UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE 

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

) 

In re: )

 ) 

Evans Cattle Company, Inc. ) 

and ) 

Evans Organics LLC ) 

) Administrator’s Decision

 ) APL-028-21 and APL-049-22 

New Carlisle, Ohio ) 

) 

This Decision responds to Appeals (APL-028-21 and APL-049-22) of three notices under 

the National Organic Program (NOP) issued to Evans Cattle Company, Inc. (ECCI) and Evans 

Organics LLC (EOL), of New Carlisle, Ohio and hereinafter referred to as ECCI/EOL. The 

notices are a Notice of Proposed Suspension issued by then-USDA accredited certifying agent 

Ecocert ICO (ICO) to ECCI; a Notice of Noncompliance and Denial of Certification issued by 

USDA-accredited certifying agent Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association (OEFFA) to 

ECCI; and a Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Revocation issued by NOP jointly to ECCI 

and EOL. Due to overlapping noncompliances and common ownership, detailed below, the 

appeals are addressed together. ECCI/EOL 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 

1

 7 U.S.C. 6501-6522 

2

 7 C.F.R. Part 205 

Page 1 of 37 
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 § 

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

organic regulations. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. On March 17, 2015, ICO certified ECCI for crops, livestock, and handling. 

2. On June 30, 2020, USDA-accredited certifying agent Organic Certifiers (OC) certified 

EOL for crops. 

3. On July 13, 2020, ECCI surrendered its handling certification from ICO. 

4. On August 19, 2020, OEFFA certified EOL for handling and livestock. 

5. On December 1, 2020, ICO notified ECCI that it was surrendering accreditation effective 

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

6. On December 10, 2020, ECCI applied to OEFFA for crop and livestock certification. 

7. On March 2, 2021, ICO issued a Notice of Noncompliance to ECCI citing to 

noncompliances related to ECCI’s livestock certification. 

8. On March 29, 2021, ICO issued a Notice of Proposed Suspension to ECCI citing 

livestock noncompliances. 

Page 2 of 37 
9. On April 15, 2021, as ICO had surrendered accreditation two days after issuing the 

Notice of Proposed Suspension, ECCI requested that NOP conduct mediation, which 

NOP denied. 

10. On April 23, 2021, ECCI submitted an Appeal to ICO’s proposed suspension. 

11. On August 31, 2021, OEFFA issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Request for 

Information to ECCI regarding ECCI’s application for certification. 

12. On November 8, 2021, OEFFA issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Denial of 

Certification to ECCI’s application for crops and livestock certification. 

13. On December 16, 2021, OEFFA issued a notice denying ECCI’s December 7, 2021 

mediation request. 

14. On January 14, 2022, ECCI submitted an Appeal to OEFFA’s denial of certification. 

15. On March 9, 2022, NOP issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Revocation 

jointly to ECCI and EOL, covering all scopes of certification. 

16. On April 29, 2022, ECCI and EOL submitted a joint Appeal to NOP’s proposed 

revocation. 

17. On December 31, 2022, EOL notified OEFFA of the surrender of its handling 

certification, which also applies to the livestock certification, as EOL was only certified 

for livestock as it related to handling. 

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 

Page 3 of 37 
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. (c) The certified operation must make such records available for 

inspection and copying during normal business hours by authorized representatives of the 

Secretary, the applicable State program’s governing State official, and the certifying agent.” 

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 

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 

Page 4 of 37 
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 ... (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.” 

Page 5 of 37 
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 

Evans Cattle Company, Inc. (ECCI) was certified organic for crops and livestock by 

USDA then-accredited certifier, Ecocert ICO (ICO). ICO informed ECCI on December 1, 2020 

that it would surrender its accreditation effective January 31, 2021; this was subsequently 

extended to April 1, 2021. On January 29, 2021, ICO conducted an unannounced inspection of 

ECCI. This inspection resulted in issuance of a Notice of Noncompliance on March 2, 2021, and 

eventual Notice of Proposed Suspension for crops and livestock on March 29, 2021, which 

reiterated the statements made in the noncompliance notice. ECCI filed an Appeal on April 23, 

2021. Given ICO’s pending surrender, ECCI applied to USDA accredited certifier Ohio 

Ecological Food and Farm Association (OEFFA) for crops and livestock certification on or about 

December 10, 2020. OEFFA conducted an inspection on July 27, 2021. It subsequently issued a 

Notice of Noncompliance and Request for Information on August 31, 2021, and a Notice of 

Noncompliance and Denial of Certification to ECCI on November 8, 2021, stating that ECCI is 

ineligible for crop and livestock certification and citing to willful violations of the regulations. 

ECCI appealed OEFFA’s denial on January 14, 2022. ECCI had surrendered its handling 

Page 6 of 37 
certification under ICO on July 13, 2020 and became certified for livestock and handling by 

OEFFA on August 19, 2020 under the name of Evans Organics LLC (EOL). Therefore, ECCI 

didn’t apply for handling certification under OEFFA. 

Concurrent to the ICO and OEFFA actions, NOP was investigating ECCI, and 

subsequently EOL, after receiving complaints alleging the purchase and sale of nonorganic 

livestock as organic, involving ECCI, EOL, and several client entities. NOP issued a joint 

Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Revocation to ECCI and EOL on March 9, 2022, also 

citing to “willful violations of OFPA and the USDA organic regulations.” ECCI and EOL jointly 

appealed NOP’s notice on April 29, 2022. 

ICO, OEFFA, and NOP all cited to numerous violations of the organic regulations. ICO 

stated that ECCI’s Organic System Plan (OSP) didn’t adequately describe its livestock 

production system, including the total number of livestock and livestock purchase information; 

and couldn’t substantiate the origin and organic integrity of purchased livestock. OEFFA stated 

that ECCI is ineligible for certification as it willfully purged all records regarding its handling 

activities, and OEFFA found additional noncompliances. NOP proposed to revoke the 

certification of both ECCI and EOL due to willful violations of the Act and organic regulations. 

Specifically, NOP stated that ECCI/EOL failed to maintain sufficient records to substantiate the 

origin and organic integrity of livestock; failed to maintain records which fully disclose all 

activities and transactions in sufficient detail as to be readily understood and audited; engaged in 

organic livestock transactions with uncertified operations; sourced livestock represented as 

organic from uncertified operations; sold nonorganic cattle as organic eligible slaughter; engaged 

in organic transactions during a period when neither ECCI nor EOL were certified for handling; 

provided false statements to a certifier and NOP; failed to disclose business and records with an 

Page 7 of 37 
uncertified entity; sold cattle for organic eligible slaughter without animal identification; and 

willfully destroyed the handling records of ECCI sometime between August of 2020 and August 

of 2021, after ECCI surrendered its handling certification and EOL became certified for 

handling. The two adverse actions by ICO and OEFFA against ECCI were consolidated under 

APL-028-21; and the NOP action against ECCI and EOL are under APL-049-22. However, due 

to overlapping noncompliances and common ownership and management, APL-028-21 and 

APL-049-22 are being addressed together. 

OPERATION OWNERSHIP 

Prior to addressing the adverse action notices, cited noncompliances, and the appeals, it is 

important to document the evidence substantiating that ECCI and EOL are the same operation. 

