NOSB Assessment | Summary of Findings 

March 2014 

Introduction 

In August 2013, Meridian Institute (Meridian) was contracted by the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to conduct a 

process oriented assessment of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB or the Board), 

and its relationship with the National Organic Program (NOP or the Program). Meridian is a 

nonprofit organization with expertise in process design, facilitation, mediation, strategy 

assessment, and planning. Meridian staff members have significant experience conducting 

impartial assessments of organizational dynamics. 

As part of this assessment, Meridian sought to identify the primary challenges facing the 

Board and the Program, detail ongoing efforts to address those challenges, and provide 

targeted recommendations for continued improvement. These recommendations are 

designed to help streamline the Board’s operations through better communication, 

improved transparency, structural and organizational adjustments, clarified roles, and 

strengthened relationships. 

Methodology

Between September 30 and December 10, 2013, Meridian Institute conducted 31 phone 

interviews with Board members, NOP staff, and groups who regularly engage with the 

work of the NOSB. These interviews focused on: 

x respective roles, responsibilities, and authorities of the NOSB and the NOP; 

x NOSB’s functionality during and between public meetings; and 

x relationships amongst Board members, with NOP, and with the broader 

stakeholder community. 

Interviewees were also provided the opportunity to raise any other issues or concerns 

they might have regarding the NOSB process. Meridian analyzed the data and 

information provided through the interviews and developed a set of findings and 

preliminary recommendations that were further informed by a NOSB training session 

held February 4-5, 2014. This meeting provided an opportunity to gather additional 

information, to observe the in-person group dynamics, and to test some preliminary 

recommendations with the group. 

This report is intended to serve as a platform for discussion between the NOSB, NOP staff, 
NOSB Assessment | Summary of Findings • March 2014 Page 2 of 15

and members of the public. The assessment provides a snapshot of NOSB’s processes in the 

fall of 2013 and early 2014 and puts forth analysis and recommendations with the 

understanding that many stakeholders who are more familiar with NOSB’s processes and 

history may help inform the trajectory, evolution, and implementation of these 

recommendations. 

Originally, Meridian staff planned to observe the NOSB meeting scheduled for October 

2013 in Louisville, KY. That meeting was canceled due to the government shutdown in 

early October, which required Meridian to revisit the scope of this project and reevaluate 

the possible outcomes without attending a public meeting. As a result, Meridian did not 

have the opportunity to collect data from or make observations about that aspect of the 

original scope of work. 

Background and Framing 

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) was established by the Organic Foods 

Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). The NOSB operates in accordance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA), with a general mandate “to assist in the development of 

standards for substances to be used in organic production and to advise the Secretary on any 

other aspects of the implementation of [OFPA].”1 As a federal advisory committee, NOSB 

exists to advise and provide recommendations on issues or policies within the scope of AMS 

and NOP responsibilities, and cannot make recommendations outside the boundaries of 

OFPA. The ultimate decision-making authority to implement any of NOSB’s 

recommendations lies with the Secretary. 

In addition to the NOSB’s role as an advisory committee, the Board has been given unique 

authority regarding the National List. Specifically, according to OFPA, “[t]he National List 

established by the Secretary shall be based upon a proposed national list or proposed 

amendments to the National List developed by the National Organic Standards Board.”2

Indeed, “[t]he Secretary may not include exemptions for the use of specific synthetic 

substances in the National List other than those exemptions contained in the Proposed 

National List or Proposed Amendments to the National List.”3 The Secretary retains 

decision-making and rulemaking authority and may choose not to move forward with every 

recommendation that NOSB issues. 

 

1 Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) SEC. 2119(a); Title XXI of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 

and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624). 

