1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + + +

PUBLIC COMMENT WEBINAR

+ + + + +

TUESDAY, 

OCTOBER 20, 2020

+ + + + +

The Board met telephonically at 12:00 p.m., 

Steve Ela, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT

STEVE ELA, Chair

SCOTT RICE, Vice Chair

JESSE BUIE, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

JERRY D'Amore

RICK GREENWOOD

KIM HUSEMAN

MINDEE JEFFERY

DAVE MORTENSEN

EMILY OAKLEY

NATE POWELL-PALM

A-DAE ROMERO-BRIONES

DAN SEITZ

WOOD TURNER
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

STAFF PRESENT

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, Advisory Committee 

Specialist, Standards Division

JARED CLARK, National List Manager, Standards 

Division

DAVID GLASGOW, Associate Deputy Administrator, 

National Organic Program

DEVON PATTILLO, Agricultural Marketing 

Specialist, Standards Division

DR. JENNIFER TUCKER, Deputy Administrator,

National Organic Program; Designated Federal

Official

SHANNON NALLY YANESSA, Director, Standards 

Division
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

(12:00 p.m.)

MS. ARSENAULT: Welcome to the 

National Organic Standards Board public comment 

webinar for the first day.

Hopefully you're online with us. You 

should be able to see a welcome slide with some 

instructions about calling in on the phone if you 

need to call in on the phone because audio 

issues.

If you have any problems with Zoom, 

you can go to their help center, which is really 

actually very helpful.

They are very friendly. 

If you go to zoom.us, in the upper 

right-hand side, you'll see a contact us button, 

and you can live chat with them or call them to 

get any help if you have issues with Zoom.

So, as I mentioned, we are recording 

the webinar. 

We're going to post a transcript after 

the entire NOSB meeting is completed at the end 
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of next week, and then it takes a couple weeks to 

get the official transcript ready for ADA 

compliance so we can post them on our website.

So, we'll have those up for you guys.

Speakers had to sign up in advance, so 

we have a list, and it will be projected on the 

screen so you can get a sense of who's coming up 

next.

Jared, if you want to flip to the next 

slide, I think you can probably do that. Just 

give a little preview there. Or the next one.

And so, speakers had to sign up in 

advance, and Steve, the board chair, is going to 

call on people in the order in which they signed 

up.

So, we have quite a lengthy wait list 

already, and I don't think we're going to have 

any room for quote unquote walk-ins, so, just so 

you know.

And we are asking people to please 

keep your microphone muted until it's your turn 

to speak, and we can unmute you and mute you from 
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

our end.

You can also do it from your end as 

well, when it's time for you to talk.

We'll be monitoring the noise, so if 

the dogs are barking or the kids are screaming, 

or in my neighborhood, the weed whacker seems to 

be going 24/7, we'll mute people for background 

noise.

When you come to the microphone when 

Steve calls on you, we ask that you state your 

name and affiliation clearly for the record.

Our transcriptionist is on the call 

with us, so she wants to be able to associate the 

correct name with your comment.

At the beginning of your comment, I'm 

going to start a timer, and I'm going to 

demonstrate the timer we practiced earlier, and 

people were able to hear it pretty well.

Get to the seconds here.

All right, I'm going to flip my screen 

to show you guys the timer which will be in a 

thumbnail view on the screen for the whole time 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for the comments.

So, you should be able to see the 

timer, as well as hear the timer. Just change my 

camera here.

All right. Hopefully everyone can see 

that, and Devon and Jared might pin that view so 

it's always visible to you guys.

And I'm going to start the timer here, 

and hopefully you'll hear the loud obnoxious 

noise. Seconds. All right.

Hopefully you guys heard that. Can I 

get some thumbs-up from board members, maybe?

Excellent, all right. 

So, that will beep at the end of your 

three minute comment period, and it'll be visible 

on the screen, so you should be able to (audio 

interference) counting down as well, and 

hopefully that won't be too distracting for you 

guys.

All right, now I'm going to turn the 

mic over to Jenny Tucker, the deputy 

administrator.
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We can actually call the meeting 

officially to order. Thank you.

DR. TUCKER: Thank you, Michelle. Hi 

everyone. I'm Jenny Tucker, deputy administrator 

of the National Organic Program.

Welcome to all our National Organic 

Standards Boards members. We are meeting again 

online during unique and challenging 

circumstances.

Your continued dedication and 

flexibility have allowed this ongoing practice of 

engagement and transparency to continue.

I'd like to particularly acknowledge 

our five board members who are beginning the last 

meeting of their terms.

Jesse Buie, Emily Oakley, Dan Seitz, 

A-dae Romero-Briones, and Scott Rice.

I am really sorry to not be able to 

give you a big hug of thanks. 

We're grateful for your hard work and

service over the last five years. 

Let's all give them a big round of 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

applause like this, so, to applaud in Zoom, we're 

going to wave our hands in thanks for their 

service. 

Thank you very, very, very much.

To all our public commenters, thank 

you for sustaining this participatory process in 

this format again this fall.

We thank you for signing up to have 

your voices heard. 

I also thank our audience. You serve 

as important witnesses to this public meeting 

process, and we're grateful you're here.

This webinar opens a series of virtual 

webinars that will occur over multiple days. Two 

days this week, three days next week, and one day 

in November for a panel on sanitizers.

Meeting access information for all 

meeting segments is posted on the NOSB meeting 

page on the USDA website.

Transcripts for all segments will be 

posted once completed.

This meeting, like other meetings of 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the National Organic Standards Board, will be run 

based on the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or 

FACA, and the board's policy and procedures 

manual.

I will act as the designated federal 

officer for all meeting segments.

I'd like to thank the National Organic 

Program team for their amazing work in getting us 

here today.

I'm going to ask them to go on camera 

if they're not already so I can acknowledge them.

We've got Michelle Arsenault, who kind 

of runs the place. Let's give Michelle a round 

of applause.

It's a tremendous lift to get us all 

together.

I also want to acknowledge and thank 

Devon Pattillo. Where are you, Devon? You want 

to wave? All right.

We've got Shannon Nally Yanessa. Go 

ahead and wave, Shannon.

Dave Glasgow. Thank you, Dave, for 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

everything.

And I want to both introduce and thank 

your new national list manager, Jared Clark. 

Jared's been with us a few months, and he's 

already had a significant impact on the program.

So, thank you very much, Jared.

I also want to thank Steve Ela, chair 

of the board, who led our virtual meeting so well 

in the spring, and who I am confident will do the 

same this fall.

So Steve, you've continued to be an 

amazing and exceptional collaborative partner. 

Thank you very, very much.

I'm now going to hand the mic to 

Shannon Nally Yanessa, who is our standards 

division director, and she will do a roll call of 

NOSB members and staff. Thank you so much.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Thank you, Jenny. 

All right, so it's starting with the NOSB 

members. Steve Ela?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Mute button. 

MS. ARSENAULT: Got you, Steve. 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Thanks.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Scott Rice?

VICE CHAIR RICE: Present.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Thank you. Jesse 

Buie?

SECRETARY BUIE: Present.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Thank you. Sue 

Baird?

MEMBER BAIRD: Present.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Asa Bradman?

MEMBER BRADMAN: Here.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Jerry D'Amore?

MEMBER D'AMORE: Good morning.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Good morning. 

Rick Greenwood?

MEMBER GREENWOOD: Present.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Kim Huseman?

MEMBER HUSEMAN: Present.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Mindee Jeffery?

MEMBER JEFFERY: Here I am.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Dave Mortensen?

MEMBER MORTENSEN: Present.
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Emily Oakley?

MEMBER OAKLEY: Present.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Nate Powell-Palm?

(No audible response.)

MS. ARSENAULT: Nate, you may be 

muted. Can you see --

MS. NALLY YANESSA: I see him.

MS. ARSENAULT: Okay.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Let's see. A-dae 

Romero-Briones?

MEMBER ROMERO-BRIONES: Present.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Dan Seitz?

MEMBER SEITZ: Present.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: And Wood Turner?

MEMBER TURNER: Here. Good morning.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Good morning. 

Thank you all. 

And now I will hand the mic off to 

Steve Ela, who is the chair of the National 

Organic Standards Board.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you, Shannon. 

Thank you, Jenny. 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

To lead off, I just want to recognize 

again all the members for the hard work that 

they're doing, and we want to say that I'm glad 

that we're able to do this virtual meeting, but I 

know that the organic community is a community 

that's not just coming together for a meeting, 

but it's also a social community, as well.

And so, I truly hope that we can meet 

in person again in the near and later future, but 

I'm also glad that we can still get together for 

these virtual meetings and go ahead and conduct 

our business today.

I do miss seeing everybody in person, 

board members as well as our stakeholders.

I do want to recognize that it's been 

announced the five new board members that are, 

you know, going to be coming on in January.

I won't read their names at this 

point, but the board continues to rotate, and the 

five members that are going up, you have been 

mentors and friends, and you will be dearly 

missed.
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I'll say more about that in our actual 

meeting.

I do want to remind everybody that we 

do have a public comment policy in our policy and 

procedure manual.

I just want to quickly go over them 

again. 

Michelle did a little bit, but all 

speakers who will be recognized did sign up 

during the registration period, and Michelle also 

noticed we do have some people on the wait list 

that we will hope to get to, as well.

The speakers will be called upon in 

order of the schedule that's been published. 

Each speaker will have three minutes, and 

then we'll have questions from the NOSB members. 

We will not take any questions from 

stakeholders, but just from the board itself.

It's always great to ask questions. I 

hope we can make the most of our commenters.

And I would ask the board to ask 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

questions, rather than just making comments.

We'd like to say, get the most out of 

our stakeholders that we can. 

If you're giving a comment, I would 

like you to give your name and affiliation for 

the record, so that our transcriptionist can 

record that.

And I would also ask that if you're a 

consultant or working for some other company, 

that you also mention besides your consulting 

business, who you are actually speaking for or on 

behalf of.

We do not allow proxy speakers.

And most importantly --

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve, we just lost 

your audio.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Try that again?

(Audio interference)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: This computer is 

touchy. 

But, most importantly, any individuals 

providing public comment shall refrain from 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

making any personal attacks or remarks that might 

impugn the character and intention of any 

individual. 

And if that does start to happen, I 

will interrupt and ask you to rephrase your 

comments, and if it continues, then we will move 

on to the next speaker. 

We're very interested in the content, 

but not in the personalities of various speakers.

The way we'll work this is I will 

announce the speaker that is on, and then I will 

announce the next two speakers following that 

person so that each person can get ready and so 

our staff can find them on the list.

Again, each speaker will have three 

minutes, and Michelle will start the timer, just 

as she demonstrated.

Yeah, when your time is up, please 

complete your sentence and end your comment.

We have lots of people to get to, and 

I want to make sure we have time for the board to 

be able to ask questions.
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, first of all, I'm just going to 

read off. 

We're going to start off with Keith 

Jones, and then we're going to go to Dee Browder, 

and then Mark Kastel.

I'm going to apologize ahead of time. 

It's the end of our harvest season. 

I'm a little bit more tired than I am 

normally, and I am sure I will butcher some names 

terribly. 

My apologies, and feel free to correct 

me, and maybe I can remember for the next time, 

but there's no ill will on my part if I 

mispronounce a name.

Are there any questions from the board 

before we start?

And just a reminder from the board, if 

you do want to ask a question, just hit the 

raised hand function and I will try and call on 

you in the order of raised hand.

If some reason using the raised hand 

function doesn't work, feel free to interrupt 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

before we move on to the next speaker.

All right. With that, we will open 

the public comment period, and we will start with 

Keith Jones. 

Keith, can you state your name and 

affiliation?

MR. JONES: Hi. Can you hear me?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: We can. Please 

proceed.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. JONES: Okay, great. Hi, my name 

is Keith Jones. 

I'm the executive director of the 

Biological Products Industry Alliance, or BPIA. 

The BPIA is a nonprofit organization 

based in the Washington, D.C. area.

Our mission is advancing 

sustainability through biological solutions. 

Our organization is dedicated to 

fostering the responsible development of 

effective biological products, including 

bio-pesticides, bio-stimulants, and bio-
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

fertilizers.

Biological products are generally 

considered reduced risk products based on 

biological or naturally-derived chemistry by 

combining performance and safety.

Biological products offer value and 

benefits normally not realized by conventional 

chemistry.

(Audio interference) association with 

over 135 member companies, ranging from small, 

innovative sole proprietors, to large 

international companies.

Our member companies have developed 

dependable pioneering products for commercial 

agriculture, forestry, home gardens, 

horticulture, ornamentals, and more.

Many of our member companies produce 

products specifically for organic growers, and 

BPIA itself is a member of the OTA.

On behalf of BPIA and all our members, 

I want to thank the NOSP and the NOP for the work 

that you all do, and for the opportunity to 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

provide these comments.

We previously submitted our detailed 

written comments, so I will just briefly give a 

high-level summary of those comments.

Under the periodic five year sunset 

review process, NOSB's Crops Subcommittee is 

proposing to remove the citation of EPA List 4 

pesticides inert ingredients from the National 

List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances under 7 

CFR 205.601(n), synthetic substances allowed for 

use in organic crop production, and to initiate 

steps to replace it with the EPA Safer Chemical 

Ingredients List.

BPIA respectfully disagrees with this 

recommendation, and requests that the NOSB, one, 

recommend the continuation of the EPA List 4 

inert ingredient as listed in 7 CFR Section 

205.601(m)(1), to not allow the replacement of 

EPA List 4 with the Safer Chemical Ingredient 

List, and three, encourage NOP and EPA to work 

together to maintain a comprehensive list of 

approved formulating ingredients for use in NOP-
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

compliant pesticides.

NOP approval of the proposed 

sunsetting of EPA List 4, inert ingredients, and 

adoption of the EPA Safer Choice Ingredient List, 

will cause the loss of organic-compatible status 

for a large percentage of the biological 

pesticide products that organic growers rely upon 

for the production of a successful crop.

A sudden and significant loss of 

organic production tools on March 15, 2022 can be 

reasonably anticipated to result in significant 

pest problems with no effective organic 

solutions, and significant economic harm to 

organic growers.

I would encourage you all you review 

our written comments for greater detail.

Thank you again for this opportunity 

to provide these comments, and I'm happy to 

answer any questions. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you, Keith. 

Are there any questions from board members?

(No audible response.)
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRPERSON ELA: I'm not seeing any 

from board members. I do have a question, Keith. 

So, given that to add anything to the 

National List, the National Organic Standards 

Board has to approve those, and given that the 

List 4 is at this point not being updated, and 

has not been updated for many years, how would 

you propose that we move forward in a --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. JONES: Well again, we would love 

to see you all work with EPA, and, you know, find 

a way to, you know, either update that list, or, 

you know, through some other strategy.

The point of our comments really is 

that you can't just shut down the list without a 

clear path, otherwise -- you know, it can take 

years to develop a formulation, and to just 

remove those inerts from being available.

It's not like our members can flip a 

switch and continue to produce those products.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Agreed, but you're 

aware that, I mean, just because we vote to 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

delist something, that does not mean that they 

are going to be delisted. 

It does have to go through rulemaking 

and the program where there are additional 

chances for public comments.

So, I guess I'm still just curious. 

If we relist them, there's no incentive to move 

forward, if we delist them, then we're sending a 

signal that we would like to see some process 

move towards.

It sounds like you're in agreement 

that we should move forward and get away from 

List 4, but for some other list?

MR. JONES: Yeah, I would say 

potentially, but we'd like to know what that next 

step, or that next process, or that next list 

will be.

We have great concerns to take the 

first step without knowing the second step.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Fair enough. Asa 

has a question.

MEMBER BRADMAN: Yeah, a question. 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I guess several stakeholders in the 

organic community, both at the meeting last 

spring, and there's also written comments this 

fall, have laid out I think a fairly good roadmap 

on how to, you know, resolve some of these 

issues.

You said you don't see a way forward. 

I guess I'm curious about what you think about 

some of the proposals that are out there?

MR. JONES: Well, again, and I would 

just refer you to our written comments. You 

know, we might represent a wide variety of 

companies or members.

Like I said, many of our members 

produce products for organic growers, and we are 

just concerned about -- and then they have 

different concerns.

So presently, we don't see a clear 

path going forward.

MEMBER BRADMAN: And why is that?

MR. JONES: Well, what I'm hearing 

from our members is that they just feel they 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

would not have sufficient time, for one, to 

potentially do the kind of reformulations that 

might be required.

So, I think one suggestion that we 

definitely heard from our members is that, you 

know, if there was going to be some type of 

sunsetting, we would need a longer time line.