ECCI was initially certified organic for crops, livestock, and handling by ICO; however, it 

surrendered its handling certification on July 13, 2020. EOL became certified for livestock and 

handling by OEFFA on August 19, 2020. ECCI and EOL have the same owner, Edgar Evans; 

the same headquarter/mailing address of 10201 New Carlisle Pike, New Carlisle, Ohio 37398, 

which appears on numerous ECCI and EOL documents as well as the ‘joint letterhead’ of ECCI 

and EOL; and at least some of the same management personnel completed documents for both 

ECCI and EOL. Documentation related to suppliers and trucking companies also support the 

fact that EOL is the continuation of the handling operation of ECCI under a different name. The 

names ECCI and EOL are used interchangeably, further evidencing they are the same operation, 

with EOL being the ‘successor in name.’ A successor is a person or thing that succeeds another, 

and in business relations, is a business that directly replaces an old one. In this situation, EOL is 

Page 8 of 37 
carrying out the handling activities previously conducted under the handling certification of 

ECCI. The documentation referenced in this paragraph is discussed below in other contexts. 

Additional documentation substantiates that ECCI, its owner, and its management 

consultant intended for EOL to be the successor to ECCI’s handling operation. The consultant 

stated in a May 11, 2020 email to ICO that, “A couple of months ago I had emailed (ICO) about 

Evans CC creating a new legal entity to handle the organic handling portion of our program, 

Evan Organics LLC...Once that entity achieves certification we will surrender Evans CC. There 

will be no change to management or location as our office will still be in the same location in 

New Carlisle, OH.” The consultant also emailed ICO on June 16, 2020, regarding the prior 

request to change the name of the handling scope from ECCI to EOL; and stated, “Our 

management of the handling program, SOP’s ... are not changing from Evans CC to Evans 

Organics LLC, as the only thing that will change is Evans Organics LLC will only handle 

certified organic livestock.” On June 19, 2020, the consultant stated that there were no changes 

to the ECCI OSP for handling, as only the named entity has changed (to EOL). 

These and other communications reveal the intent of ECCI to continue its same handling 

operation, just under a different name. The finding that ECCI and EOL are the same handling 

operation is important to show the continuation of organic livestock transactions by ECCI under 

the name EOL and is significant to the destruction of ECCI handling records discussed below. 

The documentation submitted by ECCI, discussed below, includes ECCI Tag Verification forms 

for the sale and transport of livestock after ECCI had surrendered its handling certification, and 

for transactions under EOL, as the consultant states that they were using up the stock of these 

existing ECCI forms. 

Page 9 of 37 
Further, in an April 9, 2021 letter submitted in a separate appeal of a different company 

that engaged in transactions with ECCI, discussed below, the consultant stated that ECCI and 

EOL are both owned by Edgar Evans and that all handling activity of livestock, including the 

buying and selling of livestock, is certified under EOL as of August 2020; and prior to that time, 

handling activity was certified under ECCI. The letterhead jointly shows “Evans Cattle Co 

Inc./Evans Organics LLC.” Finally, to address questions from its certifier about organic 

transactions with ECCI after ECCI had surrendered its handling certification, a separate 

company involved with ECCI and EOL submitted the organic certificate of EOL to OC on 

February 25, 2021, after ECCI had surrendered its handling certification. In summary, ECCI and 

EOL are the same operation, and are referred to hereafter as ECCI/EOL except when referring to 

activities involving only ECCI prior to EOL’s certification. 

NONCOMPLIANCES RELATED TO THE ORIGIN OF LIVESTOCK 

A documentation review substantiates that ECCI/EOL has failed to substantiate the origin 

and organic integrity of livestock that it represented as organic in numerous transactions in 

violation of the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.100 and 7 C.F.R. §205.236. Further, 

evidence substantiates the ECCI/EOL represented and sold livestock as organic eligible slaughter 

to certified organic slaughter operations when the livestock were sourced from uncertified 

operations. 

Transactions with Uncertified Legacy Meats 

ECCI/EOL signed an Organic Certification/Right of First Refusal Agreement with Ben 

Elliot of Elliot Ranch (Elliot), who also owns Legacy Meats (Legacy), both in LaSalle, Colorado. 

Elliot Ranch was certified organic for crops and livestock by ICO effective September 25, 2019; 

Page 10 of 37 
however, Legacy is not and has never been certified organic. The agreement stated that Elliot 

would sell ‘claimed’ organic cattle to ECCI/EOL first; and in exchange, ECCI/EOL would help 

Elliot with the administrative activities needed to obtain and maintain its own certification. First, 

a review of documentation for transactions with Elliot shows a conflict on who is responsible for 

the livestock ID tags associated with the transactions. Documentation submitted to NOP shows 

that Elliot changed the animal identification for the cattle sold to ECCI/EOL from Elliot to 

ECCI/EOL tags, prior to loading and shipping the cattle to organic slaughter facilities. However, 

the ECCI/EOL Organic Tracking and Traceability SOP states that it was ECCI/EOL that was 

responsible for tracking and maintaining documentation for all cattle purchased and sold by 

ECCI/EOL. This includes cattle purchased from Elliot. An ECCI/EOL representative signed 

ECCI/EOL Tag Verification lists, which listed each individual animal’s ID tag intended for 

slaughter, and also identified the cattle purchased from Elliot as originating from ECCI/EOL in 

Colorado. However, it is Elliot and the uncertified Legacy whose operations are in LaSalle, 

Colorado. As discussed below, although ECCI had sites in Colorado, as well as Texas and 

Illinois, listed on their organic certificate, these sites are/were actually ECCI/EOL’s suppliers. 

Therefore, evidence substantiates that the origin and organic integrity of the transacted livestock 

can’t be verified. 

Additionally, ICO alleged that livestock purchased by ECCI/EOL was actually from the 

uncertified Legacy, and not Elliot. ECCI/EOL denied this allegation, stating the livestock were 

purchased from the certified Elliot and Legacy only conducts billing for Elliot; and ECCI/EOL 

owner, Edgar Evans, stated in an Unsworn Declaration that the livestock were purchased from 

Elliot. However, a review of all evidence doesn’t substantiate the origin and organic integrity of 

the livestock allegedly purchased from Elliot, thereby violating the organic regulations at 7 

Page 11 of 37 
C.F.R. §205.236. ICO’s Notice of Proposed Suspension to Elliot on March 29, 2021, cited to the 

matter of billing in the name of Legacy, and also cited to insufficient records on the origin of 

livestock. Ben Elliot stated in an Unsworn Declaration submitted with his Appeal (APL-029-

21), that Legacy “never owns, possesses, handles or has any interest of any kind in the cows 

themselves.” However, Ben Elliot stated in a Legacy Meats 2020 Grass Fed Organic Beef 

Affidavit in regard to 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. This 

statement that organic beef cattle are being sold to Legacy by Elliot conflicts with Ben Elliot’s 

statement that Legacy has no interest in organic livestock. Further, the purchase invoices for 

ECCI/EOL transactions, and submitted by ECCI/EOL, identify Legacy as the seller of livestock 

to ECCI/EOL, not Elliot. 