2 OFPA SEC. 2119(d)(1). 

3 OFPA SEC. 2119(d)(2). 
NOSB Assessment | Summary of Findings • March 2014 Page 3 of 15

The establishment of the NOSB in 1990 and subsequent establishment of the National 

Organic Program in 2000 has led to what some parties view as a unique relationship 

between the Board, NOP, and stakeholders, creating dynamics requiring deliberate process 

design and maintenance over time. This assessment process provides an opportunity for the 

NOSB, the NOP and the broader organic stakeholder community to take stock of this 

relationship, understand what works well, and identify areas for improvement. This 

requires focused attention and discussions to address the concerns and differences of 

interpretation that have arisen across the stakeholder spectrum due to a number of factors 

including the: 

x evolution of the relationship between the NOSB and the NOP; 

x rapid expansion of the industry and corresponding governance pressures; and 

x character of the NOSB as a forum for rigorous debate about what the organic label 

should represent. 

We believe that by engaging in these important conversations, the organic stakeholder 

community can address existing challenges and capitalize on the strengths of the NOSB. 

Findings 

Our interviews revealed a range of views from NOP staff, NOSB members, and organic 

community stakeholders regarding the Board’s processes and relationship with NOP and 

members of the public. A majority of interviewees expressed generally positive views of 

both the NOSB and NOP, and noted several strengths of the current NOSB mechanism, 

including: 

x Good access to NOP staff when needed: Board members indicated that NOP staff 

members are responsive and helpful in answering questions about Board activities or 

NOP decisions. In fact, some indicated that NOP staff expertise may be underutilized 

in the context of aiding and advising subcommittee functions. 

x Strong leadership from NOP staff and clearer focus than in previous years: A 

number of interviewees mentioned that shifts in AMS policies in the past several 

years have improved the organization of NOSB processes. Decisions like varying the 

location of public meetings have improved the accessibility of the NOSB meetings to 

stakeholders. 

x Good documentation of public meetings and subcommittee calls: Interviewees 

indicated that NOP’s minutes documenting public meetings and calls are helpful, 

and help promote transparency of NOSB’s processes. 
NOSB Assessment | Summary of Findings • March 2014 Page 4 of 15

x High level of respect among Board members: Almost all Board members described 

the substantial collegiality within the Board itself. Despite ideological differences and 

a wide range of viewpoints, Board members view each other with respect and 

communicate a desire to collectively address major issues affecting the industry. 

Based on the data gathered through interviews, Meridian staff identified four key areas in 

which to focus NOSB and NOP attention in the future: 

It is important to note that the NOSB and NOP have begun to address some aspects of the 

issue areas identified during this assessment. The mid-review briefing Meridian provided to 

NOP staff in November 2013 included a high-level overview of the primary themes 

emerging through the ongoing interview process. The issues and themes identified in this 

review helped to inform the development of the agenda for the Board training session 

conducted in February 2014, which was designed to address a number of the issues that 

arose throughout the interview process. This report identifies those instances in which 

efforts have been initiated to clarify roles and responsibilities, relationships, communication 

pathways, and other important aspects of the NOSB process. The report will also offer a set 

of recommendations based on the interviews and interactions during the NOSB training to 

suggest approaches to addressing other outstanding issues. 

Roles and Responsibilities 

Interviewees expressed a range of views regarding the nature of the partnership between 

NOSB members and NOP staff. Some indicated that an absence of a clear definition of 

respective roles and ownership over particular activities between NOSB and NOP 

sometimes inhibits the Board’s functionality. 

1. Roles and Responsibilities: Create a common understanding about the distinction 

between NOP and NOSB authorities, processes, and responsibilities. 

2. Communication and Transparency: Identify differing views among the 

interviewees about the effectiveness of communication between NOSB members, 

between NOSB and NOP, and with external stakeholders, noting particular 

opportunities to maintain and improve transparency both internally and 

externally. 

3. NOSB and NOP Workload and Scope: Consider options to manage the significant 

NOSB and NOP workloads and maintain an appropriate scope of activities. 

