists.

Are there enough organic grapes in the 

market at this point, to make tartaric acid from 

organic grapes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And, you know, as several people noted 

it's kind of a chicken or the egg situation of 

tartaric acid won't be made from organic grapes 

unless there is a necessity for it. And, the only 

way to make a necessity for it is to remove the, 

the allowance for non-organic grapes to be used.

One commenter said well, you'd have 

to take organic grapes from making wine to making 

that tartaric acid. My understanding, I could be 

wrong, is that that it's not an either/or but it's 

a byproduct of the process.

So, you know, it's one of those 

difficult things. Is there an adequate, 

potentially an adequate organic supply available? 

That wasn't clear from the public comments.

There could be, but from what I 

understand, it is not there now. So I don't know 

what the lag time would be to make an organic supply. 

I suspect it would be enough that we would be 

disruptive to remove it.

But you know, this really is the dilemma 

on some of these materials. They possibly could 

be made, but they're not being made now.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So, I tend to fall on the side of 

essentiality that it's still needed because there 

isn't an adequate organic supply. But I would sure 

like to know more if there really could be.

So, with that, I will open it up to 

comments and questions.

Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes, thanks.

I think I brought this up I don't know 

somewhere during this meeting, but that there's 

several items on 205-605(a) that sort of already 

have that commercial availability clause to use 

organic forms, or organic substitutes for some.

And, there was definitely a commenter 

you know, wrote in about applying, or commercial 

availability more broadly to 605(a) and I found 

that to be interesting.

And, there's a couple of things that 

are being talked about today that lead one you know, 

in that direction and tartaric acid is one of those 

items. And, I think we talked about one maybe 

earlier as well.

So, anyway, I just thought it was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

interesting and something the handling 

subcommittee can talk about further.

MR. ELA: Yes, and Kyla, you probably 

know better than I do as a listee, I'm going to, 

as a listee wonk, that we would need regulatory 

change to do that, wouldn't we?

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: Okay. Other comments, 

questions?

(No audible response.)

MR. ELA: I don't see any.

Jerry, can we go to the vote?

MR. D'AMORE: Please do.

MR. ELA: The motion to remove tartaric 

acid from the national list was made by myself, 

Steve, seconded by Jerry.

And, we will start if I talk slowly to 

flip the page, with Logan.

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Wood?

MS. JEFFREY: He's absent now.

MR. ELA: He is absent? Okay.

So, Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: And, Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: So, we have zero yes, 13 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

no, one recusal, and zero abstentions.

I said that in the wrong order, I 

apologize to the transcriptionist.

So, the motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: Okay. One absent, no --

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: -- recusals.

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: No abstentions.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes, 13 no, one 

absent.

MR. ELA: One absent.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero recusals. Zero 

abstentions, zero recusals, one abstention.

MR. ELA: We got you.

All right, we're going to move on.

Jerry, it is back to you.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. JEFFREY: I'm sorry, just I think 

it's worth noting that we're nine now for the super 

majority for votes, because Wood is absent unless 

he can call back in.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Yes, that is a good point. 

Thanks, Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: Thanks, Mindee.

Next up is Carolyn Dimitri, that's 

cellulose at 205.605(b).

DR. DIMITRI: Okay, this is a 

non-controversial material.

I think the comments in the fall largely 

echo the comments in the spring, which are that 

the people that use cellulose find it extremely 

important to their operation.

And, there was one commenter that said 

actually there were some adverse effects of the 

production, and that it was not essential.

But other than that one comment, I think 

they're overall, there is support for relisting 

this particular product.

And, that's all I have to say on that.

I'm efficient in my words and also a 

little hungry waiting for lunch.

Sorry.

MR. ELA: The efficiency is fine.

Are there questions and/or comments?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

(No audible response.)

MR. ELA: The board is being extremely 

efficient here.

Jerry, shall we move to the vote?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, Steve, please do.

MR. ELA: We have a motion to remove 

cellulose from the national list. The motion was 

made by Kyla, seconded by Jerry.

And, we are going to start with Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MS. JEFFREY: Absent.

MR. ELA: Thank you, I should know that.

Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

(No audible response.)

MR. ELA: Asa, are you there?

(No audible response.)

MR. ELA: Did we lose Asa as well?

MR. BRADMAN: No, no.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Okay.

Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: And we, help me out Mindee?

MS. PETRY: Logan.

MS. JEFFREY: Logan.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Okay. Thank you, I missed 

a check mark. Chair votes know.

MS. JEFFREY: So, zero yes, 13 no, one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

absent, zero recusals, zero -- I'm sorry, I messed 

it up again. I can't get.

Zero yes, 13 no, zero abstains, zero 

recusals, and one absent.

So, the motion to remove failed.

MR. POWELL-PALM: You nailed it, you 

nailed it.

MR. ELA: And, it is okay to read absent 

before abstentions.

MS. JEFFREY: Okay.

MR. ELA: It's not, there's nothing 

written in stone there as long as you say it 

correctly.

So, let's see, I'm looking at the time 

because obviously everybody is hungry.

We have, I will say everybody is acting 

a little tired so let's go ahead and break for lunch. 

We will finish up with the handling sunsets after 

lunch, and I think we've got some flex time in our 

schedule later in lunch.

So, let's come back at half after the 

hour, and we'll move into the final home stretch 

here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So, all right, Michelle, you have a 

question?

MS. ARSENAULT: So, we are going to take 

an hour lunch?

MR. ELA: Yes.

MS. ARSENAULT: Is that right. Okay.

MR. ELA: Yes, I think we've got time 

at lunch.

MS. ARSENAULT: I obviously couldn't 

do math there for a moment.

Okay, thanks.

MR. ELA: Yes, so we'll start at 3:30 

Eastern. All right.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 2:29 p.m. 

and resumed at 3:32 p.m.)

MR. ELA: All right, well, we'll get 

started again here with our final stretch down the 

track of NOSB meetings, and so, Jerry, I'm going 

to turn it back over to you for the final handling 

sunsets here.

MR. D'AMORE: Well, thank you, and I 

will punt back to you after I make an introduction 

and a comment, but next on is Asa, chlorine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

materials, the first one, calcium hypochlorite.

And I understand that the preference 

here is to do them all at once and vote again, and 

I'm going to leave it to you to propose that and 

to see if it suits the team.

MR. ELA: So, I'll just ask if anybody 

has any objections to treating these four materials 

all at once? It doesn't look like it, so yeah, 

so ahead, Asa, and we'll do all four at once.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay, you know, we've 

voted on chlorine materials several times this week 

and I feel like I know for me, I've kind of said

all the things I wanted to say about chlorine 

compounds and sanitizers in general, but just to 

kind of say it one more time, I feel like there's 

a lot of great comments in the public comment this 

year, this fall, and especially from last spring. 

I think some of the suggestions from 

NOC and the Organic Trade Association are really 

good, and OPWC in terms of, you know, the need to, 

you know, have a special plant in the National List 

for sanitizers and disinfectants and their specific 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

uses.

I would advocate for a work agenda item 

to address that, and I guess I'm taking up a little 

bit of my end of the board speech here, apologies.

You know, so specific to these 

substances, you know, I think we've discussed them 

many times. You know, they're essential for 

complying with food safety issues. They do raise 

occupational, especially occupational and 

environmental health concerns. 

You know, I've said repeatedly I do feel 

there's not enough monitoring in occupational 

environments for exposures to these, and that may 

be true for other sanitizers as well.

You know, and I've argued that based 

on anecdotal information, we should be doing 

research to better assess the exposures and risks. 

Then perhaps, even if we keep using those 

materials, there may be better ways to reduce 

exposures.

You know, I know from personal 

experience. I've been in environments where 

they're used and, you know, things felt fine, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

proper, and okay to me. 

I've also reviewed cases in other 

environments where, you know, people have 

experienced probably permanent lung damage and 

ongoing dermal and ocular issues. 

So, again, I'm getting a little 

repetitive here. You know, we've discussed these 

a lot, but I'd be curious is there's any new comments 

that people want to make or just acknowledge as 

I said this morning, you know, by reference kind 

of incorporating previous discussion about these 

into this discussion for handling in particular.

MR. ELA: Are there any questions or 

comments? I am not seeing anything, so I think 

you're right, Asa. We've certainly talked about 

it, but I'm glad that you incorporated all our 

discussions, and we know it's going to be an ongoing 

tension between biocides and food safety.

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah.

MR. ELA: I don't expect it to resolve 

soon.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay, let me make one more 

comment that, you know, for things on the list, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

some of our discussions are theoretical about how 

to organize the list and think about these, you 

know, but there's right now two sanitizers that 

are being petitioned right now, so how we evaluate 

these are very important in going forward. 

For the new members and for the current 

members that are staying on, you know, you are going 

to be confronted with these issues, again 

especially talking about listing new materials, 

in particular, CPC, cetylpyridinium.

I've misplaced my notes here, but 

anyway, CPC, which is a quaternary ammonium, which 

would be a whole new class of sanitizer on the list 

and the proposed uses for dipping for chicken 

carcasses before packaging, and then peroxy lactic 

acid, which is another material related to some 

things like peracetic acid and some other compounds 

we have on the list right now. 

So, just kind of a heads up that this 

is going to be an ongoing issue, and just in the 

next, you know, next few months, there are two that 

are going to be evaluated and all of us should be 

thinking about that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Great. Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Asa, just a quick question 

on what you just said. They're being petitioned. 

Are they being petitioned for all the different 

categories or handling in particular? Do you know?

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah, no, the quaternary 

ammonium, which again would be an entirely new class 

on the National List, is being petitioned 

specifically for chicken carcass dipping.

MS. BRUCH: Oh, okay.

MR. BRADMAN: And the peroxy lactic 

acid is being petitioned also for meat wash before 

packaging.

MS. BRUCH: Okay, thank you.

MR. D'AMORE: So that would hit 

handling then is what you said?

MR. ELA: Yeah.

MR. D'AMORE: Yeah, thank you.

MR. ELA: Yeah, without -- Asa, am I 

correct that they're specifically for handling and 

would not cross over to crops?

MR. BRADMAN: Correct.

MR. ELA: Anybody else on the board? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

All right, Jerry, should we proceed? Oh, Kim has 

a hand up. Kim, we're not hearing you. Are you 

there, Kim?

MS. ARSENAULT: She said never mind.

MR. ELA: Okay, got it. Okay, we will 

move forward to the vote and I'm just going to 

combine all of them. 

The motion is to remove calcium 

hypochlorite from the National List, motion to 

remove chlorine dioxide from the National List, 

motion to remove hypochlorous acid generated from 

electrolyzed water from the National List, and 

motion to remove sodium hypochlorite list from the 

National List. 

All were made by Asa and seconded by 

Jerry, and we will start with Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood? Oh, Wood's gone, 

sorry. I'm got to learn this yet. Wood is absent. 

Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: No.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Can you hear me?

MR. ELA: Yeah, we can.

MS. HUSEMAN: Okay, good. No, thank 

you.

MR. ELA: Okay, Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: The Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Okay, zero yes, 13 no, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

one absence, zero recused, zero abstain. Motion 

to remove fails.

MR. ELA: All right, back to you, Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Okay, well actually, back 

to you, Steve. You're up next with potassium 

hydroxide at 205.605(b).

MR. ELA: Woo-hoo, my final sunset, and 

I think that was, chlorine materials were Asa's 

final sunset, and I haven't kept track of Sue. 

I apologize. I should be tracking these things.

But just very quickly, this potassium 

hydroxide is used in a variety of ways, pH control, 

as a thickener, as a poultry scald, among other 

things. 

It is prohibited for use in lye peeling 

of fruits and vegetables except when used for 

peeling peaches. Peaches were carved out to the 

difficulties of mechanical peeling of them.

I will say we did have one comment that 

said that peeling of peaches could be done 

mechanically at this point, but that was just one 

comment.

They were noted as widely used and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

widely needed, but another commenter noted that 

they're one of the most hazardous and toxic 

materials on the National List. 

Being a lye material, they're extremely 

caustic, or it is extremely caustic, and if released 

in wastewater, it can cause environmental 

disruption, human health obviously. You have all 

kinds of issues of burning on dermal contact and 

eyes, and things like that.

So, while it's widely used and needed, 

there are issues with it, and like I say, there 

is some question of whether there is still need 

for peeling peaches. 

There is some question of whether it's 

being used on nectarines kind of under the peach 

exemption, but for the peach adjustment, and the 

thickener, and other purposes, this is still 

needed.

So, one other comment is that it is used 

for extraction of other materials essentially as 

a processing aide, and --

(Audio interference.)

MR. D'AMORE: I've lost Steve.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ARSENAULT: He just froze for me 

as well. Let's see if it comes back on its own. 

Such is our Zoom life.

MS. JEFFREY: So, now is a really good 

time for us to do our Zoom TikTok?

MS. ARSENAULT: Take it away, Mindee. 

Entertain us.

MS. JEFFREY: Everybody, do your TikTok 

on Zoom.

MS. HUSEMAN: TikTok made me do it?

MS. SMITH: Should we move to the next 

one then circle back?

MS. ARSENAULT: Vice Chair? Oh, we 

lost Steve, so Chair will come back. Nate, as Vice 

Chair, do you want to just hold until he comes back 

or --

MR. POWELL-PALM: I would think so. 

Maybe give it like 30 seconds. Mindee can give 

us some good hand dances and --

MS. JEFFREY: Well, who is the lead on 

potassium lactate? Should we skip?

MR. D'AMORE: If you'd like to, I am, 

and I'd be happy to. That's up to you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yeah, if you want to 

proceed, Jerry, I think that we'll be able to have 

Steve join us when he comes back on.

MR. D'AMORE: Okey-doke, well, then 

we'll move onto potassium lactate, and I'd like 

to do potassium sodium separately, but the sodium 

lactate will be extremely short because they're 

essentially the same thing.

