UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE 

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

In re:

Calendula Farms

Giza, Egypt 

 

)

 )

 ) 

)

 ) 

 

Administrator’s Decision 

 

APL-034-21

)

)

This Decision responds to an Appeal (APL-034-21) of a Notice of Denial of Certification 

to the National Organic Program (NOP) issued to Calendula Farms (CF) of Giza, Egypt by 

USDA-accredited certifying agent, Certification of Environmental Standards GmbH (CERES). 

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 

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

1

 7 U.S.C. 6501-6522 

2

 7 C.F.R. Part 205 

Page 1 of 7 
Adverse Action Appeals Process – General, and § 205.681, Appeals of the USDA organic 

regulations. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. On June 6, 2020, CF applied to CERES for organic crop certification. 

2. On May 18, 2021, CERES issued a Notice of Denial of Certification. 

3. On May 22, 2021, CF filed an Appeal. 

DISCUSSION 

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 ... 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... (c) Any operation that: ... (2) Makes a false statement under the Act to the Secretary, a 

governing State official, or an accredited certifying agent shall be subject to all provisions of 

section 1001 of title 18, United States Code.” 

The organic 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 as provided for in §205.200; (c) Permit on-site 

inspections with complete access to the production or handling operation, including noncertified 

Page 2 of 7 
production and handling areas, structures, and offices by the ce1iifying agent as provided for in 

§205.403; ..." 

The organic regulations at §205.403, On-site inspections, state that,"... (b) Scheduling . 

. . . (2) All on-site inspections must be conducted when an authorized representative of the 

operation who is knowledgeable about the operation is present and at a time when land, facilities, 

and activities that demonsti·ate the operation 's compliance with or capability to comply with the 

applicable provisions ofsubpaii C of this paii can be observed ... ( c) Verification ofInformation. 

The on-site inspection of an operation must verify: (1) The operation's compliance or capability 

to comply with the Act and the regulations in this paii. .. " 

The evidence substantiates that on June 6, 2020, CF applied to CERES for organic crop 

certification ofits land located at El Wahat El Bahreia, Giza, Egypt. On June 25, 2020, CERES 

conducted its first inspection of CF when the land was still dese1i, as CERES was attempting to 

confnm that the land hadn't been cultivated in the 3 prior years. Subsequently, on March 10, 

2021 , CERES conducted a second inspection of CF after the winter crops had been planted, at 

which time CERES states CF 's owner/manager, , attempted to bribe the inspector 

in an effo1i to obtain organic ce1iification. On May 18, 2021, CERES issued a Notice of Denial 

ofCe1iification stating the denial was based on CF 's attempted bribe1y ofthe inspector at the 

Mai·ch 10, 2021 inspection. After CF appealed, disputing CERES' allegation, CERES stated in a 

May 25, 2021 email to CF that it had proof of the attempted bribe1y , specifically a recording. 

The inspector had stated in a May 24, 2021 email to CERES that he recorded the conversation 

with CF 's owner/manager. NOP requested that CERES submit the inspection report and a 

ti·anscript of the inspector's conversation with CF at the Mai·ch 10, 2021 inspection. 

Page 3 of 7 
The Inspection Report for the March 10, 2021, inspection states that CF falsely claimed 

that its operation was ■ hectares, while it actually is only - hectares, after finding that the 

infonnation and map presented by CF didn't match on-site conditions. Fmther, the cultivated 

amount ofproduct repo1ted by CF was not compatible with the claimed area of the operation, 

leading the inspector to question if there was a 'hidden supplier' of product. The inspector also 

found that the operation has insufficient buffer zones, and no compost analysis was done. 

Fmther, the inspector found an unsealed/unlabeled conventional lot ofproduct in close proximity 

to organic product, with both being in the same kind of bags. The Inspection Repo1t doesn't 

mention the attempted bribe1y of the inspector. NOP requested that CERES and the inspector 

provide specifics on the alleged bribe1y attempt. 

CERES' inspector stated in his Declaration of August 23, 2021, that he questioned CF on 

the discrepancy in the actual hectares of the operation and the claimed hectares, and CF stated 

that it had been told by consultants to claim the extra hectares. CF told the inspector that it 

needed a set quantity of crops for the operation and that CERES could have the remainder to sell, 

which the inspector inte1p reted as an attempted bribe. The inspector also stated that a friend of 

CF's representative also attempted to bribe him. CERES submitted docmnents supporting the 

claim of bribe1y , including transcriptions of a text message, WhatApp messages, and a 

translation of an April 3, 2021, telephone call. 