MEMBER BRADMAN: Right. But it seems 

like, you know, a significant portion -- maybe 

even a large proportion -- of the substances that 

are currently on the List 4 would probably carry 

over into a new list.

So, I just --

MR. JONES: Well, I think that there's 

definitely quite --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MEMBER BRADMAN: In that case, there 

would be a --

(Simultaneous speaking)

MR. JONES: I'm sorry, go ahead.

MEMBER BRADMAN: In that case, would 

there be a need for reformulations? 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. JONES: Well, see, that's where 

I'm hearing, at least from my members, there's a 

large question as to which materials would carry 

over, and which materials would not carry over.

And I mean, basically what I'm hearing 

is no, and (audio interference) would not 

necessarily carry over, and that the proposed 

list, the Safer Choice List -- again, my 

understanding is that that was originally created 

for cleaning products and it's not really 

compatible with, you know, our products that are 

used, you know, in food production, and that 

there would be a big disconnect in a lot of the 

products that we do use.

So again, we're open to a change, and 

in fact, as it was indicated to you, the List 4 

is not currently being maintained.

So we are open to something that 

hopefully would be maintained, and potentially 

could even be expanded in the future, but we're 

just not seeing right now a clear path forward.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Great. Well, thank 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you, Keith, and we're going to move on.

But we normally don't ask questions of 

the program during public comment, but I am going 

to just because I think this is probably going to 

come up. You're not going to be the only 

speaker.

I'd like to put Jenny on the spot 

maybe and see what the program thinks in terms of 

not specifically your comments, but the process 

of where we do need to continue with inerts and 

not disrupt the process.

Jenny, would you be willing to say 

just a couple words?

DR. TUCKER: Sure. Happy to, and 

certainly diving into the deep end of the pool in 

the public comments first up. 

Inerts is going to continue to be a 

topic of significant complexity and interest.

And so, I think this discussion has 

raised some of the complexities of this question, 

of this problem, what the Safer Choice List 

really is and is not at this point in time.
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We also have to look at what is the 

regulatory status of the Safer Choice List.

The Safer Choice List is actually not 

codified in regulations, and so, there is the 

challenge of how do we refer to a list that 

actually doesn't have the same public comments 

provisions that our regs have.

And so, those are legal questions that 

have to be considered.

So, when we're thinking about the 

complexity of the topic, it's a good time to kind 

of remember the civics of NOSB and NOP, that the 

board's job is to evaluate these materials and 

make a recommendation to the program.

The program would then engage in 

rulemaking in order to lay out the proposed path 

forward.

In this case, because of the 

complexity, we believe that a good initial step 

would be to use a tool we don't use often in the 

program, but can be very valuable in complex, 

uncertain topics -- is an Advanced Notice of 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Proposed Rulemaking, ANPR, where we would lay out 

what are the problems, what are the challenges of 

managing these lists, what are the potential 

legal questions that need to be resolved, and 

what are some options?

Then we would get feedback through 

that formal Administrative Procedures Act process 

to get community feedback.

Any action to remove something from 

the National List in this case would need to be 

accompanied by a replacement strategy.

So, they would need to go hand-in-hand 

because of the economic impact of removing these 

items from the National List there.

So, the rulemaking would need to 

consider both, both removal and replacement.

The added complexity there is that the 

program can't add a synthetic to the National 

List without a board recommendation. 

So, figuring out what would that 

replacement be that the board has agreed to, and 

what would a sustainable process be for 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

maintaining such a replacement for List 3 and 4 

be into the future?

So, there's a reason this hasn't 

happened yet.

So I know there are some frustration 

that these lists have been out of date for quite 

some time.

There's a reason for it. These are 

incredibly complex questions.

So, we will take it thoughtfully, we 

will take it slow.

We cannot remove something off the 

list without doing rulemaking that is accompanied 

by a very robust public comment process under the 

Administrative Procedures Act.

So, we're going to take it step by 

step.

 I appreciate the thoughtful comment 

and the thoughtful questions that come from the 

board on this topic.

Steve, does that help?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: That does help. 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Thank you, Jenny. 

I just wanted to ask that of you just 

so that as we go through the rest of the 

comments, at least our stakeholders know that 

somewhat that this is not a willy-nilly process, 

but it does have some thoughts of protecting the 

industry while trying to move from an outdated 

list.

But, with that, I think we'll move on. 

Next up is Dee Browder, and then after that, we 

will have Mark Kastel, and after Mark, we'll have 

Alan Lewis.

Dee, would you like to go ahead, 

please?

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve, I'm not finding 

Dee on the participant list by name or by phone, 

so she may not be with us. 

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Okay. Well, we'll 

move on and we'll circle back at the end to see 

if she is there.

So, next up, we'll have Mark Kastel, 

Alan Lewis, and then Doug Currier. 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So Mark, please continue and state 

your name and affiliation.

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Mark, we're not 

hearing you, either.

MR. KASTEL: I am --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Go ahead.

MR. KASTEL: Can you hear me now?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: We can hear you now, 

so please state your name and affiliation and 

continue.

MR. KASTEL: I'm very sorry. Okay, 

start the clock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Mark Kastel. I act as 

director of OrganicEye, an investigative arm of 

Beyond Pesticides.

In terms of the pending rulemaking on 

organic enforcement issues, I would encourage 

other organizations in the NOSB to join with 

OrganicEye in opening up a community and 

industry-wide debate on the merits of this 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

omnibus rule, which has not happened to date.

I will remind NOSB members who might 

be new, and many for who have not been involved 

in the board process prior to their appointment, 

that the intent of congress was to form an 

independent and expert stakeholder panel to act 

as a buffer between lobbyists in the rulemaking 

process.

The board was established as part of 

the legislative debate in the 1980s in part to 

placate the concerns of some pioneering organic 

farmers who were concerned that we would lose 

control over what we had lovingly created.

The Organic Foods Production Act of 

1990, in that, congress specified that the 

secretary was required to consult with the NOSB, 

not just for the approval of synthetic and nonorganic compounds, but on the implementation of 

the act itself.

Only select elements of the new 

rulemaking were discussed by the NOSB, and only 

in general terms.
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I'd like to have you think about 

unintended consequences.

For 11 years, we've worked and warned 

the USDA about widespread fraud in the 

importation of organic food and feed ingredients.

It was not until a collaborative 

effort between myself and others in the organic 

community, and a black eye, courtesy of the 

Washington Post, that they decided to take 

action.

Under the existing rules, without the 

need for new statutory help, the USDA 

orchestrated the revocation, or in most cases, 

voluntary surrender of the certificates of 75 

percent of Black Sea Region operations certified 

by the NOP.

The race to adopt these rules might 

very well have unintended consequences.

The esteemed agriculture economist, 

John Ikerd will tell you that large corporate 

agribusinesses and certifiers love regulations 

because all too often, they squeeze out their 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

smaller competition.

These firms have extensive staff for 

compliance, but very well could put others out of 

business.

Before the former NOSB director 

unilaterally took away the power of the NOSB to 

set their own agenda, the NOSB controlled their 

own work plans (audio interference).

So, I would suggest that this board 

listen to a cross-section of this committee, and 

convene discussions, and make this a priority for 

2021 so we can have an adequate discussion.

Let's just not do something, let's 

stand here for a while. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you, Mark. 

Are there questions form the board? 

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: I'm not seeing any. 

We will move on --

MR. KASTEL: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: To Alan Lewis. 

Thank you, Mark. 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Alan Lewis, you are up, but then we'll 

go to Doug Currier, and Jay Feldman after that.

Alan, could you state your name and 

affiliation?

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Alan, I'm not 

hearing you.

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Still not hearing 

you. Michelle, do you --

MS. ARSENAULT: Yeah, we're not 

finding Alan either, or by his phone number.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Okay.

(Simultaneous speaking)

MS. ARSENAULT: -- you want to chat 

into the Zoom chat, let us know you're there 

having audio problems? 

And we'll skip over you for now and 

move on.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Okay. We will move 

on to Doug Currier. After Doug, there'll be Jay 

Feldman and Terry Shistar. 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Doug, please continue by stating your 

name and affiliation.

MR. CURRIER: Hi, good morning, 

afternoon. My name is Doug Currier. 

I am presenting comments on behalf of 

the Organic Materials Review Institute today 

regarding the proposals on wild native fish for 

fertilizer production, marine macroalgae, and 

crop fertilizer production, and the Materials 

Subcommittee's research, priorities, executive 

summary.

Wild native fish and marine 

macroalgae.

 OMRI applauds the efforts of the 

subcommittees and the NOSB as a whole on the 

massive work undertaken in the last few years 

that have culminated in proposals on wild native 

fish and marine macroalgae used in organic crop 

production.

OMRI supports the interest shown by 

the NOSB in upholding OFPA and the organic 

standards, which includes assessing the negative 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

environmental impacts of certain input materials.

As an organization who will eventually 

apply organic standards, we follow proposals 

closely and evaluate how these standards could be 

verified in practice.

OMRI supports the use of NOP guidance 

document or an NOP-appointed task force for work 

towards and development of best practices for 

review and approval of marine materials if the 

proposal is agreed upon by NOSB and published by 

NOP.

I also refer the board to written 

comments submitted earlier this month, which also 

included suggested edits to the proposed 

definitions of fish waste and bycatch.

OMRI believes that these suggested 

edits provide clarity, and they're the focus of 

fish sources of concern.

Also, OMRI wants to comment on 

estimated impact on the approval of the proposals 

on wild native fish.

OMRI expects that 49 of the 123 liquid 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

fertilizer products, many of which are solubles 

products, would be impacted, and only a handful 

of fish fertilizers are manufactured from fish 

waste and bycatch.

And given these potential 

implications, OMRI suggests a fair phase-out 

period if the NOP proceeds with rulemaking.

Moving on to Materials Subcommittee's 

research priorities.

So, given the amount of work devoted 

to assessing the environmental impacts of using 

(audio interference) materials and fish in 

organic crop production, OMRI requests that the 

Materials Subcommittee develop a roadmap type 

document that will outline the process for future 

boards on how to effectively assess the 

environmental impact of other non-synthetic 

materials currently used in organic production, 

and whose use may lead to harm to the 

environment.

Such materials may include peat moss, 

mined minerals, guano, and oyster shell meal.
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

That's all I had. Thank you for 

listening.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Are there any 

questions from the board? Emily, go ahead.

MEMBER OAKLEY: Thank you for your 

comments, Doug, and thank you for your written 

comment, as well.

And I wanted to ask you a question. 

We received a few comments from folks 

regarding the liquid fish proposal in terms of 

pet food, wanting to kind of update the 

definition language to allow for fish that have 

been used in pet food to also be allowed in this 

annotation.

I'm wondering if OMRI looks at that 

kind of detail, or if you're familiar with 

products that are deriving their fish material 

from pet food waste or residue?

MR. CURRIER: So, it is tricky because 

we don't normally get into much detail on the 

source of the fish, and I think just offhand, I 

can recall some sources reported from pet food 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

manufacturing.

And, you know, so implications for the 

proposal, fish waste, right now, it's from market 

fish processed for human consumption.

And so, we had kind of recommended 

that examples of what fish waste would be, such 

as skins, frames, and viscera, you know, be added 

to that, and I kind of imagine that might lend 

itself to the pet food source of fish waste.

But I guess it's tricky because we 

don't normally get into that amount of detail 

when it comes to the sources of fish and the ins 

and outs of where it's used, and where it's 

directed, and where it comes from.

MEMBER OAKLEY: Thank you. That's 

really helpful, and I also appreciate your 

comments about the updated language suggestion 

that you provided and how that might tie into the 

pet food question. 

So, thank you. I appreciate that.

MR. CURRIER: Great.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Dave Mortensen, it 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

looks like you have a question.

MEMBER MORTENSEN: Yes. Doug, thanks 

for the comments. 

And I was wondering if you could just 

say a little bit more about what you have in mind 

regarding a roadmap?

MR. CURRIER: Yeah. 

So, it's tricky because there are 

other non-synthetic allowed materials that would 

not be subject to the National List process 

outside of a petition, and these materials may 

warrant an evaluation of environmental impact.

And so, the thought was that because 

the NOSB has addressed the environmental impact 

with marine macroalgae and fish over the last few 

years, using that experience to apply for other 

evaluations for materials that are not 

necessarily part of the National List or part of 

a petition, and really the idea was just in a 

kind of gathering the experience over the last 

few years and putting it into a document that 

would help the NOSB in future evaluations.
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER MORTENSEN: Thank you.

MR. CURRIER: Sure.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you, Doug. 

Seeing no further questions, we're going to move 

on. 

Next up is Jay Feldman, followed by 

Terry Shistar, and then Aimee Simpson.

Jay, please state your name and 

affiliation.

MR. FELDMAN: Good afternoon. I'm Jay 

Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, 

former NOSB member. 

Thank you all for your service, and

thank you for considering our submitted comments.

The Crop Subcommittee biodegradable 

mulch discussion document raises questions of 

NOSB process that are critical to the integrity 

of the USDA organic label.

The fact that a change in annotation 

is being considered belies foundational 

principles of the law.

As a strong advocate for the growth of 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the organic market, building public trust in the 

label is critical to affect a transition away 

from practices in inputs that cause a cascade of 

environmental public health effects.

Organic can help mitigate and begin to 

reverse the existential threats of the climate 

crisis, biodiversity decline that we are facing 

in the country and the globe.

Is the role of organic to take these 

challenges on, or is organic just a niche market 

and a profit stentor (phonetic) for producers and 

processes?

Those of us who strenuously promote 

the market as a solution to looming crises must 

be able to point to a full embrace of the 

principles and values embedded in the law.

The biodegradable mulch discussion 

document raises underlying principles critical to 

NOSB decision-making.

One, organic law establishes a systems 

approach to protecting and enhancing the 

environment.
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It does not ask you to determine 

relative risk.

Two, the law sets restrictions and 

affects continuous improvement in organic 

management. 

It does not disincentivize investment 

in natural materials and practices.

Three, organic law establishes 

criteria and categories of use for evaluating an 

allowed substance's adverse effects, 

compatibility with organic systems and 

essentiality.

It does not envision input substances 

not required in soil systems.

Four, organic law identifies soil as 

the medium for nutrient cycling, supplying the 

macro and micro nutrients through support of 

microbiota.

The laws required systems plan (audio 

interference) does not envision a dependency on 

synthetic substances.

Five, organic law requires complete 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

information and precaution. 

It does not allow for uncertainty and 

incomplete information on effects in arbitrary 

margins of safety.

So, please don't consider the 

biodegradable mulch annotation until the 

technology meets the standards in the law.

There are, however, important matters 

of concern that need immediate attention, 

including what you've already heard about the 

inert ingredients that are no longer supported by 

EPA, which NOSB has already passed a workable 

recommendation.

The NOP's recent enforcement proposal, 

while containing many important elements, has 

been proposed without complete NOSB consultation.

The critical principle here is that 

NOSB controls the public dialogue process, 

ensuring that the NOSB carries out its statutory 

-- or the NOP, I should say, carries out its 

statutory authority in NOP. 

It's both NOSB, but essentially NOSB, 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to advise the secretary of agriculture on organic 

law implementation.

Protect the NOSB's authority, let the 

secretary know there's been a violation here.

Thank you for your consideration of 

our comment.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Well-timed, Jay. 

Are there questions for Jay? Asa, go ahead.

MEMBER BRADMAN: Yeah, I just want to 

ask more about your comment about relative risk 

for biodegradable mulch.

You know, I assume that's relative to 

the current plastics that are used heavily in 

organic, and permitted, and for me, that is 

something to think about.

You know, I look at, you know, even 

very many small and -- or strawberry producers, 

for example, to me, it looks like they've 

actually just created basically containers out of 

the fields using plastic.

And the trade-off here is, you know, 

do we have a way of, you know, minimizing one 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

impact or another, and what's better? 

And, you know, I think that's 

important. 

If you look at the volume of plastic 

waste, it's just unbelievable. To me, at least.

And the organic sector is a 

significant contributor to it. 

And this biodegradable mulch, for me, 

it raises huge issues because it is 

petroleum-derived, and, you know, I'd like to see 

some other alternative.

But, you know, people seem to clamor 

for plastic, even on probably most pioneering and 

innovative organic growers.

And so, you know, I think we do have 

to think a little bit about relative risk here.

And I would be interested on your 

thoughts on that. 

I certainly will review all the 

written comments, but I think we're in a 

conundrum here.

MR. FELDMAN: Yeah. Well, I 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

appreciate what you're saying, Asa, and I agree 

with a lot of what you're saying.

The problem is when we constructed the 

Organic Foods Production Act, we specifically 

(audio interference) from this relative risk 

(audio interference) calculation.

