Page 1 of 12 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE 

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

) 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

 In re: 

 OSO Sweet Farms LL

 Reidsville, Georgia 

C 

 

 APL-079-22

This Decision responds to an Appeal (APL-079-22) of a Notice of Noncompliance and 

Proposed Suspension under the National Organic Program (NOP) issued to OSO Sweet Farms 

LLC (OSO) of Reidsville, Georgia by Quality Certification Services (QCS), a USDA accredited 

certifying agent. The operation 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

BACKGROUND 

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 may appeal 1

 7 U.S.C. 6501-6522 2

 7 C.F.R. Part 205 
Page 2 of 12 

such decision to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) pursuant to § 205.680 

Adverse Action Appeals Process General, and § 205.681, Appeals of the USDA organic 

regulations. 

 FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. OSO was certified organic for crops by QCS on April 17, 2018. 

2. On July 27, 2022, QCS issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension to 

OSO after an unannounced inspection revealed the use of prohibited substances on 

organic crops. 

3. On August 3, 2022 request for mediation. 

4. On September 6, 2022, OSO filed an Appeal. 

5. On March 23, 2023, OSO and NOP entered into a Settlement Agreement whereby Dutton 

Field #3 was removed from organic certification with other terms addressing OSO 

noncompliances. 

6. On July 25, 2023, QCS notified NOP that OSO had breached the NOP Settlement 

Agreement as a prohibited substance was found on organic crops and OSO had failed to 

identify all used inputs in its Organic System Plan (OSP). 

7. On July 26, 2023, NOP issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Request for Corrective 

Action to . REGULATORY CITATIONS 

The USDA organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.103, Recordkeeping by certified 
Page 3 of 12 

harvesting, and handling of agricultural products that are or that are intended to be sold, labeled, 

close all activities and transactions of the 

The organic regulations at §205.105, Allowed and prohibited substances, methods, and 

must be produced and handled without the use of: (a) Synthetic substances and ingredients, 

except as provided in §205.601 or §205.603; (b) Nonsynthetic substances prohibited in §205.602 

ions at §205.202, Land requirements, state that, 

applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of the crop; and (c) Have 

distinct, defined boundaries and buffer zones such as runoff diversions to prevent the unintended 

application of a prohibited substance to the crop or contact with a prohibited substance applied to 

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

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

performed; (2) A list of each substance to be used as a production or handling input, indicating 

its composition, source, location(s) where it will be used, and documentation of commercial 

tion of the management practices and physical barriers 

established to prevent commingling of organic and nonorganic products on a split operation and 
Page 4 of 12 

to prevent contact of organic production and handling operations and products with prohibited 

substances; and (6) Additional information deemed necessary by the certifying agent to evaluate 

The organic regulations at 

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 in this part; 

f) Immediately notify the certifying agent concerning any: (1) Application, including drift, of 

a prohibited substance to any field, production unit, site, facility, livestock, or product that is part 

 Additionally, the organic regulations at §205.406, Continuation of 

certification, state that, To continue certification, a certified operation must 

DISCUSSION 

On April 17, 2018, QCS certified OSO for crops. On July 27, 2022, QCS issued a Notice 

of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension, because samples of watermelon leaves collected 

 #3 during an unannounced inspection revealed the use of prohibited 

substances on organic crops. Specifically, laboratory analysis detected Cyazofamid at 2.7 ppm; 

Fludioxonil at 4.2 ppm; Azoxystrobin at 0.902 ppm; and Tebuconazole at 0.53 ppm. None of 

these substances have an EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) tolerance level and are not 

allowed at any level in organic production. QCS also found at the inspection that inputs were 
Page 5 of 12 

Proposed Suspension pursuant to the regulations at §205.662(c). 

After , OSO filed an Appeal on September 6, 

2022, denying the use of a prohibited substance on its organic fields. OSO stated that it has 

conventional and organic production of watermelon, onions, and cucumbers; and adjoining 

neighbors produce conventional watermelon. Although OSO acknowledged using the four 

prohibited substances found on the sampled watermelon leaves in their conventional operation, 

OSO denied using them on the organic watermelon crop. OSO contended that the residue found 

on the sample organic watermelon leaf from Dutton Field #3 resulted from a neighbor 

conducting aerial spraying of its conventional watermelon, or else came from a shared water 

mention drift from their own conventional operation. QCS disputed the drift argument, stating 

that the sample of watermelon leaf was collected from the interior of Dutton Field #3 and further, 

there is a large tree buffer zone around Dutton Field #3, and the conventional neighbor is 300 

feet away. 