CF submitted an Appeal on May 22, 2021 to the Notice of Denial ofCe1tification, stating 

the bribe1y allegation is 'false and unfounded.' CF also emailed CERES, repeatedly stating that 

it didn't attempt to bribe the inspector; however, CF hasn 't submitted any documentation to rebut 

CERES' allegation. Although CF stated there were witnesses to a conversation with the 

inspector when the alleged bribe1y occmTed, no infonnation was provided on these possible 

Page 4 of 7 
witnesses or statements from them. NOP wrote CF on May 24, 2021, acknowledging its Appeal 

and stating that CF was free to submit any documentation or information it felt would support its 

Appeal. NOP contacted CF again on August 27, 2021, asking that CF address several questions 

related to the attempted bribery. However, CF hasn’t responded to NOP’s inquiry and no 

documentation or information was submitted after the initial Appeal. 

CONCLUSION 

The USDA organic regulations assure consumers that products with the USDA organic 

seal meet consistent, uniform standards. Key to these standards is that products with the USDA 

organic seal are produced and handled in accordance with the organic regulations. Specifically, 

the regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.400 state that an operation seeking to become certified must 

comply with all the organic regulations. The regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.402 state that the 

certifier must determine whether the applicant for certification appears to comply or may be able 

to comply with the regulations, and an on-site inspection will be conducted as part of the review. 

The regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.403 require that the on-site inspection be conducted with an 

authorized representative of the applicant who is knowledgeable and able to demonstrate the 

operation is in compliance with, or able to comply with, the organic regulations. 

CF misrepresented the area of its operation by claiming more hectares than actually 

existed. CF claimed it was told by its consultants to state a larger area of hectares; however, it 

was CF which submitted an application with purposely misstated information. Further, CF told 

CERES’ inspector on more than one occasion that it needed a ‘fixed quantity’ of crops and that 

CERES could keep the ‘extra crops.’ It was reasonable for the inspector to conclude that this 

was an attempt at bribery. Further, CERES’ observations during the application process 

Page 5 of 7 
 

 

indicated that CF was not able to demonstrate ability to comply with the regulations, which is 

grounds for denial of certification. 

CERES’ Notice of Denial of Certification states that CF’s application was denied due to 

the attempted bribery of the inspector. The organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.405(g) state 

that, “if a certifying agent has reason to believe that an applicant for certification has willfully 

made a false statement or otherwise purposefully misrepresented the applicant’s operation or its 

compliance with the certification requirements pursuant to this part, the certifying agent may 

deny certification pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section without first issuing a 

notification of noncompliance.” Further, the regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.100 state that any 

operation that “makes a false statement under the Act to the Secretary ... or an accredited 

certifying agent shall be subject to the provisions of section 1001 of title 18, United States 

Code.” CF’s statements and misstatements, and the apparent and documented attempts to bribe 

CERES, shows a disregard for the integrity of organic certification and is contrary to 

demonstrating compliance with, or the ability to comply with, the regulations. Therefore, CF has 

violated the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. § 205.100, What has to be certified; and 7 C.F.R. 

§205.400, General requirements for certification; and may not be certified organic. CERES was 

justified in issuing the Notice of Denial of Certification. 

DECISION 

CF’s May 22, 2021 Appeal is denied, and the May 18, 2021 Notice of Denial of 

Certification is affirmed. CF is denied organic certification. However, pursuant to 7 C.F.R. 

§205.405(e), CF may apply again for certification at any time. 

Page 6 of 7 
 

_________________________________ 

Attached to this formal Administrator’s Decision denying CF’s Appeal is a Request for 

Hearing form. CF has thirty (30) days to request an administrative hearing before an 

Administrative Law Judge. If CF waives the hearing, this Administrator’s Decision denying CF 

organic certification will become final. 

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

 day of ________________, 2022. 

Digitally signed by BRUCE BRUCE SUMMERS 

Date: 2022.02.28 21:39:56 SUMMERS -05'00' 

Bruce Summers 

Administrator 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Page 7 of 7