Further, evidence from several certified organic slaughter facilities substantiates that 

Legacy, which is uncertified, engaged in transactions of organic cattle, and was involved in 

ECCI/EOL transactions, contrary to ECCI/EOL’s statements. Documentation shows that 

ECCI/EOL’s compliance manager/consultant and owner Edgar Evans knew about uncertified 

Legacy’s involvement. For example, in 2020, ECCI/EOL provided affidavits, under Edgar 

Evans’ name, to 

(b) (4)

, using Legacy forms, 

stating that the beef cattle had been raised following organic standards. ECCI/EOL also 

provided 

(b) (4)

 with accompanying ECCI/EOL tag verification lists identifying all the cattle 

as organic. The cattle were then shipped to 

(b) (4)

 under the Legacy brand and processed as 

eligible for organic slaughter, and Legacy labels displaying the term “organic,” and the USDA 

organic seal were affixed to the packaged products. Additional documentation shows that 

ECCI/EOL sold cattle for slaughter to 

(b) (4)

a certified 

Page 12 of 37 
 

 

organic slaughter operation, whose records show the cattle were received and slaughtered under 

the Legacy label as organic. 

However, as noted above, Legacy isn’t certified organic. Therefore, evidence 

substantiates that ECCI/EOL violated the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.100 and 7 C.F.R. 

§205.236, which state that only livestock from a certified organic operation may be sold, labeled, 

or represented organic. Evidence substantiates that ECCI/EOL sold and represented livestock as 

eligible for organic slaughter despite not only the origin and organic integrity of the livestock not 

being substantiated, but with the knowledge that an uncertified entity, Legacy, was being used. 

ECCI/EOL owner Edgar Evans stated in an Unsworn Declaration of April 23, 2021 that 

he and the consultant are authorized responsible agents for Elliot, whose owner also owns 

Legacy, and they are identified as such in Elliot’s OSP. Evans and the consultant are also seen 

on Elliot’s 2020 Application for Certification, where they are listed as contacts for Elliot. Edgar 

Evans and the consultant both discussed their involvement with Elliot in Unsworn Declarations 

signed on April 8, 2022 and submitted with Elliot’s reply to a NOP Notice of Noncompliance. 

Ben Elliot also states in his Unsworn Declaration of April 23, 2021 that, “(ECCI) and 

(consultant) are in charge of our certification and processes.” Therefore, as responsible agents of 

Elliot, Evans and the consultant were familiar with Legacy as it relates to Elliot and knew that 

Legacy wasn’t certified. Further, none of Legacy’s invoices identified the involved animals as 

organic and Colorado brand inspection reports for 2020 show that Elliot and Legacy purchased 

and sold large amounts of conventional cattle. It is noted that Legacy is a separate business 

entity registered in the State of Colorado, and is licensed to buy and sell livestock, for which it 

uses the same LaSalle, Colorado lot as Elliot to unload, load, and ship its cattle for slaughter, as 

seen on the Colorado brand inspection reports. 

Page 13 of 37 
AMS has argued above that ECCI and EOL are the same organization, and the discussion 

above treated them as a single entity accordingly. However, even if it were determined that 

ECCI and EOL were separate entities, these violations occurred under each one during its unique 

period of operation, and EOL engaged in transactions using ECCI documentation. As such, both 

entities individually violated the regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.100 and 7 C.F.R. §205.236. 

Transactions with Uncertified ECDS-Beyer 

In addition to finding that ECCI/EOL engaged in organic transactions with the uncertified 

Legacy, evidence substantiates that ECCI/EOL also sourced livestock from Erath County Dairy 

Sales (ECDS)-Jim Beyer (Beyer), hereinafter ECDS-Beyer, after ECDS-Beyer had surrendered 

its livestock and handling certification effective November 13, 2020. This violates the organic 

regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.100 and 7 C.F.R. §205.236, which state that only livestock from a 

certified organic operation may be sold or represented as eligible for organic slaughter. 

, substantiate numerous transactions wherein ECCI/EOL sourced 

cattle from ECDS-Beyer after ECDS-Beyer had surrendered its livestock and handling 

ECCI/EOL also had signed an Organic Certification/Right of First Refusal Agreement 

with Jim Beyer (Beyer) who owns ECDS and a property known as Beyer’s Ranch, both located 

in Texas. The agreement stated that ECDS-Beyer would sell ‘claimed’ organic cattle to 

ECCI/EOL first; and in exchange, ECCI/EOL would help ECDS-Beyer with the administrative 

activities needed to obtain and maintain their own certification. ECDS was certified for crops, 

handling, and livestock on September 27, 2019 by ICO; but surrendered the livestock and 

handling certification effective November 13, 2020. However, documentation from certified 

organic slaughter facilities Open Range Beef (ORB) of Gordon, Nebraska, and 

(b) (4)

Page 14 of 37 
certification, with the livestock then being sold to ORB and 

(b) (4)

 as organic eligible slaughter 

livestock. 

At OEFFA’s January 6, 2022 inspection, EOL stated that it had stopped sourcing cattle 

from ECDS-Beyer after ECDS-Beyer surrendered its livestock and handling certification; 

however, evidence shows ECCI/EOL continued to do so. (It is noted that even just using 

Beyer’s ranch location for livestock pick-up is in violation of the regulations, as this second 

location wasn’t and isn’t certified for livestock and handling. This is discussed further below in 

the discussion of the Appeal.) OEFFA conducted a mass balance exercise and found that from 

August 19, 2020 when EOL became certified, through December 30, 2020, it had sourced 

head of cattle from ECDS-Beyer, out of which

(b) (4)

 were sourced and shipped for organic 

slaughter after ECDS-Beyer’s surrender of livestock and handling certification effective 

November 13, 2020. While OEFFA didn’t request invoices for transactions with ECDS-Beyer at 

(b) (4)

ECCI/EOL’s January 2022 inspection, ECCI/EOL didn’t disclose to OEFFA the 

(b) (4)

in 

payments it made to ECDS-Beyer for cattle which were shipped from ECDS-Beyer to several 

slaughter facilities as organic eligible slaughter, some of which occurred after ECDS-Beyer’s 

surrender. ECCI/EOL only disclosed this information months later after specific requests from 

NOP; and submitted the ECDS-Beyer invoices and payment ledger for cattle sourced from 

ECDS-Beyer from August 3, 2020 to December 31, 2020. 

A review of documentation for transactions with ECDS-Beyer, like that with Elliot, also 

shows a conflict on who is responsible for the livestock ID tags associated with the transactions. 

Documentation submitted to NOP shows that ECDS-Beyer changed the animal identification for 

the cattle sold to ECCI/EOL from ECDS-Beyer tags to ECCI/EOL tags, prior to loading and 

shipping the cattle to organic slaughter facilities. However, the ECCI/EOL Organic Tracking 

Page 15 of 37 
and Traceability SOP states that it was ECCI/EOL that was responsible for tracking and 

maintaining documentation for all cattle purchased and sold by ECCI/EOL. This includes cattle 

purchased from ECDS-Beyer. An ECCI/EOL representative signed ECCI/EOL Tag Verification 

lists, which listed each individual animal’s ID tag intended for slaughter, and also identified the 

cattle purchased from ECDS-Beyer as originating from ECCI/EOL in Texas. However, it is 

ECDS-Beyer which is located in Texas. As discussed above, although ECCI had sites in 

Colorado, Texas, and Illinois listed on their organic certificate, these sites are/were actually 

ECCI/EOL’s suppliers. Therefore, evidence substantiates that the origin and organic integrity of 

the transacted livestock can’t be verified. 