OSO acknowledged that Dutton Field #3 was contaminated and stated that the 

watermelon were sold as conventional; OSO provided several associated invoices showing the 

sale of the watermelon in early July 2022. OSO also agreed to remove Dutton Field #3 from 

organic production for 3 years from the date of the positive lab report. Therefore, NOP entered 

into a Settlement Agreement with OSO on March 23, 2023. The agreement provided for the 

removal of Dutton Field #3 from organic production, and OSO agreed not to use any prohibited 

substance on its organic certified crops and to report to its certifier any known unintentional 

application of such. OSO also agreed to take measures to prevent the contamination of its 
Page 6 of 12 

organic crops; to identify all planned inputs in its OSP and receive approval from the certifier 

prior to their use; and to document the use of inputs by input used, area applied to, date of 

application, and amount used. OSO also agreed it would be subject to two unannounced 

inspections during the term of the agreement. 

On July 25, 2023, QCS reported to NOP that OSO had breached the Settlement 

Agreement. QCS conducted an unannounced inspection of OSO on June 2, 2023, at which 

watermelon vines and inedible portions were sampled from the McLeod Field. The laboratory 

analysis of the watermelon vines revealed the presence of a prohibited substance, Imidacloprid at 

0.92 ppm. The finding is shown on a USDA laboratory report of July 24, 2023, from the 

Gastonia, North Carolina lab. QCS also submitted the Pesticide Residue Test Results 

Notification, which noted that there is no EPA tolerance level for this substance. The Chain of 

Custody document shows with photos of the field and the bag containing the sample, and a map 

showing from where the sample was taken. Further, as noted in the Inspection Report for June 2, 

2023 and the Exit Interview, there were no application records for the input Imidacloprid, nor 

use o nd

the OSP. 

On July 26, 2023, NOP issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Request for Corrective 

Action to OSO, asking that it address the QCS allegation of a breach of the Settlement 

Agreement. On August 24, 2023, OSO provided a response 

Imidacloprid residue was detected in a watermelon vine sample collected at the McLeod (Battle 

by the Settlement Agreement. Rather, OSO states the contamination resulted from drift by a 

f (b) (4) a (b) (4)
Page 7 of 12 

until after the watermelons were sold. To support this contention of drift, OSO states they had 

placed several hives of honeybees in the McLeod Field to pollinate the watermelon crop, and 

Imidacloprid is fatal to honeybees. Therefore, using Imidacloprid would be counter-productive. 

Further, the landlord of the adjacent land, when asked by OSO, confirmed that he had sprayed 

Imidacloprid on the tops of his 60 foot tall pecan trees. OSO also contends that watermelons are 

classified as part of Crop Group 9 by the EPA and the tolerance level is 0.5 ppm; and therefore, 

the level found on the watermelon vine is approximately 18% of the EPA tolerance level. Lastly, 

OSO states it used Imidacloprid to control flies on a cull disposal; however, the area is over 5 

miles from the McLeod Field. OSO has reached an agreement with the landlord of the pecan 

trees not to spray any substances without first notifying OSO. 

Regarding the allegation that it used two inputs without prior approval by QCS or listing 

the inputs in its OSP, OSO denies this allegation. OSO states that while it had a custom of 

incorporating application records into its OSP after a growing season, without actually listing the 

inputs in the OSP itself, application records from 2019 show that it used and

that crop year. Therefore, QCS was aware that the inputs were used by OSO. 

available at the June 2, 2023 inspection. OSO states said records were discussed and reviewed 

during the inspection. OSO provided documentation to support each of its denials and 

allegations, including a statement from the neighboring landlord; its 2019 Input Application 

Records, which shows the two questioned inputs and their OMRI certificates; Application 

Records presented to QCS at the June 2, 2023 inspection; and a statement from an employee 

(b) (4) (b) (4)

(b) (4)
Page 8 of 12 

regarding the spraying of Imidacloprid on a cull pile. Further, a September 20, 2023 letter from 

QCS to OSO shows that the two questioned inputs had been approved by QCS. 

QCS reviewed the submissions of OSO responding to the NOP Notice of Noncompliance 

and Request for Corrective Action and presented its analysis to NOP. First, although 

watermelons are included in the EPA Crop Group 9 with a tolerance level of 0.5 for 

Imidacloprid, the residue found on the sampled watermelon vines exceeds the 5% tolerance level 

for organic watermelon, which OSO has acknowledged. Further, although OSO attributes this 

finding to drift from an adjacent landlord who sprayed the substance on pecan trees, QCS 

watermelon fields; that adjoining land is organic; and there is a 50 foot buffer around the 

watermelon field. Further, QCS identified the location from which the sample was collected 

. OSO has acknowledged spraying Imidacloprid on a cull disposal area which it states is 

over 5 miles from the McLeod Field, and the employee who sprayed the substance signed a 

statement to that effect. However, QCS points to the purchase by OSO of 1 gallon of 

Imidacloprid in May 2023, which when considering the application directions, is enough to 

. Further, this application of Imidacloprid on a cull 

. Nevertheless, 

definitively find that it was the OSO-purchased Imidacloprid that was sprayed on the McLeod 

Field and caused the residue on the sampled watermelon vine, and also notes that OSO has 

conventional watermelon production, which could explain its presence. 