And that came out of our experience, 

and your experience, actually, with 

implementation of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which has moved 

us through chemical families, thinking we were 

making progress along the way.

You know, we'd move from organic 

chlorines to organic phosphates to synthetic 

pyrethroids, and look at now, we got the 

neonicotinoids, which are causing indiscriminate 

contamination.

Every one of these steps were made 

based on relative risk calculations, and we've 

really jumped from the frying pan into the fire 

with indiscriminate contamination of the 

environment with the latest generation of 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

pesticides.

We never wanted to recreate that 

scenario and that approach to organic as a 

cutting-edge technology.

We wanted to incentivize, and we still 

do, and we are incentivizing alternative 

practices.

If we send out this message that 

plastic is the only solution without having these 

really, really disturbing questions not answered 

vis-a-vis manufacturing petroleum-based inputs, 

degradation in the soil, different conditions 

that contribute to degradation, impact on soil 

biota, we are jumping from the frying pan into 

the fire.

Our job as an environmental community, 

I believe, is to incentivize, to research 

progressive corporations that want to find a 

solution, not engage in a relative risk 

calculation.

MEMBER BRADMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: It looks like Dan 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

has a question.

MEMBER SEITZ: Actually, I wanted to 

ask basically the same question that Asa did, so 

I'm fine for now.

MR. FELDMAN: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: All right. Thank 

you, Jay. I appreciate your comments. We're 

going to move on --

MR. FELDMAN: Thank you all for your 

service, and we'll really miss the departing 

board members. 

It's a tremendous effort on your part, 

and the community's very thankful to you all.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: We appreciate those 

words, Jay. 

We're going to move on to Terry 

Shistar, and then Aimee Simpson, and after Aimee, 

Amalie Lipstreu.

Go ahead, Terry.

MS. SHISTAR: Okay. Am I heard?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: You are heard.

MS. SHISTAR: Okay. My name is Terry 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Shistar, and I'm on the board of directors of 

Beyond Pesticides.

Next slide, please.

Everywhere we look, we see signs of 

ecological collapse.

Wildfires, the insect apocalypse, 

crushing populations of marine organisms, 

organisms large and small entangled in plastic, 

more and more species at risk, rising global 

temperatures, horrific storms, and pandemics.

As our organization focuses on one of 

the most blatant examples of environmental abuse, 

the dispersal of toxic chemicals across the 

landscape, we see that organic can be a big part 

of the solution, but only if it doesn't (audio 

interference) its core values and practices.

(Audio interference) organic 

production has been supported as a holistic 

approach to protecting health and the environment 

with a deep conviction that food production could 

operate with nature, while remaining mindful of 

interrelationships with the natural world.
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Organic is not just an alternative for 

people seeking better food or a more profitable 

way of farming, but a path to preventing total 

ecological collapse.

We are not interested in what's less 

harmful. We urgently want to prevent ecological 

disaster.

Next slide, please.

According to the regulations, organic 

production responds to site-specific conditions 

by integrating biological, cultural, and 

mechanical practices that foster the cycling of 

resources, promoting ecological balance, and 

conserve biodiversity.

Meeting these goals essential to a 

sustainable future requires strong adherence to 

organic standards.

Next slide.

Do not allow virgin paper from wood in 

organic crop production aids.

The Crops Subcommittee proposes to 

allow planting aids, including paper pots, seed, 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

tape, and plant collars made from virgin paper.

Virgin paper, especially virgin paper 

from wood pulp, results in much greater 

environmental impacts than recycled paper, and 

does not foster the cycling of resources.

Next slide. Get plastic out of 

organic. 

Scientists are increasingly concerned 

about the impacts of microplastics, plastic 

fragments less than five millimeters in size.

Microplastics cause harmful effects 

through their physical impacts of entanglement 

and ingestion.

They also carry toxic chemicals on 

their surface.

Synthetic mulches should not replace 

natural mulches like hay, straw, and wood chips.

The annotation of bioplastic film 

should not loosen restrictions.

Next slide. Protect marine life.

We are concerned about the impacts of 

overharvesting and destructive harvesting of 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

seaweeds and fish byproducts used as (audio 

interference) inputs in organic crop production.

The requirements proposed by the 

Materials Subcommittee should be adopted by the 

NOSB, along with strong enforcement provisions.

The Crops Subcommittee proposal on 

fish products is too weak because it is 

unenforceable and allows the commercial use of 

(audio interference).

Only fish (audio interference) 

consumer (audio interference) should be allowed. 

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: It looks like Emily 

has a question for you.

MEMBER OAKLEY: Thank you for your 

comments, Terry. 

I'm wondering if you had thoughts on 

the comments from Doug at OMRI about the 

Materials Subcommittee putting forward something 

of a roadmap to assess the environmental impact 

of other natural or non-synthetic materials, 

especially just in overall keeping with the 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

comments that Beyond Pesticides presented, all of 

which were framed within the broader context of 

organic's impact and interaction with the 

environment?

So, I was wondering, yeah, if you had 

any thoughts on that suggestion for the Material 

Subcommittee?

MS. SHISTAR: I think it's a good 

suggestion. 

And it kind of reminds me of another 

topic that has fallen to the wayside, which is 

contaminated inputs.

So, yeah, I think it's a good idea, 

and I think it'd also be a good idea to take up 

the contaminated inputs topic again.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Any other questions 

from the board? 

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you, Terry. 

Much appreciated.

MS. SHISTAR: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: We are going to move 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on to Aimee Simpson, followed by Amalie Lipstreu, 

and then Harold Austin after.

Aimee, please go ahead and state your 

name and affiliation.

MS. SIMPSON: Hello. Can you hear me?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: We can. Go ahead.

MS. SIMPSON: Great. Hi, my name is 

Aimee Simpson. 

I'm the director of advocacy and 

product sustainability for PCC Community Markets, 

the largest grocery cooperative in the country. 

We're based in Seattle, Washington.

It's hard to believe that we have 

again had to forego the in-person meetings due to 

the ongoing threat of COVID-19, but here we are, 

and I want to thank the NOP and NOSB for their 

flexibility and efforts to ensure that this 

critical part of the organic framework continues.

What's even more difficult to believe 

is that in the midst of the pandemic that has 

highlighted the incredible resiliency of organic 

producers and the organic supply chain out west, 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

our producers and farm workers experienced yet 

another crisis in the form of catastrophic 

wildfires and nearly two weeks of choking, 

debilitating smoke.

It has added another layer of economic 

and emotional strain, and brought into stark 

relief the necessity to continue pressing forward 

on efforts to address climate change.

This is an area that organic has 

already uniquely situated to provide existing and 

workable solutions, yet we continue to struggle 

to see the organic program acknowledged as the 

ready to go agricultural framework with which to 

kick-start and build climate change policy.

Yes, there are gaps, and we continue 

to advocate for the NOSB and NOP to address those 

gaps and inconsistencies.

But the NOP and NOSB must work 

together to advocate for organic space in the 

climate solution table.

To achieve this, we support 

recommendations to add to the NOSB work plan and 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

agenda item focused on enforcement of soil 

building, cover cropping, crop rotation, and 

biodiversity practices required in the organic 

regulations.

As a part of this work, we also think 

the NOSB should identify and make recommendations 

to strengthen organic practices for climate 

mitigation, adaptation, and carbon sequestration.

The crisis facing our communities have 

also brought the need to continue to support our 

organic producers financially, and yet, we've 

seen little federal relief and unexpected cuts to 

cost share.

While we understand NOP and NOSB are 

not the arbiters of the cost share program, it is 

startling that congressionally-approved funding 

could be so drastically reduced at any point, but 

especially now.

We would urge the NOP and NOSB to work 

to find an immediate solution to the cost share 

gap, but also to identify ways in which the 

organic program can play a stronger role in 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

advocating for the financial support that our 

organic producers deserve.

Organic continues to matter to 

consumers, and beyond these broader goals and 

issues, we must uphold the integrity of the 

program and label through strong standards and 

continuous improvement. 

This is why we support many of the 

recommendations and initiatives of the NOSB, 

including the removal of several 606 items, 

addition of harvesting annotation of marine 

macroalgae, and consideration given to the fish 

oil production standards, from seaweed to wildcaught salmon, and crop inputs to fresh seafood.

We do, however, continue to encourage 

the NOP and NOSB to develop a comprehensive 

standard to address this important area of 

ecological impact.

We also encourage the NOSB to hold a 

strong line on the addition of exceptions to 

organic rule, such as fenbendazole.

While we understand there sometimes 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

can be a reason for these exceptions, there 

should be an urgent and documented need for 

making these exceptions.

As a retailer of many brands of 

pasture raised and free range organic eggs, 

including an average of 18,000 from much of our 

own private label eggs, worms have not been an 

issue warranting this exception.

Thank you for your time.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you very much. 

It looks like Emily has a question.

MEMBER OAKLEY: Thank you so much for 

your comments, both written and oral. 

I also just wanted to echo that I 

believe the Material Subcommittee would also like 

to work more holistically on marine materials, 

macroalgae and fish.

It is a challenging topic to break 

down individually, and we have found that because 

each use is so unique, and because the 

stakeholder groups representing each of those 

uses are also unique, it has been easier to 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

address it on sort of a first step case-by-case 

basis, but with the overarching goal of looking 

over the next several years at the broader impact 

of each of these materials across subcommittees.

So, I just wanted to clarify or 

explain that we share those concerns that you and 

others have expressed, but are taking it sort of 

bite-sized pieces as we can, at a time.

But thank you for those comments.

MS. SIMPSON: Thank you, Emily. And 

yeah, we do, more than most, appreciate the 

complexity of this. 

We've done a lot of work on kind of 

aquatic impacts, and set our own standards on 

this, so we really do understand that, and we 

appreciate that you're trying to do something at 

this step, and, you know, are supportive of many 

of the recommendations that you made.

As that interim, we just would also 

encourage, you know, the program to keep moving 

forward on that comprehensive standard.

Thank you. 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER OAKLEY: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: It looks like Wood 

has a question. Go ahead, Wood.

MEMBER TURNER: Thanks, Steve. Aimee, 

I really appreciate your comments, and I just 

wanted to continue on Emily's point there.

I mean, as you certainly have 

identified, it's a huge amount of work that's 

gone on by the subcommittee, and really, I just 

want to say publicly that this, the leadership 

that Emily's shown on this, it's really helped 

our group as a whole really kind of understand 

this more fully, and try to do something.

I think it's directionally 

appropriate, and leadership oriented is really a 

big deal.

But I'd love to have you just spend a 

brief minute just talking about -- if you 

wouldn't mind sharing a couple of your thoughts 

on some of the ways that the annotation as 

proposed could be a little bit more comprehensive 

to your point?
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I can only imagine what it must be. 

It probably reflects some of my own concerns, but 

I'd love to hear you just --

MS. SIMPSON: Yeah, no, and I mean, as 

you know, you have several different kind of 

annotations going on, but I assume you're talking 

about the macroalgae.

And I think on the whole, that that

was a really good starting point as far as an 

interim.

You know, I do think that, as someone 

else raised earlier in their comments -- but, you 

know, there are some complexities to that that 

really do beg having details laid out on, you 

know, how to harvest, and yes, there are 

individual needs for different products.

But as a whole, the aquatic 

environment is just really struggling on so many 

levels.

And so, I think that, at least in the 

research we've been doing, kind of looking at, 

like with our Chinook sourcing standards and all 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of that, that you do really have to go down to 

each level and kind of look at them holistically, 

and tie those together.

So I think that with the annotations, 

what I saw right now with macroalgae was a great 

starting point.

I think on the fish oil, I was a 

little concerned about the bycatch inclusion 

because just depending on the fishery that you're 

looking at, you can have, you know, some very 

highly managed and regulated fisheries that are 

very good at minimizing bycatch and monitoring 

that, and other areas that are less monitored.

You can kind of be incentivizing 

bycatch by allowing that in the inclusion on fish 

oil. 

And I realize they're two separate, 

but again, they're all related, and I think 

that's where we've also come from, is that, you 

know, whether you're selling fish or seafood, or 

this is a crop input, it's all coming from the 

same place, and it's all interconnected.
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, these kind of initial steps I 

think were good ones, but it shouldn't be the end 

of what you're trying to do, which is bringing 

all of those together, and having a comprehensive 

organic, you know, aquatic standard.

MEMBER TURNER: Thanks, Aimee. That's 

--

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Any other -- all 

right, I just have one quick question, Aimee. 

We don't have lots of time, but I 

mean, in terms of addressing climate change, 

obviously that's a huge topic that might equal or 

exceed the marine materials.

MS. SIMPSON: Yeah.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: How would you 

quickly propose that we start taking a cut at 

that?

MS. SIMPSON: Well, I think the best 

place to start is -- you know, what we've seen in 

trying to work on at like a state-level 

legislation, and what we're also seeing kind of 

at the federal level is, what we run into is that 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a lot of people don't recognize that what organic 

has in its standards already is what they're 

trying to implement, and they're almost kind of 

trying to recreate the wheel, and they don't want 

to say organic for some reason.

So, I think that the work, you know, 

initially, is to really dig into the standards 

that are existing, and the regulations that 

already are emphasizing these concepts that 

people are now trying to redesign into new 

legislation, and say no, this is already here, 

and really identifying and kind of having an 

outline and recommendation that says here are the 

elements that are, you know, related to climate 

change that are in the existing standards, and 

really emphasizing that those are part of the 

organic practices, and having that kind of 

roadmap laid out by the NOSB evaluation and the 

NOP.

And then, also trying to maybe look at 

what we have existing through kind of the new 

lenses that are being applied as far as carbon, 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you know, sequestration.

Is there? I know that's a big lift. 

That's really complex too, and I 

totally hear you that that's a challenge, but can 

we also start to see how this would integrate 

with -- you know, and whatever side you're on, 

carbon markets that are really on the horizon, 

you know, how can we set organic up and the 

existing regulations to feed into that so that we 

don't have to recreate this wheel?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Great. That helps. 

Thank you for your comments. We're going to 

move on. 

MS. SIMPSON: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Next up is Amalie 

Lipstreu, then Harold Austin, and followed by 

Kiki Hubbard.

So Amalie, please go ahead and state 

your name and affiliation.

MS. LIPSTREU: Can you hear me okay?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: We can. Go ahead.

MS. LIPSTREU: Great, thank you. Good 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

afternoon, I'm Amalie Lipstreu, the policy 

director for the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm 

Association.

Thank you for the opportunity to share 

our thoughts in this virtual format.

We really appreciate the work of Jenny 

Tucker, Michelle Arsenault, and all of the NOP 

staff in keeping this meeting accessible to the 

stakeholders.

The topic of accessibility.

Let me just reiterate the repeated 

requests of our OEFFA farmers, that you adjust 

upcoming meeting dates by a couple of weeks each 

year to ensure that farmers of different types 

and locations can participate.

The focus of my comments is the NOSB 

work agenda in the role of organic agriculture in 

climate change.

We ask the board to request an update 

from the program on all previous recommendations 

that have met the criteria for advancement, but 

have not moved forward.
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It's important for all organic 

stakeholders to understand why items with 

overwhelming support from the organic community 

are not being acted upon.

Secondly, in your role advising the 

program, please pay close attention to its peer 

review audits.

This is a crucial way to assess the 

health of the program and inform the work agenda.

Finally, in your research priority 

recommendations to the USDA, please emphasize 

that the department advance research into the 

role of certified organic agriculture and 

addressing climate change.

As you know, the organic standards 

require the implementation of soil fertility and 

crop nutrient management practices that maintain 

for improved soil health, things like crop 

rotations, cover cropping, and the application of 

plant mulches and animal manures.

The adoption of these practices by 

conventional farmers is widely celebrated, as it 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

should be.

However, research indicates that 

integrated systems of practices based on sound 

agroecological principle, such as organic 

agriculture, have the greatest potential to 

mitigate agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, 

the (audio interference) stabilize soil organic 

carbon, and attain the full measure of a system 

that builds long-term resilience, and provides 

market recognition of those practices.

And yet, when climate change is 

discussed, organic agriculture is rarely 

mentioned.

The research and field data are 

conclusive enough to warrant USDA making 

significant investments and educational outreach 

to promote the value of organic management 

systems as a way forward in dealing with this 

impending crisis.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you. Are 

there any questions?
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: I'm not seeing any. 

I do appreciate your comments. 

We are going to move on to Harold 

Austin, followed by Kiki Hubbard, and then Brian 

Ward.

Harold, go ahead.

MR. AUSTIN: Can you hear me okay?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: I can.

MR. AUSTIN: All right. Good morning 

everyone. My name's Harold Austin. 

I'm a former member of the NOSB, and 

I'm the current chair of the Northwest 

Horticultural Council's Organic Subcommittee.

