United States Department Of Agriculture

Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS)

National Organic Program (NOP)

Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

November 29, 2011

Hilton Savannah DeSoto

15 East Liberty Street Savannah

Georgia 31401

The National Organic Standards Board convened at 8:00 a.m. with Tracy Miedema, Chairperson, 

presiding.

Members Present

Tracy Miedema, Chairperson

Colehour Bondera

Steve DeMuri

Joseph Dickson

Kristine “Tina” Ellor

Barry Flamm

John Foster

Wendy Fulwider

Katrina Heinze

Nicholas Maravell

Robert “Mac” Stone

Jennifer Taylor

C. Reuben Walker
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

Call to Order.................................................................................................................... 3

Secretary’s Report........................................................................................................... 9

NOSB Materials Review Process Update ....................................................................... 9

National Organic Program Report ................................................................................. 17

Classification of Materials.............................................................................................. 35

Break............................................................................................................................. 39

Public Comments .......................................................................................................... 40

Lunch .......................................................................................................................... 101

Public Comments (continued) ..................................................................................... 101

Break........................................................................................................................... 153

Public Comments (continued) ..................................................................................... 153

Recess ........................................................................................................................ 173
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

3

Tracy Miedema: Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call to order the meeting of the 

National Organic Standards Board Fall 2011 of the United States

Department of Agriculture. Welcome, esteemed colleagues and 

attendees. Thank you for coming to beautiful Savannah, Georgia for 

these four days of meeting on matters of great importance to organic. It's 

fantastic to be back in the south. I--both sides of my family are from the 

south and I have very, deep roots here. We do not shy away from a good, 

long meal and I hope all enjoy some of the great food and time to be with 

people around a table here in Savannah.

My name is Tracy Miedema. I am the chair of the National Organic 

Standards Board and this morning we'll cover, uh, our agenda, get set up 

for these four days and we will, uh, spend the majority of today hearing 

from you all, taking public comment. Just a couple remarks, uh, this is my 

last meeting as a member of the NOSB. And, uh, after five years naturally 

you reflect on how things have changed, issues that have been raised and 

continue on and--and the big conversation that we're all having here 

together and the wheel turns.

We started this a lot longer, uh, a l--a long time ago m--many, many years 

before any of us who are on the Board today took these chairs. And the 

conversation will continue beyond the meeting today. But we intend to 

make some great progress and do some good work. Uh, there are some 

very, important issues; there are materials that, uh, you know, peoples' 

lives are tied up in the outcomes of things that we will be discussing for 

these four days.

So I can't say enough, uh, thank you and we all, uh, really show our 

gratitude for taking time out of your busy lives to travel this great distance 

and join in the conversation. I'd also like to take just a couple minutes, uh, 

there are four of us who will be stepping off the Board after this meeting. 

And I just wanted to make a couple comments. My colleagues, they're, 

uh, first of all, Steve DeMuri, our Chair of the Handling Committee. This is 

also his fifth year.

Steve, it's just been an absolute pleasure to work with you and I know 

these, uh, this meeting will be no exception. Uh, a rock in a storm and 

someone who knows just the way to--to calm things down and--and really 

keep the work moving and really make, uh, make the work very enjoyable, 

too, all along the way.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

4

Katrina Heinze. Katrina has never shied away from some of the most 

thorny and I would dare say, arcane issues in Organic starting out very 

complicated shoes and making great progress that will affect the--the 

industry for going forward.

Tina Ellor, who is one of those leaders who is just quietly working away, 

getting it done and, uh, not making any fanfare, just working away, being, 

uh, a true leader behind the scenes all--all five years carrying the heavy 

load. And for--for all of my colleagues who are newer I would say, uh, it's-

-it's really been fun and it--I'm going to enjoy watching these next few 

years and seeing how your careers on the Board change and evolve.

And with that, let's, uh, let's let the magic begin here with our agenda for 

the fall 2011 meeting of the Board. We will first need to approve our 

agenda to get started. Any discussion of the agenda? Hearing--yes, call 

hour.

Male: Um, I just wanted to--sorry, I thought I had by pushing the button but 

apparently I needed to take my hand off. In any case, um, I just wanted 

to, uh, point to the section at the end, uh, entitled, “Other Business and 

Closing Remarks,” because it seems that the topic that was brought up at 

the end of the meeting in Seattle, um, in that section, uh, which was 

presented as a sense of the Board's statement on genetically engineered 

crops, um, I--I re--I would like request that we do, uh, agree that that will at 

minimum be discussed at that point in time, if it doesn't come up during 

any other of the discussions.

Tracy Miedema: That would be perfectly appropriate to bring up during other 

business. Thank you for noting that. Any other discussion of the agenda?

Steve DeMuri: Thank you. Um, the agenda that was originally posted on the 

USDA website showed that the Handling Committee would be considered 

in cooling at this meeting. Um, we are deferring that material at this time 

because we did not receive the, uh, TR in time to really take a good look 

at that material so even though it is showing up on the agenda we will not 

be discussing that at this meeting.

Tracy Miedema: Okay. John?

John Foster: Uh, on the Crops Committee, two changes: one, we, uh, are differing the 

discussion on, uh, ferric phosphate and also during the, uh, Crops 

Committee report we'll have a report from, um, on, uh, the Inerts activity 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

5

that's been going on. That'll be in the Crops portion, uh, instead of 

independent.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. So that Inerts presentation was scheduled to happen 

this morning and has been moved to the Crops Committee. I will make 

one announcement to Chairs; if you have in committee voted on any 

additional material or any edits to any of our recommendations since the 

time of posting I would ask that Chairs please make copies of any of those 

changed materials available to the public tomorrow morning before we 

begin. I know sometimes we, um, we do work between when the public 

comments come and when we sit down for our meeting because we're 

responsive to, uh, what we're hearing there so let's, um, let's give some 

visibility.

Now, if you have a draft let's n--let's not, uh, print those off because that's 

a work-in-progress. But if a committee has voted on a changed 

document, um, please, run off--let's, uh, make that 100 copies to have onhand for interested attendees and for other colleagues on the Board.

Any further discussion of the agenda? Do I have a motion to approve the 

agenda?

Female: I move.

Tracy Miedema: Have a second? It's been moved and seconded to approve the 

agenda. All in favor say aye. (all talking at once) We have an agenda. 

Okay. Let's make sure all the cell phones in the house are turned off or 

turn those ringers off. And as is customary here we take a moment and 

each introduce ourself, um, each of the members of the Board introduce 

themselves. Let's start out with Barry Flamm.

Barry Flamm: Good morning. I'm Barry Flamm from Montana. This is my fourth 

year on the Board. I serve on the--the Crops Committee and the, uh, uh, 

Certification Compliance Committee and, uh, I’m Chair of the Policy 

Committee and as I have been since almost day one here. I look forward 

to another great meeting today.

Jay Feldman: Good morning. Good morning. I'm Jay Feldman. My day job is as, 

uh, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides and I serve on the Crops

Committee, on the Policy Development Committee, on the Materials 

Committee and the Inerts Working Group.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

6

Steve DeMuri: Good morning, everybody. Steve DeMuri. I live in Carmichael, 

California and I share the Handling Committee for the NOSB, uh, a 

member of the Crops and Executive Committees. Um, for fun I work for 

Campbell Soup Company, the Mmm, Good Soup Company.

Um, this is my last meeting on the Board. It's been a great pleasure to be 

here. I've enjoyed every minute of it. It's been, uh, challenging and 

pleasurable at the same time. So I want to thank, uh, everybody here for 

working with me over these last five years and, uh, it's really gratifying to 

see all the people here like we always have at these meetings. It's, uh, 

unlike any board I've ever sat on before as far as interaction with the 

public so I really appreciate that.

And back to Tracy, I've greatly appreciated, uh, working with you and the 

other three of you that are going off the, uh, the Board this year. Um, 

you've been a great leader to us and appreciate all of your hard work.

C. Reuben Walker: Good morning. Uh, my name is C. Reuben Walker. At home my 

wife calls me Jack. I cannot mention the other part of that name. Uh, I am 

delighted to be a part of the NOSB Board. Uh, this is my second session 

as far as a public hearing. I'm fortunate to serve on the Policy Committee

as well as the Livestock Committee, the CACC and also I am on part of 

the, uh, Materials Committee as it relates to Aquaculture. Uh, certainly 

Steve, Tina--I'm like, uh, Rick Perry, I'm having a moment here. Uh, uh, 

uh--

Male: Tracy.

C. Reuben Walker: --Tracy for sure a--as well as, uh, Katrina. It certainly has been a 

pleasure, uh, for my short stay on the Board. And you all have definitely 

made, uh, my, uh, adjustment, uh, very good. So we'll c--we'll certainly 

miss you but we'll know we'll see you at all the other meetings. Thanks.

Katrina Heinze: Good morning. My name is Katrina Heinze. I fill the Scientist slot 

on the Board and, like Steve, this is my fifth and final year. Um, when I'm 

not doing NOSB I work for General Mills in our Small Plant Foods, uh, 

Division working on Cascade and Farm Muir Glen and Larabar. Um, my 

most important job is I am the mother of two, um, dedicated organic 

consumers. Um, let's see, I chair the Materials Committee and also sit on 

the Handling Committee.

For anyone who remembers five years ago when I joined I have been 

honored to serve on the NOSB, um, to meet the fabulous Board Members
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

7

and the folks in the public who have been so amazingly welcoming, um, 

and it has been a pleasure. Thank you.

Wendy Fulwider: I'm Wendy Fulwider from Wisconsin and I am the Livestock Chair

and a member of the Materials Committee. I am the Animal Care

Specialist at Crop Cooperative and I am also the owner of a certified 

organic farm a--where my son, Cody, will be marketing organic pork next 

year and selling organic milk in 2013.

Male: Great.

Joe Dickson: My name is Joe Dickson. I am the retailer slot on the National Organic 

Standards Board. Um, I am on the Policy Development Committee, the 

Livestock Committee, the Handling Committee and I chair the Compliance

Accreditation and Certification Committee and I'm the Vice-Chair of the 

Board. When I'm not on those committees I'm the Quality Standards 

Coordinator at Whole Foods Market. Um, I'm part of a group there that 

sets standards for the natural and organic products that we sell in our 

stores across the country.

John Foster: My name is John Foster. Um, I live in--mostly in Santa Cruz, California

and spend a great deal of time in Oregon also. Uh, I'm the Handling 

Representative, uh, along with Steve. It's been, uh, a pleasure and a 

privilege. Um, I, uh, this is the end of my second year. I am Vice-Chair of 

the Handling Committee, on the Materials Committee, CACC and Chair of 

the Crops Committee.

Um, I work for Earthbound Farm. I'm Director of Compliance for Quality, 

Food Safety and Organic Integrity. I've been there for about four years 

and, uh, to the four of you who are, uh, leaving the--the table, thank you 

very much for your time and your--your presence and your--your talents. 

It's been most appreciated. I'll miss them.

Nick Maravell: Hi, my name is Nick Maravell. For the past three decades I've been 

an organic farmer starting out in vegetables and now primarily in crops 

and livestock. I serve on the Handling and the Crops Committee and this 

is my first year. And, uh, I've been, uh, uh, very pleased to have been 

welcomed by the senior members of the Board and they are hopefully 

going to, um, uh, leave us, uh, but rejoin us, uh, uh, at our future 

meetings.

Robert Stone: My name is Mac Stone. I'm from Kentucky. I'm on the Certification 

Committee, Handling and Livestock. I farm with my wife and her family. 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

8

Um, they're, uh, Elmwood Stock Farm.com if you want to check it out. I 

also work for the Department of Agriculture, uh, in the Commissioner's 

Office there in Kentucky. And, again, I want to thank those before us and I 

hope we have a lot to learn from you all before you depart on Friday

afternoon. So, uh, thank you for all you've done and--and laying the 

groundwork for us to continue.

Jennifer Taylor: Good Morning. I'm Jennifer Taylor and, um, sorry, good mor--

Okay. It--How is that? Okay. I'm sorry. Good morning. I'm Jennifer 

Taylor and, uh, this is my second s--session serving on the Board. And I 

want to thank all of the outgoing members as well as those members that 

are remaining. I look forward to working with all of you. And, um, I serve 

on the Policy Committee as well as Co-Chair of the Materials Committee.

I, uh, at Florida A and M University I am Coordinator of Small Farm

Programs and I develop, um, education and hands-on training programs 

that focus on organic, uh, production systems.

Kristine Ellor:My name is Tina Ellor. I have, um, this is my final meeting and before I 

sat up here I sat out there for ten years s--or something, a really long time. 

So, you know, I'm hoping--and I always hope this, that I see some of you, 

you know, moving up here.

Um, right now I serve as Co-Chair of the Livestock Committee and the 

Crops Committee and I've passed the leadership of the Crops Committee

into very, capable hands, John, job well done. Um, I--I, along with Barry, 

serve in one of the Environmental Seats. Um, and I hope to be one of the 

ghosts of NOSB past sitting in the gallery here next time.

Colehour Bondera: Aloha, you all. Um, my name's Colehour Bondera and, um, yeah, I 

think that I really would like to thank not just the outgoing but the ongoing 

members of the NOSB but also the NOP for, uh, making this all flow. I am 

a organic producer from Hawaii, Honaunau, Hawaii, um, where my wife 

and children and I have a coffee and diversified ve--uh, both vegetable 

and fruit farm, um, which is very average in size for there, five acres so, 

um, what's considered very small around this part of the world.

In any case I serve on the Crops Committee. I serve on the Livestock

Committee and I also serve on the Policy Development Committee. And, 

uh, I think that, uh, all I can say to you all is aloha.

Tracy Miedema: And again, I'm Tracy Miedema. I am the Director of Product 

Innovation for the world's largest organic produce company. And we're 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

9

pretty proud at Earthbound Farm to be a very, large organic operation. 

Uh, I live in Oregon and I'm pleased to be the first Chair to ever have 

broken a gavel. Miles, thank you very much for replacing this and I will try 

not to break any gavels at this meeting.

All right. We're going to move along in the agenda here. Next up, uh, as 

is also customary we read in the, uh, NOSB mission, kind of set the tone 

here. N--a reminder, Congress created the NOSB so this mission 

statement is lifted right from the Organic Foods Production Act and it is, 

“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 this title.”

And with that we will proceed. Next up is the Secretary's Report. Madam 

Secretary, please, proceed.

Female: Colleagues and Chair, I would like to submit the April, 2011 meeting 

transcripts and voting results as into official record. They have been 

reviewed and resent to your email this morning.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion of the transcripts or voting record? Hearing none 

do I have a motion to accept these materials into record?

Female: I move.

Female: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: It's been moved and seconded to accept the transcript and voting 

record of April, 2011 from the Seattle meeting into public record. All in 

favor say, “Aye.” (all talking at once) . Opposed? Motion carries. Next 

up this morning is an NOSB Materials Review Process update from 

Katrina Heinze, Chair of the Materials Committee.

Katrina Heinze: Good morning. As is tradition, I get to do this early in the morning 

to help everyone wake up. Um, since I've been doing this now, this'll be 

my, uh, fourth meeting doing this I've, um, kept the presentation, um, I--

intact with all the, um, content but I'm gonna go pretty quickly through 

some of the basics since we covered that at the April meeting and, um, 

highlight, um, some topics that the Executive Committee asked me to 

highlight.

So stop me if you have questions or I'm breezing through something that 

you want to discuss a little bit more. Go ahead. Okay. So, um, do, uh, a 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

10

brief review of the national list, our review process, criteria for being on the 

National List. We'll talk a bit about the Sunset Review criteria, um, 

because of our recent policy change to allow annotation changes, um, 

then some notes in general on material review and I'll finish with an update 

for the public on, um, the petitioned materials that are, um, in process with 

the board and where we are with sunset review items.

Okay. Next. Next. Um, so just a reminder that there's six parts of the 

National List, um, two each for crops and livestock, um, which cover 

synthetics allowed and non-synthetics prohibited. Um, and then for 

handling there are non-agricultural, um, substances allowed, both 

synthetic and non-synthetic. Um, and then unique to handling is these 

non-organically produced, um, agricultural products allowed as 

ingredients, so 205606.

Um, the key difference between, um, crops and livestock and handling is 

that in handling any non-organic ingredient must be on the National List

for crops and livestock, um, non-synthetics are not on the list unless 

they're prohibited so that's an important difference. Okay. Go ahead.

Um, and then for 606, a reminder that, um, commercial availability applies 

so there's a second step in the certification process; just because it's on 

the national list doesn't mean that a handler gets to use it. Um, they have 

to go through a process with their certifier to demonstrat--strate that 

they've looked for and tried, um, organic alternatives. Next.

Okay. So the material review process, um, petitions are used to add new 

listings to the National List, change annotations or remove materials. Um, 

so as the list has evolved we're starting to see more petitions to remove or 

to change, um, um, annotations, which I think shows the ma--maturity of 

the List and our process. Next.

Um, our published minimum timeframe is 145 days. That is really, truly 

the minimum. Um, I tell everyone, “Assume much more than that," um, 

and that does not include time for rule making. And the timeframe is really 

dependant on, um, completeness of petitions. Um, we're finding more and 

more as our review, um, matures that petitions go back and forth between 

the Board and, um, petitioners sometimes a couple times, um, to get that 

to be sufficient.

And then there's always the manpower within a specific reviewing 

committee. I know recently with all the Sunset Reviews petitions had--had 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

11

to come second and so that timeframe has taken longer. Um, and then 

there's a timeframe relative to that and always be public meetings and 

then how long it takes for RTRs. Next.

Um, in general, uh, petitions come in, they go through an NOP review then 

they go to the Committee, um, for a sufficiency review and a request for a 

TR. Um, that's the kind of easy work but it can take a long time. Then 

there's the very, deep review which is that NOSB Committee 

recommendation. Once that Committee has reviewed and made a 

recommendation then it comes to the Board.

Um, and just a reminder that all communication, um, goes, um, through 

the NOP. Um, it shouldn't go directly to the NOSB and that's so 

everything is on the public record. Okay. Next.

Um, go ahead. So in general, um, our National List criteria, um, from the 

Federal Register, um, is really looking for impacts of substances on, um, 

the environment, human health, um, interactions with the, uh, ecosystem 

and whether there are alternatives. Um, so I won't read the details but just 

a reminder that we have very, um, specific criteria for evaluating materials. 

Next.

Um, similarly for processing aids or adjuvants, um, we have different 

criteria that apply. Um, so for example, can't be d--produced from a 

natural source, there isn't an organic, uh, substitute, um, there aren't 

adverse effects on the environment, um, nutritional quality of food is 

maintained, um, very importantly, the substance has to be, uh, generally 

recognized as safe, um, and used in, um, accordance with the good 

manufacturing practices. Next.

And then, um, different criteria for 205606, um, so here we're really 

looking for why is the, um, is an organic alternative not available in either 

the right form, quality or quantity? And this can get, uh, very complicated 

because of supply streams, um, modes of use, variety of uses, um, and so 

there's, uh, different criteria here. Next.

Okay. Sunset Review, um, so I'm gonna spend a little bit more time on 

sunset because we did get a little bit twisted around on it in April, um, just 

'cause it was the first time we had annotation changes.

So, um, OFPA requires that, um, these exceptions to the rules, so the 

National List, everything has to be reviewed every five years. Um, and 

these exceptions, so the National List, things are put on the National List 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

12

because the evidence available showed that the material was not found to 

be not harmful to human health or the environment, the mat--use of the 

material was necessary because of the unavailability of wholly nonsynthetic alternatives and use of the material was consistent and 

compatible with organic practices.

So these materials are on the list because a prior Board evaluated the 

material given all the information that they had and we are reviewing it to 

make sure that nothing has changed. Next.

So Sunset is our opportunity to revisit the continued need for that 

exception. So it's our time to determine if conditions relevant to 

acceptance of the exception have changed. Um, and what our policy says 

is, “If a review finds that the initial conditions still exist then the listing is 

renewed for an additional period of time.”

Sunset Review is not a time to add new substances to the National List. 

Um, so there's been some discussion around that, around annotations. 

Um, Sunset is not a time to broaden the use of a material through change 

of annotation. Um, and it's not the time to reinterpret unchanged 

information and conditions. Um, and we had some discussion about that, 

um, at our April meeting. It's a v--um, gonna be very important for us to 

assess whether information is really new or whether we're looking at it 

through a difference lens and those are different things.

Um, and so it'll be very important to go back into the historical record and 

understand, um, everything that prior Boards considered and sometimes 

that can be hard 'cause that documentation isn't as available as we would 

always like. Um, and then on this slide I've, um, provided some resources 

of the, um, federal dockets related to Sunset. Next slide.

Um, so I wanted to highlight, um, from our, uh, recommendation our policy 

recommendation, um, some of the process highlights. And we're still, um, 

getting wrapped up on this one a little bit. Um, so when we're doing a 

Sunset Review we can take up and change to the annotation, um, if we do 

it with two votes.

And the reason for the two votes is one, to change the annotation but 

another to relist as is. And this is to provide the NOP with flexibility should 

the annotation change prove to be, um, more material than expected and 

be difficult to get through rule-making. 'Cause remember, if we do not 

vote to relist as is that material will come off the National List and will not 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

13

be a tool available to our producers. So it's very, very important for us to 

understand this part. And we heard a lot of concerns about that from the 

public at our, um, April meeting.

So just, um, what I did in preparation for this meeting--next slide--is I 

reviewed the, um, transcripts from the April meeting 'cause we had a lot of 

very, rich discussion about this.

Um, and if you have questions I w--I would encourage folks to go back 

and do that, as well. Um, so s--some of the--kind of my summary of what 

we heard from the public and what we discussed as a Board, um, some 

things for us to consider as we look at annotation changes remember that

use of a material on the National List i--is allowed only in context of the 

entire rule.

So some examples would be, you know, OSPs for producers require a lot 

of other practices before someone gets to material use. They have to use 

cultural, physical, mechanical methods and then use the material. So just 

because something's on the list doesn't mean it's gonna be the first tool of 

choice, um, for a producer or handler. And we need to consider that and 

not, um, it--and just be aware of that as--as we look at how a material is 

used.

Similarly, remember that we have certifiers. They are a very, very 

important and critical part of this process. And a lot of the determination of 

whether a producer or handler is gonna use a material happens in that in--

that one-on-one conversation between their certifier, the OSP and the 

producer or handler.

Um, so for example, for materials in 205605 certifiers verify that 

ingredients are produced without the use of excluded methods so that 

doesn't need to be in the annotation because that's already covered in the 

entirety of the rule so that's one thing for us to consider and be thoughtful 

of. Um, the other thing that we heard a lot of public comment about was 

this idea of force of evidence. We have mail. Um, what our policy 

recommendation on annotation said is that we will change annotations 

only when supported by the force of evidence.

So we said that they had to be supported by technical reviews and/or 

public comment and we said it was not the time to reinterpret unchanged 

information or conditions. So we had to have evidence that was not 

originally considered by NOSB. And this is gonna be tricky. Um, what did 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

14

they know, what didn't they know, what was available? But we should 

have good, healthy debate about this.

Um, and then a final thought that we heard a lot of public comment on is, 

remember, materials that come off the National List during the Sunset

process are tools currently in use in the organic industry, tools that our 

producers, our farmers have said they need and are using? So we need 

to be very, um, thoughtful, and this is why force of evidence was so 

important about taking that tool away or limiting how that tool is used 

'cause there may be a lot of uses with which we're not aware.

So we heard public comment on if you're saying there's alternatives are 

these viable alternatives or are these alternatives being--that have been 

used in a test plot? We need to make sure that we're giving our farmers a 

tool they can actually use tomorrow if we take something off the list.

And then my final thought is, remember Sunset isn't the only time the 

Board can change annotations. We can change annotations whenever we 

want and we have a precedent of doing that. So if we get new information 

we can do that through a annotation change recommendation; we don't 

have to do it at Sunset. The danger of changing annotations during 

Sunset is, um, not being able to get that through rule-making and having 

something come off the List prematurely, um, without an alternative 

available, um, for our producers.

Any thoughts or comments on that? Okay. Enough about Sunset. Going 

on. Um, then, um, some other things, um, that have been, um, standard 

for the materials presentation is just a reminder to all the committees, um, 

that we make all our motions in the affirmative, um, not the nonaffirmative. So even if a committee is recommending that something not 

be listed we recommend that it be listed and then that recommendation 

fails at the committee.

So as you're reading committee recommendations pay attention to the 

votes. We do that so that--and I have an example up here that I used 

from last time on Google Rocks, um, but if we make a recommendation 

that Google Rocks not be listed and that fails then we're a bit in a death 

spiral because then it failed not being listed but we don't have a 

recommendation to list it so we get all twisted around. So that's the 

reason, so just a reminder. Next slide.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

15

Okay. Next Slide. Um, the program, um, asked me to give an, uh, update 

on TRs. We have had a hu--a very large increase in the number of 

petitions that we've received in the last four or five months, more than 

we've had since I've been Chair of the Materials Committee. Um, so just a 

request to committees that you be thoughtful around TRs.

Resources for doing TRs is not unlimited. Um, the four of us leaving the 

Board, um, in January will tell you when we started there were zero 

resources for TRs. Um, so it is not unlimited. We have the great fortune 

right now of being at a time when we can get TRs for everything we need. 

Um, but that capacity will run out. Um, so given all the petitions under 

review, um, it's very important that as committees, uh, think about their TR 

requests and think about their work plans that you're thinking about TRs 

and prioritizing getting TRs for the materials that are most important.

So some things that you could consider are, are there TRs already 

available? It--can you get the information with the huge, um, database 

that we have already? Um, is--what new information do we believe is 

available? Can we ask for a, um, TR that's just focused on that topic, um, 

so that we're using those resources wisely. Um, and does a material need 

a new TR every time? So how often do you need a mater--a TR for that 

specifical material? And it will vary depending on the material, but just a 

request from the program to start thinking about that as you plan your 

work plans for the Spring. Next slide.

Um, and then finally, just a reminder that, um, our practice is for, um, 

certain people on a committee to review a material and to advocate for 

that material. That may or may not represent their, um, specific 

perspective but they're representing the debate that that committee had, 

um, and to--to be respectful of that. Okay. Next.

Okay. Moving on to the meat. So what materials do we have in front of 

us today? Um, as I said, we're getting more petitions. Um, so we've had, 

um, a number in crops so at this meeting crops is handling ammonium 

non--nono--I'm not gonna get that this morning--nanoate, thank you, 

indole-3-butyric acid, propane and some Sunset listings. Um, they've 

also--have a petition to remove ferric phosphate.

Um, we've list--they've received petitions, uh, to add a couple substances. 

Um, and they have, uh, request--have one TR request in the works and 

then some petitions for inert ingredients. Next slide.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

16

Um, Livestock has no materials, um, h--being handled at this meeting. 

They do have a petition to amend the annotation for Methionine. Um, they 

have a petition to add pelargonic acid. I'm gonna cheat, um, and have 

requested some, uh, technical reports specifically for, uh, vaccines from 

GMOs, methionine and nonanoic acid. Okay.

Handling. Um, Handling has a number of materials, um, that, uh, they are 

hand--um, dealing with at this meeting. Um, we also have a petition to 

remove tartaric acid. Um, tartaric is being reviewed for Sunset at this 

meeting so we'll have some discussion, um, on that petition to remove. 

We received the petition to remove right as we are finalizing the 

recommendation so, um, we'll make sure that we at least discuss anything 

material from the petition during the Sunset Review.

Um, and then we have one petition that we've sent back to a petitioner 

and are waiting for a response and that's for a caramunch malt. Next 

slide. Um, you'll see Handling has just a load of materials that have been 

petitioned, um, for both 605 and 606. And they are, um, trying to prioritize 

all of these. Obviously they cannot review all of these before the April

meeting. Um, so they're going to be, uh, prioritizing the nutrient petitions, 

um, given the discussions that happened at the last meeting on nutrient 

vitamins and minerals. Okay. Next slide.

Um, and then just, uh, a reminder about Sunset. We're in, uh, a bit of a 

nice spot on Sunset having come out of a heavy, heavy period. Um, so 

Crops and Handling have, um, some Sunset 2013 for this meeting and 

then a couple for the Spring meeting. Uh, no Sunset 2014 so for those of 

you remaining on the Board enjoy that lull, uh, 'cause then it starts heating 

up again. And it's really that 2017 that you're gonna get nailed again.

So if you're new on the Board, um, that will come around. I got to go 

through Sunset twice and so I think those of you who, um, this is your first 

year will get to go through Sunset 2012 twice. Next. That's it. Any 

questions?

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Madam Chair Katrina. As for materials, this speaks 

most directly to our statutory authority as a Board. We're keepers of the 

National List and we need to take this portion of our work very seriously, 

really do our homework here. When we weigh in on subject matters 

outside of material what we're really doing is giving some direction and 

some contour to the discussion and we're creating a forum for you all to 

weigh in and for feedback to be provided by the NOP.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

17

But there's only a few FECA boards that statutory authority in any sense at 

all and the NOSB is one of them and that was, again, uh, really created by 

Congress. Next up is Deputy Administrator Miles McEvoy of the National 

Organic Program.

Miles McEvoy: Good morning. Mic's on. No? Mic is not on. Okay. Good. Uh, 

good morning. It's great to be here in Savannah. I think this is the first, 

uh, National Organic Standards Board Meeting in Georgia so, uh, it's great 

to have a board meeting in the South. I think it's the--only the second time 

that the Board has met in the South. I think it met in Florida, uh, one time 

in--in the 90s so, um, trying to move the Board Meeting around, uh, all 

over the country and, uh, be able to hear from all the public from various 

parts of the country.

So great to be here. Um, and there's a lot of things to cover this morning 

so I'll just get started. Um, first of all, I'd like to introduce the NOP staff 

that are here today, uh, really, um, amazing staff that we have working for 

the program. Uh, we've had some additional resources over the last 

couple of years that have been very beneficial to--to bring in new people 

to the program and to have a lot more resources to get the work done.

Uh, first off, uh, Lorraine Coke, uh, is the, uh, sitting in as the Advisory

Board Specialist, um, previously termed the Executive Director for the 

National Organic Standards Board. So she's gonna be the one that's 

handling all the public comment if you have any questions about your 

scheduling, uh, contact Lorraine Coke. Um, Lorraine grew--grew up on a 

organic farm in California, has been with the program for a couple of years 

now, Um, and she's on a detailed position to fill in--in that position, uh, 

from the Compliance and Enforcement Division.

Uh, we just posted the position description for the Advisory Board

Specialist to, uh, um, for the position that Lorraine is currently filling, uh, so 

anybody's that's interested in working for the program be, uh, certainly, uh, 

think about that particular position. We're looking for great people to work

for the program.

Uh, next we have Lisa Ahromjian, uh, who, uh, previously was the, uh, 

Advisory Board Specialist/Executive Director for the Board. Uh, Lisa has 

moved into a Communication Specialist position for the Program, uh, so 

she handles the website and--and publications for the program and make 

sure that they're in good order.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

18

And next we have Dr. Brines, who will be speaking after me about the 

classification of materials, our project on that. Uh, uh, Dr. Brines is our 

National List Coordinator, uh, is from, uh, the great state of Washington

and, uh, uh, been with the Program for a couple of years now, as well.

And then, uh, Emily Brown-Rosen with the Standards Division is here. 

She's kind of our, uh, historical reference on all things NOSB, um, been 

with the Program for a couple years, brings a wealth of knowledge and 

experience on standards to, uh, to the Program. So tho--those are the 

resources that we have here today. And then there's a whole bunch of 

people back in--in D.C. that are also, uh, continuing to do the work of the 

Program to protect organic integrity.

Um, i--in particular I just want to--there--there has been some 

management changes in the Program. We have a new Associate Deputy 

Administrator, Jenny Tucker, who started in August. Um, so she's the--the 

second in command in the Program at this point, uh, doing a wonderful 

job. Ruihong Guo was the Associate Deputy Administrator and, uh, she 

has, uh, been promoted to being the Associate Administrator within the 

Agricultural Marketing Service so she's gotten a big promotion. We'll be 

missing her greatly but working with her, uh, very closely in her new role.

Um, so let's see, I guess I have control here. No. Do I have control here? 

Left. Nope. Okay. Can you, please, move that forward for me? Thank 

you.

Um, so I'd just like to, uh, recognize the public service of the National 

Organic Standards Board members that are leaving the Board. Their five 

years of public service, uh, they have contributed so much, uh, of their 

time and energy, uh, and their thoughts and experience and expertise to 

the organic community and I th--uh, for, uh, Steve DeMuri, Tina Ellor, 

Katrina Heinze and Tracy Miedema, um, thank you so much from USDA, 

uh, for all your service and I think they deserve a big round of applause. 

(applause)

Next slide. Um, the first thing I want to talk about is a USDA Organic

listening session. We had, uh, uh, a listening session, uh, next slide, in 

September, uh, of this year. Uh, some of the ideas that were expressed at 

the last meeting in--in April of 2011 were directed toward the Program

rather than to the Board. And so the Program, uh, w--uh, i--in conjunction 

with the, uh, USDA Organic Working Group, uh, sponsored a listening 

session so that the public could provide specific input to the program and 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

19

to USDA programs as a whole and how we're doing on, uh, supporting 

organic agriculture.

So we, um, the--the goal was to get public, uh, feedback on USDA 

activities and priorities related to organic agriculture. We had that session 

in September, uh, and--and I want to cover a few of the things that we 

heard and the things that we're doing, uh, based on the public input that 

we received. Next slide.

So first of all there was, uh, a number of comments about the coordination 

of research needs, uh, within the US--within USDA research agencies. 

Uh, so there was a lot of requests that--that there is better coordination 

and better support for especially the work of the NOP in ter--technical 

reports in particular. Uh, and, uh, happy to announce that there was a 

$475,000 grant given to Oregon State University to look specifically for,

uh, alternative, uh, control treatments for fire blight in organic apple and 

pear production.

So that's--already we're seeing some, uh, s--some results from our, uh, 

our requests to, uh, NIFA and to ARS to--to look at specific ways of how 

they can do research to support the work of the Board and the organic 

community.

And we'll continue to provide input, uh, look for input from the organic 

community and from the National Organics Standards Board for research 

priorities so we can get that information to ARS and other, uh, USDA 

research, uh, entities so that, uh, research can be done that supports the 

work of the organic community. Next slide.

Another comment was that, uh, USDA service providers, there are 

120,000 USDA employees, uh, around the world. Uh, they're in basically 

every county in the United States. There is a USDA office that su--

supplies support to, uh, American farmers and a lot of them do not have 

very, good information about, uh, organic agriculture. So we have a, uh, 

a--an effort that we're funding, uh, to, um, provide organic literacy training 

to all USDA employees, especially the field offices about the National 

Organic Program, about the Cost Share Program and about opportunities 

in organic agriculture. Uh, so that project is--is underway.

Next slide, uh, there were, uh, requests at the listings session, we've 

heard this before, about NOP 2607 instructions for disclosure of 

information concerning USDA Certified Organic Operations. Uh, we've 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

20

received a number of comments on that and we have listened to those 

comments and revised that instruction, uh, to incorporate those 

comments. And that was, uh, published on Wednesday of last week so 

that, uh, instruction document has been changed based on those 

comments. Next slide.

Uh, a lot of comments about continual, um, efforts that--to bring more 

consistency in terms of the interpretation and implementation of the USDA 

organic regulations. This is certainly a very, high priority for the Program

to bring more consistency in the, um, implementation of the--of the 

regulations.

So we have new training modules that we will be presenting in January in 

San Antonio on labeling, accreditation criteria, adverse action procedures 

and GMO policy. Uh, we have additional guidance that's under 

development and then we're issuing, uh, more frequently noncompliance 

notices to accredited certifying agents on a number of different items to 

also it--it--there's--there's the training aspect but also there's the auditing 

aspect of holding the certifiers accountable to--to make sure that they're 

consistent in their, um, implementation of the rules.

So some of those things that we've been issuing noncompliance notices 

on are improper compliance procedures, uh, inadequate review of organic 

system plans, uh, inconsistent application of the USDA Organic

Regulations. Next slide.

Uh, comments were, uh, uh, some concerns about the, um, the increased 

regulatory burden and the costs of the new efforts to protect organic 

integrity. Uh, I think this is very important for the Program and also the 

Board to consider that, um, in our efforts to, uh, make a better system we 

have to be very cautious that we don't make the cost and especially the 

record-keeping and the documentation costs, uh, so burdensome that it, 

uh, scares people away from being certified and being part of the process.

So, uh, one of the things that we're doing is that, uh, in our training and in 

our auditing is making sure that the record-keeping requirements, they 

certainly have to be adequate but they also need to be reasonable. Uh, 

we don't want certifiers requesting information that's not necessary for 

them to have. Uh, it doesn't serve anybody's purpose so it's an audit; it's 

not, um, a--a copy of every, single document that the operation has.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

21

And then also working on standardizing organic system plans, inspection 

reports and procedures to hopefully reduce redundancy and it's--and 

streamline the process. Um, the next comment was, uh, the importance of 

the organic certification cost share program. Uh, USDA certainly supports 

the, uh, continued funding of the organic certification cost share program. 

Uh, it's very important. We s--see that as ver--being very important to 

especially small and beginning, uh, processors and, um, producers.

We've worked with states to expand the utilization of the cost share 

programs and in 2010 we saw 15 percent increase in the utilization of cost 

share funds, uh, partially through those efforts.

Uh, we also heard comments on, uh, consideration of compensation for 

damages from GE crops and wanted to see greater efforts by USDA to 

protect organic farmers from GE contamination. Uh, I can assure you that 

Secretary Vilsack understands the concerns of the organic community 

around GE contamination. Uh, he appointed the Advisory Committee on 

Biotechnology for 21st Century Agriculture or called AC21 and he charged 

that Committee in the first meeting in August of, uh, this year, uh, with 

suggesting possible compensation mechanisms to mitigate the impact of 

unintended GE presence in organic and non-GE crops.

The next meeting of that Board, it is in fact a Board, it is, um, c--

constituted similar to, uh, the National Organics Standards Board, can, uh, 

there are a number of organic community members as a part of that 

Board. Their next meeting is next week in Washington, D.C., uh, 

December 6 and 7 so it's open to the public if anybody's interested in that 

particular topic.

Uh, we also heard, uh, continued support for USDA efforts to provide 

access to foreign or--foreign organic markets through, uh, trade ar--

agreements. Uh, the US/Canada Organic Equivalency Arrangement

continues to work well. It, uh, reduces costs and paperwork for organic 

producers and handlers. So we--we continue to support that effort and--

and try to work out the--the bugs in that particular, uh, arrangement. Uh, 

and we're working on ways of reducing or eliminating the critical variances 

that are part of that arrangement.

And we're also very optimistic that--about the prospect of an equivalency 

arrangement with the European Union, uh, and we will pursue other 

equivalency arrangements or other, uh, trade arrangements, uh, to--that 

support market access for US organic products. But also we want to 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

22

make sure that as we do that that we protect organic integrity, that we 

don't, um, we don't compromise on the standards and we don't 

compromise on the--the, uh, the integrity, the oversight of the--the process 

to ensure that products coming into this--into the U.S. meet, uh, meet the 

standards in the U.S.

So, uh, in summary, the--the priorities for the program, uh, protect organic 

integrity each and every day, uh, implement NOSB recommendations. 

We made a lot of progress there but we still have a lot of work to do. Uh, 

priority is to develop a real-time database of organic operations. We'll be 

putting significant efforts into that this year. Uh, we continue to implement 

the Quality Management System, that takes continual work as we, uh, 

work to, uh, have the program completely aligned with ISO1711.

Uh, support consistent and fair implementation of the USDA organic 

regulations, making sure that certifiers are, uh, implementing the, uh, the 

standards consistently and fairly. And then, um, streamlining the process 

for handling complaints and appeals, getting better at that process and--

and making sure we have an effective, uh, compliance and enforcement 

program.

So a little overview of audits and, um, other related activities. As you 

know, we had, uh, an audit by the office of Inspector General that had, uh, 

a report in March of 2010, uh, that was a very, broad scope audit of the 

Program, looked at, uh, uh, the whole--every aspect of the Program 

especially around compliance and enforcement over f--oversight of 

certifying agents and state organic programs and seeing whether or not 

the program met the statutory requirements under the Organic Food 

Production Act.

Next slide, um, so the--the findings included complaint processing and 

enforcement needs, needs to be more timely and robust. So we 

strengthened impor--enforcement procedures, we are now utilizing civil 

penalties for willful violations. The second finding was inadequate 

oversight of the California's state organic program. We have audited, uh, 

and, uh, California has taken corrective actions to, uh, to their program 

and they have been implemented and we'll continue to have oversight 

over that program to ensure that they are implementing that effectively.

Uh, the third finding was that periodic residue testing as required by the 

Organic Food Production Act was not implemented. We have a proposed 

rule that is published and a final rule that we expect to be out next year. 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

23

Uh, peer review of the NOP accreditation was not performed. We have 

conducted the, uh, assessment by the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology and we're--we have corrective actions that are in process.

Um, they found inconsistent program requirements, kind of similar to what 

we heard from the USDA Listing session, concerns about inconsistency 

and the--and program requirements. So efforts in that area are the Quality

Manual, the Program Handbook, Strategic Plan, the Pasture rule. We 

have nine new draft guidance documents and seven new final guidance 

documents and lots more work to do in that area.

And then audits of foreign certifiers were not conducted. Uh, the audits 

have been conducted of all foreign certifiers at this point and we have 

increased oversight of both domestic and foreign certifying agents.

So we have another audit that is underway, um, on organic milk, evalu--

evaluating whether, uh, milk marketed as organic meets the NOP 

requirements. Uh, phase one of this, uh, organic milk audit is, uh, almost 

complete. The report on that will be out sometime this winter. Uh, and 

then we'll be taking corrective actions based on that. Uh, the--the findings 

of--of phase one, uh, were, uh, s--substantial enough that they are 

actually, uh, expanding the scope of that audit to make it a nationwide and 

phase two of that, uh, will be occurring in 2012.

Uh, then we have a third audit by the office of Inspector General that just 

started and that's on the National List and the National Organic Standards 

Board. Uh, and that's evaluating the process for adding substances to the 

National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. So we have a lot of 

attention to the program. It feels to me a little bit too much attention, um, 

but, uh, uh, it--it all--it, you know, I guess it makes us stronger. Um, it'll

make us better.

Uh, so, um, anyway w--it's--it's, uh, a important part of the process. Uh, 

next slide, we just--as I said we have had the assessment conducted by 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This is a requirement, 

a peer review requirement under Organic Food Production Act and the 

NOP regulations. Um, the March, uh, OIG audit also brought this up that 

this was not occurring so we had the first phase of this was completed in 

July. They had 28 findings and four observations and the corrective 

actions of the program is--is implementing at the current time.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

24

Overall, uh, a very, brief summary of the findings were that NOP is 

designed to fulfill the requirements of the USDA organic regulations. NOP 

documentation is organized in accordance with tho--these requirements. 

Uh, the ISO/IEC 17011 elements not required in the USDA organic 

regulations are not always thoroughly presented in the documentation. So 

this is where we have a lot of our corrective actions, is to take, um, to take 

the regulations and--and expand them to make them fully aligned with ISO 

17011.

And then, uh, they also noted that our cooperation and timeliness allowed 

for an efficient and thorough document review. So they s--they had some 

nice things to say. Um, so what we've done is that we have now a revised 

work agreement with our NOP auditors. Uh, we've, uh, updated the 

website to better communicate information on certification, accreditation 

and related activities. That was one of their findings that needed to occur. 

Uh, there would be continued efforts in that area to provide better 

information about accreditation and certification on the website.

And we're drafting proposed regulation to remove the FACA requirement 

that's related to accreditation, uh, from the, uh, the NOP regulations. And 

we're improving our document and record control procedures.

Uh, okay. And update on the Program and related activities. 

Accreditation program, uh, we've, uh, uh, improved the accreditation 

process from implementation of our Quality Management System and, uh, 

the aligning of it with ISO 17011 i--is certainly helping, uh, helping our 

process and making our process better.

Uh, we've revised the audit checklist that are done--that are utilized for 

conducting the audits of accredited certifiers, uh, and they're aligned now 

with the accreditation and certification sections of the regulations. And 

then, uh, 2012 is a huge audit year for the Program. Uh, this is the tenyear renewal cycle for a vast majority of the accredited certifiers. So we'll 

have--be conducting lots of audits this year.

Uh, the audits will focus on the pasture rule implementation, uh, grower 

group certification, especially for foreign certifying agents, um, materials 

review and approval process, um, conflict of interest and certifier 

compliance procedures. In terms of standards, uh, an overview of our 

accomplishments over the last fiscal year and what we're, uh, planning on 

doing for 2012.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

25

Uh, in terms of practice standard accomplishments we had the proposed 

rule out on periodic residue testing. Uh, we have a final rule/comment 

discussion on the access to pasture for ruminant slaughter stock that 

came out last year.

Uh, in terms of the National List we had final rules for, um, aqueous 

potassium silicate, sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate, gelam gum, 

tragacanth gum, fortified cooking wines, a final rule on methionine, a 

proposed rule on lecithin, cheese wax, acidified sodium chlorite, dried 

orange pulp, Pacific kombu seaweed, a proposed rule for fenbendazole 

and moxidectin, a proposed rule for tetracycline, formic acid and 

attapulgate, proposed and final rules for Sunset 2011 and an ad--

advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for Sunset 23--2013.

So there's a lot of work to do, uh, on the National List dockets, uh, that are 

based on the recommendations coming out of the National Organic 

Standards Board. Uh, in terms of guidance, again this is, uh, mostly 

implementing NOSB recommendations.

We have draft and final guidance for wild crops, commingling, compost 

and chlorine, uh, draft guidance for w--for made with organic products, 

ingredients and labeling, uh, draft guidance on seeds, uh, including the 

commercial availability, livestock feed additives, kelp and responding to 

positive residue testing results. And we published the second edition of 

the Program Handbook, uh, which include the policy memo updates. And 

then we, uh, put out residue testing instructions, uh, policy memos on 

GMOs and textile labeling.

So many, different documents, again still a lot to do but we're trying to get-

-get, uh, a--as much of this implemented as possible. For 2012 in terms of 

practice standards we should have a final rule out on residue testing, a 

proposed rule out on organic pet food standards, a proposed rule on 

removing the FACA requirements from 205.509 and a proposed rule on, 

um, on origin of livestock.

Uh, we hired, uh, a person in September, um, that, uh, comes from, um, 

uh, has a, uh, a Ph.D. in Animal Livestock or--or some--some kind of 

livestock animal thing, um, and he's, uh, he's, uh, diving right into origin of 

livestock and, uh, we shou--we should be able to see that proposed rule 

out next year. I know a lot of people are concerned about that.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

26

Um, in terms of National List we should have a final rule out on 

fenbendazole and moxidectin, final rule on the lecithin, cheese wax and 

other substances, a final rule on tetracycline, formic acid and attapulgite, a 

proposed rule for methionine and a proposed and final rule for Sunset

2012. So a lot to do there on National List.

And then for guidance, uh, we should have final guidance on, uh, “made 

with organic" products, uh, final guidance on seeds, uh, livestock feed 

additives, kelp and responding to po--positive residue testing results. And 

then draft guidance, uh, we're expecting these to be out, uh, sometime in 

the near future: certification of handlers of bulk organic products, that was 

a NOSB recommendation from fairly recently that that--that should be out 

fairly soon, uh, draft guidance on post-harvest materials, uh, draft 

guidance on classification of materials that, uh, Dr. Brines will cover in just 

a minute and draft guidance on organic seafood and aquaculture labeling, 

uh, should be out early next year, as well.

And there's many other things to do that are kind of on the list but we're 

not sure if we'll be able to get these published next year: injectable trace 

minerals, vitamins and electrolytes are on the list, chlorhexidine, xylazine, 

excipients, um, all NOSB recommendations that, uh, we know we have to 

get working on.

Uh, and then in terms of practice standards we've done some work on 

mushrooms, greenhouses, apiculture, um, and we also have aquatic 

animals and outdoor access for poultry that, uh, are practice standards 

that, uh, we need to find the resources and--and get the--the work done on 

those, as well.

Um, moving on from standards to appeals, this is one of our priority areas 

to make some improvements in this area under the Organic Food Produ--

Production Act in section 2121. It states that, “the Secretary shall 

establish expedited administrative appeals process.” Um, it hasn't been 

very expedited over the last few years. In 2009 the average timeline for 

appeal decisions was two years. Um, so we have a new initiative, uh, to 

reduce the appeals the time.

We've directed more resources to appeals. Uh, we've put more staff into 

the appeals, NOP appeals, and we have more staff now on the Office of 

General Counsel to work, uh, work on legal issues for the Program

including appeals. Uh, the other thing that appeals are doing is they're 

doing an early analysis on those appeal cases to determine whether or not 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

27

a settlement is an option rather than going through the whole process of, 

uh, uh, of a denial or sustaining of the appeal.

And currently we've made some progress, almost all the 2010 appeals are 

closed. Uh, the goal is to close appeals within 90 to 180 days of appeal 

filing, Uh, in 2012. So we're looking at significant, uh, improvements in 

that area.