But before I start any of that, I'd like 

to make an acknowledgement and let the community 

know that I was challenged by NOC regarding my 

representation of stakeholder comments during our 

spring session, and they were right to do so.

I stated that there were less than 10 

commentators during the session and that most were 

in favor of relisting. In fact, there were 10 

commenters, with two opposed and three in favor. 

The remaining responded that they were not taking 

a stance. So, please accept my apologies all the 

way around.

While talking about public comments, 

I would go right into the public comments that 

supported this, you know, the stakeholder comments 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that supported this fall session, and this time 

there were nine, and there were two of those 

opposing relisting and they specifically cited the 

synthetic nature of the product or the material. 

Three supported relisting, three 

stating no users and not for or against, and one 

having users and also not for or against. So, 

again, accept my apologies for that and I'll go 

right into the material.

We are reviewing two sunsets, potassium 

lactate and sodium lactate. This is particularly 

the potassium, potassium lactate at 205.605(b) for 

use as an antimicrobial agent and a pH regulator 

only.

Potassium lactate comes as a liquid and 

may be added to meat as an antimicrobial. It is 

generally regarded as safe. The FDA does not 

authorize its use in infant formulas and foods.

Potassium lactate is generally produced 

from natural fermented lactic acid, and this is 

a relevant observation as I consider international 

acceptance.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So, the Canadian General Standards 

Board has a statement that sodium lactate and 

potassium lactate are not listed for use in 

processing. However, lactic acid, the precursor 

substance, is allowed, therefore my emphasis 

leading into this.

Sodium and potassium lactate, under the 

EU, it is not permitted for use in food service 

and processing in the European Union. However, 

again, lactic acid, the precursor, is allowed.

International Federation of Organic 

Agricultural Movements, IFOAM, sodium and 

potassium lactates are not specifically listed on 

any of the appendices for IFOAM, but the precursor, 

again, lactic acid, is allowed.

JAS, sodium and potassium lactate are 

not listed in the JAS standard, and therefore not 

permitted.

There does not appear to be any human 

health concerns as provided by the 2005/15 TR, and 

having already reviewed stakeholder comments, I 

would like to put this to the board for comment.

MR. ELA: Okay, I'm back. Nothing like 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

-- it's my senioritis. I'm just going to randomly 

--

MR. D'AMORE: I don't know.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. ELA: -- but, so are there any 

comments or questions from the board on this 

material? I am not seeing any, Jerry, so should 

we move to the vote?

MR. D'AMORE: Would you please, Steve?

MR. ELA: So, there is --

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve, can I just have 

you hang on one second? Wood joined us by phone. 

I just want to get him over into the -- I don't 

think I can. I can allow him to talk.

MR. ELA: Okay, why don't we -- we'll 

do that. So, Wood, we know you're out there, and 

Michelle will mute and unmute you as need be.

So, I'll just reiterate there's a motion 

to remove potassium lactate from the National List. 

The motion was made by Jerry. It was seconded 

by Steve. And I don't know what happened while 

I was gone, so tell me where --

MS. JEFFREY: Wood.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Okay, we are starting the vote 

with Wood? Okay, Wood, let Michelle unmute you 

and we'll see what your vote is.

MS. ARSENAULT: Was that Morse code?

MS. GREENWOOD: That was two clicks for 

no.

MR. ELA: Maybe we will count Wood as 

absent here with lack of a definitive vote. We'll 

see if he comes up as we go around. Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa? Asa, are you there?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy? 

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian? 

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry? 

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn? 

DR. DIMITRI: No.

 MR. ELA: Rick? 

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee? 

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan? 

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate? 

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: And do we have Wood?

MR. POWELL-PALM: He texted and said 

no is his vote.

MR. ELA: Okay, and then the Chair votes 

no.

MS. JEFFREY: Are we counting Wood as 

a no or an abstention?

MR. ELA: Why don't we count him as a 

no since he is paying attention and the technical 

difficulties are not his fault?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yeah, got it. Thank 

you.

MR. TURNER: No if you can hear me. 

No is my vote.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: You're there Wood.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. JEFFREY: So, zero yes, 14 no, zero 

ARA. The motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: I don't know what you did 

while I was gone. Where should I -- so did we vote 

on potassium hydroxide and silicon dioxide? No, 

okay.

PARTICIPANT: We did not.

MR. D'AMORE: No, silicon, no. That's 

Kyla's to do next.

MR. ELA: Okay.

MR. D'AMORE: And also no on yours.

MR. ELA: Okay, so was there any 

discussion on potassium hydroxide we needed to 

have? Okay, so should we move to the vote on 

potassium hydroxide?

MS. SMITH: Were you done Steve? I 

just don't remember where you like froze and left 

off, so.

MR. ELA: Well, I don't know where I 

dropped off. So, basically I think the main thing, 

the gist of it was that it is still widely used 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and generally people were in favor of relisting, 

but with a very strong note of its hazardous and 

toxic effects, and that it would be very nice to 

have an alternative to it, so that would be the 

Cliff's Notes. 

So, any further questions on that? 

Okay, we will go to the vote on the motion to remove 

potassium hydroxide from the National List. The 

motion was made by myself, Steve, and seconded by 

Asa, and we will start with Sue.

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy? 

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian? 

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry? 

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn? 

DR. DIMITRI: No.

 MR. ELA: Rick? 

MS. GREENWOOD: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee? 

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan? 

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla? 

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: And the Chair votes no.

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Yeah, we got you, Wood.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes, 14 no, zero 

ARAs. Motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: All right, back to you, Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Okay, so next in line is 

potassium lactate finished and I am going to stay 

with the printed schedule and have Kyla Smith next 

at 205.605(b), and then I will finish up with the 

sodium lactate afterwards.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SMITH: Thanks, Jerry. So, I have 

silicon dioxide, 205.605(b) permitted as a 

defoamer, allowed for other uses when organic rice 

hulls are not commercially available.

This is used as an anti-caking agent, 

stabilizer, absorbent, carrier, and defoamer. For 

all other uses besides defoaming, a commercial 

availability search for organic rice hulls is 

required.

There was generally wide support for 

the relisting of this product across stakeholders 

noting its essentiality for specific functions.

 There were a few that didn't really take 

a position, but suggested rather that we relook 

at the annotation as it was altered in the 

rulemaking process. 

Since we can't change annotations at 

sunset, I didn't take a deep dive into looking at 

the previous board's intent versus the actual 

wording. 

This is something that the subcommittee 

can look at further and determine whether or not 

we want to change the, you know, ask for a work 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

agenda item on that.

There was an additional annotation 

suggestion to limit the commercial availability 

search requirement to only be used for products 

labeled as organic and not for made with organic 

products. This is how yeast is annotated. 

So, again, this is something that the 

handling subcommittee can determine whether or not 

to further take this up and ask for a work agenda 

item. That's pretty much it.

MR. ELA: All right, questions or 

comments? So, Kyla, just on that change of the 

annotation, I guess, how important do you think 

this is for silicon dioxide?

MS. SMITH: I'm not sure. It was 

suggested by OTCO, I believe, and like I said, it's 

how yeast is annotated, and also I believe is not 

codified, but the general understanding for flavors 

and there was one other that was noted in that bunch 

as well. 

So, you know, for consistency's sake 

in looking at the commercial availability and how 

it applies for the different labeling categories, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I mean, it would be nice, but I don't know. 

I don't have specific, like any specific 

data or information on if this is like really 

hanging up products like going to market or 

anything.

MR. ELA: I would suggest to the board 

there's a lot of these, I shouldn't say a lot, but 

a few of these that come up that are technical 

corrections, or just annotation corrections, or 

listing in the wrong category.

And I'd ask those of you that are 

responsible for those and have noted that, I would 

encourage you to bring it up with the subcommittee 

you're on and decide whether it's worth, whether 

you want to pursue changing it. 

Sometimes that's very quick and not very 

controversial, sometimes it's more so, but we 

always forget after, you know, after the meeting 

when we get to the next subcommittee call and it's 

like we knew there were some things out there, and 

so I'd encourage the leads to just remember that 

and the subcommittee can decide whether they want 

to go through the process of trying to change it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So, any other questions or comments for 

Kyla? Jerry, is it okay to go to the vote?

MR. D'AMORE: It certainly is. Thank 

you.

MR. ELA: There is a motion to remove 

silicon dioxide from the National List. The motion 

was made by Kyla and seconded by Kim, and we are 

going to start with Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Amy? 

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian? 

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry? 

MR. D'AMORE: No.

MR. ELA: Carolyn? 

DR. DIMITRI: No.

 MR. ELA: Rick? 

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim? Kim, are you there?

MS. HUSEMAN: I'm here. Can you hear 

me?

MR. ELA: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Okay, Mindee? 

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan? 

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla? 

MS. SMITH: No.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: All right, the Chair votes 

no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes, 14 no, zero ARA. 

Motion to remove fails.

MR. ELA: Go ahead, Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, sir. Directly 

prior to Kyla who has just presented silicon 

dioxide, I took the team through potassium lactate. 

We took it to a vote. 

At that point of presentation on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

potassium lactate, I told the team that sodium 

lactate is virtually the same thing and that I would 

make this very brief, so sodium lactate at 

205.605(b) for use as an antimicrobial agent and 

pH inhibitor, regulator, excuse me, only.

So, with your approval, I'd like to 

leave it at that and have folks ask questions if 

they need to, make comments, and if you don't 

approve, I'll be happy to go through it again.

MR. ELA: All right, any questions, or 

comments, or desire for Jerry to talk about that 

again? Jerry, I think you're off the hook. Is 

it okay to go ahead and vote?

MR. D'AMORE: Carry it away, Steve.

MR. ELA: All right, there is a motion 

to remove sodium lactate from the National List. 

The motion was made by Jerry. It was seconded 

by Kim, and we will start the voting with Amy. 

MS. BRUCH: No.

MR. ELA: Brian? 

MR. CALDWELL: No.

MR. ELA: Jerry? 

MR. D'AMORE: No.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Carolyn? 

DR. DIMITRI: No.

 MR. ELA: Rick? 

MS. GREENWOOD: No.

MR. ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

MR. ELA: Mindee? 

MS. JEFFREY: No.

MR. ELA: Logan? 

MS. PETREY: No.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

MR. ELA: Kyla? 

MS. SMITH: Sorry, no.

MR. ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

MR. ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

MR. ELA: And the Chair votes no.

MS. JEFFREY: Zero yes, 14 no, zero ARA. 

Motion to remove fails.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: All right, it looks like to 

me that that finishes the sunsets, but Jerry, I 

know there was one other comment that Kyla wanted 

to make, so I'll let you turn it over. I'll turn 

it over to you and --

MR. D'AMORE: Sure.

MR. ELA: -- you can turn it over to 

her, I guess.

MR. D'AMORE: No, by prior 

arrangements, we all agreed that Kyla could give 

comment to ion exchange to the community, so, Kyla, 

I will turn it over to you.

MS. SMITH: Thanks. Yeah, we're going 

a little off script, but as I stated in my 

introduction, I really value transparency between 

the programs at NOSB and all stakeholders.

So, with that in mind, I just wanted 

to give a brief verbal update on ion exchange resins 

so that the stakeholders are kept informed on the 

progress of this topic.

As you all remember, during the spring 

meeting, the board passed the ion exchange proposal 

and included in the cover sheet a request that the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

program move forward to determine the status of 

ion exchange resins with regard to the National 

List through a legal opinion or in consultation 

with FDA and report back to the board on the progress 

made.

The NOP did respond to the full board 

with a memo with the results of their discussions 

with FDA. After the conclusion of this meeting, 

the Handling Subcommittee will evaluate this memo 

further and determine next steps. So, progress 

is being made and I just wanted to state that for 

the record.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Kyla, and thank you 

for being willing to take this on. Scott and I 

worked on it, and of course Scott left it completely 

to me and I'm glad to pass it on to you, and you 

can look back through all the notes, but I think 

you're pretty familiar with them, but, yeah, thanks 

for that update and for the Handling Committee to 

decide if or if not you want to proceed any further 

with this.

Anything else, Jerry? All right, 

Jerry, you're on mute.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. D'AMORE: Okay, there's the panic. 

No, Steve, thank you very much. Thank you to the 

entire team. I enjoyed this session and all of 

our groups, so thank you.

MR. ELA: Great. According to my 

agenda item, we're supposed to go to lunch now, 

so.

MR. D'AMORE: See you.

MR. ELA: See you, exactly. We're 

going to move onto the final subcommittee, the 

Compliance Accreditation and Certification 

Subcommittee.

And I'm glad you put that up, Michelle, 

because I always know it as CACS and I have to really 

think to come up with all of the verbiage, but Nate, 

we're going to turn it over to you as the 

subcommittee chair.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Fantastic. Thank 

you, Steve. It's an exciting time in CACS right 

now. We spent a lot of good work leading up to 

the spring meeting on human capital.

And there's been a lot of really 

invigorating updates from the program about the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

resources put out to the certification inspector 

training and overall human capital component of 

certification in the form of an RFA, and so there's 

a lot of good projects going on as a result of the 

work that CACS did. 

And a big shout-out to Sue on the paper 

she wrote in the spring. And I realize that with 

her going away, her work is going to live on, which 

is really exciting, in the form of all of these 

inspectors we're going to train and different 

policies we're going to establish.

We have to papers to discuss today 

though. The first is going to be headed up by 

Carolyn, and thank you for the slide, and I'll just 

let Carolyn take it from the beginning. If you 

would just introduce and then we can open it up 

for discussion, Carolyn, if you're ready?

DR. DIMITRI: Absolutely, thank you. 

I just, I will -- I guess one thing people will 

learn about me is I don't talk as much as some of 

my colleagues on the board. 

