FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BY THE

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD (NOSB) 

TO THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM (NOP) 

Date: _________4/21/2007______

Subject: Hops for addition to National List under, §205.606 

Chair: Andrea Caroe 

 

Recommendation

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: _XXX___ 

Guidance Statement: ________ 

Other: ________ 

Statement of the Recommendation (including Recount of Vote):

The Board recommends adding Hops under §205.606-nonorganically produced agricultural 

products

NOSB Vote: Motion: Julie Weisman Second: Joe Smillie

Board vote: Yes -11 No-0 Abstain- 0 Absent -4 Recuse- 0 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with OFPA and NOP):

The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances §205.606 

Response by the NOP:
National Organic Standards Board 

Final Recommendation for 

Date: April 21, 2007 

I. List: (where in FR rule example 205.606) 

National Organic Program Subpart G: The National List of Allowed and Prohibited 

Substances. §205.606 Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed as 

ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with organic 

(specified ingredients or food groups(s)).” 

II. Committee Summary: 

 On June 9, 2005 a court final order and judgment arising from Harvey v. Johanns, stated that 

“the Secretary must issue a declaratory judgment that 7 CFR § 205.606 shall not be interpreted to 

create a blanket exemption to the National List requirements specified in 7. U.S.C. 6517.” These 

“requirements permit the use of nonorganic agricultural products in or on processed organic 

products when their organic form is not commercially available.” 

Further, “consistent with OFPA, 7 CFR §205.606 shall be interpreted to permit the use of a nonorganically produced agricultural product that has been listed in § 205.606 pursuant to National 

List procedures and when a certifying agent has determined that the organic form of the 

agricultural product is not commercially available.” 

Effort was made through many channels to elicit from manufacturers, petitions for any nonorganically produced agricultural materials that had been using on products labeled and sold as 

“organic.” 

In addition, pursuant to the judgment in Harvey v.Johanns, the NOSB was instructed to develop 

criteria for determining commercial availability, an essential tool in evaluating whether or not 

petitioned materials could be listed on § 205.606. These criteria were finalized in the NOSB 

“Recommendation for the Establishment of Commercial Availability Criteria National List 

§ 205.606” of October 19, 2006. That recommendation allows for pro-active listing on 205.606 of 

materials which may currently be available in an organic form, but the supply of which has a 

history of fragility due to factors such as limited growing regions, weather or trade-related issues. 

Furthermore, the recommendation reiterates the role of the Accredited Certifying Agent (ACA) in 

making the ultimate decision as to whether a 606-listed material may be used, on case by case 

basis. 

Petitions received for non-organic agricultural materials contained widely varying amounts 

information with which to assess the current availability or fragility of current supply of organic 

forms of the petitioned material. 
The Handling Committee noted that agricultural substances are only required to be evaluated 

using the criteria specified in the Act (7 U.S.C. 6517 and 6518). 

6517(c)(1)(a) 

i) would not be harmful to human health or the environment; 

(ii) is necessary to the production or handling of the agricultural product because of 

unavailability of wholly natural substitute products; and 

(iii) is consistent with organic farming and handling; 

Agricultural substances do not need to be evaluated against section 205.600 (b). (i.e. 

essentialness). This additional criteria is only required for any synthetic substance used as a 

processing aid or adjuvant. 

The Handling Committee also considered what constitutes “essential” for organic handling of a 

finished retail product and how that may be different from that of a material used in crop or 

livestock production. It was agreed that certain materials might be essential for creating a 

product that meets consumer expectations of taste or texture that is authentic to a specific ethnic 

cuisine, or in this case, types of beer. Both petitioners described the requirement for numerous 

differing varieties of hops required to produce different varieties of beer as well as different 

varieties of hops needed for different stages of brewing of a single type of beer. Access to a wide 

variety of hops is essential to the brewing of beer. There were no public comments specifically 

opposing the listing of Hops on § 205.606. 

The Handling Committee carefully considered the difference between the availability of a raw 

agricultural product as organic, and the availability of certified organic handlers to process that 

raw material into one useable for brewing purposes. This did not appear to be a factor 

contributing to the lack of availability of a sufficient variety of hops in sufficient quantities for 

the brewing of beer by these petitioners. 

Petitioners did report that the areas of the United States in which hops can be grown is somewhat 

restricted, and it is not likely that there will be sufficient quantities of organic hops in a broad 

enough number of varieties cultivated in the next few years to meet the requirements of these two 

petitioners. They both emphasize that they each utilize as high a percentage of organic hops as 

they can access at any given time. 

III. Board Recommendation 

Hops for inclusion on §205.606 of the National List

Moved: Julie Weisman Second: Joe Smillie 

Board vote: Yes-11 No- 0 Absent- 4 Abstain-0 Recuse-0