Moving on to complaint management, um, since October 2010, last fiscal 

year, uh, we have commenced investigated activities on 180 complaints; 

that's a 15 percent increase from the previous fiscal year. We closed 128 

complaints; that's a 20 percent increase from, uh, 2010. And we achieved 

an average 177-day, uh, time fro--for complaint closures.

Uh, we've issued ten civil penalties through settlement agreements for 

willful violations of the regulations. And we've implemented enforcement 

action procedures for publishing notices of fraudulent certificates. We've 

issued three notices on fraudulent certificates. These are mostly, uh, well, 

they all are international operators that are misrepresenting products as 

certified organic through falsifying NOP certificates.

Uh, our priorities in this area for 2012 is to develop, uh, develop a formal 

scoring matrix and publish guidance to ensure consistency and fairness in 

civil penalties and other enforcement actions. Uh, we'll be working with 

AMS and USDA stakeholders to improve the timeliness and the tracking of 

post-decision activities including civil penalty, uh, collections.

Uh, we'll continue to refine case management procedures to reduce the 

time to closure while maintaining investigative rigor and developing tools 

to point, uh, non-certified violators of the regulations to the path of 

certification so that they can become part of the community. 'Cause a lot 

of the complaints that we get are f--about non-certified operations and 

sometimes it's just a misunderstanding of what's required. And rather 

than, um, penalizing them we'd like them, uh, join the community and be 

part of the certification, um, world.

Okay. Now, onto the National Organic Standards Board, um, we, uh, s--

sent a memo to the Board in August, uh, our response to the, uh, the great 

work that the Board did in Seattle in April. I just wanted to highlight a 

couple of things from that, uh, that memo, um, Sunset 2012 included 

some annotation changes.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

28

This is the first time that NOP is changing annotations during Sunset. Uh, 

it's bringing up lots of questions during the clearance process, um, but 

we're working through it. It--it's going, uh, relatively well. We have to 

answer some additional questions 'cause this is a new process for us. Uh, 

but we think that it--it is gonna work to get these, um, uh, Sunset 2012 

published with the requested annotations that the--that the Board has 

made.

Uh, we also notified the Board that, um, we are proposing to amend the 

nutrient vitamins and minerals annotation, uh, so that, uh, infant formula, 

uh, can continue to be utilized with, um, with the essential, uh, vitamins 

and minerals, uh, as per the 1995 NOSB recommendation so we're 

moving forward on that.

And then, uh, secondly there's been some questions about the corn steep 

liquor, uh, vote. Uh, the--the Program has stated that the Board did not 

make a decisive vote on corn steep liquor, um, that, uh, in order to have a 

decisive vote you have to have two-thirds of the members, uh, uh, vote in, 

uh, i--to--to pass a decisive vote. And so, um, the Board did not decide 

whether corn steep liquor is a natural or synthetic and therefore corn steep 

liquor retains its status as a no--as a non-synthetic, as a natural substance 

as certifiers, as, um, the trade accepted for many years.

Now, we could think about a--another situation where, uh, something that 

was considered by the Program to be a synthetic for many years also 

went to the Board and the Board did not have a decisive vote. So, for 

instance, if you think of biodegradable plastic mulch, the Program believes 

that that's a synthetic. Uh, the organic community does not allow 

biodegradable plastic mulch to be utilized as a non-synthetic. If that came 

to the Board and the Board failed to make a decisive vote the Program 

would retain the status of biodegradable plastic mulch as a synthetic and it 

would continue to not be allowed.

And it's only because corn steep liquor has been historically allowed in 

organic agriculture, um, that the Program is retaining its status as a nonsynthetic since the Board did not make a decisive vote.

Um, okay. And, uh, we also just issued, uh, a memo on "other

ingredients," um, requesting the--the Board to clarify, uh, "other 

ingredients" in processed, organic products. Next slide.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

29

Uh, the way that the National List is set up, the, uh, Organic Food 

Production Act grants the NOSB the authority to recommend substances 

for inclusion on the National List. As you know, all synthetics used in 

organic crop and livestock produ--production must be on the National List. 

All nonagricultural substances used in processed organic food must also 

be on the National List.

Uh, so what are these “other ingredients?” Uh, the National List, uh, the 

list that the--that, uh, is utilized is a generic list of materials. Uh, the--the 

substances that are used by, uh, farmers and processors are formulated 

products; they contain the generic materials, um, and they often contain 

“other ingredients.” For pesticides, for instance, the "other ingredients” are 

inert ingredients. Uh, medications include excipients. Feed supplements 

often contain minor ingredients. And enzymes, uh, often contain carriers, 

stabilizers and preservatives. So, uh, the--there's a lot of familiarity, uh, 

with these “other ingredients” and we just need to have some clarity on 

how these “other ingredients,” um, are reviewed and looked at for 205.605 

materials. Next slide.

So for crops and livestock in terms of what's allowed from our perspective 

it's very clear. Um, for crop input materials, fertilizer, soil amendments 

and pesticides, the--all the ingredients in--in a formulated product must be 

either natural or non-synthetic, uh, listed under 205.601 as a approved, 

allowed synthetic or for, uh, pesticides they can be EPA List 4, um, or if 

they're passive pheromone, uh, pesticides then they can be, uh, EPA List 

3.

For livestock input materials feed supplements and medications, uh, for 

feed and feed additives and supplements all the agricultural ingredients e-

-uh, in the ingredients list must be organic. Uh, natural non-synthetic 

substances are allowed, synthetics listed on 205.603 are allowed. And 

then excipients are allowed, uh, there's specific, uh, definition of what, uh, 

types of excipients are allowed in medications.

So for processing substances, um, the, uh, the regulation says, uh, that 

processed organic foods may contain nonagricultural minor ingredients or 

processing aids that are listed on 205.605. And the ex--examples are 

natural flavors, microbial products, vitamins and enzymes, um, lots of 

different products that are--or substances that have many different, uh, 

products in those categories. And when used as a formulated product 

these 205.605 substances often contain “other ingredients,” uh, for 

instance, carriers, stabilizers and preservatives.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

30

Uh, in most cases FDA considers these “other ingredients” as incidental 

and they are not required to be listed on the ingredients list. The question 

we have is, “Are those 'other ingredients' that are not specifically listed on 

the National List, are they allowed or what are the parameters for that?” 

It's clear--there's clear guidance that the Program and the, uh, the Board

has provided for crops and livestock. We're requesting that the Board 

provides that clear guidance for, uh, 605 materials, as well. Next slide.

Um, so OFPA requires that each non-agricultural ingredient be specifically 

allowed. Uh, many of these “other ingredients” in 605 substances are not 

on the National List. Uh, the NOP and certifiers and the organic trade 

have allowed these “other ingredients” unless there is a specific 

annotation that limits those “other ingredients,” for instance, natural flavors 

and the restriction on solvent extraction.

But other than that the--the Program, the trade certifiers have all pretty 

much a--uh, acknowledged that these “other ingredients” exist, um, and

not put any restrictions on that. But that needs to be clarified, that needs 

to--the Board needs to look at that and say, “Is that--is that what you 

want?” Does that--and that should be in the regulation, as well. How do 

we look at other ingredients in 605 materials? And I--and that will lead to 

better clarity and consistency, uh, by the trade and by certifiers.

So we're requesting that NOSB clarify what other ingredients are allowed 

in non-agricultural substances listed under 205.605. Uh, we'd like the--

the--the Board to develop a comprehensive recommendation on "other 

ingredients" and in the meantime we would like, uh, the Board to reference 

"other ingredients" in the background of the recommendation so it's clear 

to the Program and the organic community that those things were 

considered in your review.

If you re--if you want to have a restriction, uh, as part of your 

recommendation then that would go into the recommenda--the annotation 

part of your recommendation. But if there are no restrictions then keeping 

the information in the background section is sufficient at this time until you 

develop, uh, a more comprehensive policy on this area. And, uh, we 

believe this will lead to greater consistency in the organic trade to 

consumers and to certifiers.

Um, okay. And then just, uh, a few comments on, um, some of the NOSB 

proposals that you have. Uh, in terms of inspector qualifications, uh, it 

looks like a, uh, a great proposal. Uh, just wanted to note that the USDA 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

31

Fruit and Vegetable Program licenses hundreds of state inspectors. They 

also have a, uh, a pilot program that they're working with a private organic 

certifying agency to license those, uh, organic inspectors to do GAP 

inspections.

Uh, we think that it would be more appropriate for the NOP or USDA to do 

the licensing of organic inspectors. Uh, the International Organic 

Inspectors Association is an excellent organization but we do not believe 

that that's an appropriate, uh, organization to be doing the, uh, the 

licensing there or the approval of, uh, organic inspectors.

In terms of organic research needs, uh, NOP is collaborating with the 

Organic Research Service on technical review, uh, technical report review 

and pri--priority research. We'll continue to do that. Uh, one of the things 

that we're looking at is setting up a system where they can help out with a 

peer review of those technical reports to--to, uh, work on the quality of 

those reports.

Uh, but we certainly want to be able to f--funnel information from the 

Board to, uh, USDA research entities to--to provide them with information 

on--on, uh, the Board's priorities.

And then in terms of conflict of interest, um, that, uh, this is a very im--

important issue. Uh, one of the things that--that, um, the--the Board is 

appointed to have interests. Um, they--they represent a specific interest 

or group, uh, producers, handlers, scientists, consumers, retailers, uh, 

these representatives articulate the interests of their particular group and 

they are not appointed to provide independent, expert advice. They 

repred--they do represent a particular bias and that's really important.

Uh, there's a diversity of interests on the Board, um, and it's important for 

all those interests to have a seat at the table and to have, uh, a voice in 

the, uh, decisions that are made by the Board. Uh, and it's--I think that, 

um, it's important that you recognize that, recognize that financial conflict 

of interest is--is certainly i--important but you don't want to go so far down 

the road of conflict of interest that nobody gets to vote because, uh, and 

nobody's particular--no interest group's perspective gets to be heard 

because, uh, of concern of conflict of interest. The Board is designed to 

have interests and for the members to have biases and to represent their 

particular interest groups.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

32

Okay. And then finally, uh, the--the announcement you all have been 

waiting for: 2012 NOSB Members. Here they are. Uh, there'll be a 

Producer and--and there'll be a Scientist and there'll be an 

Environmentalist, a Handler and a Consumer and Public Interest person 

appointed to the Board. We hope very shortly, uh, possibly this week, um, 

but the i--the final, um, decision and announcement is--has not been 

made.

So, uh, so thank you all for your input. Uh, public input is very, very 

important to--to the Board and to the Program. Um, so, uh, keep it 

coming. Keep, uh, keep, uh, keep us in the loop. And I think now we'll 

have Dr. Brines talk about classification of materials unless there's some 

questions before that.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Administrator. A question on your "other 

ingredients" memorandum; first I wanted to make sure the public was 

aware, uh, this request came in from the Program on November 15 

originally to the Board. That was after the public comment period closed.

Miedema: Um, Mr. Deputy Administrator, I am very concerned about the process 

there that the NOP would be issuing memorandums, uh, this close to a 

meeting that potentially affects the work, especially work that's already 

been posted and commented on. Um, I want to follow up by saying I 

heard just five minutes before we started this morning that there was a 

further addendum to that document published last Wednesday just before 

we all left on Thanksgiving holiday. And as Chair of this Board, I was a bit 

taken aback that I wasn't aware that this document existed and would like 

to make sure the public is aware of, um, what I believe would be quite a 

flaw in our communication with one another.

Miles McEvoy: Yeah, it, uh, the--the timing, um, sometimes is not perfect. Uh, in 

particular we thought it was very important because of a lot of the 

concerns, uh, that were raised in the public comment about, uh, "other 

ingredients.” And in order for, um, us to be successful, for the Program to 

be successful at any--in implementing your recommendations, uh, we 

thought that in particular it was very important for there to be clarity about 

what the--what the Board's intent is on those “other ingredients,” um, um, 

on the substances that have been petitioned to be added to the List.

So the, um, the intent of the memo is to facilitate success of, uh, the 

Program moving forward to implement your recommendations and to be 

clear to the community what are--what is the intent 'cause we recognize 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

33

that there are these “other ingredients,” they're in the technical reports, uh, 

and that, um, it's an important issue. Timing's not perfect, apologize for 

that. Uh, we'll make the best of it and move forward.

Tracy Miedema: Okay. And lastly on that one, a follow-up question; we were asked 

to behave, uh, as a Board, uh, and act as one around “other ingredients” 

in a very consistent manner and that memo spelled out “going forward,” as 

if going forward from November 15 or going forward from November 23, 

the same time we were asked to develop a policy. And so, uh, I found a 

internal inconsistency there that we were expected to go forward with a 

non-existent NOSB policy.

Miles McEvoy: No. The--the concept is that you would develop an NOSB policy on 

“other ingredients” in 605 materials. And in the meantime, 'cause that's 

gonna take some time to do that, that you're not silent about the fact that 

there are “other ingredients” in these substances so that the organic 

community understand what is allowed and what's not allowed so that if 

they're, uh, o--if these “other ingredients” are, um, part of the, uh, approval 

then that's clear in the record so that we can all move together, uh, 

together--move forward together, um, with the common understanding.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Administrator. Do any other Board

Members have questions?

Jay Feldman: Thank you, Miles. Um, I--I bet you can imagine what my question 

is about. Um, I--I have a copy of a letter that the National Organic 

Coalition sent to you in September. I think you referred to this, um, by 

reference at least, not by name, um, on the CSL decisions by the NOP to 

allow it to stand as a natural, um, ingredient.

Um, I--I am taken aback by this myself and I think the reasoning in the 

letter is--is pretty clear. Uh, it follows on what was described at the start of 

this meeting as what I think is one of the most crucial issues of this Board

and that is a vote we take before or we launch into a discussion on the 

technical aspects of any material and that is whether it is--it is synthetic or 

non-synthetic. So it is--it is key, uh, we as a Board obviously struggle with 

this as a matter of materials policy and have worked, I think, diligently to 

weigh all the factors involved in that.

And, thus, when we were presented as a Board with the, as Katrina

explained, a motion in the positive, which is in our processes, uh, that 

motion as we describe other motions that are presented in the positive, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

34

uh, have r--had--had not receiving the decisive vote that it requires to 

pass, thus failed, as is described in virtually--in all other decisions that are 

classified by the NOP. Given that this is--appears--and I've looked back, I 

don't see any other non-decisive votes on questions of synthetic/nonsynthetic, this was a motion in the positive, “the motion in the positive CSL 

synthetic failed therefore it is the opinion of the National Organic Coalition

that the Department does not have the authority to move forward, uh, in 

treating this, uh, material, um, as a, uh, non-synthetic material.”

Now, having said all that I--my question for you is this, do you think this is 

an appropriate discussion for the Policy Development Committee to have 

given that it is our vote, it is our characterization of our vote, um, uh, the 

National Organic Coalition feels it's a mischaracterization of the vo--to 

vote? Obviously it affects how certifiers, um, interpret that vote and then 

thus the approval or certification of the pre--of operations that use the 

material.

But I'm more concerned about our processes here and would like to know 

your opinion on whether we should address this as a--as a larger policy 

issue or you feel the issue's, uh, completely settled?

Miles McEvoy: Yeah, I think the larger policy issue is the classification of materials 

and we're working on that, uh, you'll hear from Dr. Brines on that in a m--in 

a moment to provide more guidance and clarity in terms of what's a nonsynthetic versus a synthetic. Uh, in terms of, uh, the--the process at the 

April Board Meeting, prior to the meeting, uh, we discussed with the Board

that there would be two votes, uh, one to, um, to classify the material as a 

synthetic and one to classify it as a non-synthetic.

Uh, there were gonna be two votes, uh, there was a break in the meeting, 

uh, Jay, you, uh, stated that, uh, you deferred the second vote, um, but--

so the second vote never occurred. But my, uh, memory of that is that the 

second vote would've failed, as well. So the Board did not make a 

decisive vote on that particular issue. Uh, a decisive vote is two-thirds of 

the members and that did not happen. So there's not--there--the--the 

Board did not decide whether CSL is a natural or synthetic substance.

Jay Feldman: So I guess my question on the policy is not the Materials 

Committee or the Materials Policy but the--the--the policy on process here. 

Uh, we don’t take two votes, obviously, on materials in Sunset. Um, we 

have a history of, uh, rejecting materials for a failure to get a rec--a 

decisive vote. We don't then turn around--that's why the motion was not 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

35

reconsidered because the process--it would've defied the historic process 

of the Board in that respect.

So what I'm asking is not a question about the materials policy but a 

question about the process, the policy of process on this. I guess what I'm 

saying is I--I believe that this is, uh, a large policy issue that, you know, 

the Board has a right on some level to know that there's clarity around 

how the votes are interpreted and would like to know if you feel that it's 

appropriate for the Committee, the Policy Development Committee, to 

take this up as a policy issue?

Miles McEvoy: Uh, you could--yeah, yeah, you can--that's your decision whether or 

not you think that's important. I d--I don't think a--a split Board decision, 

um, is a very, good way to move forward, um, that there certainly was not 

consensus amongst the Board in Seattle on whether or not CSL was a--a 

natural or a synthetic. And to--to make that determination based on a 

majority vote, uh, does not seem like a good way to make, uh, policy.

Jay Feldman: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Mr. Deputy Administrator, please, proceed.

Miles McEvoy: Okay. We'll have, uh, Dr. Brines talk about classification of 

materials. Thank you.

Dr. Lisa Brines: Good morning, everyone. Um, my name is Lisa Brines. I am with 

the Standards Division of the National Organic Program. Um, I had just 

one housekeeping note before getting started; um, new this meeting is 

that the meeting is actually being taped in the back. You can see, um, 

and the intention is to have the meeting available as a webcast. Um, it's 

not live but the archive version of the web meeting will be available on an 

approximately 48-hour delay and we'll have a link to the webcast on the 

NOP website as soon as it's available.

Okay. So, uh, classification. So we've heard already this morning a little 

bit about classification. Um, and I'm not gonna drag this out too long. Um, 

but I just want to mention a couple points, um, in terms of how the 

Program is moving forward on some of the Board recommendations on 

classification.

So it's been mentioned already this morning more than once, um, under 

the Organic Foods Production Act classification is an integral part of the 

National List in that, um, if a substance is, uh, depending on the 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

36

classification it determines, uh, whether a substance needs to be on that 

List and also where on the List that it will occur.

So for crop and livestock production substances that are natural and that 

are going to be used in production don't need to be on the List. The only 

natural substances for crop and livestock on the National List are the ones 

that are prohibited for use in production so that includes things like arsenic 

or lead.

Uh, for non-agriculture--for--I'm sorry, for syn--uh, synthetic substances 

those are the substances that do need to be the National List for crop and 

livestock production. So again, um, for any given substance, whether it is 

natural or synthetic will determine whether the Board, um, needs to review 

it for placement on the List.

For livestock production in addition, um, determining whether a substance 

is agricultural or not determines whether, um, an organic form would be 

required for use in organic livestock production. Um, for handling it's a 

little bit more complicated. Um, again, as Katrina mentioned in her 

presentation materials can be either agricultural or non-agricultural, uh, 

the difference being that for agricultural substances they are subject to 

commercial availability and that if an organic form is available, commercial 

available as determined by the certifying agent, um, the produc--the 

handler would need to use that substance first.

Um, in addition the non-agricultural substances on the National List are 

split into two sections, uh, the synthetic substances and the non-synthetic 

or natural substances. So it's integral in terms of the National List, um, to 

know where--how the substance is classified so we know where to place it 

on the List or if it needs to be on the List at all in order to be used. Next 

slide.

Um, so I put up just a few of some of the historical documents, um, on 

classification that have come out of the Board. Um, there's also a 

materials working group on this, as well, so I--I don't have all the 

substances listed but just, um, to give you an idea of how long this 

discussion has been happening. Um, there's been a number of NOSB 

formal recommendations to the Program, a number of, uh, Committee

recommendations, as well, that have come out over the years. So it's a 

long discussion, um, and it's still receiving debate today. Next slide.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

37

So again, for classification in general, the vast majority of substances are 

straightforward to classify. So people know what the rules are, um, it's, 

uh, more intuitive. Uh, people know whether something is natural or 

synthetic. But for a small number of substances it's not always clear 

whether something is natural or synthetic. The way that organic foods 

production is set up is that classification is very black and white. So things 

are either synthetic or natural, agricultural or non-agricultural on the List.

In reality we know it's a spectrum; things fall along a spectrum of wh--you 

know, how they fit in. So there might be some very, highly processed 

ingredients that might be natural, there might be some minimally 

processed materials that might be synthetic. Again, it's a line but with the 

Act there is, uh, things are one or the other.

Um, so again, for production crop or livestock the Board generally only 

received petitions for substances, which are petitioned for use in--as a 

synthetic 'cause natural substances by default are allowed. The Board 

generally only gets petitions for things, um, at least with the petitioner 

claims are synthetic substances.

Um, classification in general is done, um, you know, by the Board in 

response to petitions but also in the real world by certifying agents, by 

material review organizations who need to make decisions on a day-today basis whether something is natural and allowed or whether it would 

need to go through that petition process if it's not on the National List.

Um, and again, um, because of the way the Act is constructed. Um, the 

Program certainly has a responsibility to have clear and consistent 

standards to make sure that even though inputs are just a smaller part of 

an organic system it's important that the rules are clear, what is allowed, 

what is not and the way that the National List is set up doesn't always 

make that distinction clear. Next slide.

So where do we move from here? Uh, the Program is working on draft 

guidance, um, based on the November 2009 NOSB recommendation for 

classification of materials. Uh, the November 2009 recommendation was 

the last one that passed the Board decisively by two-thirds majority p--so 

we're using that recommendation as our basis for developing the draft 

guidance. Um, and we do intend as it gets, uh, further along in the 

process to also engage the Materials Committee for feedback, um, before 

that's--that draft guidance is issued.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

38

Um, and as with all draft guidances, um, that we've issued in the past they 

will be ava--posted, um, on the NOP website and available for public 

comment before the Program, uh, develops the final guidance. So, um, 

there will be opportunity for feedback with the process.

Um, so what are the key elements of what we expect to see in this draft 

guidance? Um, based on previous Board recommendations we intend to 

incorporate separate decision trees for production and for handling as well 

include example materials to make it clear, um, you know, how the classify 

the substances, um, based on the decision trees that are included.

Uh, the clarific--the classification will clarify the distinction between 

extraction, manufacturer and formulation. Um, there is history, um, with a 

lot of materials in making this distinction in terms of how to classify the 

substances so that'll be incorporated into the draft guidance. And again, 

as I mentioned previously, the--it--the guidance will be available for public 

comment before we issue the final guidance.

Um, so I just wanted to briefly mention, uh, a different draft guidance but, 

uh, inter--interrelated to this, uh, classification, um, is that the Program will 

be also issuing draft guidance on a list of permitted substances. So this 

is, um, different guidance than what's on the National List so it's--mention 

the National List doesn't include for crop production, for example, all the 

natural substances which are allowed in crop production because those 

are allowed by default; they don't have to be on the list.

Because of the inconsistency that this can sometimes, um, th--with this 

setup can sometimes provide the Program feels that it's important to, um, 

make sure the rules are clear and make sure that there's a list of 

substances which are allowed, um, so that people know what the rules are 

and where the line is. So we do plan to publish draft guidance on a 

generic list of substances allowed for us in organic crop production.

Um, so this is the first step, lists for crop production, um, again, right now 

we don't have a comprehensive list of all the natural substances that are 

allowed so it will include that as well as substances that are already on the 

National List to make sure everyone knows, um, what's allowed, too. So 

and--and again, in--this is intended to insert consistency in decisionmaking. You know, we can debate, um, you know, in terms of the Board's 

point of view, you know, are materials consistent with organic agriculture? 

That's their decision to make, ours is--really as the Program is to let 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

39

everyone know what their roles are, what's allowed, what's not, to make 

sure everyone's, um, applying those rules consistently.

And I think that's my last slide and I'm happy to answer any questions, if 

there are any.

Tracy Miedema: Please, state your question, Mr. Feldman.

Jay Feldman: Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. I'm specifically interested in the, uh, 

motion at the last NOSB meeting on the question that came out of the 

Materials Committee on the significant amount--significant amount of 

synthetic remaining in a approved material and whether that issue will be 

addressed? You may have said this already, whether this issue will be 

addressed in the proposed guidance?

Dr. Lisa Brines: So I believe that, um, question was part of a previous decision tree 

on classification, as well. So, yeah, we do intend to look at all the 

previous, um, recommendations that have come out of the Board and 

hopefully--I mean it's a--it's a large project to try and classify the universe 

of materials in one document but it's--we're gonna try and address as 

many, um, sort of gray areas or variables that we can with this document.

Male: I just--Madam Chair, I'd just like to raise this issue similar to the last issue. 

I think we have a policy question around the failure of a decisive vote and, 

uh, here again, on a key issue relative to classification on significant levels 

of residues. And again, I think this should be brought back to the Board

so that w--I know it's a tough one, Katrina, but it should be brought back to 

the Board to try to, uh, resolve this matter in some way.

Tracy Miedema: Any follow-up questions for Dr. Brines? It's very gratifying to see 

this work moving forward. Thank you very much.

Dr. Lisa Brines: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: It's four minutes before the hour. We're about five minutes off 

schedule. If any of you were here in Seattle you know I'm a little bit of a 

stickler, uh, on the agenda. So we're gonna try to stay on track today and 

throughout these four days.

We will go ahead and take a full 15-minute break and resume at ten 

minutes after 10:00 and, uh, go right into public comment. This will be, 

um, about a two-hour and fifteen minute public comment session so let's 

go ahead and--and break.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

40

[BREAK]

Tracy Miedema: Board Members, please, take your seats. NOSB Members and 

Attendees, please, be seated. We're back in session. For the remainder 

of today we will be hearing public testimony. Each person giving public 

testimony was notified that their presentation will be no more than three 

minutes. We have budgeted a total of five minutes per speaker to allow 

for time transition in between, uh, people coming up to the podium and 

time for questions.

We know there's, uh, it's not going to be an exact five minutes per person. 

Some, uh, comments solicit more questions than others. But this is a way 

for us to average and generalize and budget our time that was posted to 

the federal register and to allow for as many voices as possible to be 

heard today.

The process is this: your name will be announced when you are up to 

speak and the person who is on deck's name will also be announced. We 

have a chair up at the front so when you're the person who's on deck, 

please, do come on up and have a seat next to Ms. Lorraine Coke up at 

the front of the room and that'll just speed things along a bit if you're 

already up, um, front and available.

If there's any issue with timing and people need to change their time slot 

for s--whatever reason, um, we will make whatever possible 

accommodations for that but we can't make any guarantees that we can 

make those kinds of changes.

Please, help me pronounce your name and I apologize in advance if I 

mispronounce anyone's name today or throughout the meeting. Lastly, 

when you approach the microphone make sure you state your name. This 

is being recorded and it's important that we have a record of who you are.

Lorraine, will you, please, enlarge the font size on the screen? Our fis--

first speaker this morning giving public testimony is Mr. Owusu Bandele. 

On deck is Sandra Simone.

Owusu Bandele: But they didn't--are we one here? Okay. Thank you very much. 

I’m Owusu Bandele, I'm a former, uh, Board Member from '92--excuse 

me, from 2000 to 2005. And, uh, being here today brought back some 

vivid memories of some of those vivid discussions on--which is some of--

which is still, uh, still here in terms of, uh, access to outdoors and 

composting, things of this nature. And one thing that hasn't changed 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

41

much is the lack of diversity, uh, in terms of (inaudible) meetings and 

(inaudible) meetings, uh, and all, uh, ranges of organic production.

And with that in mind, uh, while I was at Southern University Calvary 

Walker is still employed there, uh, even though Southern University is in 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana we undertook to provide training for African 

Americans and others who were interested in or--organic production 

throughout the South. And one of our biggest meetings was right here in 

Savannah, Georgia, uh, in 2006, which was followed by a meeting in 

Columbia, South Carolina.

And to make a long story short, because of this intense, um, process of 

training and certification we were able to assist over 40 farmers, most of 

whom were African Americans, to be certified organic. And several of 

these farmers will be speaking you--to you today as members of SAAFON 

the Southeastern African American Farmers Organic Network, indeed a 

very, very unique organization made up of some very, very unique 

individuals.

I wanted to point out quickly--I just wanted to give a little background 

before the--I--I'm not trying to speak for them, they'll speak for themselves. 

But not only are they recipients of--of training but also providers, uh, a--

most of them--involved in--in, uh, in youth programs and other community, 

uh, activities. It's a diverse group, um, so you'll be hearing from farmers 

throughout the region and even including the--the Virgin Islands.

You'll be hearing from Beverly Hall from the, uh, American, uh, Indian, um, 

m--mother's group, uh, in North Carolina who reminds us that her people

were among the original organic producers. Uh, Janie Dixon and Helen

Fields from South Carolina, some of you may have seen, uh, Helen Fields' 

farm in, uh, in a--a sog, uh, production, uh, marketing, um, DVD. Sandra 

Simone, who deals with a, uh, community supported agriculture, uh, 

operation in, uh, in Al--in, um, Alabama and Yvette Brown, who has some 

unique challenges from the Virgin Islands.

So again, I would, uh, like to thank NOP for p--providing, uh, Savannah as 

a meeting site so that they indeed could be present and discuss with you 

some of their unique challenges as well as some of the solutions of the 

problems. Thank you very much.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Mr. Bandele. Any questions from the NOSB?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

42

C. Reuben Walker: Dr. Bandele, uh, you mentioned s--there were some challenges that 

still exist; could you in 30 seconds mention those again?

Owusu Bandele: Uh, w--they will--they will be dealing with those but the lack of 

coordination with, uh, some of the technical advice w--was one, uh, the 

lack of, uh, a knowledge of the cost share, uh, uh, cost share procedures 

in--in some areas--the problems were another way and even, uh, and the--

the funds were not requested. Um, those were some of the concerns that 

they--that they, uh, expressed but they'll be--they'll be speaking for 

themselves, Dr. Walker.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you very much.

C. Reuben Walker: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Beverly Hall is up next. Jaime and Rocky Dixon are on deck.

Beverly Collins-Hall: Good morning, Distinguished Board and, um, USDA 

Representatives. Um, I am Beverly Collins-Hall and I represent the tribes 

of North--tribes and organizations of North Carolina. Uh, I am a Founding 

Mother of the American Indian Mothers and the Three Sisters' Farm f--um, 

Farm and Coop.

We have a farm acreage of 300 acres and four of those, uh, 300 is 

certified organic. We have 119 transitioning organic and the rest of that 

acreage is forest. Um, we have worked along with the USDA, um, it has a 

lot of tools and we do appreciate the tools that they have. Um, however, 

they are limited tow--to organic farmers and producers.

Programs like cost share are the most important to organic producers. It's 

a tough, uh, job to do it. It is a good--it's a good life but it's also tough 

trying to do these, uh, these programs without help from the USDA and its, 

uh, its programs.

We are a 501-C pr--uh, C3 non-profit organization and were fortunate 

enough to meet Cynthia Hayes around the year 2007, who at that point, 

from 2000 we were trying to be certified in North Carolina. There were no 

programs for organics in North Carolina; if there were, they weren't telling 

us about it. Um, so we were fortunate to meet Cynthia Hayes from 

SAAFON, uh, at the South Carolina University in which I was probably 

rambling about our problems with organics.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

43

And she said, “Well, we're looking for you.” And she actually trained, uh, 

me and helped to meet a cer--certifier from Clinton University and we were 

able to be--get that certification in North Carolina. And we are the first 

Native American organic certified, uh, group in probably east of the 

Mississippi. I don't--at this time don't know of any other Native Americans

who are certified and it's something that we look forward to being.

Um, North Carolina is still behind, a lot behind, in organics. It has moved 

forward some in the last ten years but we would like to see these, uh, the 

cost share programs and those certifications more available to Native and 

non-Native, uh, members of our community throughout North Carolina.

American Indian Mothers were the first organic (inaudible) in this country, 

which Owusu just said and I do like to use that one. Uh, we have moved 

away from our own practi--agricultural practices. American Indian Mothers 

wishes t--to continue its mission through the Three Sisters' Research 

Farm, um, to help our p--our Native Americans and non-Natives

understand there's minorities throughout 20, uh, counties in which we 

serve in North Carolina, to understand those programs.

We work with a lot of the USDA, uh, representatives and the sad part 

about it is they don't know much about their own programs. They just 

know that they're there, they--I think they need to be better informed and 

educated, uh, from a national level down to a state level in which they 

could really, truly benefit. They're good programs and, um, I've been 

fortunate enough to go through them on a national level and then come 

back to the state to try to im--implement them. They're ver--it's tough, it's--

it's really hard. Um--

Tracy Miedema: Mrs. Hall, your three minutes are--

Beverly Collins-Hall: Is it up? Okay.

Tracy Miedema: --they are.

Beverly Collins-Hall: Uh, I've rambled but I thank you very much.

Tracy Miedema: Any questions for Ms. Hall? We sure thank you for shining a light 

on the important work of your group. Is there a question? Oh, Ms. Hall, 

will you return to the podium, please? Calvin, proceed.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

44

C. Reuben Walker: Um, I guess about two months ago I, uh, was brought to help, uh, a 

lady discovered that she's, uh, she's part Cherokee. Uh, she had 

inherited, uh, almost 3,000 acres of land in Louisiana.

Beverly Collins-Hall: Wow.

C. Reuben Walker: And she have a second-chance program and she's interested in 

organics. I guess my quick question is, uh, would you--before you leave I 

would like to get your information to kind of share that with her and--and 

I'm--I believe that your group could certainly help her.

Beverly Collins-Hall: Okay. Thank you. We w--we would love the opportunity.

C. Reuben Walker: Okay.

Beverly Collins-Hall: Thank you.

C. Reuben Walker: All right.

Tracy Miedema: Fantastic. Janie and Rocky Dixon, you're up. Sandra Simone, 

you're on deck.

Janie Dixon: Good morning. Uh, my name is Janie Dixon. I represent, of course, 

Rocky, who's my husband. Um, we have, uh, a small farm in South

Carolina. And, um, we--we certify about--we got certified about 40 acres 

that we're farming and it's just the two of us basically. So, um, anything 

that anyone can do to offer a way that we might be able to get some help 

because we can't afford it really, and, um, the help that we would get 

would also help to train other people to work in this organic industry.

Uh, I'd like to mention that we, too, got certified because we met Ms. 

Cynthia Hayes, who is ill this morning and cannot be here. We were so 

looking forward to having her here to just kind of boost us up a little bit 

because that's what she does. But, um, she's ill and so those of you who 

are praying people we do ask that you say a little prayer for her.

Um, on our farm, like I said, we--we, um, operate with about--about 40 

acres and we do a CSA c--Community Supported Agriculture on our farm, 

as well. Um, and one of the things that--that we've kind of had problems 

and wanted to mention is that with doing these things, having this--the--

the, um, cost share program and things like the NRCS has been really, 

um, instrumental to--to helping us in what we do. But, um, that cost share 

program, which we--we talk about being so important, at one point we did 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

45

not even know about it. And so, you know, it is important that the--that the 

information get out so people do--do know.

And then when we learned about it, the first year we tried to access it we 

were told s--like I said, we're in--in South Carolina so, um, Columbia, the

USDA in Columbia is what services us. So, um, s--when we called to ask 

about it they told us that we--that they had no money for it. And so 

Cynthia Hayes got in touch with someone I think from your Board and 

asked who in--in Washington we could talk to about this. And so what we 

did--she told us to do was she told me to call Washington, find out if 

there's any money and then call back to the guy in Columbia and let him 

know.

So I did that and the person in--in Washington told me that the money was 

there but the--that the person in South Carolina was just not requesting it 

and so what we needed to do was call him. I called all of the farmers that 

I knew of that were organic in South Carolina, we all made a call to him 

and in two weeks he called back and said, “Okay. We have the money.”

So i--it's important the--these programs and we just ask that you help to--

to, um, education the service--the--the people who administer the services 

in South Carolina so that we can actually utilize them.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you very much, Mrs. Dixon. Any questions? Katrina?

Katrina Heinze: Good morning. Thanks for coming to talk to us this morning. How 

long have you been an organic farmer?

Janie Dixon: We got certified first in 2007.

Katrina Heinze: Thanks.

Tracy Miedema: Do you have a question?

C. Reuben Walker: I was waiting. What crops?

Janie Dixon: We do, oh, about 35 different crops. We--we--we, um, produce organic 

vegetables and so we do many different greens, we do the--the corn, the 

sweet potatoes is one of our--our big crops, um, peppers, tomatoes, just a 

whole conglomerate of, um, of produce that--that is, um, grown in this 

area. This year, uh, we--we produced a bok choy that--that grew really 

well and that was one of our new things because, uh, until this time we 

had not grown that.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

46

Well, I first tried to grow it last year in the fall and just had to learn some 

things about it so we grew it in--again in the spring and it was--was really 

productive so--

C. Reuben Walker: As a comment I think, uh, what the Program Director mentioned, 

uh, Mr. Miles McEvoy I think that's very good for those who may not know 

it's for limited resource farmers and minorities, uh, and just small farmers, 

family farmers is that our extension agents need to come up to speed 

because in many cases, uh, the few that I talk to off the record they're not 

really interested in organics unless we at the university or those who are 

supporting organics, uh, stress that because they are quickly trying to get 

you to go conventional or do sustainable ag.

And what Mr. McEvoy had--had, uh, put up in his presentation I thought 

was encouraging is that we got to get all the, uh, farm service agencies 

and other USDA entities and land grant university extension personnel on 

the same page, is to start promoting organics as opposed to dismissing it 

as a, uh, the fringe.

Janie Dixon: Right. We--we certainly would appreciate that because we have 

experienced that same thing when we go to even the NRCS when we're 

filling out applications in South Carolina for programs that already exist 

there even the paperwork is set up for organic farmers so many--many of 

the things that we tr--we have to work through, um, is because of the fact 

that it's not at all geared to us. So we have to work through paperwork 

and--and make changes to--to support what is organic because it's just not 

conducive to the organic farmer. And many times they do just as you say, 

they seem to discourage organics so we go to many meetings that the 

extensions put on and there's nothing there about organics.

Tracy Miedema: Jay Feldman?

Jay Feldman: Thank you, Mrs. Dixon. I--I had a question about your feeling about 

the certification process and the burden of it or the efficiency of it and 

suggestions for how that works, uh, in your situation?

Janie Dixon: Uh, the--the certification process has--has worked very well with us but 

one thing that was mentioned this morning, um, that I thought would help, 

um, organic farmers is that sometimes the record-keeping seems 

overbearing. Um, and--and, you know, just to have the things that are 

needed that we--that--that--that needs to be passed on, of course we need 

all of the record-keeping for ourselves because, um, you know, what we 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

47

do--oh, I am so sorry, what we do from--but I s--I speak with my hands 

and I guess you seen that.

Um, uh, what we do from one year to the next is really important, you 

know, as to, uh, when we plant things and--and how it produced from that 

standpoint as opposed to maybe changing it into another window and all 

that is important for--for us but some of the--the paperwork that we--that 

we have to do for--for recertification I think if--if it were, you know, just kind 

of cut down a little bit would help us.

So--because as organic farmers I'm--I'm sure all of the small farmers in 

here know that there's not a lot of equipment that's driving this force; it's 

mostly hands-on. So we need--we need the work in the gardens, um, 

because we are--last year we had a, um, 45 families that we provided food 

for in our CSA so, um, that's a lot of work, that's a lot of production but, uh, 

I think it is really doing wonders for our community because people are 

being educated as far as what organics are--are and, you know, the--the 

need for organic or good, clean food and--and--and I think that we need 

more of that, too, from the--from the, uh, standpoint of the consumer. That 

would help the farmers.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you very much, Mrs. Dixon.

Janie Dixon: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Sandra Simone is up next. Perry Klutz is on deck.

Sandra Simone: Good morning. My name is Sandra Simone and I'm from 

Huckleberry Hill Farm. I'm also, um, advise--on the Advisory, uh, for 

SAAFON. Um, I am a small farmer, a producer of organic vegetables for 

CSA and also a meat goat producer. And I am hoping that they will be 

certified organic soon, especially since I received some, uh, pertinent 

information on that since I've been here at this meeting so that's just been 

great.

Um, when I relocated to, um, Alabama, rural Alabama, it was with the idea 

of living sustainably on some land that had been acquired by my greatgrandfather and I felt, uh, somehow a connection to that. Uh, as I started 

and I have always been organic grower, even in California, just a little, 

small plot so I know nothing else but to grow organically. So I was 

transferring that to my place in rural Alabama and then began to realize 

that in the community there were not farmers, there were hardly any 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

48

vegetable gardens, uh, how far we had moved away from that whole 

process.

I've always been involved with youth and so that was a component of my 

being there, to have youth in the environment. Once I became educated 

on what was happening, uh, the potential, uh, for what could be done, um, 

got involved in accreditation through SAAFON, which was really the only 

way that I would've been able to do that, um, it opened up a different kind 

of opportunity for my working with youth and we got a entrepreneurial 

program.

If it were not for cost share programs, the certification and other programs 

that I've benefited from through, uh, NRCS Equips Program I would not be 

able to do any of the things that I'm doing. Uh, with the youth my goal is to 

get them inspired and motivated to know where their food is supposed to 

come from rather than where they're really getting it from. And by having 

some of the newer, cutting edge programs like the High Hoop Tunnel and 

Plastic Culture with Irrigation I can show them a different world of farming 

from what it is they hear about the hard work of it.

It still is hard work but those programs really lift a lot of the burden. I'm 

doing this on my own. My daughter, uh, who helps me lives in Atlanta. 

She comes to the farm a couple of times a month and helps me with s--

some of the heavier things that I can't do. But there are many, many 

challenges in trying to do this. I am in a way, in a sense, of course, 

always learning as I grow. And I just appreciate so much the cost share 

programs.

My concern is that they be connected, that the technical advice that we 

receive be really connected more to--w--to the day-to-day operations of 

farming. Whoa. Um, they are--okay. That's what--that's what one of my 

big concerns is, is that there's so much book-learning, technical, and that it 

isn't, uh, balanced with the day-to-day realities of farming.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Ms. Simone.

Sandra Simone: Thank you. Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Did you have any further concerns that you wanted to share?

Sandra Simone: Well, it--it is really mostly that and the follow-through. Once we 

received the Program it seems to fall away the kind of follow-through that's 

required. When we're doing the day-to-day work with the Program, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

49

whether it's High Hoop or Plastic Culture, whatever it is, you learn what 

things could work better, which things could be removed, which I think 

would increase keeping these programs alive because of that input from 

the farmer on how does this really work and what is needed to carry it 

forward.

And the technical advice, the--like I said, is like book learning. It's very 

technical, strictly enforced but it doesn't leave room for negotiating with 

what the farmer is actually living, seeing, feeling and could use.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you for that. Katrina?

Katrina Heinze: Thank you for joining us today. I'm wondering if you're going to be 

able to stay at all for the rest of the week.

Sandra Simone: No.

Katrina Heinze: Oh, I'm terribly sorry about that.

Sandra Simone: You see, like I said, I am this single, female farmer. I have goats 

and nobody's there to take care of them and it's going to be freezing 

tonight. I have to go take care of my babies.

Katrina Heinze: We, um, greatly appreciate you coming. The huge benefit of us 

having our meetings around the country is hearing from farmers like you 

on the difficult technical challenges. So I would encourage you to kind of 

stay tuned in and send us comments on our technical topics. It's very 

valuable.

Sandra Simone: Thank you. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Ms. Simone, one more question.

Sandra Simone: Yes.

Male: Um, how can we, um, increase, uh, minority participation in organics? Uh, 

right now at Southern University Ag Center we are having a--a 

conference, I believe for three or four days NRCS and other agencies and 

LSU and Southern Universities is having this. We're trying to grow 

organics and it seem like when you talk to we being a--uh, minorities, 

when you talk to individuals they're almost there in terms of they have low 

inputs, limited resources so what would you advise being a person who is 

certified organics that we can grow--bring more minority--Native American, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

50

Hispanics and African American to the organic community? T--uh, any 

suggestion that we--what we need to do?

Sandra Simone: Somehow, um, because it's true, it doesn't get through. I know I 

have a lot of demonstration days and other things like that where farmers 

in my community can come out and see the kinds of things that's 

happening.

It's kind of difficult again when you're female because males tend to kind 

of not want to follow that lead or anything. But they come and they're 

inquisitive so somehow finding a way to get that word out because they 

really aren't, uh, aware of the benefits of growing organically, uh, the 

benefits financially of doing it, the benefits to the earth of doing it. The 

NRC representatives, uh, it's true, they're more, uh, pushing, uh, 

conventional and it's more because they're not educated about organics. 

They don't know how to talk about it either.

We were supposed to have had someone in our community that was 

going to be the community--I forget the title but the purpose was to spread 

the word among the farmers and that really doesn't happen.

I think or one of the places where somehow this has to intersect maybe is 

in the churches where there are people that can hear this message 

coming and that doesn't happen, you know, um, that to me is one of the 

important places because that's the social outlet in--in rural--where I am, in 

rural America, I think, but in rural Alabama that’s truly where it is and at 

some of the places where they also go to buy products, supplies, the feed 

stores where they have various announcements up, if there's some things 

that can pull their attention to this--this--this--this new--this way of growing 

because it's really what we always did or when I say we, my four parents 

always did, it was organic. It was just now called something different. So 

them getting connected to--but it's where we came from, it's what we used 

to do, you know, so--

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Ms. Simone. Perry Klutz is up next. Jonathan Fray is 

on deck.

Perry Clutts: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Perry Clutts and I'm an organic 

dairy farmer from Circleville, Ohio. I live and work on Ohio Century Farm

my great-grandfather started in 1899. I'm responsible for the economic 

viability of our family's farm and respect and consider the wellbeing of the 

livestock that support our livelihood. I appreciate the chance to comment.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

51

And my comments are directed specifically toward the guidance 

documents for the Livestock Committee's animal wel--welfare 

recommendations and the Handling Committee's recommendation on 

DHA. In addition to being a dairy farmer I'm also a proud member of 

NODPA, which is the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Association, 

which is also a member of NOC, the National Organic Coalition. I stand 

by the NODPA re--recommendation that is striving for an animal welfare 

rule that makes all livestock operations comply with one strong, qualitative 

standard.

I was a member of Ohio's Livestock Care Standards Boy--Board Dairy 

Sub-Committee, which helped draft the dairy welfare rules in Ohio and I 

understand the complexity and sensitivity of this issue. Organic

consumers have the right to know organic livestock are well cared for but I 

also feel that it's important to recognize that there are many different 

systems used in livestock production in climactically and geographically 

different areas of the country.

I feel a more quali--qualitative, uh, role--rule is necessary to allow for 

these variations. This would also allow for sqa--farm-specific 

interpretation by inspectors who are familiar with the given area of the 

country.

With regard to Handling Committee's recommendation on DHA and 

organic milk I recognize that unwarranted controversy has been created 

over this material so I've read the Committee's recommendation and 

public comments submitted and I respect the Handling Committee's 

unanimous decision to list DHA algal oil as a non-synthetic. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Mr. Clutts. Any questions from the Board? Thank you. 

Go ahead, Calvin. I guess we do have a question.

C. Reuben Walker: Livestock recommendations, uh, would you prefer to see the 

livestock committee take it back and rework it or move it on?

Perry Clutts: I--I think it could be moved on. I think that perhaps public comment would 

be a good place at this point. One of my, um, examples would be in such 

as the photographs of, um, you know, the cows, different breeds, crossing 

different breeds. You know, a Guernsey may appear thin but a crossbred 

may appear fat so it's--I thought that that was a little confusing from my 

perspective.

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions from the Board?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

52

Perry Clutts: And--and--excuse me, but that would be a lot to put on inspectors to have 

that expertise.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you.

Perry Clutts: Thanks.

Tracy Miedema: Mr. Fray, you are up next. Mark Kastel is on deck.

Jonathan Frey: Hello, members of the Board. Thank you for this opportunity to 

present these comments. Um, I'm here to talk about the, uh, sulfite 

petition. A, um, as you know, the Handling, um, Handling Committee of 

the NOSB recommended that, uh, sulfites be--be allowed in line 

processing and in large part apparently the, um, they're, um, their 

recommendation was based on a technical evaluation report.

So we looked through that and, um, it was really amazing. Um, there was 

a lot of, uh, information that was missing from that so I've prepared a, um, 

a--a review and, uh, and a response to the TER and I'll briefly go over that 

right here.

So, um, I can see from there I missed--missed information, um, it was, uh, 

s--quite com--incomplete and one-sided, um, cited some academics and 

wine industry members, um, and there was no mention made of--of many 

other points of view. And, um, many technical aspects were also left out 

as far as processing methods that are used, uh, when sulfites are not 

used. Um, um, you know, amazingly no mention of the thriving no sulfite 

wine industry, nearly 10 million bottles a year worldwide are sold annually. 

Um, that certainly shows that this a, um, thriving, um, viable segment of 

the wine industry.

