UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE 

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

) 

In re: )

 ) 

Elliot Ranch ) 

) Administrator’s Decision

 ) APL-029-21 

LaSalle, Colorado ) 

) 

This Decision responds to an Appeal (APL-029-21) of a Notice of Proposed Suspension 

issued to Elliot Ranch (Elliot) of LaSalle, Colorado, by former USDA-accredited certifier 

Ecocert ICO (ICO) under the National Organic Program (NOP). Elliot has been deemed not in 

compliance with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (Act)1

 and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) organic regulations.2 

INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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

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

believe they are adversely affected by a noncompliance decision of a certifying agent or NOP 

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

1

 7 U.S.C. 6501-6522 

2

 7 C.F.R. Part 205 

Page 1 of 19 
205.680 Adverse Action Appeals Process – General, and § 205.681, Appeals of the USDA 

organic regulations. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. On September 25, 2019, ICO certified Elliot for crops and livestock, including 

‘slaughter-eligible livestock.’ 

2. On December 1, 2020, ICO notified Elliot that it was surrendering accreditation effective 

January 31, 2021. This was later extended to April 1, 2021. 

3. On or about December 10, 2020, Elliot applied to USDA-accredited certifier Ecocert SA, 

the parent of ICO, for certification. Elliot withdrew this application on July 14, 2021 and 

subsequently applied to USDA-accredited certifier Organic Certifiers under the name 

‘Ben Elliot.’ Elliot subsequently withdrew the Organic Certifiers application on July 1, 

2022. 

4. On March 2, 2021, ICO issued a Notice of Noncompliance to Elliot. 

5. On March 29, 2021, ICO issued a Notice of Proposed Suspension to Elliot. 

6. On April 15, 2021, as ICO had surrendered accreditation two days after issuing the 

Notice of Proposed Suspension, Elliot requested that NOP conduct mediation, which was 

denied 

7. On April 23, 2021, Elliot submitted an Appeal to ICO’s Notice of Proposed Suspension. 

8. On February 6, 2023, NOP issued a Notice of Noncompliance to Elliot for its failure to 

obtain certification by a new certifier, having been in ‘transition’ since April 1, 2021 

when ICO surrendered its accreditation. 

Page 2 of 19 
9. On February 9, 2023, Elliot emailed NOP that it was surrendering its certification 

effective immediately. 

REGULATORY CITATIONS 

The USDA organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.100, What has to be certified, state that, 

“(a) Except for operations exempt or excluded in §205.101, each production or handling 

operation or specified portion of a production or handling operation that produces or handles 

crops, livestock, livestock products, or other agricultural products that are intended to be sold, 

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

ingredients or food group(s)))” must be certified according to the provisions of subpart E of this 

part and must meet all other applicable requirements of this part.” 

The regulations at §205.103, Recordkeeping by certified operations, state that, “(a) A 

certified operation must maintain records concerning the production, harvesting, and handling of 

agricultural products that are or that are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as “100 

percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)). (b) 

Such records must: (1) Be adapted to the particular business that the certified operation is 

conducting; (2) Fully disclose all activities and transactions of the certified operation in 

sufficient detail as to be readily understood and audited; (3) Be maintained for not less than 5 

years beyond their creation; and (4) Be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Act and 

the regulations in this part.” The records must be available for inspection by the operation’s 

certifier. 

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

“(a) The producer or handler of a production or handling operation ... intending to sell, label, or 

Page 3 of 19 
represent agricultural products as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic 

(specified ingredients or food group(s))” must develop an organic production or handling system 

plan that is agreed to by the producer or handler and an accredited certifying agent. An organic 

system plan must meet the requirements set forth in this section for organic production or 

handling. An organic production or handling system plan must include: (1) A description of 

practices and procedures to be performed and maintained, including the frequency with which 

they will be performed; ... (4) A description of the recordkeeping system implemented to 

comply with the requirements established in §205.103; ... (6) Additional information deemed 

necessary by the certifying agent to evaluate compliance with the regulations...” 

