National Organic Program

1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Room 2642-South, STOP 0268

Washington, DC 20250-0268

November 18, 2021 

MEMORANDUM TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

FROM: Jennifer Tucker, Ph.D.

Deputy Administrator

National Organic Program 

SUBJECT: Request for Review: Risk Mitigation Table - Safeguarding Impartiality in USDA 

Organic Oversight and Enforcement. 

The National Organic Program (NOP) requests that the National Organic Standards Board 

(NOSB) review and facilitate public comment on the NOP Risk Mitigation Table, which 

documents the ways NOP safeguards impartiality in the delivery of services and oversight of 

accredited certifiers. 

As outlined in NOP 1031 “Procedure: Peer Review of National Organic Program (NOP) 

Accreditation,” NOP engages in an annual peer review to verify adherence to the accreditation 

procedures required by the USDA organic regulations, and to the International Standard ISO/IEC 

17011; Requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies. 

In 2017, the ISO/IEC standard was updated to include a new requirement for accreditation 

bodies to identify and document potential risks to impartiality (ISO/IEC 17011:2017). The 2020 

Peer Review noted that NOP adheres to robust federal ethics rules and training and has several 

standard practices in place to minimize the risk of actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The 

Peer Review also identified the new requirement related to the documentation of risk mitigation 

as an opportunity for improvement, and recommended that these rules and practices be

documented in one place (2020 Peer Review Report). 

The new ISO standard also recommends a review of the organization’s risk mitigation controls 

by a representative body. Given its interest in NOP’s Peer Review process, we are requesting 

that the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) serve as the “representative body” for this 

review. We are requesting that the Board facilitate a public review and discussion of the attached 

table, which documents NOP policies and practices designed to minimize real or perceived 

threats to the impartiality of the NOP accreditation program. NOP requests that the NOSB 

review the impartiality safeguards and provide feedback through a public comment process to 

identify or clarify any potential conflicts of interest and mitigation strategies not covered. We 

anticipate that either the Policy Development Subcommittee or Compliance, Accreditation, and 

Certification Subcommittee could be an appropriate group for this project. 

We thank you in advance for your work and look forward to the discussion. 
United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW NOP 1009

Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2642-South Building Effective Date: Nov. 17, 2021

National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 4

Risk Mitigation Table Rev01 Authorized Distribution: Public

Risk Mitigation Table

Safeguarding Impartiality in the Delivery of Services and Oversight 

of Accredited Certifiers

1. Purpose and Scope

This document identifies the process by which the National Organic Program (NOP) identifies

and safeguards impartiality in the delivery of services and oversight of accredited certifiers, as 

required by ISO/IEC 17011:2017. 

2. Policy and Procedures

The NOP identifies, evaluates, mitigates, and documents potential conflicts of interest on an 

ongoing basis. NOP staff are required by federal ethics regulations to disclose any potential 

conflicts of interest and NOP provides the structure for evaluation and mitigation, where needed. 

Additionally, NOP practices ensure no individual employee may take a final action on an 

accreditation matter without review by multiple parties. NOP accreditation activities are also 

regularly reviewed by third parties, including Peer Reviewers and other government organic 

programs, and proposed adverse actions by NOP are appealable to higher authorities. 

The NOP Quality Manager maintains the program Risk Mitigation Table, which is reviewed by 

NOP leadership as part of the annual Management Review, in accordance with ISO/IEC 

17011:2017. Potential conflicts of interest may be raised for consideration by any member of the 

NOP staff, Agency, and Department leadership, by accredited certifiers, members of the National 

Organic Standards Board, and members of the public through twice-yearly public comment 

periods, or anonymously through the Program or Department complaint processes. 

All USDA employees must successfully complete Federal ethics training, which includes a 

detailed review of Federal and Department conflict of interest regulations and policies, and the 

consequences of violating them. Refresher training in ethics is required of all USDA employees

annually and includes direction on how to access the written Federal regulations on employee 

responsibilities and conduct, which provides details on how to request a review by the Office of 

Ethics of any potential conflict of interest and guidance on when such a review may be needed. 

The need for mitigation when a conflict of interest is identified is dependent upon the specific 

circumstances, including the likelihood and potential harm. The following scale may be used to 

help determine when action is needed. 