First, I'd like to thank each of the 

members of the NOSB and the NOP for your hard 

work and service to our organic community as a 

whole.

And to those members that are about to 

sunset off the board, I want to offer you a 

special heartfelt thank you for your service done 

and for the community over the past five years. 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Enjoy your next five.

A couple key topics I'd like to 

provide oral comments on today, one, in the Crop 

Subcommittee, the list for inerts.

I cannot emphasize enough how 

important it is that you do not delist this 

critically important material listing from the 

National List.

As Jenny stated earlier, there is a 

proper procedure that needs to be followed.

The proper approach would have been to 

have moved forward with a separate proposal 

showing your intended path, and if that had 

passed when voted upon, then move forward with 

your motion to delist the list for inerts.

That would avoid any unintentional 

impact on the organic stakeholders reliant on 

this listing.

You didn't do that. 

If this listing is delisted, it would 

make almost all of the passive pheromone 

dispensers and the materials used in them 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

unavailable for organic crop production.

The three major manufacturers of these 

materials have already stated to the Northwest 

Board Council that they would not be able to be 

ready for this listing to be delisted at this 

time.

We would essentially lose between 50 

to 90 percent of organic tree fruit production 

across the U.S.

Now, having said that, I would urge 

the full board to move forward with a vote on a 

resolution, and this is an allowed process.

Stating for the public record that the 

NOSB is resolved in working with the NOP to adopt 

and implement the NOSB 2015 recommendation that 

was passed, and has yet to be acted upon.

I would also suggest that the Inerts 

Working Group be reconvened with new members of 

the EPA, the NOP, and the NOSB working together.

Finally, on that topic, both Emily 

Brown Rosen and Zea Sonnabend have offered their 

assistance. Take it.
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Materials Subcommittee, the proposal 

on marine microalgae. I simply cannot support it 

as it's currently written. 

I feel that this would create a lot of 

chaos that's not necessary in the organic 

industry as it's written right now, because it's 

written like nothing we've ever seen before.

I think it still needs to move 

forward. I think we need to bring it back to the 

subcommittee for discussion and further review.

Furthermore, the additional listing 

under 602 is fundamentally not necessary. It 

sets a very dangerous precedent for future 

reviews and listings.

This is an extreme overreach (audio 

interference) should be removed.

I do not support the Sanitizer Panel 

taking place outside of the normal two (audio 

interference). Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you, Harold. 

Are there questions from the board?

(No audible response.)
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRPERSON ELA: I am not seeing any. 

Thank you, Harold, for your comments. 

We appreciate you continuing to give 

us your thoughts even after you are, quote 

unquote, sunsetted from the board.

MR. AUSTIN: Thanks. 

CHAIRPERSON ELA: We're going to move 

on to Kiki Hubbard, followed by Brian Ward, and 

then Douglas Deveaux.

Go ahead, Kiki. You're on.

MS. HUBBARD: Hi everyone. This is 

Kiki Hubbard. I'm the director of advocacy and 

communications for Organic Seed Alliance.

We are a mission-driven organization 

that works nationally to ensure that organic 

farmers have the seed they need to be successful.

I want to thank the NOP for making 

this fall meeting happen virtually once again 

given the challenging circumstances, and I'm 

hoping that everyone's staying well.

My comments that follow underscore the 

importance of keeping seed and plant breeding 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

issues at the forefront of the NOSB's work plan, 

as well as the NOP's priorities for 

implementation.

I'm going to briefly touch on two 

areas.

First off, OSA hopes to see the topic 

of excluded methods back on the agenda at the 

next NOSB meeting.

We know that web-based crop 

improvement methods have evolved rapidly, they 

continue to evolve rapidly, and have effectively 

outpaced regulations that oversee new forms of 

ag-bio technology.

Understanding and addressing new 

breeding techniques that may or may not align 

with organic standards is important in the 

context of excluded methods.

And this work is, of course, also 

important to providing clarity to a number of 

organic stakeholders, including farmers, seed 

growers, plant breeders, seed companies, as well 

as certifiers.
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The good work that's already been 

accomplished by past NOSB members includes 

passing a decision-making framework in 2016 for 

evaluating whether a method should be excluded or 

not, and two, passing a number of proposals since 

then that update this framework with decisions 

that are associated with about a dozen methods. 

There is still a need to make 

decisions on a handful of methods labeled as to 

be determined.

We are eager to see this framework 

evolve to our completeness, and we're looking 

forward to future opportunities to work with the 

subcommittee to ensure a strong decision-making 

process for excluded methods.

As an immediate next step, we 

encourage the NOP to adopt the recommendations 

that have passed to date, and again, to ensure 

that this topic is on the next NOSB agenda.

Lastly, we hope to see the organic 

seed requirements strengthen following the 

passage of two important proposals at past NOSB 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

meetings.

These proposals include an update to 

the organic seed regulation, as well as updates 

to the seed and planting stock guidance document.

Both of these proposals unanimously 

passed at the fall 2018 and spring 2019 meetings 

respectively, and they're now before the NOP, and 

we encourage their swift implementation to 

provide more clarity and consistent enforcement 

of the organic seed requirement.

As the organic industry and broader 

community works to increase the availability and 

diversity of organic seed, we believe strongly 

that policy must follow suit to ensure increased 

adoption in a measurable and reasonable way.

Please let us know how we can be of 

service to you moving forward, and I just want to 

thank you for your time and efforts.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you very much. 

Are there any questions from the board?

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you. We're 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

going to move on. Next is Brian Ward, then 

followed by Douglas Deveaux, and John Martin.

Michelle, you said you didn't see 

Brian on the list?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yeah, I'm not seeing 

his name, or area code on the list, but he may be 

out there.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Brian, if you're 

out, could you let us know?

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: I am not hearing 

from him, so we will jump over. 

If there's a technological issue, 

Brian, please let us know and we'll come back to 

you.

So, next up is Douglas Deveaux, John 

Martin, followed by Allen Philo.

Douglas, please go ahead and state 

your name and affiliation.

MS. ARSENAULT: I'm also not seeing 

Doug, Steve.

(Simultaneous speaking.)
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Okay, yep, you told 

me that.

MS. ARSENAULT: Yeah.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: What about John 

Martin?

MS. ARSENAULT: John's out there. I 

saw his name on the lists.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Okay, John, we're 

going to put you up, followed by Allen Philo and 

then Daniel Hazen.

And I think we were going to have a 

break scheduled after Allen, but I think we'll 

continue for a little bit longer here until about 

half past the hour.

So, go ahead, John.

MR. MARTIN: Hello, I'm John Martin, 

president of BioStar Organics, LLC. 

BioStar's a producer of two of the 

products specifically named in the petition, 

SuperSix liquid organic fertilizer.

I think it's important to note that in 

nature, ammonia and ammonium are naturally 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

occurring forms of nitrogen that are produced as 

organic material decomposes.

This process is part of the 

decomposition of all organic materials, including 

those organic materials that are in or applied to 

soils.

BioStar's an organic waste to energy 

and organic fertilizer company that was formed in 

2009 with the mission of processing organic waste 

to produce renewable energy and organic 

fertilizer, while at the same time helping to 

eliminate environmental pollution and curb global 

climate change.

When organic waste is stored in 

environments that contain no oxygen, such as 

landfills and manure storage lagoons, the natural 

decomposition of the organic material produces 

methane, greenhouse gases. 

It's 21 times more harmful to the 

environment than carbon dioxide, and also ammonia 

and ammonium.

BioStar collects organic waste, and 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

utilizing its technology, isolates the organic 

material and anaerobic digesters poured (audio 

interference) in the organic material is combined 

with water at a rate of eight to ten percent 

solids, and then, in an oxygen-free environment,

is heated and mixed for 20 to 30 days.

During that time period, the organic 

material decomposes and methane gas is produced, 

which is then repurposed for use as renewable 

natural gas.

Also, during the digestion process, 

ammonia and ammonium are produced.

After digestion and removal of the 

methane gas, the remaining material, which is 

called effluent, and contains both macro and 

micro nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, 

potassium, carbon, and sulfur, is cleaned for 

disposal.

BioStar's technology filters and 

removes all the suspended solids (audio 

interference) effluent.

The nutrient-rich material is utilized 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in composting, thereby adding needed nutrients to 

a composting operation.

The remaining liquid only contains 

dissolved solids, including nitrogen, ammonium, 

and potassium.

At this point, the BioStar technology 

removes water in order to concentrate those 

remaining nutrients.

During the process, there is no 

extraction of nitrogen or ammonium. 

The water removed process of reverse 

osmosis membrane, where a clean water is 

produced.

Our development of this fertilizer and 

technology goes back over a decade now to 2009.

We first received an OMRI certificate 

on this project in 2012, with commercial scale 

production beginning in 2017.

During that time, on multiple 

occasions, our manufacturing processes and 

facilities have been inspected by OMRI, CBFA, and 

WSPA.
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We have welcomed this level of 

scrutiny, as no one in the industry is more 

concerned about the integrity of our products 

than us, their manufacturers.

During the past decade, we have worked 

with these MROs and have shown (audio 

interference) process (audio interference) 

considered synthetic. 

NOP synthetic versus non-synthetic 

(audio interference).

CHAIRPERSON ELA: All right, thank 

you. Are there questions from the board?

SECRETARY BUIE: I have one question.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: So, yes, go ahead. 

It's --

SECRETARY BUIE: Yeah. This is Jesse. 

Oh, one of the other stakeholders mentioned the 

concern about fraud in this production process.

Can you comment on that? Are you 

aware of that?

MR. MARTIN: Yes, sir. In fact, we 

addressed that last year in an investigation by 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

OMRI.

I guess sometime in the past, there 

was some fraudulent use of synthetic nitrogen in 

some organic fertilizers in the state of 

California, and there was some concern that we 

couldn't tell the difference between synthetic 

and non-synthetic ammonia.

The fact is, it's a very simple test 

that is performed. 

The test costs about $10, and there's 

an N isotope test that can differentiate between 

(audio interference) synthetic. 

That's the process that we have 

instituted, and (audio interference) more about 

that from our other speakers.

SECRETARY BUIE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: I have a question, 

as well. And I'm just trying to figure out how 

to word it. 

Well, we have had some issues in the 

past with anaerobic digestion, looking at some of 

the materials coming out of those, of whether 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

there were any prohibited methods used in terms 

of what helped create that digestion, as well as 

all the input going to the digester.

Could you speak to that a little bit?

MR. MARTIN: Sure. So, in our process 

-- and obviously, we've been inspected multiple 

times since 2012 when we first had our product 

listed.

In the ingredient list, it states 

specifically what we use as ingredients, and it's 

all organic material.

Manures from either chickens, hogs, 

cows, turkeys, or food waste that's pre- (audio 

interference).

It's pre-consumer food waste. Nothing 

that would be taken from a garbage bag. 

And so, that material is tested each 

day before it's inserted into the process of 

digestion.

We have what's called a substrate 

receiving tank, wherein we unload all the 

material on a daily basis, test it to make sure 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

there's nothing in it that would -- two specific 

things that we're concerned about, we're 

concerned about something in it that would be

harmful to the bacteria in the digester itself, 

and number two, something that would be 

considered non-organic.

So, we have safeguards in place to 

ensure that the material that we are digesting is 

in fact organic material.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Okay. Thank you. 

Any other questions?

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: All right, we are 

going to move on to Allen Philo. 

After that, we have Daniel Hazen, and 

then Tina Jensen Augustine.

We will probably take a break at half 

past the hour, so we'll see how far we get here.

So Allen, please go ahead and state 

your name and affiliation.

MR. PHILO: My name is Allen Philo. I 

am the vice president of business development for 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

BioStar Organics.

I've been involved in organic 

agriculture for over a decade, first working at 

Gardens of Eagan in Minnesota with Linda Halley 

producing organic vegetables, then at Midwestern 

BioAg with Gary Zimmer, where I designed their 

organic fertility program for vegetable producers 

and worked with producers on improving their 

fertility and production methods.

For the past four years, I have worked 

for BioStar Organics.

During this time, I have been asked to 

speak on vegetable fertility and soil health at 

organic farming conferences, including MOSES in 

both 2015 and 2017, and at OEFFA in 2018.

I also hold a bachelor's degree in 

soil science from the University of Wisconsin, 

Madison, granted in 2016.

I would like to briefly address for 

you today some aspects of our product, which is 

under question due to the petition regarding 

ammonia extracts, regarding both its production 
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

process and its physical characteristics, in 

order to help you better understand how this 

product complies with both the tenets and the 

spirit of the National Organic Program.

In particular, I would first like to 

address a question from the discussion document 

about the difficulty in distinguishing the 

products presently being produced from 

synthetically-manufactured nitrogen.

Our products are easy to distinguish 

in color, odor, and chemical composition.

These characteristics are a result of 

SuperSix being a concentrate and not an 

extraction.

To explain this, I am going to ask two 

questions that you can answer silently about the 

relationship of our product to the parent 

materials it is derived from, namely manure and 

other organic substrates.

First, let me pause (audio 

interference) it. 

If we are applying manure or compost 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to a field, which for most farmers, is the base 

of their organic fertility program, the first 

question is, if I were to separate the liquid and 

solid portion of manure or compost, does that 

change the manure or the compost to a form 

violating the NOP guidelines?

The second question is, if I were to 

remove water from the liquid portion of the 

manure or compost, would that change the manure 

or the compost to a form violating the NOP 

guidelines?

The answer to both of these questions 

is no. 

This is, in essence, our production 

method. 

It is a method which separates the 

liquid and solid portions of the organic 

substrates, and then removes water.

The product we end up with has the 

same ratios of primary, secondary, and trace 

elements present in them, as in the liquid 

portion of the starting materials.
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This includes a high level of carbons

in the form of humic and fulvic acids to the 

point where our products contain three times more 

carbon than they do nitrogen.

This resulting product is gentle in 

the soil environment, and especially when used as 

part of an organic program, can actually foster 

and even increase biological activity in the soil 

system.

A detailed explanation of this is in 

our written comments.

Again, these same characteristics that 

make the product gentle on soils also make the 

product easy to distinguish from synthetic forms 

of nitrogen.

This, together with the tracking 

program that Dan Hazen will describe, ensures 

that fraud is of small concern with our products 

in particular.

We cannot speak about other 

manufacturing techniques, however, that may 

produce other products more similar to synthetic 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

forms by utilizing stripping technologies.

We thank you for the opportunity to 

provide comments on this petition, and I'm happy 

to answer any questions you have regarding our 

comments and products in the future.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Are there questions 

from the board?

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you. I'm not 

seeing any questions, so we will move on to 

Daniel Hazen. 

After Daniel, we have Tina Jensen 

Augustine, and then Jennifer Taylor.

I am guessing we'll take a break after 

Tina's comments. So go ahead, Daniel.

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Daniel, we're not 

hearing you. You may be on mute.

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Still not hearing 

you.
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ARSENAULT: I just --

MR. HAZEN: How about now?

MS. ARSENAULT: There we go.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: That's better, yep. 

Go ahead, Daniel.

MR. HAZEN: Good to go? Okay, thank 

you. 

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Yes, state your name 

and affiliation.

MR. HAZEN: Greetings. Thank you for 

the opportunity to address the two organics 

ammonia petition.

My name is Dan Hazen and I'm president 

of Perfect Blend Organics. 

We're the largest manufacturer of 

organic fertilizer here in Washington state, and 

have been producing innovative products since 

2001.

The petition technology has been 

registered since 2012, and it follows the NOP 

production tree on the non-synthetic side. 

It's 100 percent organic, utilizing 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the same ammoniacal nitrogen (audio 

interference) that is in our dried chicken litter 

products.

The product produced is a carbon-based 

liquid, and is not harmful to the soil. It was 

developed with BioStar. 

It's a manure liquid concentration 

method. 

We believe this method is a solution 

to the huge environmental manure issues facing 

our industry today.

The product has been shipped across 

the U.S. and to more than a dozen states for the 

past three years, and we've experienced zero 

cases of potential fraud.

I agree, fraud in organic should be of 

concern for all of us, but I also believe the NOP 

should be commended for the checks and balances 

they've implemented to protect the industry, 

specifically NOP 5012 that governs the approval 

of liquid fertilizers combined with inspections 

of both manufacturing facilities and regular 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

(audio interference) on farm certifications.

We have been inspected eight times in 

the past 24 months for scheduled, for 

unannounced, and have passed all eight. We have 

competent inspectors. 

Also, UC Davis Isotope Lab has a 

simple and cost-effective test that costs $11 and 

easily verifies the liquid as an organic.

Perfect Blend established a 

verification program with (audio interference) 

CDFA. 

All production has a specific log, lot 

numbers, and inventoried samples. 