The regulations at §205.236, Origin of livestock, then in effect, state that, “(a) Livestock 

products that are to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic must be from livestock under 

continuous organic management from the last third of gestation or hatching ... (b) The following 

are prohibited: (1) Livestock or edible livestock products that are removed from an organic 

operation and subsequently managed on a nonorganic operation may be not (sic) sold, labeled, or 

represented as organically produced ... (c) The producer of an organic livestock operation must 

maintain records sufficient to preserve the identity of all organically managed animals and edible 

and nonedible animal products produced on the operation.” 

The regulations at §205.400, General requirements for certification, state that, “A person 

seeking to receive or maintain organic certification under the regulations in this part must: (a) 

Comply with the Act and applicable organic production and handling regulations of this part; (b) 

Establish, implement, and update annually an organic production or handling system plan that is 

submitted to an accredited certifying agent ... (c) Permit on-site inspections with complete 

access to the production or handling operation, including noncertified production or handling 

Page 4 of 19 
areas ... (d) Maintain all records applicable to the organic operation for not less than 5 years 

beyond their creation and allow authorized representatives of the Secretary, the applicable State 

organic program’s governing State official, and the certifying agent access to such records during 

normal business hours for review and copying to determine compliance with the Act and the 

regulations in this part ... (f) Immediately notify the certifying agent concerning any: ... (2) 

Change in a certified operation or any portion of a certified operation that may affect its 

compliance with the Act and the regulations in this part.” 

The regulations at §205.406, Continuation of certification, state that, “To continue 

certification, a certified operation must annually pay the certification fees and submit the 

following information, as applicable, to the certifying agent: (1) An updated organic production 

or handling system plan which includes: (i) A summary statement, supported by documentation, 

detailing any deviations from, changes to, modifications to , or other amendments made to the 

previous year’s organic system plan ... (4) Other information as deemed necessary by the 

certifying agent to determine compliance with the Act and the regulations in this part. 

BACKGROUND 

Evidence substantiates that Elliot Ranch (Elliot), which is owned by Ben Elliot, and 

located in LaSalle, Colorado, was previously certified organic for crops and livestock under the 

certification of Evans Cattle Company, LLC (ECCI), of New Carlisle, Ohio. However, it was 

not a best practice for a certifier to allow this; the organic standards indicate that individual sites 

should have their own certification. Therefore, after instruction by ICO and NOP, Elliot 

subsequently obtained its own certification for crops and livestock from ICO on September 25, 

2019; it is this certification that is the subject of this case. Ben Elliot also owns Legacy Meats, 

Page 5 of 19 
LLC (Legacy), a retail and wholesale operation that purchases and sells conventional cattle, and 

is also located in LaSalle, Colorado. Legacy isn’t certified organic and is a separate business 

entity registered with the State of Colorado. Legacy uses the same lot as Elliot in LaSalle, 

Colorado to unload, load, and ship cattle for slaughter. Elliot is not licensed by the Colorado 

Department of Agriculture to do business as a livestock dealer in Colorado. 

Evidence substantiates that ICO informed Elliot on December 1, 2020 that it would 

surrender its accreditation effective January 31, 2021; this was later extended to April 1, 2021. 

Prior to the surrender, ICO conducted an unannounced inspection of Elliot on January 28, 2021. 

ICO found that Elliot’s records didn’t fully disclose all activities and transactions in sufficient 

detail as to be readily understood and audited or demonstrate compliance with the organic 

regulations. ICO noted that Elliot was using ECCI’s Tag Verification Sheets after Elliot 

received its own certification. ICO also noted that Elliot was invoicing/billing the buyer of 

alleged organic livestock on invoices identifying the seller as the uncertified Legacy, rather than 

Elliot, bringing into question the actual source and the organic integrity of the livestock. Finally, 

ICO noted that Elliot’s livestock register was not current or complete; there were missing or 

insufficient documentation on livestock; and there were discrepancies between the Tag List 

(Animal Identification List) and ECCI Tag Verification documents (ID Tag List). 