So, I'm going to give you a short 

background to, you know, where we're thinking, or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

maybe more specifically, what I was thinking as 

this letter came through.

So, I'm going to put my professor hat 

on for a few seconds here and just remind everyone 

that USDA has a very long history of supporting 

farm income and providing incentives to the 

agricultural sector that have made food in the 

United States extremely inexpensive. This dates 

back to 1933.

But as we know, the external costs of 

food production are very high, and I won't give 

you the entire list, but a few of the most obvious 

ones are the environmental degradation from the 

conventional farming practices, biodiversity loss 

due to synthetic use, and greenhouse gas emissions 

which contribute to climate change.

So, these costs are external to the farm 

production systems, so they will not be fully 

addressed by efforts of the private sector, and 

in fact, it's unreasonable to expect anyone in the 

private sector to tackle them.

I mean, I think it is true that some 

farms and some businesses do alter their practices 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

to try to address some of these external costs, 

but from a social welfare perspective, the private 

sector really won't push us as far as we need to 

go for society and agriculture throughout the 

future generations.

So, USDA's recognition of the 

importance of a climate smart strategy in 

agriculture was extremely welcome news and it 

inspired this letter to Secretary Vilsack.

So, in writing this letter, we first 

strove to be concise and needed the letter to be 

very short because the Secretary and his people 

are not going to spend hours and hours reading our 

work.

And we relied directly upon scientific 

peer-reviewed literature rather than some industry 

or other pieces of gray literature, and we also 

did our best to avoid advocating for any specific 

position.

We appreciate the many comments made 

by stakeholders in the open docket and more recently 

in the public comment, and we incorporated as many 

of these comments as we could fit into the letter.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Our primary goal is to remind USDA that 

organic farming systems are an important tool for 

climate change mitigation. 

In particular, we emphasize the farm 

system since we did not want USDA to misinterpret 

us and promote individual practices or uncertified 

farms that may call themselves sustainable. 

We did not want these to be promoted 

as being equivalent to a certified organic farm 

with an organic system plan that really strives 

to consider the agro ecosystem in every aspect of 

production.

So, with that, I will turn the mic back 

over to Nate and open the floor for discussion.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Any thoughts or 

questions for Carolyn to get started? Amy?

MS. BRUCH: Yes, thanks, Nate. Thank 

you, Carolyn, for your initiative on this.

 It's important to highlight and keep 

in the forefront organic industry's contribution 

and leadership to these climate smart agricultural 

practices, and I just wanted to reinforce a couple 

of points that are in the proposal just as they're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

very important to farmer stakeholders.

The first one is supporting new and 

better markets. Yeah, it's true we're a $60 

billion-plus industry. However, transitional 

markets are really important just to support 

farmers. It's very costly to convert operations 

over to organic, so just trying to identify 

transitional markets would be very helpful.

And then expanding market opportunities 

for these rotational crops, we talked a lot about 

that yesterday and the prior days about the 

importance of rotations.

But some of the rotations that farmers 

are choosing, it's the right thing to plant just 

to have more robust crop rotations, improve our 

nutritional content and our soil, and reduce stress 

and disease, but these rotational crops have very 

limited outlets, so a focus on that would be very 

important as well.

The second point in the proposal was 

leveraging existing USDA programs and really 

highlighting the RMA or risk management agency 

programs to have more of an extensive review and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

stakeholder input to incorporate more realistic 

and practical solutions for risk management for 

organic farmers.

Both form a unique tactic standpoint. 

We deploy many different operations such as 

intercropping, roller crimping, that sometimes go

against us as we look at insurability of some of 

the crops that we're producing, and then also just 

updating actuarial data so the coverage that we 

can get actually reflects our yields. 

That's very important, and there's just 

so many risks and barriers that organic producers 

take on, and to just have a little more attention 

to them. Thank you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you, Amy. 

That was great. I think that's something that I 

know -- it's so many moving pieces, and so I realize 

-- I appreciate Carolyn's brevity in this paper, 

but realizing that we have a lot of work to do yet 

to really nail this. Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: I just want to comment 

briefly on your reference, how the food system 

encourages cheap food and it doesn't therefore 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

incorporate externalities into the price, and I 

think that's a really important concept.

Another aspect of this which we often 

hear with organic in particular is that organic 

does some of those externalities and therefore it 

costs more, and that, you know, that extra price 

we pay is valuable and important, both for the 

environment and for the living of people who are 

producing that food.

Another side of that too of course 

though is that accessibility, and things wouldn't 

cost more. They're harder for people to reach 

without money. We have very unequal income 

distribution in our society.

And although we may talk about the 

higher costs as being justified and important 

because it really does incorporate those external 

costs, there's a lot of people that just don't have 

the money, and so that access, even if it serves 

a higher goal, is not there.

So, I guess when we talk about those 

external costs and we talk about accessibility, 

we have to, you know, just consider how we can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

improve accessibility. 

And, you know, I know there's programs 

to make, for example, farmer's markets eligible 

for, you know, SNAP and other food support, but 

I think the more we can think about that, the better.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I'm really hoping 

that we can actually make that a work agenda item 

this next round, so I really appreciate that, Asa. 

That's a really brilliant point.

MR. BRADMAN: Can I just make one more? 

I know. I'm sorry. I'm one of those people that 

need to talk more, so I apologize.

But just as an example, you know, I've 

worked in the Salinas Valley for many years and, 

you know, we find among the participants in our 

studies, you know, 20, 30, sometimes 40 percent 

food insecurity, and in some cases, food insecurity 

with hunger among people who are farm workers and 

producing the food that we eat, so, you know, just 

kind of a real concrete example of how we have 

unequal distribution of income and access to 

resources.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I appreciate that, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

yes. Thank you.

MR. ELA: And Nate, you had jumped over 

Jerry, so.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Sorry?

MR. ELA: You had jumped over Jerry.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I'm sorry, and I was 

just -- I don't know how you do it, Steve, keeping 

track of everyone, because I just look at the row, 

but, yes, sorry, Jerry. Go ahead.

MR. D'AMORE: No problem at all. Let 

me turn on my camera if it will take. Carolyn, 

it's taken me to reach the age of 72 to have the 

opportunity to give praise to a professor. It's 

never happened to me before.

DR. DIMITRI: It was Asa too.

MR. D'AMORE: Sorry?

DR. DIMITRI: Asa deserves some praise 

too.

MR. D'AMORE: Yeah.

DR. DIMITRI: He's a cool professor 

also.

MR. D'AMORE: Yeah, I thought the work 

was very well done and the message was spot on. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I'd like to support fully your comment to the cost 

of food. I spent 35 years of my life supporting 

a family overseas and I'm really familiar with the 

costs of food --

(Audio interference.)

MR. D'AMORE: -- in other words, 

disposable income that goes to food every place 

I've ever lived, and it's been quite a wide range 

of places, they don't even come close to what we 

can do with our dollar in terms of getting food.

I'm tempted to tie that in with Asa's 

comment because it is apropos, and I'd caution 

everybody not to get a leaning from me out of what 

I'm going to say in terms of social politics and 

all.

In those same countries though, there 

is a safety net that sort of mitigates what Asa 

was talking about, so obviously I'm talking about 

more socialized, you know, economies where 

healthcare and education, et cetera, are already 

taken care of.

So, I think Asa's point was extremely 

well taken, so I actually consider that to be a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

double whammy really for us.

And my last one is having acknowledged 

that I think the letter that you wrote was spot 

on, I wonder and I have wondered right from its 

inception as to whether or not that has long-term 

implications for the NOSB in terms of what we might 

maybe call upon as criteria for evaluation.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Is that a question 

for Carolyn?

MR. D'AMORE: Oh, it's a question for 

anybody that's concerned. Are we simply 

positioning ourselves, and I think very, very 

accurately as, quote, sort of already there on a 

lot of things, or are we going to seek the position 

of actually making some of our decisions predicated 

on the friendliness of what we're doing to climate 

change?

MR. ELA: Carolyn, you've got your hand 

up and you hand your hand up before, so --

DR. DIMITRI: Yeah, I have a couple of 

-- great, thank you. I just have a couple of 

thoughts, one to Rick and one to Asa.

So, I mean, I'm sorry, Jerry. Jerry, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I do -- like in my view, I feel like part of what 

I would like to see the NOSB do is support these 

larger visionary ideas that I think organic 

represents.

And I feel that, you know, the materials 

and the sunsets or the National List, I mean, it's 

all very important, but it just seems to like 

dominate the work agenda, and so not everything.

I mean, I do think that the 

biodegradable, the biobased mulch sort of brought 

in a lot of these questions, but I just think it's 

really important for us not to lose sight of what 

really matters here, and I think what matters is 

the health of our planet and the health of our 

people.

And I think the way organic can 

contribute to our food supply is by damaging the 

environment less, and I think we could do a better 

job with helping, you know, on the social justice 

issues, but anyway, the Organic Foods Production 

Act doesn't really incorporate social justice 

elements, so I don't know where that leaves us.

And then, Asa, it's funny that you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

mentioned food insecurity because that's what we 

talked about in class the other night, and so like 

I also think like just the use of the word food 

insecurity makes us like forget that there are 

people behind it. It's like such a sterile phrase 

and it's just like easy to put everything in a box. 

And I do think that organic food does 

cost more to produce and to distribute, but I don't 

think that should hold us back. I think that maybe 

it would embolden us to somehow improve our social 

policies, which I know is not in our control or 

even my control, so, but these are my wishes on 

my wish list. Okay, thank you.

MR. D'AMORE: And thank you. I 

couldn't find argument with anything that you've 

said. You know, and I would welcome, at a later 

date, greater conversation on this. 

I see the organic seal as something very 

special. I know it's a seal that many would like 

to have as an umbrella, and I have for some time 

thought that sometimes we are too giving of having 

that umbrella become available. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So, that was a lot said with no depth, 

and I again am hearing everything you're saying, 

agreeing with every word you said and would enjoy 

hearing a lot more. Thank you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: This is such an important 

topic, Carolyn, climate change initiatives is, and 

pointing out the importance of organic foods, 

carbon sequestration, soil fertility. 

All of these questions, all of these 

points are very, very important, and I agree with 

you, Carolyn, that social justice is not part of 

our office, unfortunately. We missed that point, 

you know. 

IFOAM has it written in their standards. 

We never got that far, and we've tried to catch 

up with humane standards for animals and all of 

these other things we've tried to add to, to catch 

up to where IFOAM was all along.

But I guess Asa and now Jerry have 

brought to my heart what I've been focusing on. 

For the most part, my focus has been for insecurity 

in foods, but Jerry, I commend you for overseas. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I'm there in those downtown urban kids 

that have never seen anything but a 7-11, literally 

some of them. You know, they have grown up on the 

streets, concrete. They live on concrete until 

they go to prison, and then they go out and then 

they're on concrete.

And the fact that they can't buy organic 

food is a given because many times they can't buy 

regular food, conventional food, and I do think 

that we've got to do something about that. It's 

become a real passion in my life.

 And as much, as important as climate 

changes are, and it's very important, I would hope 

that maybe whoever is going to carry on this after 

I leave would add social justice.

And I know that NOC has been real, an 

advocate mainly for the colored sector of our 

farming community, but I think we need to think 

about those urban kids.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I would just, if I 

could, jump in here. I would also say I think we 

need to think about rural kids too. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

I think that I've spent most of my life 

in rural America traveling around it's actually 

pretty unique to find an organic item on one of 

these sort of, you know, rural grocery stores that 

are, to your point, lots of times doubling as gas 

stations.

And I think as an organic community, 

sometimes we are so surrounded by organic that we 

forget that it's a real privilege to be in an 

organic-centric world, and when you go out into, 

you know, more under-resourced places, organic is 

a real luxury still. 

And I think it's an incredibly important 

goal, I hope, of the community to figure out how 

to make organic the rule and not the exception, 

and how to build that marketplace presence across 

all incomes and make access to everybody, not just 

as a premium product. Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yeah, the work here is 

so amazing and I'm really appreciative of -- thank 

you, Carolyn, for all of this work and perspective. 

And I just wanted to say that for me, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

we have so far to go in so many areas around social 

justice, but the organic food system being a part 

of the USDA and coming from where it comes from, 

it's a transparent, consensus-based democracy.

And that is progress in social justice 

and we are stewards of the future of social justice 

inside this system as far as the food system's 

concerned, especially when we start thinking about 

how can we get better food into schools. 

Like, my hope is that the USDA is our 

pathway for democracy and better food in school 

by allowing organic vendors to be vendors in school 

districts.

So, I just want to say that while it's 

not enough, I don't want to lose the view that the 

history of this movement into a functional 

democracy is social justice, just not enough.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Amen. Thank you. 

Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yeah, maybe Mindee 

articulated what I was feeling and, yeah, it would 

be incredible -- we have cost share for farmers, 

for organic farmers, but -- I mean, we're dreaming 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

here right now, so what if we proposed some cost 

share for a way for organic foods to get into 

schools? There is --

MR. POWELL-PALM: The Farm Bill is 

coming up, I hear.

MS. BAIRD: Do what?

MR. POWELL-PALM: The Farm Bill is 

coming up, I hear. I hear a Sue project right here.

MS. BAIRD: Hey, I could actually be 

compelled to do some of that work because it is 

my passion. Yeah, but wouldn't that be incredible? 

Because, you know, farm to the school 

table is incredible opportunities for farmers to 

get their food in schools, but what if there's --

and they wouldn't because they --

I'm sorry. I'm backtracking myself and 

I do that. Carolyn, I'm not nearly as concise in 

my speaking as you are.

But wouldn't it be incredible if you 

could get some kind of an extra cost share help 

to get organic foods into schools? There's so many 

studies out there that shows that organic foods 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and foods without chemicals actually lowers crime 

rates and troubled children in the schools. I 

don't know.