If a certifier pulled a sample from 

the field and the isotope analysis appears to 

have a synthetic component, the certifying agency 

will request a sample from us, receive it with 

that specific lot number to compare the test.

This process is no different than 

monitoring any other liquid product currently in 

the marketplace. It works.

We believe in integrity of the organic 
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

community, and our ability to police together.

BioStar and Perfect Blend, we have 

been open honest partners, and have worked with 

OMRI and the CDFA in full transparency.

Question for the committee. 

Did True inform this committee that 

from 2012 to 2017 they had a five year exclusive 

marketing agreement with BioStar for the same 

ammonia product that did not get produced on a 

commercial scale?

Is this a disingenuous attempt by True 

to eliminate competition and potentially 

represent an improper use of the NOSB?

The petition received 40 comments. 

Nine were in support, 31 requested the petition 

be denied, and the product remain listed.

We respectfully ask the petition be 

rejected. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Are there questions 

from the board?

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: I have a question. 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

In terms of the bacteria that are used in the 

digestion, are those naturally occurring 

bacteria, or are they engineered?

MR. HAZEN: In our particular process, 

there's no bacteria interjected into the system 

at all.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: So, there's bacteria 

that's already occurring in the manures and 

product (audio interference)?

(Simultaneous speaking.) 

MR. HAZEN: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: And is that true of 

BioStar, as well?

MR. HAZEN: Well, BioStar has 

different types of processes. 

Our process is slightly different in 

that our product is a manure-based product, 

whereas in some cases, theirs is a digestion 

process.

So, you'd have to ask that of John 

Martin, who might still be on.

PARTICIPANT: So, John is still on. 
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Yeah, I should've 

asked him.

PARTICIPANT: John's on, but I --

CHAIRPERSON ELA: We're --

PARTICIPANT: I can answer that.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: So John, sorry. I 

know, I should've asked that when you were there. 

Well, if you could submit that to us, 

and like submit it to Michelle, that would be 

greatly appreciated, but we can't really go back.

So, but yeah, if you could submit the 

answer to that question to Michelle, that would 

be wonderful.

I have a question from Mindee.

MR. HAZEN: Hi, Mindee.

MEMBER JEFFERY: Hi, thank you. 

I just really appreciate the level of 

detail that you're giving in your comments about 

the process of this particular material, and I 

also just want to appreciate the work that goes 

on in California, having sat on the California 

Organic Products Advisory Committee for five 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

years.

I really appreciate the CDFA, and the 

issues that are raised inside of organic 

integrity (audio interference), and just note 

that I appreciate the attention towards democracy 

in this petition in that I want to hear all of 

this information as we work through what's best 

for organic from the entire community's 

perspective, and forming consensus is really 

important to me.

So, thank you for all the information.

MR. HAZEN: Yeah. And I appreciate 

the comment, and being, as I said, in the 

industry since 2001, and creating innovative 

products, one of the concerns that I would have 

is that, you know, American agriculture -- and 

it's been my entire life -- I'm just so proud of 

the innovation that we have in this country, and 

to be in a situation to whereby, what, 2050, we 

got to feed 10,000,000,000 people? 

It's not going to be about opening 

more arable land, it's going to be about 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

producing a more nutrient dense food production.

And this product does exactly that, 

and it also eliminates potentially the huge 

manure issue that we have across this country.

MEMBER JEFFERY: Yeah, that's a really 

important highlight. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: It looks like Emily 

has a question.

MEMBER OAKLEY: I think he sort of 

addressed it. 

I wanted him to elaborate more on how 

he sees this as a solution to manure issues 

across the industry?

MR. HAZEN: Yeah, I can maybe (audio 

interference) a little bit on that. 

When you look at the issues in our 

waterways, you know, of the phosphate issues, 

this product basically has no phosphates. 

We can basically remove the phosphates 

through the use of ultrafilters, and think about 

how that would advance Ag, and how that would 

clean up our environment.
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I think the more important thing is is 

when you start to hear folks -- and I would 

challenge the committee on this -- there's a lot 

of opinions about whether or not ammonia is good 

for the soil or bad for the soil. 

This is a carbon-based product. 

It's not something that you see on the 

commercial or conventional side to where there's 

no carbon components at all.

So, it actually is very helpful. I 

would really point to -- I think the speaker is 

74, 75 slot. 

His name's Dr. Jerry Hatfield. 

Jerry's a soil health expert. 

He's been with the Soil Tilth Lab, the 

USDA for 34 plus years as laboratory director. 

He's researched products like this. He fully 

understands the soil.

So, I would encourage the committee to 

reach out to an individual like that to really 

get a clear, full understanding of how ammonia 

does work in the soil.
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I'm not an agronomist, okay, but 

certainly we go to folks like him to make sure 

that whatever we're doing does have a sustainable 

component.

And again, we've been in this thing 

for 19 years, and we like to think that we're one 

of the leaders from an innovative perspective.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Dave, it looks like 

you have a question.

MEMBER MORTENSEN: Yes. Thank you, 

Daniel. 

Did I understand correctly, one of 

your colleagues indicated that it's a carbonbased source of nitrogen -- and those are words 

you used as well a couple of times.

And if I understood correctly, the 

carbon and nitrogen ratio is three to one. Was 

that accurate? 

MR. HAZEN: It'll vary. It can be at 

times up to five to one. 

Understand what we're starting with is 

the particulate, it's coming through the 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

airstream that's basically introduced into water.

It's like a washing machine. 

It can recirculate 100 gallons a 

minute, and we're introducing fresh water while 

pulling the concentrated wash water from the 

vessel and that remaining particulates, and we 

filter it through the use of the centrifuge, and 

then we evaporate it off concentrated up to six 

percent. 

But yes, it does have a carbon 

component, and that goes back to the whole 

testing side of it, that this product is easily 

tested to be considered, you know, like the 

difference between a conventional ammoniacal 

nitrogen and an organic ammoniacal nitrogen.

MEMBER MORTENSEN: Yeah. 

And I guess I would say that one of 

the concerns the subcommittee had is we're 

looking at a system where we're considering other 

sources of nitrogen, as well.

And so, just for example, like pea 

straw, or winter rye, or alfalfa, or any number 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of cover crops that would be widely used in part 

of an organic production systems plan.

The carbon and nitrogen ratios of 

those things in contrast ammonia extracts, which 

were three to one, are more in the ballpark of 30 

to 40 to 50 to one carbon to nitrogen.

And so -- 

MR. HAZEN: So ---

MEMBER MORTENSEN: Maybe just to 

finish, you know, from the point of view of soil 

health, and, you know, recycling and creating and 

capturing nitrogen through the systems plan, we 

continue to have concern about -- while you refer 

to it as carbon-based, it's a highly concentrated 

form of liquid nitrogen that's being applied in 

this case.

MR. HAZEN: So, to answer your 

question, if I may, I think one of the things 

sometimes folks don't do is give our organic 

growers enough credit. They're very diverse. 

So, in this particular case, we have 

growers who actually take only 25 percent of this 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

type of a product. 

They blend it in with an amino acid, 

okay, which is much, much higher on a carbon to 

nitrogen ratio.

And so, they're basically applying a 

75 percent amino acid along with a 25 percent 

mixture of this particular product.

But this product is basically just one 

more tool that we're putting in the growers' 

toolbox to help them grow a crop to its full 

genetic potential.

I think that a lot of times where 

people would become concerned is, okay, they're 

going to go 100 percent with this particular type 

of product.

The organic growers are very, very 

sophisticated. They're not going to do something 

like that.

In fact, we have folks to where they 

might use so many gallons per acre, and then they 

open up their beds in the fall, and they're 

throwing down a ton per acre of a granular 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

fertilizer that we produced.

And so, they all take a very, very 

holistic approach.

And again, this is just one more tool 

in the growers' toolbox. We're just a small cog 

in a very, very big wheel.

MEMBER MORTENSEN: Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Rick has a question. 

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Go ahead, Rick. If 

you are going ahead, you're on mute.

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Ah, we're still not 

hearing you, Rick.

MEMBER GREENWOOD: How's that?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: There you are.

MEMBER GREENWOOD: Okay, great. Yeah, 

I just had a question. You had mentioned in your 

process that you add fresh water to your system.

What happens to the liquid? I assume 

eventually it goes somewhere? 

I'm just interested in how you handle 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

wastewater, if that's part of the process, and 

where that goes, in terms of environmental --

MR. HAZEN: So, there's literally not 

a single ounce of wastewater, so imagine it kind 

of being a machine that's removing particulate, 

okay?

And then for that particulate, the 

ammonia exists as well, and then it goes into a 

centrifuge, and the centrifuge then removes the 

balance of the particulate.

And at that point in time, it goes 

through an evaporator, and it's a vacuum 

evaporator.

That way, it doesn't off-gas the 

ammonia component of the liquid product. 

And then on the backside as it's being 

boiled off, you have a condensate. Okay? 

And that condensate is basically fresh 

water, and so that condensate, that's the portion 

that goes back into the -- we'll call it the 

particulate remover piece of equipment.

And so, it's just a full system.
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

When you go and you look at -- and 

John, maybe he can answer this or provide this 

data -- but when you go and you start to look to 

look at a product being removed, and, you know, 

whether it be hog lagoons, or other dairy 

digester, manure digesters, they basically will 

produce -- and I forget how many gallons of the 

SuperSix -- but the reality of it is is that 

they're removing all of the phosphates, and then 

they're returning hundreds of thousands of 

gallons of fresh water that is of drinking 

quality that can be either discharged back into 

the dairy or back into the streams.

And they have the permits to 

demonstrate that.

So, it truly is a solution to, again, 

the problems that our organic dairy industry is 

facing, and literally just a manure issue --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MEMBER GREENWOOD: Okay, no, yeah. 

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: All right. Thank 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you very much, Daniel. I think we --

MR. HAZEN: Thank you so much for your 

time.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Yep. I think we're 

going to take a ten minute break now. 

We'll come back at 46 minutes after 

the hour, and we'll head on to the next set of 

speakers. 

Just so you know, when we come back, 

Tina Jensen Augustine will be up, followed by 

Jennifer Taylor, and then Dave Carter.

So, take a ten minute break, and then 

we'll be right back. Thank you, everybody.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 1:38 p.m. and resumed at 

1:48 p.m.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Hello everybody. 

We're going to get restarted here again after our 

break. 

So, Michelle, do you have anything to 

add before we get started again?

MS. ARSENAULT: Nope, I think we're 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

all set. Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Okay. We're going 

to start off with Tina Jensen Augustine, followed 

by Jennifer Taylor, and then Dave Carter.

Tina, are you on the line? And if so, 

state your name and affiliation, and you can 

start with your comment.

MS. JENSEN AUGUSTINE: Okay, thank 

you. 

My name is Tina Jensen Augustine, and 

I'm with the Organic Materials Review Institute, 

or OMRI.

OMRI's an accredited, third-party 

material review organization.

I'd like to comment today on the Crops 

Subcommittee's proposal on paper planting aids, 

and I'd also like to thank the subcommittee for 

their work on this issue.

Paper planting aids are an important 

tool for producers, and potentially very tricky 

for material reviewers.

OMRI generally supports the proposed 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

definition and annotation for paper planting 

aids, but we request some clarifications and 

revisions, which are detailed in OMRI's written 

comments.

Specifically, OMRI has questions about 

the definition requiring qualified personnel from 

a third-party to verify the 80 percent bio-based 

content, either by laboratory testing or 

composition review.

The procedural aspects built into this 

part of the definition are not totally clear who 

is a qualified third-party reviewer, and what are 

the criteria for composition review?

These pieces also don't really belong 

in the definition.

The focus should be on the 80 percent 

bio-based content.

Currently, the USDA runs the 

BioPreferred program, which assesses the biobased content of products using the same test 

methods identified in the proposed definition.

OMRI supports requiring testing as a 
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

clear way of determining bio-based content, and 

does not see the need to specify qualified thirdparty review in the definition, as this standard 

applies to all the (audio interference) material 

review.

OMRI also sees an opportunity to 

improve upon the proposed definition. 

The other ingredients besides the 

cellulose-based paper in these products have been 

a concern to organic stakeholders.

A requirement for 80 percent bio-based 

content addresses those concerns to some extent.

However, 20 percent of these products' 

composition is open to non-cellulose, non-biobased components.

OMRI suggests that limiting noncellulose-based additives to strengtheners, 

reinforcement fibers, adhesives, and binders as 

described in the 2019 TR.

We go further in preventing the 

inclusion of unintended additives that are not 

consistent with organic principles.
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Lastly, the proposed annotation for 

paper planting aids makes provision for the 

addition of (audio interference) pesticides for 

nutrients.

These are distinct from the uses the 

paper planting aids were petitioned for, and 

their inclusion would make the review and 

allowance to such materials unnecessarily 

complex.

Pesticides have their own specific 

review criteria around inert ingredients, and 

often require EPA registration.

If planting aids containing pesticides 

are to be reviewed as pesticides, would they 

still fall under the allowance of paper planting 

aids on the National List?

OMRI focuses its communication of 

allowed inputs around the use or uses for which 

they are allowed. 

Combining planting aids with 

pesticides or nutrients makes allowances less 

clear.
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This approach also contradicts the 

position taken in NOP Policy Memo 13-3.

The memo states that the use of an 

algaecide, disinfectant, or sanitizer -- I'll 

just stop there. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you very much. 

Are there questions from the board? Oh, Mindee 

has a question. Go ahead, Mindee.

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Mindee, we're not 

hearing you. 

MEMBER JEFFERY: Sorry. Can you hear 

me now?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: We can.

MEMBER JEFFERY: Tina --

MS. JENSEN AUGUSTINE: Hi Mindee.

MEMBER JEFFERY: Thank you so much for 

your comments, and for all the work that you do, 

and OMRI does in the organic world.

In the sense of supporting the paper 

planting aids, but having questions about 

definitions, would your suggestion be that we 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

move forward with the proposal and continue to do 

work, or go back to subcommittee and work on the 

definitions in the sense of making progress on 

this material?

MS. JENSEN AUGUSTINE: That's a great 

question. 

I'm not totally familiar with the 

proceedings and the steps that the subcommittee 

takes in terms of moving the proposal forward.

I would like to see this proposal move 

forward, but with some of these revisions that 

we've outlined.

I think that getting it right before, 

you know, and certainly before it gets put into 

regulation is going to be really important for 

both producers and material reviewers.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: I have a question. 

And I'm kind of laughing because in 

the spring, when we had it up for discussion, a 

lot of people said, well, don't just use the 

test.

They did ask for qualified reviewers, 
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

so we sort of responded to that one with a couple 

other things.

MS. JENSEN AUGUSTINE: Yeah.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: But what, I guess 

adding, you know, the 20 percent in that you said 

we --and I can't come up with the language right 

off my head, but the strengtheners, binders, et 

cetera, what other things besides those would you 

be worried that might get put into those paper 

pots?

It seemed like, to me, that list 

actually kind of encompassed almost everything.

MS. JENSEN AUGUSTINE: That list does 

encompass almost everything that is currently put 

into those. 

I think what we would be concerned 

might be other things, could be plastic coatings, 

or colorants, or what we have seen, as the 

product manufacturers are very innovative, and, 

you know, they might -- it's hard to predict what 

else someone might put in there, but I think that 

limiting the function of those additives to the 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ones that have already been identified will help 

kind of keep these products within the realm of 

what the NOSB has reviewed and approved.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Great. Yeah, thank 

you, and I appreciate your comments on the 

nutrients and pesticides. 

That's another one we're kind of 

caught (audio interference) in between because 

we had a number of groups ask us to specifically 

put that in the last comment period, so I'm not 

sure which is the best way to go.

But thank you for your comments. We 

do appreciate it.

MS. JENSEN AUGUSTINE: Thanks, Steve. 

Yep.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: We're going to move 

on to Jennifer Taylor, followed by Dave Carter, 

and then Jaydee Hanson.

Jennifer, you are up.

MS. TAYLOR: Thank you. Can you hear 

me?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: We can hear you. Go 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ahead.

MS. TAYLOR: Okay, great. All right. 

Good afternoon. Has my time started?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: It has. Go ahead, 

Jennifer.

MS. TAYLOR: Good afternoon. I'm 

Jennifer Taylor, an organic small farmer in 

Georgia and associate professor at Florida 

Agricultural and Mechanical University.

I am here today representing IFOAM 

North America, a regional body of the IFOAM 

Organics International.

IFOAM has members in over 100 

countries and territories with over 700 affiliate 

members worldwide.

Our work builds capacity to facilitate 

the transition of farmers to organic agriculture.