4. NOSB Public Meetings: Clarify differing views on effectiveness of public 

meetings, and outline strategies that could help address existing concerns. 
NOSB Assessment | Summary of Findings • March 2014 Page 5 of 15

Issues Identified 

x NOSB authority: The “unique role” of the NOSB related to the National List as 

described in OFPA creates some confusion among stakeholders about the authority 

NOSB has to influence policy and the extent of the “advisory” role. In particular, 

some interviewees argued that NOSB should have a more expansive role in shaping 

NOP policy. Other interviewees suggested a more limited role of the NOSB with 

NOP playing a greater role in setting policy. 

x Development of NOSB workplans: Interviewees expressed differing 

understandings of the protocol for developing NOSB workplans, particularly NOSB 

and NOP’s respective roles in suggesting topics for subcommittees to pursue. 

Specifically, some Board members suggested that the final decision on the NOSB 

workplan should rest with the NOSB itself. Other Board members believed that 

NOP should play a larger role in determining the NOSB workplan, with the Board 

having some authority to place additional items on the workplan that are of 

particular interest. NOP staff have stated that the ultimate authority for setting the 

workplan rests with NOP. 

x Policy and procedures: NOP staff, NOSB members, and some external stakeholders 

expressed confusion and disagreement about the role of the NOSB Policy and 

Procedures Manual in guiding NOSB’s processes. There appeared to be 

inconsistency in the manner in which the manual was referenced and enforced, as 

well as conflicting views among stakeholders about which entity has the authority to 

amend the manual. 

Current Efforts to Address Issues 

x NOSB authority: NOP and other USDA staff have begun to provide clarity on the 

advisory nature of the Board, given its unique responsibilities outlined in OFPA and 

the legal strictures of FACA. NOP has clarified that as a FACA committee, NOSB 

activities must be focused on issues within the scope of AMS and NOP 

responsibilities outlined in OFPA. NOP has stressed that OFPA outlines NOSB 

responsibilities regarding the National List and provides the capacity for the Board 

to provide recommendations on some other issues, but that decision-making and 

rulemaking authority resides with the Secretary, who is not required to implement or 

act on all NOSB recommendations. 

x Development of NOSB workplans: NOP has also clarified that AMS drives the 

priorities for what the Board considers, and approves the final workplan for NOSB. 

NOP clarified the criteria for adding work plan items, which include: 

o within the scope of OFPA and USDA/AMS/NOP authority; 

o a priority for USDA/AMS/NOP and can be implemented in a reasonable 

timeframe; 
NOSB Assessment | Summary of Findings • March 2014 Page 6 of 15

o reflect a clear need for the NOP or organic community that requires 

information or advice; and 

o have a clear scope and intent. 

NOP has also clarified its responsibilities for review of NOSB recommendations. 

x Policy and procedures: AMS indicated that from this point forward, NOP will take a 

leadership role with the Policy and Procedures Manual (PPM), and will consult with 

the NOSB Policy Development Subcommittee on revisions to the PPM. This action 

may help streamline NOSB workload (see Workload and Scope below). 

Potential Next Steps 

x NOSB authority: Provide training to all new NOSB members clarifying roles and 

responsibilities, and potentially bolster peer-to-peer experience through the existing 

mentorship program. A majority of NOSB members appreciated the clarity on 

authority provided by the February NOSB training session. We encourage a similar 

session to precede the first NOSB public meeting each year (possibly a half-day 

session) for new and existing members. 

x Development of NOSB workplans/policy and procedures: NOSB members and 

NOP staff should engage in a collaborative, facilitated dialogue to more clearly 

delineate roles and responsibilities. These two entities should work together to 

establish protocols guiding when and how collaboration should take place in 

appropriate circumstances, clarify those circumstances where NOP will exercise its 

authority, and outline the channels of communication between NOP and NOSB to 

make sure these steps are clearly understood. This discussion should establish a 

mechanism for continuous input and feedback between the two entities. 

Communication and Transparency 

A frequent topic raised throughout the interview process was the need for clear 

communication from NOP staff about the factors influencing decisions that may affect 

NOSB’s activities. Specific issues identified are outlined below. 