As stated above, AMS has argued that ECCI and EOL are the same organization, and the 

discussion above treated them as a single entity accordingly. However, even if it were 

determined that ECCI and EOL were separate entities, these violations occurred under each one 

during its unique period of operation, and EOL engaged in transactions using ECCI 

documentation. As such, both entities individually violated the regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.100 

and 7 C.F.R. §205.236. 

NONCOMPLIANCES RELATED TO 

TRANSACTIONS WITHOUT CERTIFICATION 

Evidence also substantiates that ECCI/EOL engaged in transactions that represented 

livestock as organic, when neither ECCI nor EOL was certified. This violates the organic 

regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.100, which requires each production or handling operation that 

produces or handles livestock to be certified and meet all other applicable requirements. While 

AMS finds that ECCI/EOL are the same handling operation, ECCI surrendered its handling 

Page 16 of 37 
 

 

certification on July 13, 2020, and EOL didn’t become certified for handling until August 19, 

2020. However, ECCI/EOL continued to broker and handle livestock for organic slaughter 

during the gap period of July 14, 2020 to August 18, 2020, when neither was certified. These 

transactions include the sale and handling of livestock to ORB, discussed above, which are 

documented through Purchase Orders (POs) and ECCI Tag Verification sheets that show 

ECCI/EOL’s sale and handling of livestock during the ‘gap period.’ 

ECCI/EOL’s Operations Manager also continued to sign ECCI Tag Verification forms 

dated after ECCI’s surrender of its certification and prior to EOL’s certification. Further, a 

sample of records from other businesses show (b) (4)

transactions during this ‘gap period,’ showing 

that ECCI sold cattle as organic slaughter eligible. These findings contradict the email of 

ECCI/EOL’s consultant to ICO on November 24, 2020, stating that ECCI/EOL hadn’t brokered 

any transactions under ECCI after the surrender of its handling certification on July 13, 2020. 

The concealing of transactions occurring during the gap period represents a willful violation of 

the organic regulations. 

Additionally, ECCI/EOL misrepresented the source of livestock for transactions 

occurring during the gap period. ECCI’s initial certification listed locations in California, Texas, 

and Illinois; while the EOL’s certificate and EOL’s prior application for certification to ICO, 

only list the New Carlisle, Ohio location. However, the California, Texas, and Illinois sites 

previously listed on the ECCI certificate from ICO aren’t/weren’t actually sites belonging to 

ECCI. These locations are/were ECCI/EOL suppliers. For example, Texas is ECDS-Beyer; and 

Illinois is Eric Strine. Further, after ECDS-Beyer and Eric Strine obtained their own certification 

from ICO on September 27, 2019 and November 6, 2019, respectively, they and their sites were 

removed from the ECCI certificate. While ECDS-Beyer and Eric Strine subsequently 

Page 17 of 37 
surrendered their livestock certification, both were certified at the time of the transactions 

involved. OEFFA noted in the Inspection Report for the July 31, 2020 inspection of EOL, that 

multiple sites certified by ICO were used for staging/weighing livestock; and the organic 

certificates of ECCI; ECDS-Beyer; and Eric Strine were attached to the report. 

However, at the time of the inspection, ECCI had already surrendered its handling 

certification. Therefore, regardless of the livestock certifications of ECDS-Beyer and Eric Strine 

still being active at the time, transactions occurred during the gap period when neither ECCI nor 

EOL were certified; and afterward when only EOL was certified. Further, ECCI/EOL didn’t sell 

the livestock under the certification of these other entities, but rather dozens of ECC Tag 

Verification forms submitted by ECCI/EOL regarding the transactions, erroneously show the 

livestock as having originated from ECCI-TX and ECCI-IL, when neither ECCI nor EOL had 

sites in those locations. Therefore, not only was ECCI/EOL not certified, but ECCI/EOL also 

didn’t accurately state the origin/source of the livestock. Although ECCI only surrendered its 

handling certification on July 13, 2020, and maintained its livestock certification, the ECCI 

livestock certification is limited to cattle born and raised at the New Carlisle, Ohio location, and 

also wouldn’t cover any sites elsewhere. 

As stated above, AMS has argued that ECCI and EOL are the same organization, and the 

discussion above treated them as a single entity accordingly. However, there was a period when 

neither ECCI nor EOL was certified. Even if it were determined that ECCI and EOL were 

separate entities, the violations discussed immediately above occurred when neither was certified 

and constitute a violation of the regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.100 and 7 C.F.R. §205.236. 

Page 18 of 37 
NONCOMPLIANCES RELATED TO RECORDKEEPING 

Failure to Maintain Compliant Animal Identification Tags 

In addition to violations of the organic regulations regarding numerous transactions with 

entities identified above, a review of the documentation from certified slaughterhouses 

substantiates that ECCI/EOL violated the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.236, by the failure 

to maintain records sufficient to preserve the identity of all organically managed animals. A kill 

sheet submitted by 

(b) (4)

shows that 

(b) (4)

head of cattle listed therein were missing 

individual tags for animal identification purposes. NOP also found that 

(b) (4)

cattle sold by 

ECCI/EOL to 

(b) (4)

 were missing individual ID tags. As the identity of each animal shipped 

for slaughter wasn’t fully disclosed, this is further evidence that the origin of the animals can’t be 

traced to verify their organic eligibility for slaughter. ECCI/EOL stated that every head of cattle 

leaving its possession had an ID tag when it left; that they never knowingly delivered organic 

cattle to 

(b) (4)

or 

(b) (4)

without an ID tag; that it corrected the original hauling record for 

(b) (4)

 when some entries were missing ID tag numbers; and any missing ID tags would most 

likely have occurred in transit. However, the fact remains that independent documentation 

obtained from 

(b) (4)

 and 

(b) (4)

substantiates that cattle received from ECCI/EOL were 

missing ID tags. 

Further, the reviewed records discussed above show numerous discrepancies including 

the number of livestock involved in each transaction, and some documentation showing the same 

animal appearing on more than one purchase order. These discrepancies in records substantiate a 

violation of the regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.236, which require ECCI/EOL to maintain records 

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

Page 19 of 37 
fully disclose all activities and transactions in sufficient detail as to be readily understood and 

audited, required by 7 C.F.R. §205.103. 

Failure to Maintain Accurate Organic System Plan 

ECCI/EOL also violated the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.103 which require 

certified operations to maintain records that fully disclose all activities and transactions in 

sufficient detail as to be readily understood and audited. Further, evidence also substantiates that 

ECCI/EOL violated the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.201, Organic production and 

handling system plan. ECCI/EOL didn’t identify Legacy as a supplier in their separate OSPs of 

December 17, 2020 and June 25, 2020, respectively, or on EOL’s Producer List of June 11, 

2021, and didn’t inform ICO of its business transactions with the uncertified Legacy. 

ECCI/EOL’s concealment of its business transactions with Legacy represents a willful violation 

of the organic regulations. 