It raises awareness of the needs for 

sustainable production and consumption, and 

advocates for a policy environment conducive to 

agroecological farming practices, organic farming 

systems practices, and sustainable development.
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

As National Organic Standards Board 

members, you have an opportunity through your 

great service to be good organic stewards of 

organic agriculture.

I have served on the National Organic 

Standards Board, and I know how difficult and 

challenging your work will be.

You may have an impact on millions of 

lives in the United States and all over the 

world, potentially for generations to come.

It is important then to pause and 

reflect on the bigger organic picture, and 

understand the context of our vital work.

The IFOAM principles of organic 

agriculture, health, ecology, care, and fairness 

are essential for the organic good, well-being, 

and quality of life.

These principles form the foundation, 

our root of organic agriculture, and the 

standards.

The standards should be established 

not only for the economic benefits to organic 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

farmers, agribusinesses, and organic 

marketplaces, but also to support well-being and 

health of our environments, building healthy 

soils, and healthy plants, and healthy animals 

for the health of consumers, and well-being and 

fairness to local, national, and global 

communities.

Access to healthy organic foods and 

the benefits of organic farming systems is for 

everyone.

IFOAM holds that inclusion and social 

justice are an essential part of organic capacity 

building, and should be essential factor when 

promoting organic growth.

As important as the standards are, the 

standards can only do so much.

Organic agriculture needs targeted 

participatory education, hands-on training, and 

technical assistance on organic farming systems 

for Black, indigenous farmers, and farmers of 

color and their communities.

For disadvantaged farmers, for under-
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

served small farm populations and their 

communities.

Small-scale organic farmers hold a 

vital role in our communities as resources for 

fresh, local, seasonal, organic produce.

We ask the National Organic Standards 

Board to recommend and promote participatory 

capacity building strategies on organic farming 

systems and well-being to support and enable the 

thriving participation and organic livelihoods of 

Black, indigenous farmers and farmers of color, 

and their communities.

Socially disadvantaged --

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Jennifer?

MS. TAYLOR: Yes?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: I'm going to have to 

step in. Your time is up.

MS. TAYLOR: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: But we do appreciate 

your comments, and it looks like Emily has a 

question for you.

MS. TAYLOR: Great. Hi, Emily.
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER OAKLEY: Hi, Jennifer. And I 

know we're not supposed to do this, but this 

isn't a question. 

I just wanted to thank you sincerely 

for those comments, and I hope this can also be 

taken into consideration for future board 

appointments.

MS. TAYLOR: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Dave also has a 

question for you, Jennifer.

MS. TAYLOR: Hi, Dave.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Dave, you are on 

mute.

MEMBER MORTENSEN: Hello, Jennifer. I 

also wanted to thank you for being reminded of 

this incredibly important frame of thinking about 

organic agriculture and access to food.

I also was really intrigued to hear 

you calling for a more participatory model, and 

it has me thinking about things that could be 

incorporated in the research priorities.

Thank you.
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. TAYLOR: Thank you so much.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Jennifer, I have a 

question for you before we move on. 

How do you think the NOSB -- what 

could we do to increase diversity and, you know, 

really try and address some of the issues you 

just talked about?

MS. TAYLOR: Oh, I think it's really 

important that we purposely target our Black, 

indigenous farmers of colors, under-served small 

farm population, and providing participatory 

capacity building on organic farming systems, and 

well-being strategies, because by providing this 

type of education, and training, and hands-on 

assistance, you are not only improving the health 

and the benefits of organic agriculture to the 

people, but you're also sharing in the access and 

promoting outreach -- you'd want to call it -- to 

other communities outside of our own communities, 

and to other neighborhoods outside of their own.

So, it becomes an important strategy 

for us to use in order that the benefits and the 
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic movement gain access outside of our own 

communities.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Great. Thank you.

MS. TAYLOR: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you for those 

thoughts, and I hope we can continue as a board 

to work with you. 

I know you've given lots of input to 

continue to promote exactly those things.

MS. TAYLOR: Yes. We (audio 

interference) happy to work with you. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Great. We're going 

to move on to Dave Carter, followed by Jaydee 

Hanson, and then Meagan Collins.

Dave, please go ahead.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Chair, members of the 

board, I'm Dave Carter, former chair of this 

board, a bison rancher, and principal of Crystal 

Springs Consulting.

I'm here today on behalf of Merck 

Animal Care to support approval of fenbendazole 

as an emergency treatment in organic laying hens 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and replacements.

More than a decade ago, this board 

recommended approval of fenbendazole as an 

emergency treatment in organic dairy cattle based 

upon clear evidence that fenbendazole addresses 

emergency infestations without harming beneficial 

insects or damaging the health of the soil and 

water.

This allowed for the removal from the 

National List of another parasiticide that did 

not have these attributes.

Dairy farmers are not alone in 

struggling with internal parasites. 

Poultry producers have struggled as 

well, and those struggles are increasing as 

organic birds spend more time on soil.

I fully support the organic 

requirements that synthetic parasiticides be 

allowed only in the absence of viable natural 

alternatives, and only when practices such as 

pasture management and species selection do not 

succeed.
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

As shown by scientific literature and 

by several comments filed by organic egg 

producers, a viable natural alternative control 

major (audio interference) for internal 

parasites has not yet been identified.

There are also misconceptions on how 

effective some preventative practices can be for 

poultry.

One is the two square foot per bird 

recommendation.

Space per bird is based on animal 

welfare, and not parasite control.

Conditions conducive to parasites vary 

greatly from region to region and season to 

season, based upon moisture, temperature, and 

soil conditions.

Unusual weather events can increase 

the presence of these parasites.

Producers of ruminants can manage 

parasite exposure by utilizing practices to keep 

their animals from grazing close to the soil, but 

that's not an option for pastured poultry.
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Chickens get their beaks right down 

into the dirt as they feed on worms and grubs.

This increases their exposure to 

internal parasites.

Without an alternative for 

emergencies, parasite outbreaks intensify, and 

birds suffer and die.

This is the antithesis of humane 

husbandry expectations that consumers have for 

organic.

Two other issues are important. One 

is labeling. 

Some commenters have said that if 

fenbendazole is approved for organic layers 

(audio interference), there will be egg carton 

labels that are USDA organic without the use of 

synthetic parasiticides.

Organic dairy producers have used 

synthetic parasiticides in emergency situations 

since October 2002, and I have yet to see a milk 

carton with such a label.

The others have potential for organic 
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

spent layers treated with fenbendazole for being 

utilized to (audio interference).

The protocols in place for organic 

dairy and (audio interference) animals would 

apply to spent layers, and in reality, very few 

spent layers end up in the human food market.

Organic growers are dedicated to 

bringing to the market high quality products that 

come from healthy, humanely raised animals.

Fenbendazole will help organic egg 

producers live up to that ideal. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Very well-timed, 

Dave. Let's --

MR. CARTER: Yeah, you know, the 

former chair used to give out little awards if 

you came in on time.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Well, I'll work on 

that. We'll see. There's two candidates in the 

running right now, so. 

It looks like Sue has a question for 

you. 

(No audible response.)
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Sue, you're still on 

mute.

MEMBER BAIRD: Ah, is that better?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: There we go. Go 

ahead.

MEMBER BAIRD: Okay. I said thank you 

for your comments and being a past chair of the 

board.

And it says in your comments that you 

actually assisted development of the petition for 

organic dairy cattle.

Have you been involved with posting of 

birds to see what the gut looks like when it is 

infested with the worm populations?

MR. CARTER: Well, I've been working 

with some of the folks in Merck, who have shown 

that, and I don't want to have a spoiler alert 

here, but Blayne Mozisek, who will be speaking 

here in just a bit, does have some indications.

It's not pretty. I mean, the 

suffering that the birds go through when they're 

infested with these parasites is pretty severe 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and inhumane.

MEMBER BAIRD: Right. My degree, 

master's in poultry diseases -- and we posted a 

lot of birds, and I will say that their gut is 

horrible looking. 

Bloody, everywhere. So, do 

conventional poultry operations use fenbendazole?

MR. CARTER: Yes. They do use 

fenbendazole. That does not have a withdrawal 

period for conventional agriculture. 

And of course, fenbendazole has been 

around for ruminants for many years, and then 

more recently has been approved for poultry.

But, you know, the reason that I 

worked on the petition originally for 

fenbendazole years ago was because what was on 

the National List originally was so detrimental 

to dung beetles and earth worms, and here was 

fenbendazole as something that did not have those 

impacts. 

To me, it was a no-brainer to put one 

on and take one off.
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER BAIRD: Correct. The TR seemed 

to indicate there could be damage for the dung 

beetles and things, though.

MR. CARTER: Well, it's less than. 

Nothing is completely safe.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Dave? Dave, could 

you speak up a little bit? You're a little bit 

faint.

MR. CARTER: I'm a little bit faint?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Yeah, we can hear 

you, but not super well, so if you could just 

speak a little louder and go ahead and answer the 

question.

MR. CARTER: Okay. No, the scientific 

literature has shown that yeah, there is some 

impact, but in terms of maintaining the life 

cycle of the dung beetles, the fenbendazole is 

benign.

MEMBER BAIRD: Okay.

MR. CARTER: And Blayne Mozisek is 

actually going to address some of the issues that 

are in the technical review.
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER BAIRD: All right. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Dan, you have a 

question.

MEMBER SEITZ: So, one thing that 

concerns me about this proposal is that in the 

case of a flock of hens, my understanding is that 

you would dose the entire flock prophylactically, 

and the comparison you're making is to grazing 

cattle, where if you identified an individual cow 

that had an issue, you could dose that individual 

cow with fenbendazole.

So, I'm not seeing the comparison 

between dosing an entire flock of laying hens and 

treating individual cows as being an apt 

comparisons.

That's one thing I'd like you to 

address, the difference there of prophylactically 

applying this.

And then the other is, I've spoken to 

many egg producers who supply our local co-op 

here, and none of them have ever even considered 

using this. 
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Some didn't ever hear about it, and 

have not had this problem.

So I'm wondering why it is that you on 

one hand are seeing a big problem here, and on 

the other hand, in talking to producers, they 

don't see this as a problem at all, and would 

actually be concerned with this use.

MR. CARTER: So, two questions there. 

I'll take the last one first. 

Again, you know, the existence of 

parasites and the exposure to them, as I said in 

my comments, varies from region to region and 

season to season, and if you have warm wet 

weather events happen, then they increase, and 

the like.

So, you know, if you look at the 

written comments, there were several comments 

that were filed from producers who are 

experiencing some problems, and in fact, one who 

said that they're converting back to 

conventional.

In terms of flocks versus individual
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

animals, when you have parasites, that an 

outbreak occurs in a flock, particularly an 

emergency level, a high level, it sweeps through 

the flock. 

It's not just isolated.

If you have just a few isolated birds 

that has some existence of parasites, that does 

not constitute an emergency.

An emergency would be where you'd have 

the widespread exposure.

And I don't mean to be putting all 

this pressure on Blayne who will be speaking here 

in just a bit, but they actually did some surveys 

of growers this last summer and have some 

information to share on that.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Asa has a question.

MEMBER BRADMAN: Yeah, I just wanted 

to follow up. 

You used the word withdrawal period, 

and I just want to see if you would comment on 

the use of a withdrawal period and the relevance 

to this material in poultry?
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CARTER: I would say that you 

would use the same standard for basing a 

withdrawal period as you did for the use of it in 

organic dairy.

The FDA has looked at this pretty 

thoroughly and has a pretty sound, scientific 

basis for listing the withdrawal period or lack 

thereof that they have for this material.

MEMBER BRADMAN: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you very much, 

Dave, and can you give me any advice of how to 

get out of the chairmanship?

MR. CARTER: Well, it's not a life 

sentence, Steve, so yeah. But --

CHAIRPERSON ELA: All right.

MR. CARTER: So, I'll give you some --

CHAIRPERSON ELA: I'll call you 

privately on that.

MR. CARTER: I'll give you advice on 

that, you give me advice on how to stay out of 

the forest fires that are in this area. Yeah.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Fair enough. Sounds 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

good. Well, thank you. 

We're going to move on to Jaydee 

Hanson, and then Meagan Collins, and then Blayne 

Mozisek.

Jaydee, you're up. Go ahead.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, and good 

afternoon. 

I'm Jaydee Hanson, policy director for 

the Center for Food Safety. 

We thank the members of the NOSB for 

your very extensive work. 

I want to comment quickly just on 

three things.

One, excluded methods. 

The center urges the NOSB to ensure 

that excluded methods are kept out of organic 

production, and so, move forward in its 

evaluation of the remaining new genetic 

techniques with urgency using the process and the 

criteria you laid out in 2016.

On marine macroalgae as a crop 

fertility input, Section 205.602 lists non-
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

synthetic substances that should be prohibited in 

organic crop production.

The Center for Food Safety recommends 

the annotations that specify the parameters for 

harvest of marine algae so that some marine algae 

could be used.

These four harvest parameters all 

attempt to preserve the ecological integrity of 

marine ecosystems.

The first would prohibit harvest in 

conservation areas, and other areas identified as 

important or high value habitats.

Second would prohibit harvest methods 

like bottom trawling and other harvest methods 

that prevent reproduction and diminish the 

regeneration of natural populations.

Third, repeat harvest should be 

prohibited until biomass and the architecture 

that is the density and height of the targeted 

species approach is that of undisturbed natural 

stance (audio interference).

Fourth and finally, bycatch must be 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

monitored and prevented or eliminated in the case 

of special status species.

Finally, for microalgae, a robust 

guidance is needed to clarify the requirements as 

most certifiers and inspectors are not familiar 

with marine ecosystems.

We further suggest the following.

We need to clarify marine algae 

listings on the National List by adding their 

Latin binomials.

Moreover, the approval of algae needs 

to be site-specific. 

Some algae are also extremely 

endangered in particular locations. 

You might need a separate listing for 

California than, say, Washington state.

On fenbendazole, we appreciate the 

hard work of the committee, but believe more work 

is needed.

Is that the end of my time?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: That is the end of 

your time.
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. HANSON: Okay. Well, you have our 

comments. 

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Yeah, Sue has a 

question for you. 

MR. HANSON: Yes? 

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Sue, you're still on 

mute.

MEMBER BAIRD: So sorry. I do it 

every time. 

I would like to hear you continue your 

thought on fenbendazole, if you don't mind. You 

got cut off, and I was just getting into this 

thing.

MR. HANSON: Well, we oppose the use 

of fenbendazole as it's being presently proposed. 

We recognize that fenbendazole is 

permitted under restrictive conditions for other 

livestock species, but it's permitted with a 

withholding period for each class of animals.

The residues of fenbendazole will be 

present in eggs, and you should require a 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

withholding period that eliminates, to the 

greatest extent possible, the chemical residue.

Consumers of organic products expect 

that there won't be chemical residue in their 

food.

Laying hens treated with fenbendazole 

could also be used for human food. 

This makes it necessary for NOP to 

establish withdrawal periods for hens while they 

are laying, and for hens when they're used for 

human food. Thank you.

MEMBER BAIRD: But you don't 

understand that it is prohibited for slaughtered 

animals, so there's no way it could get into the 

food as a meat product?

MR. HANSON: Well, it should be, but -

-

MEMBER BAIRD: It is.

MR. HANSON: Yeah. I mean, okay. 

Then it should be for egg laying hens, as well.

MEMBER BAIRD: Sure. And it would 

fall under the same annotation if it were passed, 
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

but I appreciate that.

So, specifically, it's just the 

residue in the eggs that you are concerned about?

MR. HANSON: Well, this is essentially 

an antibiotic. 

I mean, you need to be treating it 

like you do other antibiotics, and having 

withholding times because it is an antibiotic.

And, you know, antibiotics are to be 

used for the health of the animal so that they 

don't suffer, but they should not be used 

routinely. 

And you should have withdrawal 

periods.

MEMBER BAIRD: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Emily, you have a 

question.

MEMBER OAKLEY: I do. Thank you for 

your comments, especially your comments regarding 

marine macroalgae.

And I noted that you suggested the 

board continue working on clarifying marine 
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

macroalgae with Latin binomials.

And this, as you probably remember, 

came out as a proposal from the Handling 

Subcommittee in 2017.

MR. HANSON: Yes.

MEMBER OAKLEY: And then there's an 

identical one in Crops. 

MR. HANSON: Yes.

MEMBER OAKLEY: And the board received 

comments from stakeholders saying that they 

didn't have adequate time to provide comment at 

that spring meeting, and could the board please 

reissue the document for the fall?

Which the board did, but then the 

board received no comments on it at that time.

So I'm wondering if you have 

suggestions for how the board might continue this 

work?

MR. HANSON: Well, back in my early 

days, I worked for the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, and we had to deal with the issue of 

multiple fish names in different parts of the 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

country all the time.