Uh, and there's no mention of the, uh, of the extensive toolkit used by no 

S02 wineries. Basically any wine style can be made without the use of, 

um, S02 with, um, the kinds of technical advances that we have nowadays 

and especially with modern processing equipment. Uh, many other 

alcoholic beverages and other juices and so on, such as beer, uh, juices 

are regularly made without the use of S02 and certainly, uh, wine is no 

exception to that. Next slide, please.

I'd like c--can I see the, uh, next, uh, slide, please? Yeah, okay. Um, 

that's not the--the page two is a--yeah, there we go. So the, um, the TER 

and the, uh, some of the arguments used by the--by the petitioners 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

53

propagates, um, um, myths, I guess you could call it in the, uh, field of 

wine. Um, we'll run down them real quickly.

Um, one of the myths is that sulfite has been used for hundreds or even 

thousands of years; there's absolutely no proof for this and you s--you see 

this, uh, quite often--often repeated even by academics who should know 

better. Um, there's no evidence that this is true.

Uh, non-sulfited wines are very perif--perishable and must be refrigerated. 

This is definitely not true. How could, uh, those many bottles be sold 

every year and they're kept under all kinds of conditions in wine shops and 

so on? This is, um, you know, flat out not true.

Uh, growth of the organic wine industry held back by no S02 use, it's very 

hard to understand how that would be the case, um, one of the bright 

spots in the industry is the growth of the additive-free segment. And, um, 

so clearly that's, uh, that doesn't hold water. Um--

Tracy Miedema: Mr. Fray?

Jonathan Frey: Yes?

Tracy Miedema: Sorry to interrupt, your time is up.

Jonathan Frey: Oh, okay.

Tracy Miedema: We do have, um, the printed copies of your comments--

Jonathan Frey: Sure, you can work off those.

Tracy Miedema: --here in front of us. Any questions from the Board for Jonathan 

Frey? Jay Feldman?

Jay Feldman: Hi, thanks for being here.

Jonathan Frey: Certainly.

Jay Feldman: Um, obviously we're dealing with some statutory requirements in 

terms of this issue and one of the issues I think you're speaking to is the 

essentiality of--

Jonathan Frey: That's the basis of it and that's on point five. We--

Jay Feldman: Right.

Jonathan Frey: --mention that, yeah.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

54

Jay Feldman: Um, on the flip side we're hearing a lot of statements, uh, and 

positions that, um, there are limitations when we don't use sulfites in wine 

production.

Jonathan Frey: Right.

Jay Feldman: Do you concur with those? And--and from what I'm hearing you 

say, uh, you know, basically the folks that are using sulfites have not 

adopted practices that you believe go to the essentiality question; but do 

you con--do you identify any limitations, uh, in wine produced without 

sulfites and if so could you describe what those may be or--

Jonathan Frey: Uh, no, I don't. Um, every wine-making problem can be solved with 

methods, um, that don't involve sulfites, whether it's, um, spoilage by 

microbes; they can be easily, um, you know, filtered out with, uh, um, you 

know, pharmaceutical grid filters very commonly used in the beverage 

industries. The, um, oxidative questions can be solved with a number of 

methods, um, that, um, you know, fall into that toolkit that I mentioned.

These are, uh, perhaps not, um, fully known by the--by the entire industry 

but it's certainly common knowledge in many sectors of the--of the, uh, 

wine-making industry so, no, I think, uh, I mean it's--it's a fact that every 

wine style can be made without the use of S02.

Jay Feldman: I have ano--a follow-up question on issue of consumer 

understanding of this issue.

Jonathan Frey: Okay.

Jay Feldman: Do you think the current labeling is confusing to consumers and 

how would you assess confusion if the label were to be changed?

Jonathan Frey: It may be somewhat confusing in that, um, there are certain 

technical aspects that the consumer might not be--might not be familiar 

with. Um, but I think to avoid mistrust and confusion in the minds of the 

consumers the USDA seal should not appear on a product which contains 

the, uh, S02, which is a, um, a--a syn--a, um, synthetic preservative 

clearly and has never been allowed in the NOP in any other food product.

Um, early on in the process there were many wineries that were using S02 

and, um, felt they should be allowed to, um, state that, uh, grapes that 

were grown organically were part of the wine ingredients and so a, uh, 

compromise was reached; they could state that it was made with, um, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

55

made with organically grown grapes yet still use S02. But of course those 

wines could not bear the seal and this was about ten years ago when the 

NOP was first, um, brought about.

Um, so any customer who takes time to read the wine labels can gain a 

clear understanding of that and a wine without added sulfites, um, of 

course, that's also stated prominently on the label, as well. So there may 

be some confusion but upon a closer look, um, that does not seem to be 

the case. We found that, um, the vast, um, vast majority of wine 

customers, um, fully understand all this and know what they want and how 

to find it.

Jay Feldman: Thank you.

Jonathan Frey: You're welcome.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Mr. Fray. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Frey, I’m not noticing, uh, 

M--Jonathan Frey, will you, please, approach the podium; I missed a 

question?

Jonathan Frey: Oh, sure.

Male: Sorry, Jon.

Jonathan Frey: No problem.

Tracy Miedema: Go ahead, Nick.

Nick Maravell: Uh, Mr. Frey, I don't know if you can answer this question but do 

you have any, uh, understanding of how organic wine is labeled in Europe

and how the addition of sulfites, uh, uh, affects the labeling in Europe?

Jonathan Frey: Uh, currently in Europe there's a, um, there's a labeling impasse, if 

you will, over the, um, labeling of sulfites. Um, there were some 

proposed, uh, labeling regs I believe back 2008 or so but as of last year 

they still have not reached a, uh, any kind of a con--conclusion as to which 

way that's gonna go. Um, so I think there's--there's--they have a some--

they're, um, it still has not been, um, the, you know, labeling regulations 

have not been finished there and that's--and it's hung up over this sulfite 

issue.

Nick Maravell: Thank you.

Jonathan Frey: You're welcome. Thank you.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

56

Tracy Miedema: Mark Kastel is up next and Phaedra Morrill is on deck.

Mark Kastel: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name's Mark Kastel. I'm with the 

Cornucopia Institute. We're based in Cornucopia, Wisconsin. We have 

about 55 to 6,000 members primarily certified organic farmers. I have a 

proxy today with me from Mr. Bill Welsh, the same proxy I had last fall 

from Mr. Wel--Bill Welsh, which we haven't been allowed to use. But I 

wanted to mention Bill today because our longtime member and former 

NOSB member passed away this past spring and--and Bill passed away 

asking the question, “What are we doing here?”

What are you doing here, NOSB members? Are you defending the 

integrity of the organic label or are you defending the interest of corporate 

agrip--agribusiness? Besides for Bill's proxy today I have about 14,300 

proxies and other communications like this one from Tom Vanderhoff of 

exi--Estherville, Michigan and these are from farmers and consumers and 

they're asking the question.

Organic antibiotics, artificial preservatives, unreviewed and unapproved 

synthetics from genetic, uh, modification, Monsanto's patented 

mutagenesis of a--uh, a--fermented algae sold to a company called 

Omega Tech and then bought by Martek Biosciences? You'll hear a lot of 

Martek lobbyists and representatives today and you'll hear others from 

Martek, $12 billion corporation and from the $12 billion, uh, dairy 

conglomerate, Dean Foods, which markets, uh, Horizon Milk.

But organics stakeholders are asking 9,000 cow factory farms uninspected 

by the USDA since we spent ten years as a community working on new 

rule-making. That's wrong. A hundred thousand birds with no outdoor

access in one building. That's wrong. The new proposal for broilers in 

chickens in the Livestock Committee proposal, one to two square feet for 

organic birds? Wrong. Hogs, less space than the--the competing labels 

trying to compete with organics on the cheap, the comet--competing 

humane labels? Wrong.

The Livestock Proposal not ready yet, folks. Prime time, it's not ready. It's 

been written by--in part industry lobbyists. This is organics. Organics? 

We urge you to rele--reject the Martek Bioscience's petition, the artificial s-

-um, preservatives in--in wine and beef up the transparency provisions 

you folks are discussing and reverse some of these draconian restrictions 

on public participation. Thank you very much.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

57

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Mr. Kastel.

Mark Kastel: There's two kinds of power in this country, money and people. Thank--

thanks for these people.

Tracy Miedema: Any questions for Mr. Kastel? Thank you very much.

Mark Kastel: Isn't that nice? Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Will you, please, um--

Mark Kastel: Yes. I'll do this.

Tracy Miedema: --take your mail over to Lorraine?

Mark Kastel: I will tu--turn that over to the NOP for safekeeping.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you very much. Phaedra Morrill is up next and Bruce 

Heiman is on deck.

Phaedra LaRocca-Morrill: Good morning. I'm Phaedra LaRocca-Morrill. I'm with 

Larocca Vineyards and I'm here for truth in labeling, um, and keeping 

sulfites out of organic wine. Is it really just in wine? Uh, organic wine is 

used in many food products, everything from salad dressings to, uh, 

supplements and all of them will have--may have to c--list the ingredient 

“contains sulfites.” Let's keep synthetics out of our f--organic food chain. 

Next slide, please.

Organic white and red wine vinegars will n--will contain sulfites. Here's a 

salad dressing that has the ingredient red wine vinegar, will contain 

sulfites, balsamic vinegar, organic grape must is an ingredient, will contain 

sulfites, Uh, organic pasta sauces will contain sulfites. Here's an herbal 

extract with organic grape alcohol, will contain sulfites and resveratrol, an 

anti-aging used from organic grapes will contain sulfites.

Not only do those products represent products that will have synthetic 

preservative in them, it also represents that there's a thriving organic wine 

market that is supplying to these--to the industry. Um, right now in the 

U.S. production is nearly 4 million bottles that are being sold. International

production is over 6 million, you'll find out on Thursday. Those numbers 

are, um, climbing every day as w--um, wine-makers from all over the world 

are submitting numbers of non-sulfited wines being made. That's over 10 

million bottles being sold. Next slide.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

58

Um, in e--the packet I sent out, um, the University of California recognizes 

the tremendous growth of organic grape production in California, which is 

the largest grape-growing state. Uh, next slide.

CCOF in the 2010, uh, review said that organic grapes increased 77 

percent. Uh, they're the leading crop, wine grapes with a 15 percent 

increase. And 12 percent increase in both number of products and 

number of organic wine producers increased. You also have the letter 

from CCOF. I'd like to read a little bit of that, um, so you can see what 

their opinion--CCOF, California Certified Organic Farmer--last slide, 

please.

Uh, the Board of Directors of CCOF, Inc. voted in the opposition to this 

spe--petition and to send this letter expressing its views on the subject. 

The CCOF Board of Directors believes that the current labeling 

appropriately honors the organic integrity of both labels and should not be 

altered. Makers of organic wine have devoted decades to perfecting their 

wines in accordance to that label without the use of sulfur dioxide.

It is the CCOF, Inc. Board's view that a reversal of policy and allowance of 

the use of sulfur dioxide in wines labeled organic wine would 

unnecessarily undermine the hard work of these producers and undermine 

the integrity of the label. Therefore, we urge you to vote against this posi--

petition. Cathy Calfo, Executive Director, CCO cert--California Certified 

Organic Farmer, CCOF.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Ms. Morrill-LaRocca. (sic) Any questions? Jay?

Jay Feldman: Thank you. I think is it fair to say that you don't believe that sulfites 

are essential to the production of organic wine?

Phaedra LaRocca-Morrill: Absolutely, I do not beli--

Jay Feldman: Why do you think that there are many in the organic wine produ--or 

the wine producing community that--using the label “made with” that 

believe sulfites are essential and have made that claim to this Board?

Phaedra LaRocca-Morrill: Um, I believe that they don't want to learn how to make 

organic wines without sulfites. It's, uh, very possible, it is happening. You 

saw the products that are using it. You know that there's wines out there 

that are, um, doing it and I a--I assume they just don't want to take the 

time, the effort, the energy, um, the patience to actually learn how to do it.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

59

Jay Feldman: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Any more questions from the Board? Nick?

Nick Maravell: Uh, yes. Do you think that, uh, the amount of acreage in organic 

grape production would go up if the Committee's, uh, recommendation is 

adopted?

Phaedra LaRocca-Morrill: I don't think that that's gonna change. I do think the organic 

grape acreage is increasing because whether you add sulfites or not to 

your wine they find that organic grapes are of higher quality and will make 

a better wine. So I do not believe that just because you add sulfites to 

your wine more growers are going to go out and want to be organic.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you very much.

Phaedra LaRocca-Morrill: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Bruce Heiman is up next. Andy Sponseller is on deck.

Bruce Heiman: Hello and good morning. Uh, my name is Bruce Heiman. Uh, I 

started an organic wine distribution company in Florida, in sunny Florida 

almost 25 years ago. Um, there was only a handful of us, there was a 

few, um, distributors selling organic wines back then. I went through, uh, 

many years of dealing with, um, retailers and consumers, most important I 

want to mention are consumers over the years, and it was the most 

enjoyable business that you could possibly be in because I've made so 

many people happy, uh, providing these wines.

And I--I really want to also add that there's an amazing amount of talent in 

this room. Uh, I could never do what these people do, uh, the farmers, 

the, um, the organic, um, wine, you know, I'm--I'm also a certified 

sommier, uh, certified, um, um, wine spirit education trust, advanced level, 

and also recently, uh, wine spirit educat--um, I'm sorry, Society Wine 

Educators. Um, I'm a student of wine now and I--I have a lot of, uh, 

knowledge in wine. I study wine on a daily basis and I’m studying to be a 

master sommier, which'll take many years from now.

Um, I really want to say that the most important part of all of this really 

comes down to the consumer. Uh, I've dealt with, um, so many people 

and I've done probably in the last 24 years two wine tastings a week and 

I'll have wines made from certified organically grown grapes and organic 

wines without sulfites added and let me add I drink all wines and I love 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

60

wine. I'm a--I'm a avid wine-drinker and I'm proud to say that, uh, there's 

some amazing wines in the world and--and even conventional wines I 

drink.

Um, I--but going back to the consumer, people will come up to the table 

shaking and be so careful and concerned that the wine has sul--no sulfites 

added. And--and I'll say, “Well, this wine has no sulfites added,” and 

they'll say, “Well, can you show me?” And over the years the biggest 

concern and the biggest confusion has been that these consumers have 

not been able to locate them prior to a way it exists today.

I think today the way it exists is the least confusing and most important 

also for the retailers that sell the wine, the retailers over the years I've 

seen them misrepresent the wines and they don't know but the USDA 

stamp is the best way I've seen since I've been doing this. There's 

nothing since I've been doing this that came close to now the retailers and 

the consumers looking for the USDA stamp on the label.

Um, I--I personally think it's--it's fantastic to have, um, the--the--the wines 

that we are getting today. Um, I'm (inaudible). We do not get to awar like 

we have today, the organic winemaker, we call them the organic 

winegrower, is really the essence of this whole industry. Um, you know, 

the really important thing, again, and I'm not sure how much time I have 

left, um, is really the consumer. Um, and thank you very much.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Mr. Heiman. Any questions? Tina?

Kristine Ellor:Just so I'm clear, you like the labeling the way it is.

Bruce Heiman: Yeah, have the wine label, you know, sure, there's always ways to 

make it better but the way it exists today with the USDA stamp, uh, 

certifying organic wines, there's--there's never been an easier way for 

consumers and retailers to express that these wines are organic as, you 

know, as sulfites are, you know, for them, uh, uh, uh, something they--they 

want to stay completely away from. And it's a--a lot of people always 

misrepresent the amount of people, uh, that actually are sensitive to 

sulfites.

Uh, let me tell you firsthand I go through regular, conventional stores or s--

organic stores and y--everybody is stopping by saying organic wines 

without sulfites added. My aunt, my uncle, my brother, my sisters, uh, got 

a problem, an issue, with sulfites. I got into the business 'cause my wife, 

uh, is sensitive to sulfites, uh, so, yeah.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

61

Tracy Miedema: Katrina?

Katrina Heinze: Thanks for coming today.

Bruce Heiman: You're welcome.

Katrina Heinze: How do you differentiate for consumers the difference between a 

made with organic grape wine that contains 70 percent organic grapes 

and 30 percent conventional and when it contains all organic grapes?

Bruce Heiman: Right. Well, that's a very, good question. You know, you really 

have, um, the way it's stated today, you know, you have 70 percent 

organically grown grapes, you know, I love wines made from organically 

grown grapes. I drink them almost every night and I drink wines without 

sulfites. The quality level is amazing, uh, on the no added sulfite wines. I 

actually enjoy drinking no added sulfite wines more, uh, lately than I do 

wines with organically grown grapes. That's just me right now. Um, and I 

go back and forth.

Um, but, you know, if you get the wines that are 70 percent, and I tell a lot 

of consumers that they don't really understand but what they really care 

about, the most important issue to them is avoiding the sulfites, the ones 

that are actually looking for these wines. The retailers that are calling for 

these distributors to bring it to them, that is their main concern. Um, 

protecting the consumer I think really is--this is what this is all about.

And I came today, um, really for this purpose is that those people that I 

meet on a daily basis, and I'm really on the front lines, are able to find the 

wines without sulfites added and their are other alternative is not buying 

the wines at all. So really, who gains from that? And it's just a lot, you 

know, to me everybody calls it a small percentage of society, to me it's 

every--everybody, uh, that I meet. It seems like a l--one out of every three 

people have, uh, some issue with sulfites.

Tracy Miedema: Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: I hope later we can get clarity on the legality of the 70 percent label. 

Uh, maybe we can do that during our discussion. But in terms of your 

experience, uh, in the marketplace, um, what we're hearing from many 

who have submitted statements is that with good, clear labeling anybody 

that is sensitive can avoid sulfites either with the current labeling or under 

the proposed labeling where there's a requirement, there's a proposed 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

62

requirement that the organic seal would be accompanied by a "contains 

sulfites" notation or wording.

Again, your--you're at the, you know, you're at the consumer level, you 

see how people interact with the label and--and the questions they ask; 

what will that do to consumer understanding about what they're 

purchasing?

Bruce Heiman: Right. Well, it's an excellent question. You know, really it comes 

down to one--one thing really and one thing only, is the consumer being 

able to understand it. And what I've seen and I--I go back before the 

labels changed and there was stickers on the bottles and consumers just 

really couldn't understand and find the wines.

Um, I've been in a lot of retail stores going back years ago where the 

retailer and the manager and the owner without--without realizing it were 

telling the consumer that, "this wine has no sulfites added," and they were 

selling wines to them and I knew the--I knew the manager and the owner 

and I knew the, uh, that I needed to come over afterwards and explain to 

them that, “These wines have no sulfites added but the wines you sold

them with no sulfites added actually had sulfites added.”

The confusion came about really, you know, with the retailer and the 

consumer both. The way it exists today it almost appears that--and I'm 

talking from my heart, uh, that the, um, consumer is being educated by the 

retailer. The retailer gets in more now because they're superiors are 

saying, “Everything with USDA stamp has no sulfites added.”

If you can make it simpler than that to help the consumer then that's the 

goal, is to make it easier for the consumer to find these wines because in 

reality that's what it really comes down to and it's so important to them. I 

cannot stress how important it is to these consumers where I mean 

literally it--it is the difference between not drinking wine or drinking wine for 

them and that's a big deal. It really is.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you.

Bruce Heiman: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: It looks like one more question.

Bruce Heiman: Okay.

C. Reuben Walker: You mentioned one-third consumers prefer no sulfite wines--
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

63

Bruce Heiman: I--

C. Reuben Walker: --that was just your opinion or--

Bruce Heiman: --yeah, well, you know, from what I'm--

C. Reuben Walker: --a study?

Bruce Heiman: --getting at and maybe what I'm trying to say is when I get four or 

five people at a table one of them is no added sulfite wines. Um, I have 

on the same table wines with organically grown grapes. I'll purposely put 

out on a wine tasting sweet wines, which I love to put out on wine tastings 

because a lot of people love sweet wines and a lot of people are looking 

for wines without sulfites added. Um, I always get, “Well, how do I really 

know?” You know, and the ones that actually say that are fewer and 

fewer all the time. I'm really surprised and happily so that so many people 

now realize, "Oh, which ones have the USDA stamp?” And they're telling 

their friend, “Oh, this USDA stamp is the wine without the sulfites added 

because the USDA stamp, this is the way I understand it.”

Um, you know, I think again, to keep it, you know, for the consumers that 

actually have a problem with sulfites, um, the most easy, um, wellinformed way to show them that this wine has no sulfites added, um, and 

that's what they're looking for. And it's simply put, they want to come 

home with that bottle of wine and know that there's no sulfites added in 

that bottle of wine and that's the important part here and that's what I can 

kind of add to this whole discussion, if I could.

Tracy Miedema: Last question--

Bruce Heiman: Um-hum.

Tracy Miedema: --might it be that this labeling issue is related to, um, lack of visibility 

of no sulfites across all wine as opposed to being an organic-specific 

issue?

Bruce Heiman: When you say, "Lack of visibility," you know, I hope I'm answering 

the question correctly, um, organic wines have been growing leaps and 

bounds. I was just in DOCG, um, event and a lot of DOCG farmers in Italy

were having organic plantings. Um, everybody gets it. A lot of people 

worldwide are--are developing land, um, organically grown and really, uh, 

one of the reasons is when--in wine you got (inaudible) , you got the--the--
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

64

the, uh, the flavor and the aromas come from literally--and I believe in--

and a lot of people do, the land, the earth itself.

And the earth is a living entity and, you know, the--when they use the, um, 

when they use the organic farming methods and principles the grapes 

benefit greatly from being so much more well-balanced. And farmers, 

organic or winemakers that are actually organic winegrowers, are starting 

to get it and realize that the soil gets depleted with the u--use of 

chemicals. So as a sommier, um, the most important thing right now is 

the world is getting it, organically grown is the answer for wines.

Uh, the be--the more the better and everybody's happy about that. And I 

guess that's not the question. Um, I hope I answered your question 

correctly.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you.

Bruce Heiman: You're welcome.

Tracy Miedema: All right.

Bruce Heiman: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Next up is Andy Sponseller. Charlotte Vallaeys is on deck.

Andy Sponseller: Uh, Ladies and Gentlemen of the National Organic Standards 

Board, my name is Andy Sponseller. I'm a organic winemaker from 

Missoula, Montana. I know that's an oddball spot for wine but, uh, we are, 

in fact, doing that up there. Um, currently we're producing 5,000 cases. 

Uh, we have a 10,000-case capacity at our winery. Uh, and I'd like you to 

know that we've had a sales increase every year since, uh, we started 

making wine in 2003.

Well, we've been, uh, uh, an organic grape grower since 1998. We have, 

uh, uh, quite a selection of wines, a variety of wines. Uh, we have four 

viniferous wines, those are the varieties that you're used to like cabernet, 

pinot gris, those varieties. We have four of those wines. We have two, 

local grape wines from our vineyard in Missoula, Montana and we have 

five fruit wines and they're locally and regionally grown, uh, that we make 

at the winery.

Uh, all our wines, of course, are certified organic and, uh, are no added 

sulfites. We've, uh, won awards for our wines, believe it or not, and show 

and tell, I brought this portion of them. It's, uh, it's, uh, gold, silver and 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

65

bronze from, uh, all--[applause] ...from all sorts of different, uh, uh, 

competitions but specifically the Indy at Perdue University, uh, Fingerlakes 

International, Mendocino County Fair, Northwest Wine Summit, to mention 

a few.

Um, shipping and distribution, uh, we ship, uh, locally, regionally and 

nationally. Um, and that's important because, uh, some folks claim that, 

uh, organic wines won't stand the, uh, rigors of shipping. Uh, our wines 

get shipped in all different conditions, uh, all over the United States and to 

Alaska. I think we ship some to Hawaii, as well.

The heart of the matter is 205.600 criteria. Um, specifically, uh, 205.600.4 

deals with, uh, preservatives in organic food and, uh, as a winemaker I 

can tell you that sulfites are definitely a preservative, uh, they ask as a 

color stabilizer and a--antimicrobial, uh, and, uh, other things, as well, but 

those are the two important ones.

Uh, 205.600.6, uh, is the essentiality clause and, um, um, I'd like to tell 

you that, uh, sulfites are not essential to organic winemaking. Uh, 

industry, uh, winemaking, uh, practices properly performed makes sulfites 

unnecessary. I'm reading this right off of the r--read-along that you have. 

Um, timely inoculation and processing, sanitary production conditions, 

yeast selection, quality bottle closures, uh, uh, diligent bottling practices, 

all industry practices, uh, that take, uh, attention to detail, an enhanced 

attention to detail, I'll grant you, um, uh, but, uh, definitely makes it 

possible to make organic wine without sulfites.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Mr. Sponseller.

Andy Sponseller: Uh, can I just close the statement that I'd just like to say the organic 

rule must not be a marketing statement. Uh, it needs to be the highest 

food standard and I'd ask the Committee to, uh, uh, not allow sulfites in 

organic winemaking. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any questions? Barry, then Jay.

Barry Flamm: Thank you, Andy, for traveling all the way out from Montana. I kind 

of know how long a trip that is. Andy, um, what would be the, um, effect, 

in your opinio--pinion, uh, on your business and, um, organics in general if 

this, uh, uh, proposal to allow sulfites in organic wines, uh, was to take 

place?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

66

Andy Sponseller: Well, our business will be strong no matter what. Uh, we have a 

quality product. Uh, we've gone to great lengths to learn how to make 

wine without, uh, sulfites and, uh, w--the reason I'm here is not because 

my business interest, to tell you the truth. My interest is in the or--integrity 

of the organic rule. So I would be very sad if the--if the organic rule, uh, 

continues to, uh, in my estimation, slide and, uh, preservatives are--are 

not essential, uh, in this food so, uh, that's why I'm here. Uh, we'll do fine 

no matter what.

Jay Feldman: Thanks for being here and making the trip.

Andy Sponseller: Certainly.

Jay Feldman: Um, I'm--I was interested in your c--statement about, um, the 

organic program and rule must not be a marketing program. You know, 

obviously we as a Board want to do everything we can to promote the 

growth of organic. And it's--it's h--a really, high priority and there's the 

challenge of this balancing, um, uh, with regard to that. Obviously a lot of 

the comments we're getting on this do raise the marketing angle, uh, that 

this will, uh, increase the growth of the organic wine industry.

Are there--if you don't believe that we as a Board should be making 

decisions regarding the marketing angle are there other things that you 

think could go on under the current label that would increase the 

marketing? And where--what would those things be and who should do 

them?

Andy Sponseller: Well, I think that, um, to answer your question I--I--I think that, uh, 

as several other speakers have addressed that, uh, the sales of, uh, uh, 

organic and wines in the organic classification are increasing, uh, uh, 

every day. Um, I don't think it's a matter of, um, organic winemakers or 

people that are, uh, making wine under the organic program are going 

hungry or, uh, lacking for sales.

Um, I'm not exactly where this--sure where this is coming from but we've 

had a sales increase every year since we've been in the business and, 

um, um, I--I--I suspect that there are some other, uh, considerations here 

that haven't been fully illustrated that are pushing the situation. Uh, as far 

as I'm concerned organic's going no place but up and, um, um, I think that, 

uh, if you really want to, uh, set the organic program back then, uh, dilute 

the USDA symbol.

Tracy Miedema: Tina then Nick.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

67

Kristine Ellor:Just--just a quick question, and I don't mean to be offensive here, I'm just 

curious and I want to be clear because people have come up to me and--

and I know this not be true from my own experience but saying, you know, 

non-sulfited wine, you know, terrible swill, not worth drinking. I know that's 

not true. Those med--those medals that you showed, those were in open 

categories, these were not categories just limited to organic wine or nonsulfite wine?

Andy Sponseller: Well, I'm really glad you asked that question.

Kristine Ellor:I--yeah.

Andy Sponseller: Thank you. Are you a seed, a shill? No. I--I, um, uh, I actually had 

that on my list to talk to y'all about and, uh, uh, in fact, all these awards 

were won in, uh, blind tastings. That’s the way, uh, legitimate, uh, big-time 

wine competitions are handled. Uh, the judges don't know what they're 

drinking and my wines have gone head-to-head with, uh, uh, wines all 

across the United States and the world. So, uh, people don't know what 

they're drinking when they test then and mine make the grade.

Tracy Miedema: Nick?

Nick Maravell: I was wondering if you could comment on two aspects of 

winemaking without sulfites. Um, do you believe that, um, it is more 

expensive, uh, pro--uh, more expensive production system for you to 

produce wines without sulfites? And the second question; do you feel that 

producing wines without sulfites restricts you in any way as to the scale of 

your production, how large your production could be?

Andy Sponseller: Uh, to answer your first question, um, um, the expense of doing 

wine organically it's attention to detail more than expense. And, um, um, I-

-I'd say that almost every step that we do at our winery are steps that--that 

most winemakers do. I think there's, uh, uh, it's kind of an insurance issue 

and--and a, uh, uh, perhaps a lack of confidence with some winemakers 

out there. Um, I think that they're interested in, uh, having that final 

insurance policy, uh, uh, du--dumping antimicrobial into their bottles.

Um, like I say, our wines, uh, are shipped all over the country and, uh, win 

awards and, um, I'm not using the insurance policy. Uh, your second 

question was--
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

68

Nick Maravell: My second question was, uh, in terms of producing wines, uh, 

without sulfites, does that limit the scale of your production, how large your 

production system could be?

Andy Sponseller: Well, absolutely not. Um, right now we're looking for ways to, uh, 

fund, uh, um, uh, the capital expenditures, uh, that we need to make, um, 

to meet demand. So, uh, we don't, uh, have, uh, equipment that's, uh, 

particularly esoteric or, uh, super high tech. Uh, like I say, it's attention to 

detail and, uh, uh, and dis--and interest in paying attention to detail.

Uh, I'm just looking for a way to make 10,000 cases instead of five 

because the demand's there and, um, uh, I'm headed in that direction fast.

Tracy Miedema: Anymore questions?

Andy Sponseller: Thank you very much.

Tracy Miedema: Thank--thank you, sir. Charlotte Vallaeys is up next and Laura

Batcha is on deck.

Charlotte Vallaeys: Oops. Hi, my name is Charlotte Vallaeys. I'm Director of Farm and 

Food Policy with the Cornucopia Institute. Um, I'd like to talk about the 

Martek Biosciences Corporation petitions for DHA algal oil and ARA fungal 

oil. Uh, we're urging you to reject both petitions, um, base--based on the 

fact that it actually fails most of the criteria for inclusion on the National 

List.

Uh, but before I detail those criteria, um, I'd like show an example of why a 

no vote at this meeting is absolutely crucial. This is the certified organic 

baby food currently on the market. Let me read you some of the 

ingredients. Um, glucose syrup solids, modified starch, manitol, which is a 

synthetic, artificial sweetener, sodium asorbate, sodium polyphosphate 

and a non-organic sunflower oil.

This all made its way into organic baby food through the Martek DHA, um, 

algal oil powder. So with a no vote the NOV--NOP can go ahead 

removing these, uh, non-approved materials from organic foods and 

ensure that we keep a strong and meaningful, organic label.

Now, onto the criteria that the--both petitions failed; the first is the 

environmental impact of manufacturing. The petitions before you do 

include, um, oils that are extracted with hexane, a hazardous air pollutant 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

69

and the TR failed to mention that the Martek Factory does, in fact, emit 

hexane into the air.

The other--another criteria it fails, the other natural alternatives available--

yes, uh, we already have Organic Valley milk, Stoneyfield yogurt, Gerber

organic baby food, there's a baby formula all using approved sources of 

DHA, um, including fish oil and eggs. It's also not essential in case 

anybody will say, “Yes, but our children need manufactured, um, isolated 

nutrients to be healthy.” If--if a consumer were to believe that argument 

they can go out and buy supplements.

There are supplements for infants, for children, chewables, drops. Um,

nobody will be deprived of anything by rejecting this petition. And a last 

word about the science, you'll likely hear from the scientists, um, during 

public comment, um, either with current or past affiliations with Martek or 

with the infant formula industry. They will cherry-pick studies, uh, to try to 

convince you that this is essential.

Um, in the public comments that I have submitted we have meta analysis 

studies. Now, meta analysis studies, um, without bias look at all of the 

studies that have been done on a specific question and all of them have 

concluded that there are no benefits to infant development from adding 

DHA and ARA to infant formulas. So I urge you very strongly for the sake 

of keeping a strong and meaningful organic label to reject both petitions. 

Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Any questions for Ms. Vallaeys? I have one. Ms. Vallaeys, you 

mentioned that these products are widely available in grocery stores today 

and labeled, um, labeled as such and read us some of the nutritional 

panel. Do you know how many organic consumers are today choosing 

these products made with this DHA?

Charlotte Vallaeys: Right. And this is another, uh, it's a very, interesting question 

because, uh, PCC Natural Markets, uh, the largest food cooperative, um, 

they're based in Seattle with over 45,000 members did a survey of their 

consumers. And what they found was that, in fact, organic consumers are 

interested in omega 3s, DHA from natural sources. So they want--they 

want fish oil from wild fish, um, and they do buy those products.

What is very concerning from the results of this, um, survey is--and this 

was over 1500, um, people in the--in the survey, was that if they knew that 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

70

it was with s--uh, stabilized with synthetics only .3 percent of organic 

consumers would actually buy the product.

So what I'm suggesting is that if an organic consumer who is buying, say, 

a milk product with, um, DHA algae oil, if they knew that that contained 

non-organic sunflower oil or synthetic stabilizers that they would not buy it. 

And so, um, so th--th--this study's very important to show that consumers,

in fact, would reject, um, these manufactured, um, synthetically stabilized, 

um, supplements.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. We'll await and see if there's any market data. I was 

actually asking more about sales volume but thank you very much. Uh, 

Jay Feldman?

Jay Feldman: Have--have you looked at other consumer surveys? I think we--the 

Board received a survey that was done by I'm thinking OTA in 

collaboration with a magazine.

Charlotte Vallaeys: Um-hum, Kiwi Magazine.

Jay Feldman: Yeah, and that survey did it ask the same questions that PCC 

asked around the knowledge of what is in the--the DHA algal oil or can 

you--can you describe to us the differences in the survey?

Charlotte Vallaeys: Yeah, right. So the Kiwi Magazine survey, um, just asked are c--

are shoppers interested in, uh, supplemented foods? And they found I 

believe i--it was around 60 percent said that they were, um, which is 

actually the same percentage that the PCC market foun--s--survey found, 

um, when asking the very, general question, “Do you want supplemented 

organic foods?”

Um, but the Kiwi Magazine did not ask consumers, uh, “Do you want it 

from wild fish oil or, um, you know, genetically modified or, um, algae oil or 

oil with synthetic stabilizers?” And so that's why we feel the PCC, uh, 

survey is much more accurate in--in gauging what organic consumers 

think they're buying when they're buying supplemented organic foods.

Male: Just a real, quick follow-up, the--we--you know, we rely heavily on the 

Board, uh, on the technical reviews that--that are received. Just really 

quickly, did you identify problems with the technical review?

Charlotte Vallaeys: Uh, yes, I did. Actually, um, several problems including, um, I 

mean they just parroted a lot of the claims that were in the Martek petition 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

71

without doing their own review. For example, the hexane emissions, um, 

Martek in the petition says all of it is reused and recycled. Um, it's unclear 

why the TR didn't just look at the EPA data; this is publicly available. Um, 

they just said the exact, same phrase, “it's all reused and recycled,” when 

EPA data shows that Martek's factory is putting hexane into the air.

Um, there is a lot of--there--there were other problems with it. Um, I'm--

you know, with--for example they were pointing out problems with--with 

fish oil--oh, l--let me p--another one actually that's kind of important is the--

stating that all of these, um, national dietary guidelines are recommending, 

um, DHA but they're not distinguishing that these national dietary 

guidelines are--are encouraging whole food sources like fish oil, that 

they're asking for--that they're telling consumers to eat a balanced, um, 

fatty acid. And so, uh, it's in the public comments, I actually--at the end of 

my public comment I have a whole section on problems with the TR.

Male: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Ms. Vallaeys. Laura Batcha is up next. Jody Biergiel is 

on deck.

Laura Batcha: Good morning. Um, I'm Laura Batcha from the Organic Trade 

Association and we're a national trade association rep--representing 

producers, handlers, distributors, retailers and certifiers of organic 

products across North America.

Um, we submitted extensive written comments on 14 of the 

recommendations that the, uh, Board posted. So I encourage you to look 

at the wric--written record of our comments and I'm just gonna focus in my 

time here on the recommendations from the Policy Committee and the 

CACC Committee. And my colleague, Gwendolyn Wyard in her public 

comment on Thursday will be addressing recommendations and our 

comments in the other committee areas.

So the first recommendation I want to address is the, uh, conflict of 

interest recommendation. Um, first of all, we really do applaud the 

committee for your commitment to upholding ethical standards and 

improving your processes as you go forward as a Board.

But OTA cannot support the proposed changes to the Board's conflict of 

interest policy and we have extensive written comments submitted on that. 

But our basic perspective is we believe that the policy you have in place 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

72

is--is fully adequate to protect against conflict of interest due to financial 

gain, which is what is appropriate for a FACA Board to be focusing on.

And you can review amongst yourselves whether or not in your own 

operations of your meetings you're fully utilizing the policy that you have in 

place currently. We believe that the recommendation as written attempts 

to impose federal employee requirements for conflict of interest on a 

FACA Board, which would be inappropriate based on what we all 

understand to be your role, which is to bring perspective and represent 

interests through your service on the Board.

The second, uh, recommendation that I want to comment on is in terms of 

the public comment process. And just briefly, I think we want to 

encourage you all as a Board to really create balance between what you 

hear from the podium and what you have in the written record. I know 

how hard it must be for all of you to read all those written comments in 

your busy lives but it creates a dynamic where in three minutes it's very 

difficult to communicate technical analysis and information and provide 

real thor--thorough comments to you about recommendations.

So, please, please, please, challenge yourselves to take the time to 

balance the written comments with what you hear on-site. It's easier to 

get a sound byte across from the podium than it is to provide a technical 

assessment; so we just ask you to be mindful of that.

In terms of the recommendation on transparency, um, we have some, uh, 

suggestions for changes and we don't support the recommendation as 

written. And we think in terms of looking at your existing policies on FACA 

facts it gives you real good guidance on, uh, appropriate record-taking. 

We encourage you to look at the Chatham House Rules.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Ms. Batcha. Any questions? Jay Feldman?

Jay Feldman: Thanks, Laura.

Laura Batcha: Yeah.

Jay Feldman: Um, and thank you for your extensive comment. I--the--the whole 

issue of transparency is one that I think, uh, I--I just want to clarify you're 

suggesting no change, um, but that we keep things as--as is.

Laura Batcha: Um, we have some suggestions for some, uh, changes to what you 

proposed. And if you turn the sheet over that I just handed around, Jay, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

73

you can see that. And we also ask you to look at and recognize your 

Appendix B on FACCA facts that give you, um, guidance about minutetaking.

We support, uh, uh, FOYA and FACCA requirements for committee work 

and we, um, understand that there needs to be transparency there. I think 

the--the thing that we're challenged with is how to prea--create an 

environment where you all can have open discussion and I know in my 

own deliberations I will tell you there are sometimes when I say whacky 

things just to think out loud and find out how my peers who I respect are 

gonna react to it and engage in that healthy debate to hone my own 

thinking, particularly in difficult decision-making.

And so the fear is that if you go so far to a written transcript of everything 

said and attributed to every individual in that committee deliberative 

discussion process you're gonna inevitably limit the robust, elucidation that 

should come from your committee work. And we think if you follow 

general principles about what was discussed, what was said, who was 

present, date and time, you can meet the requirements for FOYA and 

transparency without limiting the debate and, uh, we're recommending you 

take a good look at the Chatham House Rules because we use that in our 

own work at the Trade Association to help guide, uh, an environment that 

fosters that kind of open sharing of ideas and learning.

Jay Feldman: Well, just quick--one of the, uh, intents of the Committee, I think, in 

design--developing this, uh, proposal was to provide a mechanism for 

engaging the public more and that--when I say the public I mean the 

whole community. I mean we're--we don't want to sti--I don't think anyone 

on the Committee wants to stifle, you know, corporate involvement or 

consumer involvement. It's--that's the whole point of this Board, to 

engage all.

So the question is, in--if that is the case, uh, we--th--there's all--there's a 

di--there's a difficulty in getting access, the public access to information, 

um, and a difficult--tha--as you're describing, communicating with the 

Board. Would OTA support, um, a provision that would enable the public 

to engage with the Board members based on the minutes, and we can talk 

about what those minutes look like, during--during the deliberative process 

so that this--so that there's an opportunity for people that have a concern 

they're not forced into this three-minute window, they also have an 

opportunity to get information into the process earlier than--rather than 

later at the back end during their--during the open comment period.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

74

Could you envision, uh, a process where we could engage the public, the 

full public, the full community better than we are currently doing with 

information of that sort?

Laura Batcha: Well, I think I'm hearing two s--questions in there, Jay, essentially, 

which is how do we meet the, um, shared outcome of transparency for the 

work of the Board to inform the public so that then they can inform you 

about what they think about the direction you're going in. And then the 

separate one I--if I'm hearing you right is sort of a process question about 

how on an ongoing basis does the public communicate with the Board.

On their transparency question, if you look at your current FACCA facts in 

terms of detailed minutes we, you know, we do want minutes made 

available from community discussions. And if you look at point C there, “a 

complete and accurate description of matters discussed and conclusions 

reached and any advise or recommendations provided by the Com--

Committee” should, without being a direct cra--transcript with attribution to 

every individual provide the public the information they need to keep, uh, 

up to speed with what you all are doing as a Board.

Um, in terms of how the public engages you all asynchronously outside of 

the public comment process, uh, there are restrictions and requirements 

about how--how that happens that have to do with the federal government 

and so I--I'm not gonna comment on that.

Tracy Miedema: Nick and then Calvin?

Nick Maravell: Uh, yes. On the conflict of interest provisions, um, what do you feel 

would be the impact on Board deliberation and, uh, the recruitment of 

Board members if the Committee recommendation were adopted?

Laura Batcha: Thanks, Nick. I--I think, um, a couple of things. Aside from 

recruitment of new members and participation, uh, our perspective is tha--

that it's just inappropriate to apply conflict of interest standards that have 

been developed for federal employees to a volunteer service board. And, 

um, I can't predict the future but I would imagine that it might hamper 

participation.

For example, Nick, I serve on, uh, two FACCA Boards, one of which is the 

AC21 that Miles mentioned earlier this morning and as a 22-person 

FACCA board we are charged with making a recommendation to the 

Secretary on if there are appropriate mechanisms to compensate organic 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

75

farmers and identity-preserved farmers for market loss due to, uh, 

contamination of their products from genetic material.

We will develop a recommendation. We will have a majority and a min--

minority opinion on that recommendation. As a volunteer on that Board

I'm putting in hours of service. I also operate a certified organic farm and 

hold a valid certificate for organic production.

If it comes down to the time when we take that vote about whether or not 

we can compensate organic farmers for their market loss I, under no 

circumstances, would be pleased if my colleagues on the Board who don't 

support compensation attempted to call out a federal employee 

requirement on conflict of interest saying because I hold a valid certificate 

I no longer could take that vote that would be a real problem.

And so you have to think about it outside of just the NOSB and the role 

that the public takes on in terms of serving on FACCA boards. Certainly if 

I felt like my vote was gonna be null at the end of the day why would I 

dedicate the time between now and then to go through that somewhat 

painful process of grappling with tough issues?

And you guys are faced with the same thing so just from my experience, 

um, it would limit me, Nick.

C. Reuben Walker: Excuse me. Conflict of--Conflict of interest is, uh, very, difficult and 

challenging for the Board. I think what the Policy Committee attempted to 

do was to enhance what was in existence since 1999. And I think that it 

was not designed to--we know that there's an inherent conflict, uh, the 

current policy do not mention--I think one of the reviews had mentioned 

financial disclosure. That was something that the proposal was not doing.

Are you familiar with, uh, HR3124?

Laura Batcha: Help me out with that.

C. Reuben Walker: Uh, this was passed on October the 12th dealing with federal 

advisory committees. Uh, this was passed with bipartisan support as it 

relates to conflict of interest as it relates to boards such as, uh--

Laura Batcha: Um-hum.

C. Reuben Walker: --NOSB.

Laura Batcha: Um-hum.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

76

C. Reuben Walker: And, you know, in Congress if you can get bipartisan support on 

anything you might be doing pretty good. And the main reason for doing 

that was to try to put out more transparency. It requires more detailed 

minutes, audio recordings to the likes. So--and I think that the NOSB 

Board in 1999 did a very, good job even though it's not required but to 

show to the organic community that we are working above-board and not, 

uh, behind the scene.

Laura Batcha: Um--

C. Reuben Walker: So, uh, uh, HR--it's 3124, if you want to--to look at that particular 

legislation.

Laura Batcha: --so just two things in terms of your comments to me, Calvin. Um, 

one is, uh, uh, we absolutely support transparency. Transcripts are made 

available from the full Board discussions so that's--that's not the issue 

here at all. And your current policy calls for disclosure of financial conflict 

and, uh, use it as, you know, we want you to use the policy you have.

C. Reuben Walker: Also--

Tracy Miedema: Just a reminder, Board Members, let's do make sure, uh, we stick 

to questions. We--we'll have our time tomorrow, uh, to make 

presentations on our committee docks.

C. Reuben Walker: --I'm a newbie so I get carried away.

Laura Batcha: Yeah, me, too.

C. Reuben Walker: One of the issues as we were looking at the policy, let's say I have 

a--I believe that I have a potential conflict, the existing policy do not give a 

definition for conflict of interest or potential, conflict of interest. So the 

question is that, I think, for what--as you mentioned and for others is that 

we believe and I want to know do you believe, that at some point after 11 

or 12 years we should revisit our conflict of interest policy?

Laura Batcha: As I s--uh, said in the beginning, um, we don't support the 

recommendation the way it was written. And we think certainly we would 

encourage you to revisit how you implement the policy that you have and--

and try that first, see how that works for you, if you take a more robust, uh, 

approach to operationalizing the policy that you have when you're in the 

Board meetings.

Tracy Miedema: Joe Dickson?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

77

Joe Dickson: Thank you, Laura.

Laura Batcha: Um-hum.

Joe Dickson: Um, when you were talking about public comments you talked about the 

need to strike a balance between the oral comments that we receive here 

and the written comments we receive in advance of the meeting but I 

didn't quite catch--I--does OTA feel that they're imbalanced in a particular 

way and do you have any specific suggestions on how we could work 

towards a more appropriate balance?

Laura Batcha: Um, thanks, Joe. I will say, you know, at the last meeting that, um, 

I was a little struck by, um, in the committee discussion day on 

Wednesday the relative lack of reference to written comments versus the 

reference to comments that were heard from the podium. So I th--I think 

that's--whether or not that balance is out of whack truly or not I think that, 

um, at least I experienced that from the audience.

Um, it could be helpful for the committees, um, to inform their colleagues 

about the range of written comment that was received and perhaps 

provide a little summary when you do your committee discussions so that 

as committee members, you know, we would assume that you're more, 

uh, familiar with the specific written comments that were provided on the 

recommendations that you worked on personally, right?

So if you could summarize that for your other Board members to help 

make sure everybody's taking in the totality of public comment would be 

perhaps helpful, Joe.

Tracy Miedema: Calvin?

C. Reuben Walker: I would like a ditto and I think it was your group that advocated that 

because it is worthy to note that and I would appreciate it what y'all had 

sent in because you--your group, as well as the Board, believe that if 

individuals take the time to provide written comments as well as come to 

these meetings that we should consider, uh, very thoroughly for what they 

say.

Laura Batcha: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Ms. Batcha. Just a quick time check here. Uh, we've r-

-we're about 45 minutes off-schedule and we will be taking a break at 

about 12:30 today for lunch. Um, I don't want to stifle any of the 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

78

conversation that's going on but I do just want to make people aware of 

how we're tracking. Jody Biergiel, please proceed.

Jody Biergiel: Thank you. Uh, I'm Jody Biergiel, the Director of Handler

Certification at CCOF. Um, just for those of you who may not know, 

CCOF is a certifier based in California and we certify over 2400 operations 

right now.

Um, I'd like to offer some comments on several agenda items so bear with 

me. Um, I--for myself and on behalf of some of my colleagues who 

couldn't be here. Um, and we've wrote comments on all of these, as well, 

so there's more details available.

Um, regarding the conflict of interest, uh, procedures or recommendation 

CCOF supports protections against real conflicts of interest, uh, so the 

integrity of the Board's decisions cannot be challenged. However, um, it's 

important to CCOF that conflict of interest procedures do not take up 

valuable NOSB public meeting time and that they do not limit the Board 

from being composed of organic community members with valuable 

experience and relevant knowledge.

Regarding the delivery of public comments ultimately whatever structure is 

chosen the format--the format of public comments must be scalable. As 

the industry grows we must anticipate and plan for how public comment 

will be offered to the Board when there are many times the number of 

participants.

For the Livestock Committee CCOF was impressed by the breadth and 

the depth of the six, different proposals put forward. There is no way to 

cover all the comments we have in this verbal, uh, period but briefly we 

recognize that the committee feels strongly that there needs to quick and 

decisive action taken on the issue of poultry stocking rights. However, we 

ask that the Livestock Committee step back, prioritize the documents 

you're working on and give the community a chance to make thoughtful 

and useful feedback.