MR. ELA: I'm going to redirect here 

a little bit. These are great discussions, but 

--

MR. POWELL-PALM: No, I was going to 

say --

MR. ELA: -- we do want to keep it on 

climate change.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Going back to 

Carolyn's point, I think they're all very 

tangential and very, you know, they kind of grow 

the scope. 

We're talking a lot about, I think a 

very key point, which is demand. We need a lot 

of demand and we need a lot of folks eating organics 

to grow organics and to realize that climate 

solution potential.

Jerry, did you have anything else to 

add there or I think we are -- is it time to vote?

MR. D'AMORE: Okay, I put my hand up 

and down three times out of consideration for time. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

What we're talking about here is equity as well 

as anything else. You know, who can afford what?

I think the coming together of feeding 

the world and organic systems is a heavy but 

worthwhile lift, and I'd like to see this continue 

to be part of our discussion.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Absolutely. Thank 

you for that.

MR. ELA: And I want to make one final 

comment myself if I can. Carolyn, you know, I've 

heard you question sometimes why, you know, what 

your contribution is to the board, and I think this 

is such a great example of where your background 

in ERS and everything else comes together with all 

the rest of us on the board.

You know, some of us are very crop 

centric and you provide a very different 

perspective that is so needed, and I'm so glad to 

see you jump on the climate change issue.

I think as you noted in your letter, 

we are so uniquely positioned already to 

contribute. We're already an established program. 

We don't need to be made up and started from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

scratch. 

You know, we heard Jenny Lester-Moffitt 

already, you know, note about how we can contribute, 

but I think it's so good to keep this in front of 

the Secretary and work through a sector that already 

exists.

So, I just applaud you, and as -- you 

know, I guess all of this discussion also makes, 

if the board picks a couple bigger items to work 

on, you know, the sky is the limit and, you know, 

whoever is the next chair, I think, is going to 

have to really keep the board on a couple of things 

and that's going to be hard.

But, you know, one of them, if it's 

climate change, you know, just keep driving that 

down the road, Carolyn, and thank you for bringing 

it up and thank you for also using the open docket 

to, you know, garner some input on this. 

We have not done a good job of that and 

this was a perfect example of a timely document 

that needed to be taken care of at this meeting 

and using the open docket to make it better, and 

so good on you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. D'AMORE: Hear hear.

DR. DIMITRI: Thank you, Steve.

MR. ELA: Are we -- Jerry, I see you've 

got your hand up.

MR. D'AMORE: No, no, that's -- I 

actually turned the whole thing off, so I'm sorry.

MR. ELA: No, sometimes I forget to 

lower them, so. Nate, are we ready to go to the 

vote?

MR. POWELL-PALM: I think we are, yes.

MR. ELA: All right, so we are going 

to start. Well, the motion is to accept the 

proposal on the letter to the Secretary regarding 

climate change initiatives, and we start with 

Brian, I believe.

MR. CALDWELL: It's an emphatic yes.

MR. ELA: Then Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

MR. ELA: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: Yes.

MR. ELA: Rick?

MS. GREENWOOD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kim?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Logan?

MS. PETREY: Yes.

MR. ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

MR. ELA: Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes.

MR. ELA: And I know Wood did have to 

leave, so he will be an absent. Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

MR. ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: And the Chair definitely 

votes yes.

MS. JEFFREY: Amy?

MS. BRUCH: And Amy votes yes.

MR. ELA: Did I miss Amy? I'm sorry, 

Amy. I was looking at my votes like did I do that 

or not, sorry.

DR. DIMITRI: And don't forget Amy 

wordsmithed that letter too.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Yes, exactly.

MS. BRUCH: Thank you, Carolyn.

MS. JEFFREY: We are unanimous.

MR. ELA: Can you read the vote total 

just so the transcriptionist has it?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes, 13 yes, zero no, zero 

abstain, zero recused, one absent.

MR. ELA: Great. All right, Nate, back 

to you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: All right, 

fantastic. If we might advance the slides? Thank 

you. 

So, I'm going to hand it over to Amy 

who has just done some really incredible, I think, 

you know, work on thinking -- oh, sorry, I'm just 

clicking my keyboard all over the place -- thinking 

about the tools that we need to really make sure 

that we're able to manage this wonderfully growing 

industry that we have, and I'll give it over to 

her to introduce the discussion document and we'll 

dive into it.

MS. BRUCH: Thank you, Nate, for that 

introduction, and Nate, as a co-collaborator of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

this document, feel free to jump in anytime as well.

And then I have a very brief 

presentation. It's very limited slides, just a 

few, because I didn't want to disappoint Steve on 

his last meeting, so anyway, just a couple here 

to walk through the initial background.

I'm grateful truly to have this 

opportunity to work on this important agenda item, 

oversight improvement to deter fraud, and more 

specifically, modernization of supply chain 

verification, which aims to build upon the work 

of the SOE-proposed rule, which we all heard should 

be at least debuting hopefully for you in 2022, 

and the ongoing work of human capital improvements.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I think you're on 

mute, Amy.

MS. ARSENAULT: Amy? You clicked 

mute.

MS. BRUCH: Oh, sorry. I have to do 

that once a meeting, I think. Anyway, sorry.

As discussed in the document, there's 

a lot to celebrate with the organic industry's 

current system and robust growth and development. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

The public-private partnership between the USDA 

and the broader organic community really has 

created a solid foundation for integrity. 

The organic industry exceeded $60 

billion in sales and continues to grow rapidly, 

adding new participants both domestically and 

internationally to keep up with demand.

The participation for support and 

candor through the written comments and oral 

comments was invaluable. I really appreciate the 

stakeholder comments there.

Today, we'll work to summarize some of 

that feedback, but know that we'll digest the full 

range of comments in our future subcommittee work.

And then just to move onto slide two, 

there's only three, so this slide in particular 

shows the proposed SOE-defined four integral 

concepts. 

We're here to explore the resiliency 

of tools at hand and consider future tools to answer 

the call for technology integration to support the 

proposed added term 205.2, supply chain 

verification.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And one specific comment about supply 

chain verification, there's a comment in the 

proposed SOE that I noted was that AMS anticipates 

that electronic tracking technologies will allow 

AMS to achieve its goal of complete supply chain 

traceability and foresee incorporation of 

electronic tracking systems into future 

enforcement strategies.

And that's the ability, with supply 

chain traceability, is to really go front from our 

entire supply chain source to consumption and 

backwards from the consumption to the source.

And then the final slide that we have 

before we get into these comments, I just wanted 

to say that overall, the comments in general, 

stakeholders were very supportive of the 

subcommittee's proactive work exploring the ways 

for integrated technology.

In terms of how we're going to get there, 

there was a wide diversity of thoughts and comments 

that were really helpful and provided some ideas, 

some questions, and then just further thoughts to 

kind of consider.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So, to summarize a few general comments 

first before we dive into these seven questions, 

one commenter supports the -- or one commenter 

stated that they support the development of 

innovative practical strategies to support 

inspectors and certifiers in the increasingly 

complex work of identifying and confronting fraud 

in the organic supply chain.

Another mentioned IFOAM's concept 

paper. To successfully address the challenges of 

the 21st century, a combination of social, 

ecological, and technological innovation is 

essential.

Two common themes that we have heard 

through public and written comments throughout our 

time together has been adding tools to the toolbox. 

In this particular subject, that was mentioned, 

and it's adding the tool to the fraud prevention 

toolbox, and then indicating that continuous 

improvement is the better of organics.

There were several conscientious 

commenters as well and I wanted to bring up a few 

comments that said we need to definitely keep in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the forefront the barriers and not overburden the 

industry, and also that data verification is only 

one piece to fraud prevention.

So, I encourage the board to keep that 

in mind, as well as the globalness of our organic 

marketplace, and when we reflect our points and 

comments, let's think both domestically and 

international for the considerations.

And with that, I think we'll kind of 

adopt Mindee's format. She had a great format 

where we just went through each question, 

summarized some comments, and then had board 

discussion, and then we'd move onto the next one.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yeah, that sounds 

great.

MS. BRUCH: Okay, perfect. So, for 

question number one, how can technology efficiently 

and effectively be deployed to enhance supply chain 

traceability? 

MR. ELA: I do want to note that Brian had his hand up before we 

started this question. So, Brian.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Sorry about that. Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BRUCH: Perfect. Thank you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes, Brian, do you want to go ahead?

MR. CALDWELL: Well, I was going to sort of speak in relationship to a 

question, to Point Number 1 there, Question Number 1, but it's really an overall point, and that 

is, Amy, your first slide showed sort of the inside of a warehouse somewhere.

The images that I have in my world of organic farming are farmer's 

markets, food co-ops, CSAs, and small farms.

I think that -- I just hope that whatever we come up with here can be 

targeted wherever the problems are and not hit everybody who maybe isn't part of the 

problem with extra burdens. So that's my only point.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you. Yes.

MS. BRUCH: Yes, thank you, Brian, for that. That is definitely 

important and that was really unanimous across the stapler community that really to be 

cognizant of burdens that any additional system could inflect across the whole supply chain 

and also maybe even targeting more of a risk management type approach.

MR. CALDWELL: Mm-hmm.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I think Jerry had his hand up real quick.

MS. BRUCH: Yes?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes. Just keying on Brian's comment. My 

question broadly would be where do we envision this starting and stopping?

In my world it would start with cut to cool and finish at retail and 

everything in between is critically important. Most of everything in between is federally 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

mandated through food safety and traceability programs.

I think there is a wealth of information there that we could use to 

dovetail this initiative with some things that are already in place.

But the question still remains in the vision of this document where does 

this supply chain management start and where does it stop?

MS. BRUCH: Sure. That's a great question, Jerry. And that's, you 

know, why we are proposing this discussion document really as an exploratory process, to get 

the right range of where the system needs to start and stop.

What was mentioned in the discussion document is really capturing 

those business-to-business transactions, so it would essentially start at that first point of 

transaction and then there would be records essentially for every subsequent transaction.

MR. D'AMORE: Mm-hmm.

MS. BRUCH: And that's really to get that bi-directional lookback, but 

definitely, again, there isn't a concrete form that we have. This is more just exploring 

different options.

There needs to be a system that can really be adaptable to the 

uniqueness of every single sector within the organic community.

MR. D'AMORE: Right. If I could just add to that?

MS. BRUCH: Uh-huh.

MR. D'AMORE: You know, we talk about the cost to the farmer and 

that is something we understand I think in terms of inputs and P&Ls, et cetera.

The thing that I have dealt with a lot in my life, a whole lot in my life, is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the reality that everything along that continuum of field to fork if it goes wrong that too comes 

back to the ranch.

That's probably one of the biggest dilemmas I have seen in my career is 

for, you know, Brian mentioned the warehouse, the cold chain, all of this, if it's not done right, 

and so I applaud you for this initiative, but these costs come back to the ranch.

If something is not sold, not your fault, still your problem. I'm sorry. 

That's it.

MR. CALDWELL: Great point.

MS. BRUCH: Yes.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I'm looking at --

MR. ELA: And it looks like --

MR. POWELL-PALM: I'm sorry.

MR. ELA: Well, I'm just going to do a little bit of a time check with 

seven questions.

I don't want to cut anybody off, but I also, we want to make sure and 

finish this in the next like 15 minutes so we leave time for other things.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Okay.

MR. ELA: Maybe 20 minutes, but no longer than that. So I'll just let 

you all organize that timeline.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you, Steve. Let's jump to Logan real 

quick. And then if it's all right, everybody, I'll have Amy just kind of finish up a brief 

summary of the public's input on the questions and then we can have discussion after that if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that's all right.

MS. PETREY: Great. Thank you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: So, Logan.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Yes, thank you. Quick question on the 

transaction level, does that include brokers as well that actually never touch the product?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. BRUCH: Originally what we had in the discussion document was 

just any business-to-business transaction.

MS. PETREY: Okay. So --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. BRUCH: But with that brokers would be involved.

MS. PETREY: Awesome. Thank you.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, federal markets, brokers, it's all there.

MS. BRUCH: Mm-hmm.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes. That's -- And we're -- And Amy so 

accurately described this, but it's really an augmentation and sort of a celebration of SOE to 

figure out what actual tools do we need to be adopting technology wise in order to make SOE 

maximized.

And so that broker question is really apropos to SOE as well, Logan, so 

thank you for that.

MS. PETREY: Okay. Yes.

MS. BRUCH: Yes, and that's definitely, I mean that's a component that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

the SOE is going to address with additional inspections, but we need to look at these complex 

supply chains and brokers and importers are a component of those.

Just to try to get to the finish line here in the timeframe that we have, to 

look at Number 1, how can technology efficiently and effectively be deployed at the 

community.

Along with Jerry you had mentioned, you know, there is some good 

benchmarking that we can do. The community offered several different avenues, including 

FDA, you had mentioned that, along with some other organic communities, both in European 

Union and India that have some organic traceability tracking systems.

So there is definitely others that were brought up by the community, but 

that's a good first step to just look at barriers for implementation and what has been done 

prior.

Moving on to Question 2, and we can open it back up to the Board, is 

just what form does an organic link system need to take to not be burdensome, kind of getting 

at Brian's point, to stakeholders and certifiers, inspectors, handlers, operations, importers, et 

cetera.

And one idea from the community was just looking at existing ways this 

information is already being captured. As farmers, you know, we are capturing yields, we're 

reporting them maybe to different bodies, such as FSA or RMA, and we are reconciling annual 

reports.

So maybe there is a component within the system that is not necessarily 

duplicating work that is already done but just capturing work that is already done. Working 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

across different agencies is also an idea that was mentioned.

Modifying organic system plans, there is a portion of our organic system 

plan that is more static and one that is dynamic, so looking at maybe integrating some of these 

tools into that.

And then I will open it up to the Board for any other ideas on Question 2.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I would say we can probably keep cruising.

