United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue S.W. NOP 2613-1

Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2646-South Building Page 1 of 2

National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250

NOP 2613-1 Response to Comments on Responding to Pesticide Residues Rev 02 09 13 18 Authorized Distribution: Public

Response to Comments

Responding to Results from Pesticide Residue Testing1

Links Update: September 13, 2018

This document summarizes comments received on a Draft Guidance, “Responding to Results 

from Pesticide Residue Testing (NOP 5028).” which was posted on the NOP website for public 

comment. The public was notified in a Federal Register notice (76 FR 34180) on June 13, 2011.

• CHANGES MADE IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

1) Combine Sections 3.2.2 (b) and (c) of the Draft Guidance. Commenters noted that the 

guidance provided regarding detections below 0.01 ppm and detections above 0.01 ppm but 

below 5% of the EPA tolerance were identical. They suggested that these sections be 

combined into a single section to describe actions to be taken for detections below 5% of the 

EPA tolerance. In response to this comment, NOP has delineated the different actions (e.g. 

such as considering issuance of a noncompliance) that a certifying agent should take when 

residues are found above 0.01 ppm but below 5% of the EPA tolerance. The revised 

document specifies what to do with detections below 0.01 ppm and what to do with 

detections above 0.01 ppm but below 5% of the EPA tolerance.

2) Provide Guidance for Detections Below 0.01 ppm. Commenters noted that the guidance 

provides directions on what to do for detections of pesticide residues of 0.01 ppm or greater 

in the absence of an EPA tolerance or FDA action level, but does not say what to do with 

detections below 0.01 ppm. They asked that NOP provide guidance on what certifying 

agencies should do with detections below 0.01 ppm when there is not an EPA tolerance or 

FDA action level. In the revised document, there is a section for what to do with any

detection below 0.01 ppm. This section would apply in all situations where a residue is 

present below 0.01 ppm, including in instances when there is not an EPA tolerance or FDA 

action level for the tested commodity.

3) Detection of Multiple Pesticide Residues. In our proposed guidance, we stated that the 

detection of multiple pesticide residues on a single crop may indicate that a crop had been 

produced using conventional methods. While some commenters agreed, one certifying agent 

argued that the detection of multiple pesticide residues would not necessarily indicate that the 

crop was raised conventionally. They stated that it is common for commercial pesticide 

preparations to contain more than one active ingredient and that accidental drift could result 

in the appearance of multiple pesticide residues in an organically grown crop. NOP agrees 

and has removed this section from the final guidance.

 1 This document addresses comments received on draft guidance, NOP 5028, on Responding to Results from 

Pesticide Residue Testing. Upon review, the NOP determined that the information is more appropriate as an 

Instruction for certifying agents and has published as an Instruction: NOP 2613 (formerly NOP 5028) – Responding 

to Results from Pesticide Residue Testing.
United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue S.W. NOP 2613-1

Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2646-South Building Page 2 of 2

National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250

NOP 2613-1 Response to Comments on Responding to Pesticide Residues Rev 02 09 13 18 Authorized Distribution: Public

4) Adding Values for Limit of Quantitation for Substances Not Detected. In the third 

paragraph, section 4 (B) of our proposed guidance NOP stated: If the metabolite is not 

detected, certifying agents should add the limit of quantitation (LOQ) to the parent to 

determine the total residue. In rare cases, metabolites will be detected, but the parent 

pesticide will not. In this case, certifying agents should add the value of the LOQ of the 

parent compound (if known) to the metabolite amount to determine total residue level. 

Comments provided through intra-agency reviews revealed that this process not correct for 

this particular residue reporting situation. It is not appropriate to add a value for the limit of 

quantitation for a parent pesticide or its metabolites that were not detected for purposes of 

determining a regulatory violation. Therefore, NOP has omitted this portion of the discussion 

from the final instruction.

• CHANGES REQUESTED BUT NOT MADE

1) Noncompliance Should Be Issued for Any Prohibited Residue Detection. Commenters

stated that certifying agents should issue a notice of noncompliance for any prohibited 

pesticide residue detection. The commenters suggested that the noncompliance system 

provides a mechanism for reporting and responding to noncompliances through an 

established formal procedure. In considering this comment, NOP recognizes that organic 

certification is a process based program and that the presence of a prohibited pesticide 

residue may not be a violation of the regulations, such as when the residue may be 

unavoidable in the environment. For example, the NOP has not specified that certifying 

agents must issue a notice of noncompliance for residue detections that are below 0.01 ppm. 

In the final document, the NOP does provide additional information on what 

noncompliances the certifying agent may consider when testing shows residues at or above 

0.01 ppm.

2) Action Threshold for Substances Lacking an EPA Tolerance. Commenters suggested 

that the action threshold for substances lacking an EPA tolerance should be relative to the 

FDA action level, rather than set at the action level. In response to this comment, USDA 

organic regulations do not specify regulatory authorities based on a percentage of an FDA 

action level as they do regarding an EPA tolerance. In addition, EPA tolerances and FDA 

action levels are established for specific commodities, and may vary from commodity to 

commodity. Therefore, NOP has not changed its instruction based on this comment.

3) Go Beyond Residues in Agricultural Products. One commenter stated that the guidance 

should extend to testing of plant tissue, soil, compost, inputs, water and feed and to testing 

for evidence of the use of excluded methods. The NOP believes these issues are outside the 

scope of this document which is targeted to what to do when certifying agents detect residues 

of prohibited pesticides on agricultural commodities. The NOP may consider additional 

guidance on other types of testing in the future.