Issues Identified 

x Clarity of communication: Interviewees expressed differing perceptions of the 

effectiveness of communication channels between NOP staff, the Board, and the 

public. A number of Board members and stakeholders indicated that some decisions 

appear to lack clear context, and thus rationale can be misinterpreted. Several cited 

the change in the interpretation of the sunset provision as an example of a perceived 

lack of clarity or advance communication. 
NOSB Assessment | Summary of Findings • March 2014 Page 7 of 15

x Clarity of rulemaking process: Both stakeholders and Board members referenced 

the desire for a clearer understanding of progress of NOSB recommendations within 

USDA’s rulemaking process. We heard frustration from external stakeholders in 

particular that NOSB recommendations seem to enter a “black hole” with no clear 

indication of how those recommendations are considered by the Secretary. 

x Pathway to NOP: External stakeholders expressed concern about a lack of clear 

channels to communicate directly to NOP, rather than through NOSB meetings. NOP 

staff also indicated that this need may prolong the duration of NOSB meetings. 

x Conflict of interest: Several interviewees noted misunderstandings regarding 

NOSB’s conflict of interest policy, indicating that a lack of clarity has caused 

problems at public meetings. Specifically, some stakeholders have publicly accused 

Board members of holding conflicts of interest regarding issues they may be asked to 

vote upon, when such conflict may not actually exist. Other stakeholders and some 

Board members have expressed confusion about what the conflict of interest policy 

states, requiring some clarification of the policy. 

x Board appointment and questions on representation: Nearly all interviewees 

referenced the appointment process of Board members as an area with potential for 

improved communication about both criteria for appointment and qualifications of 

selected appointees. Board members also raised concern about the appropriate 

balance of Board members’ responsibility to represent the views of sectors for which 

Board members are appointed and their openness to cross-sectoral perspectives and 

ability to work towards reaching agreement on key issues. 

Current Efforts to Address Issues 

x Clarity of communication: NOP staff dedicated a significant portion of the February 

training to explaining legislative grounding and contextual factors influencing NOP 

decisions, including the recent decision on the sunset provision. Several Board 

members indicated that the training served as an important forum to clarify different 

aspects of operating procedures that had caused confusion in the past. NOP staff also 

committed to clearly communicate any updates or changes in USDA and agency 

policies in a timely fashion to the Board through memos and other means. NOP staff 

also presented a clear explanation for the new interpretation of the sunset provision 

and highlighted the efficiencies they believe will be gained by transitioning to this 

new approach. 

x Clarity of rulemaking process: During the training, NOP staff presented a detailed 

description of the rulemaking process, both in general and specifically in relation to 

NOP, to help clarify the steps required and timeframe involved with transitioning 

from a recommendation to a final rule. 
NOSB Assessment | Summary of Findings • March 2014 Page 8 of 15

x Conflict of interest: NOP clarified the official conflict of interest policy for Board 

proceedings, focusing particularly on the idea of “disproportionate impact,” and 

provided guidance for appropriate Board recusals. 

x Board appointment: NOP staff provided an overview of the official procedures for 

nominating and appointing Board members to the NOSB at the February training, 

including reviewing the Criteria for Board Membership crafted in 1999, indicating 

that these criteria are included in NOP’s website. 

x Representation: USDA clarified during the February training the principle of 

representation in the context of the NOSB. Legally, NOSB members are selected to 

articulate the views of the sector from which they are a member during Board 

meetings. The responsibility of Board members is to articulate those views so they 

are heard by decision-makers within the agency 

Potential Next Steps 

x Clarity of communication: Several Board members expressed appreciation for the 

distinctions made during the Board training. Given this, NOP should consider 

holding an official training for each iteration of the Board. Earlier, we mentioned the 

possibility to provide such a training preceding the first public meeting of each year 

to clarify roles and responsibilities. This meeting could be combined with orientation 

for new Board members or serve as a standalone training session, depending on 

resource availability. Additionally, NOP should regularly and proactively provide 

clarity to Board members and members of the public about NOP’s authorities and 

why the Program makes particular decisions. 

x Pathway to NOP: NOP should establish a means for external stakeholders to provide 

comment directly to the Program, rather than through NOSB channels, either 

virtually or in person. Potential options include: 

1. Develop clarifying categories describing NOSB-specific topics and NOPspecific topics, and include them in federal notices released for public 

comment on petitions in preparation for public meetings. 