Elliot subsequently submitted to ICO numerous documents and an animal ID tag list, 

including invoices under the name of Legacy that Elliot sent to its buyer. Elliot stated that the 

livestock originated from its operation, not Legacy. However, finding Elliot’s submission 

insufficient to address the cited noncompliances, ICO issued a Notice of Noncompliance on 

March 2, 2021, reiterating that it appeared Elliot was conducting organic transactions under and 

through the uncertified Legacy. The notice also cited deficiencies in livestock records regarding 

Page 6 of 19 
 

the number of livestock and the source of Elliot’s beef cattle; and asked Elliot to explain the 

discrepancy in the number of cattle and submit records on animal sales, shipping, slaughter, and 

mortality. 

On March 16, 2021, Elliot submitted a reply/rebuttal to the Notice of Noncompliance, 

stating that it only uses Legacy for billing; and that Legacy doesn’t produce or handle crops, 

livestock, livestock products or other agricultural products. Elliot stated that the head count 

changes daily as calves are born, livestock dies, and livestock are sold, and different forms aren’t 

always completed at the same time. However, Elliot didn’t specifically explain the difference 

cited by ICO or provide a list of the animals by ID number or identify the source of the cattle. 

Therefore, finding that Elliot’s rebuttal doesn’t “provide evidence that the operation is in 

compliance with the regulations,” ICO issued a Notice of Proposed Suspension on March 29, 

2021, reiterating statements it made in the noncompliance notice. Specifically, ICO stated that 

while Elliot had obtained certification under the name of Elliot Ranch, it is conducting business 

through Legacy. Further, Elliot’s operation has missing or insufficient records on the origin, 

dates of arrival/exit, conversion period and/or identification marks of the livestock; and the 

Organic System Plan (OSP) is deficient in certain livestock information. 

NONCOMPLIANCES REGARDING USE OF UNCERTIFIED LEGACY MEATS 

AND THE ORIGIN OF LIVESTOCK 

As stated above, Ben Elliot owns both Elliot and Legacy, both located in LaSalle, 

Colorado. Ben Elliot stated in an Unsworn Declaration of April 23, 2021, that Legacy “never 

owns, possesses, handles or has any interest of any kind in the cows themselves.” Elliot’s 

customer, ECCI, also stated that the purchased cows were from Elliot, not Legacy. Elliot 

Page 7 of 19 
 

contends that Legacy doesn’t need to be certified organic when it is only conducting billing for 

Elliot. However, Ben Elliot stated in a Legacy Meats 2020 Grass Fed Organic Beef Affidavit for 

a transaction with another livestock operation, that, “I, Ben Elliot, certify that the beef cattle I am 

selling to Legacy Meats LLC have been raised” in accordance with organic standards. Legacy is 

listed as the vendor on the document. Elliot’s statement that organic beef cattle are being sold to 

Legacy conflicts with the statement of Ben Elliot cited above. Further, evidence substantiates 

that the relationship and transactions between Elliot and Legacy extend beyond billing. 

Evidence substantiates that Elliot, in violation of the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. 

§205.100; 7 C.F.R. §205.102; and 7 C.F.R. §205.236, engaged in transactions with certified 

operations through the uncertified Legacy, representing and selling livestock as organic, with 

livestock being sent to certified organic slaughter operations, despite Legacy not being certified. 

Evidence from several certified organic slaughter facilities substantiates that the uncertified 

Legacy does have an interest in organic cattle. As a result of other investigations, NOP received 

several invoices for cattle, showing the Legacy name, for shipment to other entities. A review of 

the invoices from Legacy, dated from June 30, 2020 to December 30, 2020, reference the sale of 

beef cattle, with no reference to the beef cattle being organic. However, cattle purchased were 

subsequently sent as organic slaughter-eligible to certified organic slaughter operations. 

