UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE 

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

) 

In re: ) 

 )

Jaswantpura Farmer Group ) Administrator’s Decision 

 ) APL-016-23 

Rajasthan, India ) 

) 

This Decision responds to an Appeal (APL-016-23) of a Notice of Noncompliance and 

Denial of Certification under the National Organic Program (NOP) issued to Jaswantpura Farmer 

Group (JFG) of Rajasthan, India by SRS Certification GmbH (SRS), a USDA accredited 

certifying agent. The operation has been deemed not in compliance with the Organic Foods 

Production Act of 1990 (Act)1

 and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic 

regulations.2 

BACKGROUND 

The Act authorizes the Secretary to accredit agents to certify crop, livestock, wild crop, 

and/or handling operations to the USDA organic regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 205). Certifying 

agents also initiate compliance actions to enforce program requirements, as described in section 

205.662, Noncompliance procedure for certified operations. Persons subject to the Act who 

believe they are adversely affected by a noncompliance decision of a certifying agent may appeal 

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

1

 7 U.S.C. 6501-6522 

2

 7 C.F.R. Part 205 

Page 1 of 8 
 

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

regulations. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. On or about October 18, 2022, JFG applied to certifier SRS for crop certification of the 304 

farms within its grower group. 

2. On November 28 – December 3, 2022, SRS conducted an inspection of JFG, including 

inspecting numerous individual farms. 

3. On January 22, 2023, SRS issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Denial of Certification to 

JFG. 

4. On January 31, 2023, JFG filed an Appeal. 

REGULATORY CITATIONS 

The USDA organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §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 ...” 

The regulations at §205.105, Allowed and prohibited substances, methods, and 

ingredients in organic production and handling, state that, “To be sold or labeled as “100 percent 

Page 2 of 8 
organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)),” the product 

must be produced and handled without the use of: (a) Synthetic substances and ingredients, 

except as provided in §205.601 or §205.603; (b) Nonsynthetic substances prohibited in §205.602 

or §205.604 ...” 

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 

they will be performed; (2) A list of each substance to be used as a production or handling input, 

indicating its composition, source, location(s) where it will be used, and documentation of 

commercial availability, as applicable; (3) A description of the monitoring practices and 

procedures to be performed and maintained, including the frequency with which they will be 

performed, to verify that the plan is effectively implemented; (4) A description of the 

recordkeeping system implemented to comply with the requirements established in §205.103; (5) 

A description of the management practices and physical barriers established to prevent 

commingling of organic and nonorganic products on a split operation and to prevent contact of 

organic production and handling operations and products with prohibited substances; and (6) 

Additional information deemed necessary by the certifying agent to evaluate compliance with the 

regulations...” 

Page 3 of 8 
 

The organic regulations at §205.202, Land requirements, state that, “Any field or farm 

parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as “organic,” 

must: ... (b) Have had no prohibited substances, as listed in §205.105, applied to it for a period 

of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of the crop ...” 

The organic regulations at §205.400, General requirements for certification, state that, “A 

person seeking to receive or maintain organic certification under the regulations in this part must: 

(a) Comply with the Act and applicable organic production and handling regulations in this part; 

(b) Establish, implement, and update annually an organic production or handling system plan ... 

(d) Maintain all records applicable to the organic operation for not less than 5 years beyond their 

creation ... (f) Immediately notify the certifying agent concerning any: (1) Application, 

including drift, of a prohibited substance to any field, production unit, site, facility, livestock, or 

product that is part of an operation ...” 

DISCUSSION 

JFG is a grower group of 304 farms/farmers, which applied to SRS for crop certification 

on or about October 18, 2022. JFG states that it began organic management in 2008, and 

cultivates organic cotton, soybean, maize, and other crops, and has only organic crops. SRS 

conducted an inspection of JRF’s operation and numerous individual farms from November 28, 

2022 through December 3, 2022. The inspector noted that JFG plants, irrigates, harvests, sorts, 

cleans, grades, packs, and dispatches its own crops from the 304 farms; and also maintains its 

own storage locations. However, the Inspection Report notes that numerous records were 

missing, including those recording inputs used on the crops, records on the receipt of crops from 

the various farms, processing records, and shipping records. The inspector stated that maps 

Page 4 of 8 
weren’t available for all farms; and JFG’s Organic System Plan (OSP) had conflicting 

information on the actual size of the farms within the group. Further, three farms hadn’t yet 

cultivated soybeans though estimated yields were shown for the farms in JFG’s documents. JFG 

also didn’t maintain records on soil monitoring, plant health, or post-harvest activities; and SRS 

found that JFG’s internal inspections were not performed well, with additional training being 

needed for the inspectors. 

SRS delineated the noncompliances in its Inspection Report as well as on a spreadsheet 

of the 2022 Noncompliances, wherein SRS also noted that JFG’s internal control manual was 

missing various sections and procedures needed to ensure compliance with the organic 

regulations. Further, JFG’s manual didn’t provide a list of possible noncompliances, and 

potential sanctions to be applied against farms within the grower group, or corrective actions to 

be taken by farms in such situations. 