2. Create a prominent space for comments on the NOP website, either included 

on specific sub-pages (e.g., Organic Regulations) or added to the Frequently 

Asked Questions page. 

3. Create an independent web page with a selection of NOP-specific categories 

and clear guidance to help direct comments to the appropriate NOP staff, 

similar to the page providing guidance on filing a complaint about violation 

of USDA organic regulations. The NOSB Board Specialist could help process 

these comments and determine which may need to be redirected. 

4. Include a section on public meeting agendas for NOP to summarize questions 

and comments received through digital channels and respond verbally. 
NOSB Assessment | Summary of Findings • March 2014 Page 9 of 15

x Clarity of rulemaking process: NOP should provide more clarity to the public on the 

process that recommendations must go through to be considered by the Secretary, 

and the subsequent rulemaking process. This could include putting information 

about the process of rulemaking in addition to existing available information about 

rulemaking actions and notices on NOP’s website. Informational materials could be 

posted to a NOSB-specific Frequently Asked Questions page, for example. 

x Conflict of interest: While NOP clarified the procedure for Conflict of Interest, it 

may be beneficial to make copies of the official Conflict of Interest policy available in 

writing at the meetings, and also to feature the policy prominently on the NOP and 

NOSB websites.

x Board appointment: While the criteria for Board appointments are available on the 

NOSB website, they are in the form of a hyperlink in a list of several links without 

descriptions. NOP could consider updating the website to provide additional detail 

about board selection criteria and to make these links more prominent. 

x Representation: NOSB and NOP may consider conducting further dialogue about 

balancing the need to articulate one’s constituent interests in NOSB proceedings with 

the need for working within a diverse Board to reach agreement on key issues. This 

might be a component of the leadership and process management trainings 

suggested below in the section on subcommittee work distribution and leadership. 

NOSB and NOP Workload and Scope 

Interviews revealed a disconnect between the need to manage the already significant Board 

and NOP staff workload and the desire expressed by some for NOSB to take on a more 

active advisory and strategic planning role. Existing time and resource constraints should be 

considered to ensure that the Board can fulfill its legislatively mandated review of materials 

on the National List. 

Issues Identified 

x Time intensity of work: Many Board members emphasized the sometimes 

challenging nature of balancing the significant workload associated with Board 

membership, particularly in preparation for public meetings, with the 

responsibilities of their full-time employment. Reviewing the significant volume of 

written comments, understanding the complex technical nature of some proposals, 

and learning about the activities of all subcommittees prior to meetings were cited as 

particular challenges. 

x Asymmetry of support: A number of interviewees expressed an impression of 

asymmetry among Board members’ level of organizational support to work on 

NOSB activities, which may allow some Board members to focus significantly more 

time on Board activities than others. Several members of the Board and external 
NOSB Assessment | Summary of Findings • March 2014 Page 10 of 15

stakeholders indicated the Board members in the “producer” category may be at a 

particular disadvantage in this regard. 

x Strategic thinking: Several Board members and external stakeholders also discussed 

a desire to address more strategic issues beyond National List recommendations and 

statutory requirements. A number of Board members and external stakeholders 

wanted to develop recommendations for consideration by the Secretary on major 

issues in the sector. NOP staff expressed a willingness to listen to such ideas, but 

also expressed concern that these discussions may be outside the scope of the NOSB 

and may distract from addressing National List issues. 

x Subcommittee work distribution and leadership: Some Board members noted an 

uneven distribution of work among subcommittees, noting that the nature of some 

subcommittees’ focus areas requires more time and attention than others. Those 

groups might require additional NOP support to work through issues. Several 

interviewees also indicated that differences in the level of leadership and process 

management experience within subcommittees can impact the efficiency of 

subcommittee processes. 

x Technical review: Some external stakeholders perceived a lack of clarity regarding 

the process for obtaining technical review of certain petitions. Others looked 

favorably on the recent practice of inviting technical experts to meetings to conduct 

question and answer sessions with the Board and answer complex topics. 

