Formal Recommendation by the 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

to the National Organic Program (NOP)

Date: May 22, 2012

Subject: Proposed Recommendation on Evaluation of Materials Review 

Organizations

Chair: Barry Flamm

 

 

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Guidance Statement ____X_____

Statement of the Recommendation (Including Recount of Vote): 

Recommendation to provide draft guidance language to NOP as per attached 

CACC Recommendation. Passed by a vote of 14 yes, 0 no, 1 recusal.

 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with 

OFPA and NOP): 

CACC recommendation is attached. 

Committee Vote:

Moved: Dickson Second: _Richardson______

Yes: 14 No: 0 Abstain: __ Absent: __ Recusal: 1
National Organic Standards Board

Compliance, Accreditation and Certification Committee

Proposed Recommendation

Criteria for Material Review by Material Review Organizations

May 22, 2012

Introduction

The assessment of specific substances for compliance with the National Organic 

Standards – known as “Materials Review” – is a foundational element in the organic 

supply chain. Certifiers and other materials review organizations regularly review 

materials as a service to their clients, and these decisions directly impact the organic 

integrity of growing, livestock and handling operations and ultimately the integrity of the 

USDA Organic label. The uniformity, consistency and integrity of materials review 

decisions is of paramount importance to the integrity of the entire organic supply chain, 

and the National Organic Program must play a primary role in supervising and 

monitoring these activities. 

Following the NOP’s request for NOSB advice on this issue, the CACC prepared a 

discussion document for the April, 2011 NOSB meeting in Seattle. This document 

summarized the issue and the NOP request, and posed a number of specific questions 

about specific facets of this complex subject. The board received written and oral public 

comment from numerous stakeholders, including certifiers, materials review 

organizations, input manufacturers and others. The CACC presented a 

recommendation on the topic at the November, 2011 NOSB meeting in Savannah. This 

recommendation described specific criteria to be used by the NOP in evaluation and 

oversight Materials Review Organizations. During and following the Savannah NOSB 

meeting, a number of stakeholders pointed out that the recommendation failed to 

address the specific criteria and procedures to be used by MROs in evaluating 

materials. The present recommendation addresses those concerns by detailing such 

procedures. 

Background

On January 18, 2011, the NOP Deputy Administrator requested the participation of the 

NOSB in developing a clearer NOP policy on the oversight of materials review 

organizations:

The NOP is interested in developing a more uniform and consistent procedure for 

evaluating the competency and quality of material evaluation programs, as 

approved by accredited certification agencies or by other third party 

organizations. 

The NOP is requesting that the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

develop a recommendation that delineates the criteria that should be used by 

certifying agents and third party organizations to evaluate materials used in 
organic production and handling. The recommendation should include the criteria 

and process that should be used to determine the approval of input substances 

used in crop production (e.g. fertilizers, pest control materials, soil amendments, 

crop production aids), livestock production (e.g. feed supplements, feed 

additives, medications and livestock production aids), post-harvest handling and 

food processing (e.g. processing aids, sanitizers, facility pest control materials). 

A number of organizations currently provide materials review services to producers and 

certifiers. At least one of those organizations is an independent organization that is not 

an Accredited Certifying Agent or under any NOP oversight. At least one other materials 

review organization is a formal subdivision of an ACA, and many ACAs provide some 

material review services to clients on a formal or informal basis. The CACC agrees with 

the NOP that there is a clear need for more uniform and consistent policies governing 

material review services, and we believe that all organic stakeholders would benefit 

from a clearly defined NOP guidance around the qualification and activities of these 

organizations. 

Challenges

1. All certifying agents review input materials for compliance with the NOP 

regulations. Most certifying agents do not publish their list of approved inputs. 

This leads to a lack of transparency of what materials have been approved for 

use in organic production and handling.

2. There are numerous organizations reviewing materials for compliance with the 

NOP regulations. On limited occasions a material that is allowed by one certifying 

agent is prohibited by another. This lack of consistency in what materials are 

approved creates an uneven regulatory landscape, is unfair to organic producers 

and handlers, and leads to certifier shopping to find the certifying agent that 

allows more materials.

3. A universal list of approved substances is not currently available to organic 

producers and handlers. It is difficult for many organic producers and handlers to 

understand what materials are allowed and which materials are prohibited. This 

regulatory uncertainty causes reluctance by many potential organic producers 

and handlers to enter the organic trade.

4. OMRI and WSDA maintain a publically available list of approved materials. The 

process for removing substances from these approved lists is not consistent. 

There is not a consistent process for material input manufacturers to appeal 

decisions made by OMRI, WSDA or certifying agents.

5. The NOP does not have direct regulatory authority over material manufacturers. 

If material manufacturers violate the organic standards or fraudulently represent 

their product as approved for organic use the NOP does not have authority to 

issue civil penalties or propose adverse actions. Currently organic producers 

and handlers bear the risk of using substances that may not comply with the 

NOP regulations.
The CACC’s November 2011 recommendation presented a framework for NOP 

oversight and evaluation of MROs. The present recommendation will set out specific 

review criteria to be used by such organizations (both independent MROs and ACAs 

performing materials review activities) in reviewing materials. 

Relevant Areas in the Rule

While both OFPA and the Rule deal extensively with the review of materials as 

performed by NOSB, NOP and ACAs, neither provides any language that relates 

directly the work or oversight of materials review organizations. 