SRS’s inspector also noted in the Inspection Report that he observed six farms within 

JFG’s grower group applying prohibited substances, namely fertilizers urea and DAP 

(diammonium phosphate); and pesticides Monocrotophos and Endosulfan. The inspector spoke 

to the six farmers who confirmed they used the prohibited substances on organic crops. The 

inspector also took photographs of the bottles or bags of various inputs found on these farmers’ 

organic plots. The photographs show the following: bottles of Monolik by Shivalik; Kevin 360 

by Sumil; and Shaktimaan by Swastik, all of which contain Monocrotophos and DAP. A bag 

from Acemain Adama Insecticide SP was also seen, as was a bottle of Shiva Gold Xtra 

Tricontanol, and a sprayer containing urea and Endosulfan. The inspector identified at which 

farm each of these substances were seen; and also noted that a high volume of these prohibited 

substances is sold at the supply shops in the various farming villages. 

Page 5 of 8 
Research shows that DAP contains nitrogen and phosphorus. Monocrotophos is an 

organophosphate while Endosulfan is an organochlorine insecticide. All three are synthetics; 

and are not identified as allowed synthetic inputs under 7 C.F.R. §205.601, and are therefore, 

prohibited. Monocrotophos and Endosulfan are toxic; are banned in the United States; and are 

on the list of ‘extremely hazardous substances’ found in Appendix B of the EPA’s 

(Environmental Protection Agency) regulations found in Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Chapter I, Subchapter J, Part 355. They may not be used in organic crop 

production. Further, SRS noted that JFG stated the farms use ‘self-made herbal preparations’ as 

inputs; however, it couldn’t be determined if these inputs were compliant. Lastly, the inspector 

noted in the Inspection Report that there is a risk of contamination by prohibited substances to all 

the farms of the grower group as there are conventional farms on all sides. Based on its findings 

after the inspection and the review of JFG’s documentation, SRS issued a Notice of 

Noncompliance and Denial of Certification. 

JFG argued in its Appeal that SRS should have issued a Notice of Noncompliance prior 

to issuing the combined Notice of Noncompliance and Denial of Certification, and thereby 

provide JFG with the opportunity to correct the recordkeeping noncompliances. However, while 

recordkeeping noncompliances may be correctable, the finding of prohibited substances being 

applied to six farms, the finding of containers from those substances on the six farms, and the 

admissions by the six farmers involved that they used the prohibited substances, justified the 

combined notice. The organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.405 state that when the correction of 

a noncompliance isn’t possible, a notification of noncompliance and a notification of denial of 

certification may be combined in one notification. JFG didn’t offer any reason or explanation 

Page 6 of 8 
for the use of prohibited substances by six of its farmers, nor identify any sanctions taken against 

those farmers. 

CONCLUSION 

Evidence substances that JFG has violated the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.103, 

Recordkeeping by certified operations; 7 C.F.R. §205.105, Allowed and prohibited substances, 

methods, and ingredients in organic production and handling; 7 C.F.R. §205.201, Organic 

production and handling system plan; 7 C.F.R. §205.202, Land requirements; and 7 C.F.R. 

§205.400, General requirements for certification. JFG failed to complete numerous sections of 

its OSP and maintain required records including records on inputs, soil monitoring, plant health 

observation, post-harvest activities, receipt of crops, processing, and shipping of product. While 

recordkeeping noncompliances may be correctable, the evidence also substantiates that 

prohibited substances were used on organic crops of six farms within JFG’s grower group. The 

application of these substances was observed, as were the bottles and bags from the substances, 

and the six farmers involved admitted to such use. Therefore, JFG may not be certified organic 

under NOP standards. 

DECISION 

JFG’s January 31, 2023 Appeal of the January 22, 2023 Notice of Noncompliance and 

Denial of Certification is denied. JFG is denied organic certification. However, pursuant to 7 

C.F.R. §205.405(e), JFG may apply for certification again at any time with any certifying agent, 

though the new application must substantiate that JFG has corrected all the noncompliances cited 

as the basis for its initial denial of certification. However, as the application of prohibited 

Page 7 of 8 
y _________________________________ SUMMERS 

-04'00' 

substances isn’t correctable, the six farms on which prohibited substances were seen being 

applied may not be part of JFG’s grower group and included in any subsequent application for 

certification until December 2, 2025, which is three years after SRS’s inspector observed the 

application of prohibited substances. 

Additionally, attached to this formal Administrator’s Decision denying JFG’s Appeal is a 

Request for Hearing form. Should it wish to further appeal this decision, JFG has thirty (30) 

days to request an administrative hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. 

Done at Washington, D.C., on this _____ 20th 

day of ________________, 2023. April

Digitally signed by BRUCE BRUCE Date: 2023.04.20 21:17:50 SUMMERS 

Bruce Summers 

Administrator 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Page 8 of 8