ICO also found that ECCI’s OSP didn’t adequately describe the livestock production 

system. ICO cited to the L2R – Livestock Operation Profile form, which contains tables in 

which ECCI stated “varies” under the number of livestock; and the L3R Origin of Animals form, 

which needed to be completed to address the purchase information for livestock. ECCI disputed 

ICO’s allegations and stated that while it originally provided the number of livestock as ‘varies,’ 

it subsequently identified a range of 

(b) (4)

animals. Further, ECCI alleged that ICO accepted 

‘varies’ in the past. While the February 1, 2021 email of ICO’s inspector stated that ‘varies’ was 

acceptable in regard to the L3R form, a range was needed for the L2R. ECCI did subsequently 

provide a revised L2R with the 

(b) (4)

range. However, ICO also stated that ECCI’s records do 

not fully disclose all activities and transactions in sufficient detail as to be readily understood and 

Page 20 of 37 
 

audited; and purchase invoices provided by ECCI regarding the purchase of livestock by ECCI, 

show that the livestock purchases were actually from an uncertified operation. 

WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE ORGANIC REGULATIONS – 

DESTRUCTION OF HANDLING RECORDS 

Evidence also substantiates that ECCI/EOL violated the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. 

§205.103 and 7 C.F.R. §205.236 by destroying ECCI handling records. As stated above, ECCI 

applied to OEFFA on or about December 10, 2020, for crop and livestock certification after 

being notified of ICO’s intended surrender of its accreditation. ECCI didn’t apply for handling 

certification by OEFFA, as it had surrendered its handling certification on July 13, 2020 and had 

become certified for handling and livestock by OEFFA under its successor in name, EOL, on 

August 19, 2020. The most-emphasized noncompliance in OEFFA’s November 8, 2021 Notice 

of Noncompliance and Denial of Certification issued to ECCI and accompanying Corrective 

Action Report (CAR) was the purging/destruction of all ECCI handling records. OEFFA stated 

that while ECCI claimed to have destroyed the electronic handling records due to concerns that a 

prior employee had tampered with/altered them, the hard copy records were also destroyed, 

despite the organic regulations requiring that operations maintain records that fully disclose all 

activities and transactions of the certified operation for 5 years beyond their date of creation. 

OEFFA had, as part of its review of ECCI’s application, issued an August 31, 2021 

Notice of Noncompliance and Request for Information, to ECCI requesting ECCI’s 2020 

handling records. However, ECCI/EOL replied on September 21, 2021 that it had developed a 

Standard Operation Procedure for purging records that are over 5 years old and records for 

surrendered scopes and locations. Therefore, all records related to ECCI’s handling scope were 

Page 21 of 37 
destroyed sometime after ECCI surrendered that scope’s certification on July 13, 2020. Finding 

that the destruction of the ECCI handling records was uncorrectable and represents a willful 

violation of the regulations, OEFFA denied the application for crop and livestock certification. 

AMS has argued that ECCI and EOL are the same organization, and the discussions 

above treated them as a single entity accordingly. However, even if it were determined that 

ECCI and EOL were separate entities, the destruction of the ECCI handling records represents a 

willful violation of the regulations. ECCI was required to maintain the records, and EOL 

assumed the handling operation of ECCI; therefore, the records were relevant to both. As such, 

both entities individually violated the regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.100 and 7 C.F.R. §205.236. 

ECCI/EOL APPEALS 

ECCI/EOL stated in their Appeals that the recordkeeping noncompliances cited by ICO 

are correctable; and that it provided the requested information and documents to ICO, which 

didn’t consider its rebuttal and documentation prior to issuing the proposed suspension. 

ECCI/EOL contends that the handling records it purged aren’t relevant to its application for crop 

and livestock certification to certifier OEFFA, as ECCI surrendered its handling certification on 

July 13, 2020; and the other identified noncompliances were or will be corrected. In reply to 

NOP’s proposed revocation, ECCI/EOL argues that it didn’t sell nonorganic cattle as organic 

eligible slaughter; that its organic cattle transactions were only with certified operations; that 

EOL was allowed to engage in handling activities prior to becoming certified for handling; that 

the destroyed records aren’t relevant to ECCI’s application for crops and livestock certification; 

and that all cattle leaving its premises have the required ID tags. 

Page 22 of 37 
Allegations Concerning ECDS-BEYER 

ECCI/EOL denies in its Appeal to the NOP proposed revocation that non-organic cattle 

were purchased from ECDS-Beyer and sold as organic eligible slaughter; and denies that ECDSBeyer surrendered its livestock and handling certification. First, ECCI/EOL states that ECCI 

(itself) never handled any cattle of ECDS-Beyer’s during the time period November and 

December 2020, as the handling operation was under EOL at that time. However, as stated 

above, AMS finds that ECCI/EOL are the same operation, and further, ECCI ID tag verification 

lists were used in some of the transactions. The cattle were shown to be sourced from the 

uncertified ECDS-Beyer. ECCI/EOL further argues that ICO erroneously found that ECDSBeyer had surrendered its livestock and handling certification. ECCI/EOL states that Jim Beyer 

maintained two locations for livestock activities – ECDS in Dublin, Texas, and his ranch in 

Stephenville, Texas; that both had previously been under the certification of ECCI before Beyer 

obtained his own certification under ECDS by ICO; and Beyer’s application for certification 

clearly identified the ranch as the location for the livestock activities. 

ECCI/EOL states that Beyer only surrendered the ECDS portion of its certification, and 

ICO’s errors started when ECDS-Beyer was first certified in 2019, when ICO failed to list the 

ranch on the ECDS certificate, though it was subsequently added. Subsequently, on November 

5, 2020, the ECCI/EOL consultant emailed ICO the handwritten surrender of Jim Beyer which 

stated, “I am surrendering the Erath County Dairy Sales portion of my certification (holding 

pens) effective 11/6/20...” ECCI/EOL states that it reiterated in a November 12, 2020 

conversation with ICO that only the ECDS portion of the certification had been surrendered. 

However, ICO replied in an email stating that as the livestock and handling scopes had been 

surrendered, the ECDS-certification was terminated. ICO also confirmed the surrender as being 

Page 23 of 37 
 

effective November 13, 2020. ECCI/EOL states that it attempted on numerous occasions to 

rectify this (alleged) error by ICO. 

However, evidence substantiates, as stated by ICO in an email to ECCI/EOL, that 

Beyer’s ranch location wasn’t certified separately from ECDS. ICO informed ECCI/EOL of this 

in a November 23, 2020 email, stating that, “Jim Beyer Ranch and Erath County Dairy Sales do 

not hold separate certifications. Certification of activities at both sites are under (ECDS)...This 

operation has not been certified for the management of livestock aside from ‘cull cattle collection 

point, short term holding pen.’ Additionally, there are no other livestock related activities 

requested or reflected in this operation’s Organic System Plan. As such, the surrender received 

on 11/6/20 has been applied to the certified Handler/Livestock activities of this operation, 

previously represented on the organic certificate as “Livestock: Live cattle, other Cull Cattle 

Collection Point, Short Term Holding Pen.” This was reiterated by ICO in an email of 

December 31, 2020. ICO’s Certificate issued to ECDS shows the second location under the 

ECDS certification; and the ECDS Application for Certification shows the two locations. 

However, as stated by ICO, the second location/ranch didn’t hold a separate certification for 

livestock or handling. Further, as Beyer never listed livestock information or included a 

livestock inventory list for the separate Beyer’s Ranch, ICO never inspected the ranch for 

livestock and handling nor billed ECDS-Beyer for any livestock certification at the ranch. ICO 

told ECCI/EOL that Jim Beyer would need to submit a new application if he wished to be 

certified for livestock. Therefore, the surrender of the ECDS certification meant that Beyer also 

surrendered his livestock and handling certification; and hence, evidence substantiates that 

ECCI/EOL sourced livestock it identified as organic and sold as organic eligible slaughter to 

Page 24 of 37 
certified slaughterhouses, from an uncertified source in violation of the organic regulations at 7 

C.F.R. §205.236. 