Discussion

The NOSB’s Fall 2011 Recommendation detailed specific criteria to be used by the 

NOP in evaluation and oversight Materials Review Organizations. A number of 

commenters, including MROs and ACAs, noted that the CACC’s recommendation failed 

to provide a concrete framework for the NOP to use in creating guidance for such 

organizations in the short term. This recommendation addresses that deficiency by 

adding a number of specific criteria and procedures to be used by such organizations in 

the evaluation of specific materials. A number of issues were discussed, including the 

following: 

Depth of materials review.

At what depth should an input be reviewed (i.e. ingredients within ingredients OR 

ingredients within ingredients within ingredients)

Evaluation of synthetic/non-synthetic and agricultural/non-agricultural status of 

materials. 

How should MROs make these determinations in a way that ensures consistency with 

NOP policy and consistency across MROs?

Duration and expiration of materials review determinations.

How long is a material review decision valid? How often must a substance or input be 

re-reviewed?

Procedures for monitoring ongoing compliance of approved products. 

What are guidelines for surveillance, removal of noncompliant products from the list,

documentation of formula changes, etc.?

Evaluation of potential use of prohibited methods.

Clarify whether and to what extent prohibited methods are permitted in the production of 

inputs. What level of verification is necessary for prohibited methods, especially GMO 

sourced inputs like corn gluten meal or soy meal?

Substantiation of label claims and other requirements.

i.e. pH in stabilized fish, purchase records to prove formulas, records for compost 

production, NPK label claims
Recommendation

In its November 2011 recommendation, the NOSB asked that the National Organic 

Program require that MROs become accredited or formally recognized under a newly 

formed Material Review scope, in order to facilitate adequate oversight and 

enforcement of the activities of MROs. The recommendation advocated that Materials 

review activities should ultimately only be allowed by NOP accredited entities.

Since the creation of a new accreditation scope is a complicated and potentially longterm undertaking, the NOSB also recommends a number of short term measures to 

support the consistency of decisions currently being made by MROs. In conjunction 

with, and parallel to, NOP’s work in creating an accreditation scope for materials review. 

NOP should provide detailed guidance and criteria on the material review process in 

order to promoted consistency and uniformity among currently operating MROs while 

longer term regulatory changes are undertaken.

We ask that the NOP provide detailed guidance to MROs and ACAs to ensure the 

consistency and integrity of materials review decisions. Such guidance should:

• Establish that material review organizations may not make synthetic vs. nonsynthetic or agricultural vs. non-agricultural determinations except when made in 

strict compliance with NOP guidance. We urge the NOP to expedite the 

publication of clear guidance for making such determinations, based on earlier 

recommendations of the NOSB. The classification of materials is of foundational 

importance to the integrity of organic products, and such guidance is extremely 

critical, given the thousands of synthetic vs. non-synthetic and agricultural vs. 

non-agricultural determinations made by certifiers each year. 

• Require that MROs who publish materials lists obtain and maintain ISO 65 

accreditation, which will ensure MROs are meeting these strict guidelines 

regarding consistency and transparency. For ACAs or other entities who do not 

publish public lists, the NOP should still include similar criteria as part of the 

accredication process.

• Require that MROs provide a clear and publically available description of its 

review criteria and decision-making procedures. 

• Establish appropriate education, training, and experience levels for personnel 

conducting material review.

• Establish appropriate levels of personnel, resources, infrastructure, and 

documentation to engage in on-site inspections where needed. Establish need, 

frequency, and type of on-site inspections.
• Create clear expectations about the depth of the review, providing clear direction 

for the evaluation of ingredients, sub ingredients, and processing aids at various 

levels within a formulation. 

• Create clear expectations for the frequency of material review, establishing how 

often and under what conditions approved products must be re-reviewed.

• Contain a mechanism to ensure consistency in decisions across MROs. 

Specifically, it should give direction to MROs about what action, if any, should be 

taken when making a decision it knows conflicts with another MRO’s decision.

• Establish criteria for determining the acceptability of documentation for verifying 

compliance with certain material annotations or required conditions (e.g. pH in 

stabilized fish, purchase records to prove formulas, records for compost 

production, NPK labels claims). 

• Give direction to MROs on verification of products derived from GMO risk crops 

(e.g. corn gluten meal, soy meal). What type of substantiation is sufficient to 

verify that an input has been produced without excluded methods?

• Provide procedures for ongoing monitoring of approved products, including 

market surveillance, testing, removal of noncompliant products from lists, etc. 

• Give direction to MROs about what action should be taken when the NOP issues 

guidance or policy which contradicts an MRO’s listing of an input or material, 

including the expected timeframe for the MRO’s listing to be changed.

• Be developed with the input and participation of current MROs and ACAs, 

through the Accredited Certifiers Association, the Organic Materials Review 

Institute, and others, to draw on the considerable material review expertise of 

those organizations currently making such decisions. The NOP has noted that its 

2012 accreditation audits of ACAs will include materials review processes as a 

focus; we hope that the NOP will use this information to inform the development 

of a policy which incorporates the best practices being currently used. 

• Provide clear definitions of key terms, including the use of the term “certification” 

with regard to materials review activities. 

Committee Vote

Motion by: Dickson Second: Richardson

Yes: 8 No: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0