MS. BRUCH: Okay.

MR. POWELL-PALM: The only thing I was going to add to that is 

Question 2 is really where I am hoping the community sends us more ideas and forms this 

discussion more because we do have these existing systems and trying to figure out how we 

work with existing certification, existing OSPs, and make it so it really is that we can plug in 

rather than come from a top down approach as far as data collection and data sharing. But 

please proceed.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. And, three, the challenges for implementation, 

and that really gets after some of the burdens and, again, Brian, to your comment about how 

do we block and tackle so this can be available to all people.

There was strong comments on this both from a time human capital toss, 

equality and accessibility to technology that we'll be digesting.

There was some information in the discussion document that tried to hit 

some of these components head on, but definitely the idea is not to overburden the industry 

but to make things more efficient so we can capture needed information.

Number 4, is there value in AMS certifiers and inspectors getting more 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

granular. This kind of gets after -- The community's response was more of a risk-based 

approach and I really liked, there were some comments on how maybe the hierarchy of risk 

could be assessed.

I know that in public comments it was mentioned. There is some 

information within I believe ACA, that organization, that certifiers are using.

Is there additional comments from the Board in regards to Number 4?

MR. POWELL-PALM: I think -- Like I think you've said this before, so I 

mean I will try to do a good attribution, but the idea that we need data in order to have really 

robust risk assessments and further figure out how can we flag fraud. I will call on Kyla next.

MS. BRUCH: Yes?

MS. SMITH: Yes. Thanks, Amy, again for going through all this. 

Some of the comments in particular on this, you already mentioned the like risk type of 

approach, which I liked as well, and so far as our, sort of our, you know, do we not so that's 

comfortable for most.

It was also just the distinction between what we call like the annual 

inspection and like an investigative type of inspection and I just appreciated sort of some of the 

call out in the comments for those two different types where granularity in certain scenarios 

might be more advantageous than in all so you can like apply risk in different, also in different 

areas.

So you can apply it like to the operation specifically or also, and then also 

like what activities you conduct at an operation.

MS. BRUCH: Mm-hmm. Yes, I think that's good. I am going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

throw that question back at you, Kyla, actually in regards to do you believe that data is needed 

or a small component of doing a risk assessment to make it more robust?

MS. SMITH: Yes. I just feel like there is, you know, probably a good 

balance to not maybe have to go so deep at every inspection all the time, otherwise like 

inspections are going to be -- I mean they already I feel like are, should be longer in some 

instances, but, anyway, it's just that balance between time and depth.

MS. BRUCH: Mm-hmm. Thank you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Carolyn?

DR. DIMITRI: This is so fascinating. I really appreciate all of the 

work that you have done on this, Amy.

One thing is I just want to caution people not to reinvent the wheel. 

So there is a lot of economics literature that talks about like frequency of inspection, like how 

often you need to have random inspections, to keep people from cheating.

So I mean I don't know if you have had a chance to consult with any 

expert in that area, because I don't know really what you mean by risk assessment.

But in any case I am just throwing that out that there is a lot of economic 

research that looks at fraud prevention and, actually, there is a guy that works for AMS who 

used to work with me at ERS that might be useful to talk to. I can send you his name.

He has done like, written lots of papers on fraud at the border and how 

to deter it.

MS. BRUCH: Mm-hmm. Oh, yes, that would be great, Carolyn. 

That is kind of Phase 2 with this.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

We have received some initial feedback, but definitely going to do a deep 

dive and look at some of the existing programs out there and see and evaluate those.

So, yes, if you have some additional information that would be great.

DR. DIMITRI: Sure. Absolutely.

MS. BRUCH: Okay. Combining five and six, they are very similar, 

what methods exist for enhancing transparency and are there additional areas that need to be 

considered for improvement to prevent fraud or react to fraud.

Some of the summarized comments from the community discuss further 

coordination between USDA agencies and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, expand the 

scope of the import certificates, which is a composition of the SOE.

We'll soon know all the components of the SOE here in the near future, 

but one point that was mentioned on the import certificates was just getting that aggregated 

operations data from what that import was potentially. For grain, for example, there could 

be many different operations in the vessel.

Trademark status for USDA organic seal to increase enforcement 

authority, HTC codes, yield data, both domestically and internationally, and that was a 

comment to just aid and better mass balances that could take place.

For five and six I'll open it up to the Board for any additional comments.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I think just tacking on that, what other methods 

exist for enhancing transparency. This I think feeds into a lot of the other questions of what 

is the current infrastructure and how do we plug into that current infrastructure rather than to 

Carolyn's point, reinvent the wheel.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Very quickly, the reason I think organics is just so cool from a farmer 

point of view is that we do record so much data via our OSP and our recordkeeping.

And so figuring how to leverage that data and put it into somewhat of a 

more shareable format between certifiers and regulators would be an awesome opportunity. 

Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes. I think along with that, which is already, you 

know, sort of on the table, but I will just double down, is just, you know, increasing inspector 

training around this topic and like working on all of the things in regards to like auditing but 

also really developing like soft skills around, and like different approaches again for different 

types of inspections.

You know, I know PCO commented on this topic and our comments had 

to do a lot with that sometimes fraud really like lives in between the things that are, it's like 

hard to like suss out, and so, yes, all the data in the world might not -- I don't know.

It's just like sometimes it like lives in between the data type of thing and 

so you have to like use the data as a tool but like it's not the only thing.

You also really need highly qualified and trained inspectors who know 

what questions to ask and the threads to follow and cooperation among the certifiers.

MS. BRUCH: Mm-hmm.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I think that's a great point, yes, and hopefully 

something that will be somewhat addressed by the human capital projects that are 

forthcoming.

MS. BRUCH: Yes. Thank you, Kyla, for bringing up that point for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

sure. Definitely a multifaceted approach is needed here.

So moving on to the final question, and I appreciate all of the comments 

so far, should the industry require the registration of land 36 months before certification. 

The comments on this one were probably the most mixed and diverse.

So in terms of in favor of it, clarity is needed for consistency, it could 

stabilize the market and enhance risk assessments, allows for better mass balancing, helps 

farmers understand in the future what crops maybe they need to rotate into.

And then there were some concerns centered around this just about 

rented or leased ground, is this going to increase barriers to entry, staffing, how will this be 

implemented, verified, and enforced.

And, again, this is more of an exploratory question and I am really happy 

on the contributions that were provided to us. Is there any Board comments on this one in 

particular? Sue?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Oh, you're muted, Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Actually there is written in the OSP before transition but it 

was never really implemented.

There would be opportunity perhaps for marketing if the land was 

transitioned, but I think we have tried that and it hasn't gone over really well.

So I see this as if we required the land to be registered, transitioned for 

36 months, then there is going to be more cost to the farmer.

They are not going to get any return on that cost, because we really tried 

to get that market established and we haven't been able to do it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Now perhaps if we did create a new label or, you know, if we created a 

new label in transition that might help to get a market, in my world at least most farmers who 

are grain farmers who are transitioning have sold their grains as non-GMO and they get a little 

bit of premium for that, not nearly an organic premium, and maybe not -- And I think, oh, 

boost Tim Daley's fruit -- Old Farm maybe tried to get a medium, a little bit more than 

non-GMO but less than organic premium to the farmer. It didn't work.

So I don't think that we could ever require something that is not in the 

regulation. I don't know how you could do that and I don't think that there is justification 

for the farmer to have to pay for registration if they are not going to get a return for that 

investment.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes. I would like to respond to Sue's comment. I 

agree with you entirely.

I spent six years of my life with an internationally recognized marketer 

breaking my teeth on exactly that, trying to establish a value for transitional properties and 

foods. It met with no success.

We could not get, garner value at retail for that effort.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Real quick, Amy, on -- Oh, sorry. Brian?

MR. CALDWELL: Yes. I think again from a similar standpoint as 

from before, here in Central New York a lot of land is sort of actually fallow or sometimes only 

marginally in agriculture and to require a farmer who might be able to rent, you know, a new 

5-acre field or something like that, to register three years in advance would, you know, when 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

it's essentially, you know, there hasn't been any inputs in it for the last three years and, you 

know, it's basically ready to go, but they don't know that this land is going to become available 

because, you know, it's just not on the market and then all of a sudden it is for rental.

So, anyways, just again, you know, targeting where the problem is I think 

is really important and I get that business-to-business eliminates the lap, the final sale to the 

consumer, that's great.

But we just have to be thinking about this stuff all the time to not really 

hit people hard that are not the targets.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you. Amy, would you speak a little bit 

to kind of this idea of the more data we have on transitioning land the more ability I think, and 

possibly confident farmers could have that, that there is a market opportunity to get into 

organics.

If it's a black box it seems like -- And I think, yes, I have experienced this a 

few times myself of when folks are asking about transition oftentimes they'll be like, okay, 

where do I send my soil samples to prove that my fields are ready or, you know, what all 

information do you need.

On the whole it's signed affidavits, a sworn affidavit, and I am often like I 

feel for the farmers who are saying you don't need more than that, like there's nothing else to 

it.

But I was wondering if you could speak to that a little bit, Amy, and 

address I think this idea of like what more data on transition means for the market in your 

opinion.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BRUCH: Mm-hmm. Sure, Nate. And I appreciate, Brian, your 

comments and opinions. In my area and in a lot of farmer's areas we are transitioning 

ground that actually had had prohibited substances on it.

So there are a lot of questions by farmers as to the process and it's a little, 

it seems almost a little unofficial because you are supposed to essentially farm with organic 

practices but we don't have that relationship with a certifier and then at 36 months down the 

road you begin that partnership.

So it is a little just uncertain for farmers that are making that first 

conversion just without some of the knowledge on the regulations, so having that official start 

point.

We have to capture that initial, or that, I'm sorry, I said initial, the last 

herbicide, restricted use herbicide, you need to capture that and that's when that clock starts 

for the 36 months for ground that has actually been conventional.

So having a little more rigor I think would help folks that are 

transitioning land that had had prohibited substances on it.

I think from an international standpoint also getting a better pulse rate 

on what is going to be showing up and that's the thing we see large swings happening with 

acres coming onboard that is organic, so having a little bit more of a runway of understanding 

for farmers that are organic.

The amount of acres that are going to be transitioning in the next few 

years is also helpful. And then for that first year farmer that has no organic land there are 

some requirements and deadlines to get things certified and inspected before you harvest that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

crop.

Otherwise, you actually might have to go through a 48-month transition 

instead of a 36 if you weren't adhering to certain inspection timeframes.

So those are a few points. I can see definitely everybody's viewpoint 

on both sides of this equation. I think that is in general why the stakeholder community was 

pretty split on this question.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I think I just -- In honoring Steve's point about 

time, I am wanting to finish up here.

The only other thing I would add to this is this is really a call for 

information, it's a call for ideas, from the community, so I think it doesn't need to be 

prescriptive but rather we want to solicit the best ideas out there for how we make this work. 

Sue and then Kyla.

MS. BAIRD: Yes. To follow up with what I said, there is some 

reasons for some farmers to become transitionally registered or certified or whatever you call 

it.

NRCS, EQIP, and CSP have -- NRCS has two different programs, CSP, 

Conservation Security, and then EQIP. If they register into those programs as transitioning 

to organic then those farmers actually have some financial reason for being, to pay to be 

transitioning, a certified transition.

MS. BRUCH: Mm-hmm.

MS. BAIRD: So that is -- And maybe we need to get that word out.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Great point, yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BRUCH: That's a good point. And then in addition the agencies 

of FSA and RMA were having to declare that we are through the transition process as well.

So there is already agencies under the umbrella of the USDA that are 

requiring this up front knowledge on registration. Kyla?

MS. SMITH: Yes. I have two quick things. So I just wanted to put 

a plug, this isn't like totally related, it's sort of maybe tangentially related, but during public 

comment I, you know, had, OKWC had, you know, put forth their comments in regards to 

upping the handling standards.

And so, again, I think that that's like another option that the Board could 

look at to just enhance those standards and look at what data we can glean out of that industry 

as well.

And then the other thing I just was going to, wanted to say, just broadly, 

and I have mentioned this in the subcommittee, so I'll just say it again here as well, is that on 

this whole topic, so whether or not we're talking about this 36-month transition or any of the 

requirements, like anything that will be required, just as a reminder that we are talking about a 

standard that has to be applied to all farm types and all like, you know, globally across the 

country with very different technology capabilities and, you know, all of the things, right, that 

we are sort of size and scale neutral and like have to be broad enough, which as a certifier is 

infuriating because we have to like, you know, figure out like the details part of it. We love 

our details.

But that's really important, and so I do think that whatever we come up 

with, again, has to be workable for all operators to be able to apply within their farm system 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

and/or production system or whatever, and that we need to then use our tools, whether that 

be through risk assessment or guidance or whatever, to get into the nuanced thing that applies 

directly to that operation.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Absolutely. I think that's a great place to call 

it, but I think that could be applied to probably a dozen other things we have talked about 

today, how do we apply these ideas in a federal program that applies to all operations both big 

and small. So I really appreciate that point, Kyla.

All right. I think, Steve, that is it. We are not going to vote on the 

discussion document so back to you.

And thank you, Amy, that was just -- It's a pile of work and thank you so 

much for the collaboration with the whole team. That was incredible. So props to you.

MS. BRUCH: Thank you. Thank you, everybody. I really 

appreciate it.

MR. ELA: Thank you. That is a ton of work and so very much 

appreciate to all you put into it. I know it's not the end of the discussion by any means.

So I am trying to figure out here -- Jenny has to go to her mobile phone at 

5:30 Eastern Time and so I think what I would like to do before we go to officer elections, and I 

do want to just note that, hey, good job to all the subcommittees. You guys are awesome.