Evidence further substantiates that livestock were processed under the Legacy label as 

organic. For example, records related to another business, 

(b) (4) , 

show livestock were sold under the Legacy brand and processed as eligible for organic slaughter, 

even though Legacy isn’t certified organic. The

(b) (4)

 records range from April 1, 2020 to 

October 31, 2020, and the Legacy retail and nonretail labels which 

(b) (4)

affixed to the 

organic meat products produced in 2020 display the term “organic,” the USDA organic seal, and 

Page 8 of 19 
 

the “certified organic by QAI” statement. Kill sheets from

(b) (4)

 and Invoices from 

(b) (4)

to Legacy also show the cattle were labeled as organic under Legacy’s brand. As stated above, 

Legacy is a registered business entity in Colorado and a livestock dealer licensed by the 

Colorado Department of Agriculture to buy and sell its own cattle for slaughter. However, this 

wasn’t disclosed to Elliot’s certifier; and Colorado brand inspection reports show that Legacy 

bought and sold cattle using the same LaSalle, Colorado site as Elliot. Elliot’s failure to inform 

its certifier and fully disclose the transactions using the uncertified Legacy in its records, 

including its OSP, also violates the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.103; and 7 C.F.R. 

§205.201. Ben Elliot owns both Elliot and Legacy and knows Legacy isn’t certified organic. 

NONCOMPLIANCES REGARDING RECORDKEEPING 

AND THE ORIGIN OF LIVESTOCK 

Evidence also substantiates that Elliot violated the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. 

§205.236 by failing to maintain records showing the origin of the livestock and maintaining 

records sufficient to preserve the identity of all organically managed animals, thereby failing to 

substantiate the organic integrity of the livestock. As stated above, ECCI was invoiced for 

livestock allegedly sourced from Elliot, on Legacy invoices, although Legacy is uncertified; and 

the invoices didn’t identify whether the livestock were organic. Further, no 

- identified in the Legacy transactions and 

ECCI ear tags. 

transportation/shipment records were provided showing the transport of the livestock from 

Elliot’s operation to the certified slaughter facilities -

(b) (4)

Page 9 of 19 
As discussed below, Elliot has operation sites in three different states. However, Elliot 

didn’t show through its records how many cattle it maintains at each operation site or when the 

cattle are moved from the different ranches. Further, no inventory lists or other records were 

submitted to show from when and where cattle were moved to the LaSalle, Colorado location to 

ultimately be loaded and shipped for slaughter. Additionally, the brand inspection records 

showed that both Elliot and Legacy bought and sold conventional cattle for slaughter, using the 

LaSalle, Colorado location. Elliot didn’t provide records or information for its and Legacy’s 

nonorganic cattle sales to verify that nonorganic cattle weren’t used in shipments of cattle for 

organic slaughter. Therefore, it can’t be verified that the animals shipped to the organic 

slaughter facilities actually originated at Elliot’s operation and not Legacy. As such, the origin 

and the organic integrity of the livestock can’t be verified. 

Additionally, regarding the animal ID tags, documentation submitted by Elliot shows that 

Elliot would change the animal identification for the cattle sold to ECCI, from Elliot tags to 

ECCI tags prior to loading and shipping the cattle to slaughter facilities. However, ECCI’s 

Organic Tracking and Traceability SOP states that ECCI was responsible for tracking and 

maintaining documentation for all cattle purchased and sold by ECCI, which includes cattle 

purchased from Elliot. Elliot didn’t explain this conflicting information. Further, animal 

identification procedures in Elliot’s OSP don’t describe the procedures for tagging animals or 

how Elliot maintains records to keep an inventory of the tagging of its animals. There is also no 

description for the color system for tagging animals that is identified in some of the records 

provided by Elliot. For most of these records, there are not sufficient ID transfer records to show 

the original ranch tags assigned to each of the animals which were retagged and sold to ECCI as 

referenced on Legacy invoices. Further, Elliot provided only limited dam information within the 

Page 10 of 19 
animal ID records. The birth information wasn’t complete, including the birth date and identity 

of the ranch where the animal was born. There should be birth records with the corresponding 

tag numbers for animals produced at Elliot’s operation, to verify the inventory of the herd. The 

insufficient records don’t allow for a determination of the origin of the cattle to verify its organic 

status. 