And as you're trying to regulate 

things, you really need to make sure that it's 

clear what you're regulating, and you can't do 

that without using the Latin binomials.

MEMBER OAKLEY: So, I mean, I think 

most of the comments at that time that were 

requesting more time -- or many of them came from 

producers or manufacturers of ingredients using, 

you know, seaweed -- I'll use that term in this 

case.

And so really, I think what kind of 

stalled some of that work was not really knowing 

the industry perspective, and I was wondering if 

you had thoughts for how we might engage the 

industry perspective if we were to continue that 

work?

MR. HANSON: I would suggest that, you 

know, that the National Organic Program actually 

approach the various services in the coastal 

areas and states -- you know, the State of 

California has regulations for harvest.
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The state of Oregon does, the state of 

Washington does. I believe Maine does, as well.

I would look at some of the folks that 

are trying to regulate this for both the purpose 

of harvest, but also to like, you know, make sure 

that others, (audio interference), don't 

collapse because they depend on these algae.

MEMBER OAKLEY: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: We have two more 

questions. Wood, then Dan, and we're starting to 

run a little bit behind, but go ahead, Wood.

MEMBER TURNER: Thanks. Jaydee, 

really quickly, you made a comment about bycatch, 

and I wanted to make sure I understood what you 

were trying to say there.

Were you saying that bycatch as a term 

is not too broad, and that there should be a 

species-specific call out for any bycatch 

inclusion? You know? 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. HANSON: Well, it needs to be 

species-specific. 
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

You know, you have species that, you 

know, attach to the holdfast of some of these 

large algae.

And, you know, at the very least, you 

need to be listing what can't be taken with the 

harvest of the bycatch, otherwise you will 

contribute to the elimination of those.

And again, there are species that are 

locally endangered and there are species that are 

nationally endangered.

You should include both, which is why 

I say that you need to have probably areaspecific guidance.

MEMBER TURNER: Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Last question.

MEMBER SEITZ: I appreciated your 

comment on fenbendazole as potentially raising 

consumer trust issues in the organic standard, 

especially if you have an entire flock that's 

doused and there may be residue in eggs, even if 

it's considered to be a residue at a level that 

would not harm someone.
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Could you talk just a little bit more 

about the potential consumer trust issues that 

you see in the use of fenbendazole?

MR. HANSON: Well, some other folks 

have talked about potential, you know, additional 

labels, or different, you know, additional ads.

You know, you don't want there, you 

know, to be a different standard for organic, and 

something that kills worms than in something that 

kills bacteria.

You need to have, you know, one 

standard, and that is that you only use these 

chemicals when they're needed for the health of 

the animal.

And that you then require a 

withholding period, and if you can't in that 

withholding period get the chemical residue out, 

then you don't sell them as organic.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: All right. 

Sue, unfortunately, I see you have 

your hand up, but we need to move on a little 

bit, so maybe you can ask that question when we 
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

get down to Blayne's time.

Meagan Collins is next, then Blayne 

Mozisek, and then Shannon McCormick.

Meagan, please go ahead.

MS. COLLINS: Hello. My name is 

Meagan Collins, and I will be commenting on 

behalf of the Accredited Certifiers Association.

The ACA is a nonprofit created to 

ensure consistent implementation of USDA organic 

regulations through collaboration and education 

of accredited certification agencies.

Our membership includes 64 accredited 

certification agencies worldwide, including all 

47 U.S.-based certifiers.

Thank you for the opportunity to 

provide comments to the NOSB on the most recent 

discussion document on human capital management.

This issue is central to the growing 

success of the organic industry, and for 

upholding integrity and consumer trust in the 

seal.

The industry faces challenges, but 
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

there are opportunities to address them, and this 

is an important time to begin these 

conversations.

A risk to the organic industry is the 

ever winding inspector shortage, the lack of 

competitive pay, and fair compensation is an 

issue in recruiting and retaining qualified

personnel.

Lower cost inspections have an effect 

on quality, and quality inspections and review 

work are essential to uphold the organic 

integrity and deter and detect fraud.

Nevertheless, there are several 

opportunities to address these challenges with 

recruiting and retaining qualified staff.

For instance, opportunities lay in 

encouraging the future generation to pursue 

careers in the organic industry and 

professionalizing inspecting as a career.

Specifically, engaging with youth 

through high schools, FFA and 4-H programs.

Furthermore, there is a great 
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

potential for collaborating with universities, 

creating trade schools or online programs, 

advertising on job boards, and recruiting 

directly from the industry.

To increase diversity, the industry 

can partner with historically Black land-grant 

universities for paid internships, and make 

training available in multiple languages.

The ACA is a great organization to 

bridge these relationships with universities 

around the nation.

These programs could also be coupled 

with IOIA for mentorship, so new individuals 

entering the industry are trained and ready to 

start their careers.

All of these efforts can be targeted 

in specific regions to fulfill those needs.

Finally, certifiers need to offer 

competitive wages for inspectors and staff.

However, the rising cost of small 

farmers' introduction cost share affects 

certifiers' ability to balance the --- for 
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

(audio interference) these competitive wages.

With that being said, we would like to 

emphasize that the organic industry needs 

additional financial support to address these 

human capital issues.

The NOP needs funding to support the 

industry and these training needs, otherwise the 

cost of paying and training for these qualified 

inspectors falls on certifiers, which in turn 

increases the cost of certification of farmers, 

and ultimately increases the price of food for 

consumers.

Related to this, reducing the cost 

share program, is detrimental to the industry at 

a time when more funding is needed.

The ACA looks forward to future 

discussions on this topic and ways we can 

participate in strategic planning to develop 

solutions. 

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you very much. 

Are there any questions?
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: I don't see any, so 

thank you. We appreciate your thoughts, Meagan. 

We are going to move on to Blayne 

Mozisek, followed by Shannon McCormick, and then 

Conor Mulroney.

Blayne, please go ahead.

DR. MOZISEK: Good afternoon everyone. 

My name's Dr. Blayne Mozisek. 

I'm a board certified poultry 

veterinarian with Merck Animal Health, and I'm 

here today to speak in support of adding 

fenbendazole to the National List so that organic 

producers can have a means of ridding their 

flocks of parasitic worms in emergency 

situations.

What you see here on this slide is a 

veterinarian's oath. 

When I took this oath over a decade 

ago, I vowed, among other things, to protect 

animal health and welfare, and prevent and 

relieve animal suffering. 
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

That is what brings me here today, and 

that is why Merck Animal Health is supporting 

this petition.

Next slide, please.

My time is brief, so I'd like to focus 

on two critically important statements made 

within the technical review published by USDA's 

Ag Marketing Service on May 13.

This paragraph in particular, this 

sentence within the technical review, has caused 

concern among those involved in the petition 

process.

Taking into account the context of the 

paragraph, this sentence implies that due to 

differences in metabolic activity and/or 

developmental stage, fetuses, pregnant women, 

infants and children are at greater risk from 

fenbendazole residue, and that current risk 

assessment models do not take these 

subpopulations into account.

Understandably so, this statement has 

been the focus of many comments of concern 
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

submitted to this board.

I agree the statement as written is 

concerning.

However, if one were to actually read 

the scientific article study for themselves, they 

would find the statements misleading.

The article published by the Joint FAO 

WHO Committee on Food Additives is a review of 

the most recent developments and exposure 

assessment and hazard characterization of 

residues of veterinary drugs, and how these are 

important elements in the development and 

improvement of risk assessment processes, a core 

mandate of the committee who authored this 

review. 

Nowhere in the entire 13,000 plus word 

document are the phrases metabolic activity, 

developmental stage, and risk assessment model 

ever mentioned. 

Neither are the words fetus or 

fenbendazole.

Next slide, please.
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The last sentence of the same 

paragraph cites a 2018 article from Bobkov and 

Zbinden.

This sentence implies that 

fenbendazole has a medium likelihood of being a 

food safety risk.

However, if one were to review the 

article cited, as you can see here, its title 

clearly states this review discusses the risk of 

occurrence of a veterinary drug residues in 

poultry, and at no point is food safety 

discussed.

And in fact, the only use of the 

phrase food safety is to describe the author's 

association with the Institute of Food Safety and 

Analytical Science for the Nestle Research 

Center.

It's also important to note that the 

article clearly states that the information 

presented within it does not pertain to eggs.

Additionally, the word fenbendazole is 

utilized once within the body of the article, 
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

where it's included in a list of drugs of the 

benzimidazole class of anthelmintics.

So to clarify, the author designated 

all poultry anthelmintics as having a medium 

level of likelihood of occurrence of being found 

in the food supply.

This designation was based on global 

reports of incidents, where the maximum residue 

limit for an anthelmintic was exceeded.

Data cited include China, the EU, 

Canada, and no reports from the U.S.

Again, nowhere in this entire article 

are food safety risks discussed.

At best, these statements are 

misleading, and at their worst, they're entirely 

false and put into doubt the factual integrity of 

the entire board.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: All right, thank 

you. Thank you, Blayne. Emily has a question.

MEMBER OAKLEY: Thank you for your 

comments. 

How often would you say or estimate 
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that fenbendazole is used as an emergency 

treatment in conventional poultry? 

DR. MOZISEK: We base those treatments 

on monitoring flocks, and as I stated in my 

written comments, and what I've suggested, 

emergency situations be based on the burden 

within the flock.

And so, I've got a slide later. If I 

have time, I'd like to show it. 

It shows the survey that we took of 

organic growers and where that theoretical 

threshold -- if it were to exist, where it lies 

within the results that we found.

And it'll show the number of flocks 

that were above, and, you know, most were below.

However, some would need to be treated 

in the case that I've shown.

MEMBER OAKLEY: So could I just follow 

up? When they would need to be treated, what 

would the frequency be per flock, do you think?

DR. MOZISEK: Again, that's dependent 

on the exposure and the level of burden from the 
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

flock.

I mean, there's literature out there 

that cited -- I can't go back and remember off 

the top of my head, but it's months between 

treatments.

And again, this is really dependent 

on, you know, the region and where the birds are 

at, individual or flock burdens.

So, the data that we took from flocks 

when we measured, you know, flocks across the 

country, it's an average of the entire flock, 

right?

And so, we come up with one burden 

number that represents the average of 

approximately 24 samples that were taken within 

the population that were to be, you know, 

emergency treated, if need be.

Sorry, I can't give a very specific 

answer because it really is flock dependent and 

situation specific.

MEMBER OAKLEY: I totally understand 

and appreciate that, I'm just trying to get a 
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sense of how frequently this might be used in 

some instances.

DR. MOZISEK: You know, I think as 

we've heard from speakers today, there are places 

in the United States where they won't need to be 

treated at all because the region and climate 

within that region is very low, there's a very 

low burden, and there are others where it's 

significantly worse, like we see in the 

Southeast. 

There are more birds in the Southeast.

I can tell you that the fenbendazole 

affects the worm life cycle such that the life 

cycle is approximately 30 days.

My recommendation for growers is to 

monitor the worm burden every eight to ten weeks.

So theoretically, you know, if we were 

monitoring, let's say every ten weeks, and we 

found a theoretical burden that, you know, the 

level were to increase above the threshold every 

ten weeks, that would be, you know, the minimum 

time between treatments. Eight to ten weeks.
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER OAKLEY: Thank you so much.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: We have a bunch more 

questions, and so, I'll ask the board to keep 

them focused. 

Sue, you have a question. 

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: And Sue, you are 

still on mute.

MEMBER BAIRD: Every time. I'm so 

sorry. I said thank you for this, and your 

written comments were very, very helpful for me 

to understand.

You did some grafting, and you kind of 

alluded to that in your comments to Emily, but 

you did a survey of the organic producers and 

determined how often that there -- they found the 

eggs had worms in them.

Could you elaborate on that?

DR. MOZISEK: Yes. Thank you for the 

question. If you can go to the next slide, that 

data is presented. Thanks.

So this graph or graphic is actually 
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not of worms within eggs, but it is of worms 

within fecal samples. 

So, we solicited samples across the 

United States, and we solicited actually 

different organic certifiers, individual growers, 

whatever we could to get the word out as much as 

possible.

Two hundred and four samples were 

received into the lab, so we utilized the fecal 

flotation method that was described in my written 

comments.

And within all those samples, if you 

can see here, 54 percent were positive.

And then at the threshold that you see 

there, is 50 eggs per sample is what we consider 

-- above that we consider the heavy burden, and 

over ten percent of those were positive above 

that threshold.

So, the Y axis there, each one of 

those numbers is the age of the flock, so you can 

kind of see that.

MEMBER BAIRD: Would there be some 
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

consideration then -- people are concerned about 

the residual -- and you made a point that aspirin 

has residual, but we didn't put an annotation on 

it.

Would there be a consideration though 

that we might limit the applications to just the 

replacement hens as opposed to laying hens?

DR. MOZISEK: You know, unfortunately, 

you know, worms burdens don't become an issue 

once birds go into production.

So, you know, I would say that while 

that would be helpful for those producing (audio 

interference), you know, for organic egg 

production, as these hens get older, they're 

still exposed, and the likelihood of them 

incurring a worm burden --depending on their 

region, again, environment --exists just as much 

as when they were young.

MEMBER BAIRD: I see. So that really 

wouldn't help?

DR. MOZISEK: It wouldn't help the 

individuals that are in egg production, correct.
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MEMBER BAIRD: Okay. This lady --

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Sue, we --

MEMBER BAIRD: I'm sorry?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Sue, we've got four 

more questions. We have four more questions from 

board members, so would it be okay if we moved 

on?

MEMBER BAIRD: Yeah, I suppose so. 

Okay. I would hope that they read the written 

comments. Okay, yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Sorry, Sue. Asa? 

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: You are still on 

mute.

MEMBER BRADMAN: Sorry. Can you hear 

me now?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Yes.

MEMBER BRADMAN: In the reference that 

you mention, the first one that you felt like was 

misappropriated to that citation, I just want to 

say that that sentence is absolutely true, and 

there's dozens of other references that would've 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

been appropriate.

I mean, young children, you know, eat, 

breathe and drink more than adults, and they're 

also exposed in utero.

So anything that's in their 

environment, approximate environment, in general, 

kids get exposed on a higher level per unit of 

body weight.

And maybe the reference they put there 

wasn't the best, but that's certainly, you know, 

a concern with any residue.

And in terms of EPA now, I mean, 

residue, at least related to the pesticide, needs 

to be evaluated in that context.

I know FDA is also taking that 

approach in many instances.

So, you know, that's something that 

still has to be considered.

Then, and this figure. I want to 

understand this figure a little bit more.

It says eggs per sample. It says 204 

samples with 54 percent positivity.
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

When you say eggs per sample, (audio 

interference).

It's not clear to me the Y axis here. 

Is it in absolute terms, or if there's some 

relative information about infection rates?

DR. MOZISEK: Sorry about that. So, 

each number that you see along the Y axis, that's 

the age of the flock of the sample, where the 

sample originated.

And the sample is based on a per gram 

basis. I think five grams are used, so they 

could send in --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MEMBER BRADMAN: -- the X axis then, 

not the Y axis. 

DR. MOZISEK: Correct. I'm sorry.

MEMBER BRADMAN: Okay. Okay, keep 

going. So, and the Y axis is per sample --

(Simultaneous speaking.) 

DR. MOZISEK: These are the eggs per 

sample.

So eggs per sample is the eggs that 
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

were found on the microscope slide after the 

sample was analyzed by fecal flotation.

So the actual count of worm eggs on 

the slide that were found per sample.

MEMBER BRADMAN: Right, but how many 

eggs? Like, out of how many eggs were tested? 

In other words, was it 1,000 eggs per sample, or 

--

DR. MOZISEK: These are fecal samples 

submitted from individual flocks.

MEMBER BRADMAN: Okay.

DR. MOZISEK: And the test is looking 

for the eggs of the parasite.

MEMBER BRADMAN: Got it.

DR. MOZISEK: You know, we can 

correlate the parasitic burden within the bird of 

the amount of eggs being excreted by the 

parasites.

MEMBER BRADMAN: Okay. So, and is it 

a combined sample of fecal material, or are these 

single samples that are looked at individually?

DR. MOZISEK: Growers were asked to 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

submit -- I mean, dependent on the size of the 

facility, approximately six different -- submit 

fecal samples from each barn, and each sample 

from each barn would include about four to six 

locations within the barn, and four to six fecal 

droppings within each one of those samples.

So, it was meant to be a good 

representation of the barn, and then that sample, 

once it arrived to the lab, was homogenized, and 

an aliquot of it was taken out and analyzed to 

find the number of eggs.

MEMBER BRADMAN: All right, thank you.

