United States Agricultural 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Agricultural Department of Marketing Room 2646-S, Mail Stop 0268 

Marketing Agriculture Service Washington, D.C. 20250-0268 

Service Space 

1 

August 11, 2011 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD 

FROM: Miles McEvoy 

 Deputy Administrator 

 National Organic Program (NOP) 

SUBJECT: National Organic Standards Board Recommendations (April 2011) 

This memorandum responds to recommendations made at the April 2011 business meeting of the 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The NOSB recommended the following: 1) renewing, 

removing, or amending the final 28 material listings on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited 

Substances scheduled to expire during 2012; 2) amending the existing listing for tetracycline; 

3) adding attapulgite, used to clarify plant and animal oils, to § 205.605(a); and 4) amending the 

definition of chemical change. 

The NOSB made recommendations to make the following changes to their Policy and Procedures 

Manual: 1) harmonize the Vice Chair and Policy Development Committee job descriptions; 2) amend 

their procedures for completing committee recommendations. 

NOP DISCUSSION AND RESPONSE: 

1. Sunset 2012 

The NOSB is mandated by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 to review all substances 

listed on the National List and determine if their exemptions or prohibitions should be renewed for 

another five years; this is referred to as Sunset. During their Sunset review, the NOSB evaluated the 

available technical information, public comments, and alternative products for the final 28 material 

listings scheduled to expire in 2012. The NOSB then voted to renew twenty material listings, amend six 

material listings, and remove two material listings. 

The NOP accepts the NOSB’s recommendations on these 28 Sunset 2012 material listings as 

summarized in Table 1 and Table 2, with additional information on three groups of substances: 

Chlorine materials 

The NOP accepts, with a slight modification, the NOSB’s recommendation to relist chlorine materials 

with an amended annotation. The NOSB’s recommendation is consistent with the NOP’s final guidance 

on the use of chlorine materials. This guidance described the proper use of chlorine to disinfect tools 

and equipment.1

 The annotation only applies to the use of chlorine in direct contact with crops or 

 

1

 Guidance - NOP 5026: The Use of Chlorine Materials on Organic Production and Handling. Issued May 9, 2011. 
 United States Agricultural 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Agricultural Department of Marketing Room 2646-S, Mail Stop 0268 

Marketing Agriculture Service Washington, D.C. 20250-0268 

Service Space 

2 

irrigation water. Therefore, the NOP finds it unnecessary to include “disinfecting tools or equipment” in 

the annotation. 

The NOP plans to incorporate the NOSB recommendation to allow levels of chlorine in edible sprout 

production in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) labeling. However, chlorine use 

for edible sprout production and alternatives were not addressed by commenters or the committee in 

detail at the April 2011 public meeting. Therefore, the NOP will seek further public comment on this 

issue during rulemaking. 

Sodium nitrate 

The NOSB recommended removing the annotation on sodium nitrate, which currently allows restricted 

use of sodium nitrate for up to 20% of the crop’s total nitrogen requirement. The recommended removal 

of this annotation will completely prohibit the use of sodium nitrate in organic crop production. The NOP 

intends to propose removing the annotation with an effective date of October 21, 2012. If the annotation 

was removed in the final rule, sodium nitrate could not be used as a fertilizer, an ingredient in a 

fertilizer, or a soil amendment in organic crop production as of October 21, 2012. 

Nutrient vitamins and minerals 

In an April 2010 memo to the NOSB, the NOP stated that its previous interpretation of the nutrient 

vitamins and minerals annotation was incorrect. The memo described that the NOP had consulted with 

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review the existing annotation, which references 21 CFR 

104.20. The FDA and NOP identified certain substances that had been allowed under the previous 

(incorrect) interpretation of 21 CFR 104.20 that are not allowed under the current annotation. In the 

April 2010 memo, the NOP requested that the NOSB review the current annotation along with the 1995 

NOSB recommendation and make a recommendation regarding possible amendments to the nutrient 

vitamins and minerals listing. The NOP also stated that it would issue guidance on nutrient vitamins and 

minerals to clarify which substances were allowed in accordance with 21 CFR 104.20. The guidance 

would also provide a transition period for businesses to reformulate products in order to comply with 

National List requirements. 

The NOSB Handling Committee took on the task of reviewing the nutrient vitamin and minerals listing. 