AMS also finds that ECCI/EOL’s contention that it didn’t “have full knowledge” of any 

surrender of livestock certification by ECDS-Beyer, is without merit. Per the agreement with 

ECDS-Beyer, ECCI/EOL managed ECDS-Beyer’s certification, and ECCI/EOL’s consultant had 

sent ECDS-Beyer’s surrender notice to ICO. Further, Edgar Evans is listed as a representative 

for ECDS on its certification application materials. At OEFFA’s January 6, 2022 inspection, 

ECCI/EOL told OEFFA that it hadn’t sourced any cattle from ECDS-Beyer since ECDS-Beyer’s 

surrender, which acknowledges the surrender. Further, if ECCI/EOL believed that ECDS-Beyer 

was still certified for livestock, ECCI/EOL could have provided the inspectors with records 

showing their purchase of cattle from ECDS-Beyer, and not claim that they were just using 

ECDS-Beyer’s ranch for loading cattle. Instead ECCI/EOL provided organic producer affidavits 

to show that ECCI/EOL had actually sourced all the cattle that were shipped from ECDS-Beyer’s 

ranch to organic slaughter. Therefore, evidence substantiates that ECCI/EOL was aware that 

ECDS-Beyer had surrendered its livestock certification, and yet continued to conduct business 

with ECDS-Beyer and sold nonorganic cattle as eligible for organic slaughter. These actions 

constitute a willful violation of the organic regulations. 

Allegations Concerning Legacy Meats 

ECCI/EOL stated that it purchased the livestock in question from the certified Elliot, who 

had raised the livestock, and not Legacy. ECCI/EOL stated that it provided ICO with a list of 

livestock including the animals’ tag numbers and age; ECCI Tag Verification forms 

documenting the shipment of cattle; and a List of Livestock Tags for animals purchased from 

Elliot on March 18, 2020. ECCI/EOL owner, Edgar Evans, also stated in an Unsworn 

Page 25 of 37 
Declaration that the livestock were purchased from Elliot. Addressing the Legacy invoices, 

ECCI/EOL contends that Elliot merely requests that payment for organic livestock be made to 

Legacy, which doesn’t need to be certified to conduct Elliot’s billing. ECCI/EOL countered 

ICO’s allegation, stating that the inspector was able to conduct a successful traceability exercise, 

with documentation showing the livestock traced back to Elliot. 

However, as discussed above, a review of all evidence doesn’t substantiate the origin and 

organic integrity of the livestock allegedly purchased from Elliot, thereby violating the organic 

regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.236. While ECCI/EOL contends that the livestock were purchased 

from Elliot, and Legacy only performed billing services for Elliot, the purchase invoices for 

ECCI/EOL transactions, and submitted by ECCI/EOL, identify Legacy as the seller of livestock 

to ECCI/EOL, not Elliot. Further, contrary to the Unsworn Declaration of Ben Elliot that Legacy 

“never owns, possess, handles or has any interest” in the organic livestock, evidence from 

several certified organic slaughter facilities, discussed above, substantiates that Legacy, which is 

uncertified, engaged in transactions of organic cattle, and was involved in ECCI/EOL 

transactions. Therefore, evidence substantiates that ECCI/EOL sourced livestock it identified as 

organic and sold as organic eligible slaughter to certified slaughterhouses, from an uncertified 

source in violation of the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.236. 

Allegations Related to Transactions While Uncertified 

Addressing allegations regarding transactions occurring during the gap period of July 14, 

2020, after ECCI surrendered its handling certification, and August 18, 2020, before EOL 

became certified for handling, ECCI/EOL contends that even though EOL wasn’t certified for 

handling until August 19, 2020, EOL was acting prior to certification as an “uncertified 

broker/transporter as expressly permitted under NOP 5031: Guidance - Certification 

Page 26 of 37 
Requirements for Handling Unpackaged Organic Products,” which identifies allowed actions as 

including moving organic livestock from organic farms to organic slaughter facilities. 

ECCI/EOL further contends that NOP itself acknowledged that the current regulations wouldn’t 

govern EOL’s activities; to support this claim, ECCI/EOL points to regulations which were 

undergoing rulemaking at the time of the Appeal, and an undated NOP memo which addressed a 

regulatory gap, stating that some certifiers had allowed operations to process or handle organic 

products without independent certification. ECCI/EOL further contends that even if ECCI is 

deemed the handler during the ‘gap period,’ it had the same right to act uncertified as EOL. 

However, ECCI/EOL’s reliance on NOP 5031 for transactions occurring in the gap 

period is misplaced. For every transaction in this gap period, ECCI/EOL provided the organic 

slaughter facilities with the ECCI organic certificate and ear tag verification list. If ECCI/EOL 

had used the organic certification of the supplier(s) from which it had sourced cattle during that 

gap period, NOP 5031 might apply. However, the ECCI handling certificate had been 

surrendered. ECCI/EOL wasn’t just brokering cattle during the gap period; it was handling 

them, including sourcing, collecting, sorting, tagging, and then shipping the cattle for organic 

eligible slaughter when neither ECCI nor EOL were certified, thereby violating the organic 

regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.100. 

Allegations Related to the Destruction of Records 

ECCI/EOL stated in its Appeals, that in January/February of 2020, it had reason to 

believe that its electronic handling records for livestock purchased and sold by ECCI as handler 

had been tampered with by a former employee, and that information concerning the traceability 

of the livestock had been altered. The electronic and hard copy records were destroyed. 

ECCI/EOL’s contention was reiterated in the December 7, 2021 and January 11, 2022 Unsworn 

Page 27 of 37 
Declarations of the ECCI/EOL consultant, who also stated that the ECCI successor, EOL, has its 

own handling records. ECCI/EOL also questioned why, since ECCI’s handling certification was 

surrendered on July 13, 2020, that OEFFA didn’t request handling records for ECCI until August 

31, 2021. However, OEFFA stated that while it certified EOL for livestock and handling 

certification effective August 19, 2020, it wasn’t aware of ECCI’s handling certification at the 

time of EOL’s application review and certification. Therefore, not being aware of the records, 

the ECCI handling records weren’t requested until OEFFA was considering the crop and 

livestock application of ECCI. 

ECCI/EOL further argued that the requested and destroyed handling records are 

irrelevant to its application for crop and livestock certification by OEFFA; and OEFFA has 

offered no legitimate need for the records. ECCI/EOL stated that as part of its July 27, 2021 

inspection of ECCI, OEFFA only completed “two scope-specific inspection reports: Producer 

Inspection Report and Livestock & Poultry Inspection Report;” that neither report required 

handling records; and no handling inspection report was completed. ECCI/EOL states the only 

traceability records that no longer exist are those records covering exclusively livestock 

purchased and sold by ECCI solely as a handler; and the application for livestock certification by 

OEFFA doesn’t extend to cattle that ECCI purchased and sold. Therefore, ECCI/EOL contends 

that since the purged records only cover those specific actions, they are irrelevant; and even if it 

had maintained the ECCI handling records, they were unreliable due to the actions of a former 

employee. 

