National Organic Standards Board 

Compliance, Accreditation and Certification Committee 

Proposed Discussion Document 

NOP Oversight of Materials Review Organizations 

March 3, 2011 

Introduction 

The National Organic Program has requested the National Organic Standards Board’s input on 

the regulation and oversight of materials review organizations. Such organizations generally 

provide guidance to ACAs and producers on the compliance of specific generic and brand 

name materials with the National Organic Standards. The CACC acknowledges the complexity 

of this issue and its potentially substantial impact on the organic certification and production 

community. Accordingly, the committee intends to solicit the feedback of impacted organic 

stakeholders through this discussion document prior to making a recommendation to the 

National Organic Program. 

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 

organizations 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. 

 
NOP Oversight of Material Review Organizations March 3, 2011

Page 2 of 4

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 numerous 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. There have been situations where the NOP has disallowed the continued use of 

materials and material review organizations continue to list/register these materials as 

approved for use in organic production/handling. 

4. 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. 

5. 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. 

6. 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. 

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 committee has identified a number of potential models and relevant questions on this 

issue. We are seeking public comments from any stakeholders on the items below. 

 
NOP Oversight of Material Review Organizations March 3, 2011

Page 3 of 4

Potential Oversight Models 

A number of potential approaches have emerged in the CACC’s discussion of this issue. The 

committee notes that this is not an exhaustive list of oversight models, but is soliciting 

feedback on the benefits and drawbacks of each of these approaches, along with suggestions 

on any other relevant models: 

1. The current model, with ACAs and independent organizations existing as they are, but 

NOSB provides guidance on what the qualifications should be for an organization to 

review and approve materials under the NOP and NL structure. 

2. Create a separate accreditation category for Materials Review and Approval, modeled 

after the existing accreditation categories. Existing non-certifier review organizations 

would need to apply for accreditation as a certifier within the materials review category. 

3. The National Organic Program adds a materials review function, under which NOP 

manages a single brand names list of formulated products. This may be a pay-for-use 

service to offset its operating costs. 

4. Status quo, with no change to current practices. 

5. A combination of two or more of the above. 

Discussion Questions 

The CACC is seeking response from the organic community to several questions as follows: 

1. Is there a need to develop a more uniform and consistent procedure for evaluating the 

competency and quality of material evaluation programs? 

2. Should NOP regulate material evaluation programs? 

3. Should reviews be performed only by authorized organizations? 

4. Should authorized material review organizations only be: 

a. Independent third parties? 

b. Government (NOP, other federal agency, foreign governments)? 

c. Certifying agents? 

d. A combination of above? 

e. Other? 

5. What standards should be used to judge the competency of material review 

organizations? 

6. What criteria should be used by material review organizations to evaluate materials? 

7. How do you resolve differences in listed materials from different review organizations? 

8. Should there be one material list? If so, who should maintain it? 

9. Should only materials on the list be permitted to be used? 
NOP Oversight of Material Review Organizations March 3, 2011

Page 4 of 4

10. Should “product types” be broken into categories with possibly different criteria? 

11. How should the material review program be financed? 

12. What programmatic over sight is needed by NOP? 

13. Should there be an appeals process for manufacturers of organic input materials? 

14. Currently organic producers and handlers take all of the risk for using approved 

materials. If a material is found to not comply with the NOP regulations then the organic 

producer/handler could lose certification. Is there a way to protect organic producers 

and handlers from manufacturers that supply them with materials that are fraudulently 

represented as complying with the NOP regulations? 

Committee Vote 

Motion by: Joe Dickson Second: Barry Flamm 

Yes: 5 No: 0 Absent: 1 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0