We continue to support the use of outcome-based standards and metrics 

where they are readily enforceable such as square feet per bird. 

However, we do not support any new standards or guidance that would 

require increased paperwork or which require, uh, organic certifiers to do 

other types of audits such as verifying food safety compliance.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

79

Such requirements increase the price of certification for small producers 

and limit the number of slaughter locations available for organic 

processing. We believe that metrics recommended for rule-making or 

guidance should be supported by scientific evidence showing that they are 

indicative of high animal welfare. And we do not support metrics that are 

simply political compromises. We believe organic is and should continue 

to be the gold standard for all production practices, including animal 

welfare.

Finally, please, allow me to make some general comments regarding the 

petitioned, uh, handling materials. CCOF agrees with the NOP's request 

that the petition process for handling and processing materials should 

consider all common additional ingredients in the material being reviewed. 

Discuss--discussing specific additional ingredients in the TAP review or 

petition documentation helps certifiers confirm what is and isn't intended to 

be allowed by its listing.

If a material is recommended for addition to the National List 605 it is 

simplest to allow all common ingredients or additives that have a function 

in the material but generally annotations make things more complicated to 

verify. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any questions for Jody? Calvin?

C. Reuben Walker: Thanks for your comments. Uh, as they relates to livestock--

Jody Biergiel: Hum.

C. Reuben Walker: --are you recommending that we try to find a consensus and--and 

try to move some of these documents onto the Program? 'Cause seem 

like this has been going back and forth for some time.

Jody Biergiel: Yeah, uh, these comments were made on behalf of my colleague, 

who's the Livestock Department, uh, Director so I would not presume to--

to answer that without checking with her. My apologies.

C. Reuben Walker: Repute s'il vous plait.

Jody Biergiel: Uh, I--I--I don't know the answer to that. I'm sorry.

Tracy Miedema: Joe Dickson?

Joe Dickson: Thank you, Jody.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

80

Jody Biergiel: Sure.

Joe Dickson: I--same question I just asked, um, you mentioned public comments should 

be scalable and--and balanced. Um, what specifically should we do to 

make it better?

Jody Biergiel: Um, that's a good question. Uh, and we saw several proposals 

from sort of a lottery to, um, limiting the time and, um, I--I don't have any 

specific suggestions. I think any number of those have pros and cons so, 

um, I don't envy your work.

Tracy Miedema: Anymore questions?

C. Reuben Walker: Your membership, have they expressed concerns about what we 

are proposing through the livestock committee, uh, not coming to the 

standards of the Canadian, uh, U.S. equi--equivalency? Is that an issue 

for some of your--your members?

Jody Biergiel: Uh, you mean about antibiotics specifically or--

C. Reuben Walker: Or stocking, uh, density.

Jody Biergiel: --the stocking rights? Um, I believe there's some people here who 

will be able to speak to that, some of our members. Yeah, but I'm--I'm--

imagine it is, uh, a barrier to trade.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you.

Jody Biergiel: Thanks.

Tracy Miedema: Jake Lewin is up next. Zia Sonavand is on deck.

Jake Lewin: All right. Hi, everyone. Uh, thank you for your service. My name is Jake

Lewin, I'm the Chief Certification Officer for CCOF Certification Services. 

We are the largest and one of the oldest certifiers in North America. We 

probably certify operations of every size and complexity and perform 

about 3,000 inspections annually.

So I'm here to talk about the CACC items. Firstly, we agree that the 

discussion regarding material review organizations is important and timely. 

We have provided comments on the subject including our past comments 

obs--that substansibly address this issue and encourage all to consider 

them carefully. It is not a simple issue.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

81

Unfortuna--unfortunately it is becoming increasingly urgent as the 

Department of Agriculture in California implements their Organic Fertilizer 

Law. Many are looking to NOP regarding the potential recognition and 

standing of this new program.

However, we caution against unintended consequences that make 

certification too complicated. In particular, there are marked differences 

between third-party review organizations such as OMRI and internal 

processes at the certification level. Not all inputs are branded and many, 

particularly many of the ones that are most local and simple, are important 

to producers.

Certifiers must be able to maintain internal review processes that allow the 

use of simple imputs such as local mulch without forcing overwrought 

brand name review processes or national listing of every mulch pile in 

America. We are concerned with a plan that relies on a National List of 

brand name materials in an environment of insecure funding and uncertain 

resources at the national level.

So regarding inspector qualifications and the in--unannounced inspection 

proposals, we applaud this committee for developing sound, pragmatic 

and achievable minimum requirements. We encourage the NOP to 

implement largely as written without additional complication or unworkable 

specificity.

These two recommendations definitely support existing best practices that 

helped build our industry to where it is. They push the best among us 

forward while forcing those lagging behind to meet achievable 

benchmarks.

CCOF previously implemented a continuing education requirement but 

this qualifications recommendation does represent a challenge for CCOF 

in terms of implementing witness audits. We are prepared, in fact excited, 

to rise to this challenge. However, we do recommend that the CACC 

make a m--modification that allows any agri-food experience to be 

applicable for inspectors, a limited only organic agri--experiences not 

workable and not desirable.

Um, we concur with others that where internal training is appropriate it 

could count towards continuing education. In our case CCOF's internal 

training is not appropriate for this and we would expect accred--

accreditation oversight to be able to monitor this situation.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

82

So regarding unannounced inspections we strongly support this 

recommendation and have proven that it is achievable. We thank you and 

the NOP for addressing it so quickly since the last NOSB meeting. CCOF 

has committed considerable organizational resources, about one percent 

of our expenses, towards unannounced inspection programs. It's a good 

recommendation.

Tracy Miedema: Any questions for Jake Lewin? John Foster?

John Foster: On--on the unannounced inspections how have you found the return on 

the investment, as it were?

Jake Lewin: They--they're more complicated than an average inspection but 

fundamentally they've made us better as a certifier and they've made us 

capable of addressing complaints and other investigations as they arise. 

We frankly don't understand how a certifier without a robust unannounced 

inspection program could really function.

Tracy Miedema: Jay?

Jay Feldman: Thank you. You--this--there appears to be some disagreement on 

the amount of time a prenotification prior to an unannounced inspection, 

which sounds kind of intuitive to me. But, um, there's the--there's the fourhour requirement then others are asking for twelve hours at least. You, in 

your comments said something about if you're not local I mean--I'm--I'm 

paraphrasing, if you're not local to the area then you probably shouldn't be 

a certifier. And if it takes you that long to get there maybe you're not the 

right certifier.

Can you--is--d--am I interpreting that correctly; is that--

Jake Lewin: If you'll indulge me I've got four sentences I didn't have time for that 

address this. Um, yeah, our main concern is the tendency of certifiers to 

want to provide prior notification. We don't believe short notice and 

unannounced are synonyms. Um, we are sympathetic to the fear of 

wasted cost but see that as the cost of doing business.

We--and we fundamentally don't believe that certifiers should operate 

where they cannot afford to perform unannounced inspections. However, 

recognizing that there are extenuating circumstances we would support a 

compromise that would allow certifiers to perform, say, up to ten percent 

of their unannounced inspections with prior notification. It would address 

rare cases that every once in a while this is important, for example, of the 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

83

260-odd unannounced inspections we've done in the U.S., Canada and 

Mexico in the last years to my knowledge one of them has had prior 

notification. Does that answer your question?

Jay Feldman: On--on the issue of, um, a working group--

Jake Lewin: Um-hum.

Jay Feldman: --I think the certifiers are unanimous in suggesting that there'd be a 

working group. Why is that and why do you feel so strongly about it?

Jake Lewin: A working group on this subject or on the material review organizations?

Jay Feldman: Ah, you're right, it's material review organizations. Could you 

address that?

Jake Lewin: I was surprised to hear the--on a--well, um, material review organizations, 

it's a hugely complicated subject. It affects our operations as certifiers and 

how we interact with producers on a daily basis and the affects could be 

tremendous. And so we ultimately feel that we would like to work with the-

-the Department and the Board to come to some kind of lar--long-term 

holistic solution.

Jay Feldman: Is somebody from CCOF gonna be addressing that in other 

comments?

Jake Lewin: The material review organizations? No, you got it.

Jay Feldman: You got it.

Jake Lewin: This is what you get in three minutes.

Jay Feldman: Yeah, yeah, so--

Jake Lewin: We've--we've addressed it in writing very thoroughly and--

Jay Feldman: Okay. Uh, I--

Jake Lewin: --we just encourage (inaudible).

Jay Feldman: --have a quick question on copper; is that okay? Is asking you on 

cop--something on copper?

Jake Lewin: The absolute best person to ask about copper is her.

Jay Feldman: Okay.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

84

Jake Lewin: Uh, Zia Sonavand for the record.

Jay Feldman: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Steve?

Steve DeMuri: Just a quick one, Jake. Thanks for coming and making comments. 

Are your, uh, unannounced inspections risk-based or are they totally 

random?

Jake Lewin: We use a combination of, um, random, risk-based and complaintgenerated. About 20 percent of our unannounced inspections are 

complaint-generated and the remainder are periodic based on a variety of 

different reasons. And we--and we think certifiers are well-equipped to 

choose the reasons why.

Tracy Miedema: Calvin?

C. Reuben Walker: I was trying to write, Jake, and I didn't quite write everything--

Jake Lewin: Um-hum.

C. Reuben Walker: --you had mentioned about minimum qualifications, uh, that you--

did I hear you say should only be ag experience?

Jake Lewin: Right. Um, so our minor quibble with the qualifications document is that it 

states that, um, beginning organic inspectors should have organic ag or 

organic food processing experience. And we simply think that they should 

have ag or food processing experience because the requirement for the 

organic experience is not necessarily desirable and frankly not workable.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you.

Jake Lewin: Thanks.

Tracy Miedema: Zia Sonavand is up next. Ed Meyer is on deck.

Zea Sonnabend: Thank you. Um, I'm Zia Sonavand with CCOF, Inc. I'm here today 

to talk about three, um, Crops Committee material subjects as quickly as I 

can. Um, inerts, copper sulfate and rice and odorized propane.

Um, on the subject of inerts, please, adopt the language in 

40CFR180.1122 for the List 3 inerts in f--um, pheromone products, um, 

however instead of the word semiochemicals as is in the EPA rule, please, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

85

try to define what we now consider to be a passive pheromone, um, 

dispenser so it is more limited than the general semiochemicals rule.

Um, you need to do better outreach on this type of, um, announcement 

because you did not reach the people who make the pheromone traps and 

maybe you could work with OMRI or WSDA or someone to--when you 

have this type of, um, subject to do better outreach to the companies who 

are affected.

On copper sulfate, um, please, notice that this issue affects about 120 of 

our clients who are involved in producing and handling of rice and rice 

products. Most of them cannot travel this far to speak to you today. And 

so we are representing their fairly universal opinion that drill seeding is not 

an option for them and there was no force of evidence presented, um, in 

the Sunset Review to, um, substantiate this change in the annotation.

This is a material that is used sparingly and in a very, targeted time of year 

but when it is necessary in certain weather conditions it is really needed. 

You will have some rice producers speaking on this, um, later today who 

can give you more details on rice production systems. But we, as 

certifiers, uh, can make sure that this product is only used in the context of 

their OSPs and is not abused.

For odorized propane, um, I am the petitioner and I did so because, um, 

most growers who we talk to ha--list rodents as their number one control 

problem or at least right up there in their top three control issues. We, um, 

have a diverse amount of public comment that came in. Almost all of that 

from growers was in support of approving an additional tool for rodent 

control.

You'll notice I'll say it's a tool because, once again, it should fit in the 

context of someone's OSP and be among one of many other methods that 

are used. We urge at the outset of discussion tomorrow that you ask the 

NOP for an opinion about our written suggestion that this be added to 

205.206B inste--as a concussive device, as a mechanical control driven 

by fuel.

Uh, we submitted the petition only because petition was the only way to 

get it front of you for the National List. But we do not believes, uh, belongs 

on the National List. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Zia. Any questions for Zia Sonavand? Jay Feldman?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

86

Jay Feldman: Thanks, Zia. Um, on copper sulfate--

Zea Sonnabend: Um-hum.

Jay Feldman: --um, I'm trying to get an understanding about the current practices. 

Uh, there seems to be some disagreement as to the proper interpretation 

of the current annotations regarding its annual or, um, two-year restriction 

on use. Uh, obviously there's the al--algae use and there's a tadpole 

shrimp use. What is your understanding about how those can be used?

Zea Sonnabend: Yeah, um, right now it is only used when the weather conditions are 

very specifically such that, um, it creates the conditions that the scum 

disease will develop, uh, which is caused by algae. Scum is the disease 

caused by the algae, um, and--or the conditions that would encourage the 

hatching of the tadpole shrimp.

These conditions which some of the rice growers could give you more 

specifics about but have to do with exactly how wet it is, how warm it is 

and whether there's a certain amount of wind between the s--seeding time 

and the, uh, actual rice development.

Uh, this may occur in up to 50 percent of the years but does not 

necessarily follow an every other year pattern so you might have five 

years without these conditions but then you might have two years in a row 

with these conditions. And it's only in those conditions and it's only in 

about the first 20 days from seeding to rice establishment that it is ever 

used.

Jay Feldman: Right. My question--my question goes to whe--whether it can be 

used every year, alternating years between hatching and tadpole shrimp 

or whether it can only be used every two years?

Zea Sonnabend: Well, it has a current listing that it could be used every other year 

for algae and every other year for tadpole shrimp. So if a grower has both 

of those problems, and not all growers do but some do, then it would be a-

-allowed to be used every other year for one or the other.

Jay Feldman: Okay. So it could be used every year then.

Zea Sonnabend: If the grower had both problems and documented that and had 

those weather conditions two years--

Jay Feldman: Right. Okay. Just a few more questions. This'll help clarify, I think.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

87

Zea Sonnabend: Um-hum.

Jay Feldman: What are the export restrictions currently, uh, for those growers that 

are using copper sulfate?

Zea Sonnabend: Okay. Um, perhaps Eric Lundberg will dir--be able to address this 

better but, um, right now, um, the EU and Japan and possibly other 

countries do not recognize a di--a use for tadpole shrimp or for algae, per 

se. And theref--they do recognize the use of copper sulfate for disease 

and therefore the scum disease is what growers who export, um, have on 

their organic system plans as the need for treatment with copper sulfate.

Jay Feldman: And as a certifier do you distinguish between scum and algae? 

This is a great, uh, conversation.

Zea Sonnabend: Um, scum--scum is a disease caused by algae and we--that's what 

we acknowledge. We, um, because we know a lot of rice is exported if 

they want to call it scum and we think of it as algae that's fine.

Jay Feldman: Okay. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Zia. Joanne Baumgartner is up next and just a 

moment, Joan, (inaudible). Eric Lundberg is on deck.

Jo Ann Baumgartner: Hello. I'm Joanne Baumgartner, Director of Wild Farm 

Alliance. I wanted to talk to you today about biodiversity conservation and 

the NOP regulations um, uh, and that's because some of the NOSB Board

Members are sort of new and wanted to make sure that you're all aware of 

this issue.

Biodiversity conservation is part of the definition of organic farmers. 

Farmers must maintain or improve the natural resources of, uh, their farm 

including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands and wildlife. The preamble 

says that farmers must initiate practices to conserve biodiversity. And 

there's been two NOSB recommendations, the latter one in 2009, um, said 

that the, um, biodiversity should be, uh, comprehensively addressed both 

through materials review, through certification and through implementation 

by farmers.

Um, we feel, uh, or we agree with the NOSB recommendation that copper 

sulfate should be curtailed. We're concerned about amphibians like these 

that show up in California rice fields and amphibians are in decline 

worldwide.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

88

Um, we also think that the biodiversity issue needs to be clearly

addressed in s--the Sunset Review process because, um, while it is 

addressed with copper sulfate the other Sunset Review issues that are 

before you are not looking at biodiversity and the environment and they 

need to be.

Uh, I wanted to just show you some products that are touting, rightfully so, 

biodiversity. Kashi says that their methods maintain and enhance 

ecological harmony. Cascadian says their organic farming methods help 

protect and nurture the environment. Lundberg says their, um, protecting 

the earth for future generations through their environmental stewardship. 

Nature's Path talks about less groundwater pollution, improved farm 

biodiversity.

Um, I wanted to mention that some people say food safety and 

conservation can't go hand-in-hand. We've just had this publication I sent 

around to you all and there's some out, um, for the audience.

Uh, the NOP recently put out a new OSP and they addressed how farmers 

can, um, deal with biodiversity conservation from soil building to native 

habitat restoration to wetland and riparian area protection to hedgerows 

and other plantings that check erosion and foster habitat, establishing 

grassed waterways, promoting wildlife corridors, mo--monitoring and 

controlling invasive species, wildlife friendly fencing, non-lethal livestock 

predatory--predator control, planting diverse pastures, inclusion of 

diversity of flowering plants, habitat for beneficials, beneficials like these 

insects, birds, bats and, um, other predators.

Two more slides, water conservation for the benefit of native and domestic 

species and biodiversity needs to be in material review, um, certification 

and implementation by farmers. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Baumgartner? Barry?

Barry Flamm: Thank you, Joanne, and thank you for the great work you and the 

Wild Farm Alliance has done and is doing for biodiversity conservation. 

Uh, could you, um, you mentioned the recommendation that was 

approved in 2009; could you give a quick assessment of, uh, the progress 

that has been made on that and, uh, and sort of concentrate on what--

what you think is the most important things we ought to be doing and the--

and the Program ought to be doing to follow up?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

89

Jo Ann Baumgartner: Well, I guess the best, uh, thing that's happened is what I 

mentioned before, that, um, OSP that has come out where it has, uh, been 

updated from a previous one where the NOSB did say biodiversity needed 

to be addressed and so that's great.

But as far as the NOP doing more that really hasn't happened. It's great 

that the materials review, um, is looking at new materials, um, in relation 

to biodiversity but as I said the--the, uh, Sunset process is--ha--has its 

problems.

Um, we currently are, uh, just finishing a draft guidance, um, on 

biodiversity that we'll be giving the NOP and hope that that will get them 

further along the path. Um, but there are some certifiers in the audience 

and, um, across the country that are addressing biodiversity conservation 

really well and there's other certifiers that don't have a clue. So it really 

needs--we really do need to have a concerted effort to get everybody on 

the same page.

Tracy Miedema: Jay?

Jay Feldman: Thank you, Joanne, for being here. Um, obviously we're gonna 

hear from a lot of growers who basically are telling us that, “We cannot 

grow rice, um, with the kind of annotation where we--we proposed or we 

cannot rice without copper sulfate.” What do you say to them? I mean 

what--h--how do you effect a transition, um, and is there any middle 

ground here that could be reached that moves us more toward the kinds 

of systems that you're advocating?

Jo Ann Baumgartner: Well, the California rice growers are really good stewards. 

They are--there's something, like, over 200 species that occur on their 

farmlands and I think around 30 of them are rare. And so, uh, I think, you 

know, it's hard for--for us to come up here and say, “No, they can't have 

these materials,” when they say they really need them.

But on the other hand copper sulfate is really toxic and amphibians are in 

decline for multiple reasons; it's not just because of chemicals. But if 

organic farming is gonna put those species further, you know, down the 

path to getting listed that's not a good thing. And so, what to do? Well, at-

-at--at least the NOSB should recommend that there's research.

We heard this morning from Miles that, um, it was really important for 

NOSB to--to identify what kinds of research needs to be, um, taken 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

90

because the funders that are paying for that want to know ho--that it's 

really important.

Um, then beyond that, um, y--yeah, I'm not a rice farmer; I don't know the 

intimate details.

Jay Feldman: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions? Thank you very much.

Jo Ann Baumgartner: Thank you. Eric Lundberg is up next. Janecky Dijong is on 

deck.

Eric Lundberg: Hi, I'm Eric Lundberg. I am here today to express to you the 

importance of allowing organic rice growers to continue to use copper 

sulfate as a treatment for algae and tadpole shrimp. Copper sulfate has 

been a common treatment used on my farm since I started growing rice in 

1987. It has shown effective control of algae and tadpole shrimp and I 

have never obser--observed any toxic response to the environment.

It is applied only when necessary. Copper sulfate may only be used on an 

average every 24 months but if a field is grown two years in a row and 

needs treatment both years a grower's in danger of damaging or 

destroying the rice crop. As stated in the annotation a key concern of 

copper sulfate usage is that the baseline soil values of copper not be 

increased. Next. Oops. Go back to the--the baseline.

Okay. So those are them. I have included some soil samples for copper 

for two of my fields dating back to 1994. You can see that the copper 

parts per million are very low and that even though the var--levels vary 

they do not appear to be rising. Next.

I've prepared some photos of our farm to help you gain an understanding 

of the timing and the use of copper sulfate and the process of waterseeded planting. Next.

Groundwork usually begins by incorporating a winter cover crop, next, and 

then continue until we have a dry seedbed, ready to be flooded for water 

sowing. Once the field is flooded seed is sown by aircraft into the water. 

From the time when rice starts to sprout until it is out of the water the field 

is monitored closely. Tadpole shrimp can damage or destroy the seedling 

while algae has a potential of smothering the stand.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

91

Water grass is one of rice's most aggressive competitors in California. 

Seeding in water has been the only effective method of gaining the upper 

hand on this aggressive weed. Mandating growers to drill seed is both 

unrealistic and potentially v--devastating. I have submitted to--a letter to 

you dated November 9, which I have included in your packet that goes 

into more detail on drill-seeded issue.

According to the Department of Pesticide Regulations there has never 

been negative impacts attributed to the copper--the use of copper sulfate 

in rice fields. In addition, California Rice Commissions results of the 

mandated water monitoring shows that there are no toxicity related to 

copper sulfate due to its use in rice.

I hope I have conveyed to you that copper sulfate is still valid to the 

organic rice system. Water-seeded rice as opposed to drill-seeded rice is 

the only proven technique to kill water grass. And recognizing the value of 

copper sulfate I would also submit to you that the once in 24 months 

restriction be removed from the annotation as it is superseded by the soil 

sampling for baseline values. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Mr. Lundberg. Any questions? Jay?

Jay Feldman: Thanks. Hi, how you doing, Eric? Um, appreciate you being here 

and making the trip. I--I, um, wanted to first ask you about the 24 months 

and w--what I'm understanding now is that based on the particular, uh, 

use, whether it's tadpole or--or, you know, the algae you could ine--you 

could use it every year but the 24 months you're referring to is only for the 

tadpole shrimp or is that incorrect?

Eric Lundberg: In the regulation that you're reviewing there's two--two annotations-

-

Jay Feldman: Right.

Eric Lundberg: --both of them have 24 months in them.

Jay Feldman: Right.

Eric Lundberg: There's also an application for disease in the regulation that's not 

before the Board today. And that, uh, is, like, Zia had commented that, 

uh, disease is also another treatment in rice.

Jay Feldman: So if you were to average it out would you say you're using copper 

sulfate every year generally?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

92

Eric Lundberg: Uh, you know, those averages are very difficult and, you know, I--I, 

uh, I don't have them in front of me. Sure, that's what was presented, uh, 

or the, uh, NOSB interpreted that by some things that I think were said in 

the past. It's, uh, something that we didn't like that you averaged it and 

gave it only every other year. Uh, I think some data could show, uh, 

something else but, uh, we are not recommending the, um, 24 months. 

We want that removed.

Jay Feldman: Okay. In terms of the exportation issue are--are there any 

limitations on export given current use patterns?

Eric Lundberg: Yeah, Zia had, uh, I think correctly, uh, stated that, uh, disease is 

the only use of copper sulfate for, uh, rice in other countries.

Jay Feldman: And, you know, one of the, um, a--and, you know, one of the things 

that was encouraging in terms of organic rice production, um, as--as you 

cite and Bryce is--will he be speaking, Bryce? No.

Eric Lundberg: No. He won't be here today or won't be here.

Jay Feldman: Okay. Uh, comments on, um, the history of drill-seeded rice, uh, 

planting and the success that's been achieved, which was both 

documented in the 1989 book, the NAS, Alternative Agriculture, but also 

as late as last month on your--on your website, which is no longer on the 

website, um, but you did, in fact, at that time, uh, I'm bringing this up only 

'cause Bryce had this in his comments. So was--am I reading that 

correctly, was indeed the website changed or update the information?

Eric Lundberg: Yeah, Jay is referring to Lundberg Family Farms' website. I'm 

representing B&E Lundberg as a grower but you're right, Lundberg Family

Farms changed it because that had been research that we have done or 

Lundberg Family Farms has done, um, over 30--35 years, that, um, shows 

that, uh, there can be, uh, alternatives if they could overcome water grass.

Uh, as of now I think it was used against us because overcoming water 

grass has not been done with drill-seeded rice.

Jay Feldman: Can you talk about crop, uh, uh, rotation and--and the effect of 

rotations on, uh, adequate control of--of these, uh, species, the 

organisms?

Eric Lundberg: Um, I think, uh, c--if you're talking about tadpole shrimp I think, uh, 

there are, um, unlimited, uh, eggs in the soil ready to be hatched so I don't 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

93

think rotation is one that, uh, will get rid of tadpole shrimp. According to 

algae I tried to show you cover crops that we do incorporate, I think, uh, 

the more organic matter you have in the soil the more algae and, uh, more 

problems you're gonna have with algae.

Jay Feldman: Are there any incentives for you as--as a farmer or generally rice 

growers to move away from copper sulfate and if they are, what are they?

Eric Lundberg: Well, as--as far as a timing-wise, uh, I don't know if your 

questioning is to go to different alternatives--materials, um, I think you 

have received letters that have showed alternatives that were tried and, 

uh, but planting techniques, uh, it--I would say that water-seeded right now 

is the only successful way that California can grow rice.

Jay Feldman: And just one, last thing. Uh, when you all started, uh, 

experimenting with organic without copper sulfate was copper sulfate 

allowed, uh, for use in organic, uh, rice as--this is prior to the--

Eric Lundberg: Sure.

Jay Feldman: --Organic Foods Production Act.

Eric Lundberg: Copper sulfate has always been used in organic systems. It only 

came up in 2001 when the limitations have come up.

Jay Feldman: Okay. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Mr. Lundberg. Any further questions? Oh, Mr. 

Lundberg, sorry, we did have one more question. Calvin?

C. Reuben Walker: Um, could you educate me on the use of--is copper sulfate used in, 

uh, conventional rice production?

Eric Lundberg: It's used some--very similar, uh, as--

C. Reuben Walker: Okay.

Eric Lundberg: --I tried to show you the pictures there--

C. Reuben Walker: Right.

Eric Lundberg: --that conventional, uh, rice in California is grown the first, uh, 30 

days or 25 days similar in the water-seeded system except that organic 

rice kills water grass by deep water, conventional rice they spray their 

weeds and organic does not.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

94

C. Reuben Walker: Okay. 'Cause if we are trying to--like in Louisiana we boast of 

being number one in rice production, uh, would you see, uh, the copper--

copper sulfate annotation being an impediment to trying to get farmers to 

transition to, uh, organic rice production?

Eric Lundberg: Well, I think anytime that you cannot control weeds that's, uh, the 

problem. It's not the copper sulfate issue, it's weed control and if you can't 

control weeds in rice you're not gonna grow rice.

Tracy Miedema: Sorry, one more. I'm not catching these quickly enough. Barry

Flamm.

Barry Flamm: Hello? Uh, thank you for your comments. Um, I have a question; 

you mentioned that the, um, Department of Pesticide Regulations had 

never found any, uh, any negative impacts on the use of copper sulfate. I 

wonder, uh, what--do you know what parameters they look--looked at?

Eric Lundberg: No. I got that quote from a letter you received from the Calro--

California Rice Commission. Uh, if you go back to their letter I--I just 

quoted from that. Uh, I--I’m not an authority there on their procedures.

Barry Flamm: So you don't know whether--ex--excuse me, you don't know 

whether they just addressed perhaps water quality and--and didn't look at 

biodiversity and the things that, uh, Joanne Baumgartner, uh, had brought 

up. You--you don't know where they--

Eric Lundberg: I can't--can't comment to that. I don't know.

Barry Flamm: --so it may be, um, uh, a limited look at negative impacts then. 

Okay. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Yanica Deyoung is up next. Mike Ferry is on deck.

Yanica DeYoung: Good afternoon. Uh, my name is Yanica Deyoung and my 

husband, Ari, and our five children are dairy farmers in Bonanza, Oregon. 

We became certified in 2004. It's--that's about eight years ago. Um, I 

recently completed a six-year term on the OMRI Board of Directors on 

which I served as Board Chair for two years. I currently serve on the 

CCOF, LLC Management Committee.

I would like to thank all, um, NOSB members for their commitment to 

organic and I also would like to thank the NOSB Livestock Committee for 

preparing the Animal Welfare Recommendations. However, I do believe 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

95

that the current organic standards ensure the welfare of the animals to be 

of great importance during an inspection.

I also believe that if we are to attract the next generation of organic dairy 

farmers and keep the ones we have we need to be very careful in 

implementing the correct requirements on organic farmers so that we are 

ascertaining compliance with the regulations and not just requiring more, 

duplicate or unnecessary paperwork in regulation.

In light of these statements I would like to make some comments on the 

regulatory recommendation and guidance recommendation. In the 

regulatory recommendation the Committee suggests that one stall be 

provided for each animal as well as one feeding space.

I would assume that the intent is not to decertify a farm if they had one or 

two extra cows in the barn due to miscalculations, in freshening or 

something of that sort. A dairy herd is always changing. My suggestion is 

therefore to have this language in the guidance recommendation only.

Although I appreciate the concern of the Livestock Committee to verify 

animal welfare I believe that the species-specific animal welfare 

scorecards are not the answer. It would require intense training on the 

part of the inspectors. The cards do not take into consideration the 

differences between geographical locations and the photographs and 

breeds are limited. I believe this to be an example of when all the existing 

parts of the NOSB are in place animals will fare well.

Lastly, I, um, want to show my support for the Handling Committee's 

recommendation to add algal oil to the National List. The Handling 

Committee has found DHA to be non-GMO, non-synthetic and nonhexane extracted. So if it meets the requirements for organic use it 

supports sustainability and even growth of the organic dairy industry and it 

provides consumers with a vegetarian source of DHA, which they 

obviously demand based on sales I believe it should be added to the 

National List. Thank you very much.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Yanica. Any questions for Ms. DeYoung? Wendy?

Wendy Fulwider: Your reference to the one stall per animal, I assume you're talking 

about the dairy cows so--

Yanica DeYoung: Um-hum.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

96

Wendy Fulwider: --if we took that away what would--you're talking about a free stall 

barn?

Yanica DeYoung: Correct.

Wendy Fulwider: Okay. Tell me what you think we should do instead.

Yanica DeYoung: Um, I don't think you should take it away; I think you should provide 

it as guidance and, uh, because like I said, if--if an inspector would come 

and there's this strict one s--cow per stall but there happens to be, uh, a 

few extra animals I--I don't know that that would be ground for 

decertification so I would more use it as a guidance.

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions? Thank you. Mike Ferry is up next and Liana

Hoods is on deck.

Mike Ferry: Hi, I'm Mike Ferry, President of Horizon Organic. I worked in the food and 

beverage world for about 20 years and I’m also the father of two sons who 

are big consumers of organic milk with DHA algal oil.

As you know, DHA algal oil has been allowed in organic products since at 

least 2006. At the time we started supplementing our milk with DHA in 

2007 we were told by USDA we couldn't petition the algal oil as it was 

already approved. Then in April, 2010 we learned that it would need to be 

reapproved.

At Horizon we respect the organic regulatory process so we quickly 

worked with our supplier and 16 months ago submitted a petition to have 

DHA algal oil added to the National List. We were very pleased when the 

Handling Committee unanimously determined DHA to be non-synthetic 

and recommended it for listing.

Yet I've heard there are still activists opposing its use. However, all the 

reasons they state are either not true or are contrary to what's stated in 

the organic regs. The algae is not GMO. The product we use is not 

hexane extracted and it's not synthetic.

Yes. The DHA algal oil does have other substances used in the 

processing and commercialization like many other items on the National 

List, including fish oil DHA. But those substances were very clearly called 

out in the pun--petition and the technical review and were considered by 

the Handling Committee when unanimously recommending addition to the 

National List.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

97

Importantly, the proxy signatures that Cornucopia presented earlier do not 

represent the material in our product, which is not GMO, not hexane 

extracted and not synthetic. I fear that what was once a simple process of 

petitioning an ingredient appears to become an increasingly political. It 

seems some are attempting to change the rules in the middle of the game. 

It would be disappointing to see politics get in the way of providing 

healthy, nutritious products for families and kids lives.

We hope the Board chooses instead to focus on the facts; DHA is safe, it's 

not GMO, it meets all OFPA and NOP requirements for addition to the 

National List. Our organic milk with DHA is purchased by millions of 

consumers because they know it benefits their children's health. Since 

launch--launching our organic milk with DHA five years ago we've been 

able to double the number of farmer partners that help to provide Horizon

Milk, which means growth for the organic community and all the positive 

benefits associated with it.

Our packaging very clearly calls out which of our milk contains DHA and 

which does not. We give consumers a clear choice and organic 

consumers are voting for plant-based DHA algal oil. I ask you to the do 

the right thing for farmers, consumers and the organic movement by 

approving DHA algal oil for continued use in organic products.

Finally, I'd like to thank you for your time today, for all you do to support 

the organic community and the principles on which is was founded. And, 

lastly, also in the audience today are a couple of experts that I'd just like to 

introduce, uh, that could help the Board in their deliberations. We have 

Dr. Allen Green, a well-known pediatrician who can speak on the health 

benefits of DHA. We also have Martin Haun, an attorney with Hogan Lov-

-Lovell's who has extensive experience in all sorts of regulatory matters 

including the FDA's treatment of DHA from algal sources since the FDA 

first considered it. Thanks.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Mr. Ferry. Any questions for Mike Ferry? Calvin?

C. Reuben Walker: As a new Board Member, um, could you kind of expound quickly, 

briefly on--I'm reading and--and hearing you say there was politics coming 

into this process.

Mike Ferry: Yeah, I would just say that--that, you know, we have attempted to comply 

with the, um, all of the aspects of the law to make sure that this is 

appropriately, um, put on the National List and--and, you know, we've--we 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

98

actually filed our petition 16 months ago. Um, and, you know, a--

additional issues seem to keep coming up that aren't necessarily related to 

DHA but that ke--seem to be--keep kind of lengthening the process.

C. Reuben Walker: That's--then it's being political?

Mike Ferry: Yes. Um-hum.

Tracy Miedema: Nick and then Jay.

Nick Maravell: Uh, yes. I was wondering if you could comment on, um, why this 

particular product is what you're using in your milk, uh, the DHA, the 

Martek product and how, um, other sources of DHA, uh, would not be or 

would, uh, well, why you're not using other sources of DHA, which may 

already be approved, uh, for organic use?

Mike Ferry: Sure. So the DHA algal oil, which we use, was obviously the first to 

market in the organic industry several years ahead of DHA fish oil. Um, 

and obviously we feel strongly about the benefits. I think they were 

spelled out pretty well in--in both the technical review and in the public 

comments. Um, we also know that--that this is a sustainable source. Uh, 

and we know that many consumers prefer a vegetarian source.

Um, so those three things combined and--and frankly what we're seeing in 

the marketplace is we've got, you know, two and a half to three million 

consumers buying their--two and a half to three million consumers buying 

this, uh, annually. Um, and--and that number is growing at about 30 

percent per year so consumers are clearly voting for it

Tracy Miedema: Nick, go ahead.

Nick Maravell: Uh, with regard to the consumer's pr--uh, preferring a vegetarian 

source what is your, um, basis for--for that? In other words, how have you 

ascertained that?

Mike Ferry: Sure. Well, I guess, you know, I--what I could tell you is there are DHA--

there's organic milk with DHA in the marketplace that has an algal source 

and there's organic milk with DHA in the marketplace that has a fish 

source. The v--the vast majority, the lion share of the sales are the algal 

oil source. In addition, I think if you--if you did a study there's a pretty 

good correlation between presence of vegans and vegetarians and 

choosing to--to adopt an organic lifestyle.

Tracy Miedema: Jay and then Mac.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

99

Jay Feldman: Hi, good to see you.

Mike Ferry: Hey, Jay.

Jay Feldman: Um, hopefully this isn't a political process that we're trying to get to 

our authority and--and how this particular petition meets or does meet the 

underlying standards; hopefully we can have that discussion.

Mike Ferry: Um-hum.

Jay Feldman: I--I think we, as a Board, have to address the essentiality question. 

You h--I sound like a broken record on this, I know, but the--do you--my 

understanding is t--is this correct that FDA does not identify this as an 

essential ingredient?

Mike Ferry: I'm not--I'm not expert, Jay, to answer--

Jay Feldman: Okay.

Mike Ferry: --that question. There probably (inaudible).

Jay Feldman: Well, maybe some of the experts out there can but that--that's my 

understanding so we have to--we have a threshold here of essentiality, uh, 

in the product. Uh, I think that we have to discuss so if we can get 

information on that it would be helpful. The other issue is that there 

seems to be some discrepancy between what you're describing as the 

material you use in the product of the algal oil and the petitioned material 

that is, uh, before us.

And I understand the--the--the Handling Committee made a small change 

to, uh, what it's proposing to the Board but if you read the document that 

Martek presented on--on November 13 and this is where I--I need your 

help--

Mike Ferry: Sure.

Jay Feldman: --they're saying, um, that the petition substances are safe as 

manufactured by the petition process. And the petition process that's 

described here is hexane extracted and does involve, uh, other 

ingredients. We--I don't want to go into that whole discussion but--

Mike Ferry: Sure.

Jay Feldman: --it does involved other--so how do--how do we as a Board

reconcile, uh, that? And--and finally, I should--if you read further, uh, on--
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

100

in this document they are saying that alteration in Martek's manufacturing 

process would result in a materially different infant formula ingredient.

Mike Ferry: Yeah.

Jay Feldman: So the presumption there is that, number one, what they're 

presenting to us appears to be different from what you're describing--

Mike Ferry: Right, sure.

Jay Feldman: --and that, um, if in fact, we as a Board approve the petition they're 

telling us, their lawyer's telling us that we are indeed approving their 

manufacturing process whether we make that word change or not so--

Mike Ferry: Yeah, so there--there are folks in the room who will be able to answer this 

in greater depth than I can. Um, but my understanding is in the petition it 

act--actually describes there are two forms of the DHA algal oil. The form 

that--that, uh, Horizon uses in our milk is not hexane extracted.

Jay Feldman: Okay. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Mac? Thank you, Mr. Ferry.

Mike Ferry: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: I hear stomachs growling there. It's about lunchtime so we do have 

an address from, uh, the city of Savannah that we will hear before we go 

on break today. And that will be from Ms. Rochelle Small-Toney. Please, 

approach the podium.

Rochelle Small-Toney: Good morning, everyone. I was having a very engaging, uh, 

conversation with, uh, one of your participants and I heard something 

about City Manager report so here I am. But, um, really, um, it certainly is, 

um, my distinct honor and pleasure to welcome, uh, the board and all of 

the participants, um, to Savannah, Georgia for this conference.

Um, we're certainly honored to have you here. Uh, Cynthia Hayes, who I 

think most of you if not all of you know, is a real, hard charger. 

Unfortunately she's not able to be here but I was just talking with her, as 

well, and, um, you really owe her, uh, uh, a great debt of, um, thanks for, 

uh, bringing this conference, um, to Savannah.

I don't know if this is your first opportunity to visit our fair city. I tried to 

order up really, good weather for you and that didn't work too well but 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

101

hopefully you'll stay around, uh, for a couple days and take in, uh, what we 

do here.

Cynthia and, uh, her group has certainly been, uh, a leader, uh, for our 

community as it relates to, um, farmers markets and in particular, uh, 

issues, uh, related to small, um, business farmers. And, um, as you move 

about in the city, uh, perhaps you will also pick up on the fact that there 

are parts of our urban area that we would consider a food desert. And, 

uh, we have been working in conjunction with Chatham County officials to 

try to overcome that.

So Savannah is one of these places and one of the interesting things that I 

was learning out there is that Savannah was actually one of the first or the 

first experimental farm in this country. So when Oglethorpe, uh, came 

over he had the notion, had the idea that we need to trade, we need to be 

able to, um, be in business. And of course, at that time, uh, the only thing 

that was around was dirt, soil and agriculture.

And, uh, even though some of those experiments failed it still is 

noteworthy I think that even today what we're talking about, uh, still holds 

true. You have to be able to live from the earth, uh, that has been given to 

us. And I think that's really the significance of what, uh, you do, your 

leadership in many of the communities, city managers and county 

managers and administrators really do depend on you to help guide us in 

all of our policies that we, um, try to bring forward.

Uh, I will also share with you that even here in Savannah, uh, we have an 

interesting, uh, discussion going on or at least it's gonna become even 

more public, uh, Savannah is both urban and rural. And, um, the 

beekeepers and, uh, and others, uh, have now, uh, come forward and 

asked that the city consider ordinances that will allow for the raising of 

livestock, uh, within their backyards or on their properties.

Needless to say, that will be a very, interesting debate, uh, because there 

are people who believe that, um, that's very important and then there are 

those who will say, um, that's a nuisance. So I'm not quite sure where all 

of that is gonna end up. Uh, I certainly look forward to, uh, that 

discussion.

Uh, but I do think that it's important that, um, your leadership, again, back 

in your communities to policy administrators and those who make, uh, 

decisions about what is community is very important. So whatever you 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

102

take from, uh, this conference just know that administrators like myself, 

uh, certainly depend on you to give good guidance.

I have no idea what, um, will be served, uh, for lunch today. I do hope that 

it is organic. Uh, I’m sure that if Cynthia Hayes had anything to do with it, 

it probably is.

But, again, uh, I just wanted to, uh, personally come in and thank the 

Board for its leadership, uh, and also to thank you, all of you participants 

no matter where you're coming from, first of all, welcome to Savannah, 

secondly, do the good work that you do and know that people who may 

not be right next to you while you're having these discussions still depend 

on your very valuable expertise and guidance. So welcome once again to 

Savannah. Spend lots of money. I’m trying to get a budget adopted this 

week so thank you again. (applause)

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Ms. Small-Toney, for the warm welcome. It is 

lunchtime. It's five minutes to 1:00. We will adjourn until--or recess until 

2:10 so that's an hour and 15 minutes from now.

[LUNCH]

Miedema: We have quorum and we'll proceed with the matters before the Board. 

Liana Hoodes is up next and I'll announce the, uh, next person after Liana. 

We don't have our list up yet. Liana, go on ahead.

Liana Hoodes: All right. Thanks. Uh, this--I'm Liana Hoodes. I'm the Director of 

the National Organic Coalition. We're a national alliance of organizations 

representing farmers, environmentalists, other organic industry members 

and consumers concerned about the integrity of national organic 

standards.

The goal of the coalition is to assure that organic integrity is maintained, 

that consumers' confidence is preserved and that policies are fair, 

equitable and encourage diversity of participation and access. Um, I want 

you to note that I'm not gonna say anything, uh, any different than what 

you h--already have from us so you can ask me questions about the 

written comments.

I want to thank the outgoing members, Tracy, Steve, Katrina and Tina, 

amazing work and thank you. Um, so my f--uh, first item is animal welfare 

standards. We really appreciate the massive work on this, uh, Wendy and 

your committee.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

103

We're very concerned, however, about relying on heavily prescriptive or 

quantifiable measures to define the limits of animal welfare standards. 

Instead our suggestion is to write the standard as a list of mostly 

qualitative, descriptive measures based on the principles of organic 

production and then rely on the use of comprehensive orgic--organic 

system plan to allow a producer to explain the details of a specific 

production system to a certifier. This can be done, it can be im--um, 

implemented, enforced, um, and inspected.

Uh, numerics are not a guarantee of, uh, quality animal welfare standards. 

Statement on genetic engineering, do it. Go ahead and make a statement 

to the Secretary. Let him know that it's an important topic. You don't need 

to solve it a--uh, in any way, shape or form. If you could, go ahead, but, 

um, uh, just get a statement to the Secretary from this meeting.

Uh, DHA ARA, we stand by our opposition to the--both petitions. Uh,

these are for multi-ingredient, compounded formulations. They don't 

belong on the List, if indeed we could figure out what it is that those 

petitions are actually for. And despite the fact that there are such 

formulated products on the List we believe it's not proper and should not 

be continued and if there are consequences, so be it.

Um, sulfites in wine, we, uh, oppose the petition to change the annotation. 

We support organic, uh, uh, wineries and organic grape-growing. Uh, 

transparency, error on the side of sunshine. Give us some information 

about how the discussion is going. The more we can see the more we 

can understand how you, uh, come to your decisions and committees.

Uh, inerts discussion paper, we support the indu--entire discussion laid out 

by the working group paper and the excellent comments submitted by 

Beyond Pesticides. In addition, NOC thinks that the NOSB's policy on 

inerts should include provisions that foster reformulation of brand name 

products with less toxic inerts.

As part of this effort we think it's important for NOSB to set a timeline for 

the Board to evaluate all substances that are used as inerts in products 

now approved for use in, uh, organic operations.

Uh, conflict of interest policy, uh, shed more light on it, just let us know, 

um, what your interests are. Uh, you all have, uh, interests, that's why 

you're on the Board, so just, uh, we agree with the proposal to add more, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

104

um, information to us all, uh, to get u--to--so we understand the conflict of 

interest. It doesn't have to be onerous.

Aquaculture, expand organic standards in aquaculture to address only the 

scope of systems that raise orb--orbivorous fish in inland enclosures su--

such systems can provide experience with or--organic aquaculture 

systems while maintaining, uh, minimizing known problems associated 

with aquaculture systems outside of the scope and look at the comments 

from Food and Water Watch and CFS. Okay.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Liana. Who has questions for Liana Hoodes? Jay?

Jay Feldman: Thanks, Liana. Boy, what amo--tremendous amount of work and I, 

um, was hoping you could help clarify this--I mean wh--the DHA/ARA 

thing. I know we're gonna hear from others about this but in terms of the 

petition itself, just so we can get some clarity on that and the processes?

Liana Hoodes: Yeah, well, so we f--we feel that the petitions, um, were not 

appropriate actually to come before you, uh, because they're f--it's unclear 

what they're for. And I think a perfect example is the white wave, uh, 

comments just before lunch, which is that they're talking about their 

product, which is not hexane extracted. And if they indeed have that 

product, which is not hexane extracted, um, it should be petitioned 

because the petition that exists is for both hexane extraction and nonhexane extracted DHA.

In addition, it's unclear from those petitions that, uh, that whether or not 

the petition is for, uh, name brand DHA, which may be called DHA algal 

oil. So, uh, um, our main point is it's extremely unclear what is being 

petitions and therefore it'd be really hard for you i--if you approve the 

petition, uh, it--it would either, I would say, violate, uh, s--several parts of, 

um, OFPA in that you'd allow some, uh, hexane extraction, et cetera, but 

you--but I think that no one would be clear about what was approved. So 

that's our problem with it is the, um, is that parti--those parti--those pet--

two petitions, not the DHA or the ARA per se.

Jay Feldman: Can I--you started your, um, written statement with a statement on 

genetic engineering and it--as you know it's not on the agenda although it 

will be discussed in other business. Um, given that NOC is, uh, an 

organization that brings together the organic community to a large degree, 

can you make your best case to this Board as to why we can and should 

act on genetic engineering?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

105

Liana Hoodes: Absolutely. First of all, the action as I noted is not, um, is not 

proposing a solution; it's, uh, it's really bringing to the attention of the 

Secretary that you, as a body that oversees organic, um, uh, has s--some 

specific concerns a--about what's going on in terms of genetic engineering 

in this country, agriculture that is, uh, uh, contaminating organic agriculture 

and, uh, that you think it's important enough to do something.

Now, uh, Miles noted that the Secretary has convened the AC21 

Committee, um, and that is a good step but it's not the only step. And the-

-and I believe that that Committee would, uh, would benefit from hearing a 

sense of the Board. That means--and so--and what we're saying is, sense 

of the Boards have been done throughout NOSB's history and that you 

say, “This is an important issue, Secretary, w--this--this is our purview as 

organic. Please, do something about it to support organic agriculture.”

Jay Feldman: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Calvin, Calvin?

C. Reuben Walker: Could you edu--educate me, I'm trying to learn more about the 

different stakeholder groups? The National Organic Coalition, what type 

of membership, uh, do y'all consist of?

Liana Hoodes: Uh, well, we actually have, um, 13 members. And, um, our 

purpose is to s--um, um, advocate for organic integrity, uh, in federal 

policy arena specifically in Washington. Um, and our groups include 

farmer groups, environmental groups, consumer groups, um, and industry 

groups, uh, s--out of those members. And I, uh, t--altogether, uh, the--it 

re--the membership reach of our members is hundreds of thousands, um, 

of consumers and farmers.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Sir, before you start speaking, uh, you know what? Go 

ahead and, uh, and pass out your document and I'll announce your name 

and then I have a couple other housekeeping announcements.