ECCI/EOL also states that the organic regulations have set up the crop, livestock, and 

handling scopes of certification as “separate, apart and unique.” ECCI/EOL states a ‘certified 

operation’ is defined as, “A crop or livestock production, wild-crop harvesting, or handling 

Page 28 of 37 
operation, or (emphasis added) portion of such operation that is certified ...” (7 C.F.R. §205.2). 

ECCI/EOL contests OEFFA’s application of the recordkeeping requirements in 7 C.F.R. § 

205.103 to a certified entity as a whole, thereby requiring an operation, once certified, to 

maintain all production and handling records for 5 years. ECCI/EOL states that the regulations 

as written do not require an operation to retain records for a surrendered scope, even when 

certification is retained for another scope. Lastly, ECCI/EOL argues that it is the responsibility 

of “the certifier, and ultimately NOP” to retain records for non-active certifications; and once 

ICO surrendered its accreditation, it was to transfer the handling records in question to NOP. 

However, despite any requirements related to records that relate to the certifier, the operation is 

required to maintain records for the required time period. 

AMS finds that OEFFA’s request for the livestock handling records for ECCI prior to its 

surrender of its handling certification, was reasonable. A certifier must audit the movement of 

organic cattle when conducting a review or inspection and would therefore, need the operation’s 

records maintained for both its livestock and handling certification. Further, a certifier needs to 

review the records that overlap or affect other scopes of certification. While ECCI itself 

surrendered its handling certification on July 13, 2020, it hasn’t ceased its handling operation and 

is now operating under the name of EOL. ECCI/EOL still has a livestock handling operation, 

and livestock transactions continued without interruption from prior to ECCI surrendering its 

handling certification, through and after the handling certification of EOL on August 19, 2019, 

and during the gap period between those two events when neither was certified, with the same 

sources/suppliers, customers, and trucking companies. Therefore, the destroyed ECCI-specific 

handling records are relevant to its successor EOL’s certification for handling and livestock. 

OEFFA was obligated to ensure compliance with the organic regulations for crops and livestock, 

Page 29 of 37 
 

and for the already-certified handling and livestock operation under the EOL name. ECCI/EOL 

may not circumvent the recordkeeping requirements of the organic regulations by arguing that it 

had only applied to OEFFA for only crop and livestock certification. The organic regulations 

require an operation to maintain all its records for a minimum of 5 years, and don’t provide for 

the destruction of any records while an operation is still certified, even if it surrenders part of its 

certification. 

Further, AMS finds ECCI/EOL’s contention that the destroyed records weren’t reliable 

due to alleged tampering, to be unpersuasive. Organic operations are responsible for the actions 

of their employees and need to have appropriate measures in place to detect noncompliances, 

such as the falsification of records. The destruction of the records prevented OEFFA from 

verifying the compliance of ECCI/EOL’s previous handling activities and full compliance for 

livestock and crop certification, as well as the validity of ECCI/EOL’s statements regarding the 

reliability of the records. The destruction of the ECCI-specific electronic and hard copy 

handling records violated the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.103 and 7 C.F.R. §205.236. 

Procedural Arguments in Appeals 

ECCI/EOL also argued several procedural points in its Appeals to the adverse action 

notices issued by ICO, OEFFA, and NOP. ECCI/EOL stated that it was denied substantive and 

procedural due process by ICO’s actions in the last months of its accreditation; alluded to a 

‘rushed’ inspection by ICO, and that ICO hadn’t considered its submission of materials prior to 

issuance of the Notice of Proposed Suspension. Further, the appeals contend that issuance of the 

proposed suspension two days prior to ICO’s surrender of accreditation prevented ECCI/EOL 

from being able to mediate the cited noncompliances. ECCI/EOL therefore contends that ICO’s 

Notice of Proposed Suspension is void. However, AMS finds there was no ‘rush to judgment’ 

Page 30 of 37 
by ICO. The allegations/noncompliances cited by ICO were substantiated; ECCI/EOL was 

certified by ICO when the Notice of Proposed Suspension was issued, and ICO was still 

accredited as a certifier. Therefore, ECCI/EOL’s argument is without merit. 

ECCI/EOL also took issue with OEFFA’s denial of its mediation request and stated that 

OEFFA didn’t respond to its arguments or offer to ‘seek resolution.’ However, while the organic 

regulations provide for mediation, 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.” ECCI/EOL also argued that NOP has failed to “engage in an open and 

ongoing dialogue ...regarding any areas of concern.” However, ECCI/EOL noncompliances 

represent uncorrectable and willful violations of the regulations, which can’t be reversed or 

resolved through mediation. 

ECCI/EOL also argued that ICO erred when it stated that ECCI/EOL only had 10 days to 

apply to a new certifier. The December 1, 2020 email from ICO stated that ECCI/EOL had 10 

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

Ultimately, ECCI/EOL applied to OEFFA on December 10, 2020 for crop and livestock 

certification and NOP hasn’t issued any adverse action regarding a delay or failure to submit an 

application to a new certifier for crops and livestock. Therefore, while ICO may have erred in its 

note concerning the timeframe, there was no negative impact to the operation. 

ECCI/EOL also contends that the issuance by NOP of the Notice of Noncompliance and 

Proposed Revocation on March 9, 2022, when the Appeals to the ICO and OEFFA adverse 

Page 31 of 37 
action notices are still pending, nullifies ECCI/EOL’s due process rights. However, there is no 

‘double jeopardy’ type restriction on NOP from investigating ECCI/EOL and issuing an adverse 

action notice on additional, new allegations linked to the same cited noncompliances. 

ECCI/EOL also had, and exercised, the same right to file an appeal to the NOP notice as it did, 

and exercised, in regard to the certifiers’ notices. ECCI/EOL cited to 7 C.F.R. §205.662(e)(2), 

which states, “A certifying agent or State organic program’s governing State official must not 

send a notification of suspension or revocation to a certified operation that has requested 

mediation ... or filed an appeal ... while final resolution of either is pending.” 

However, ECCI/EOL’s reference to this provision is misplaced, as it doesn’t bar NOP 

from issuing a proposed (emphasis added) adverse action when an appeal is pending on a 

certifier notice. Further, contrary to ECCI/EOL’s contention, the issuance by NOP of its adverse 

action while appeals are pending to the ICO and OEFFA actions, doesn’t create a lack of 

objectivity in the appeals process. NOP’s investigation resulted in some of the same findings 

cited by the certifiers; however, whether NOP cited to the same or similar noncompliances 

doesn’t automatically equate to a substantiation of those certifier noncompliances. The findings 

of the certifiers and NOP stand on their own. Further, any decision issued by the USDA/AMS 

Administrator that resulted from an NOP adverse action notice, is reviewed by a party outside of 

NOP. 