Current Efforts to Address Issues 

x Time intensity of work: NOP expressed the hope that more disciplined adherence to 

the criteria for adding a workplan item (referenced in Roles and Responsibilities 

above) may help streamline Board activities and manage the workload associated 

with the scope of activities. At the training, NOP also provided best practices for 

evaluating technical reports and petitions with tips for processing highly technical 

information. 

x Strategic thinking: During the February training, NOP established that NOSB 

workplans will focus exclusively on issues under OFPA’s purview. Items outside the 

scope of AMS responsibility will not be addressed as part of NOSB deliberations. 

x Subcommittee work distribution and leadership: NOP provided brief suggestions 

for subcommittee management to help increase subcommittee efficiency. 

x Technical review: The NOP and the Board have discussed implementing Technical 

Advisory Panels to improve the technical analysis and the transparency of the 

process.
NOSB Assessment | Summary of Findings • March 2014 Page 11 of 15

Potential Next Steps 

x Asymmetry of support: One possible option to help address perceived asymmetries 

in the amount of time Board members feel they can dedicate to NOSB activities 

would be to engage the NOSB Board Specialist as a liaison between the Board 

members and NOP staff. The Board Specialist can serve as an intermediary between 

the Board and NOP to help identify additional needs for certain Board members and 

ensure that NOP staff is aware of those needs. The Board Specialist can help tailor 

specific mechanisms and information delivery systems to support Board members 

who have particularly acute time constraints. 

x Strategic thinking: NOSB members and NOP staff could help determine an 

appropriate venue within the organic community to conduct long-term, strategic 

thinking about the trajectory of the organic industry. NOSB and NOP could provide 

recommendations to initiate the dialogue and list appropriate topics for that forum. 

x Subcommittee work distribution and leadership: NOP should determine whether 

there are opportunities for NOP staff to provide additional technical insights to 

inform subcommittee discussions. NOP could also incorporate some element of 

leadership or process management training into Board members’ orientation to 

enhance committee chairs’ capacity to foster collaborative processes and chair 

meetings effectively. Options include: 

1) Engage members of USDA’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Program to 

conduct a short training session in conjunction with the first public meeting 

of the calendar year to discuss strategies to resolve conflict and manage a 

productive dialogue process; 

2) Conduct a similar type of short training session via webinar to reduce costs; 

and/or 

3) Transfer institutional knowledge between Board members by: 

 Building out the existing Board mentorship program to more 

explicitly focus on explaining the nuances of NOSB’s process, sharing 

experience from different subcommittees, and capturing lessons 

learned based on the dynamics of prior Board iterations; 

 Providing Board members with the opportunity to sit in on multiple 

subcommittee meetings to observe different leadership styles before 

assuming a subcommittee chair position; and 

 Create opportunities for subcommittee chairs to discuss challenges, 

share experiences, and solicit advice from each other. 

x Technical review: Several interviewees cited the need for more public-facing 

information regarding the process for obtaining technical information. There were 

also diverse views as to how to set up these committees. NOSB and NOP should 
NOSB Assessment | Summary of Findings • March 2014 Page 12 of 15

work together to clarify the process for identifying and vetting experts to participate 

in Technical Advisory Panels. Components to consider include: 

1) Agreed upon criteria for selection of panel participants; 

2) Mechanism to ensure that a diversity of perspectives are included in TAPs; 

and/or 

3) Methods to identify resources to support panels and/or mechanisms to 

engage participants virtually. 

Additionally, NOP and NOSB should seek opportunities to bring additional 

technical expertise to meetings to help foster discussion and increase discussion 

about technical issues for both the Board and the public’s benefit. This could 

potentially be pursued through virtual means, given cost constraints. 

Managing NOSB Public Meetings 

In this section, the Meridian team’s capacity to make suggestions to help address the issues 

listed is somewhat limited, not having had the opportunity to observe a public NOSB 

meeting. The contents of this section are derived from interview feedback. 