I do want to let everyone know that we are about an hour and a half, um, 

off-schedule. The reason this matters is because people do fly a very, 

long way and sometimes they have late in the day appointments and 

we've had people have to rush off and miss their reason for being here 

because we were so off-schedule. So we owe it, um, out of fairness to 

everyone to do the best job we can being very concise with our questions, 

et cetera, to keep things moving along.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

106

Um, and another announcement is that the SAAFON Group has invited 

everyone here, all members and participants, attendees, to a social this 

evening, uh, in the Cumberland Sapello Room from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M. So, 

again, that's here at the hotel, 6:00 P.M. and, uh, another good reason for 

getting done on time.

So we will, uh, proceed with public comments. Mr. Joel Kroin is up next. 

Maybelle Rivas is on deck.

Joel Kroin: My name is Joel Kroin. I'm President of HortisUSA. I'm the petitioner for 

IBA and wrote the petition. A little bit of history of what IBA is all about; 

IBA was discovered in 1935. It's the close relative of the natural plant 

growth substance in dole E acidic acid IAA. And as your technical report 

says, researchers have found that the IBA is, in fact, a natural component 

also of plant growth.

And what is IBA? It stimulates pran--plant growth, enlargement, cell 

division, incruses root--increases root mass on rooted plants and is the 

most, uh, used substance to stimulate root initiation on stem-cuttings. And 

it's been used by both organic and non-organic growers to propagate 

plants from cuttings and to re--and to re--improve the quality of crops, 

reduce production time and increase the number of crop varieties.

There are no natural sources of either, uh, IBA or, um, IAA, uh, all sources 

must be, uh, derived synthetically. Uh, used as directed IBA containing, 

uh, end-use products have been used for more than 70-odd--five years 

and have a proven safety to humans, animals, plants and the 

environment. There are no other alternatives to, uh, for organic growers 

for root, uh, initiating substances.

Um, I wish to make a, um, a comment, um, Mr. Mc Evoy, uh, made a 

comment earlier about the November 23, uh, statement about inert 

ingredients. And this was brought up in the initial recommendations that 

were made, uh, prior to this meeting. And I wish to make a, um, a 

comment that I'm planning to make a change to the petition to limit the 

scope of IBA for use.

And, in particular, um, all, uh, parts, uh, containing IBA, whether it be in 

United States or elsewhere, are regulated by the U.S. EPA and as such, 

uh, I believe that the statements of, um, inert ingredients fall within the 

scope of your comments relative to--well, what if, uh, a large amount of 

inert ingredient is present?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

107

Well, according to U.S. EPA regulations the amount of, um, inert 

ingredients or unspecified ingredients is extraordinarily s--uh, small, as is 

shown by some documents that I've included, um, in this packet that I 

gave you.

Uh, in addition to that I wish to, um, reduce the im--a lack, uh, the 

maximum allowable concentrations of use, which would also, um, 

eliminate a lot of the problems concerned with inert ingredients.

Um, in addition to that the U.S. EPA has a very strict regulation with 

regard to, um, the amount of, um, inert ingredients and other ingredients 

that are contained in the product. All, um, such amounts are within, uh, .1 

percent of the, uh, in--of the, uh, content of the material, which is 

extraordinarily small. I'm also asking for only one-time use for the active 

ingredient to be used on the plant cuttings.

Tracy Miedema: Sir, your three minutes is up. Any questions for Mr. Kroin? 

Katrina?

Katrina Heinze: I'm gonna show my ignorance with this question but, uh, can 

organic farmers do cuttings today? And so what, um, I'm trying to 

understand what is, um, driving the need for this material to be used now 

when it hasn't been in the past?

Joel Kroin: Excellent. Thank you very much for that question because it didn't take 

away from my three minutes. The, uh, the question is, yes, certain plant 

cuttings, in particular herbaceous plants, can be propagated from cuttings 

without the addition of stimulation from an external substance, meaning 

IAA or one of the other, um, root, uh, substances.

In a particular case, for example, of, um, a n--most plants, let's say you 

tried to root. At certain times of the year it's absolutely impossible to do 

any rooting of cuttings. In many cases you'll get extraordinarily low-cu--

low-cut--low percentages of, uh, cuttings that are able to strike.

And what happens, in fact, is the quality of roots become extraordinarily 

poor. Uh, you might get only one or two roots initiating and the plant might 

not, in fact, develop into a full, developed plant. When you're using a--a 

substance like IBA you develop a very, fine, uh, very, high root mass 

system. So I believe that would answer--okay.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina with a follow up and then John Foster.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

108

Katrina Heinze: Um, so what does that mean? So today those plants that can't be 

propagated by cutting aren't available in organics so this would bring new 

plants?

Joel Kroin: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Could you give me some example of what those would be? But 

you really need to make this layman's terms for the city girl.

Joel Kroin: Okay. Okay. Absolutely. How often have you seen certain varieties of a 

seedless tomato or a seedless cucumber available in the supermarket? 

Probably no organic. There might be some varieties but the seed 

companies would lead you to believe that all of the food production of the 

seedless crop came from a, uh, F1 hybrid.

But what happens in Florida or in California, how did they produce a 

seedless crop? They must use a rooting hormone; they do it by cuttings. 

And there are many crops like that, the seedless squash, uh, how do you 

produce a seedless watermelon? Now, there are ways that they g--do get 

around it.

Let's say the Driscoll, uh, strawberry people out in California, what they'll 

do is they produce a, um, their strawberries are produced with a cutting 

that have been produced by this particular material. But according to the 

regulations the first year of that particular crop, that crop will sit in the field 

and be, uh, produced as an organic crop. The food crop that's produced 

is actually gonna be sold as a non-organic crop.

The second year of keeping that particular crop in the ground will allow 

them to produce the, uh, the organic crop. Well, that doesn't make any 

sense because they should be able to produce 100 percent of their crop 

as an organic crop because they're producing it in organic field. That's not 

the case today.

Tracy Miedema: John Foster?

John Foster: Thanks. Could you speak to the v--um, kind of, uh, the value of this 

material, if it has any, that--that leav--that emerges out of that enhanced 

root mass relative to disease tolerance, particularly in greenhouse 

conditions? Um, I used to make my living, uh, propagating plant material.

Joel Kroin: Um-hum.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

109

John Foster: And it--it wasn't organic but, um, I found there were some materials that--

some, uh, plant materials that really benefited from some sort of, uh, 

rooting hormone. You--do you have any kind of data or numbers that 

reflect how much more robust cuttings can be relative to their disease, um, 

resistance, pythium phytophthora, things like that in a--in a transplant or, 

uh, a cutting setting?

Joel Kroin: You're talking about after the root formation. Now, I don't believe that 

there would be any, um, direct relationship--if a plant is a very, weak plant, 

if it has a very, weak root system will it be more resistive to these 

pathogens? Well, during normal, uh, pest control or environmental control 

in the greenhouse the--the grower will inspect for those things and 

perhaps dispose of the plants.

If the str--if a plant is stronger, if you've, uh, developed a resistum and 

you're maintaining good nutrition on it, yes, that's--that plant will be able to 

overcome some of the problems but not all of them, but not all of them. 

There's no relationship actually between what happens with this rooted 

plant and, uh, the pathogens, uh, that might affect it only it--with regard to 

being a stronger plant.

John Foster: I--excuse me, are you from horticulture? Okay. Most of what we--we 

work with presently because we don't have organic customers is, uh, the 

perennial plants and in particular, relating to, um, the herbs. Uh, some of 

the things like rosemaries are extraordinarily difficult to root if they do--if 

they're not done with, uh, rooting hormones but they're not sold 

necessarily as an organic crop.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Mabell Rivas is up next. Brad Samuelson is on deck.

Mabell Rivas: Good afternoon. I'm Mabell Rivas and I'm the Certification Program

Director at, uh, Pennsylvania Certified Organic. We serve, uh, organic 

operators in, uh, the mid-Atlantic region in the U.S.

Uh, PCO would like to, uh, thank the NOSB committee--Livestock

Committee for the intensive research and analysis work this Committee

has done since 2009 on animal welfare. The recommendation has 

definitely, uh, evolved since 2009. It is now more detailed and complete 

allowing, uh, the (inaudible), the stakeholders to have a--the chance to 

contribute through these years has been key.

Um, PCO supports, uh, the proposed regulatory and guidance 

recommendations on animal welfare and its stocking rates as well as, uh, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

110

the alcom base recommendations and recommendations animal handling 

and tr--and (inaudible) slaughter.

Uh, PCO has identify a few specific areas that could be clarified to support 

better enforcement, uh, practices by certification agencies. However, uh, 

it is time to move forward. Um, the sooner this proposed 

recommendations are implemented the better for the organic marketplace. 

Um, these or (inaudible) verifications should not be allowed to delay 

progres--progress to where adoption of this recommendations by the 

NOP. Uh, this verification could be made just as well at the time of rulemaking.

Um, we have included a list of these possible clarifications in our written 

comment. Um, there is a lot of inconsistency out there in the way the term 

organic is being interpreted and implemented as applied to livestock. This 

recommendations are a good starting point for defining what organic 

livestock means, uh, in specifically when talking about livestock living 

conditions and a stockings rate for poultry.

Uh, from a certification standpoint it is simply impossible to implement 

imform--enforcement policies based on the current standards. Uh, thank 

you, Livestock Committee, for a job well done on a very complex subject.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Ms. Rivas. Any questions?

Mabell Rivas: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Next up is Brad Samuelson. Michelle Sandy is on 

deck.

Brad Samuelson: Good afternoon, Chairperson Miedema and Members of the Board. 

My name is Brad Samuelson and I work for the Fagundes Brothers Dairy

in Merced, California. My background is in environmental land use 

planning and I began working for the Fagundes family six months ago. It's 

been a pleasure to bridge my interests in family farming and 

environmental stewardship.

Ra--Lloyd, Ralph and Fred Fagundes own and operate three organic dairy 

farms and have been certified by CCOF since 2002. I would like to thank 

the Members of the National Organic Standards Boards for taking the time 

away from their jobs and families to be here. The work you do is vital to 

the success of the national organic program and is appreciated by the 

organic farming community.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

111

Innovation in organic dairy farming has allowed the Fagundes family to 

become better stewards of the land. The introduction of organic--Horizon

Organic Milk with DHA algal oil is one of the innovations that has also 

enabled many other farmers to enter the organic industry. We strongly 

support allowing DHA algal oil on the National List because a lot of people 

buy organic milk because of the nutrients from this oil.

DHA algal oil is not synthetic and is not GMO. Supplementing organic 

products with nutrients has been allowed in organic processing for more 

than five years.

We would like to thank the National Organic Standards Board for their 

detailed recommendations on animal welfare. I can see that several of the 

farmers' comments have been addressed. In addition I would like to urge 

the National Organic Standards Board to complete their rule-making on 

origin of livestock so that the rules are evenly applied to all farmers. 

Thank you for my--considering my comments.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Samuelson? Jay Feldman?

Jay Feldman: Thank you. Um, do you think you'd feel differently if, uh, the 

product you were using was, um, a synthetic product that was, uh, you 

know, contained other ingredients that were not organic?

Brad Samuelson: My--my personal point of view with regard of that is that I think 

people prefer Horizon Organic Milk because it tastes better without fish 

taste.

Jay Feldman: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Michelle Sandy is up next. Walter Tollerec is on deck.

Michelle Sandy: Hi, I'm Michelle Sandy. I'm the Chair for the International Organic 

Inspectors Association. Um, thank you very much for this opportunity to 

provide comment on the CACC's recommendation on Inspector

Qualifications.

IOIA's mission is to address issues and concerns of organic inspectors, 

provide quality inspector training and promote integrity and consistency in 

the organic certification process.

IOIA supports the CACC's proposed recommendations for inspector 

qualifications in spirit and in principle. As noted in this recommendation, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

112

inspectors themselves are a critical link between the certified operators 

and the accredited certifiers.

The language in--in general the language lacks specificity and the 

recommendations may be too general to bring about any desired change 

in inspector qualifications. As written they offer too little change from the 

status quo in the attempt to create a baseline that can be reasonably 

attained this recommendation does not go far enough.

It is clear that you have attempted to address the appropriate assignment 

of inspectors to inspections and appropriate levels of complexity. 

However, if there is not a clear and consistent definition of different levels 

of inspectors there will not be a level playing field between certifier--

between certifiers.

We recognize that the request from the NOP was only to address the 

issues of qualifications of inspectors. However, IOIA believes that the 

qualifications of reviewers who do initial and final reviews are equally 

important.

IOIA believes that the fo--in section A, excuse me, IOIA believes that the 

formulation of a comprehensive inspector bo--body of knowledge, whether 

developed by private sector or government and sanctioned by NOP is 

needed to truly achieve a more level playing field for certifiers.

In the A1A baseline prerequisite knowledge and expertise for initial 

organic inspector status we request the following revision; a minimum two 

years of combined work experience, education and training in agricultural 

production or processing applicable to the scope of the inspections to be 

performed, crops, handling or livesco--stock.

This should include both organic and non-organic experience, education, 

excuse me, education, as well. We s--in section B we support the 

emphasis of continuing education in B1B but we believe that the eight 

hours is excessive if applied for each scope. If this applies to all scopes 

combined it is more reasonable. We encourage its--encourage 

clarification. If is--it is intended per scope we suggest five hours as an 

alternative.

We disagree with the recommendation that in-house training by the 

certifiers should not count as continuing education. Though training on 

use of certifier forms, invoicing protocol, et cetera should not count toward 

the requirements.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

113

In section C, this section only refers to the actions needed from certifiers 

to monitor and insure com--competent inspectors. It does not request that 

the ACAs only work with inspectors holding inspector accreditation or 

licensing involving third party.

IOIA believes that this is a very important omission. Third-party 

accreditation and licensing could involved the endorsement of an existing 

program such as IOIA inspector accreditation, a governmental licensing 

program or the adoption of a similar process from outside the organic 

sector.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Ms. Sandy. Any questions? Barry?

Barry Flamm: Thank you for these comments but I'm unclear why you think, uh, 

that, um, uh, non-organic agriculture experience is vital. I--I know, for 

example, uh, a Board--well, he was a Board Member that, uh, many 

generations of, uh, of farming, uh, all in the family and all organic so, uh, in 

certain parts of the country I think you might find that so why do you think, 

uh, uh, conventional, uh, org--um, agricultural experience is essential?

Michelle Sandy: Uh, I don't think that we stated that it was essential; I--I--I think 

we've stated that it should be included, as well, and not just the organic 

experience.

Barry Flamm: I read--is it on? I read your comments as suggesting that, uh, it's--

it's required, that they need--that they need both so--

Michelle Sandy: Uh, no, uh, we were stating either/or, that not just--not to just--just 

to include somebody who has organic an--experience but also to include 

somebody such as myself who started in the conventional industry and 

moved on to the organic industry.

Barry Flamm: Okay. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Jay Feldman?

Jay Feldman: I--I'm interested in your position on the requirement or your 

advocating, I guess, requirement for accreditation. Um, I--did I read 

correctly that there's disagreement among the certifiers on that point and--

Michelle Sandy: I'm sorry, which section are you--can you give me the section 

you're in?

Jay Feldman: I don't remember. Let's see.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

114

Michelle Sandy: That's a lot to remember for three minutes.

Jay Feldman: Uh, I was working off your original page, uh, five, first full p--first 

paragraph in the middle, “as long as each certifier's responsible entirely for 

accrediting their inspectors the playing field will not be level,” and then you 

go on to explain accredita--but I--I--I read that, that there's disagreement in 

the community; is that true, um, o--on this point and if so could you explain 

why in a little more detail why this is i--important?

Michelle Sandy: Um, I--for IOIA I certainly may. Um, it--we just--we believe that, 

um, there should be an independent, third-party that gives the 

accreditation to the inspectors.

Jay Feldman: Okay. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: John Foster and then Calvin.

John Foster: I have a question why--why is five hours preferable to eight?

Michelle Sandy: I think we were, um, trying to compromise on that point.

John Foster: Okay. So then nothing magical about five hours necessarily.

Michelle Sandy: No.

John Foster: Okay.

C. Reuben Walker: You mentioned qualifications other than what we had shared. You 

mentioned qualification based on professional--professionalism and 

ethics; could you quickly--

Michelle Sandy: I did. That is page two, I believe.

C. Reuben Walker: Uh, page 2, section A.

Michelle Sandy: Well, all right. Well, we'll, uh, could you repeat your question for 

me, please?

C. Reuben Walker: You mentioned, uh, other types of qualifications and you said, “we 

encourage you to mention other aspects of inspectors' qualification such 

as professionalism and ethics.”

Michelle Sandy: Uh, yes. Um, a--and as we stated in our experience, um, the 

training does not definitely y--um, guarantee a competent inspector. Um, 

i--if you get somebody out there who's a rogue inspector--
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

115

C. Reuben Walker: Okay.

Michelle Sandy: --and has absolutely no personality and is on a witch hunt you're 

not gonna have a good inspector. And you also have to look at their final 

results, if the reports that they're writing, you know, they maybe be great in 

training and--and great in their qualifications on paper but they just may 

not be able to do the job once they get out into the field.

C. Reuben Walker: Okay. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you very much.

Michelle Sandy: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Next up is Walter Tallorec and Darryl Williams is on deck.

Walter Talarek: Okay. Uh, good afternoon. Uh, my name is Walter Talarek and I'm 

a--I'm here representing the W. Neudorff Company, which is a, uh, 

registrant and manufacturer of ferric phosphate-based slug and snail baits. 

Um, the reason I'm here today is to oppose the petition to delist ferric 

phosphate, which was filed by Stepyl and Johnson, uh, LLP, which is a 

large, international Washington-based D.C. law firm.

And, uh, the step to a petition is, uh, nearly identical to a petition filed in 

Germany with the German regulatory authority a couple of years ago. 

And that petition was filed, uh, on behalf of Lonza. Uh, Lonza is the, uh, 

producer of metaldehyde-based slug and snail baits.

Um, after Steptyl filed its petition, uh, Neudorf on several occasions dating 

back to February of 2010 submitted, uh, written comments to both NOP 

and this Board opposing the, uh, Steptyl petition and then, uh, appeared at 

the Woodland, California April 2010 meeting to give both, uh, oral and 

written testimony opposing the petition.

Um, the, uh, there's a technical evaluation report on the delisting petition, 

which was written in September of, uh, 2010. The, uh, technical 

evaluation report was made available to the public approximately a year 

later. Uh, upon review of the technical evaluation report by Neudorf, uh, 

we discovered that none of the comments both written and oral were 

considered by the contractor who wrote the report for NOP.

Uh, and that leads me to the, uh, primary reason why I'm here today and 

that is to request that you ask NOP to, uh, go back and revise that report 

based on the significant scientific and technical data, which was about this 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

116

thick, that was submitted by Neudorf, uh, on the delisting petition as well 

as on the, uh, the issue of whether ferric phosphate should continue to be 

listed for the next five years, the Sunset Review provision.

Um, and, uh, we make that request respectfully, uh, but, uh, there is a lot 

of scientific information available. Uh, it's summarized in our comments, 

uh, to the docket, uh, this--and for--for that matter, for the docket for this 

meeting. Um, all of it was resubmitted electronically as well as in 

hardcopy quite recently.

Um, Neudorf feels that ferric phosphate continues to meet the criteria for 

listing on the National List. And, uh, we also feel there's a continued need 

by organic growers for this--this product. And, uh, it is used in, as I said, 

the slug and snail baits.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Mr. Talarek.

Walter Talarek: Okay.

Tracy Miedema: Question from Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: Thank you. I realize this isn't on the agenda but you may be able to 

help clarify something that we're struggling with as a Crops Committee. 

Um, and correct me if I'm wrong on the actual ingredients 'cause I’m 

working off my memory here; I believe the ferric phosphate, uh, 

formulation that we're talking about, snail bait, includes, um, what was 

originally, uh, identified as inert ingredients to the NOSB, uh, EDTA and 

that the petitioner in this case is saying they're--they're replacing that 

ingredient with EDDS and is making--am I incorrect on that?

Walter Talarek: Uh, okay. Uh, currently the, uh, slug and snail baits registered in 

the U.S. do contain EDTA as a dispersant. Uh, there are no, uh, slug and 

snail baits registered in the U.S., uh, which contain EDDS and there's no 

plans to substitute EDDS for EDTA.

Jay Feldman: Okay.

Walter Talarek: Okay. Uh, EDDS is used in--in Europe, some slug and snail baits.

Jay Feldman: Okay. Thank you. I just--the--that wasn't my actual--I had another 

question or that wasn't my point--my primary question. The--so the 

question that we struggle with is whether indeed you as a company 

intended to bring that formulation slug bait to the NOSB with the 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

117

disclosure of that ingredient or that you were choosing to exercise your 

proprietary interests in it being an enert.

And I ask you that in the context having looked at the patent on slug bait, 

which as--as I read it includes--you've listed all the ingredients actually 

including EDTA and I'm, uh, just to give you a little bit more background 

the reason I'm raising this in addition to our own struggle is we--we had a 

reading out of the office general council on this question which had cla--

claimed that because you declared it an inert ingredient that we as a 

Board couldn't discuss--discuss it, um, and that it--I'm--I'm oversimplifying. 

So you could clear this up for us by saying, “Have at it, uh, it's a 

disclosable ingredient, we don't exercise proprietary, uh, CBI con--you 

know--

Walter Talarek: Okay.

Jay Feldman: --interests and you're welcome to review it on thos--on those 

terms.”

Walter Talarek: Okay. Well, have at it. Uh, we did disclose this to the public at the, 

uh, Woodland, California meeting in April 2010. We disclosed all the 

ingredients, uh, to you, to the public, uh, for consideration but when you 

consider EDTA in the formulation consider these issues--

Jay Feldman: Okay

Walter Talarek: --that go with it; uh, EDTA can be substituted for. Okay. Ferric

phosphate per se is an effective molluskicide. However, it has to be 

delivered to slug--

Jay Feldman: Right, right.

Walter Talarek: --to make it ingestible and digestible.

Jay Feldman: Right.

Walter Talarek: Other things can be used. Okay. And also, uh, and lastly, uh, 

during the formulation process for the slug bait, um, ferric phosphate and 

EDTA do not react and form a compound. OKAY.

Jay Feldman: Okay.

Walter Talarek: They're not there, uh, it is not a, uh, the active ingredient is not 

ferric EDTA; it remains ferric phosphate.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

118

Jay Feldman: Okay. Thank you.

Walter Talarek: Okay. Okay.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, sir. Darryl is up next. Darryl Williams and Ed Zimba is 

on deck.

Darryl Williams: Good afternoon. Uh, Darryl Williams with Oregon Tilth Certified 

Organic. I'm in the processing program, Technical Specialist. Um, I'd like 

to start with the sulfur dioxide recommended annotation. Um, under the 

U.S./Canada Equivalency Agreement it is possible for wines to be 

produced in Canada with added sulfites either with organic grapes grown 

in Canada or from the U.S. and then be represented as organic and bear 

the USDA organic seal.

This could provide a notable marketing advantage for Canada wines. 

While the new annotation would level organic wine marketing between 

U.S. and Canadian wineries the U.S. organic wine sector has 

demonstrated its ability to produce quality organic wine without added 

sulfites.

We ask that the NOSB take these thoughts into consideration when 

contemplating this new annotation. We ask for clarification on pest 

materials for use in handling facilities. Part C of 205.271 states that the 

practices provided in paragraphs A and B of this section are not effective 

to prevent or control pests, a non-synthetic or synthetic substance consist 

of--with the National List may be applied.

For handling we look to 205.605 as this is the National List for processed 

products but this only provides minimal substances, which could possibly 

be used for pest control. By contrast, 205.601 lists many pest control 

materials which can be used but s--this list states that it's for organic crop 

production.

We'd also like further clarification on external and internal use and then 

internally, um, storage and production areas versus, um, office space. 

Providing guidance for pests materials for use by handling facilities I--in 

compliance with, uh, 2--205.271C would provide much-needed continuity 

among certifiers.

Request for clarification of other ingredients in processed organic 

products. Oregon retil--Oregon Tilth has received many 605 supplier 

ingredient statements with one other ingredient and other with as many as 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

119

ten other ingredients that a manufacturer will state are all there for a 

needed, technical effect. It has been Oregon Tilth's understanding that 

the other ingredients have been considered by the NOSB when 

recommending a substance for listing on 205.605.

These have been seen in TAP reviews in the past under how the 

ingredient was manufactured. Thus, it has been our understanding that 

unless otherwise noted by the annotation the other ingredients were 

allowed as long as it provides a clear, technical effect.

Evaluating and clearly identifying the other ingredients in future additions 

to 605 would be valuable and ensure consistency among--amongst 

certifiers. We look forward to this clarification and the ability to comment 

on these clarifications.

Oregon Tilth strong supports and values the recommendations for 

inspector qualifications and unannounced inspections recommended by 

the accreditation and Compliance Committee. These changes will 

strengthen the organic certification s--system significantly and the need for 

unanticipated review on organically certified operations. Additionally, it will 

be provide enhanced consistency amongst ACAs.

It is imperative that guidelines for inspector qualifications be well-defined 

so confidences and quality can be en--ensured. Work experience, 

education, training, continuing education and monitoring thereof by the 

accredited certifier are imperative to inspector qualifications and the 

accredited certifier respectively.

We have submitted comments on both of these issues and appreciate 

your time in looking over these.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Darryl. Any questions? Thank you very much. Ed 

Zimba is up next. Patty Burstendoische is on deck. Okay. Um, and it 

looks like maybe Patty's maybe not here; do you mind scrolling down, 

please? That means Kaylen Kirscher is on deck.

Ed Zimba: The big picture. My name is Ed Zimba and first I'd like to thank the NOSB 

Board for the time and effort they put in preparing for this meeting. I was 

proud to have testified before the board in 2006 for--for the pasture rule 

and I'm equally proud to be here today on the DHA algal oil.

I'm a very, passionate organic livestock and cash crop farmer. I farm 20 f-

-2800 acres with my wife and I've been farming for over 30 years and I 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

120

thank the Lord that he has lead me to organic farming. I'm also a proud 

member of NAPA and also a member of NOC that enjoyed hosting tours 

for consumers, retailers and children on my farm.

I support listing the DHA algal oil on the National List. I'm aware that the 

Cornucopia Institute sent out proxy letters falsely tel--telling consumers 

that all DHA algal oil is GMO, hexane-extracted, contains unimproved 

synthetic and is dangerous to babies. However, algal oil used by Horizon

Organic does not fall into these criteria.

I find it disheartening an organization would completely disregard the 

technical review and the sound work of the Handling Committee who 

anonymously voted in favor of listing DHA as a non-synthetic. I would 

also like to review that I used to donate to the Cornucopia Institute, 

however, I dis--akin my res--discontinued my resp--support after 

witnessing the disturbing methods of attacking companies.

I found their (inaudible) alert to consumers to be irresponsible, exploiting 

the public, which further served to undermine consumer confidence. It 

was my belief that organic--organic farmers suffer the most from these un-

-unscientific attacks.

For example, I heard that denying DHA algal oil in organic would cause 

nobody to be deprived but millions of people are buying an organic milk 

with DHA algal oil. Farmers like me are able to sell more organic milk 

because of it. There are many people that will be deprived. It is my 

understanding consumers' demand for organic milk with DHA algal oil has 

increased overall organic milk sales, which mean an increase overall 

organic milk produced.

Fifteen years ago I was the only organic dairy producer in Michigan. 

Thankfully Horizon Organic was willing to pick my milk up, come out--

come out to Michigan, pick me my milk up. I was glad to say that there 

are now numerous organic dairy producers and thousands that are farm 

(inaudible) Michigan because of that. Increased demand for our product 

has served to encourage more farmers to transition to organic production 

thereby multiplying the benefits to our environment and add more acres to 

the organic role.

I would like to encourage the Board to add DHA algal oil to say that 

although I am not--to say that although I am proud to be a producer of 

organ--Horizon Organic I would be here fighting for the truth, make known 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

121

on this issue even if my milk went to another milk company. The heart of 

the organic program is in place. It is important that we do not miss this big 

picture, which could be devastating results for everyone involved in 

providing healthy, organic products for the consumer.

I would like to express my appreciation (inaudible) and I--I--the big picture 

is this; this whole thing is moving, this whole organic moving is big and it's 

right from the vegetable farmers to the crop farmers, the livestock farmers. 

Everything and--and this--we have a chance to change this whole nation 

and w--and this is the big picture.

And don't miss the big picture and you guys make s--and--and comment, I 

mean, um, make a decision this week on certain thing that's gonna hurt 

the whole markets is going ahead. I--we still want the integrity, we still 

want all that but don't make decision this week that's gonna devastate the 

market somehow when we got economy that's faltering and this whole 

movement is--this whole movement is e--is everything from the t--from the 

consumers to the farmers to e--to retailers. Don't miss it, you guys.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Zimba? Jay

Feldman?

Jay Feldman: Thank you. We like the passion. It's good. Um, let me try this 

question again; uh, if--if you knew that the DHA algal oil that you were--

that was being used in your product contained hexane extracted 

chemicals or was extracted with hexane, depending on how you want to 

look at it, would you have a different opinion about its use?

Ed Zimba: I don't understand that part of it but I understand the part that Horizon is 

doing and if it's on the same basis as a fish I understand it and I'm okay 

with that.

Jay Feldman: Okay. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Callyn Kircher is 

up next and Troy Aykan is on deck.

Callyn Kircher: Hello, my name is Callyn Kircher, Farm Program Technical 

Specialist with Oregon Tilth. Today I'm going to stick to the Livestock

Committee documents having to do with animal welfare and transport and 

handling. There was a lot of information to review and it was a very 

apparent the amount of work that has been done by the Livestock 

Committee. So thank you so much for that.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

122

I would like to start with a broad view of this type of quantitative regulation. 

Oregon Tilth very much agrees with the National Organic Coalition written 

comments. They highlighted the difference between qualitative and 

quantitative regulations clearly and concisely. As a certification agency 

we are able to see diverse livestock operations throughout the U.S. And 

we have found that quantitative regulations such as parts of the pasture 

rule, um, had unintended consequences including longer inspection and 

file review time. This translates directly to cost to our producers and the 

inspection time and review time done by our agency.

The National Organic Program stated this morning that record-keeping 

requirements must be adequate to confirm compliance but it also must be 

reasonable for producers to handle. Uh, we believe that there is a way to 

achieve the same goal, a comprehensive animal welfare standard using 

quant--qualitative c--compliance markers, those words are just too close 

together, that support the unique challenges of each operation.

This is an interesting day of the week to be presenting public comment 

because we have not yet heard your discussions on this topic. I hope that 

during that time we are able to, um, that you're able to clarify the 

reasoning for both regulatory requirements, um, for submitting both 

regulatory requirements and guidance documents on the same topic at the 

same time.

Organizationally we are used to having the regulatory language be standalone, the discuss--discussion section contain some information on the 

committee's visions for the subject and supporting regulation and then 

guidance should help to explain the regulatory language if there are 

concerns with clarity.

In the Livestock Committee documents the discussion section explains 

many requirements that are not in the regulatory language and the 

guidance contains different requirements for species that are not 

contained in the regulatory language. Therefore, it was unclear to us as a 

certification agency just what the Committee's vision was for proper 

enforcement of the recommendations. Um, what is--what exactly is 

intended as a rule change and what is intended as guidance?

Um, a couple examples, um, in the animal welfare regulatory document 

the poultry stocking densities are contained within the regulatory language 

while the other species are contained in the guidance document. Um, 

further the scorecards document example only covers milk cows. 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

123

However, poultry cleanliness and health scoring was noted in the species 

specific guidance document.

Um, just two minor examples having to do with the clarity of the 

documents. Um, in our written comments we also highlighted some 

concerns, excuse me, with the livestock transport and handling. It has 

been confirmed that the recommendation language does not match FSIS 

re--requirements exactly. Further, the recommendation does not 

comment--comment on state inspected slaughter plants and each state 

can have different requirements.

Callyn Kircher: For certification agencies that inspect--it's my time.

Tracy Miedema: I wouldn't mind if you finished your sentence.

Callyn Kircher: Okay. Where was it? Okay. Um, therefore it will be required that 

certification agencies assess all slaughter plants for compliance, not just 

review documentation from other, uh, from other audits that were 

conducted. One more sentence if that's okay, um, again this translates, 

um, to the increased cost for our slaughter plant producers and may not 

be cost effective for some small processing plants.

Tracy Miedema: Thanks, Callyn. Any questions from the Board? Thanks very 

much.

Callyn Kircher: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Troy Aykan is up next and Mary Kay Brown is on deck.

Troy Aykan: Good afternoon. I'll be making, uh, comments on DHA and ARA in 

organic and made with organic products, especially including infant 

formula. Again, my name's Troy Aykan. I'm a lawyer and a food scientist. 

I'm regulatory and legal counsel for Hain Celestial Group. I also teach 

food laws and regulation at Cali Poly, Pomona since 2002.

As you all know, uh, Section 605 governs the, uh, non-organic and nonagricultural ingredients that may be added to “made with organic” or 

organic products. Oops. Could you, uh, DHA and ARA meet all the 

requirements of this section for inclusion, uh, in, uh, 605.

Uh, when it comes to, uh, organic infant formula our goal is to most closely 

match breast milk on an organic offering. And--and as a fact we all know 

that breast milk naturally contains DHA and ARA. The leading experts 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

124

agree that DHA and--DHA and ARA are vital for human health and

development, especially for infants.

Uh, we've conducted a consumer survey on FaceBook and posed the 

following question to the, uh, consumers of organic infant formula: would 

you purchase an organic formula without the DHA? Over two-third 

responded, “No,” stating that they would not purchase an organic infant 

formula without the DHA. As such, consumers recognize the importance 

of DHA. Next one, please.

Uh, we have, uh, s--fish oil listed in s--uh, Section 606 off the NOP. This 

might be a possible alternative source of DHA for some products but not 

for infant formula as, uh, powdered fish oil has not been approved by the 

FDA for use in infant formula. Therefore the algal DHA is the only 

available option for a powdered organic, infant formula.

Uh, the oth--there are other minor concerns about fish oil, uh, that may not 

be acceptable by vegetarians and certain--some allergen concerns, uh, 

that might be present. In conclusion, uh, not approving the, uh, petition for 

DHA would essentially eliminate organic infant formula as we would have 

no approved source of DHA.

It's--we also have a responsibility to provide the best possible nutrition for 

babies and, uh, therefore, based on the most credible scientific evidence, 

regulations and the technical review we urge the Board to approve the 

petitions for DHA and ARA. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any questions? Nick?

Nick Maravell: Yes. Uh, I was wondering if you had some opinion about, uh, the 

suitability of DHA from, uh, egg yolk products for, uh, infant formula?

Troy Aykan: Uh, a--as far as egg yolk, um, uh, DHA source from egg yolk, although I'm 

not familiar with, uh, uh, what the actual ingred--ingredient is but as a food 

scientist and--and a, uh, regulatory scientist, as--as a lawyer I could 

comment that as far as I know there is no, uh, FDA approved versions of 

it, uh, as far as I know.

And--and, uh, which means that infant formula is heavily regulated; it's not 

like other products where you might be able to add any grass ingredient. 

Anything you add to infant formula must specifically be approved by the 

FDA for use in infant formula. The, uh, substances, uh, petition by the 

petitioner have been approved as safe by the U.S.A. as--as generally 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

125

recognized safe for use in infant formula. However, as far as I know there 

is no egg yolk, uh, uh, sourced DHA available.

Uh, I would also be concerned about introducing an allergen to a baby at 

an earlier age or month but I'm--that's not my specialty, I would just be 

concerned about that, too.

Tracy Miedema: Nick Maravell, was that--any follow-up? Jay Feldman, did you still 

have a question?

Jay Feldman: Yeah, Thank you for your comments.

Troy Aykan: You're welcome.

Jay Feldman: Um, in terms of the actual manufacturing processes that are b--in 

the petition, are--are you familiar with those and the--the distinction 

between the hexane extraction and the, uh, enzyme extraction?

Troy Aykan: I--I am--as--as I'm not the, uh, the actual petitioner, I'm just one of the 

users, uh, wouldn't call myself an expert, uh, to--to get into, like, process 

details but--

Jay Feldman: Okay. Do you--you--so you don't--you don't discriminate when you-

-when you as a user buy this DHA you don't discriminate on the 

manufacturing process.

Troy Aykan: The manufacturing process, uh, we do discriminate, uh, and--and--and--

and we are obligated by law and--and the NOP to--to make sure that, uh, 

the prohibits--prohibited practices were--were not exercised, which are the 

three br--uh, genetically modified or--organisms, uh, uh, s--industrial slight 

general radiation and aside from that we do ask them about, uh, the--the, 

uh, uh, the--the--any prosenates used or--or solvents that might be used. 

So we're not indiscriminate; we do ask those questions.

Jay Feldman: Okay. Because, as you know, we've heard from other 

manufacturers that they ex--ex--you know, explicitly are not using a--a 

product that is derived through a--a--the hexane process so I was just 

wondering if you also believe you're using the--the product that is not 

derived from hexane?

Troy Aykan: Uh, yeah, we--we're, uh, using the only available option for powdered, 

organic infant formula. In other applications may say milk or it could be 

something else, yogurt, you might be able to use other versions that you 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

126

mentioned like fish oil version but that is not the powdered version is not 

approved by the FDA as grass for use in infant formula.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Mr. Aykan. Any other questions? Board Members, do, 

please, turn off your mic after you've asked your question and, uh, wait to 

be recognized for additional follow-up questions. Thank you.

Troy Aykan: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: David Bruce is up next. Lisa Bunin is on deck. Oh, I'm sorry, Mary 

Kay--Mary Kay Brown is up next. David Bruce is on deck.

Mary Kay Brown: Good afternoon. I have been, uh, a sales representative for 

organic wines for ten years, both sulfited and non-sulfited and have 

experienced significant growth. We--I have witnessed, I should say, um, 

tremendous growth. It's been very exciting.

Within that category of growth, in the wine category of stores, organically 

g--organically grown wines are well-represented. I would say as much as 

50 percent of those wines in the organic wine category are organically 

grown. So the fact that th--that they do not have the USDA seal on them 

has not hurt them.

In that wine department of stores there is a large range starting with 

natural, eco-friendly, sustainable, organically grown, finally, ultimately, 

organic wine with the USDA organic seal. That is the gold standard and 

the petition to add sulfites at this point would actually lesson that standard. 

And because we have so successfully sold wines that have no sulfites 

added there seems to me no reason to lower the standard.

In that organic wine department is a lot of confusion. People don't know 

exactly what is what. Even wine managers tell me they are calling for 

stricter guidelines, clearer definitions, um, more qualifications. Consumers

whom I meet on an ongoing basis tell me the same thing; there is a lot of 

confusion out there.

One of the biggest confusions that I encounter is the notion that wines 

made with organically grown grapes and their accompanied warning label 

that that label is referring to naturally occurring sulfites. That could be a 

real problem for somebody who has serious health reactions to sulfites. 

So one of the points I wanted to make here today was I think we need to 

be more clear about the fact when a wine-maker adds sulfites that, in fact, 

they are added sulfites.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

127

To simply state “contains sulfites” to the consumer oftentimes means 

naturally occurring. They see organic in the front, they right away 

associate that with an organic product, as they should, and one that does 

not have any artificial synthetic additives. So I think truth in labeling calls 

for that disclosure.

The notion that sulfites are essential in wine-making in my ten years of 

representing no sulfite added wines has simply not born out; it is not true. 

I have customers, restaurants that have been great customers of mine, 

they have no sulfite added wines, some of them '04, '05. We have had no 

serious issues--we have had no issues. We represent both sulfited and 

non-solve--non-sulfited wines and, um, there really is no significant 

difference between that category as far as spoilage.

Tracy Miedema: Ms. Brown, your three minutes are up. Any questions for Mary Kay

Brown? Thank you very much.

Mary Kay Brown: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: David Bruce is up now and Lisa Bunin is on deck.

David Bruce: Good afternoon. I work with Crop Cooperative, which markets under the 

Organic Valley label. We're the nation's largest organic val--organic 

farmers' cooperative with 1800 members in 36 states. We now have 84 

egg producers with a total of 99 layer barns in five states which practice 

outdoor access by providing five square feet outdoors when seasonally 

appropriate. Even that may not be enough but it is really about 

management and not a particular square footage.

Standards need to be qualitative and result-oriented, not some arbitrary 

number determined more by passion than practical application in a 

production setting. My farmers are very frustrated with the increasing 

paperwork burden and the cost of certification. We've had producers go to 

natural or conventional markets because of this issue and we need to 

address this as soon as possible.

We must all keep in mind that we are trying to promote organics and

expand the organic share of the food system. We are not serving our end 

goal by making things more convoluted and difficult to comply with. 

Arguing amongst ourselves only confuses the consumer and waters down 

the inherent strength of the USDA organic seal.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

128

I'm part of forming a group called the Organic Egg Farmers of America. 

We've come to the table agreeing to disagree on most subjects including 

defining outdoor access. Yet even in that group I think there's a general 

agreement on pullets not being required to go outdoors at 12 weeks and a 

number of other issues. We would welcome working with the Livestock

Committee and the NOP to explore best management practices.

It's discouraging to be not all that much further than we were six months 

ago in Seattle on animal welfare and instead have a minority opinion 

coming out of the Livestock Committee rather than consensus. I would 

encourage passage in some form or another of the animal welfare 

document so that the NOP can get on with rule-making and the farmers 

and marketers of organic livestock operations can move forward and 

continue to grow the supply of organic food. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you very much. Any questions for David Bruce? John

Foster.

John Foster: Thanks for your comments. Can you in a minute elucidate a little bit more 

on what you said at the very beginning about, um, management being 

more important than square footage?

David Bruce: What we find is really that even at five square feet, which tends to be more 

than other organizations that I know of providing an outdoor basis, even at 

that level it really depends on the year and the weather and how, uh, the 

size of the outdoor access openings, for instance so that how the birds 

utilize that area. And so its really about managing that area, what areas 

you might block off and reseed or what areas that you leave open or how 

you rotationally graze those square footages rather than an actual 

number, this many square feet per bird.

Tracy Miedema: Joe Dickson and then Calvin.

Joe Dickson: So I definitely heard in your comments that you have some substantial 

reservations about the content of the animal welfare recommendations 

and the work of the Livestock Committee. But you're also urging that we 

pass the recommendation to the NOP at this meeting. Could you 

elaborate a little bit on, you know, what you'd like to see the Livestock 

Committee do to get from where we are right now to where we need to be 

in just a day or two?

David Bruce: I realize after the experience six months ago that it's really hard to make 

every change in response to what you hear but to me I would pull the 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

129

square footage or the density requirements out of there and pass it as--as 

is. I think we all know that no matter what gets passed and what the NOP 

does there's gonna be a big struggle in terms of office management and 

budget or, uh, the FDA SCE program ahead of--ahead of actually getting 

an outdoor access that we're all comfortable with.

So I think, you know, rather than micro cleaning it up as much as you can 

just pull that section and go forward and pass it is the best thing.

Tracy Miedema: Calvin.

C. Reuben Walker: A couple questions, uh, first, what is the name of your 

organization? Uh, about how many livestock representatives, uh, is 

covered in that and could you outline--I think you mentioned something 

that John had asked, some of those qualitative measurements which, uh, I 

agree that we need to look at some form of qualitative measurement to 

abide for good animal welfare?

David Bruce: Yep. The--our organization is called the Cooperative Regions of Organic

Producer Pools Cooperative or CROP Cooperative. You might known--

know us as Organic Valley on the dairy side, egg side. We market under 

Organic Prairie on the meat side.

Um, your question about qualitative rather than quantitative; is that the 

next part? To me that might be about percentage of the flock that goes 

outdoors or, um, that's--that's more--that's not a very good one but the fact 

that the birds are, uh, looking healthy and that there's still vegetation in the 

outdoor area, for example, um, that kind of thing rather than debeaking 

under ten days, just the fact that is--do the birds--are the birds able to eat 

and forage well, for example. Right.

Tracy Miedema: Nick Maravell.

Nick Maravell: Yes. At the beginning of your statement you eluded to, um, 

increasing complexity in paperwork burdens and that, uh, this was driving 

perhaps some producers into natural or conventional markets. Uh, do you 

have any--and--anything concrete on that data, anecdotal information that 

would give, uh, some indication of the trend and then second, how do you 

see the livestock recommendations playing into that concern?

David Bruce: Um, we as part of our cooperative when people exit we do an exit 

interview with them and so I get the paperwork each month that shows the 

number of people leaving and the reason they're leaving and, uh, you 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

130

know, it--naturally there's gonna be some attrition in an organization of our 

size but it's always discouraging when the reason is just, “This was all 

great but I can't handle the paperwork and tracking; I want to farm.” Uh, 

what was the second part of your question?

Nick Maravell: Well, how do you see the Committee's recommendation on 

livestock, uh, animal welfare, um, uh, playing into that concern that you're-

-you're just referring to?

David Bruce: I realize it's hard to come to qualitative statements and have a line in the 

sand to judge onto but the pasture rule has been a great example for us of 

that, that some of the paperwork and the formulas for determining dry 

matter intake gets to be really tough and builds up in terms of the num--

the number of pages you have to do. You might at least come with a 

common form or if you're--if you're having to me--tape measure out the 

size of the building and then count the number birds I just worry that that 

gets, uh, you're missing the main point there; does that answer your 

question?

Tracy Miedema: Calvin.

C. Reuben Walker: Uh, could you elaborate briefly on--you mentioned vegetation cover 

on the outside--

David Bruce: Um-hum. Uh--

C. Reuben Walker: --and protection for birds?

David Bruce: --yep. What we--we have what we find they call the moonscape 

sometimes, as in the birds are so excited to get outside and utilize that 

area they denude the area of all plants and so I think you need to be able 

to manage that area by numerous areas to--for the birds to go into, reseed 

the pasture areas, that kind of thing.

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions for David Bruce? Thank you. Lisa Bunin is up 

next. Katrina Frey is on deck.

Lisa Bunin: Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Bunin and I'm the Organic Policy 

Coordinator at the Center for Food Safety. My remarks will address GE 

contamination of organic, sulfites in wine, aquaculture and animal welfare.

GE contamination of organic: we know that unauthorized releases of GE 

crops have occurred and so has GE contamination of food, animal feed 

and the environment. We also know that GE contamination will continue 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

131

in the absence of government initiated prevention measures that extend 

beyond those already being used by organic farmers. This is why nearly 

100 stakeholders from all sectors of the organic community expressed 

their concern at the NOSB meeting in Seattle about GE contamination of 

organic and asked the NOSB to take action to protect organic integrity.

CFS urges the NOSB to adopt a sense of the Board's statement on 

genetically engineered crops at this meeting and to begin a conversation 

with the Secretary of Agriculture about how I can help prevent GE 

contamination of organic.

Sulfites in wine petition: sulfites are prohibited in organic food because 

they can cause allergenic reactions. This is also why a warning label is 

required when sulfite preservatives are added to foods and alcoholic 

beverages at levels higher than 10 ppm. Sulfites are not essential for 

organic wine production. U.S. sales of certified organic wine and wines 

made with organic grape reached $8 million in 2005 and sales continue to 

rise.

Clearly the requirement to label wines made with organic grapes if they 

contain added sulfites has neither hindered organic wine market 

expansion nor inhibited farmers from growing organic grapes. Changing 

the organic wine label would unfairly damage existing markets of wineries 

that do not add sulfites and that adhere to the letter and the intent of 

OFPA. The change would also compromise organic integrity. We urge 

the NOSB to vote against the petition.

Aquaculture: CFS supports the careful development of organic 

aquaculture standards beginning with standards for ober--obiverous fish 

and closed recirculating inland facilities. We believe that such systems 

have the potential to prevent the environmental impacts associated with 

existing industrial and open ocean facilities and supply and--and efficiently 

produce source of human food protein. As such, organic aquaculture 

systems must be managed in accordance with the principles of organic 

from facility siting to fish harvesting. And I refer you to our written 

comments for the de--more details.

CFS recommends that a trial period is required to test and evaluate 

organic model of system and species before they are allowed to be fully 

commercialized.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

132

Animal welfare: CFS agrees with the minority opinion that a whole farm 

system approach to organic livestock production is needed, that it's 

inextricably linked with good land--land stewardship and I think that the 

gentleman who spoke before me I think he did a really good job of--of 

beginning to lay some of that out. Uh, we support standards that allow 

flexibilities for farmers to develop innovative farm-specific and scale 

appropriate practices. We also believe that certain practices must be 

required on all farms, particular with respect to the development of criteria 

that allows and encourages animals to exhibit their natural instinctive 

behavior and that address allowable physical alterations.

Um, in conclusion CFS does not believe the Livestock Committee's 

recommendations are ready and we encourage the Committee to further 

develop the whole farm system approach to animal welfare as 

preliminarily discussed (inaudible) opinion. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Lisa. Any questions? John Foster.

John Foster: Thanks for that info. So I've heard a few times that $8 million figure for 

organic wine. I have a couple questions on that; one, over--is that you--

Lisa Bunin: It's an $80 million sales figure and it's from the OTA website.