1 – Remote - acceptable no further action needed 

2 – Rare - acceptable no further action needed 

3 – Unlikely - acceptable no further action needed 

4 – Possible - not acceptable further action needed

5 – Likely - not acceptable further action needed
United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW NOP 1009

Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2642-South Building Effective Date: Nov. 17, 2021

National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 4

Risk Mitigation Table Rev01 Authorized Distribution: Public

When a potential conflict of interest is “possible” or “likely” to raise a real or perceived threat to 

the integrity of the NOP accreditation program, NOP management reviews the specific 

circumstances and either establishes sufficient safeguards to place the employee’s contributions 

within the decision-making process in appropriate context; or removes the employee from the 

decision-making process. 
United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW NOP 1009

Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2642-South Building Effective Date: Nov. 17, 2021

National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250 Page 3 of 4

Risk Mitigation Table Rev01 Authorized Distribution: Public

Potential Conflict Possible Risk Control Measure Monitoring Method Objective Evidence

Past employment 

with the Certifier

Relatives 

employed by a 

certifier 

Relatives 

employed by an 

operation 

certified by the

certifier 

Actual or perceived

financial interest in the 

outcome of an 

accreditation decision. 

Actual or perceived special 

treatment, favoritism, or

lack of objectivity in the 

making of accreditation 

decisions. 

Disclosure - Federal employees are required to 

disclose past, employment and past, present, 

or known future conflicts. Depending on the 

circumstances, this possible risk may be 

mitigated by the inclusion of additional 

reviewers or by the removal of the conflicted 

employee from the decision-making process. 

Accreditation Managers and Auditors are not 

assigned to certifiers that they previously were 

employed by. 

USDA senior management are subject to 

annual financial disclosures reviewed by 

federal ethics officials. 

Auditing and oversight 

assignments are made with the 

knowledge of each employee’s 

work history and disclosed 

relationships. 

Work assignments 

and accreditation 

decisions are 

recorded in the 

ACCREDIT database 

and subject to 

review/audit by third 

parties. 

Favoritism, bias, Potential for a certifier or Equal access to information and training Complaints may be filed by Complaints filed, 

or discrimination operator to receive a real 

or perceived market 

advantage over others if 

they are provided with 

information not available 

to all. 

related to accreditation and certification is 

provided by making the regulations, guidance, 

and enforcement actions available through 

the USDA website. NOP provides training open 

to all certifiers at least annually and the free, 

online Organic Integrity Learning Center

includes a wide range of training available for 

free to anyone. NOP staff are provided 

template answers to frequently asked 

questions to increase consistency. Oversight 

and enforcement actions include more than 

one NOP employee. NOP staff and contractors 

are also trained in the regulations related to 

when and with whom the content of a 

proposed rule changes may be shared. 

email to a supervisor, through 

the NOP complaint portal, or

USDA Office of the Inspector 

General. 

Accreditation activities and 

documents are subject to 

annual third-party review.

investigation reports, 

peer review

documentation, 

certifier feedback 

surveys.
United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW NOP 1009

Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2642-South Building Effective Date: Nov. 17, 2021

National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250 Page 4 of 4

Risk Mitigation Table Rev01 Authorized Distribution: Public

Potential Conflict Possible Risk Control Measure Monitoring Method Objective Evidence

Undue influence Potential for a third party 

to inappropriately 

influence accreditation 

decisions. Potential for a 

third party to use the 

complaints process to 

harass a competitor or 

otherwise gain a market 

advantage.

NOP adheres to the USDA organic regulations 

in the decision-making process. 

Compare decision with previous 

decisions to confirm consistency 

with requirements. 

Adverse actions and 

appeal outcomes are 

publicly available for 

comparison.

Accreditation 

decisions are subject 

to review/audit by 

third parties. 

Due process Potential perception that 

there could be a lack of 

objectivity in the appeals 

review process for adverse 

action decisions.

Appeals of NOP proposed adverse action 

decisions are conducted by USDA staff outside 

NOP. All final decisions are subject to further 

review by an administrative law judge and 

final decisions by the Department may be 

appealed to federal court. 

All final actions are made public. Appeals and decision 

documents.

Favoritism in 

contracting

Perception that a thirdparty stakeholder received 

special treatment or 

received an advantage or 

was disadvantaged in the 

awarding of contracts or 

cooperative agreements.

NOP follows all Federal policies and 

procedures when entering into contracts and 

cooperative agreements, including an 

objective eligibility review of all applicants 

prior to an award being made by NOP. 

Federal contracting system

(governed by the Federal 

Acquisition Regulations). 

Contract or 

cooperative 

agreement award 

documents.

Financial interest

in the outcome 

of enforcement 

actions

Potential perception that 

civil penalties levied in 

enforcement actions could 

be motivated in whole or in 

part by a desire to increase 

the NOP or USDA budget.

All civil penalties collected as a result of NOP 

enforcement actions are submitted to the U.S. 

Treasury and become general funds of the U.S. 

Government, as required by law. 

USDA Budget Office processes

transactions. 

Check submittals, 

pay.gov records.