Issues Identified 

x Meeting duration: Some interviewees expressed trepidation about potentially 

negative effects of compressed meeting schedules on the opportunity for open 

dialogue among the Board members throughout the meeting. Several interviewees 

also indicated that the reduced schedule might provide insufficient face-to-face time 

for Board members. They also indicated that Board members might benefit from 

additional time to share information and ask any clarifying questions without taking 

up already constrained time on the agenda of the subsequent public meetings. 

x Comments: Several Board members and members of the public shared the 

perception that the high volume of written public comments can be challenging for 

Board members to review and adequately process. Additionally, a number of 

interviewees expressed concern that verbal comments provided at the meetings may 

have a disproportionate effect on voting. Some stakeholders who provide verbal 

public comments at the meetings also noted that the time limitations on the provision 

of comments and the restriction of one comment per organization can result in some 

stakeholder groups rushing through comments and having to include details 

relevant to topics in different sections of the agenda. 

x Meeting environment: Many indicated that, at times, individuals and organizations 

have not felt the freedom to provide input without risking significant reputational 

backlash, or in some cases, personal attack. Some interviewees noted that these 

dynamics can reduce the efficiency of meetings, influence the structure and content 

of stakeholder comments, and decrease the likelihood of open Board dialogue. 
NOSB Assessment | Summary of Findings • March 2014 Page 13 of 15

x Board dialogue: Several interviewees highlighted the importance of robust Board 

discussions as a mechanism to build trust within the Board and to foster 

transparency with stakeholders. Interviewees indicated that there may, at times, be 

insufficient dialogue at meetings which can contribute to mistrust. 

x Role for NOP: Interviewees expressed a range of opinions about the most 

appropriate role for NOP at public meetings. Some interviewees indicated that 

meetings might run more smoothly if co-chaired by the Board Chair and the Deputy 

Administrator of the National Organic Program, to set a unified tone. Others 

expressed a preference for fewer NOP staff attending meetings and minimal NOP 

participation in the proceedings. 

Current Efforts to Address Issues 

x Comments: NOP indicated that starting at the spring 2014 meeting in San Antonio, 

only minor adjustments to discussion documents and proposals will be allowed 

before voting. If public comments lead to substantive changes, the document is to go 

back to committee before voting. This may help ensure that verbal comments 

resulting in significant changes may be placed in the context of other comments 

received before the Board votes on a petition. 

x Board dialogue: As an example of a potential option to address this issue, almost all 

interviewed approved of the measure that the Board Chair took at the meeting held 

in Portland, Oregon in April 2013 to encourage each Board member to justify the 

reasoning behind his or her vote on the use of tetracycline in tree fruit production. 

x Role for NOP: At the February training, NOP staff indicated that, consistent with the 

practice utilized in some other FACA bodies, the Deputy Administrator of the NOP 

may choose to Co-Chair the spring meeting in San Antonio. 

Potential Next Steps 

x Meeting duration: NOP and the NOSB Executive Committee should consider the 

length of public meetings, as well as the possibility of conducting some portions of 

public meetings via teleconference, webinar, or other virtual means. In addition, 

opportunities to convene the Board prior to public meetings to conduct briefings for 

the purposes of sharing information and discussing key issues should also be 

considered. Decisions would not be made at these briefings. The possibility of 

virtual meetings for the purpose of informational briefings could be explored. The 

NOSB and NOP should work collaboratively to determine the best way to keep the 

public apprised of these discussions. 

x Meeting environment: One potential mechanism to help encourage a collegial 

meeting environment would be for the Board, through the Board Chair, to make a 
NOSB Assessment | Summary of Findings • March 2014 Page 14 of 15

statement on behalf of the NOSB affirming the expectation of a suggested code of 

conduct for the public attending each meeting, citing the respectful discussions that 

the Board maintains and a desire to foster a similar culture at NOSB public meetings. 

x Comments: NOP and NOSB should consider restructuring the public comment 

process to better facilitate direct dialogue and feedback (in both verbal and written 

formats). Several approaches could be considered: 

1) Clearly state at the outset of comment periods that comments may only 

pertain to the petition at hand, and remind the speaker of this policy if 

comments stray to include multiple topics; 

2) Require all stakeholders seeking to provide public comment to offer their 

comments in written form prior to the meeting, similar to a public hearing.