John Foster: --Okay. Is that U.S. or global?

Lisa Bunin: U.S., U.S.

John Foster: Okay. And then quick follow-up--

Lisa Bunin: And that was in 2005, that was in--latest figure I could find.

John Foster: --Okay. Yeah, that's fine and, um, then lastly what is the increase in sales 

for wine made with organic grapes over that same period?

Lisa Bunin: Um, I would re--I would defer to some of the, um, wineries for that 

information.

John Foster: Okay. Okay. I'll look it up but--but that would be--that would be relevant 

for me.

Lisa Bunin: But, um, there is an increase in acreage of--of, um, organic wine, uh, 

grapes, like, in--in California, for example, as noted by CCOF.

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions? Joe Dickson.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

133

Joe Dickson: Hi, Lisa. Um, on animal welfare in advocating an approach with sort of 

more flexibility and sort of a--a--I might be hearing more of an outcomebased or--or different approach; are you advocating an approach that 

doesn't include numbers for stocking density or--

Lisa Bunin: Um, I--I think that it needs to be in context. I'm talking about whole farm 

system approach where we're looking at what--what constitutes animal 

welfare in terms of, well, when you're out what kind of shade structure, for 

example, is there, uh, what kind of vegetative cover, um, how can the 

animals exhibit their natural behavior? I think that it has to be, um, 

discussed within a context.

Joe Dickson: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Wendy.

Wendy Fulwider: What about square footage; do you want that to be pulled for the--

for the poultry, square feet per bird?

Lisa Bunin: Um, and again I would say that, um, just at this point I'm not willing to, like, 

settle in on a--on a square footage number. I think that--that, um, more 

discussion needs to be talked about, um, a systems approaching and, uh, 

I think that once we are able to hammer that out I--I think that that's a 

much better way to--way to approach the issue.

Wendy Fulwider: I just don't think that two f--two square feet, you know, or a piece of 

paper is really--really enough but, you know, let's take a look at what--

what a, um, an organic system approach looks like and maybe that will 

become less important.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any other questions? Thanks very much.

Lisa Bunin: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Katrina Frey is up next. Ben Carter is on deck.

Katrina Frey: I guess I'm gonna have to ask you. Oh, okay. Hi, I'm Katrina Frey, 

Executive Director of Frey Vineyards. This year Frey shipped over a 

million dollars--million bottles of wine. U.S. organic wines reached nearly 

four million bottles and ten million bottles were produced world-wide. No 

sulfites added wine is where the action is. Thanks to the USDA symbol, 

which is actually eliminating consumer confusion, we're vibrant, growing 

and winning awards, proof that sulfur dioxide is not an essential ingredient 

to wine.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

134

The NOP emphasizes that all producers strive to get away from 

synthetics. Our cutting edge, USDA organic wine industry is doing that 

and it's rocking. Talented, out-of-the-box winemakers have risen to the 

NOP challenge of making award-winning wines without the use of this 

synthetic preservative.

Sorry, can you--can you advance two? Um, the organic wine consumer is 

focused on food purity. Another slide, you can see that Frey sales are 

great. And another slide, it's a touch economy for luxury products such as 

wine. There is a worldwide wine glut and I can understand the frustration 

of the petitioners who have great made with organically grown grapes 

wine to sell.

Your Board is dedicated to the growth of organics. However, it's not up to 

the NOSB to solve the current problems of the wine industry. The OTA 

reports 4.7 percent growth in the combined organic and made with organic 

wine sector. Our statistics suggest that much of this comes from within 

the no sulfite added categories. Organic ketchup, the OTA says, only 

grew 1.4 percent. Organic salad dressings actually dropped by 3 percent. 

Yet there's no discussion of relaxing organic standards in these products 

to improve their marketability. Slide.

An underlying argument of the petitioners is that sulfur dioxide is essential 

to quality and therefore non-sulfited wines are holding back the 

advancement of organics. This is disparaging of organic wine producers 

and it flies in the face of increasing demand. Slide.

Uh, please, note the results of two professional blind competitions. No 

sulfite wines won exactly the same awards and also a higher award than 

the made with sulfited wines. Slide.

The U.S. is a world leader in the production of organic wines. The NOSB 

should be proud of these producers who have played by the NOP 

continuous improvement rule as new ingredients and methods become 

available. The NOSB should also be proud that the U.S. has set the bar 

for wine standards. There is nothing that stands in the way of other 

wineries from investigating the techniques of organic integrated 

winemaking and beginning to produce the line of USDA non-sulfited 

wines. Another slide, please.

Um, and one more, the organic wine movement is healthy, thriving. Let's 

keep organic organic.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

135

Tracy Miedema: Thank you very much. Any questions for Ms. Frey? Mac Stone.

Robert Stone: Are you seeing competition from non-organic commercial wineries 

marketing a wine without sulfites to--to capture this market?

Katrina Frey: Um, I wouldn't necessarily call it a competition but there are conventional 

wineries now that are making wines without sulfites. Sulfites sometimes 

actually can bring problems to winemaking so those wineries are using 

very modern techniques, as do we in our industry, and--and feel that 

they're actually improving the quality of their wines.

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions? Thank you.

Katrina Frey: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Ben Carter is up next. Jeffrey Otin is on deck.

Ben Carter: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and members of the Board. Thank 

you very much for this opportunity to comment on the Crop Committee's 

recommendation on copper sulfate in organic rice fields. My name is Ben 

Carter and I am from Colusa, California. My wife and I, Denise, uh, own 

and operate Benden Farms, which is a diversified farming operation in the 

Sacramento Valley.

We grow row crops, field crops, orchard and livestock. We have been 

growing organic rice in Colusa County for a little over a decade in addition 

to organic vegetable seed and beans. We use a water-seeded method for 

growing our rice production because it's the only consistently successful 

method of planting organic rice in the Sacramento Valley.

For us drill seeding will not work due to the moisture subbing from our--

from the flooded fields from our surrounding neighbors and then the 

subsequent flush of grasses and broadleaf weeds that result from that. 

Given that we're limited to water seeding copper sulfate is the best tool we 

have to suppress algae, scum and tadpole shrimp.

We have tried other mess--methods such as a product called Green Clean 

Pro, which is a sodium carbonate perhoxidrate--peroxyhydrate. We've 

tried mechanically breaking up the algae with airboats. Uh, we've tried 

draining and reflooding, all to disappointing results. Our experience 

indicates that a product like Green--Glean C--Green Clean Pro is best as 

a pre--preventative, which really is inconsistent with our integrated pest 

management philosophy and on top of that it has no activity on shrimp.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

136

We do monitor the--the, uh, copper levels in our soil annually and we have 

not seen an increase in those levels. The California Rice Commission

administers extensive net--a network of water quality manage--uh, 

monitoring stations and to my knowledge has not seen any reported 

issues with copper in the tail water.

Ms. Baumgartner earlier this morning mentioned that, uh, California rice 

growers are excellent stewards and--and I agree. As the Rice 

Commission points out our fields are incredible living ecosystems. We 

have not seen a degradation in that as a result of the use of copper 

sulfate. As a grower I make choices of how and when to use the tools 

available to me and there are always trade-offs. The essence of the 

question for me as a grower is what practices are most environmentally 

and economically sustainable?

Copper sulfate is a very, important tool for Benden farms, without which 

we would likely not be able to economically produce organic rice. I urge 

you to continue to allow its use in organic rice production as an algaecide 

and for con--control of tadpole shrimp with the annotation that it be used in 

a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, sir. Any questions? Nick Maravell.

Nick Maravell: Yes. You say, um, and we heard from other speakers, that you 

don't see any, uh, accumulation or increase in copper in the--in the, uh, 

soils and you also said you didn't, um, have any indication that the copper 

was leaving in the water. Uh, where is the copper going or how do you 

explain this?

Ben Carter: I, uh, don't have an answer for that, sir. I'm not a scientist I--so I don't 

know.

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions? Steve Demuri.

Steve DeMuri: Are you aware of any other research being done to, uh, eliminate 

copper sulfate? We've heard that, uh, the drilling technique does not work 

for most of you but is there anything else being looked at right now?

Ben Carter: There are, uh, in terms of eliminating copper sulfate, uh, the--the Green

Clean Pro is a relatively new product on the market and we have tried that 

and, as I s--as I mentioned it, uh, with--with, uh, disappointing results. 

Um, our practice is to closely monitor the fields for problems and then treat 

those problems.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

137

Uh, by the time we have, um, a--an algae problem in--in our rice fields, uh, 

at the time of the--the rice stage the Green Clean Pro product will limit the 

growth but it does not eliminate or it does not suppress it and so it does 

not--it's not a great tool for us.

Tracy Miedema: Barry Flamm then John Foster then Calvin Walker. John Foster 

then Calvin.

John Foster: Uh, what's the--typically what's the application rate per acre of the 

material?

Ben Carter: Uh, when it's appl--it--it varies depending on--on, uh, what problem you're 

going after. Uh, for, uh, algae it's typically anywhere from 10 to 15 pounds 

of the product, the, uh, and I would have to translate that into the active 

ingredient or the elemental sulfur but--but for, uh, like a (inaudible)

product, uh, which is, uh, copper sulfate crystals, it's about 10 to 15 

pounds to the acre.

Tracy Miedema: Calvin Walker.

C. Reuben Walker: Are there any research at some of the California Land Grand

schools are looking at alternatives that you know of?

Ben Carter: There--there's constant research in terms of cultural practices, um, which I 

guess you--you could call tools as far as, uh, alternatives to copper 

sulfate, um, the ones that have been mentioned s--so far today, uh, dry 

down the, uh, the Green Clean Pro product, um, are, um, the only--only 

ones that I'm aware of.

And incidentally we're--I--from my reading on the, uh, from the 

Committee's report and analysis that we're--what we're really trying to in--

is eliminate toxicity to--to fish or to aquatic organisms. One of the--one 

common practice that--that organic producers use for control of broad 

leaves is dry down. That's equally toxic to--to any aquatic organisms that 

are there; does that mean that we should eliminate water management as 

a--as a tool?

Tracy Miedema: Any follow-up question there? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um-hum. 

Just a moment, sir. It's n--okay. All right. We'll make an announcement 

of who's on deck here in a--in a few moments. Sir, please, proceed and 

do state your name.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

138

Jeffrey Oetjen: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for allowing my comments this 

afternoon; I appreciate it. Uh, my name is Jeffrey Oetjen. I own a wine 

and spirits shop in Newtown, Connecticut so my perspective on this issue 

comes from that of a retailer. And, um, I had some images but we have a 

little technical difficulty. But, um, I have h--the images that I was hoping to 

show up here in my phone so anyone who comes to the tasting you can 

see them, okay?

Okay. My business is very grass roots and personal. I speak with my 

customers often about organic and non-organic wines. I'm trusted to know 

what I'm talking about so proposed changes to the USDA organic wine 

standards, which would significantly weaken the integrity of the coveted 

organic seal or on the face of it disturbing. From where I stand with my 

customers these proposed changes will be confusing at the least and 

certainly misleading. The status quo is working quite well and must not be 

watered down.

One phrase you'll be hearing quite frequently, uh, at this conference is in 

the U.S. organic wine has always been defined as made with organically 

grown grapes with no added sulfites. It's simple and clear; you cannot 

have the USDA organic seal on your label if you don't follow this 

straightforward guideline. Over the past couple of weeks I have had the 

opportunity to learn a great deal about sulfur dioxide, more than I care to 

share.

The one use of sulfur dioxide which raised a big, red flag for me is that it is 

currently allowed for use in underground rodent control. It's rat poison and 

we put this substance in our wine; does this not seem completely illogical 

to you, even dangerous?

I want to tell you a quick story about a customer of mine named Dana. 

We--you'll see his picture later hopefully. Ironically enough Dana came 

into my shop last Friday seeking organic wine and he had a horror story 

he wanted to share.

Dana has been drinking wine basically with sulfites and not for years and 

he noticed that occasionally when he would drink a sulfited wine he would 

experience itching of his hands and his feet and swelling mostly. But it 

never caused him alarm, it wasn't a pr--wasn't a problem, that is, until 

recently. He had some time off so he was working around his house and 

drinking a bit of white wine.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

139

At some point during the day he went into his bathroom and got a look at 

himself. His lips had swollen to at least twice or more their size and he 

noticed his throat was beginning to swell and his breathing was being 

restricted. It turns out he was having a severe reaction to the sulfites in 

his wine. He learned later that he was having a severe reaction to the 

sulfites.

He--he, uh, was experiencing a condition called angioedema, which is 

triggered by sulfites. He also later learned that approximately five percent 

of the population suffer on occasion from angioedema without really being 

aware of it. That's millions of people. Dana's now a true convert to 

organic wine with no organic sulfites. What's at stake here in my opinion 

is the truth and truth in labeling calls for full disclosure; you've heard that 

before.

I strongly urge the USDA to keep the standards which currently exist for 

the privilege of using the USDA organic seal on a bottle of wine. The 

consumer must be protected; that's my job. I speak to the consumer 

every, single day so let's keep organic organic. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: And thank you. Any questions from the Board? Katrina Heinze.

Katrina Heinze: For your consumers who are looking for, um, wines made without 

sulfites, do they care about organic or do they care about sulfites?

Jeffrey Oetjen: Both.

Katrina Heinze: So what about consumers who don't care about sulfites but ma--

Jeffrey Oetjen: They're welcome to drink what they like but if they come to me and 

they want an organic--a true, organic wine with no added sulfites I've got 

many to choose from.

Katrina Heinze: --are they all 95 percent or--

Jeffrey Oetjen: Some of them have naturally occurring sulfites but that's organic.

Katrina Heinze: --no. I mean, um, percentage of organic grapes?

Jeffrey Oetjen: A hundred percent.

Katrina Heinze: All of them?

Jeffrey Oetjen: I think so. That's my belief.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

140

Katrina Heinze: Thanks.

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions from the Board? Thank you, sir.

Jeffrey Oetjen: Thanks for your time.

Tracy Miedema: You go ahead. Okay. Moshe Schuchman is up next and Diane 

Wilson is on deck. Mr. Shuman, go ahead whenever you're ready.

Moshe Schuchman: My name is Moshe Schuchman. I'm here today as a representative 

of the Star K Kosher Certification, which is a nonprofit organization. 

Besides certifying food as complying with kosher standards for the past 

three and a half years we've partnered with Quality Assurance 

International, QAI, to provide organic certification, as well.

Personally, I've been conducting organic audits for the past two years. My 

purpose in appearing before the Board today is simply to say thank you. 

We're very grateful that the members of the Livestock Committee, who 

clearly are--have a heavy workload and are busy with many, pressing 

matters that require their attention they've taken the time to address the 

issue of ritual slaughter and concluded that ritual slaughter that's practiced 

by the Jewish community for kosher meat and also by the Muslim

community for Halal meet is indeed compatible with organic standards 

because today kosher organic certified meat and poultry suppliers, you 

know, they number a handful but the market clearly has potential for 

dramatic growth: Empire, Kosher Poultry, Wise Organic Pastures in the 

Shammah, these are just among the companies that currently offer this 

dutal--dual certification.

But there's also widespread interest currently among consumers for meat, 

Kosher consumers. That's antibiotic, hormone-free, vegetarian-fed, 

humanely raised and processed. And to fill this demand many of the 

suppliers already maintain standards that comply with organic 

requirements and they're potential candidates for the USDA seal. I would 

like--just like to emphasize that the religious slaughter, um, provision, it's 

not just an exception but it's an expression of reality.

Former legislation for the humane treatment began as an institution not 

more than 200 years ago. But already 800 years ago, uh, there's 

something called the Sefer ha-Chinuch it's a compendium of a Jewish law 

and philosophy written in Spain in the 1200s and it highlights of the 

ancient laws of Kosher slaughter are divinely crafted to minimize any pain 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

141

felt by the animal. And this thesis continues to be supported by the 

science of our century, as well.

A swift, smooth, uninterrupted incision with a carefully honed, sharp knife 

that doesn't have the slightest nick severs the jugulars and the carotids in 

a specific region of the neck and rapidly lowers the animal's blood 

pressure to zero induces m--unconsciousness within seconds. A good 

comparison is, if you think about a paper cut a person might get on their 

finger, that--a person might not realize you got the cut until after he feels 

the blood dripping down.

The knife that's used for ritual slaughter is much, much sharper than a 

paper edge or even a surgical knife. Thus the animals have little to no 

sensation of the cut. Dr. Temple Grandin, the world's famous expert on 

humane slaughter practice, once commented during a visit to a kosher 

slaughter house, "I was relieved and surprised to discover that the animals 

don't even--even feel the super-sharp blade as it touches their skin. They 

made no attempt to pull away.”

The Committee also recommends that during ritual slaughter animals be 

held in a comfortable upright position. While this is not a requirement for 

kosher such device has already been implemented by the Star K 

slaughterhouses in Baltimore and we encourage their use wherever 

slaughter takes place.

Independently and I'll end with this, the American Halal Foundation also 

endorses the Livestock Committee's recommendation for ritual slaughter 

and provided a beef statement of their own, which I have attached to my 

documentation. And for further background information about kosher 

slaughter a paper submitted to the NOSB in the Fall 2010 has also been 

attached. Thank you very much.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, sir. Any questions? Calvin?

C. Reuben Walker: I believe I'm hearing good news. Uh, what you have shared with us

is in support of what we have done--

Moshe Schuchman: Correct.

C. Reuben Walker: --as it relates to Kosher.

Moshe Schuchman: Correct.

C. Reuben Walker: Wendy?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

142

Moshe Schuchman:All right. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, sir. Diane Wilson is up next. Sally Keefe is on deck.

Diane Wilson: Good day. My name is Diane Wilson. I am a registered dietician 

and I am also the Nutrition Director for Nature's One, the manufacturer of 

organic, pediatric medical nutritional products. We are based in Louis 

Center, a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. I thank the Board Members for the 

opportunity to comment on the DHA algal oil petition. I have also 

submitted extensive written comments for your review, which are being 

handed out once again.

Today I would like to provide testimony on why Board Members should not 

grant Martek an exemption to include its algal oil in organic pediatric 

foods. Firstly, Martek DHA algal oil used presently in pediatric nutritionals 

are processed with the environmentally toxic hexane chemical and other 

ingredients not allowed under current organic standards.

Martek is requesting this Board to ignore longstanding organic standards 

regarding hexane processing. Martek claims that hexane is removed from 

the product because it meets their definition of undetectable. This point is 

mute. Organic standards presently do not allow oils processed with 

hexane. By granting Martek's petition a serious and disastrous precedent 

will be set. Organic consumers need to be assured that the oils and foods 

they purchase and consume meet organic standards as they presently 

exist.

Next, Martek's DHA algal oil is not considered, not considered to be an 

essential nutrient by the FDA or the American Academy of Pediatrics. 

Numerous infant clinical studies indicate and even the Technical Review

of Martek's petition note the addition of DHA and ARA to an infant formula 

provides questionable health benefits. For this reason the FDA does not 

require manufactures to include DHA or ARA in infant formula and DHA 

and ARA are not included in the Infant Formula Act. It is completely 

optional.

Furthermore the prestigious Committee of Nutrition of the American

Academy of Pediatrics has taken no official position on adding DHA algal 

oil to infant formulas. This Committee also believes it is likely that any 

beneficial effects of DHA supplementation will be subtle and possibly not 

detected with available methodology. I want to emphasize the two highest 

protectors of society's most vulnerable infant population, the FDA and the 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

143

American Academy of Pediatrics, do not require DHA supplementation in 

infant and toddler feedings.

Again, DHA is not an essential nutrient for infants, toddlers or adults. 

Please, do not confuse the need for increased omega 3 fatty acids with an 

increase in DHA. DHA is only one type of omega 3 fatty acid. The most 

compelling reason to deny Martek's petition is the fact that there are 

organic, compliant forms of DHA already available in the marketplace 

today. This alone--

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, ma'am.

Diane Wilson: --vacates the need for Martek's exemption.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, ma'am.

Diane Wilson: As an example, Nature's One has introduced a USDA certified 

organic formula containing organic compliant DHA and ARA fatty acids.

Miedema: Ms. Wilson, your time is up. Thank you.

Diane Wilson: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Any questions? Calvin. Anyone else? Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Um, so looking--thank you very much for the packet; that was very 

helpful. So looking at your product, which contains an egg lecithin as a 

source of DHA--

Diane Wilson: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: --ARA, um, this is perhaps, uh, slightly removed from the topic but 

have you followed the changes that are happening on the listing of lecithin 

on the National List, um, and how that would effect your product?

Diane Wilson: Uh, this is an egg lecithin; are you talking about soy lecithin or egg 

lecithin?

Katrina Heinze: Right. 'Cause lecithin is coming off 605, right? I think that's what--

what we did so I'm just wondering--'cause the lecithin that's listed right 

now is he--some of them are hexane extracted, as well.

Diane Wilson: Okay. Okay. This is not an--a hexane extracted lecithin.

Katrina Heinze: Okay. Thanks.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

144

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions? Thank you very much.

Diane Wilson: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Sally Keefe is up now and Christy Corb is on deck.

Sally Keefe: Good afternoon. I'm Sally Keefe. I'm responsible for regulatory matters at 

Aurora Organic Dairy including organic certification. Aurora Organic Dairy 

is a leading producer of private brand organic milk and butter. We own 

and operate organic dairy farms in Colorado and Texas and we bottle the 

milk produced on those farms in our Colorado processing plant.

Like many other organic producers that provided written comments we 

support the petition to allow odorized propane for the control of burrowing 

pests. Controlling burrowing pests is a significant challenge for organic 

farmers and ranchers. In my experience, the physical methods, 

mechanical controls in synthetics currently available to organic operators 

are not adequate in many situations.

First about the challenge, the economic pressure of burrowing pests is 

substantial. Also in pastures burrows create safety hazards for livestock 

and people. Additional these pests transmit disease including plague and 

leptospirosis.

Next about the current options, the alternatives that have been identified 

are problematic. Regarding, um, mechanical alternatives, tillage is not 

appropriate for many perennial systems while flooding is at odds with soil 

erosion and water conservation considerations. Regarding mechanical 

alternatives, hunting and trapping are only effective in small areas and 

only appropriate in certain locations. Regarding synthetic alternatives, 

FIFRA does not allow the use of vitamin D3 as a rodenticide for the 

common burrowing pests in the areas we farm. There are no smoke 

bombs available that comply with both FIFRA and the NOP regulations.

Finally, my organic certifier could and would make sure that odorized 

propane is used within the context of my organic system plan. Other 

alternatives are and would be used first. I urge the NOSB to support the 

odorized propane petition and reject the Crops Committee's 

recommendation. Thank you for your consideration.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any questions for Sally Keefe? Jay Feldman.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

145

Jay Feldman: Thank you. Um, so what are you doing now for rodent--at least for 

controls of these rodents?

Sally Keefe: Uh, we mostly have problems with burrowing pests in perennial areas and 

we req--uh, rely on mechanical alternatives including hunting and trapping.

Jay Feldman: And you don't find that that's adequate.

Sally Keefe: Um, it's most assuredly not adequate, certainly according to my neighbors. 

Oh, do I need--

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Was there a follow-up question there? Okay. Any 

other questions for Sally Keefe? Thank you very much. Christy Corbe is 

up next. Christy, are you here? We'll move on. Rob Larose is up now 

and Nathaniel Lewis is on deck.

Rob Larose: Thank you. Uh, my name is Rob Larose. I'm the President of Biosafe 

Systems. We're a family company. I've been, uh, in business since 1998, 

part of the organic community since 1998 and we develop and 

manufacturer, um, crop protection products for the fruit and vegetable 

industry. Uh, 95 percent of our products are, uh, organic listed through 

OMRI. Uh, we only sell and develop, uh, products that would be able to 

be listed or we consider sustainable.

Uh, I'm here to support the petition to, uh, lift the restriction on, uh, 

ammonium nonanoate, uh, herbicide. Um, we have been asked to get 

involved to help develop and market this product. It is now, uh, allowed 

for use in horticultural applications and also for some farm, uh, farmland 

use on fence lines and things like that. It's a little, uh, confusing to me. 

It's, like, uh, it's already listed and, uh, you know, it's--it's like the products 

being allowed into the room but relegated to the back of the room.

Um, we--my company gets, uh, heavily involved with fruit and vegetable 

growers across the country. Uh, 80 percent of them are convention, 20 

percent of them are organic. Um, everybody i--in this, uh, economy is 

looking for as many tools that they have to remain competitive.

Uh, one of the big issues of the day is food safety that's putting a major, 

uh, economic stress on, uh, all growers. And, uh, so the--the organic 

growers are looking for as many tools as they can get to be--to remain 

competitive. And the price points from what they're telling me, um, fro--

from there, uh, retailers are--are under pressure so they need as many 

viable alternatives to--to, uh, manage the weeds on their farms as possible
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

146

And the alternatives right now are essentially cost prohibitive. There's--so 

they just need another--they--they need theirs--they need as many tools 

as they can get. And I, uh, have reviewed the--the information; I can't see 

any--any reason really why this product, uh, has not been allowed for us, 

uh, for, uh, for field production.

Um, the environmental, uh, footprint is--is no--negligible. And it fits within 

our--my--my company's standards, which we will not bring a product to 

market unless it leaves no footprint behind. So, um, I urge people to take 

a second look at this. I think the, uh, growers out there desperately need 

new tools and, uh, it's--we need to support the--the momentum that we 

have in organic, uh, fruit and vegetable production and organic farming in 

particular.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Larose? Thank you, sir.

Rob Larose: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Next up is Nathaniel Lewis. Peggy Miars is on deck.

Nathaniel Lewis: Uh, my name is Nathaniel Lewis. I represent a first-generation 

family farm in Washington state. Um, distinguished Members of the 

Board, I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with my comments 

relating to animal welfare, specifically the confinement of poultry.

Your recommendations demonstrate how carefully you are weighing the 

competing interests endemic to this issue. My wife, daughter and I raise 

and process certified organic broiler chickens on our family farm in Galvin, 

Washington. We are currently transitioning our Jacob sheep, Jersey

cows, Tamworth pigs and California white rabbits to be organic breeding 

stock for the 2012 season.

For full disclosure, I am also employed by WSDA to coordinate our 

material review, brand name material lists and routine periodic sampling 

programs. However, the views I am sharing today are only those of my 

own and do not represent necessarily those of the Washington State 

Department of Agriculture.

We have raised pasture broilers for more than ten years. During this time 

we have found that broiler chickens, the Cornish Rock cross do not 

perform well and, in fact, are negatively impacted once outdoor ambient 

temperatures drop below 50 degrees. Cold temperature or inclimate 

weather could be used as justification for temporary confinement of our 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

147

broiler chickens. But our pasture-based, mobile shelter production system 

makes seasonal confinement of our broilers impractical.

Instead, we choose to raise these temperature-sensitive chickens at an 

appropriate time for our climate, from June to September and market a 

frozen product. Other m--other producers supply our area with fresh, 

organic poultry year-round. This puts our operation at a disadvantage 

because many consumers are not accostoming--accustomed to 

purchasing frozen poultry and naturally choose a more familiar product.

It is my opinion that the production of fresh poultry during times of cool, 

ambient outdoor temperatures is inherently non-compliant with the 

national organic standards. If a producer confines poultry during the 

winter months due to inclimate weather there is the potential for these 

animals to have been confined for their entire production cycle, a short six 

to eight weeks. This practice violates two aspects of the current rule, 

205.239 A1, which states that “continuous total confinement of any 

animals indoors is prohibited,” and 205.238 A1 which states that “as part 

of a preventative healthcare plan a producer must select species and 

types of livestock with regard to suitability for site specific conditions.”

Raising Cornish Rock cross chickens during the winter inherently violates 

the latter standard and potentially necessitates a violation of the former. I 

encourage the Board as you go forward with the refining of livestock 

production standards to consider the standards already in statue. Specific

guidance to certifiers clarifying how to enforce the current standards 

relating to outdoor access for poultry is forthcoming from the Program. 

However, if the two standards I cited earlier are not addressed in this 

guidance document then the non-compliances inherent to year-round 

fresh poultry production will continue.

Before you go forward with final recommendations destined for the 

quagmire of federal rule-making I hope you ensure that the current 

regulations are fully enforced.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, sir. Any questions? Hearing none. Thank you very 

much. Peggy Miars is up next. Peter Nitz is on deck. Just a moment, 

Peggy, want to make sure Mr. Nitz is here. Steve Peirce is on deck. Mr. 

Peirce, are you here?

Steve Peirce:Yes, I am.

Tracy Miedema: Okay. Thank you. Please, proceed, Peggy.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

148

Peggy Miars: Good afternoon. I'm Peggy Miars, Executive Director of OMRI and I'd like 

to comment today on the recommendation regarding material review 

organizations or MROs. And I want to thank the CACC for your thorough 

research, analysis and recommendation on this topic.

Uh, the January 2011 memo from the Deputy Administrator of the NOP to 

the Chairperson of the NOSB requests that the Board develop a 

recommendation that delineates the criteria that should be used by 

certifying agents and third-party organizations to evaluate materials used 

in organic production and handling. The memo goes on to state that 

criteria may include items such as standard procedures for evaluating 

materials, types of documentation and records needed, depth of review, 

frequency of review and other examples.

And so I'm a bit confused because the discussion document presented 

last Spring and the Committee's current recommendation seem to focus 

not on the criteria to be used to evaluate materials but rather on how the 

NOP should oversee and accredit the MROs. And after rereading the 

NOP memo this morning and consulting with my colleague I think the 

issue is that the memo's not really clear on what's being requested. Is it 

criteria from a material review, is it how to evaluate the MROs or is it a 

combination of both?

Um, in the recommendation the Committee states, “We believe that the 

most effective way to ensure consistency among MROs is to ensure that 

all organizations are operating by a consistent set of review protocols and 

procedures.” And the Committee goes on to say that, “The CACC agrees 

with the NOP that there is a clear need for more uniform and consistent 

policies governing material review services. And we believe that all 

organic stakeholders would benefit from a clearly defined NOP guidance 

around the qualifications and activities of these organizations.” So those 

were quotes from the Committee and we at OMRI wholeheartedly agree 

with those statements.

In the recommendation the, uh, Committee encourages the NOP to 

provide detailed guidance on the material review process in order to 

promote consistency and uniformity among currently operating MROs 

while longer term changes are undertaken. And I'm disappointed that we 

do not have criteria to thoroughly vett at this meeting. I was really hoping 

for that.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

149

While OMRI does not see the urgent need for new accreditation scope we 

are ready, willing and able to undertake that process and I'm ready to add, 

uh, money into our budget to do that. However, we do believe that clear 

and consistent criteria are most important and that developing an 

accreditation scope can be delayed while this--these criteria are 

developed.

In fact, OFPA does not provide for an accreditation scope for material 

review; it only allows for accreditation of certifiers of farm and handling 

operations. And it seems that OFPA would need to be amended in order 

to, um, allow for this new scope. Uh, we agree with the OTA's conclusion 

that a lack of uniform and transparent materials review pro--a uniform and 

transparent materials review program has resulted in negative impacts 

both to organic production and to the organic marketplace in the United 

States and believe that this needs to be remedied soon.

Since the CACC did not recommend clear and consistent criteria for 

material review OMRI again encourages the NOP to establish a task force 

to help develop the criteria and OMRI would be happy to serve on such a 

task force for the benefit of the organic community. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Peggy. I have a question for Mr. Deputy Administrator. 

Um, Miles, do you think that we missed the mark on your memo from 

about a year ago or--or changed the scope?

Miles McEvoy: Uh, I'd have to look at that memo again. Um--

Peggy Miars: I've got it.

Miles McEvoy: Uh, yeah, um, well, I think that the, uh, the proposal that the CACC 

came up with is gonna be very beneficial for the Program to move forward. 

I think you have answered a number of questions but I think the point that 

Peggy is making, uh, concerning the specific criteria is an important one 

and something that, uh, the CACC could take on in terms of their future 

work.

So I think great progress has been made and additional work in this area 

is certainly, um, important to do, as well. Uh, the other point about 

whether or not OFPA provides the authority to accredit material review 

organizations, uh, that's under, uh, review by the Office of General 

Council. Um, I tend to agree that it probably does not provide that but let's 

get a legal opinion on that and, uh, move forward from there, uh, once that 

happens.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

150

Tracy Miedema: Thank you very much for that, Peggy. And thanks for the 

clarification, Miles. It sounds like, uh, the CACC may be, um, needing to 

forge ahead with a part two on this document to fulfill what the original 

memo's intent stated, not to be presumptuous or anything. Any other 

questions? Thank you.

Peggy Miars: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Steve Peirce is up next. Jessica Rolph is on deck. Jessica, are 

you here?

Steve Peirce:Slide one, please. Okay. Good afternoon and glad to be here. Um, 

you've got eleven pages on written comment that I submitted earlier. 

You've got some additional transcripts there in front of you today. What 

we're talking about is not really the, uh, the petition not for the elimination 

of silicon dioxide but more for the reduction in organic foods.

You know, when we look at our business we export to some 40 countries 

around the world on five continents. We are organic. We are part of the 

organic industry. Looking for the benefit of the quality of the seal and 

raising that standard that you've heard about a lot today.

One of the things taking place is a convergence of the Sunset Law on, um, 

silicon dioxide, secondly there's a petition in front of you today on the 

restriction of silicon dioxide bringing together the act, which the basis of 

putting SiO2 on the act is now gone. And this placeholder that the, uh, 

National List created was really a temporary placeholder because if it was 

permanent it wouldn't be hit every five years by the Sunset.

So between what the customers need and the policy you've gotta look at 

information that's changed over the last five years. One point of interest, 

it's interesting that silicon dioxide is not allowed in organic livestock feed 

but we can feed it to each other and our children. The question is, it's nice 

that we've got an alternative; what's it doing in the marketplace and how 

well is it working?

Looking at sales over the last 12 months of selling both organic and 

natural: natural's increasing 15X faster than organic, looking at new 

customers coming onboard, 40X faster. And you say, “Why?” Natural is 

not a regulated sector or space. The consumer has to read the label more 

closely. You've heard today when the consumer sees that organic logo 

they believe everything in there is organic or that there is no natural 

alternative.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

151

Here's the list of areas where silicon dioxide can be used. The one area 

where the organic product does not work is as a defoamer. We'll address 

that in just a moment. Here's some pictures of where organic users are 

using the ingredient. You've got examples in front of you, you've got 

seven pages of labels where they're specifying, um, organic rice 

concentrate. Natural users, some of the big companies whether it's from 

Mrs. Dash's to McCormick’s to Bigelow Tea Company and many others. 

It's working.

So as we look at the convergence of the act, which says nothing goes on 

the National List if there is no--if there is a--no natural substitute, well, we 

have a natural substitute. The policy you need to align with the integrity of 

the industry and rather than coming in at a conflict it's more of an 

alignment between the consumers and the act. And we heard very loudly 

this morning there's a need for clarity and consistency.

The Committee has proposed that we apply the, uh, commercial 

availability. I applaud the effort but that will not bring about consistency. 

So in summary, annotating 205.605 silicon dioxide as a defoamer, that's 

my eleven pages boiled down to three minutes.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you very much. Any questions? Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: Thank you. Um, I have a two-part question. Um, I'll ask both 

questions upfront so the, um, sounds like you're saying to the Board that 

the silicon dioxide has a commercial available alternative and therefore we 

can replace it on the National List for the specific uses excluding the 

defoamer.

However, your critics, and I'm sure you've seen these comments and I 

want to get your sense of the voracity of this, uh, argument from your 

critics, says, “It will not serve, uh, as a complete replacement for anticaking and free-flow additive due to the wide performance and technical 

issues,” and then go on to--and is that correct? And then go on to say that 

the ingredient in RIBUS, uh, material that functions as an anti-caking 

agent is silicon dioxide but only a concentration of around 17 percent. So 

if you could clear those things up for us I'd be very happy. Thank you.

Steve Peirce:Uh, yes, yes and no. Uh, number one, it is natural. Um, what we say is 

Mother Nature as you plant the rice plant in the ground Mother Nature and 

the plant extracts silica out of the soil and concentrates it in the hull of the 

rice. When Mother Nature did this there's not 100 percent. That's what a 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

152

synthetic does. As a natural it is a combination of silica plus fiber. That’s 

on our tech sheet, uh, that's a fact.

You get extremely similar functionality even though there are differences. 

However, this is the natural alternative to a synthic, the silicon dioxide. 

Where we've got a 17 percent concentrated, uh, silica and we do nothing 

to it other than steam-sterilize it and grind it, that's it, and then package it. 

Um, we're using what Mother Nature gave us. Twenty percent of the rice 

crop that's harvested is the hull. We're taking that throwaway portion, 

grinding it, sterilizing it and putting it back into the human food system 

sustainable, 100 percent organic, certainly natural.

Tracy Miedema: Jay, you have a follow-up question?

Jay Feldman: Yeah, thank you. Um, okay. So the last question then is the 83 

percent of other impurities that's referenced, uh, by your critics, what--

what are they talking about in (inaudible)?

Steve Peirce:Interesting choice of words of impurities. I would say rather than a pure 

synthetic this is the natural, it's fiber, is the majority, some 70 percent, 72 

percent fiber, less than 4 percent moisture, a fraction of a touch of protein 

and a fraction of a touch of, uh, fat, but it's mainly silica, fiber and a touch 

of moisture.

Tracy Miedema: John Foster and then Calvin Walker.

John Foster: Is, um, is the process by which you ma--manufacture this product, um, 

unique to your company or, you know, which is, uh, I guess another way 

of saying are there multiple ways to make this product or are you it?

Steve Peirce:I would say there are multiple ways of making it. One of the things that we 

did five years ago before we came out with it we did file the piece of paper 

at the U.S. Patent and Trademark office that said we would like to harvest 

from the rice plant the fraction that's high in silica, uh, to be used as an 

anti-caking agent. Um, nothing more has taken place other than we filed 

the paperwork.

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions? Oh, yeah, Calvin, sorry.

C. Reuben Walker: You mentioned that, uh, silicon dioxide is, uh, used in humans and 

not in livestock.

Steve Peirce:Yes, sir.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

153

C. Reuben Walker: Any particular that you share--educate me on briefly what's--what's-

-explain that and then, too, is the commercial availability of silicon dioxide, 

uh, appropriate for the industry?

Steve Peirce:Two quick answers: one, from what I've been told by our certifier is that 

because silicon dioxide is only on 205.605 that's only allowable for 

humans, That does not make it allowable for livestock and animals. We 

do sell to the animal industry and the livestock industry on that. Am I 

correct on that, Katrina? Oh, I saw you raising a hand--I didn't--

Katrina Heinze: I have a question.

Steve Peirce:Um, the other thing you asked about commercial availability. Four years 

ago I would've said that's great, I support the Committee 100 percent. 

Having been around the industry extremely closely over the last four years 

in and out of plants, customers, non-customers and everything else, if the 

commercial availability were applied it's designed for 606, if we applied it 

to 605 all that means is that you as a formulator or the production 

manager, all they have to do is make a test fail in front of their certifier and 

they can go back to using the synthetic.

We've heard from the wine industry how the gold standard and the organic 

seal how valuable it is; this is one of those ans--uh, situations we're not 

trying to put a synthetic on, we're looking at trying to say, okay, can we 

raise the bar a little bit? Do we have a natural or an organic alternative 

that can function in high 90s. I'm not gonna say 100 percent; I'll tell you 

it's not 100 percent, but high 90s to raise the integrity of the industry.

And I encourage the--the Committee and the Board that commercial 

availability is personal interpretation by each and every certifier. I've got 

faith and belief in them. However, if we're after consistency that's not 

gonna do it. All right. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina?

Katrina Heinze: Thank you for your patience as we've worked through this process. 

I know you've been hanging around our board meetings for a long time on 

this topic. Um, as you are well aware we, um, have in the past and 

continue to get public comment that the natural alternative doesn't work in 

all cases and I was wondering if you could speak a little bit to that and of 

cases, um, with which you're aware when it doesn't work?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

154

Steve Peirce:Sure. The first thing we heard about was the defoaming and we went to a 

defoaming manufacturer and said, “Hey, does it or doesn't it? We've got 

some people buying it for that use.” As he explained to us what it was and 

wasn't we said, “Okay. Let's back away from that right now because we 

don't have enough replicated knowledge that's working.” That's the first 

one.

The second one was when we first brought the product out and we're on 

generation number four. Generation number one had eight to ten percent 

moisture, worked well in some seasonings and spices. Anything with any 

sugars, any, uh, hydroscopic components, we became part of the problem 

rather than part of the solution. Next thing we did is we dropped it to less 

than four percent moisture, opened up a much bigger market to us.

The next thing we did was altered particle sizes so that we could fit more 

and more applications. The last thing that we did was to look at bleaching 

it with hydrogen peroxide, which is on the National List, mainly for natural 

customers but could be available for organic customers because there 

were public comments previously that it wasn't working in white and lightcolor applications.

As we know in most organics very few things are pure white like the 

nametags or the--the aprons up front. It's a skin color, flesh color type of 

material that fits more with what we see in organics. So, um, the high 

moisture, the color, there are some sweetener situations that I've learned 

that it is not working in. I will tell you we are using it in, uh, organic Stevia

in the single serve pouches as an anti-caking agent. So it is working in 

some of those; I hear from some it's not. We're there to support with 

technical support where we can to try to make it work.

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions? Thank you.

Steve Peirce:Thank you very much.

Tracy Miedema: I'd like to do a time check before we proceed with more public 

comments. Lorraine, will you, please, tally the remaining, uh, commenters 

today? Okay. So we're about 30 minutes off-schedule, um, about 40 

minutes off-schedule, um, and we're scheduled out to about 5:00.

So what I'd like to do is take a short break at this time, try to keep us, um, 

as close to, uh, 5:30 end time as possible. And so let's take--I know this is 

short but let's take a seven-minute break and I'll try to get back and get 

quorum, um, seated at 4:44.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

155

[BREAK]

Miedema: Jessica Rolph is up now and Terry Shistar is on deck.

Jessica Rolph: Great. Hi, thank you so much. Um, my name is Jessica Rolph and 

I'm the COO and Founding Partner of Happy Family. Um, Happy Family 

is the nation's premium, leading organic brand for infants and children 

products. Um, my partner and I launched the company five years ago and 

we were selling in five stores in New York Cities and now we're in 10,000 

outlets across the country so we've had a ton of success.

Um, and a lot of the reason why parents have really responded to our 

products, the time--the only products that were available were Gerber and 

Beechnut, kind of conventional foods and Earth's Best. But the reasons 

parents have really loved our products is because, one--number one, 

we're a mom-owned company. Um, I have a child and my partner does, 

as well, and so we're really coming from an authentic place.

Um, but we also offer super nutrient-dense foods as an alternative to a lot 

of the processed foods that are available for our nation's children so we 

really feel proud of that. Um, so that being our brand stands for only the 

very best. Um, so our products absolutely have to be organic. Um, and 

they also--the challenge is they also really need to have all the necessary 

fortifications that all of the other foods offer.

Um, so our consumers don't really want to have to choose between either 

having organic food or having a food with a lot of nutrients, um, added 

nutrients. So and a lot of our customers are Type A moms like moms, 

like--like, me who, um, who want to feel like they're doing everything they 

possibly can do to give their child the very best start in life. So they, you 

know, they want to--they want their children to be the smartest and the 

best and the healthiest and the happiest that they can possibly be.

And so for that we f--we feel strongly that having DHA in our organic 

cereals and organic foods, um, is a--is just a major selling point for 

consumers, um, because, you know, what parent doesn't want their kid to 

be the smartest and--and have great brain development and great eye 

development? So, um, so it's a real important thing for--for new moms.

Um, it also allows us to compete, you know, that being having DHA in our 

foods allows us to compete with conventional brands like Gerber and 

Beechnut. Um, so again I'm here because a lot of our foods contain DHA 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

156

and choline. Um, I'm gonna add choline to the--to the comment even 

though I know that'll be addressed at a next meeting.

Um, and I know you guys are working really hard to make the right 

decision on whether these nutrients should be allowed in organic foods. 

Um, so summarizing why this is really important for our company, number 

one, competition. Um, Gerber offers a conventional infant cereal with 

added DHA, um, and First Foods at it with choline added so we've been 

able to se--to successfully compete.

And that really is our selling point, that we have organic plus all these 

special nutrients. We have DHA and choline, um, and probiotics in our 

cereals and that's why our cereal is selling so well. Um, and then why--

why the specific form of DHA that we're using, the Martek DHA, um, really 

it's because we--it's the only DHA that we can practically incorporate into 

our formulas. So DHA and cereal manufacturing is--can be really 

complex.

Gerber owns and Beechnut own their own manufacturing and then all the 

other manufacturing for the private label brands and for our brands and 

smaller companies is done by one company. And it's a really, pretty 

complex, specific process that involved drum-drying, um, and, uh, and 

just, you know, very specific kind of equipment and process around 

making an ensomatic slurry and making the cereal di--easily digestible for 

infants.

And so we need to basically--incorporating fish oil results in a lot of, like, 

smell, rancid problems that we've--we've experimented with that and it's 

really scary for us to try and--we don't want to take a risk and we've been 

very happy with the product that we've been incorporating.

Tracy Miedema: Ms. Rolph?

Jessica Rolph: Um, yeah.

Tracy Miedema: Your--your three minutes is up.

Jessica Rolph: Okay. Sorry.

Tracy Miedema: That's okay. Any questions for Jessica Rofle? Joe Dickson.

Joe Dickson: Thank you, Jessica. Um, I have a sort of, I guess, market dynamics kind 

of question I guess I'd call it. Um, if DHA were to go away and disappear 

from the National List and you could no longer use it, um, I'm curious 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

157

about what you think as a marketer and product developer, the typical 

mom's reaction would be? Would she purchase a organic formula without 

DHA or would she switch to a conventional formula with added DHA or 

how do you see that kind of effect playing out?

Jessica Rolph: Yeah, this is a really thoughtful question. I mean I think there are 

gonna be the very small segment of moms who are willing to buy the 

organic, non-fortified cereal and then find other ways to get it in their diet,

either they're still nursing and so they're getting the DHA through them 

taking, you know, eating a lot of fish or taking supplements as a mom. But 

that's a--I have to say that's a pretty--that sort of extreme is a pretty small 

segment of our consumers.

We've grown the organic segment significantly in the stores that we're in, 

um, so a lot of people are coming to our product not because it's organic 

but because it has a lot of other added benefits. And so a majority of our 

thin--our consumers would actually I think go back to the--to the 

conventional alternatives because they know that DHA is so important for 

brain and eye development and they--they--that's, like, a critical buying 

point, you know, point of purchase decision to have that included even 

over organic in some cases.

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions? Thank you very much.

Jessica Rolph: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Terry Shistar is up now and Joan Smiley is on deck.

Terry Shistar: Hi, I'm--I'm Terry Shistar and I'm with Beyond Pesticides. I'm a 

member of the Board of Directors. And, uh, we've already submitted 

written comments on a whole no--lot of issues and I don't even have time 

to summarize them.

We kept in mind three things in reviewing the recommendations. The first 

is the section of OFPA dealing with the National List. We are concerned 

about materials that don't seem to fit into any of these categories. Um, in 

this ca--in the case of materials that are being reviewed today it's IBA 

propane use to explode, uh, rodent burrows and periacetic acid used for 

fire blight.

Um, this section of--of OFPA lists the basic criteria that substances must 

meet. It appears that the conjunction “and" is often, um, ignored in 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

158

discussions here and that results in people ba--um, getting involved with 

balancing. Wow.

Um, the second thing we keep in mind is the principles of organic 

production and handling. And, um, in particular we return time and again 

to this one and in particularly looking at, uh, the biodiversity requirements 

and, um, and--and thinking about how to define the equivalent of soil 

biological activity, for example, in case of aquaculture systems.

Um, the third thing that we kept in mind in--in looking at our, uh, comments 

is--is that natural pest management when it works is invisible. In the 30 

years that Beyond Pesticides has been working on these issues, um, the 

first thing that we learned from organic farmers was that often organic 

farmers didn't have a solution for a problem because the problem didn't 

exist for them because organic farmers didn't see a problem when their 

system was working; they only saw it when it wasn't working.

We also learned that large interventions like spraying an area with a toxic 

chemical create large disturbances allowing the invasion of pests to the 

chemical intensive grower, lots of dead bodies signify, um, si--effective 

pest control but to us lots of dead bodies indicate that the material kill--kills 

things, not that it solves problems.

On the other hand, effective pest management interventions are not 

dramatic like explosions or poisons. They're often--they often tweak a 

system that may be out of balance. All of these considerations ecological 

and policy and legal lead us to look at whether using a proposed material 

results in a large disturbance that is contrary to our ecological and agroecological goals or tweaks the system back to harmony. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Ms. Shistar. Any questions? Thanks. Joan Smiley is 

up next. Helen and Joseph Fields are on deck.

Joan Smiley: Hi. My name is Joan Smiley and I’m with Falcon Lab. I'm here today to 

encourage the Board to recommend allowance for the petitioned 

substance ammonium nonanoate. As you know, it is already an allowed 

synthetic substance with restrictions to non-food areas and ornamental 

crops.