NONCOMPLIANCES REGARDING FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ACCURATE 

INVENTORY COUNTS: RECORDKEEPING AND ORIGIN OF LIVESTOCK 

REGULATIONS 

Elliot also failed to maintain accurate inventory counts, which was cited by ICO in its 

notices. Elliot and its organic consultant stated that Elliot operates and grazes livestock on 

approximately 

(b) (4)

 acres in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado; and the “only way that a full 

accurate count can be performed is to survey all 

(b) (4)

acres using ATVs. The best time of year 

is during the fall roundup.” The consultant stated that she calculates the number of livestock for 

any specific day by pulling the tag list for that day; and that the number 

(b) (4)

is consistent with 

the count she provided to ICO by email on December 29, 2020. She further stated that, “For an 

operation the physical size of Elliot ranch, the 20-cow difference listed on page one and two (of 

the L2R form) is consistent with the possible fluctuations in total cattle numbers due to natural 

occurrences and the timing of counting.” 

Elliot’s organic certificate issued January 17, 2020, and ICO’s January 28, 2021 Audit 

Findings document confirms that Elliot has four properties in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado. 

While 

(b) (4)

 acres is a very large area, for Elliot to sell a specific number of organic livestock as 

organic, it is required to have procedures and documentation to ensure that those counts truly are 

Page 11 of 19 
organic (7 C.F.R. §205.103; 7 C.F.R. §205.201; and 7 C.F.R. §205.236). Elliot’s records don’t 

reflect on which ranch livestock were born or maintained or show the dates the livestock were 

moved to LaSalle, Colorado for loading for slaughter. Further, brand inspection and health 

inspection records were not produced to show transport between Elliot’s ranches in Wyoming 

and Montana to the ranch in LaSalle, Colorado. Health inspections would have been required for 

interstate movement of livestock between states. To sell the number of cattle that Elliot has sold, 

as evidenced by Legacy invoices, Elliot would need to have compliant inventory records. 

Further, Elliot reduced his ranches/acreage from 

(b) (4)

acres in 2019 to 

(b) (4)

acres in 2021, 

yet the records don’t reflect a clear inventory of cattle per ranch and movement of cattle to 

different ranches as acreage was reduced. 

NOP’s review of records from organic slaughter facilities, transportation documents, and 

brand inspection records from the Colorado Department of Agriculture show that in 2020, Elliot 

sold 

(b) (4)

 head of cattle as eligible for organic slaughter. A Livestock List included in Elliot’s 

April 23, 2021 Appeal to ICO’s Notice of Proposed Suspension, showed that in addition to the 

(b) (4)

head of cattle Elliot sold as organic eligible slaughter in 2020, Elliot also sold 

(b) (4)

animals 

more as eligible for organic slaughter on March 18, 2020. Also, a review of brand inspection 

records from the Colorado Department of Agriculture reveals that in 2020, Elliot sold over 

head of conventional cattle; and that Legacy also purchased and sold large amounts of 

conventional cattle. 