3) Allow each Board member a few minutes to make any comments they wish 

following all of the public comments; each member could make a general 

observation, respond to a particular comment, or pass. 

4) Reallocate a portion of the time currently dedicated to comments directed at 

the NOSB to questions for the NOP.

5) Structure the public comment period with members of the public breaking 

into small groups for discussion and then having a single reporter from each 

group share a summary of the comments from that group. If any member of 

the public wished to make a statement in addition to these summaries, they 

could be provided that opportunity. 

6) Provide a mechanism for stakeholders to provide additional written 

comments (through a comment box, issue briefs, or other mechanism) to 

supplement verbal comments on particularly controversial issues.

x Board dialogue: Many interviewees indicated that the approach of asking Board 

members to explain votes was an important trust-building measure and mechanism 

for transparency that should be replicated in future meetings. NOSB should develop 

and implement a process whereby Board members are encouraged to clarify their 

positions on key decisions at public meetings, verbally or through writing. 

x Role for NOP: If there is to be a co-chair approach involving the Chair of the NOSB 

and the Deputy Administrator of the NOP, NOSB leadership and NOP staff need to 

collaboratively determine the approach to co-chairing. It will be important to 

determine the appropriate roles for each of the co-chairs in order to ensure that the 

decision to have co-chairs improves the functionality of the meeting. 
NOSB Assessment | Summary of Findings • March 2014 Page 15 of 15

Closing Observations 

As compared to other FACA committees with which Meridian has worked, the NOSB elicits 

significantly more stakeholder interest and interaction than most. The rapid expansion of 

the organic food industry, characterized by burgeoning demand for organic food products 

and an increase in new entrants into the field, has resulted in a sector with a constantly 

changing landscape. While there are multiple views among the various participants in the 

organic food industry about that changing landscape, every participant understands the 

value of a strong “USDA Organic” brand. We sense from our interviews and research that 

all parties want to protect that brand. 

This report summarizes the topics and issues raised during the assessment process. Most of 

our recommendations deal with providing clarity for all participants: clarity of purpose, of 

process, and of outcomes. Through the February training session, NOP staff has begun a 

process to provide clarity that aims to address several issues identified in our work, as we 

have noted throughout this report. We have suggested opportunities for additional dialogue 

between NOP, NOSB, and stakeholders to identify creative approaches to clarifying roles 

and responsibilities, promoting effective communication and transparency, managing NOSB 

workload and scope, and designing public meetings to enable productive discussion. 

Our recommendations also speak to strengthening a collaborative spirit among all parties. 

Addressing the issues identified in this assessment will require innovative collaborative 

processes that will continue building trust and connectivity between NOP, NOSB, and the 

public over time. Throughout the process of conducting this assessment, we have 

recognized a strong sense of respect among Board members and a high regard for the NOSB 

process as a critical mechanism to engage stakeholders in USDA’s decision-making 

processes. The Board’s discussions are fueled by legitimate differences grounded in each 

Board member’s viewpoint; these differences are fundamental to a robust FACA process. 

We want to emphasize some final points. The steps that have been taken by AMS/NOP to 

clarify the NOSB process are helpful in many ways. However, it is important to note that 

these same steps may be viewed by some stakeholders as attempts to control NOSB 

activities and outcomes, rather than as efforts to focus the NOSB process more intently on 

the critical tasks outlined in OFPA. To avoid those perceptions, it is critical that NOP and 

NOSB work together to institutionalize collaborative processes that respect both the 

responsibility and authority of the NOP as well as the engagement of the NOSB and the 

broader public. We have identified a number of areas where we believe the NOP and NOSB 

can strengthen the functioning of the NOSB as a collaborative body. In our view, such 

collaborative spirit and actions will provide an underlying foundation to the NOSB process 

which will well serve the NOSB, USDA and the public.