Lastly, ECCI/EOL takes issue with NOP proposing revocation of the ECCI/EOL 

certifications based in part on the same allegations cited by OEFFA in its denial of certification 

to ECCI, namely the destruction of handling records. However, NOP has the authority to issue a 

proposed revocation on that same information if it feels a revocation is warranted. Further, AMS 

finds that ECCI/EOL’s contentions that NOP, OEFFA, and ICO “overstepped their investigatory 

Page 32 of 37 
power” and violated the due process rights of ECCI/EOL, and that ICO and NOP have waged a 

“years’ long campaign against” ECCI, are without merit. USDA-accredited certifiers have the 

obligation to maintain oversight of certified operations, investigate operations seeking 

certification, and ensure that they are in compliance with the organic regulations. ICO, having 

discovered noncompliances by ECCI, issued the Notice of Proposed Suspension, after having 

issued a Notice of Noncompliance. Further, due to complaints it received about the operation of 

ECCI/EOL, NOP initiated an investigation, which revealed the many noncompliances cited 

above. Contrary to ECCI/EOL’s statement that “no meaningful noncompliances or issues of 

organic integrity” have been uncovered, AMS finds the evidence substantiates that ECCI/EOL 

engaged in many transactions for which the origin and the organic integrity of the involved 

livestock can’t be substantiated. 

ECCI/EOL also alleged that NOP improperly disclosed confidential information about 

ECCI/EOL when it copied Ecocert S.A. on the NOP March 9, 2022 Notice of Noncompliance 

and Proposed Revocation. This claim cites 7 C.F.R. §205.501(a)(10), which states that, a 

certifier must “maintain strict confidentiality with respect to its clients ... and not disclose to 

third parties (with the exception of the Secretary ...) any business-related information concerning 

any client...” However, this provision clearly applies to certifiers, not the 

Secretary/USDA/AMS/NOP. NOP is authorized under the Act (7 U.S.C. § 6519(b)(3)) to share 

information that is relevant to an investigation with certifiers. Also, 7 U.S.C. §6519(b)(1) and 

(2) state that, “The Secretary may take such investigative actions as the Secretary considers to be 

necessary-(A) to verify the accuracy of any information reported or made available under this 

chapter; and (B) to determine whether a person covered by this chapter has committed a 

violation of any provision of this chapter...” The specific investigatory powers listed include 

Page 33 of 37 
taking evidence and requiring the production of any records required to be maintained under the 

chapter. NOP is authorized to provide a copy of an adverse action notice to a certifier that may 

have information about the alleged violations and may be able to assist NOP in its investigation. 

Ecocert S.A. was the parent company of ICO and may hold information relevant to NOP. 

Additionally, as acknowledged by ECCI/EOL in its Appeal to the NOP notice, both Elliot and 

Beyer applied to Ecocert S.A. for certification. As these other operations have engaged in 

livestock transactions with ECCI/EOL and were being considered for certification by Ecocert 

S.A., it is reasonable that NOP provided relevant information to Ecocert S.A. 

ECCI/EOL cited to prior Administrator’s Decisions stating that USDA has given 

operations the opportunity to comply with recordkeeping requirements before proceeding to a 

suspension or denial of certification. However, in this case, we find there were systemic and 

willful violations of the regulations, with the destruction of records. ECCI/EOL also argues that 

since the cited noncompliances are in regard to livestock and handling certification, the proposed 

suspension and revocation of certification shouldn’t apply to the crop certification of ECCI/EOL. 

ECCI/EOL cited to two Administrator’s Decisions with different outcomes for different 

certification scopes. However, again due to the systemic violations and records destruction, the 

crop certification of EOL is not ‘exempted’ from the treatment of ECCI/EOL. It is noted that on 

December 31, 2022, ECCI/EOL notified OEFFA that it was surrendering the handling 

certification of EOL. However, operations may not circumvent adverse actions by surrendering 

certification, and ECCI is still certified for crops and livestock, and EOL is still certified for 

crops. The surrender of the OEFFA-issued handling certification of EOL also resulted in the 

surrender of EOL’s livestock certification since EOL had only been certified for livestock as it 

related to handling. 

Page 34 of 37 
CONCLUSION 

Evidence substantiates the ECCI/EOL violated the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. 

§205.100, What has to be certified; 7 C.F.R. §205.102, Use of the term, “organic’;” 7 C.F.R. 

§205.103, Recordkeeping by certified operations; 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 ECCI/EOL handled livestock from uncertified operations; 

and represented and sold nonorganic livestock as organic; including selling livestock through an 

uncertified operation to operations certified for organic eligible slaughter. Evidence further 

substantiates that ECCI/EOL, its owner, and its consultant were aware that certain entities from 

which cattle were purchased, and sent to organic eligible slaughter, weren’t certified organic, and 

failed to disclose these transactions and the associated records to its certifier. 

Evidence substantiates that ECCI/EOL’s records failed to fully disclose all activities and 

transactions in sufficient detail as to be readily understood and audited; and ECCI/EOL’s OSP 

doesn’t accurately reflect the activities of the operation(s), including transactions with uncertified 

operations. Evidence substantiates that ECCI/EOL failed to maintain records sufficient to 

preserve the identity of all organically managed animals; and ensure that all livestock handled, 

represented, and sold as organic and sent for organic eligible slaughter were actually organic. 

Evidence substantiates that ECCI/EOL failed to maintain records concerning the handling 

of livestock under ECCI for the required 5 years from date of creation, and instead destroyed 

said records even though livestock handling activities continued under a new name, EOL. 

Evidence substantiates that ECCI and EOL are the same operation. However, even if it were 

Page 35 of 37 
 

determined that ECCI and EOL were separate entities, the violations occurred under each one 

during its unique period of operation and constitute a violation of the regulations at 7 C.F.R. 

§205.100 and 7 C.F.R. §205.236. Further, evidence substantiates that ECCI/EOL engaged in 

handling activities while neither was certified, during the gap period between ECCI’s surrender 

of handling certification, and EOL’s certification for handling. 

Evidence also substantiates that ECCI/EOL’s violations of the organic regulations are 

intentional and willful, demonstrated by the destruction of livestock handling records when the 

livestock handling activities were continuing. Evidence substantiates that these numerous 

violations also show ECCI/EOL’s inability to comply with the organic regulations. The willful 

violations and numerous other serious noncompliances which are systemic through the 

ECCI/EOL operation, justify a revocation of the certification(s) of ECCI/EOL in its entirety. 

DECISION 

ECCI/EOL’s Appeals of April 23, 2021, January 14, 2022, and April 29, 2022 are denied. 

The March 29, 2021 Notice of Proposed Suspension issued by ICO; the November 8, 2021 

Notice of Noncompliance and Denial of Certification issued by OEFFA; and the March 9, 2022 

Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Revocation issued by NOP are affirmed. ECCI/EOL’s 

organic certifications are revoked in their entirety for a period of 5 years. The affected 

certifications are the ICO certification of ECCI for crops and livestock; the OEFFA certification 

of EOL for livestock and handling (noting that EOL notified OEFFA on December 31 2022 that 

it was surrendering said certification); and the OC certification of EOL for crops. If finalized, 

ECCI/EOL is ineligible for certification until 5 years after the revocation date. 

Page 36 of 37 
_________________________________ SUMMERS 

Attached to this formal Administrator’s Decision denying ECCI/EOL’s Appeals is a 

Request for Hearing form. Should it wish to further appeal this Decision, ECCI/EOL has thirty 

(30) days to request an administrative hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. 

Done at Washington, D.C., on this _____ 21st

day of ________________, 2023. March

BRUCE Digitally signed by BRUCE 

SUMMERS Date: 2023.03.21 14:46:44 -04'00' 

Bruce Summers 

Administrator 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Page 37 of 37