At the October 2010 NOSB meeting in Madison, Wisconsin, the NOSB Handling Committee presented 

a discussion document and received public comments. In March 2011, the NOSB Handling Committee 

proposed an annotation change to the nutrient vitamins and minerals listing and requested public 

comments. The NOSB received approximately two thousand public comments on nutrient vitamins and 

minerals. Based on the public comments and discussion at the April 2011 board meeting, the NOSB 

recommended renewing the nutrient vitamins and minerals listing with no annotation change. 

The NOP believes that certifiers, consumers and the organic trade need a clear list of allowed nutrient 

vitamins and minerals. We believe that the prolonged state of uncertainty regarding which nutrient 

vitamins and minerals are allowed has presented an untenable situation for certified operations and the 

organic trade. Therefore, given the public support at the April 2011 NOSB meeting to resolve this 

issue, the NOP plans to publish a proposed rule for the Sunset 2012 listing for nutrients vitamins and 

minerals that will amend the current annotation. We believe that making this change will correct the 

drafting error, provide a clear list of allowed nutrient vitamins and minerals, and provide greater 

regulatory certainty than program guidance. This rule would propose to amend the current annotation to 

read, “Vitamins and minerals. For food—vitamins and minerals identified as essential in 21 CFR § 

101.9. For infant formula—vitamins and minerals as required by 21 CFR § 107.100 or § 107.10.” 
 United States Agricultural 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Agricultural Department of Marketing Room 2646-S, Mail Stop 0268 

Marketing Agriculture Service Washington, D.C. 20250-0268 

Service Space 

3 

This proposed rule with the annotation change would not include docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), 

arachidonic acid (ARA), taurine, lutein, choline, and inositol. These substances are not allowed under 

the current annotation and would not be allowed under the proposed annotation change. Petitions to 

add these substances to the National List have been received and will be considered at upcoming 

NOSB meetings. The compliance date of the proposed rule with the nutrient vitamin and mineral 

annotation change would be implemented with adequate time to allow the NOSB to review the 

petitions. Additionally, if the NOSB recommended adding these substances to the National List, the 

compliance date would provide the NOP with enough time to complete rulemaking. This implementation 

period would also provide adequate time for the organic trade to adjust their product formulations if 

needed. 

Table 1: Sunset 2012 Material Listings Recommended for Renewal at April 2011 Meeting 

§ 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production 

Section Material Sunset Date Recommended Annotation Change 

§ 205.601(a)(1)(i) Ethanol October 21, 2012 None. 

§ 205.601(a)(1)(ii) Isopropanol October 21, 2012 None. 

§ 205.601(a)(2)(i) Calcium hypochlorite October 21, 2012 For pre-harvest use, residual chlorine levels 

in the water in direct crop contact or as 

water from cleaning irrigation systems 

applied to soil must not exceed the 

maximum residual disinfectant limit under 

the Safe Drinking Water Act. For 

disinfecting or sanitizing equipment or tools 

or in edible sprout production, chlorine 

products may be used up to maximum 

labeled rates. 

§ 205.601(a)(2)(ii) Chlorine dioxide 

§ 205.601(a)(2)(iii) Sodium hypochlorite* 

§ 205.601(b)(2)(i) Newspapers or other 

recycled paper, without 

glossy or colored inks 

October 21, 2012 None. 

§ 205.601(b)(2)(ii) Plastic mulch & covers October 21, 2012 None. 

§ 205.601(c) Newspapers or other 

recycled paper, without 

glossy or colored inks 

October 21, 2012 None. 

§ 205.601(f) Pheromones October 21, 2012 None. 

§ 205.601(g)(2) Vitamin D3 October 21, 2012 None. 

§ 205.601(i)(2) Copper hydroxide October 21, 2012 None. 

§ 205.601(i)(2) Copper oxide October 21, 2012 None. 

§ 205.601(i)(2) Copper oxychloride October 21, 2012 None. 

§ 205.601(i)(3) Copper sulfate October 21, 2012 None. 

§ 205.601(i)(11) Streptomycin October 21, 2012 For fire blight control in apples and pears, 

only until October 21, 2014. 

§ 205.601(j)(4) Lignin sulfonate istings) October 21, 2012 As chelating agent or dust suppressant. 

§ 205.601(j)(5) Magnesium sulfate October 21, 2012 None. 

§ 205.601(k) Ethylene gas October 21, 2012 None. 

§ 205.601(l)(2) Sodium silicate October 21, 2012 None. 

§ 205.601(l)(1) Lignin sulfonate October 21, 2012 None. 