However, the fact remains that residue of Imidacloprid was found on the sampled 

watermelon vine, which OSO acknowledged; the sample was taken from deep within the 
Page 9 of 12 

McLeod Field; and the level of Imidacloprid found exceeded the 5% allowance for organic 

production. Further, it is noted that it is irrelevant that the watermelon vine on which 

Imidacloprid was found is inedible, as the organic regulations at §205.670 provide for the testing 

waste; seeds; plant tissue; and plant, animal, and processed 

Therefore, AMS finds that OSO has breached the Settlement Agreement at Terms 4A and 

4B, as well as 4C since watermelon from the McLeod Field was already sold prior to the 

discovery of Imidacloprid residue on watermelon vines. OSO agreed in its NOP Settlement 

Agreement of March 23, 2023 to refrain from using prohibited substances on its organic fields, 

and to also take measures to prevent the contamination of its organic land/fields/crops by 

ensuring the maintenance of adequate buffer zones around the organic production areas. 

However, evidence substantiates that prohibited substance Imidacloprid was found on 

sampled/tested watermelon vine from the McLeod Field in a level exceeding that allowed for 

organic watermelon, and 

trees. 

inputs and in its OSP prior to their use. However, evidence 

substantiates that OSO previously used these inputs, which is documented on prior application 

records; and furthermore, are OMRI listed. Further, e

identified in the OSP, QCS had OSO prior application records and knew that OSO used the 

inputs. QCS has since identified them on a list of approved inputs for OSO. Considering all 

this, while the Settlement Agreement requires OSO to identify all used and planned inputs in its 

OSP and not to use any inputs on organic crops/fields until approved by QCS, 

(b) (4) (b) (4)
Page 10 of 12 

that OSO breached the Settlement Agreement in regard to the use of these two inputs. However, 

AMS does find that OSO breached the agreement in regard to the application of Imidacloprid to 

. QCS also 

disputes this allegation, and as the records have since been submitted to NOP, and would be 

available to QCS, AMS makes no finding on the allegation. However, the recording of input 

applications other than contemporaneously with the application itself is not compliant with the 

organic regulations. 

In the appeal, OSO also made allegations against QCS, including the forging of the 

and the inability to 

access its OSP on web platform. However, viewing different documents signed by 

seems to vary from document to document. Further, as 

stated by QCS representative sign the Exit 

Interview, forgery seems pointless. also 

making any finding in this regard, but notes that OSO should also retain copies of documents it 

has submitted to QCS. 

The March 23, 2023 Settlement Agreement between NOP and OSO, Term 4K states that, 

OSO agrees that the failure to abide by the terms of paragraphs immediately above shall result 

in USDA, AMS possibly pursuing administrative action against OSO Clause 3D of the 

OSO withdraws its appeal and waives further appeal rights in 

this matter. Failure to comply with the Settlement Agreement shall automatically void paragraph 

Decision charging OSO with alleged violations of the OFPA and the USDA organic regulations 
Page 11 of 12 

A closure 

letter sent to OSO on March 23, 2023 with the executed agreement 

abide by the terms of the agreement shall automatically void the Settlement Agreement and 

USDA, and As seen and substantiated 

above, OSO has breached the March 23, 2023 Settlement Agreement with NOP; and therefore, 

may not remain certified. 

 CONCLUSION 

Evidence substantiates that OSO has violated the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. 

§205.105; 7 C.F.R. §205.201; 7 C.F.R. §205.202; 7 C.F.R. §205.400, and 7 C.F.R. §205.406, as 

Further, OSO failed to document the 

application of Imidacloprid to a cull disposal area in input application records. These findings 

, 2023 Settlement Agreement with NOP. Therefore, 

the July 27, 2022 Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Suspension is revived. OSO 

remain certified at this time. 

DECISION 

Proposed Suspension is denied, and OSO certification is suspended. Pursuant to the organic 

regulations at 7 CFR §205.662(f), OSO may apply for reinstatement at any time with the request 

for reinstatement being accompanied by evidence demonstrating that OSO can come into and 

remain in compliance with the organic regulations. 
Page 12 of 12

for organic certification until June 2, 2026, which is three years from the date that the sample of 

watermelon vine was taken, which revealed the presence of a prohibited substance in a level 

Dutton Field #3 is ineligible 

for organic certification until July 1, 2025, due to a prior finding of prohibited substances on a 

sample taken from that field. While under suspension, OSO may not sell, label, or represent any 

products as organic. 

Attached to OSO s Appeal is a Request for 

Hearing form. Should it wish to further appeal this decision, OSO has thirty (30) days to request 

an administrative hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. 

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

day of ________________, 2023. _________________________________ Bruce Summers 

Administrator

Agricultural Marketing Service

 7th

 November