You know, it's a long day or days and all the work that goes in is just 

impressive. So I am going to -- I think we'll go to Jenny for just a bit here and then we'll see 

where we, kind of how we finish up the meeting here, but I want to make sure we give Jenny 

her chance before she has to step out of the office.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So, Jenny, I am going to turn it over to you.

DR. TUCKER: Okay. And so, I suggest as a process check. I was 

thinking we were moving to farewells, is that correct, or is there anything else --

MR. ELA: Yes.

DR. TUCKER: --you want me to comment on before I --

MR. ELA: No, I --

DR. TUCKER: -- move to that?

MR. ELA: Well, if you have any other comments, go ahead. But 

farewells was my intention. But since you're going to have to go mobile, feel free to also say 

anything else you want to, unless you want to wait for the very end when you're on your 

phone.

(Laughter.)

DR. TUCKER: You know, I will say, I appreciated Steve's comment 

today about, you got to be careful not to peek at the community, sort of texts, during the 

meeting because in the room they would be whispers in the hallway.

But I do think there were a couple of comments of noting how the 

collaborative and deep and intellectual discussion by the Board is so valued as a model. And 

as a model for how democracy works.

So I was very moved by the discussion about, that this process itself, we 

take the process for granted. And well, how do we do motions and blah-blah, blah-blah, 

blah-blah.

But when you set that aside, what we are trying to do here is social 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

justice, it is democracy, it is collaboration. And the tone that you guys use with each other, 

and have used with each other this entire meeting, is a real tribute to what democracy can look 

like.

So, I thank all of you for engaging so thoughtfully in that way even when 

it's hard and controversial. So thank you. I really admire that process these three days, so 

thank you.

And I think, actually, that kinds of leads into, I'm going to get a little teary 

through these things because the three people we're saying goodbye to actually were among 

the first folks that I started working with when I became deputy administrator.

In fact, I met Sue the very first time. So I'll start with my goodbye with 

Sue. And I'm looking right at her.

And I flew out for the mid-west organic conference. And it was 

literally like the second week after the last administration had started.

And so, any administration change is going to be just, wow, it's a whole 

new group. And so, it's a priority strategy, even when it's the same party.

But it was clearly a different party coming in and I just remember being 

really nervous about, I don't know what I'm supposed to say and that. This was a brand new 

experience for me.

I've been through lots of administration changes in the government, but 

also as a consultant, but it was the first time I had gone as sort of a, show up and speak for 

NOP. And we had just appointed Sue to the Board and Sue came over and she gave me a 

big hug and she said, I'm just so happy you're here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And it just, it just changed my whole feeling about the event. And so, 

to be able to meet her at the beginning of her service and to have her just amidst everything 

happening in just everything. It was so nice to have a friendly face.

And I have found Sue's comments, particularly from the inspector 

perspective, just so on point throughout her time here. She always thinksabout the farmers.

And she's told lovely stories about the high school kids who just need a 

chance. And they have found it through agriculture. And I just, that is social justice. 

And that is the actions of everyday.

And so, Sue, I will always admire you and hold you close for those 

memories, so thank you. And so I think they sent you a plaque. Do you want to hold up 

your plaque? Oh, that's pretty.

MS. BAIRD: It is beautiful and I thank you so much. And, Jennifer, 

thank you for such wonderful words. I, wow.

DR. TUCKER: It's lovely.

MS. BAIRD: You want to take pictures now?

DR. TUCKER: Who is taking pictures? Yes, hold on.

(Laughter.)

MS. BAIRD: Yes, I'm trying to get the glare off of it.

DR. TUCKER: Okay, I have one, but hopefully a couple of other folks 

got it too, just in case.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you.

DR. TUCKER: Excellent. Okay. Phew, okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And now I'm going to move to Asa, who I feel as strongly about because 

the first time, one of the very first board meetings that I went to, again, these three folks who 

are leaving coincide with my first really coming into my new role and kind of finding my feet. 

And I feel like I kind of, they and I have kind of grown up together on the board.

And so, the first board meeting that I went to, sort of in charge, I actually 

sat next to Asa. And we had, I thought just the most thoughtful conversation about public 

health, about children's health, about sort of the grand scheme of what we live in. And the 

philosophy of care and the philosophy of next generation, the philosophy of the precautionary 

principle.

It's like the exact kind of deep intellectual, philosophical dinner that I 

love. And there were all these people all around us, but I just recall that for a good part of 

the dinner we were just going into all of that.

And there is nothing I love more than that kind of intellectual 

thoughtfulness and really thinking about the world, the planet, the people, the meeting. And 

so, I've really held to that.

So when Asa talks about these things during these public meetings I 

always thinking back to that dinner and how close he really does hold all of this to his identity 

and his heart. And so, Asa, I'm going to miss you a whole lot. And so I hope we keep in 

touch too.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you. I appreciate your comments. My 

plaque is upstairs so I'll have to send it separately.

(Laughter.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

DR. TUCKER: Okay. Congratulations, Asa. And again, thank you 

for everything.

So no picture? Are we going to take a picture of, so, Asa, smile, we're 

going to take a strange shot of you too. Okay. We'll PhotoShop in the plaque for you. 

Let's see.

MR. ELA: He can go get it in a few minutes and you'll get a picture 

with it.

DR. TUCKER: We can take a picture. Okay, that sounds good.

MR. BRADMAN: All right.

DR. TUCKER: Okay, cool. And then, Steve, that means you're next.

And so, okay, so my story of Steve has to do with an elevator. So, 

Steve was, had been on the board for a while and I think Steve is really, both in his knowledge 

of his farm and the dynamics, but also the dynamics of humans and politics.

I have never seen somebody work politics as gently as Steve without 

appearing to be working politics. And so, take notes folks because he's really good at it.

And I think Steve was, and I mean that in the absolute most positive way. 

I know politics has a bad connotation sometimes but that's not, but politics is about how you 

use power to some desired end.

And I think that Steve understands the ends that we're all trying to get to, 

and understands the means to get there. And so I think Steve was getting to a point where it 

was clear he was going to be the chair, but he had not been voted the chair. But it was kind 

of clear that that was Steve's trajectory.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And he, again, I was still new getting used to the role, and Steve walks up 

to me as I'm going to the elevator, and thanks, Steve, for doing it on the way to the elevator, not 

the lady's room, which is how it usually worksat public meetings. And so, that was good.

And so, Steve walked up to me and said, yes, I wondered if we could just 

grab a few minutes or a cup of coffee and just chat. And it was such a lovely way of leaning 

into that relationship.

And so, we did find time later that day or the next one and we sat, it was 

in the lobby of the hotel. It was one of those ones in the basement.

But we just sat in these chairs and we talked about the board dynamics 

and where the board, the hope of the board and the promise of the board. And the realities 

of what USDA faces and the realities the National Organic Program.

And it was such an open, thoughtful conversation about all the people 

involved and who was supportive of what and what areas people felt strongly about. But it 

was all incredibly respectful that this person represents this view. And this is where they add 

a whole lot of value and this person balances that.

And it was just, it's such a beautiful sense of the team dynamic. And so 

I have, in the last couple of years, been able to talk to Steve, pretty much on a monthly basis, 

that he and I get together monthly.

And that same thoughtfulness and grace and humanity and compassion 

and passion and empathy. And Steve has gone through some stuff with his farm that I think 

directly relate to some of the things we've been talking about with these agenda items with 

climate change.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And the things he's gone through, I think people would be surprised at 

what he has gone through and yet been able to continue to do his service to the board. It's 

really quite stunning.

So, Steve, an honor. A true, true honor to be with you, to know you 

and to work with you. So, thank you.

MR. ELA: Well, and you don't know how nervous I was to sit down for 

that first meeting.

DR. TUCKER: Never showed. Yes, never showed. Never showed.

MR. ELA: Well, it was pretty much there. Thank you so much.

DR. TUCKER: Do you have your plaque that you can hold up? 

There it is. All righty. And so, let's see if we can get a screenshot here. That's a nice 

smile, Steve. Hold on. We're all getting good at this whole screen shot stuff. Okay. 

Okay, got it.

So, really, thanks to all three of you. I wish you all the best for all the 

free time you'regoing to have. And to the next generation of leaders and to board members.

This is, as I said at the very beginning, this real powerful group. And 

your ability to move the planet moves me. So I look forward to working with you in the 

years ahead.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Jenny.

DR. TUCKER: Back to you, Steve.

MR. ELA: All right. Well, I think all three of us have very much 

enjoyed working with you so I hope you know that. And you're right, we did cut our teeth 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

together. And I hope you will continue to cut your teeth in what is also a very graceful style.

With that we are going to jump back to our agenda. We're going to do 

the officer elections and then look over the work agendas coming up. And then I know 

several of the board members going out want to give their own thoughts.

So, officer elections. This is a challenge in the virtual world because 

we have always honored that the officer elections are anonymous. Nobody knows what the 

vote count was, except I guess for the two people that count up the pieces of paper.

Unless you all really good at making paper airplanes that fly across the 

country, it's a little hard to write down, write on pieces of paper at this time.

So you all should have received three SurveyMonkey links in your email 

last night. So why don't you take a minute, including myself and, so the results are going to 

come to Asa and me. They are anonymous, but we will see who prevailed in the number of 

votes and we will announce that.

And again, we don't announce the vote count at all. However is 

elected is elected by the whole board. And we all proceed from that.

Let's see, I'm finding it myself here so give me a second. Everybody 

gets to vote. Obviously everybody gets one vote.

And what we're going to do is we will, and so there are three surveys, use 

each one independently. One for chair, one for vice chair, one for secretary.

And first we will have to nominate people. And when you do vote, 

make sure you only vote for those people that are nominated.

So, I'm sorry, I'm a terrible, not a get multitasker here so I'm trying to find 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

my own links here. Okay.

So, I will open the floor to nominations for chair. Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes. I would like to nominate Dr. Carolyn Dimitri. 

She has been a leader in the organic world for 20 years I know because she's been around 

before I was around.

She has a great working relationship from USDA. She actually came 

from the USDA ERS. I would like to give her, something I have never told her, but I would 

like to tell her that her work with the data with ERS and within the research organic actually, 

probably was one of the major help for me, assistance, to open up Organic Missouri.

As many of you know, Missouri is a home of Monsanto and we really 

fought a horrible fight at the beginning trying to get organic into Missouri. Her data made all 

the different in convincing people that there was a real future for organic in Missouri.

She has a wonderful relationship. She is on the faculty now. She 

has a relationship with academia.

And she just, her thoughtful concise words, Carolyn, more than mine, 

really brings, I just have a great respect for her. So I want to nominate her.

MR. ELA: All right. Is there a second? Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: I'll second the nomination.

MR. ELA: Okay. So there are two, makes a motion. Kim seconds. 

Are there other nominations? Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: I'd like to nominate Nate. The depth and breadth of 

his understanding of how organics works, on so many fronts, has really inspired me.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Okay. Is there a second for Nate?

MS. GREENWOOD: Yes, I'll second.

MS. SMITH: I'll second.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: I heard Rick first, so we will do that. So nomination for 

Nate by Mindee and seconded by Rick. Are there others?

I would like to nominate Rick.

(Laughter.)

DR. DIMITRI: I second that.

MR. ELA: Rick, you would make an outstanding chair.

MS. GREENWOOD: I appreciate that, Steve, and I appreciate the 

seconds, but I really can't commit the time to it so I would like to have at least the other two 

garner my votes. But I really appreciate that, thank you.

MR. ELA: You are welcome.

DR. DIMITRI: And I don't think I've been around long enough to be 

the chair, I'm sorry. I'm blown away by that generosity of that offer, but I feel like I'm still 

getting my feet on the ground here.

MR. ELA: So is that a withdrawal, Kim?

DR. DIMITRI: Yes. I don't think I would be a very good chair. I've 

only fooled you, so --

(Laughter.)

MR. D'AMORE: This is Jerry.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

DR. DIMITRI: I love that I have. I felt so pleased with myself for 

that. Yes.

MR. D'AMORE: Do you have the time, is my question?

DR. DIMITRI: Do I personally have the time? I think I'm just too 

early. And this is just the end of my first year and I am just really learning. Maybe this is 

the first meeting where I feel like I kind of understand what's going on.

And as a non-farmer and as a non-certifier I just don't think I have like 

command of some of those nuance things about like handling products and growing food. I 

think that would be a real handicap.

MR. ELA: Okay, we will withdraw Carolyn's name. But I know both 

Rick and you, Carolyn, would do great jobs. As well as Nate.

So any other nominations forchair?

DR. TUCKER: I'm glad, Carolyn, I had the chance to say thank you for 

your work.

DR. DIMITRI: Thank you so much for telling me that. I appreciate 

that. I like to make a difference in the world.

MR. ELA: All right. I am not seeing any other nominations, and 

since there is only one nomination left standing I'll ask for the Board to accept, by unanimous 

consent, Nate as chair. Any objections?

All right. Nate, congratulations. And welcome to the chairperson 

ship.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you, everybody. I just want to say that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

it is with deep admiration for Steve that I think that the tenor and the style that he brought to 

being chair is something I hope to emulate. And so I really appreciate the vote of 

confidence.

MR. ELA: All right. We are going to move to vice chair. And so, I 

will entertain motions, or nominations, excuse me, for vice chair. Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: I would like to nominate Mindee. I think the 

level of detail that she is able to keep on top of, and her connection to both the consumer 

community but also materials on the whole. And just some of the glimpses we got and how 

she can explain the relevance of a lot of the work we do to the lay audience I think is going to 

be an essential communication tool for keeping NOSB relevant to the community.

MR. D'AMORE: This is Jerry, I'd like to second that.

MR. ELA: Okay. We have a nomination for Mindee made by Nate, 

seconded by Jerry.

Are there other nominations for vice chair? All right, I am not seeing 

any others so I will ask, since there is only one nomination for vice chair, I will ask the Board if 

anybody has any objections to unanimous consent?