 
 United States Agricultural 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Agricultural Department of Marketing Room 2646-S, Mail Stop 0268 

Marketing Agriculture Service Washington, D.C. 20250-0268 

Service Space 

4 

§ 205.602 Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production 

Section Material Sunset Date Recommended Annotation Change

§ 205.602(g) Sodium nitrate* October 21, 2012 Remove annotation. 

§ 205.605(a) Nonsynthetic substances allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as 

“organic” or “made with organic" 

Section Material Sunset Date Recommended Annotation Change 

§ 205.605(a) Enzymes October 21, 2012 None. 

Potassium iodide October 21, 2012 None. 

§ 205.605(b) Synthetic substances allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as 

“organic” or “made with organic” 

Section Material Sunset Date Recommended Annotation Change 

§ 205.605(b) Nutrient vitamins* October 21, 2012 None. 

Nutrient minerals* October 21, 2012 None. 

Tocopherols October 21, 2012 None. 

*See description above. 

Table 2: Sunset 2012 Material Listings Not Recommended for Renewal at April 2011 Meeting 

§ 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic 

crop production 

Section Material Sunset Date 

§ 205.601(g)(1) Sulfur dioxide October 21, 2012 

§ 205.605(b) Synthetic substances allowed as ingredients in 

or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with 

organic” 

Section Material Sunset Date 

§ 205.605(b) Potassium iodide October 21, 2012 

2. Sunset Process for Annotation Changes 

The NOP recognizes that the NOSB’s Sunset policy offers the opportunity to amend existing 

annotations to clarify the use of substances on the National List. In addition, the NOSB may further 

restrict the use of substances during the Sunset process by proposing annotation changes. 

The NOP encourages the NOSB to ensure that proposals for annotation changes through this Sunset 

policy are fully vetted during the process and supported by information provided in public comment 

and/or technical reports. In the absence of information to support a change, the NOP suggests that the 

NOSB avoid making changes to an annotation during the Sunset process. Annotation changes that 

may occur during deliberations at a NOSB meeting may not have the full benefit of public comment, 

and the NOP must ensure that changes to the regulations are clear and consistent. Additionally, when 

substances are listed in multiple sections of the National List, the NOP encourages the appropriate 
 United States Agricultural 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Agricultural Department of Marketing Room 2646-S, Mail Stop 0268 

Marketing Agriculture Service Washington, D.C. 20250-0268 

Service Space 

5 

NOSB Committees to work towards harmonized annotations when possible. 

3. Rejection of Nickel, Petitioned for Use in Crops 

At the April 2011 meeting, the NOSB rejected nickel, which was petitioned to be added to the group of 

micronutrients currently listed at § 205.601 of the National List. The NOSB cited environmental and 

human health concerns with a range of uses for nickel as the basis for their rejection. We accept the 

NOSB’s recommendation not to list this material. In future reviews of substances that have a broad 

spectrum of utility (such as nickel), the NOP recommends that, to the extent possible, the NOSB review 

materials with a lens limited to the manner and amount that the substance would be used in organic 

production and handling. 

4. Rejection of Calcium Acid Pyrophosphate, and Expanded Use of Sodium Acid 

Pyrophosphate, Petitioned for Use in Handling 

At the April 2011 meeting, the NOSB rejected two substances petitioned for use in handling: calcium 

acid pyrophosphate (CAPP), a leavening agent, and sodium acid pyrophosphate (SAPP), petitioned for 

expanded use as a sequestrant on cooked and uncooked produce. CAPP was petitioned for addition to 

§ 205.605(b) of the National List. SAPP was petitioned to expand its use on § 205.605(b), since it is 

currently permitted only as a leavening agent. Also, the NOSB did not recommend adding CAPP to the 

National List since they determined that the petition did not demonstrate that the material is essential 

for organic handling, and because SAPP is currently listed for the same purpose as a leavening agent. 

The NOSB also did not recommend expanding the use of SAPP as a sequestrant on cooked and 

uncooked produce, as the NOSB did not find evidence that SAPP was necessary or essential for this 

purpose in organic handling. We accept the NOSB’s recommendations on these substances. 