(b) (4)

However, the update to Elliot’s 2020 OSP, submitted on January 28, 2021, didn’t provide 

the number of conventional livestock owned by Elliot. Due to these findings, the inventory of 

Elliot’s organic and nonorganic cattle for 2020 couldn’t be verified. Further, while Elliot 

subsequently stated to NOP that it had obtained between 

(b) (4)

and 

(b) (4)

 head of organic cattle 

Page 12 of 19 
from ECCI, which it states were the organic cattle sold in 2020, Elliot also stated that it had 

accidentally failed to include those cattle when updating its OSP in 2019. Elliot’s 2019 OSP 

update only listed 

(b) (4)

head of cattle. Therefore, it is unclear if Elliot actually had sufficient 

inventory in 2020 to account for the large number of cattle it sold as eligible for organic 

slaughter. Further, as stated above, the Legacy invoices to ECCI didn’t identify the livestock as 

organic, and there is no supporting documentation to show the livestock were actually organic, 

though they were represented as organic under the Legacy brand. 

Specifically addressing the 

(b) (4)

animals Elliot sold on March 18, 2020, NOP also found 

the origin of these animals sold as eligible for organic slaughter couldn’t be verified, as the 

Livestock List didn’t include any birth information for the 

(b) (4)

cattle, only providing a range of 

the animals’ ages, between 4 to 6 years. Since Elliot wasn’t certified organic until September 25, 

2019, the 

(b) (4)

 head of cattle were not under the ownership or management of Elliot at the time 

the animals were born, and therefore, their origin couldn’t be verified. 

Elliot further stated in communication to NOP that it erred in providing a complete 

inventory of cattle when updating the OSP in 2019 

(b) (4)

head) and 2020 (

(b) (4)

 head). 

Explaining this error, Elliot stated that it only accounted in the OSP for the cow/calf pairs that 

were rounded up in the Fall, and that for the total inventory, it was defaulting to the 

(b) (4)

head 

of cattle identified in the initial application with ICO and stated to inspectors in the 2019 Fall 

inspection. However, Elliot’s reliance on the 

(b) (4)

 head count for the 2018 application and the 

2019 Fall inspection does not comply with the need for auditable records in the USDA organic 

regulations. This further calls into question how Elliot substantiated the status of the livestock as 

organic when representing them as such to buyers. 

Page 13 of 19 
It is also noted that while Elliot stated at the ICO October 3, 2019 inspection that there 

were 

(b) (4)

 head of cattle, Elliot further stated that 

(b) (4)

 of them were at Three Forks Ranch. 

However, the inspection report documents that Elliot told the inspectors it didn’t want them 

going there, as the ranch owner was cancelling Elliot’s lease. This violates the organic 

regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.400(c), which requires an operation to permit on-site inspections 

with complete access to the production or handling operation. In correspondence to NOP, Elliot 

didn’t acknowledge the prior statement about the 

(b) (4)

cattle at Three Forks Ranch. There was 

subsequent confusion by ICO inspectors, who noted there were 

(b) (4)

head of cattle; and ICO’s 

reviewer then erroneously added the 

(b) (4)

number to the 

(b) (4)

number resulting in 

(b) (4)

head 

of cattle being noted as a finding. However, Elliot never provided sufficient records to show that 

it actually owned 

(b) (4)

 head of cattle, or exactly how many cattle were sold 

from this inventory from 2018 to 2020. This is a fundamental failure of the organic 

recordkeeping system. Further, while Elliot claims to have assumed ownership of all ECCI 

cattle in 2019, as discussed above, Elliot never provided the inventory and other records for these 

cattle to verify the cattle’s origin. Therefore, Elliot was unable to demonstrate their origin or 

organic status. 

Therefore, the available evidence substantiates that inventory records provided by Elliot 

are not sufficient and not auditable as required by the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.103. 

The records don’t provide sale dates for the animals identified as “sold;” there are duplicate tag 

ID numbers for several of the cattle; and insufficient information prevents NOP from 

determining if the specific cattle were born organic, which is required for animals being 

slaughtered for organic meat. Further, Elliot stated in an April 8, 2022 communication to the 

NOP and an Unsworn Declaration of that date that the animal ID numbers range from 

(b) (4)

Page 14 of 19 
using multiple colors; however, a review of available documents show many cattle with numbers 

exceeding 

(b) (4)

The available documents also don’t account for the 

(b) (4)

plus head of alleged 

organic cattle Elliot sold to ECCI in 2020, though Elliot also said it assumed all ECCI cattle in 

2019. Further, kill sheets from certified organic slaughter operations shows that not all 

transported livestock had animal identification tags. Lastly, Elliot states that the conventional 

cattle aren’t always kept in separate pens from the organic cattle when sorting for shipment to 

slaughter, which is a violation of the organic regulations. 