All right, congratulations, Mindee. Welcome to the vice chair position. 

I think you two will do a great job.

Okay, one more position. You're making the job for Asa and I very 

simple here. But let's, I'd like to entertain nominations for secretary.

MR. D'AMORE: This is Jerry. I'd like to nominate Kyla.

MR. ELA: Okay. Is there a second?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

(Off microphone comments.)

MR. ELA: Did I hear a second, I wasn't quite clear on that?

MS. BRUCH: I'll second it.

MS. GREENWOOD: Yes, I'll second it.

MR. ELA: So was that Kim seconding?

MS. BRUCH: Amy. I'll second that. Kim, whoever.

MR. ELA: All right. I have a hard time hearing. So, there is a 

nomination for Kyla by Jerry and seconded by Kim. Other nominations?

MS. PETREY: I'll nominate Amy.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I'd like to second that.

MR. ELA: Okay. So nominate by Logan and seconded by Nate.

Other nominations? Sue, I see you have your hand up.

MS. BAIRD: Well, I'm going to try to get Carolyn on the track anyway. 

I'm going to nominate Carolyn.

MR. ELA: Okay.

DR. DIMITRI: I appreciate that but I hope someone else wins.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: All right.

MS. BAIRD: We always do.

MR. ELA: I didn't hear her withdrawing her name, is there a second? 

Is there a --

MR. BRADMAN: I'll second.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Okay, Asa has the second. Other nominations? Nate, 

you have your hand up.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Sorry, I didn't take it down.

MR. ELA: Okay. Yes, I probably didn't lower it as well.

DR. DIMITRI: Do you think we should nominate a guy for this? 

How about Rick? I mean, let's not make it all gendered about women and secretary.

(Laughter.)

MS. BAIRD: Ah, good point.

MR. ELA: I will vouch that in my term, with the exception of Mindee, 

that it has always been men.

MS. JEFFREY: Hey, I'm gender-free so I still count, right? Like --

(Laughter.)

DR. TUCKER: Gender parity.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: That is fair. So there is no history of this being, in my time 

on the board, as male or female.

So, Rick. Is there is a second for Rick?

MS. GREENWOOD: Can I withdraw my name even though, know that 

we know that it's gender --

DR. DIMITRI: You don't want to be the token man, come on?

MS. GREENWOOD: It's already gender neutral so I'd like to withdraw.

MR. ELA: You're a tough cookie, Rick.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. GREENWOOD: I know.

MR. ELA: Any other nominations for secretary? All right, I don't see 

any others so we'll close the nominations.

So if you would all open up your SurveyMonkey link for secretary and 

make your vote, Asa and I will look at them and we will announce who will be the new 

secretary.

Okay. As ever, I'm clicking between links here, I'm sorry. Asa, are 

you seeing --

MR. BRADMAN: I'm trying to log on and see the results.

MR. ELA: Yes, that's fine. We'll give you a second here. It looks 

like everybody has voted.

MR. BRADMAN: Let's see, SurveyMonkey is trying to make me join. 

Do I need to join?

DR. DIMITRI: Horrors of SurveyMonkey.

MR. BRADMAN: Can you share your screen? I guess you have to 

share your screen.

MR. ELA: Yes.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

MR. ELA: Just a second here, I'm trying to have it open for me.

MR. BRADMAN: Or we can do it by cell phone too.

MR. D'AMORE: That might be safer.

MR. ELA: Yes. Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: When I log on to the results thing it's asking me to 

log in, and I can create it quickly but I don't have one.

MR. ELA: Well --

MR. BRADMAN: Because I'm at the wrong place.

MR. ELA: Right.

MS. GREENWOOD: That's the problem with monkeys.

MR. ELA: Yes.

MS. SMITH: Steve, do you want to take a screen shot and email it to 

Asa? Maybe that's like a second eyes confirmation. I trust you as well, so.

MR. ELA: Yes.

DR. DIMITRI: Steve, you don't look happy, that's all I can --

MR. ELA: Well, I'm trying to think of the procedures here, I show a tie.

DR. DIMITRI: Well, I'll tell you what, I'll withdrawal my name and then 

you can re-vote. Unless the tie is between the other two and then --

MR. ELA: Well, we won't --

DR. DIMITRI: -- in that case it doesn't help.

MR. ELA: I don't want to say it, but okay, if we want to do that, why 

don't we re-vote. We will have it between Amy and Kyla. And let's use the vice chair 

survey link since we did not use that.

DR. DIMITRI: Okay.

MS. BAIRD: Use the vice chair, okay.

MR. ELA: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CALDWELL: So I actually did the vice chair one thinking that 

maybe that it would be necessary to actually have the vote --

MR. ELA: Okay.

MR. CALDWELL: -- so it won't let me do it again.

MR. ELA: Okay. Let me then, has anybody voted for the chair one?

DR. DIMITRI: You could also just text your vote to Steve --

MR. ELA: Well, let's --

DR. DIMITRI: --and then Steve doesn't, that way we can preserve it in 

case there is another disaster.

MR. ELA: Well, let's go ahead and use the chair link if nobody else has 

used it.

MR. CALDWELL: Well, yes, and I'm sorry, I did the same thing for that. 

I thought maybe the votes would be necessary.

MR. D'AMORE: Because you opened it, it's not available for you to 

use it?

MR. CALDWELL: Right. Because I already basically voted for Nate 

and Mindee.

MR. ELA: Brian --

MR. CALDWELL: Why don't I just email Steve and Asa.

MR. ELA: Yes, that would be great. So go ahead and use the vice 

chair link for everybody else, and Brian will let us know.

And let's see, I have to get back. I'm sorry, I have not used 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

SurveyMonkey before. You can tell.

DR. DIMITRI: I have just submitted mine.

MR. ELA: Okay. Trying to get back to the, okay.

MR. BRADMAN: So, I am logged in now but I'm just seeing that, the 

number of people who voted but I'm not seeing who they voted for.

MR. ELA: If you go to analyze results, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay.

MR. ELA: Let me look at Brian's here. Hold on asecond.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay, I see it. Okay. But I'm looking for --

MR. D'AMORE: Secretary.

MR. BRADMAN: Should I be looking --

MR. ELA: Look under vice chair.

MR. BRADMAN: But there is one person who is voted for who is not 

running for vice chair.

MR. ELA: I understand. I think we'll just have to take that as a --

MR. BRADMAN: That might be Brian's vote.

MR. ELA: Oh, that could be. That could be. Now my phone is --

MR. CALDWELL: Yes, it probably is so eliminate that one.

MR. ELA: Okay. My phone does not want to load new emails. 

Asa, did you get the, there we go.

MR. BRADMAN: Should we have it?

MR. ELA: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: Should there be an email from Brian?

MR. ELA: I've got it. Yes, I've got Brian's now.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay.

MR. ELA: Oh, for Pete's sake, I think --

MR. BRADMAN: So we have a tie? That's what I'm seeing at least.

MR. ELA: Yes. So somebody didn't, oh, because we don't have, 

nope. Somebody, I only show 11 votes.

MR. BRADMAN: I'm showing 12.

MR. ELA: Okay. But we should have 13.

MR. D'AMORE: One of them is a text or email.

MR. ELA: Well, I show 11 on the screen, Brian makes 12, but we 

should have 13 votes. And that might, without disclosing anything, it might be important.

(Laughter.)

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve, did you vote?

MR. ELA: I did. I'm pretty sure I did. Wow, you all are not making 

it easy.

DR. DIMITRI: I think that you could just flip a coin, right?

MR. ELA: Well, we just need one more vote.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Should we just email you, would that be easier?

MR. ELA: Sure. Let's do a re-vote. And just, if you would all email 

Asa and myself we will make sure we have this.

MS. SMITH: Amy and I could just rock, paper, scissors.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BRUCH: Yes. It's the same --

MR. ELA: Usually we don't disclose how close it is but I think you 

might be able to guess. At least --

MR. D'AMORE: Nothing wrong with close, Steve.

MR. ELA: Nope, not at all. So, we know what Brian's vote is, but if 

you would all send Asa and I an email we will tally it up.

DR. DIMITRI: This is very funny by the way.

MR. ELA: It is.

DR. DIMITRI: I was teaching my class I would consider this like a 

failure.

(Laughter.)

DR. DIMITRI: Like my students would write in their course 

evaluations like, you know, Dr. Dimitri couldn't even get a vote.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: Yes, we're not going to go towards the failure side here.

DR. DIMITRI: I know.

MR. BRADMAN: We don't want any echoes of presidential elections 

here.

MR. ELA: Right.

DR. DIMITRI: I know. I know.

MR. ELA: Yes. It's hard on the meeting to have a hanging Chad but, 

and I promise to delete all of these as soon as we finish.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

DR. DIMITRI: And of course they would be wonderful so it doesn't 

really matter who does it, right?

MR. ELA: That is the bottom line.

DR. DIMITRI: Yes.

MR. ELA: Okay.

MR. BRADMAN: And of course, we're assuming everyone's email gets 

here on time.

MR. ELA: Yes.

DR. DIMITRI: You guys are so far away it probably takes forever to get 

an email from New York.

(Laughter.)

MS. BRUCH: We've got the back up though, rock, paper, scissors.

DR. DIMITRI: That's right.

MR. ELA: Okay. I'm going text Asa something here, so, Asa, look for 

a text.

MS. HUSEMAN: Everybody close theireyes except for one person.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: I am doing Asa directly here.

MS. SMITH: In the chat someone suggested we could do Squid Game 

to decide the winner and I respectfully decline.

(Laughter.)

MS. BRUCH: I'm not sure what that is but it doesn't sound good.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MS. JEFFREY: I just need to know where to send all my colored pens.

(Laughter.)

DR. DIMITRI: That's so funny.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay.

MS. JEFFREY: Just kidding, I don't think you could get me to give up 

my colored pens.

MR. ELA: All right, so, let's see. So --

MS. BAIRD: I want a tutorial, Mindee. Assumed tutorial on use of 

colored pens.

(Laughter.)

DR. DIMITRI: Do you have like a whole pack of colored pens, Mindee, 

or do you have one of the ones with the clickers?

MS. JEFFREY: Every color of colored pen is my least sustainable life 

decision.

DR. DIMITRI: Nice. How many does that mean? Like 20, 30, 40?

MR. ELA: All right.

MS. JEFFREY: I have 11 sitting on the desk.

DR. DIMITRI: That's not bad at all.

MR. ELA: Just a second here. Sorry it takes so long everybody, this is 

new.

DR. TUCKER: This is Jenny, I have to say, I admire Carolyn's ability to 

kill time here. That was very nice.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

(Laughter.)

DR. DIMITRI: I am good at the idle chit chat. Especially because I 

don't really like to talk, but --

MS. HUSEMAN: Anybody missing Scott about now because I think he 

was the guy that had this all figured out last time around.

MS. ARSENAULT: I actually invited him to come guest poll. To be 

the guest poller.

MS. HUSEMAN: The guest poller --

MS. ARSENAULT: He turned me down.

MS. HUSEMAN: -- that would be a great idea.

MR. POWELL-PALM: What's wrong with him. How could he go 

and decline that offer.

MS. HUSEMAN: Maybe he has PTSD.

(Laughter.)

MS. JEFFREY: I think maybe his boss was like, no, I can't --

MR. BRADMAN: Can everyone hear me?

MR. ELA: Okay, we do have an announcement. Asa is going to 

announce.

MS. JEFFREY: I'm too excited.

MR. BRADMAN: Oh, you know what, I'm having a, let me turn my 

sound back on, sorry.

(Laughter.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: Okay, can everyone hear me?

MR. ELA: We can, Asa.

MS. GREENWOOD: No, no, I can't.

MR. BRADMAN: So, the final count, so Kyla is our new secretary. 

And it's basically a split vote, but Kyla is the new secretary.

MS. BRUCH: Congratulations, Kyla.

MR. ELA: Yes, congratulations. And all I can say --

DR. DIMITRI: Mindee, you got lucky.

MR. ELA: -- is we wouldn't generally know that, but thank goodness 

we didn't have somebody else on the call. It could have gone on forever.

MR. BRADMAN: Can I make a pitch for something?

MR. ELA: Yes.

MR. BRADMAN: Having attended the executive committee meetings 

sometimes, and those of you who are not a chair of a subcommittee or in a leadership role, but 

specifically, everyone can go to the executive meetings. It's a great place to get more depth 

and breadth of planning. So, just thought I would mention that.

MR. ELA: Yes, I think that's great. And I would, I guess I would 

encourage Amy and Carolyn to attend as many ExComs as you can because, obviously the 

Board invites all of you.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: Well thank you for working through a somewhat 

excruciating process, and tolerating us with a little less, maybe non-anonymity than I would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

like, but I will delete all of those emails, and I'm sure Asa will too. So they won't accidently 

go out to anyone else.

And yes, congratulations, Nate, Mindee and Kyla. What a great Board 

and what a great group of people. So I look forward to seeing you, seeing you all work 

together.

DR. TUCKER: This is Jenny. I just want to add my congratulations. 

On behalf of the program, we look forward to working with all three of you in the year ahead. 

So congratulations from the NOP.

MR. ELA: With that, we are going to go to the NOP work agenda.

DR. DIMITRI: Yikes.

MR. D'AMORE: Yikes is right.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: And you know what, not my problem.

(Laughter.)

DR. DIMITRI: You so aren't happy about it, Steve.

MS. JEFFREY: Officially.

MS. BAIRD: I second that, Steve.

MS. ARSENAULT: It will be up on the screen momentarily. Here it 

has to swift to a document.

MR. ELA: Yes.

MS. ARSENAULT: I think.

MR. ELA: For those of our stakeholders that are out and still hanging 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

on with us, I do want to point out that there were some public comments about, that the field 

and greenhouse container production work agenda item had been pulled off. And that is 

not the case, it is still on our work agenda list.