5. Extension of the Tetracycline Expiration Date 

The NOSB considered a petition to remove the expiration date for tetracycline, which is only allowed 

through October 21, 2012 for control of fire blight in tree fruit. The NOSB is concerned that the 

continued use of antibiotics in organic—even when limited to apples and pears—creates antibiotic 

resistance and allows producers to continue to grow varietals that are highly susceptible to fire blight 

instead of selecting naturally resistant ones. However, the NOSB received many public comments 

stating that alternative treatments for fire blight are not effective, that all pear and apple varietals are 

susceptible to fire blight to some extent, and that less susceptible varietals are not palatable to 

consumers. Therefore, to avoid negatively impacting the organic tree fruit industry, the NOSB 

recommended extending the expiration date to October 21, 2014. During this time, the NOSB expects 

that the industry will create a task force to coordinate efforts to identify, test, and implement nonantibiotic fire blight treatments. In response to the requests by the NOSB and the industry for additional 

resources to support research on alternatives to fire blight, the NOP issued letters to the USDA 

National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) 

to request their assistance in prioritizing research on such alternatives.2 The NOP accepts the NOSB’s 

recommendation on this material. 

 

 

2

 May 2011 Letters submitted by NOP to USDA ARS and NIFA on fire blight research. Available at the NOP 

website at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5091325 
 United States Agricultural 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Agricultural Department of Marketing Room 2646-S, Mail Stop 0268 

Marketing Agriculture Service Washington, D.C. 20250-0268 

Service Space 

6 

6. Addition of Attapulgite for Clarifying Plant and Animal Oils 

The NOSB accepted a petition to allow attapulgite, a natural substance used to clarify plant and animal 

oils in organic products. The NOSB recommended adding attapulgite to § 205.605(a) with the 

annotation: allowed as a processing aid in the handling of plant and animal oils. The NOP accepts the 

NOSB’s recommendation on this material. 

7. No Decisive Vote to Classify Corn Steep Liquor 

Corn Steep Liquor (CSL), a byproduct of the corn wet milling process and other corn processing 

techniques, has been considered a non-synthetic input for liquid fertilizer formulations for organic crop 

production. The NOSB was asked to classify CSL using the classification of materials parameters that 

they voted to accept at the November 2009 meeting. At the April 2011 meeting, the NOSB motion to 

classify CSL failed, not reaching the necessary two-thirds majority for a decisive vote. The NOP 

appreciates the NOSB’s extensive deliberation on the classification of this substance and will consider 

additional means to address this issue. The NOP notes that CSL continues to be allowed in organic 

crop production. 

8. Continued Work on Animal Welfare 

At the April 2011 meeting, the NOSB continued work on animal welfare recommendations, including 

specific stocking densities for each species. Additionally, the NOSB Livestock Committee introduced a 

proposal to address animal welfare during animal handling, transit, and slaughter. Based on public 

comment, the NOSB Livestock Committee withdrew their proposals, opting to continue their work on 

these proposals in concert with the development of guidance documents and outcome-based 

scorecards for each species. The NOP appreciates the NOSB’s efforts to enhance animal welfare in 

organic livestock production and looks forward to your future work in this area. 

9. Amendment to Definition of Chemical Change 

At the April 2011 meeting, the NOSB recommended amending their recommendation concerning the 

definition of chemical change. The NOP accepts the NOSB’s recommendation. 

10. Classification of Materials 

The NOP appreciates the NOSB’s multi-year effort to clarify the classification of materials and 

recognizes that this is a highly complex and challenging area. The NOP plans to develop draft guidance 

on this topic based upon the November 2009 NOSB Recommendation for Classification of Materials. 

The NOP will collaborate with the NOSB Materials Committee throughout this process and, upon 

publication of draft guidance, will solicit additional public comments on this issue. The NOP looks 

forward to collaborating with the NOSB as this project progresses. 

11. Amendments to the Policy and Procedures Manual 

The NOP understands that the NOSB issued recommendations to change two of their internal policies: 

Vice Chair and Policy Development Committee Job Descriptions – The NOSB voted to implement 

changes to the Vice Chair and Policy Development Committee job descriptions (Sections II and IV 
 United States Agricultural 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Agricultural Department of Marketing Room 2646-S, Mail Stop 0268 

Marketing Agriculture Service Washington, D.C. 20250-0268 

Service Space 

7 

respectively) to remove duplication and clarify these roles. 

Completing Committee Proposals – The NOSB also voted to amend the procedures for completing 

committee proposals in Section V of the Policy and Procedures Manual so that, at any point in the 

process prior to the Board’s vote, the presenting committee may convene and vote to withdraw its 

proposal. 

12. Summary

The NOP sincerely appreciates the NOSB’s time and efforts in crafting these recommendations. We 

would also like to congratulate our new members—Colehour Bondera, Nick Maravell, Mac Stone, 

Jennifer Taylor, and Calvin Walker—for successfully completing their first NOSB meeting. 

We look forward to continuing to facilitate your important work in a collaborative manner to protect 

organic integrity from farm to table.