The Technical Review states the minimal concern to the soil and nontarget organisms when used as labeled. Moreover, according to the EPA 

it would be indistinguishable whether any drift revi--residues on crops are 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

159

there naturally or because of its use as an herbacide. Nevertheless, the 

petition is not even asking for the ability to s--to spray directly on crops.

The petition specifically requests allowance for the following uses as an 

organic herbicide in crop production. Prior to planting food crops, directed 

spray at the base of grape vines and fruit trees and use in--using shielded, 

hooded sprayers between food crop rows. It has been suggested in the 

proposed recommendation that there are already adequate allowed weed 

management methods. This assessment is not consistent with the 

multitude of farmers we've spoken to over the years.

Farmers needs are documented in the following US--USDA sponsored 

survey of 600 organic farmers, which you all have on the slide. I didn't get 

them up here. In addition, another indication of the need is the over 12 

universities that have sponsored research studies on organic herbicides, 

which included two USDA sponsored studies.

In each post-study report ammonium nonanoate proved to be more 

efficacious than currently allowed substance and most importantly it 

provides a much more economical alter--alternative. Ammonium

nonanoate occurs naturally, biodegrades very quickly and does not 

translocate in soil. The petition parameters are such that it would not be 

sprayed on the actual crop, just the weeds.

And, yes, its allowance could relieve many of the economic burdens 

organic farmers face with weed management. It is only synthetic in that it 

is not harvestable because it does biodegrade so quickly and it would be 

less than one-third the cost of other allowed herbicides with greater 

efficacy.

Lastly, you have a slide that shows a published USDA organic standards 

definition. Ammonium nonanoate is completely a renewable resource, it is 

a naturally occurring substance and would provide huge economic benefit 

to organic farmers without affecting organic integrity.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Smiley? Thank you.

Joan Smiley: Thanks.

Tracy Miedema: Helen Fields is up now. Mary Van Elswick is on deck.

Helen Fields:Good afternoon. My name is Helen Fields and my husband, Joseph, and I 

operate Joseph Fields Farm, which is located on Johns Island in South
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

160

Carolina. We are certified farmers. I'm a member of the SAAFON Board, 

uh, Board of Directors and I am the Chairperson for the Sea Island 

Farmers.

I have three concerns I would like to address this afternoon. One, farm 

service, should a--should a disaster occur and a organic farmer must file 

they would paid on a conventional basis because there aren't any yields 

for organic production. However, extension--extensive production records 

are kept. I don't think that this is accurate or this is fair. We have to keep 

the record for recertification; I think that these practices is unfair and it 

needs to be addressed.

Two, NRCS. This is an excellent program. We received two high tunnels, 

we received a well and we're in the conservation practice with them. 

We're small farmers and this program has helped us tremendously. I am 

certain that there are many other farmers and hopefully new farmers that 

need to have these benefits. This program is vital and must be around for 

many years.

And finally, three, education. As an organic producer the public needs to 

know how clean and good the organic food is. They are not aware of this. 

We need your help in educating them about the benefits of eating organic 

foods.

And finally, in our state, we have agents and the agents are not reading off 

the same sheet of music. I'm in the Charleston County and there are 

several other counties that's not teaching organic farmers the same 

information. They don't know enough about the NRCS or the farm service 

like we do because the agents are not as helpful to them as they are to 

me. However, I am a person, I ask a lot of questions. And I feel that the 

agents need to all read off the same sheet of music so South Carolina can 

be trained on a equal basis. Thank you for listening to me.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Ms. Fields. Any questions? Thanks so much.

Helen Fields:Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Mary Van Elswick is up now. Yvette Brown is on deck.

Mary Van Elswick: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is 

Mary Van Elswick. I have a PhD in nutrition from Texas A and M 

University and I'm a registered dietician. I've worked in the area of DHA 

and long-chain omega 3 fatty acids for nearly 25 years. I'm a former 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

161

employee of both Omega Tek and Martek Biosciences and currently serve 

as a consultant.

Millions of families benefit from DHA and ARA, benefits that are so 

compelling that 99 percent of infant formula contain them. The benefits 

and essentiality of DHA are supported by outstanding scientific evidence 

that continues to grow and has been reviewed by global authorities 

extensively.

For example, WHOFAO experts have recently concluded that DHA is 

essential during early life because of the limited formation of DHA from the 

precursor, fatty acid ALA, and DHA's critical in retinal and brain 

development. AFFSA, the French Food Safety Authority, has recently 

concluded that DHA is essential even for adults. We expect based on the 

current body of evidence that other agencies will follow suit. And most 

tellingly, for infants and young children, the European Commission has 

adopted regulation authorizing a health claim regarding visual function on 

products sold for children that contain, um, or are fortified with DHA.

For adults the European Food Safety Authority has recommended health 

claims for DHA related to visual and brain function as well as 

cardiovascular health. For pregnant, nursing women the U.S. dietary 

guidelines recognize the role of DHA in maternal and infant health. 

Women seeking a vegetarian source of DHA will choose algal DHA.

I'd also like to correct the record regarding claims that the Monsanto

Corporation developed Martek's strain of algae. This is entirely false. In 

fact, Martek, then Omega Tek developed and owned the technology that 

produces DHA algal oil. Martek licensed the prod--production technology 

to Kelco, which was acquired by Monsanto but the license revers--

reverted back to Martek. At no time during this agreement was Monsanto 

involved in the development or modification of the source organism.

DHA and ARA fit the criteria for inclusion on the National List of approved 

substances. They are limited, uh, there are limited available sources of 

DHA and ARA in the diet. Fatty fish is not a staple of many U.S. 

consumer diets. Fish intake can be further limited, um, by warnings about 

contaminants found in fish, fish allergy and vegetarianism. Martek

supports the NOSB Handling Committee's recommendation to list 

vegetarian DHA from algal oil and ARA as non-synthetic substances and 

strongly urges the NOSB to preserve the availability of vegetarian DHA 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

162

and ARA in organic products and add them to the National List. Thank 

you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you very much. Any questions? Thanks. Yvette Brown is 

up now and Julie Weisman is on deck.

Yvette Brown: Good afternoon, everyone. And I think--want to give special thanks 

to SAAFON for making it possible for me to travel this far for you to hear 

some of the ins--the situation that we are suffering when it comes to 

certified organic production within the Virgin Islands. It's costly to--for me 

to attend any of these hearings. Coming from the Virgin Islands to the 

United States can be--run an average of $700 for a ticket. So 90 percent 

of the time we miss any opportunities to speak on the behalf of our Virgin 

Islanders.

I am working with several farmers in the Virgin Islands who are seeking to 

get organically certified but has come against stumbling blocks because of 

the limitations that we have there on the island.

Our state agency offices--most of the officers that work in such offices are 

limited or has no information at all when it comes to organic production or 

any information as far as training outline is available through them. I am 

not saying they're not willing to work with us because they do work with us 

on a regular basis as best as they can. But the limitation is in their--their--

the agencies that they work with.

Most of the time when they are questioned concerning how should we 

move forward their answers are based on conventional production. The 

cost share program a year and a half ago, SAAFON through Ms. Cynthia

Hayes, lobbied through Washington, D.C. and our--and our CS office 

through Puerto Rico in order to get the program into the Virgin Islands. 

The money is still sitting there. The Department of Agriculture has not the 

ability to handle how the money is moved or the workforce to carry out 

such mandate.

We set growing our produce on the call growing organically but when our 

customers come they're asking, “When are you going to be certified?” Our 

community is becoming well overwhelmed with the certification process 

and they're looking to buy their products from farmers who are certified 

because they are more concerned about their health now.

Our area has a high rate of diabetes, hypertension and other diseases and 

so our people are becoming quite aware of organic production and the 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

163

exemption of a lot of chemicals. Therefore they are looking for farms that 

are certified to guarantee them that what they're eating is good for their 

health.

We cannot meet the standards they are looking for because we cannot get 

certified. In order for us to get certified we would have to fly a certifier and 

an evaluator or in--slash inspector from the mainland to the Virgin Islands

to be certified. That cost will fall under the farmer. So not only do we 

have to meet the cost of certification but we also have to pay for all of 

these expenses for the certifier and the inspector.

We cannot have emergency inspection. We cannot have no kind of 

inspection if it is left how it is today. Many times the Virgin Islands, which 

is territories--the territories of the U.S.--of the United States is left out of 

the whole agriculture field with conventional, sustainable or even organic. 

We would like to see some changes made when it comes to the organic 

production and the certification process.

We are not asking for any rules to be bent. We are not asking for any 

rules to be changed. We are asking that the USDA offices prepare their 

employees that should be working with us so that we can be properly 

prepared and give us the tools that are offered to everyone else so that we 

can become certified and we can carry out our certification when its 

necessary so that we can get onto the game of providing the proper food 

for our community. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Yvette Brown. Any questions? Thanks. Julie

Weismann is up now and John Brunnquell is on deck.

Julie Weisman: Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity. Uh, my name 

is Julie Weismann from New Jersey. Uh, I’m a former Handling--Handling 

Rep on this Board from 2005 to 2010 during which time I chaired the 

Handling Committee for three years so let's go right into handling 

materials, gotta talk fast.

ARA/DHA, I agree with the recommendations for listing but I concur with 

other commenters that they be listed as microbial oils with annotations. 

Um, uh, I don't, uh, think that's it's appropriate, uh, if that was what was 

happening it would not be appropriate to put a brand name on the National 

List. Uh, a side issue to that is, uh, the definition of substance on the 

National List, which, uh, there's been a lot of comment about.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

164

It has always been the case that items on the National List that were 

formulations including active ingredients and other substances such a 

carrier and stabilizers and even things used in organic production, which 

are not on the National List, like, anything non-synthetic in crops and 

livestock have many formulations that are permitted without any petition 

processes.

So I hope that you can console yourselves that materials for use and 

handling through the petition and review process of the NOSB as it 

currently exists already meets a much higher bar for handling materials, 

um, than similar materials in crop and livestock, which are not subject to 

petition and board review.

Um, and--but, please, also do give consideration to rich thoyers, thoughtful 

and informed comments both on microbial oils and the definition of a 

substance with regard to the National List.

Um, sulfites, how bad i--I actually disagree with the re--recommendation of 

the Handling Committee to allow sulfites in wine labeled as organics. 

Sorry, guys. Um, but I--this is my bias. Um, it's apparent to me that 

organic--the--that an organic wine industry is flourishing in the U.S. without 

sulfites being added to wines that are being sold as organic.

And I guess my bias here is that I see a parallel in the flavor industry with--

with which I'm much more familiar. Uh, it requires a lot more effort and 

creativity to formulate certified organic flavors. Lots of conventional 

flavors, I know, will say that, "Oh, they can't make good certified, organic 

flavors,” and I think that's because they wouldn't have access to certain 

components that they're more comfortable using.

Um, but as with wine, it only requires a little more creativity and effort. Uh, 

I do want to say though that I appreciate the point made earlier that, uh, 

making this change that has been recommended would help put the U.S. 

organic wine industry on--help it compete on a level playing field with other 

jurisdictions and I admit that that is a valid consideration.

Annatto extract, the removal, my favorite NOSB topic 606. Another 

example of a point I made consistently during my time on the Board and in 

public comments since; placement of a material on 606 has had the effect 

of stimulating development of organic ingredients that were previously not 

available. I do caution the Board that in your zeal to make the National 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

165

List as small as possible do not allow yourselves to be used by 

manufactures who want to create a de facto monopoly.

During my time on the NOSB the Handling Committee routinely 

considered how many suppliers there were of an ingredient and I urge that 

the current Board do the same. I had a couple funny things I wanted to 

say but I guess I'll have to cut those out. Um, but I do, uh, uh, I say just 

briefly that I don't agree with conflict of interest, uh, as it's written. I do not 

com--agree with the transparency as its written.

I could say more about it, uh, and also thank you so much Katrina, Steve, 

Tina, wait, and Tracy, uh, great five years. I loved serving with you, uh, go 

now and have a life. You all deserve it.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Julie. Any questions for Julie Weismann? Katrina?

Katrina Heinze: Julie, your point about, um, creating a de facto monopoly is 

interesting to me 'cause that's something that didn't come up during our 

deliberations--did not. Um, could you speak a little bit more about that and 

how that worked when you were on the Board or--or give an example 

maybe?

Julie Weisman: Well, I mean I would just say in general that, um, if a petition is 

being made by someone who wants a material removed because they 

have an organic alternative and they're the only supplier of the organic 

alternative, um, I'm not saying it's absolute hard and fast but I think careful 

consideration should be given about that because a single supplier could 

go out of business and--and the regulatory world does not work as fast as 

the business world to fill in for things like that.

Um, you know, we can--I think it can also go the other way where, um, 

someone wants to put something on this list and they're the only su--you 

know, and they're the only supplier so it--it can work both in the--in the 

case of removing and in the case of some--of petitions to add.

I just think that it's worth always, um, uh, it's a little bit of, um, it's suspect 

to me when, uh, and I don't think it's the role of a--a USDA, uh, uh, body 

to, uh, give, um, uh, I don't--I--something doesn't sit, uh, well with that. 

Uh, it did not sit well with us that this advantage--that the--the rulemaking 

process could be used to give this advantage.

You know, on the other hand, if people are innovating and they're making 

the investment to come up with something, you know, which I fully believe 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

166

this--that's what the 606 process is for, um, uh, you don't want to ignore 

that either. But I--I think that we always felt more comfortable with it when 

there was more than one supplier that was able to provide it.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Colehour.

Colehour Bondera: Um, I actually want to ask you to make us laugh but, um, you may 

or may not have time so I--I think that on this topic that you were just 

addressing my question, um, and I--I'm actually asking for your help for 

me to understand this but is it essentially what one would characterize as 

a generic formulation, uh, as opposed to a copyrighted formulation or, 

yeah, clarify?

Julie Weisman: No, no. Because someone could petition, um, something that 

they're the only manufacturer of and it--but they might be petitioning it by 

its generic name but it doesn't change the fact that there's right n--that at 

that moment in time there's only one company that can supply it. Um, but 

that's--I mean that's a fair considera--I mean patent issues do, you know, 

come into it but that was not specifically, uh, I also don't--said it before, I 

don't think that brand names sh--belong on the National List.

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions?

Julie Weisman: If you ask me what was funny I'll tell you.

Tracy Miedema: John Foster.

Julie Weisman: Don't ask it.

John Foster: Hi, Julie. Um, I--I'm cu--you--you have a unique skill set here or 

experience set that not many people have. Enough distances having 

been on the Board without so much distance to have--have forgotten the 

nuances and, uh, the challenges. But I'm interested in your thought on 

the, um, actually on the conflict of interest portion. Um, I know that that's a 

topic you and I have talked around and--and about over the years and you 

have the right perspective. I'm very curious about your--your particular 

perspective on it.

Julie Weisman: Well, a--actually a--a lot of good things have alre--have--have been 

said about that. W--um, so I wasn't gonna repeat those but it might be 

enough just that I think that the practice of asking prior to each vote is a 

practice that should certainly continue. I--I do think that it is important, 

there's a point at which it is--before we take a vote it is important to stay in 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

167

this public arena recorded for posterity, you know, what peoples' conflict of 

interests are.

And sometimes that--even that, you know, we've had to, like, kick 

ourselves and be diligent. Sometimes it was forgotten, sometimes I was, 

you know, I actually created a little stir myself once with that. Um, so it is 

important but the practice, um, anything be--for anything beyond that, 

what we're currently doing to be codified would be burdensome for you 

guys.

You're already overburdened, um, uh, i--it would--it--what I was reading 

sounded like, um, uh, I--and I read that there, uh, a form to fill out and, uh, 

I think it's actually more important to ask it before each specific issue than 

to have some blanket form that you fill out, you know, each year of your 

service. Um, uh, the only thing I thought that, you know, could be useful is 

if you--if there was a list of, uh, affiliations, you know, 'cause that probably 

wouldn't change from year to year. But--but more, even more importantly 

what I felt is that there's no substitute for you guys actually getting to know 

each other. If you do that you will know well enough what each of you is 

bringing to the table.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, Julie. Any other questions? Thanks. One quick 

announcement here, uh, the Accredited Certifiers Association has a 

meeting this evening at 5:30, which is right about now in the Pulaski room. 

They said just go straight out this room and turn left. We are at 5:30 so 

let's do stay very focused and, um, pay close attention to our last three 

presenters of the day here.

Thanks very much. One last announcement again on the s--the SAAFON 

social that's from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M. They wanted me to let people know 

that that's set up and ready now. Sorry, sir. You can go ahead and 

proceed, Mr., um, Mr. Brunnquell.

John Brunnquell: Good afternoon. I'm John Brunnquell, I'm the President and 

Founder of Egg Innovations. We're a larger scale organic egg producer in 

the United States with several hundred thousand organic chickens. Today 

I'm speaking, uh, for the direction you're going on the animal welfare 

standards although it will mean significant new investment by our 

organization and changes in some of the practices we do.

We believe it's the right direction to go. However, we have a fear that 

some of our colleagues that may give testimony later in the week may not 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

168

share that that's the correct direction. We have a fear that you're gonna 

hear that the going outside with animal welfare and--and pasture is a food 

safety issue.

We want to share with you we do that regularly and that we test our 

pastures for, uh, SE and we've never had an SE positive. We don't see 

that food safety issue from a database point of view. We have a fear that 

you'll hear that costs are gonna be driven up. Since I joined the organic 

industry, uh, our cost production have droven (sic) up probably over 60 

cents a dozen and any costs of these new standards bring pale in 

comparison to the volatility we have of grain costs on an annual basis, 

which is our largest cost of production in a production.

We have a concern that you're gonna hear that's gonna be a dirrupti--a 

disruption of the marketplace. Um, first, we don't see that happening 

because traditionally you do phase-ins and during those phase-ins the 

marketplace corrects itself and--and brings appropriate production to the 

market. And second on that is I don't know if it's germane.

Right is right and keeping the concept of organic being the gold standard 

of animal welfare is really the driver because it's not about us in the 

industry; it's about what the consumer expects when they pick up that 

carton with that USDA shield.

Having said that the, uh, last concern I think you're gonna hear is about 

aviaries. I think you're gonna hear large producers say, “We have a very 

sum cost on these large investments.” I think if you polled them you will 

find that everyone that has an aviary in organic production also is in the 

cage-free world, which the aviaries are very compliant with and are 

recognized as an acceptable form of production. So there are alternatives 

to those sum costs.

In closing, though, we do have two concerns that we bring to the table. 

One is an ongoing concern you've heard from our community over the last 

many years. Methianine's scheduled to Sunset next Fall. Please, don't 

lose sight of that. At this point there still is not an alternative as there has 

not been an alternative for many years.

And the second that we'd raise as a concern for your long-term 

consideration is from our perception the inconsistency of how certifiers 

interpret the rules. Um, I could give you examples of certifiers on aviaries 

where some simply won't certify them and others embrace them. I could 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

169

give you examples on methianine inclusion rates where some look at it as 

a whole flock basis as others look at it as an individual diet basis. Those 

are the types of issues that I think you need to address with the certifying 

community so that we're consistent from our end. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you very much. Any questions? Wendy.

Wendy Fulwider: You were talking about the outdoor status and, uh, the standards 

as we have them now. How would--what would you like to see changed?

John Brunnquell: Well, I think the broader issue is this; I think if you poled many of us 

on a line item by line item basis we would probably tweak it one way or the 

other. Uh, where we're very comfortable in heading is the two square feet. 

We think we can start talking five square feet and beyond and you simply 

realize that there's six or eight million organic chickens in the United 

States, what five square feet means, it becomes, uh, a pretty, large 

number.

However, what we're more broadly saying is, if it's two feet, if it's a foot 

and a half, if it's two and a half feet, we may disagree within our 

community. Pick a direction, we'll live with it. It's more important for us to 

have clarity of the direction than to micromanage a specific parameter.

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions? Thank you.

Jonathan Tescher: Good late afternoon. Uh, my name's Jonathan Tescher. I work as 

the Farmer Services Coordinator for Georgia Organics. Um, we're not for 

profit here in the state, it's been around for about 30 years, started out as 

primarily a growers' organization. We have about 1100 members ranging 

from farmers, consumers, restaurant tours, distributors, retailers. Um, we 

do everything from one-on-one mentoring technical assistance with 

farmers through helping develop markets and grow our industry in the 

state.

Uh, I'm glad that y'all are here; it's giving me opportunity to learn and kind 

of see as an organization how I think in the future we can be more 

involved and engaged in the process. Um, we just brought on or 

developed an advocacy capacity within our organization this year, mostly 

focused on state issues like on the farm poultry processing and urban 

agriculture as it relates to zoning. But I think there's ways that we can 

represent our constituency better by being more engaged in the process 

so I've learned a lot by being here.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

170

I will say what I have learned from kind of reading and--and listening or 

maybe my thoughts is that, you know, maybe technically it--it would be 

allowed within the NOP to use, you know, hexane, you know, in 

development of a product that's used in organic foods or to use, uh, uh, a 

synthetic preservative like sulfur dioxide that's not essential to organic 

production, you know, putting it in bottles of wine but it doesn't seem to me 

within the--the spirit of what the standard is about or why it was created.

Um, I get the idea of wanting to grow the industry. I spend a lot of time 

trying to do that but, you know, if you look at what happens in nature there

is nothing that grows unlimited indefinitely. Um, and organic being, uh, a 

standard that's based in natural practices you can't expect that unlimited 

growth forever. So, you know, to the--the point about having, you know, 

taking thing--the--what--looking at the List or looking at what--what kind of 

things are allowed or not allowed I mean, yeah, there'll be times where 

maybe it creates difficulties for people in the industry but I think you need 

to be able to drive innovation.

And so, you know, if you're creating situations where people have to adapt 

then you're getting people having to think, well, how I can create--cr--how I 

can develop creative solutions to those problems and how can I be 

entrepreneurial about it? So I think, you know, it's okay to--to push those 

issues to try to--to grow our industry in a more sustainable way. Thank 

you for your time.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you.

Jonathan Tescher: I don't think you have any questions.

Tracy Miedema: Any questions? Oh, we do have a question. John Foster.

John Foster: Forgive my--my ignorance of Georgia's organic program. Um, I don't get 

down here much.

Jonathan Tescher: That's all right.

John Foster: But approximately how many operators do you certify and how are they 

divided amongst growers, livestock including that subdivision of livestock 

versus poultry, if you would, and handlers--

Jonathan Tescher: Yeah, we're not--

John Foster: --specific to handlers versus food manufacturing processors.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

171

Jonathan Tescher: --yes.

John Foster: Those numbers would be helpful for me.

Jonathan Tescher: So we're not a certifier. We gave that up ten years ago when we 

gave up state certification but to answer your question, there's 72 certified 

organic farms in the state, about 4400 acres. I think maybe 1600 acres 

are pasture, the rest is either in production or just idle land. We don't have 

any organic, uh, chicken production in the state. We don't have any 

organic livestock in the state. Our two largest producers of livestock have 

certified organic land but they do not certify organic their product.

They are animal welfare approved and American Grass-Fed approved and 

they just don't find the--it's not worth their time and effort to do it for the--

the value they get in the marketplace.

I mean we do have the largest abetoix east of the Mississippi in southwest 

Georgia, um, who, you know, basically sells markets through Public's, 

Whole Foods and that re--you know, these region's relatively large but 

doesn't find the need to do that and also just developed, uh, chicken 

abetoix, the only one in the state that's independent, um, and they have 

30,000 birds--broilers on the ground in 500 houses so they're--they're kind 

of doing something innovative in the state in that regard. As it relates to 

handlers I don't remember. Sorry.

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions? Thanks. Our last speaker today is Mr. Ed 

Meyer from Rodenator.

Ed Meyer: Rodenator. Thank you for letting me have the last word of the day. Um, I 

am, uh, from Idaho, flew out here to address all of you. I appreciate your 

time. And I wanted to come here and give you an opportunity to ask some 

questions firsthand about a product I developed about 11 years ago for 

killing burrowing animals. I grew up on a cattle ranch. We had a terrible 

problem with gophers on our place, raised commercial alfalfa and we 

could find no control over these animals.

They were destroying our crops, destroying our equipment so we came up 

with, uh, a device to take care of them and it turned out that other people 

had problems with it, as well. Today I export it to about 15 other countries. 

Uh, the rodinator injects about a 97 percent pure oxygen and 3 percent 

propane mixture into a rodent's tunnel system and then it ignites it.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

172

It produces about 10,000 PSI that crushes the body down--the animal's 

body instantly. Um, I've had documented studies showing it is an 

extremely humane way to kill an animal. It disrupts their tunnel system 

stopping a lot of erosion issues and people that use it seem to have a 

pretty good time using it, as well.

See, I thought I could make you laugh, some of you anyway. Um, it's a 

very, clean product. Um, the small amount of propane that's in it, the 

oderant that's in that small abo--small amount is more than likely burns up 

but that's not the issue that the oderant is the issue. Um, hydrogen will 

work just as well, I just hadn't wanted to put the effort into a developing 

that product. However, it does work and I have used it.

I would like to, um, have you support the petition that CCOF wrote up on, 

uh, oderant in propane and thank you for giving me your time. Do you 

have any questions?

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Meyer? John Foster.

John Foster: I would love to see your R&D facility. Um, my question is about, um, do 

you have a, um, knowledge or a sense from trials, which I'm sure you've 

done a lot of, that the efficacy as a function of compression concussive 

force versus, uh, um, uh--

Ed Meyer: It's not a flame that's killing them.

John Foster: --construction of the tunnel?

Ed Meyer: Yeah.

John Foster: Yeah, no. I--I get it's not the f--the flame thing but is it, uh, an immediate--

Ed Meyer: Yes, it is.

John Foster: --concussive force that does the job relative to--to mortality?

Ed Meyer: It's instant. Yeah, it--yeah, if you were ever to be next to it and witness it 

in person you would have no question. I've killed animals--

John Foster: Right. Oh, I've s--no, no, no. I've seen it.

Ed Meyer: --yeah.

John Foster: I've se--I haven't been underground when its happened but--

Ed Meyer: Yeah.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

173

John Foster: --but I've seen it in application. Um, but so the difference between the 

concussive force of the--of, uh, versus the collapse of the tunnel, that was 

my distinction.

Ed Meyer: The collapse of the tunnel is a side effect of the concussion.

John Foster: Okay.

Ed Meyer: You don't need to collapse the tunnel. By using a smaller amount of gas 

you can--you can kill the animal without destroying the tunnel.

John Foster: Okay.

Ed Meyer: And the tunnels are only destroyed on closed animal systems like moles 

and pocket gophers. Prairie dogs and ground squirrels that have open 

tunnel systems it does not collapse their tunnel systems.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina?

Katrina Heinze: My understanding is that, uh, use of your tool maybe or this tool, 

um, was allowed in organic until 2007 and then, um, the NOP said it 

wasn't allowed. Do you have some more background on that?

Ed Meyer: No, I'd like some. I'd like to have a clear understanding why it was taken 

away and as well as the numerous phone calls I get from farmers all 

across the country upset that it was taken because they've le--been left 

with very few options to control the problems they have on their farms. 

Having one or two acres of an organic farm is one thing but when you're 

in--when you're in large-scale production it's a totally different thing.

And cats and dogs and owl boxes can't take care of the problem. They 

can help control the problem but these people need controls so that they 

can manage their crops and harvest their crops and get the highest dollar 

for them.

Tracy Miedema: Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: Hi, thanks for coming. Um, have you studied the impact on, uh, 

whole ecosystems affected by the device, uh, including other, uh, 

organisms that live in the burrows?

Ed Meyer: I've worked with the University of Fresno in California, U.C. Davis and, um, 

U.S. San Luis Obispo on (inaudible), um, control and that's never been a 

question that's coming up--that's come up. I know it does not work on 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

174

hardbodied exco--exoskeleton animals like ants, um, only softbodied 

animals it works on. Occasionally when you, um, blow up a tunnel system 

and you have dirt clouds around there you see worms. I've never seen 

worms affected by it.

It's a quick flash through the tunnel; there's no heat generated. Um, I've 

never once had anybody comment in any way that it was creating any 

type of ill effect to any type of ecosystem. I think that animals that you're 

getting rid of left alone there's more of an ill effect to an ecosystem than 

the product.

Tracy Miedema: Do you have a follow-up question, Jay?

Jay Feldman: I wanted to ask you about, um, you know, whether there are return 

gr--any--any assessment or study of the rate of return to the disrupted 

area and then I want to finish off if you like the movie Caddy Shack?

Ed Meyer: Well, I'll answer your second one first. That's probably the most--most, 

uh, asked about thing is, uh, it's either a comment about Caddy Shack or 

where were you in Vietnam? Um, the product reinfestation has everything 

to do with how well the customer follows the training manual or video that 

comes with it. The product works only as well as the guy using it. So if 

you have your mixture set right and you're using it accurately the 

reinfestation will happen but it will be very low.

I can kill what's in there but I can't stop something from coming back in 

there. Pocket gophers and moles when it destroys their tunnel system it 

prevents them from coming back and moving into that particular tunnel 

system. Open-holed animals, groundhogs, prairie dogs, ground squirrels, 

when you treat the tunnel systems you'll shovel it shut but they will come 

in and dig in and they are carnivorous. They will feed on their dead even 

though people say they don't I've witnessed it many times firsthand. Um, 

so there is that fact, that's why you need to go back over it after you 

treated.

If you ever see an open hole you know that something's moved back in 

there. But you can kill what's on your property but you can't control what's 

coming over the fence and that's where a lot of organic farmers have 

issues is they can't control what's on their side of the fence and the people 

on the other side of the fence had enough and they want them to take 

care of the problem.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you, sir.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

175

Ed Meyer: Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. We will now recess until 

8:00 A.M. tomorrow morning. Tomorrow's schedule, just a reminder, is 

Committee presentations and we will go to 5:30 tomorrow. Thank you.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

176

A

Accreditation, 24

See Also

Compliance 

Accreditation, 24

Accredited Certifiers 

Association, 165

See Also

Certifiers, 165

Act, 36, 37

See Also

Infant Formula Act, 

36, 37

Organic Food 

Production Act, 

36, 37

Organic Foods 

Production Act, 

36, 37

Production Act, 36, 

37

Additional, 142

Additionally, 118

Advisory, 17, 21, 47

Advisory Board, 17

See Also

Board, 17

Advisory Committee, 21

See Also

Co, 21

Com, 21

Committee, 21

African American, 40, 49

See Also

America, 40, 49

American, 40, 49

Southeastern 

African 

American 

Farmers Organic 

Network, 40, 49

African Americans, 40

See Also

America, 40

American, 40

Agricultural Marketing 

Service, 18

See Also

Se, 18

Agriculture, 3, 8, 79, 129, 

145, 160

See Also

Alternative 

Agriculture, 3, 8, 

79, 129, 145, 160

Century 

Agriculture, 3, 8, 

79, 129, 145, 160

Community 

Supported 

Agriculture, 3, 8, 

79, 129, 145, 160

Al, 41

See Also

Wild Farm Alliance, 

41

Alabama, 41, 47, 49

Alaska, 64

Allen Green, 96

See Also

Green, 96

Allowed, 23

Aloha, 8

Alternative Agriculture, 

91

See Also

Agriculture, 91

America, 49, 80, 126

See Also

African American, 

49, 80, 126

African Americans, 

49, 80, 126

Native American, 

49, 80, 126

Native Americans, 

49, 80, 126

North America, 49, 

80, 126

Southeastern 

African 

American 

Farmers Organic 

Network, 49, 80, 

126

American, 19, 41, 42, 140, 

141, 169

See Also

African American, 

19, 41, 42, 140, 

141, 169

African Americans, 

19, 41, 42, 140, 

141, 169

Native American, 

19, 41, 42, 140, 

141, 169

Native Americans, 

19, 41, 42, 140, 

141, 169

Southeastern 

African 

American 

Farmers Organic 

Network, 19, 41, 

42, 140, 141, 169

American Academy, 141

See Also

Ac, 141

American Grass, 169

American Halal 

Foundation, 140

See Also

Halal, 140

American Indian 

Mothers, 42

See Also

Indian, 42

Mother, 42

Ammonium, 157, 158

Andy, 58, 63, 65

Andy Sponseller, 58, 63

See Also

Sponseller, 58, 63

ANDY SPONSELLER

Speaking, 63, 64, 65, 

66, 67

Animal, 7, 25, 93, 130

Animal Care, 7

Animal Livestock, 25

See Also

Livestock, 25

Animal Welfare 

Recommendations, 93

See Also

Wel, 93

Annatto, 163

Antonio, 20

Appendix, 72

April, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 

27, 34, 95, 116

See Also

California April, 9, 

11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 

27, 34, 95, 116

April Board, 34

See Also

Board, 34

Aquaculture, 6, 102, 130

Arguing, 126

Arry, 93

Associate Administrator, 

18

Associate Deputy 

Administrator, 18

See Also

Deputy 

Administrator, 18

Assume, 10

Atlanta, 47

Atlantic, 108

Attendees, 39

August, 18, 21, 27

Aurora Organic Dairy, 

142

See Also

Organic, 142

Aye, 9

Aykan, 124

See Also

Troy Aykan, 124

B

Baltimore, 140

Bandele, 41

See Also

Owusu Bandele, 41

Barry, 5, 8, 64, 87, 93, 112, 

135

Barry Flamm, 5, 93, 135

BARRY FLAMM

Speaking, 5, 65, 87, 93, 

112

Batcha, 71, 76

See Also

Laura Batcha, 71, 

76

Baton Rouge, 40

Baumgartner, 87, 134

See Also

Joanne 

Baumgartner, 87, 

134

Beechnut, 153, 154

Ben Carter, 132, 133, 134

BEN CARTER

Speaking, 133, 135, 

136

Benden, 134

Benden Farms, 134

See Also

Farm, 134

Beverly Collins, 41

See Also

Co, 41

BEVERLY COLLINSHALL

Speaking, 41, 43

Beverly Hall, 41

See Also

Hall, 41

Bigelow Tea Company, 

149

See Also

Co, 149

Com, 149

Bill, 55

Bill Welsh, 55

See Also

Wel, 55

Biodiversity, 86

Biosafe Systems, 143

Biotechnology, 21

Board, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 

17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 

34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 

40, 44, 50, 51, 52, 57, 

58, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 

73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 

86, 90, 93, 96, 98, 99, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

177

101, 102, 103, 104, 109, 

110, 112, 114, 115, 118, 

119, 122, 123, 124, 129, 

132, 133, 137, 138, 140, 

144, 145, 146, 150, 152, 

156, 157, 158, 161, 163, 

164

See Also

Advisory Board, 3, 

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 

16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 

21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 

31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 

36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 

44, 50, 51, 52, 57, 

58, 65, 69, 70, 71, 

72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 

77, 82, 86, 90, 93, 

96, 98, 99, 101, 

102, 103, 104, 

109, 110, 112, 

114, 115, 118, 

119, 122, 123, 

124, 129, 132, 

133, 137, 138, 

140, 144, 145, 

146, 150, 152, 

156, 157, 158, 

161, 163, 164

April Board, 3, 4, 5, 

6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 

33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 

38, 39, 40, 44, 50, 

51, 52, 57, 58, 65, 

69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 

74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 

86, 90, 93, 96, 98, 

99, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 109, 110, 

112, 114, 115, 

118, 119, 122, 

123, 124, 129, 

132, 133, 137, 

138, 140, 144, 

145, 146, 150, 

152, 156, 157, 

158, 161, 163, 164

Ccof Board, 3, 4, 5, 

6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 

33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 

38, 39, 40, 44, 50, 

51, 52, 57, 58, 65, 

69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 

74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 

86, 90, 93, 96, 98, 

99, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 109, 110, 

112, 114, 115, 

118, 119, 122, 

123, 124, 129, 

132, 133, 137, 

138, 140, 144, 

145, 146, 150, 

152, 156, 157, 

158, 161, 163, 164

Distinguished 

Board, 3, 4, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 

33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 

38, 39, 40, 44, 50, 

51, 52, 57, 58, 65, 

69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 

74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 

86, 90, 93, 96, 98, 

99, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 109, 110, 

112, 114, 115, 

118, 119, 122, 

123, 124, 129, 

132, 133, 137, 

138, 140, 144, 

145, 146, 150, 

152, 156, 157, 

158, 161, 163, 164

Faca Board, 3, 4, 5, 

6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 

33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 

38, 39, 40, 44, 50, 

51, 52, 57, 58, 65, 

69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 

74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 

86, 90, 93, 96, 98, 

99, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 109, 110, 

112, 114, 115, 

118, 119, 122, 

123, 124, 129, 

132, 133, 137, 

138, 140, 144, 

145, 146, 150, 

152, 156, 157, 

158, 161, 163, 164

Facca Boards, 3, 4, 

5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 

17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 

27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 

32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 

37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 

50, 51, 52, 57, 58, 

65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 

73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 

82, 86, 90, 93, 96, 

98, 99, 101, 102, 

103, 104, 109, 

110, 112, 114, 

115, 118, 119, 

122, 123, 124, 

129, 132, 133, 

137, 138, 140, 

144, 145, 146, 

150, 152, 156, 

157, 158, 161, 

163, 164

National Organic 

Standards 

Board, 3, 4, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 

33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 

38, 39, 40, 44, 50, 

51, 52, 57, 58, 65, 

69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 

74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 

86, 90, 93, 96, 98, 

99, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 109, 110, 

112, 114, 115, 

118, 119, 122, 

123, 124, 129, 

132, 133, 137, 

138, 140, 144, 

145, 146, 150, 

152, 156, 157, 

158, 161, 163, 164

National Organic 

Standards 

Boards, 3, 4, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 

33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 

38, 39, 40, 44, 50, 

51, 52, 57, 58, 65, 

69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 

74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 

86, 90, 93, 96, 98, 

99, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 109, 110, 

112, 114, 115, 

118, 119, 122, 

123, 124, 129, 

132, 133, 137, 

138, 140, 144, 

145, 146, 150, 

152, 156, 157, 

158, 161, 163, 164

National Organics 

Standards 

Board, 3, 4, 5, 6, 

7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 

33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 

38, 39, 40, 44, 50, 

51, 52, 57, 58, 65, 

69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 

74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 

86, 90, 93, 96, 98, 

99, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 109, 110, 

112, 114, 115, 

118, 119, 122, 

123, 124, 129, 

132, 133, 137, 

138, 140, 144, 

145, 146, 150, 

152, 156, 157, 

158, 161, 163, 164

Nosb Board, 3, 4, 5, 

6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 

33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 

38, 39, 40, 44, 50, 

51, 52, 57, 58, 65, 

69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 

74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 

86, 90, 93, 96, 98, 

99, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 109, 110, 

112, 114, 115, 

118, 119, 122, 

123, 124, 129, 

132, 133, 137, 

138, 140, 144, 

145, 146, 150, 

152, 156, 157, 

158, 161, 163, 164

Nosb Board 

Members, 3, 4, 5, 

6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 

33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 

38, 39, 40, 44, 50, 

51, 52, 57, 58, 65, 

69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 

74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 

86, 90, 93, 96, 98, 

99, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 109, 110, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