ELLIOT APPEAL 

Elliot argued in its April 23, 2021 Appeal, that the recordkeeping noncompliances are 

correctable and that it was the seller of the livestock, not Legacy; had raised the livestock; and 

has merely used Legacy to conduct its billing for the past 6 years. However, while 

recordkeeping noncompliances may be correctable, Elliot’s noncompliances go to the heart of 

the organic integrity of the livestock in the transactions. As discussed above, evidence 

substantiates that Elliot engaged in transactions with certified operations through the uncertified 

Legacy, representing and selling livestock as organic, with livestock being sent to certified 

organic slaughter operations, despite Legacy not being certified. Evidence from several certified 

organic slaughter facilities substantiates that the uncertified Legacy does have an interest in 

organic cattle; and livestock were processed under the Legacy label as organic. Elliot also failed 

to maintain accurate inventory records and records showing the movement of livestock between 

different Elliot sites, as well as other records necessary to documenting the origin of livestock 

such as birth records. 

Page 15 of 19 
Procedural Arguments in Appeal 

Elliot also argued procedural points in its Appeal to ICO’s March 29, 2021 Notice of 

Proposed Suspension. Elliot stated it was denied substantive and procedural due process by 

ICO’s rushed inspection and issuance of the Notice of Proposed Suspension two days prior to 

ICO’s surrender of accreditation, thereby also denying Elliot the ability to request and engage in 

mediation. However, certifiers are not obligated to grant and engage in mediation with 

operations to which the certifier issued adverse action notices. As stated in 7 C.F.R. §205.663, 

“Any dispute with respect to denial of certification or proposed suspension or revocation of 

certification under this part may (emphasis added) be mediated at the request of the applicant for 

certification or certified operation and with acceptance (emphasis added) by the certifying 

agent.” Further, there wasn’t any ‘rush to judgment,’ as ICO was still Elliot’s accredited certifier 

at the times it conducted the inspection and issued the adverse action. ICO’s allegations were 

substantiated as discussed herein. Therefore, Elliot’s argument that ICO’s certification activities 

and adverse action notice are void and must be dismissed, is without merit. 

Elliot also contends that ICO erred when it stated that Elliot only had 10 days to apply to 

a new certifier. The December 1, 2020 email from ICO to Elliot stated that Elliot had 10 days to 

notify ICO as to whether Elliot would surrender certification or apply to a new certifier. Elliot 

submitted applications for certification to other certifiers, which it subsequently withdrew. 

Subsequently, NOP issued a Notice of Noncompliance to Elliot on February 6, 2023 for its 

failure to obtain certification by a new certifier after ICO surrendered accreditation effective 

April 1, 2021. Elliot’s certification has been identified as ‘transitioning’ since April 1, 2021. 

Therefore, while ICO may have erred in its note concerning the timeframe, Elliot had almost two 

years to obtain a new certifier before being put on official notice by the NOP. It is noted that 

Page 16 of 19 
NOP was informed in June of 2022 that Elliot intended (emphasis added) to surrender its crop 

and livestock certification on or about July 5, 2022. However, Elliot didn’t actually surrender 

certification until February 9, 2023, after receipt of the NOP Notice of Noncompliance. At that 

time, it stated that its surrender was effective immediately. 

CONCLUSION 

The evidence substantiates that Elliot violated the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. 

§205.100, What has to be certified; 7 C.F.R.§205.103, Recordkeeping; 7 C.F.R. §205.201, 

Organic production and handling system plan; 7 C.F.R. §205.236, Origin of livestock; 7 C.F.R. 