It was on, it may have been on a different tab in the work agenda, but it is 

there. It was still on the hold list where it has resided, but I don't want, I want to make clear 

to everybody that was not arbitrarily taken off our work agenda, it is still there.

But we do appreciate that you all pay attention to what we're doing. I 

think that's awesome. Thanks for pointing out things, that there were errors.

So, we'll spin through this pretty quickly. Obviously, as you all know, 

we try and project what our most optimistic work agenda item is.

So if we think we could go to a vote, we're going to say vote. But know 

that sometimes, for various reasons, that can get demoted to a discussion document or kicked 

to another meeting.

So, under CACS we still have the deter of fraud that Amy and Nate 

presented. And then supporting the work of the NOSB in human capital management is 

coming up as well to a vote.

We already voted on ammonia extract, but carbon dioxide got sent back 

to the subcommittee as a petition. And then it is the various sunsets that are coming up 

under crops. So at this point only one proposal petition coming up for a vote.

And I do take, and actually, under ammonia extract that may not be the 

best listing at this point but it does refer to the last motion of the three to one ratio. And so 

that would be the highly soluble nitrogen fertilizers. Some more work on that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

So I didn't mean to say ammonia extracts disappeared but at least one 

aspect of the highly soluble nitrogen fertilizers is still there.

So the various sunsets for crops. And then let's go ahead and scroll 

down until we get to handling. Handling has several petitions out there.

CPD, phosphoric acid and PLA. I think, I'm going to skip to the 

abbreviations of those. There is L. malic acid, which has been hanging around for a little bit. 

And ion exchange filtration, which Kyla introduced. And then a bunch of sunsets for 

handling.

And we can scroll down. Livestock, at this point, just has sunsets. 

And I have told Kim, or whoever becomes that subcommittee chair that just make sure they 

have enough work. I'll find some material that's really dicey to submit a petition for just to 

make them work. But at this point livestock is in, just on sunsets.

And then under materials, they do have the petition on tall oil. 

Mindee has continued work on excluded methods, and then discussion document on research 

priorities, which will, that discussion document will turn into a proposal for the fall.

And PDS still has, on their agenda, the public comment process, which is, 

we've talked about already.

So, does the Board see any changes or additions or anything that has 

fallen off? Sounds good.

And then I'll just, there are all the discussion, the items such as containers 

and aquaculture and several others that are on hold, but they are still in our work agenda. 

And I don't think we have those up right now, but if you do look on our, the website with our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

work agendas those are there.

All right. Any other items on the work agenda for the Board? Okay.

With that, we are going to, we already Jenny give her farewell remarks. 

As Michelle in the program, and Jarred, I'll note, we don't actually get to go until January 23rd. 

But I will be happy to quack, quack, quack all the way out as a lame duck.

So, I want to turn it over to both Sue and then Asa to give any final 

remarks that they would like to give, while they have their chance. So go ahead, Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you. It's been a humbling experience. I've felt 

so inadequate many, many times. I've always tried to remember that I'm there to represent 

my small family farms, and that's what I've tried to do all along.

Again, as you know, my passion by now, you know, is for the children 

and the health of the children. And I have grandchild, I don't have any great grandchildren 

yet but it's getting there.

I want to see our earth preserved for them. We've lost so much from 

the time that I was a child to now.

And even from the time that my children were children till now. We 

just continually seem to be hellbent, I might use that word, for destroying our earth. That's 

the reason Carolyn's paper is so important. That we recognize.

My grandmother was Cherokee Indian and she would take me down 

into the woods and set me down on the stump and she'd say, Suzie Q, because I was a little 

hyper back then, Suzie Q, sit here and let the earth talk to you. And I tried to remember that 

the whole time that I have been an organic inspector in the organic world because when I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

found organic I found my grandmother's teachings again.

I would just caution everyone to remember that, really, the movement 

started for the health of the people in Silent Spring, pesticides, those types of things. Social 

justice, animal welfare. Those are the hearts of our consumers and our customers. And 

the hearts of the organic industry.

I love all of you. I just am so at awe of the minds of this Board. 

Thank you.

MR. D'AMORE: We'll miss you, Sue.

MR. ELA: Does anybody want to say anything to Sue? No need to, 

but certainly, or actually, I'm just going to wait and leave it open to the Board for, to say 

anything to anybody. Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes. I just kind of want to repeat everything that 

Sue just said and just say, it's really been such a privilege and honor to be on the Board and to 

work with so many just brilliant people. It's been really a great experience, and I appreciate 

the trust that people have put on me to participate.

And I apologize if I talk too much. I did have a couple things more 

though to say in terms of, about the program.

I just want to highlight the depth of public comment. I'm just in aw at 

the amount of work that goes into the public comments. And the guide posts often provides 

for, both NOSB thinking but also for the program in terms of policy and program development.

And I mentioned the list 4 and the sanitizers. And I think we have a lot 

of really great suggestions in the public comment. But also we don't have enough time to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

really give it the attention they deserve in the NOSB setting.

And I was actually going to suggest somebody at the agency take those 

comments and pull them out by topic. Maybe list 4 sanitizers and setup a big PDF and keep 

that on their computer as they work on policies.

I've been pained about the hydroponics issue and would like to see the 

container and hydroponics addressed in a way that is problem solving. I think, when I look 

back on the votes that I've participated in, I wish I knew what I knew now and what might have 

been possible.

I do think that there is some discussion on that. I do think there 

should be an opportunity to grow organic foods on urban areas that were formally hazardous 

waste sites or locations where you can't put stuff in the ground. And it would be great to 

have a consensus guideline on that.

One thing I've thought about is, say, for situations where there is active 

farm land and somebody wants to build a facility that covers the ground, like potentially a 

hydroponic facility, that there be a ten year transition period to organic. The same way we 

have with, suggested for native ecosystems.

So there is kind of a disincentive to convert farm land into a different 

kind of production system so that if we do have container systems that they're focused on the 

areas where there is no other alternative.

In terms of process, I think we could be more efficient on the Board. 

My first job was with the State Health Department in California.

I staffed a community on lead poisoning. And my job was to write the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

documents, and the people on the committee reviewed and approved them and added to 

them. And I think that could be a more efficient use of our time.

Especially for some sunset renewals that are kind of, I hate to use this 

word, but perfunctory. Some especially, really we know are just going to get approved. 

And I think that would improve efficiency.

Another example might be USDA funding, a position in EPA to manage 

the list 4, list 3 revisions. When I worked in the State Health Department the agency that 

oversaw lead testing in kids funded somebody in my program, which is the lead poison 

prevention program, to coordinate policy development and medical care services to those kids. 

And I think that model would apply here. And maybe it's been done in some ways.

I think the social justice things are really important. I talked about 

food insecurity earlier, access to medical care.

There is some great farmers in California who, and their workers get 

health insurance. In the studies I've done, the vast majority of farm workers, both in the 

organic and the conventional sector, don't get health insurance.

And they get services through the state of California because there is 

good policies here to provide well child care and well pregnancy care. But that's an 

enormous subsidy to the Ag industry that's really unquantified right now.

I think to the extent that we can develop a social justice framework for 

organic that can only strengthen our contributions to the environment and public health.

Anyway, I just want to say it's been such a joy to work on this committee 

and I hope to stay involved in the future and I look forward to seeing everyone going forward 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

as well.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Asa, and Sue. As outgoing chair, maybe it's 

outgone chair at this point, I can only say to you two, what a treat to get to know both of you.

And I just respect your input to the Board so much. You each bringing 

different perspectives, and I think that's so important about this whole Board of bringing 

different perspectives. So, I could go on about you two but I just want to say what a treat.

And for my own spill at the end here, I had the soapbox at the start of the 

meeting. But I just, we had a couple of really difficult topics this meeting.

And the cohesiveness of the Board is just, I so appreciate the outreach to 

everybody and that it's communal, even when we disagree. And I just, the number of people 

I've met, stakeholders, Board Members, the engagement I'm going to miss. It's been really 

nice.

And then I'm just going to say that I think my love of organics, and love 

of being a farmer, organic farmer is, versus the conventional farmer I was, is just the ecosystem 

approach and the fascination with how well the ecosystem works.

And that's, in our deliberations, I think we get so caught up in materials 

and specifics that I hope we can always keep that higher level sense of environmental 

ecosystem services forefront in our thinking and use that as the higher level goal of OFPA, the 

originators of the organic program.

Our farm has had one of the researchers who has done the COMET 

model for carbon sequestration and modeling across the country with NRCS. He's looked at 

our farm and we're just darn close to zero, zero carbon, and I'm really proud of that. And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

that includes going to farmers market's six hours away, with the fuel costs there. And we're 

also zero food waste, which we're pretty proud of.

And that, to me, that's also organic. All of the things that go into 

organic.

And climate change, yes, it's going to hit all of us. And so, that's a big 

one. But thank you, everybody, really appreciate it.

Okay, anybody have anything else? Well, I do have one thing. 

Thank you for, I've received some gifts, and thank you. Very appreciated.

So, anything else?

MR. BRADMAN: Never better deserved, Steve.

MR. ELA: Wow.

MS. ARSENAULT: I got you until January 23rd, don't forget.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: Yes. I'll show up at some meetings and be quiet.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: So, anything else before we close this meeting?

I don't know if Jenny wants to, or anybody from the program wants to 

say anything else before we adjourn?

MS. PETREY: Steve, I thank you all absolutely. I'm sorry, I didn't 

raise my hand, I just didn't want to lose the strength. But thank all of you for advising us and 

getting us there and for being so passionate and devoted and I appreciate it. I don't want to 

take up everybody's time, so.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Okay. And I will open it to any other Board Members who 

want to say anything.

MS. JEFFREY: I just want to acknowledge that the three of you came in 

on hydroponics and went out on a pandemic during the Trump Administration. Thank you. 

Thank you, thank you.

MS. PETREY: And ammonia extracts.

MR. ELA: Ammonia extracts, yes. Sometimes --

MS. PETREY: Went out with a bang.

MR. ELA: -- hands, Logan.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: Kyla.

MS. SMITH: I just wanted to say quickly, thank you all for your service 

and I really do hope that since I have gotten to meet some of you as an audience member, but 

didn't get to connect with you all due to the pandemic, except over Zoom, which has been sort 

of unfortunate, and so I really do hope that even though you're cycling off that we can connect 

in the future in a non-Zoom way.

So here's a plug for Crystal City Board Reunion and hope that you guys 

can all come, because I'd really like to, yes, get to know you all a little bit better, not in this 

format. So anyway, thanks all for your service.

MS. GREENWOOD: And, Steve, I'm obviously going to, you knew it 

was coming, no, you've done great for an apply guy but I'm left in the lurch because I don't 

know if go after leafy green people or soybeans, just somehow it's going to be tough.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

(Laughter.)

MS. BRUCH: I know you'll get it figured out, Rick.

MS. GREENWOOD: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Well, Rick, on that note I do have one thing. We have 

sparred and I, you know, as I've said I'm a moderate and I like to find middle ground, and so, I 

really think I have found the answer to what we're doing and it's this.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: It's shaped like an avocado when it's green --

MS. BRUCH: It's a pear.

MR. ELA: -- but it's also a pome fruit, which is like an apple. So if we 

can bury the hatchet and both agree that pears are the best we can move forward. It's the 

hybrid of the two.

(Laughter.)

MR. D'AMORE: No, you guys don't need a compromise, you did this 

well.

MS. GREENWOOD: Yes, that's a setup if I ever saw one.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: Anybody else?

MS. BRUCH: I was just going to say, Asa, Steve, Sue, thank you so 

much for your leadership setting such a good example for our freshman class. The bar is set 

pretty high. We have a lot to learn, but thank you guys so much for everything.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Also, thank you, Steve, for being chair two. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

Two years. I mean, I am so grateful. Yes.

MR. ELA: Well, Tom Chapman set the standard on that, so I hope it 

doesn't happen to too many people, but thank you. Brian.

MR. CALDWELL: You know, this experience on the Board is so much 

more congenial and positive than I thought it was going to be when I started. And I really 

think it's a reflection of the leadership of you three.

And especially, Steve, I think is an amazing leader. And I really 

appreciate that. And I wish I had more years to enjoy that.

MR. ELA: Thank you. I will laugh that Jenny says she thinks I'm a 

good politician because that is as far away of things I want to be, but I'll accept it. But 

anybody else?

All right. Well, thank you all for the kudos, and on behalf of Asa and 

Sue and myself.

Anything else from the program before we adjourn?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. Steve, I just have two last slides so folks can 

see where, two things.

We have one more nomination this coming year, so some time in the 

Spring of 2022 we'll send out the announcement. And that is Rick's seat. Rick will be the 

one rotating off in January of 2023. Is that right? 2023.

And so that should hit the street in the spring of 2022. That 

announcement.

And I have the next several meetings on the book so folks can see. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com

And I hope to get that up on the website pretty soon.

But of course, in April of 2022 will be in Crystal City, Virginia. I think 

this is our third attempt to be in Crystal City, Virginia.

And then we moved Sacramento, which we should have been sitting in 

right now, to the fall of 2022. Still working on spring of 2023.

And then we pushed the Providence, Rhode Island meeting for those 

who saw that we were supposed to be in Providence out a year. So in the fall of 2023 we'll 

be in Providence, Rhode Island. For some future planning there.

MR. ELA: All right. Anything else? All right. Well, with that, I 

will turn things over, after we adjourn the meeting, to Nate, Mindee and Kyla. Best of luck to 

you. And I will be following what all you do and excited for what this Board has the 

capabilities of.

So at that, I will adjourn the meeting. And we will see you, or I won't 

see, but next spring the Board will see everybody.

And thanks to all the stakeholders for hanging with us here. It's a great 

community.

MS. ARSENAULT: Thank you, all.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 6:08 p.m.)