178

112, 114, 115, 

118, 119, 122, 

123, 124, 129, 

132, 133, 137, 

138, 140, 144, 

145, 146, 150, 

152, 156, 157, 

158, 161, 163, 164

Omri Board, 3, 4, 5, 

6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 

33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 

38, 39, 40, 44, 50, 

51, 52, 57, 58, 65, 

69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 

74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 

86, 90, 93, 96, 98, 

99, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 109, 110, 

112, 114, 115, 

118, 119, 122, 

123, 124, 129, 

132, 133, 137, 

138, 140, 144, 

145, 146, 150, 

152, 156, 157, 

158, 161, 163, 164

Saafon Board, 3, 4, 

5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 

17, 18, 19, 20, 21,

27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 

32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 

37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 

50, 51, 52, 57, 58, 

65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 

73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 

82, 86, 90, 93, 96, 

98, 99, 101, 102, 

103, 104, 109, 

110, 112, 114, 

115, 118, 119, 

122, 123, 124, 

129, 132, 133, 

137, 138, 140, 

144, 145, 146, 

150, 152, 156, 

157, 158, 161, 

163, 164

Board Chair, 93

See Also

Chair, 93

Board Dairy Sub, 50

Board Member, 6, 33, 39, 

40, 75, 86, 96, 112, 124, 

140

See Also

Nosb Board 

Members, 6, 33, 

39, 40, 75, 86, 96, 

112, 124, 140

Board Members, 6, 33, 

39, 75, 86, 124, 140

See Also

Members, 6, 33, 39, 

75, 86, 124, 140

Nosb Board 

Members, 6, 33, 

39, 75, 86, 124, 

140

Boards, 12, 73, 104

See Also

Facca Boards, 12, 

73, 104

National Organic 

Standards 

Boards, 12, 73, 

104

Bonanza, 93

Brad Samuelson, 108, 

109

See Also

Samuelson, 108, 

109

BRAD SAMUELSON

Speaking, 109, 110

breast, 122

Brines, 17, 26, 31, 34, 35, 

39

See Also

Lisa Brines, 17, 26, 

31, 34, 35, 39

Brown, 126

See Also

Emily Brown, 126

Mary Kay Brown, 

126

Yvette Brown, 126

Bruce Heimann, 56, 58

See Also

Heimann, 56, 58

BRUCE HEIMANN

Speaking, 58, 59, 60, 

61, 62, 63

Brunquell, 165

See Also

John Brunquell, 165

Bryce, 91

Business, 4

C

C. REUBEN WALKER

Speaking, 6, 41, 43, 45, 

51, 62, 74, 75, 76, 78, 

79, 83, 92, 96, 104, 

113, 127, 129, 136, 

140, 151

Caddy Shack, 172

Cali Poly, 122

California, 6, 7, 17, 22, 47, 

57, 77, 79, 86, 88, 89, 

90, 92, 93, 107, 109, 

114, 116, 131, 134, 136, 

145, 172

California April, 114

See Also

April, 114

California Certified 

Organic Farmer, 57

See Also

Farm, 57

Organic, 57

California Land Grand, 

136

California Rice 

Commission, 90, 93, 

134

See Also

Co, 90, 93, 134

Com, 90, 93, 134

Rice Commission, 

90, 93, 134

California Rice 

Commissions, 90

See Also

Co, 90

Com, 90

Rice Commission, 

90

Calro, 93

Calvin, 43, 50, 73, 75, 76, 

78, 83, 92, 96, 104, 113, 

127, 129, 135, 140, 141, 

151

Calvin Walker, 135, 151

See Also

Walker, 135, 151

Campbell Soup 

Company, 6

See Also

Co, 6

Com, 6

Soup Company, 6

Canada, 21, 81, 116, 117

Canada Equivalency 

Agreement, 116

Canada Organic 

Equivalency 

Arrangement, 21

See Also

Organic, 21

Canadian, 79, 117

Carmichael, 6

Cascade, 6

Cascadian, 87

Castell, 51, 55, 56

Cathy Calfo, 57

Center, 129

See Also

Louis Center, 129

Southern University 

Ag Center, 129

Century Agriculture, 21

See Also

Agriculture, 21

Certification Committee, 

7

See Also

Co, 7

Com, 7

Committee, 7

Certification Compliance 

Committee, 5

See Also

Co, 5

Com, 5

Committee, 5

Compliance, 5

Compliance 

Committee, 5

Certification Program, 

108

See Also

Pro, 108

Program, 108

Certifiers, 80

See Also

Accredited 

Certifiers 

Association, 80

Chair, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 32, 

110

See Also

Board Chair, 3, 5, 7, 

8, 9, 15, 32, 110

Livestock Chair, 3, 

5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 32, 

110

Madam Chair, 3, 5, 

7, 8, 9, 15, 32, 110

Madam Chair 

Katrina, 3, 5, 7, 8, 

9, 15, 32, 110

Madam Chairman, 

3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 

32, 110

Chairperson, 109, 146, 

158

Chairperson Miedema, 

109

Chairs, 5

Charleston County, 158

See Also

Co, 158

Charlotte Valais, 63, 67

See Also

Valais, 63, 67

CHARLOTTE VALAIS

Speaking, 67, 68, 69, 

70

Chatham County, 100
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

179

See Also

Co, 100

Chatham House Rules, 

71, 72

Cherokee, 43

Chief Certification 

Officer, 79

See Also

Office, 79

Christy, 142, 143

Christy Corb, 142, 143

See Also

Co, 142, 143

Christy Corbe, 143

See Also

Co, 143

Circleville, 50

Clinton University, 42

See Also

University, 42

Closing Remarks, 4

Co, 8

See Also

Ac Committee, 8

Advisory 

Committee, 8

Beverly Collins, 8

Bigelow Tea 

Company, 8

Cacc Committee, 8

California Rice 

Commission, 8

California Rice 

Commissions, 8

Campbell Soup 

Company, 8

Certification 

Committee, 8

Certification 

Compliance 

Committee, 8

Charleston County, 

8

Chatham County, 8

Christy Corb, 8

Christy Corbe, 8

Crop Committee, 8

Crop Cooperative, 

8

Crops Committee, 8

European 

Commission, 8

Executive 

Committee, 8

Executive 

Committees, 8

Farmer Services 

Coordinator, 8

Livestock 

Committee, 8

Livestock 

Committee Ccof, 

8

Llc Management 

Committee, 8

Lorraine Coke, 8

Martek Biosciences 

Corporation, 8

Materials 

Committee, 8

Mendocino County, 

8

Monsanto 

Corporation, 8

National List 

Coordinator, 8

National Organic 

Coalition, 8

Neudorf Company, 

8

Nosb Committee, 8

Nosb Livestock 

Committee, 8

Organic Policy 

Coordinator, 8

Organic Producer 

Pools 

Cooperative, 8

Policy Committee, 8

Policy 

Development 

Committee, 8

Quality Standards 

Coordinator, 8

Raising Cornish, 8

Rice Commission, 8

Soup Company, 8

Cody, 7

Cold, 145

Colehour, 8, 164

Colehour Bondera, 8

COLEHOUR BONDERA

Speaking, 8, 164

Colleagues, 9

Colorado, 142

Columbia, 40, 44

Columbus, 140

Colusa, 134

Colusa County, 134

Com, 73

See Also

Ac Committee, 73

Advisory 

Committee, 73

Bigelow Tea 

Company, 73

Cacc Committee, 

73

California Rice 

Commission, 73

California Rice 

Commissions, 73

Campbell Soup 

Company, 73

Certification 

Committee, 73

Certification 

Compliance 

Committee, 73

Crop Committee, 73

Crops Committee, 

73

European 

Commission, 73

Executive 

Committee, 73

Executive 

Committees, 73

Livestock 

Committee, 73

Livestock 

Committee Ccof, 

73

Llc Management 

Committee, 73

Materials 

Committee, 73

Neudorf Company, 

73

Nosb Committee, 

73

Nosb Livestock 

Committee, 73

Policy Committee, 

73

Policy 

Development 

Committee, 73

Rice Commission, 

73

Soup Company, 73

Committee, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 

11, 21, 34, 36, 50, 51, 

58, 64, 70, 72, 73, 77, 

93, 94, 95, 98, 104, 108, 

118, 120, 121, 127, 128, 

130, 136, 139, 141, 146, 

147, 149, 151, 152, 160, 

162, 163, 173

See Also

Ac Committee, 3, 4, 

6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 34, 

36, 50, 51, 58, 64, 

70, 72, 73, 77, 93, 

94, 95, 98, 104, 

108, 118, 120, 

121, 127, 128, 

130, 136, 139, 

141, 146, 147, 

149, 151, 152, 

160, 162, 163, 173

Advisory 

Committee, 3, 4, 

6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 34, 

36, 50, 51, 58, 64, 

70, 72, 73, 77, 93, 

94, 95, 98, 104, 

108, 118, 120, 

121, 127, 128, 

130, 136, 139, 

141, 146, 147, 

149, 151, 152, 

160, 162, 163, 173

Cacc Committee, 3, 

4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 

34, 36, 50, 51, 58, 

64, 70, 72, 73, 77, 

93, 94, 95, 98, 

104, 108, 118, 

120, 121, 127, 

128, 130, 136, 

139, 141, 146, 

147, 149, 151, 

152, 160, 162, 

163, 173

Certification 

Committee, 3, 4, 

6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 34, 

36, 50, 51, 58, 64, 

70, 72, 73, 77, 93, 

94, 95, 98, 104, 

108, 118, 120, 

121, 127, 128, 

130, 136, 139, 

141, 146, 147, 

149, 151, 152, 

160, 162, 163, 173

Certification 

Compliance 

Committee, 3, 4, 

6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 34, 

36, 50, 51, 58, 64, 

70, 72, 73, 77, 93, 

94, 95, 98, 104, 

108, 118, 120, 

121, 127, 128, 

130, 136, 139, 

141, 146, 147, 

149, 151, 152, 

160, 162, 163, 173

Compliance 

Committee, 3, 4, 

6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 34, 

36, 50, 51, 58, 64, 

70, 72, 73, 77, 93, 

94, 95, 98, 104, 

108, 118, 120, 

121, 127, 128, 

130, 136, 139, 

141, 146, 147, 

149, 151, 152, 

160, 162, 163, 173
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

180

Crop Committee, 3, 

4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 

34, 36, 50, 51, 58, 

64, 70, 72, 73, 77, 

93, 94, 95, 98, 

104, 108, 118, 

120, 121, 127, 

128, 130, 136, 

139, 141, 146, 

147, 149, 151, 

152, 160, 162, 

163, 173

Crops Committee, 

3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 

21, 34, 36, 50, 51, 

58, 64, 70, 72, 73, 

77, 93, 94, 95, 98, 

104, 108, 118, 

120, 121, 127, 

128, 130, 136, 

139, 141, 146, 

147, 149, 151, 

152, 160, 162, 

163, 173

Executive 

Committee, 3, 4, 

6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 34, 

36, 50, 51, 58, 64, 

70, 72, 73, 77, 93, 

94, 95, 98, 104, 

108, 118, 120, 

121, 127, 128, 

130, 136, 139, 

141, 146, 147, 

149, 151, 152, 

160, 162, 163, 173

Executive 

Committees, 3, 4, 

6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 34, 

36, 50, 51, 58, 64, 

70, 72, 73, 77, 93, 

94, 95, 98, 104, 

108, 118, 120, 

121, 127, 128, 

130, 136, 139, 

141, 146, 147, 

149, 151, 152, 

160, 162, 163, 173

Livestock 

Committee, 3, 4, 

6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 34, 

36, 50, 51, 58, 64, 

70, 72, 73, 77, 93, 

94, 95, 98, 104, 

108, 118, 120, 

121, 127, 128, 

130, 136, 139, 

141, 146, 147, 

149, 151, 152, 

160, 162, 163, 173

Livestock 

Committee Ccof, 

3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 

21, 34, 36, 50, 51, 

58, 64, 70, 72, 73, 

77, 93, 94, 95, 98, 

104, 108, 118, 

120, 121, 127, 

128, 130, 136, 

139, 141, 146, 

147, 149, 151, 

152, 160, 162, 

163, 173

Llc Management 

Committee, 3, 4, 

6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 34, 

36, 50, 51, 58, 64, 

70, 72, 73, 77, 93, 

94, 95, 98, 104, 

108, 118, 120, 

121, 127, 128, 

130, 136, 139, 

141, 146, 147, 

149, 151, 152, 

160, 162, 163, 173

Materials 

Committee, 3, 4, 

6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 34, 

36, 50, 51, 58, 64, 

70, 72, 73, 77, 93, 

94, 95, 98, 104, 

108, 118, 120, 

121, 127, 128, 

130, 136, 139, 

141, 146, 147, 

149, 151, 152, 

160, 162, 163, 173

Nosb Committee, 3, 

4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 

34, 36, 50, 51, 58, 

64, 70, 72, 73, 77, 

93, 94, 95, 98, 

104, 108, 118, 

120, 121, 127, 

128, 130, 136, 

139, 141, 146, 

147, 149, 151, 

152, 160, 162, 

163, 173

Nosb Livestock 

Committee, 3, 4, 

6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 34, 

36, 50, 51, 58, 64, 

70, 72, 73, 77, 93, 

94, 95, 98, 104, 

108, 118, 120, 

121, 127, 128, 

130, 136, 139, 

141, 146, 147, 

149, 151, 152, 

160, 162, 163, 173

Policy Committee, 

3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 

21, 34, 36, 50, 51, 

58, 64, 70, 72, 73, 

77, 93, 94, 95, 98, 

104, 108, 118, 

120, 121, 127, 

128, 130, 136, 

139, 141, 146, 

147, 149, 151, 

152, 160, 162, 

163, 173

Policy 

Development 

Committee, 3, 4, 

6, 7, 8, 11, 21, 34, 

36, 50, 51, 58, 64, 

70, 72, 73, 77, 93, 

94, 95, 98, 104, 

108, 118, 120, 

121, 127, 128, 

130, 136, 139, 

141, 146, 147, 

149, 151, 152, 

160, 162, 163, 173

Communication, 17

Community Supported 

Agriculture, 44

See Also

Agriculture, 44

Compliance, 7, 17, 118

See Also

Certification 

Compliance 

Committee, 7, 

17, 118

Compliance 

Accreditation, 7

See Also

Ac, 7

Accreditation, 7

Compliance Committee, 

118

See Also

Certification 

Compliance 

Committee, 118

Committee, 118

Conflict, 74

Congress, 9, 17, 75

Connecticut, 136

Consumer, 31

Consumers, 125

Controlling, 142

Coop, 42

See Also

Crop Cooperative, 

42

Organic Producer 

Pools 

Cooperative, 42

Cooperative Regions, 

128

Coordinator, 8

See Also

Farmer Services 

Coordinator, 8

National List 

Coordinator, 8

Organic Policy 

Coordinator, 8

Quality Standards 

Coordinator, 8

Copper, 89, 92, 134

Cornish, 145

See Also

Raising Cornish, 

145

Cornucopia, 55, 67, 95, 

118, 119

Cornucopia Institute, 55, 

67, 118, 119

Cost Share Program, 19

See Also

Pro, 19

Program, 19

Council, 148

Counsel, 26

Crohen, 106

See Also

Joel Crohen, 106

Crop Committee, 133

See Also

Co, 133

Com, 133

Committee, 133

Crop Cooperative, 7, 126

See Also

Co, 7, 126

Coo, 7, 126

Coop, 7, 126

Crops, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 83, 

115, 143

Crops Committee, 4, 5, 7, 

8, 83, 115, 143

See Also

Co, 4, 5, 7, 8, 83, 

115, 143

Com, 4, 5, 7, 8, 83, 

115, 143

Committee, 4, 5, 7, 

8, 83, 115, 143

Cumberland Sapello 

Room, 104

Cynthia, 42, 44, 99, 100, 

160

Cynthia Hayes, 42, 44, 

99, 100, 160
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

181

D

Dana, 137

Darryl, 114, 116, 118

Darryl Williams, 114, 116

DARRYL WILLIAMS

Speaking, 116

Dash, 149

David Bruce, 124, 126, 

127, 129

DAVID BRUCE

Speaking, 126, 127, 

128, 129

Davis, 172

Dean Foods, 55

See Also

Food, 55

Foods, 55

December, 21

Denise, 134

Department, 8, 33, 79, 82, 

90, 93, 160

See Also

Livestock 

Department, 8, 

33, 79, 82, 90, 93, 

160

United States 

Department, 8, 

33, 79, 82, 90, 93, 

160

Washington State 

Department, 8, 

33, 79, 82, 90, 93, 

160

Deputy Administrator, 17, 

18, 32, 33, 35, 146, 147

See Also

Associate Deputy 

Administrator, 

17, 18, 32, 33, 35, 

146, 147

Deyoung, 94

See Also

Yanica Deyoung, 

94

Diane Wilson, 138, 140

See Also

Wilson, 138, 140

DIANE WILSON

Speaking, 140, 141, 

142

Directors, 57, 93, 156, 158

Discuss, 78

Distinguished Board, 41

See Also

Board, 41

Division, 6

See Also

Enforcement 

Division, 6

Standards Division, 

6

Dixon, 44, 46

See Also

Janie Dixon, 44, 46

Rocky Dixon, 44, 46

Don, 120, 164

Dr, 17, 26, 31, 34, 35, 39, 

41, 96, 139

DR. LISA BRINES

Speaking, 35, 38, 39

Driscoll, 107

E

Earth, 153

Earthbound Farm, 7, 9

See Also

Farm, 7, 9

Ed Meyer, 83, 169

See Also

Meyer, 83, 169

ED MEYER

Speaking, 169, 170, 

171, 172, 173

Ed Zimba, 116, 118

See Also

Zimba, 116, 118

ED ZIMBA

Speaking, 118, 120

Egg Innovations, 165

See Also

Innovation, 165

Elmwood Stock Farm, 8

See Also

Farm, 8

Emily Brown, 18

See Also

Brown, 18

Empire, 139

Enforcement Division, 17

See Also

Division, 17

Environmental, 8

Environmentalist, 31

Eric, 86, 89, 90

Eric Lundberg, 86, 89

See Also

Lundberg, 86, 89

ERIC LUNDBERG

Speaking, 89, 90, 91, 

92, 93

Estherville, 55

Europe, 54, 115

European Commission, 

159

See Also

Co, 159

Com, 159

European Food Safety 

Authority, 159

See Also

Food, 159

Food Safety, 159

European Union, 21

Evaluating, 117

Executive, 5, 6, 9, 17, 57, 

132, 146

Executive Committee, 6, 

9

See Also

Co, 6, 9

Com, 6, 9

Committee, 6, 9

Executive Committees, 6

See Also

Co, 6

Com, 6

Committee, 6

F

Fagundes, 109

See Also

Fred Fagundes, 

109

Fagundes Brothers 

Dairy, 109

Falcon Lab, 157

Family, 91, 153

See Also

Lundberg Family 

Farms, 91, 153

Fantastic, 43

Farm, 6, 8, 42, 67, 120

See Also

Benden Farms, 6, 8, 

42, 67, 120

California Certified 

Organic Farmer, 

6, 8, 42, 67, 120

Earthbound Farm, 

6, 8, 42, 67, 120

Elmwood Stock 

Farm, 6, 8, 42, 67, 

120

Huckleberry Hill 

Farm, 6, 8, 42, 67, 

120

Joseph Fields 

Farm, 6, 8, 42, 67, 

120

Lundberg Family 

Farms, 6, 8, 42, 

67, 120

Ohio Century Farm, 

6, 8, 42, 67, 120

Organic Egg 

Farmers, 6, 8, 42, 

67, 120

Sea Island 

Farmers, 6, 8, 42, 

67, 120

Sisters Farm, 6, 8, 

42, 67, 120

Sisters Research 

Farm, 6, 8, 42, 67, 

120

Southeastern 

African 

American 

Farmers Organic 

Network, 6, 8, 42, 

67, 120

Wild Farm Alliance, 

6, 8, 42, 67, 120

Farm Muir Glen, 6

Farm Program, 8, 120

See Also

Pro, 8, 120

Program, 8, 120

Farm Programs, 8

See Also

Pro, 8

Program, 8

Programs, 8

Farmer Services 

Coordinator, 167

See Also

Co, 167

Coo, 167

Coordinator, 167

Se, 167

Farmers, 86, 119, 157

See Also

Organic Egg 

Farmers, 86, 119, 

157

Sea Island 

Farmers, 86, 119, 

157

Southeastern 

African 

American 

Farmers Organic 

Network, 86, 119, 

157

Fatty, 160

February, 114

Federal Register, 11

Feed, 28

Feldman, 38

See Also

Jay Feldman, 38

Ferric, 116

Ferry, 96, 99

See Also

Mike Ferry, 96, 99

Fields, 41, 159

See Also

Helen Fields, 41, 

159

Joseph Fields, 41, 

159

Joseph Fields 

Farm, 41, 159
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

182

Fingerlakes International, 

64

See Also

International, 64

Fish, 160

Florida, 8, 17, 58, 107

Food, 7, 67, 103, 129

See Also

Dean Foods, 7, 67, 

103, 129

European Food 

Safety Authority, 

7, 67, 103, 129

French Food 

Safety Authority, 

7, 67, 103, 129

Organic Food 

Produ, 7, 67, 103, 

129

Organic Food 

Production Act, 

7, 67, 103, 129

Organic Foods 

Production Act, 

7, 67, 103, 129

Plant Foods, 7, 67, 

103, 129

Food Policy, 67

Food Safety, 7, 129

See Also

European Food 

Safety Authority, 

7, 129

French Food 

Safety Authority, 

7, 129

Foods, 7, 154, 169

See Also

Dean Foods, 7, 154, 

169

Organic Foods 

Production Act, 

7, 154, 169

Plant Foods, 7, 154, 

169

Foods Market, 7

Former, 139

Founder, 165

Founding Mother, 42

See Also

Mother, 42

Founding Partner, 153

Fray, 51, 52, 54

See Also

Jonathan Fray, 51, 

52, 54

Fred Fagundes, 109

See Also

Fagundes, 109

French Food Safety 

Authority, 159

See Also

Food, 159

Food Safety, 159

Fresno, 172

Frey, 132, 133

See Also

Katrina Frey, 132, 

133

Frey Vineyards, 132

Friday, 8, 137

G

Galvin, 145

Generation, 152

Gentlemen, 63

Georgia, 3, 17, 40, 99, 

167, 168, 169

Georgia Organics, 167

See Also

Organic, 167

Organics, 167

Gerber, 68, 153, 154

German, 114

Germany, 114

Glean, 134

Google Rocks, 14

Green, 134, 135, 136

See Also

Allen Green, 134, 

135, 136

Groundwork, 89

Group, 5, 18, 104

See Also

Hain Celestial 

Group, 5, 18, 104

Saafon Group, 5, 

18, 104

Guernsey, 51

Gwendolyn Wyard, 70

H

Hain Celestial Group, 

122

See Also

Group, 122

Halal, 138

See Also

American Halal 

Foundation, 138

Hall, 43

See Also

Beverly Hall, 43

Handler, 31, 77

Handler Certification, 77

Hawaii, 8, 64

Heimann, 59

See Also

Bruce Heimann, 59

Helen, 41, 157, 158

Helen Fields, 41, 158

See Also

Fields, 41, 158

HELEN FIELDS

Speaking, 158, 159

Help, 74

Hispanics, 49

Hogan Lov, 96

Hogs, 55

Honaunau, 8

Hoop, 47, 48

Hoop Tunnel, 47

Horizon, 55, 95, 96, 99, 

109, 110, 118, 119, 120

Horizon Milk, 55, 96

Horizon Organic, 95, 109, 

110, 118, 119

See Also

Organic, 95, 109, 

110, 118, 119

Horizon Organic Milk, 

109, 110

See Also

Organic, 109, 110

Huckleberry Hill Farm, 47

See Also

Farm, 47

I

Idaho, 169

Importantly, 95

Inc, 57, 83

Increased, 119

Independently, 140

Indian, 41, 42

See Also

American Indian 

Mothers, 41, 42

Indy, 64

Inerts, 4, 5

Infant Formula Act, 141

See Also

Ac, 141

Act, 141

Innovation, 109

See Also

Egg Innovations, 

109

Product Innovation, 

109

Inspector, 22, 23, 110

See Also

International 

Organic 

Inspectors 

Association, 22, 

23, 110

Inspector Qualifications, 

110

Interest, 31

International, 30, 57, 110

See Also

Fingerlakes 

International, 30, 

57, 110

Quality Assurance 

International, 30, 

57, 110

International Organic 

Inspectors 

Association, 30, 110

See Also

Inspector, 30, 110

Organic, 30, 110

Irrigation, 47

Isn, 56

Italy, 63

J

Jack, 6

Jacob, 145

Jaime, 41

Jake, 79, 81, 83

Jake Lewin, 79, 81

JAKE LEWIN

Speaking, 79, 81, 82, 

83

Janecky Dijong, 89

Janie, 41, 43

Janie Dixon, 41, 43

See Also

Dixon, 41, 43

JANIE DIXON

Speaking, 43, 45, 46

January, 15, 20, 146

Japan, 86

Jay, 5, 34, 46, 52, 57, 61, 

64, 69, 71, 73, 81, 84, 

88, 90, 91, 97, 98, 103, 

110, 112, 115, 120, 123, 

143, 149, 150, 171, 172

Jay Feldman, 5, 46, 52, 

61, 69, 71, 84, 110, 112, 

115, 120, 123, 143, 149, 

171

See Also

Feldman, 5, 46, 52, 

61, 69, 71, 84, 

110, 112, 115, 

120, 123, 143, 

149, 171

JAY FELDMAN

Speaking, 5, 33, 34, 35, 

38, 46, 52, 53, 54, 57, 

58, 61, 65, 69, 71, 72, 

81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 

88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 97, 

98, 99, 103, 104, 110, 

112, 113, 115, 116, 

120, 123, 124, 143, 

150, 172

JEFFERY OETJEN

Speaking, 136, 138

Jeffrey Otin, 133

Jeffry Oetjen, 136

Jennifer Taylor, 8

JENNIFER TAYLOR
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

183

Speaking, 8

Jenny Tucker, 18

Jersey, 145

See Also

New Jersey, 145

Jessica, 148, 153, 155

Jessica Rofle, 155

Jessica Rolfe, 148, 153

See Also

Rolfe, 148, 153

JESSICA ROLFE

Speaking, 153, 155

Jewish, 138, 139

Joan, 86, 155, 157

Joan Smiley, 155, 157

See Also

Smiley, 155, 157

JOAN SMILEY

Speaking, 157, 158

Joanne, 86, 87, 88, 93

Joanne Baumgartner, 86, 

93

See Also

Baumgartner, 86, 93

JOANNE 

BAUMGARTNER

Speaking, 86, 87, 88, 

89

Jody, 70, 77, 78

Jody Biergiel, 70, 77

JODY BIERGIEL

Speaking, 77, 78, 79

Joe, 7, 75, 76, 78, 127, 

131, 155

Joe Dickson, 7, 75, 78, 

127, 131, 155

JOE DICKSON

Speaking, 7, 76, 78, 79, 

127, 131, 155

Joel Crohen, 105

See Also

Crohen, 105

JOEL CROHEN

Speaking, 105, 106, 

107, 108

John, 4, 7, 8, 81, 106, 107, 

113, 127, 130, 135, 151, 

161, 164, 165, 168, 170

John Brunquell, 161, 165

See Also

Brunquell, 161, 165

JOHN BRUNQUELL

Speaking, 165, 167

John Foster, 7, 81, 106, 

107, 113, 127, 130, 135, 

151, 164, 168, 170

JOHN FOSTER

Speaking, 4, 7, 81, 107, 

108, 113, 127, 131, 

135, 151, 164, 168, 

169, 170, 171

Johns Island, 158

Johnson, 114

Jon, 54

Jonathan Fray, 50, 52, 54

See Also

Fray, 50, 52, 54

JONATHAN FRAY

Speaking, 51, 52, 53, 

54, 55

Jonathan Tessier, 167

JONATHAN TESSIER

Speaking, 167, 168, 

169

Joseph, 157, 158

Joseph Fields, 157, 158

See Also

Fields, 157, 158

Joseph Fields Farm, 158

See Also

Farm, 158

Fields, 158

Julie, 160, 161, 163, 164, 

165

Julie Weisman, 160, 161, 

163

Julie Weismann, 161, 163

JULIE WEISMANN

Speaking, 161, 163, 

164, 165

July, 23

June, 145

K

Kalen, 120, 122

Kalen Kircher, 120

KALEN KIRCHER

Speaking, 120, 122

Kashi, 87

Katrina, 4, 6, 9, 18, 33, 36, 

39, 44, 48, 60, 101, 106, 

129, 132, 137, 141, 151, 

152, 163, 171

See Also

Madam Chair 

Katrina, 4, 6, 9, 

18, 33, 36, 39, 44, 

48, 60, 101, 106, 

129, 132, 137, 

141, 151, 152, 

163, 171

Katrina Frey, 129, 132

See Also

Frey, 129, 132

KATRINA FREY

Speaking, 132, 133

Katrina Heinze, 4, 6, 9, 

18, 137

KATRINA HEINZE

Speaking, 6, 9, 45, 48, 

60, 106, 107, 138, 

142, 151, 152, 163, 

171

Kaylen Kirscher, 118

Kelco, 159

Kentucky, 7

Kiwi Magazine, 69

Klutz, 50

See Also

Perry Klutz, 50

Kosher, 138, 139, 140

Kosher Certification, 138

Kosher Poultry, 139

L

Lack, 63

Larabar, 6

Larocca, 56, 57

See Also

Phaedra Larocca, 

56, 57

Larocca Vineyards, 56

Larose, 144

See Also

Rob Larose, 144

Lastly, 40, 94, 158

Laura, 67, 70, 71, 76

Laura Batcha, 67, 70

See Also

Batcha, 67, 70

LAURA BATCHA

Speaking, 70, 71, 73, 

74, 75, 76

Liana, 101

Liana Hoodes, 101

Liona, 95, 103

Liona Hoodes, 103

LIONA HOODES

Speaking, 101, 103, 

104

Liona Hoods, 95

Lisa, 17, 35, 38, 124, 126, 

129, 130, 131

Lisa Ahromjian, 17

Lisa Brines, 35

See Also

Brines, 35

Lisa Bunan, 124, 126, 129

LISA BUNAN

Speaking, 129, 131, 

132

List, 10, 11, 14, 23, 25, 28, 

29, 32, 35, 36, 38, 83, 

84, 94, 95, 102, 160, 

162, 168

See Also

Epa List, 10, 11, 14, 

23, 25, 28, 29, 32, 

35, 36, 38, 83, 84, 

94, 95, 102, 160, 

162, 168

National List, 10, 11, 

14, 23, 25, 28, 29, 

32, 35, 36, 38, 83, 

84, 94, 95, 102, 

160, 162, 168

National List 

Coordinator, 10, 

11, 14, 23, 25, 28, 

29, 32, 35, 36, 38, 

83, 84, 94, 95, 

102, 160, 162, 168

Usda Listing, 10, 11, 

14, 23, 25, 28, 29, 

32, 35, 36, 38, 83, 

84, 94, 95, 102, 

160, 162, 168

Livestock, 6, 7, 8, 15, 50, 

51, 55, 56, 77, 78, 93, 

94, 108, 109, 120, 121, 

126, 127, 130, 138, 140

See Also

Animal Livestock, 6, 

7, 8, 15, 50, 51, 

55, 56, 77, 78, 93, 

94, 108, 109, 120, 

121, 126, 127, 

130, 138, 140

Nosb Livestock 

Committee, 6, 7, 

8, 15, 50, 51, 55, 

56, 77, 78, 93, 94, 

108, 109, 120, 

121, 126, 127, 

130, 138, 140

Ohio Livestock 

Care Standards, 

6, 7, 8, 15, 50, 51, 

55, 56, 77, 78, 93, 

94, 108, 109, 120, 

121, 126, 127, 

130, 138, 140

Livestock Chair, 7

See Also

Chair, 7

Livestock Committee, 6, 

7, 8, 50, 55, 77, 93, 94, 

108, 109, 120, 121, 126, 

127, 130, 138, 140

See Also

Co, 6, 7, 8, 50, 55, 

77, 93, 94, 108, 

109, 120, 121, 

126, 127, 130, 

138, 140

Com, 6, 7, 8, 50, 55, 

77, 93, 94, 108, 

109, 120, 121, 

126, 127, 130, 

138, 140

Committee, 6, 7, 8, 

50, 55, 77, 93, 94, 

108, 109, 120, 

121, 126, 127, 

130, 138, 140

Nosb Livestock 

Committee, 6, 7, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

184

8, 50, 55, 77, 93, 

94, 108, 109, 120, 

121, 126, 127, 

130, 138, 140

Livestock Department, 78

See Also

Department, 78

Livestock Proposal, 56

See Also

Pro, 56

Lloyd, 109

Lonza, 114

Lord, 118

Lorraine, 17, 40, 56, 153

Lorraine Coke, 17, 40

See Also

Co, 17, 40

Louis Center, 140

See Also

Center, 140

Louisiana, 40, 43, 92

Lovell, 96

Luis Obispo, 172

Lundberg, 87, 90, 91, 92

See Also

Eric Lundberg, 87, 

90, 91, 92

Lundberg Family Farms, 

91

See Also

Family, 91

Farm, 91

M

Mabell Rivas, 108

See Also

Rivas, 108

MABELL RIVAS

Speaking, 108, 109

Mac, 7, 97, 99, 133

Mac Stone, 7, 133

MAC STONE

Speaking, 7, 133

Madam Chair, 16, 39, 55, 

133

See Also

Chair, 16, 39, 55, 

133

Madam Chair Katrina, 16

See Also

Chair, 16

Katrina, 16

Madam Chairman, 55, 

133

See Also

Chair, 55, 133

Madam Secretary, 9

See Also

Se, 9

Secretary, 9

Makers, 57

MALE

Speaking, 4, 6, 7, 39, 

49, 54, 69, 70

Manager, 99

Mandating, 89

MARK CASTELL

Speaking, 55, 56

Markets, 68

Martek, 55, 56, 67, 68, 70, 

97, 98, 140, 141, 154, 

159, 160

Martek Bioscience, 55, 

56, 67, 159

Martek Biosciences, 55, 

67, 159

Martek Biosciences 

Corporation, 67

See Also

Co, 67

Martek Factory, 68

Martin Haun, 96

Mary Kay, 122, 124, 126

Mary Kay Brown, 122, 

124, 126

See Also

Brown, 122, 124, 

126

MARY KAY BROWN

Speaking, 124, 126

Mary Vanallswick, 158, 

159

MARY VANALLSWICK

Speaking, 159

Materials Committee, 5, 

6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 34, 37, 38

See Also

Co, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 

34, 37, 38

Com, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 

34, 37, 38

Committee, 5, 6, 7, 

8, 9, 15, 34, 37, 38

Materials Policy, 34

Maybelle Rivas, 105

See Also

Rivas, 105

Mc Evoy, 105

Members, 31, 39, 109, 144

See Also

Board Members, 

31, 39, 109, 144

Nosb Board 

Members, 31, 39, 

109, 144

Nosb Members, 31, 

39, 109, 144

Mendocino County, 64

See Also

Co, 64

Merced, 109

Methianine, 166

Methionine, 15

Mexico, 82

Meyer, 170

See Also

Ed Meyer, 170

Peggy Meyers, 170

Mic, 17

Michelle Sandy, 109, 110

See Also

Sandy, 109, 110

MICHELLE SANDY

Speaking, 110, 112, 

113, 114

Michigan, 55, 119

Mike Ferry, 93, 95, 96

See Also

Ferry, 93, 95, 96

MIKE FERRY

Speaking, 95, 96, 97, 

98, 99

Miles, 9, 17, 33, 45, 73, 88, 

104, 147, 148

See Also

Deputy 

Administrator 

Miles Mcevoy, 9, 

17, 33, 45, 73, 88, 

104, 147, 148

MILES MCEVOY

Speaking, 17, 32, 34, 

35, 148

Millions, 159

Mills, 6

Mississippi, 42, 169

Missoula, 63

Monsanto, 55, 159

Monsanto Corporation, 

159

See Also

Co, 159

Montana, 5, 63, 65

Morning, 8

Morrill, 57

See Also

Phaedra Morrill, 57

Moshe Schuchman, 138

MOSHE SCHUCHMAN

Speaking, 138, 140

Mother, 150

See Also

American Indian 

Mothers, 150

Founding Mother, 

150

Motion, 9

Muslim, 138

N

Nathaniel Lewis, 143, 144

NATHANIEL LEWIS

Speaking, 144

National Institute, 22, 23

National List, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 16, 18, 23, 24, 

25, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 

38, 67, 78, 80, 84, 94, 

95, 96, 109, 115, 117, 

118, 142, 149, 150, 152, 

155, 156, 160, 162, 163, 

164

See Also

List, 10, 11, 12, 13, 

14, 16, 18, 23, 24, 

25, 28, 29, 35, 36, 

37, 38, 67, 78, 80, 

84, 94, 95, 96, 

109, 115, 117, 

118, 142, 149, 

150, 152, 155, 

156, 160, 162, 

163, 164

National List 

Coordinator, 18

See Also

Co, 18

Coo, 18

Coordinator, 18

List, 18

National Organic 

Coalition, 33, 50, 101, 

104, 120

See Also

Co, 33, 50, 101, 104, 

120

Organic, 33, 50, 101, 

104, 120

National Organic 

Program, 17, 19, 35, 

120

See Also

Organic, 17, 19, 35, 

120

Pro, 17, 19, 35, 120

Program, 17, 19, 35, 

120

National Organic 

Standards Board, 3, 7, 

17, 18, 23, 25, 27, 63, 

109, 110

See Also

Board, 3, 7, 17, 18, 

23, 25, 27, 63, 

109, 110

Organic, 3, 7, 17, 18, 

23, 25, 27, 63, 

109, 110

Standards, 3, 7, 17, 

18, 23, 25, 27, 63, 

109, 110

National Organic 

Standards Boards, 

109

See Also

Board, 109

Boards, 109
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

185

Organic, 109

Standards, 109

National Organics 

Standards Board, 19, 

21

See Also

Board, 19, 21

Organic, 19, 21

Organics, 19, 21

Standards, 19, 21

Native, 42, 49

Native American, 42, 49

See Also

America, 42, 49

American, 42, 49

Native Americans, 42

See Also

America, 42

American, 42

Natives, 42

Neudorf, 114, 115

Neudorf Company, 114

See Also

Co, 114

Com, 114

New Jersey, 161

See Also

Jersey, 161

New York Cities, 153

Newtown, 136

Nick, 7, 54, 58, 66, 73, 74, 

97, 123, 128, 135

Nick Maravell, 7, 123, 

128, 135

NICK MARAVELL

Speaking, 7, 54, 55, 58, 

66, 67, 73, 97, 123, 

128, 135

Nitz, 146

See Also

Peter Nitz, 146

North, 41, 42, 70, 79

North America, 70, 79

See Also

America, 70, 79

North Carolina, 41, 42

Northeast Organic Dairy 

Producers 

Association, 50

See Also

Organic, 50

Pro, 50

Producer, 50

Northwest Wine Summit, 

64

November, 32, 37, 89, 98, 

105

Nutrition, 140, 141

O

October, 26, 74

Office, 8, 26, 148

See Also

Chief Certification 

Officer, 8, 26, 148

Commissioner 

Office, 8, 26, 148

Oglethorpe, 100

Ohio, 50, 140

Ohio Century Farm, 50

See Also

Farm, 50

Omega Tech, 55

Omega Tek, 159

Opposed, 9

oral, 76, 114

Oregon, 7, 9, 19, 93, 116, 

117, 118, 120

Oregon State University, 

19

See Also

University, 19

Oregon Tilth, 116, 117, 

118, 120

Oregon Tilth Certified 

Organic, 116

See Also

Organic, 116

Organic, 4, 7, 9, 18, 19, 

20, 22, 23, 26, 28, 30, 

35, 50, 55, 56, 68, 70, 

79, 92, 110, 126, 128, 

129, 133, 140, 142

See Also

Aurora Organic 

Dairy, 4, 7, 9, 18, 

19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 

28, 30, 35, 50, 55, 

56, 68, 70, 79, 92, 

110, 126, 128, 

129, 133, 140, 142

California Certified 

Organic Farmer, 

4, 7, 9, 18, 19, 20, 

22, 23, 26, 28, 30, 

35, 50, 55, 56, 68, 

70, 79, 92, 110, 

126, 128, 129, 

133, 140, 142

Canada Organic 

Equivalency 

Arrangement, 4, 

7, 9, 18, 19, 20, 

22, 23, 26, 28, 30, 

35, 50, 55, 56, 68, 

70, 79, 92, 110, 

126, 128, 129, 

133, 140, 142

Georgia Organics, 

4, 7, 9, 18, 19, 20, 

22, 23, 26, 28, 30, 

35, 50, 55, 56, 68, 

70, 79, 92, 110, 

126, 128, 129, 

133, 140, 142

Horizon Organic, 4, 

7, 9, 18, 19, 20, 

22, 23, 26, 28, 30, 

35, 50, 55, 56, 68, 

70, 79, 92, 110, 

126, 128, 129, 

133, 140, 142

Horizon Organic 

Milk, 4, 7, 9, 18, 

19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 

28, 30, 35, 50, 55, 

56, 68, 70, 79, 92, 

110, 126, 128, 

129, 133, 140, 142

International 

Organic 

Inspectors 

Association, 4, 7, 

9, 18, 19, 20, 22, 

23, 26, 28, 30, 35, 

50, 55, 56, 68, 70, 

79, 92, 110, 126, 

128, 129, 133, 

140, 142

National Organic 

Coalition, 4, 7, 9, 

18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 

26, 28, 30, 35, 50, 

55, 56, 68, 70, 79, 

92, 110, 126, 128, 

129, 133, 140, 142

National Organic 

Program, 4, 7, 9, 

18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 

26, 28, 30, 35, 50, 

55, 56, 68, 70, 79, 

92, 110, 126, 128, 

129, 133, 140, 142

National Organic 

Standards 

Board, 4, 7, 9, 18, 

19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 

28, 30, 35, 50, 55, 

56, 68, 70, 79, 92, 

110, 126, 128, 

129, 133, 140, 142

National Organic 

Standards 

Boards, 4, 7, 9, 

18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 

26, 28, 30, 35, 50, 

55, 56, 68, 70, 79, 

92, 110, 126, 128, 

129, 133, 140, 142

National Organics 

Standards 

Board, 4, 7, 9, 18, 

19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 

28, 30, 35, 50, 55, 

56, 68, 70, 79, 92, 

110, 126, 128, 

129, 133, 140, 142

Northeast Organic 

Dairy Producers 

Association, 4, 7, 

9, 18, 19, 20, 22, 

23, 26, 28, 30, 35, 

50, 55, 56, 68, 70, 

79, 92, 110, 126, 

128, 129, 133, 

140, 142

Oregon Tilth 

Certified 

Organic, 4, 7, 9, 

18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 

26, 28, 30, 35, 50, 

55, 56, 68, 70, 79, 

92, 110, 126, 128, 

129, 133, 140, 142

Pennsylvania 

Certified 

Organic, 4, 7, 9, 

18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 

26, 28, 30, 35, 50, 

55, 56, 68, 70, 79, 

92, 110, 126, 128, 

129, 133, 140, 142

Southeastern 

African 

American 

Farmers Organic 

Network, 4, 7, 9, 

18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 

26, 28, 30, 35, 50, 

55, 56, 68, 70, 79, 

92, 110, 126, 128, 

129, 133, 140, 142

Usda Certified 

Organic 

Operations, 4, 7, 

9, 18, 19, 20, 22, 

23, 26, 28, 30, 35, 

50, 55, 56, 68, 70, 

79, 92, 110, 126, 

128, 129, 133, 

140, 142

Usda Organic, 4, 7, 

9, 18, 19, 20, 22, 

23, 26, 28, 30, 35, 

50, 55, 56, 68, 70, 

79, 92, 110, 126, 

128, 129, 133, 

140, 142

Usda Organic 

Regulations, 4, 7, 

9, 18, 19, 20, 22, 

23, 26, 28, 30, 35, 

50, 55, 56, 68, 70, 

79, 92, 110, 126, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

186

128, 129, 133, 

140, 142

Wise Organic 

Pastures, 4, 7, 9, 

18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 

26, 28, 30, 35, 50, 

55, 56, 68, 70, 79, 

92, 110, 126, 128, 

129, 133, 140, 142

Organic Egg Farmers, 

126

See Also

Farm, 126

Farmers, 126

Organic Fertilizer Law, 

80

Organic Food Produ, 22, 

23, 26, 28

See Also

Food, 22, 23, 26, 28

Pro, 22, 23, 26, 28

Organic Food Production 

Act, 22, 23, 28

See Also

Ac, 22, 23, 28

Act, 22, 23, 28

Food, 22, 23, 28

Pro, 22, 23, 28

Production Act, 22, 

23, 28

Organic Foods 

Production Act, 9, 35, 

92

See Also

Ac, 9, 35, 92

Act, 9, 35, 92

Food, 9, 35, 92

Foods, 9, 35, 92

Pro, 9, 35, 92

Production Act, 9, 

35, 92

Organic Integrity, 7

Organic Policy 

Coordinator, 129

See Also

Co, 129

Coo, 129

Coordinator, 129

Organic Prairie, 128

See Also

Prairie, 128

Organic Producer Pools 

Cooperative, 128

See Also

Co, 128

Coo, 128

Coop, 128

Pro, 128

Producer, 128

Organic Research 

Service, 30

Organic Trade 

Association, 70

See Also

Tr, 70

Trade Association, 

70

Organic Valley, 68, 126, 

128

Organics, 56

See Also

Georgia Organics, 

56

National Organics 

Standards 

Board, 56

Organizationally, 121

Owusu, 40, 42

Owusu Bandele, 40

See Also

Bandele, 40

OWUSU BANDELE

Speaking, 40, 41

P

Pacific, 25

Pasture, 23

See Also

Wise Organic 

Pastures, 23

Patent, 151

Path, 87

Patty, 118

Patty Burstendoische, 

118

Pediatrics, 141

Peggy, 144, 146, 147, 148

Peggy Meyers, 144, 146

See Also

Meyer, 144, 146

PEGGY MEYERS

Speaking, 146, 148

Peirce, 146

See Also

Steve Peirce, 146

Pennsylvania Certified 

Organic, 108

See Also

Organic, 108

Perdue University, 64

See Also

University, 64

Perry Klutz, 46, 50

See Also

Klutz, 46, 50

PERRY KLUTZ

Speaking, 50, 51

Pesticide Regulations, 

90, 93

Pesticides, 5, 102, 156

Peter Nitz, 146

See Also

Nitz, 146

Phaedra Larocca, 56

See Also

Larocca, 56

PHAEDRA LAROCCAMORRILL

Speaking, 56, 57, 58

Phaedra Morrill, 55, 56

See Also

Morrill, 55, 56

Plant Foods, 6

See Also

Food, 6

Foods, 6

Plastic Culture, 47, 48

Pocket, 172

Policy Committee, 5, 6, 8, 

70, 74

See Also

Co, 5, 6, 8, 70, 74

Com, 5, 6, 8, 70, 74

Committee, 5, 6, 8, 

70, 74

Policy Development 

Committee, 5, 7, 8, 33, 

34

See Also

Co, 5, 7, 8, 33, 34

Com, 5, 7, 8, 33, 34

Committee, 5, 7, 8, 

33, 34

Pomona, 122

Prairie, 171

See Also

Organic Prairie, 171

President, 95, 105, 143, 

165

Prime, 56

Pro, 134, 135, 136

See Also

Certification 

Program, 134, 

135, 136

Cost Share 

Program, 134, 

135, 136

Farm Program, 134, 

135, 136

Farm Programs, 

134, 135, 136

Livestock Proposal, 

134, 135, 136

National Organic 

Program, 134, 

135, 136

Northeast Organic 

Dairy Producers 

Association, 134, 

135, 136

Nosb Materials 

Review Process, 

134, 135, 136

Nrcs Equips 

Program, 134, 

135, 136

Organic Food 

Produ, 134, 135, 

136

Organic Food 

Production Act, 

134, 135, 136

Organic Foods 

Production Act, 

134, 135, 136

Organic Producer 

Pools 

Cooperative, 

134, 135, 136

Vegetable 

Program, 134, 

135, 136

Producer, 31

See Also

Northeast Organic 

Dairy Producers 

Association, 31

Organic Producer 

Pools 

Cooperative, 31

Product Innovation, 8

See Also

Innovation, 8

Production Act, 26

See Also

Ac, 26

Act, 26

Organic Food 

Production Act, 

26

Organic Foods 

Production Act, 

26

Program, 17, 18, 20, 22, 

23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 

30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 

38, 45, 47, 48, 78, 87, 

146, 148

See Also

Certification 

Program, 17, 18, 

20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 

26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 

32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 

45, 47, 48, 78, 87, 

146, 148

Cost Share 

Program, 17, 18, 

20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 

26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 

32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 

45, 47, 48, 78, 87, 

146, 148
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

187

Farm Program, 17, 

18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 

25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 

31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 

38, 45, 47, 48, 78, 

87, 146, 148

Farm Programs, 17, 

18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 

25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 

31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 

38, 45, 47, 48, 78, 

87, 146, 148

National Organic 

Program, 17, 18, 

20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 

26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 

32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 

45, 47, 48, 78, 87, 

146, 148

Nrcs Equips 

Program, 17, 18, 

20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 

26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 

32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 

45, 47, 48, 78, 87, 

146, 148

Vegetable 

Program, 17, 18, 

20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 

26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 

32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 

45, 47, 48, 78, 87, 

146, 148

Program Handbook, 23, 

25

Programs, 42

See Also

Farm Programs, 42

Prohibited Substances, 

23

Providing, 117

Puerto Rico, 160

Pulaski, 165

Q

Quality, 7, 22, 23, 24, 138

Quality Assurance 

International, 138

See Also

International, 138

Quality Management 

System, 22, 24

Quality Manual, 23

Quality Standards 

Coordinator, 7

See Also

Co, 7

Coo, 7

Coordinator, 7

Standards, 7

R

Ra, 109

Raising Cornish, 145

See Also

Co, 145

Cornish, 145

Ralph, 109

Regarding, 77, 143

Rep, 161

See Also

Secretary Report, 

161

Usda 

Representatives, 

161

Representative, 7

See Also

Usda 

Representatives, 

7

Repute, 78

Request, 117

Resources, 15

Reuben Walker, 6

See Also

Walker, 6

Review, 9, 86, 141, 157

See Also

Nosb Materials 

Review Process, 

9, 86, 141, 157

Sunset Review, 9, 

86, 141, 157

Sunset Reviews, 9, 

86, 141, 157

Rice Commission, 134

See Also

California Rice 

Commission, 134

California Rice 

Commissions, 

134

Co, 134

Com, 134

Rick Perry, 6

Rivas, 109

See Also

Mabell Rivas, 109

Maybelle Rivas, 109

Rob Larose, 143

See Also

Larose, 143

ROB LAROSE

Speaking, 143, 144

Rochelle, 99

ROCHELLE SMALLTONEY

Speaking, 99

Rocky, 41, 43

Rocky Dixon, 41, 43

See Also

Dixon, 41, 43

Rodinator, 169

Rolfe, 155

See Also

Jessica Rolfe, 155

Ruihong Guo, 18

S

Sacramento Valley, 134

Sally Keefe, 140, 142, 143

SALLY KEEFE

Speaking, 142, 143

Samuelson, 110

See Also

Brad Samuelson, 

110

Sandra Simone, 40, 41, 

43, 46, 47

See Also

Simone, 40, 41, 43, 

46, 47

SANDRA SIMONE

Speaking, 47, 48, 49

Sandy, 112

See Also

Michelle Sandy, 112

Santa Cruz, 7

Savannah, 3, 17, 40, 41, 

99, 100, 101

Scientist, 6, 31

Scum, 85

Sea Island Farmers, 158

See Also

Farm, 158

Farmers, 158

Seattle, 4, 9, 27, 34, 39, 

68, 126, 129

Secretary, 9, 21, 26, 73, 

102, 103, 104, 129

See Also

Madam Secretary, 

9, 21, 26, 73, 102, 

103, 104, 129

Secretary Vilsack, 21

Section, 122

Seeding, 89

September, 18, 19, 25, 33, 

114, 145

Shammah, 139

Shistar, 157

See Also

Terry Shistar, 157

Shuman, 138

Simone, 48, 49, 50

See Also

Sandra Simone, 48, 

49, 50

Slide, 14, 133, 148

Smiley, 158

See Also

Joan Smiley, 158

Society Wine Educators, 

59

Soup Company, 6

See Also

Campbell Soup 

Company, 6

Co, 6

Com, 6

South, 17, 40, 41, 42, 43, 

44, 45, 158, 159

South Carolina, 40, 41, 

42, 43, 44, 45, 158, 159

South Carolina 

University, 42

See Also

University, 42

Southeastern African 

American Farmers 

Organic Network, 40

See Also

African American, 

40

America, 40

American, 40

Farm, 40

Farmers, 40

Organic, 40

Southern Universities, 49

Southern University, 40, 

49

See Also

University, 40, 49

Southern University Ag 

Center, 49

See Also

Center, 49

University, 49

Southern University 

Calvary Walker, 40

See Also

University, 40

Walker, 40

Spain, 139

Specific, 146

Sponseller, 64

See Also

Andy Sponseller, 64

Spring, 15, 16, 146

Standards, 18, 22, 23, 35, 

50, 110, 126

See Also

National Organic 

Standards 

Board, 18, 22, 23, 

35, 50, 110, 126

National Organic 

Standards 

Boards, 18, 22, 

23, 35, 50, 110, 

126

National Organics 

Standards 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

188

Board, 18, 22, 23, 

35, 50, 110, 126

Ohio Livestock 

Care Standards, 

18, 22, 23, 35, 50, 

110, 126

Quality Standards 

Coordinator, 18, 

22, 23, 35, 50, 

110, 126

Standards Division, 18, 

35

See Also

Division, 18, 35

Star, 138, 139

Statement, 102

Steptyl, 114

Stepyl, 114

Steve, 3, 6, 7, 18, 83, 101, 

135, 146, 148, 163

Steve Demuri, 135

STEVE DEMURI

Speaking, 4, 6, 83, 135

Steve Peirce, 146, 148

See Also

Peirce, 146, 148

STEVE PEIRCE

Speaking, 146, 148, 

150, 151, 152, 153

Stevia, 153

Stoneyfield, 68

Strategic, 23

Sulfites, 129, 133

Sunset, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 

16, 25, 27, 34, 84, 86, 

88, 114, 148, 166

Sunset Law, 148

Sunset Review, 10, 11, 

12, 16, 84, 86, 114

See Also

Review, 10, 11, 12, 

16, 84, 86, 114

Sunset Reviews, 10

See Also

Review, 10

Supplementing, 110

T

Tadpole, 89

Talented, 132

Tallorec, 115

See Also

Walter Tallorec, 115

Tamworth, 145

Technology, 22, 23

Temple Grandin, 139

Terry Shistar, 153, 155, 

156

See Also

Shistar, 153, 155, 

156

TERRY SHISTAR

Speaking, 156

Texas, 142, 159

Thanksgiving, 32

Thursday, 57, 70

Timing, 32

Tina, 4, 6, 8, 18, 59, 66, 

101, 163

Tina Ellor, 4, 8, 18

TINA ELLOR

Speaking, 8, 59, 66

Tom Vanderhoff, 55

Toney, 99, 101

Tracy, 3, 6, 8, 18, 101, 163

Tracy Miedema, 3, 8, 18

Tracy Miedema

Speaking, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 

16, 32, 33, 35, 38, 39, 

41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 

49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 

56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 

62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 

69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 

78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 86, 

87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 

94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 

101, 103, 104, 106, 

107, 108, 109, 110, 

112, 113, 114, 115, 

116, 118, 120, 122, 

123, 124, 126, 127, 

128, 129, 130, 131, 

132, 133, 135, 136, 

137, 138, 140, 141, 

142, 143, 144, 146, 

147, 148, 149, 150, 

151, 152, 153, 155, 

157, 158, 159, 160, 

161, 163, 164, 165, 

167, 168, 169, 170, 

171, 172, 173

Trade Association, 72

See Also

Organic Trade 

Association, 72

Trademark, 151

Transcripts, 75

Troy Aykan, 120, 122

See Also

Aykan, 120, 122

TROY AYKAN

Speaking, 122, 123, 

124

Type, 154

U

Unfortuna, 79

United States, 3, 19, 64, 

66, 105, 147, 160, 161, 

166, 167

United States 

Department, 3

See Also

Department, 3

University, 8, 40, 57, 159, 

172

See Also

Clinton University, 

8, 40, 57, 159, 172

Oregon State 

University, 8, 40, 

57, 159, 172

Perdue University, 

8, 40, 57, 159, 172

South Carolina 

University, 8, 40, 

57, 159, 172

Southern 

University, 8, 40, 

57, 159, 172

Southern University 

Ag Center, 8, 40, 

57, 159, 172

Southern University 

Calvary Walker, 

8, 40, 57, 159, 172

Usu Vandaley, 40

V

Valais, 68, 70

See Also

Charlotte Valais, 

68, 70

Vegetable Program, 30

See Also

Pro, 30

Program, 30

Vice, 7

Vietnam, 172

Virgin Islanders, 160

Virgin Islands, 41, 160, 

161

W

Walker, 41

See Also

Calvin Walker, 41

Reuben Walker, 41

Southern University 

Calvary Walker, 

41

Walter Taleric, 114

Walter Tallorec, 114

See Also

Tallorec, 114

WALTER TALLOREC

Speaking, 114, 115, 

116

Walter Tollerec, 110

Washington, 18, 21, 44, 

104, 114, 144, 145, 160

Washington State 

Department, 145

See Also

Department, 145

Water, 89, 90, 103

Wel, 55

See Also

Animal Welfare 

Recommendatio

ns, 55

Bill Welsh, 55

Wendy, 7, 94, 101, 131, 

140, 167

Wendy Fulwider, 7

WENDY FULWIDER

Speaking, 7, 94, 131, 

132, 167

Whoa, 48

Wild Farm Alliance, 86, 

87

See Also

Al, 86, 87

Farm, 86, 87

Wilson, 141

See Also

Diane Wilson, 141

Wisconsin, 7, 55

Wise Organic Pastures, 

139

See Also

Organic, 139

Pasture, 139

Women, 159

Woodland, 114, 116

Y

Yanica, 93, 94

Yanica Deyoung, 93

See Also

Deyoung, 93

YANICA DEYOUNG

Speaking, 93, 94, 95

Yvette Brown, 41, 159, 

160, 161

See Also

Brown, 41, 159, 160, 

161

YVETTE BROWN

Speaking, 160

Z

Zia, 79, 82, 83, 84, 86, 90, 

91

Zia Sonavand, 79, 82, 83, 

84

ZIA SONAVAND

Speaking, 83, 84, 85, 

86

Zimba, 120

See Also

Ed Zimba, 120
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

November 29, 2011

189