§205.400, General requirements for certification; and 7 C.F.R. §205.406, Continuation of 

certification. Evidence substantiates that Elliot failed to demonstrate the origin and organic 

integrity of the livestock it sold; failed to maintain records sufficient to preserve the identity of 

all organically managed animals; and failed to ensure that all livestock handled, represented, and 

sold as organic and subsequently sent for organic eligible slaughter were actually organic. Elliot 

used an uncertified operation, Legacy, to provide livestock for eventual organic eligible slaughter 

by organic certified slaughter facilities, through and under the Legacy brand name, despite 

Elliot’s contention that Legacy “never owns, possesses, handles or has any interest of any kind in 

the cows themselves” and only conducts billing for Elliot. There is no evidence to substantiate 

that the animals sold by Elliot as indicated by Legacy invoices, actually came from Elliot. 

Evidence substantiates that Elliot failed to maintain records that fully disclose all 

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

understood and audited; and that are sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the organic 

regulations. Further, Elliot’s OSP doesn’t adequately describe the practices and procedures to be 

Page 17 of 19 
 

performed and maintained at the operation, including the procedures for tagging livestock and 

retagging livestock. Elliot has failed to maintain adequate birth records, animal identification 

lists, inventory list, and tag verification forms; as well as records on the sales, shipping, slaughter 

and mortality of livestock. Evidence substantiates that Elliot’s records do not allow for the 

successful tracing of organic livestock from birth/purchase, tagging/retagging, sale, and 

transport. As there are no records showing the transport of livestock from Elliot’s operation to 

the slaughter facilities identified in the Legacy transactions and ECCI ID tags, it can’t be verified 

that the animals shipped to the organic slaughter facilities actually originated at Elliot’s operation 

and not Legacy’s. Documentation shows Elliot shipped all its cattle for organic slaughter from 

LaSalle, Colorado, which is the same operation site used by the uncertified Legacy. Further, 

evidence substantiates that both Elliot and Legacy bought and sold large amounts of 

conventional cattle for slaughter, using the LaSalle, Colorado location. However, Elliot didn’t 

provide records or information for its and Legacy’s nonorganic cattle sales to verify that 

nonorganic cattle weren’t used in shipments of cattle for organic slaughter. 

While recordkeeping noncompliances may be correctable, Elliot’s noncompliances go to 

the heart of the organic integrity of the livestock. Elliot used an uncertified operation in 

transactions involving livestock, which were represented as organic, and which were sold as 

organic eligible to certified slaughter operations. AMS finds that due to these systemic and 

serious noncompliances, Elliot may not remain certified for livestock. While ICO proposed a 

suspension of all Elliot operations, no noncompliances are noted for Elliot’s crop operation and 

therefore, it wouldn’t be affected by the suspension. However, Elliot surrendered its certification 

in its entirety effective February 9, 2023. 

Page 18 of 19 
_________________________________ 

DECISION 

Elliot’s Appeal of April 23, 2021 is denied. The March 29, 2021 Notice of Proposed 

Suspension issued by ICO is affirmed and Elliot’s livestock certification is suspended. Pursuant 

to the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.662(f), Elliot may apply for reinstatement of its 

certification at any time. However, Elliot must submit evidence demonstrating correction of 

each noncompliance and corrective actions taken to fully comply with and remain in compliance 

with the organic regulations. 

Additionally, attached to this formal Administrator’s Decision denying Elliot’s Appeal is 

a Request for Hearing form. Should it wish to further appeal this Decision, Elliot has thirty (30) 

days to request an administrative hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. 

Done at Washington, D.C., on this _____ 15th

day of ________________, 2023. March

Digitally signed by BRUCE

BRUCE SUMMERS SUMMERS 

Date: 2023.03.15 09:57:22 -04'00' 

Bruce Summers 

Administrator 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Page 19 of 19