DR. MOZISEK: You're welcome.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Dave, you have a 

question.

MEMBER MORTENSEN: Yeah. Just 

quickly, following on Asa's first question or 

first point about children and expectant mothers 

being particularly sensitive. 

It's true that this mode of action of 

the compound is a tubulin inhibitor. Is that 

correct?
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. MOZISEK: It's a micro tubulin 

inhibitor that's specific for the parasitic worm. 

Yes, that's right.

MEMBER MORTENSEN: Yeah. That's what 

I thought. 

And so, that is something that 

disrupts mitosis and cell division in growing 

organisms. Is that correct?

DR. MOZISEK: It has an effect on, 

yes, the cells dividing, yeah.

MEMBER MORTENSEN: Yes, and no --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MEMBER MORTENSEN: So, one of the 

concerns that we've had a number of as we look at 

this is, is a compound that's active in that way 

-- is always going to raise a flag over above and 

beyond the fact that it's a synthetic pesticide 

that's widely used in conventional agriculture.

So, you know, this issue of residue is 

not something that is taken lightly as we think 

about the potential impacts of a practice in 

organic agriculture where folks would expect not 
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to have synthetic compounds, and certainly not 

those that inhibit cell division.

Thanks.

DR. MOZISEK: Well, the product --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

DR. MOZISEK: Sorry, go ahead.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Go ahead, if you can 

give a quick answer. We're starting to run out 

of time here.

DR. MOZISEK: Well, I didn't really 

hear a question there, but fenbendazole's been on 

the market, available for use in conventional 

agriculture for decades, and we didn't know of 

(audio interference) risk associated with any 

residues.

And it's one of the main reasons that 

we've been able to show that a zero day 

withdrawal is efficacious for this particular 

product, so.

I would encourage you all to read 

through the rest of my slides there.

The transcripts are available, as well 
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as the written comments, and they inform you more 

so on some of the other information I've found.

Thanks for your time.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Mindee? Well, just 

we have a couple more here.

DR. MOZISEK: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: But I'm going to 

encourage board members to be quick. So, Mindee.

MEMBER JEFFERY: Hi, thanks. I was 

wondering if you are seeing a correlation between 

the presence of eggs in your samples and the 

flock size?

DR. MOZISEK: No, we're not. 

And actually, if I could ask you to 

move to the next slide, I show a great example of 

pasture management, and why -- well, this is one. 

I'm sorry, there's another slide, too, 

but this is just a great example. 

The life cycle of parasites of 

ruminants are very different, and pasture 

management works well for them, and rotation 

works well because there's a vulnerable portion 
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of this life cycle that's spent on the foliage of 

the pasture.

So by controlling that foliage or 

limiting access, we can prevent that, whereas the 

poultry parasite, those eggs are excreted in 

fecal matter onto the ground, where they mature 

and become infectious and wait for the next host 

to come around and pick them up.

It's a direct, simple life cycle. 

Pasture rotation doesn't really affect --

and there's data to show it -- that has zero 

effect on, or very limited effect on the poultry 

parasites. 

And if you go to one more slide? I'm 

sorry, it was the next one actually I was trying 

to show you.

And this is an example of GAP 5 

chickens produced in California. 

You know, they have a ton of space, 

but in this particular scenario, they're not 

utilizing it, and we know, birds of a feather 

flock together, right? 
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, we can give them space and they 

still will congregate. That's their nature, it's 

their behavior.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Do you have a quick 

question?

MEMBER GREENWOOD: Steve, yeah, it's 

Rick. A very quick question. 

What temperature does fenbendazole 

degrade? 

And the reason I ask this -- and I've 

asked it in previous years -- chicken products 

and egg products are eaten cooked, and I'm just 

wondering, even though we don't want residue in 

organic products, is this really a human health 

issue that we've talked about with Asa and 

children exposed, if the fenbendazole is degraded 

when the item is cooked?

So, I was just wondering if you have a 

number how many degrees centigrade does it take 

to degrade fenbendazole when it really has no 

biological activity after that?

DR. MOZISEK: All right, well, you 
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

know, as we've shown, and the (audio 

interference) is trying to show that there's a 

food safety risk, there is not.

And however, the fenbendazole will not 

be degraded at temperatures that we associate 

with cooking.

So yes, the residue would remain after 

normal cooking temperatures.

MEMBER GREENWOOD: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Okay, the last. 

Very quick question, Nate.

MEMBER POWELL-PALM: Very quick. Thank 

you for your comments. 

I believe you mentioned earlier in 

your oral comments that you were noting in your 

survey producers leaving organic certification, 

going back, reverting back to conventional 

production. And I was wondering if I 

understood right that you're basically directly 

correlating that with parasite load in the 

organic flocks?

DR. MOZISEK: I believe that was Mr. 
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Carter that made that comment, and I have read 

that comment. 

It was submitted prior to the meeting, 

so that would be available.

But yes, from what I've read, that 

particular comment that you're referencing, this 

grower once was growing organic poultry for egg 

production, for organic egg production, and due 

to the level of increased mortality and morbidity 

associated with the parasite load, he had to 

transition back to just a cage-free.

MEMBER POWELL-PALM: And so, that would be a 

sample size of one grower reporting that, 

correct?

DR. MOZISEK: One comment that was 

submitted that made that reference, yes. To my 

knowledge.

MEMBER POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: All right. Well 

thank you, Blayne. 

I let that go on longer than I 

normally would because I know it's a topic of 
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

major consideration to the board.

DR. MOZISEK: Thank you, all.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: We are going to move 

on. Just a reminder to the board we are about a 

half hour behind at this point.

So I'm fine with asking questions, but 

if we can keep them focused, that would be 

awesome.

We have Shannon McCormick coming up, 

then Conor Mulroney, and then Erin -- oh gosh, my 

glasses -- Bardagjy.

I apologize. I think I messed that 

name up. So Shannon, go ahead.

MS. McCORMICK: Hello. My name is --

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Yes, you're on.

MS. McCORMICK: Great. My name is 

Shannon McCormick. I am a material review 

officer for Oregon Tilth. 

Oregon Tilth would like to thank the 

National Organic Standards Board for the 

opportunity to comment.

We appreciate the continued dialogue 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to ensure the NOP pesticide inert requirements 

align with the most current EPA safety standards.

In 2015, the NOSB made a formal 

recommendation to the NOP to revise the 

annotation for EPA List 4 inerts for use with 

crop and livestock pesticides.

The NOSB recommended three replacement 

EPA lists, including the EPA Safer Chemical List.

The NOP has not accepted the 

recommendation.

Oregon Tilth supports the NOSB's plan 

to collaborate with the EPA to determine the most 

effective and efficient way to amend the 

regulations.

To prevent significant and potentially 

devastating disruption to the organic industry, 

we urge the NOSB to vote no on the motion to 

remove EPA List 4 inerts from the National List 

without an alternative in place.

Oregon Tilth instead recommends 

revising the annotation per the 2015 formal NOSB 

recommendation before removing EPA List 4 inerts 
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

from the National List.

We also recommend omitting the EPA 

Safer Chemical Safer Choice List from any 

proposed annotation change because the Safer 

Choice List is designed for cleaning products.

There are no pesticides currently 

approved under the Safer Choice program, 

therefore, it is not an appropriate alternative 

for the pesticide inerts in organic production.

If EPA List 4 inerts are removed from 

the National List without an alternative in 

place, it would greatly impact the organic 

industry by prohibiting a significant number of 

crop, livestock, and post-harvest pesticides 

currently in use.

Currently, over 800 Oregon Tilth 

clients use almost 12,000 approved pesticides 

that may contain EPA List 4 inerts.

These pesticides would each require 

re-review to determine exactly how many of these 

inputs contain synthetic EPA List 4 inerts.

A significant portion of these 
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

pesticides could become prohibited with a change 

or removal of the inerts listing.

In addition, we recommend a minimum of 

a one year implementation period to allow 

certifiers, producers, and pesticide 

manufacturers to adjust to any changes.

Thank you for your time. 

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you. Are 

there questions from the board?

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: I have a very quick 

question, and it kind of comes down, if we choose 

to relist -- and in other words, if we vote no, 

as you said, there's no incentive for the program 

to act on this, whereas if we vote to delist, we 

are putting pressure -- or I feel like we put 

pressure on the program to do something.

And my concern is if we vote to 

continue to relist them, we're going to be in the 

same spot in five years as we are now.

Do you have a thought on that?

MS. McCORMICK: My thought on that is 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we are aware of that being the reality. 

In terms of any recommendation of 

action, our main concern is just that a plan B in 

place before moving forward with removing it from 

the National List due to the magnitude of impact 

that it will have on the organic industry.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Fair enough.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. McCORMICK: -- annotation as 

written apart from the EPA Safer Chemical List.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Okay. Well, thank 

you.

MS. McCORMICK: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: We're going to move 

on to Conor Mulroney, Erin Bardagjy -- sorry, 

Erin -- and then Chris Schreiner.

So Conor Mulroney, please go ahead.

MR. MULRONEY: Hello. Do you have me?

(No audible response.)

MR. MULRONEY: Can you hear me?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Yes, go ahead.

MR. MULRONEY: Hello, my name is 
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Conor Mulroney, and I am the quality manager at 

Marroquin Organic International.

First, I want to thank the NOSB and 

the Handling Subcommittee for reviewing the issue 

on ion exchange.

Marroquin Organic is an organic 

ingredient supplier based in Santa Cruz, 

California.

We have been providing the industry

with high quality ingredients for almost 30 

years.

For the last 20 years, we've worked 

with AGRANA Starke of Austria as the company's 

North American sales partner.

We have introduced AGRANA's organic 

starches, sweeteners, maltodextrins to the U.S. 

market.

AGRANA was the first manufacturer to 

offer these as organic, and in March, AGRANA 

expanded its distribution activities into the 

starch segment and acquired Marroquin, making us 

part of the AGRANA Group.
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Marroquin and AGRANA Starke 

wholeheartedly support the decision of the 

Handling Subcommittee recommending that the NOP 

continue to classify ion exchange resins as food 

contact substances, and allow them to continue to 

manufacture organic products.

Our products are essential ingredients 

in the organic bakery products, infant formulas, 

beverages, and other foods.

In making our products, ion exchange 

guarantees quality, purity, and functionality.

We depend on the reliability of 

continuing to use these resins without 

interruption or uncertainty of their NOP status.

In our written comments here and at 

the NOP spring meeting, we have emphasized the 

indispensability of ion exchange filtration.

We support the longstanding policy of 

the USDA NOP on ion exchange resins, and this 

policy that was adopted in 2002 when the NOP 

regulations were first implemented is in 

agreement with the U.S. FDA.
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This policy holds that ion exchange 

resins, the durable substances that filter out 

unwanted materials by a physical rather than a 

chemical process, are food contact substances, 

not ingredients or processing aids.

So, under this policy, ion exchange 

resins do not have to undergo review for addition 

to the USDA National List as an allowed 

substance.

In the intervening 18 years, this 

policy guidance has enabled AGRANA Starke and 

other companies to use ion exchange to provide a 

stable, high quality supply of organic 

ingredients for the U.S. organic food sector.

Organic ingredients made through ion 

exchange have made it possible for food 

manufacturers to develop organic products, and 

thus grow the entire organic food industry.

Because there are not any scalable 

options disallowing ion exchange, would cause a 

massive shortage in the supply of ingredients for 

the organic sector.
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

There would be fewer organic 

ingredients made, and those that we could make 

would not be fully functional or acceptable in 

the market.

Ion exchange is a preparation process. 

And am I out of time?

CHAIRPERSON ELA: You are, yes.

MR. MULRONEY: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Are there questions?

(No audible response.)

CHAIRPERSON ELA: I don't see any 

questions. Thank you very much for your 

comments.

MR. MULRONEY: Thank you for the 

Handling Committee for reviewing this, and thank 

you to the NOSB Board. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: You are welcome. We 

are going to move next to Erin, and Erin, you can 

tell me how to pronounce your name.

Then we will go to Chris Schreiner, 

and then to Erika Rohr Luke.

MS. BARDAGJY: Yes. Hi, my name is 
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Erin Bardagjy. I'm a material review officer 

for Oregon Tilth.

I'm really excited to have this 

opportunity to provide public comment on the ion 

exchange filtration process and the materials 

used.

Oregon Tilth's been certifying organic 

producers and handlers since the national 

standards were implemented in 2002.

Ion exchange has come up a few times 

over the years, and we have participated in these 

discussions in an effort to ensure understanding 

and consistency of their review.

Oregon Tilth fully supports the NOSB's 

recommendation that the recharge materials, but 

not the insoluble resins or membranes themselves, 

must be reviewed and included on the National 

List.

This is in alignment with previous 

determinations, and does not change our current 

processes or adversely affect the industries that 

rely on this filtration technology.
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This is a sound and sensible approach 

that enables the continued production of commonly 

consumed foods, such as juice, syrups, and dairy 

products to be certified organic.

One detail that we feel important to 

mention is that we evaluate all sanitizers used 

on resins for compliance with the national 

organic standards.

This is a detail that might be worth 

including in the final recommendation to ensure 

that all materials used are evaluated for 

compliance with the National List.

We'd like to take this time to thank 

NOP, NOSB, and all the certifiers and 

manufacturers for addressing this topic in an 

open and transparent fashion.

This ensures consistency of their use 

across certifiers. Thank you so much.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Thank you very much, 

Erin. We appreciate your comments.

We're going to move on to Chris 

Schreiner, followed by Erika Rohr Luke, followed 
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

by Jessica Shade.

So Chris, please go ahead.

MR. SCHREINER: All right. Thank you. 

Hello NOSB members. I'm Chris Schreiner, the 

executive director at Oregon Tilth. 

And as a leading organic certifier, 

educator, and advocate, we've been offering 

organic certification services for nearly 40 

years.

I'm here to discuss human capital 

strategies with a focus on the scarcity of 

organic inspectors.

Even before the challenges of 

conducting inspections during a global pandemic, 

we've known about the scarcity of qualified and 

committed professionals in organic certification.

This concern has been facing our 

community for many years.

Back in 1998 when I began working for 

Oregon Tilth, we had only eight employees. 

Today, we have 73.

Between 2014 and '19, we saw a 54 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

percent increase in certified client growth.

Organic success is outpacing the 

recruitment and retention of a well-trained 

workforce.

What are some root problems?

Organic inspectors with years of 

experience are retiring, no longer willing to 

travel or work the long hours necessary to earn a 

livelihood.

There's limited opportunities for new 

inspectors to acquire in the field experience and 

professional development.

They might attend some helpful IOIA 

trainings, but then what?

Inspectors are left with no clear 

career path in an extremely competitive 

environment where they are often forced to drive 

down rates, undervalue themselves, and shoulder 

the expenses of health and liability insurance.

What can the organic sector do? 

First, following the lead of IOIA, we 

must develop and expand additional training 
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

platforms, such as the Organic Integrity Learning 

Center, to increase opportunities and 

accessibility.

Second, as more universities develop 

certificate programs and degrees in organic food 

and ag, let's work with them to establish a

career path and a workforce pipeline for 

certification professionals.

Third, create mentorship programs that 

pair new inspectors with experienced ones to 

learn and develop their skills.

What is Oregon Tilth doing?

We recently decided to begin shifting 

from using primarily independent contract 

inspectors to inspectors who are employees.

As staff, they will receive consistent 

pay at living wages, health insurance, group 

liability coverage, a retirement plan and paid 

time off benefits, continued training and 

professional development, and the opportunity to 

be part of a team in a mission-based 

organization.
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

A lot of attention is placed on 

defining essential workers these days. 

We must recognize how essential 

inspectors are to the certification process. We 

must protect their health and safety during this 

pandemic. 

They are on the front lines of 

ensuring integrity and trust in the organic 

label. I want to emphasize the urgency and the 

need for action now. 

When proposals in the strengthening 

organic enforcement rules close important 

loopholes and exemptions, we can expect a surge 

in applicants for organic certification.

We must be prepared with a pipeline of 

well-trained and committed inspectors to meet 

this increased demand.

Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON ELA: Wow. Well done as 

well, and you're in the running for the award for 

perfect timing. There are now three of you. 

So, there is a question from Scott.
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR RICE: Hey Chris. Thanks 

for your comments.

You know, we've heard comments from 

you and others of the undervaluing of inspectors, 

and more or less the need to do that to keep 

certification affordable for the producers, for 

the processors, all the certified operations out 

there.

You mentioned one of the things that 

Oregon Tilth is doing, which is hiring those 

inspectors and bringing them in-house to offer 

the compensation, and better benefits and 

training, and whatnot.

How do you think that keeps those 

expenses in check versus putting that expense on 

the inspector? 

And sort of what are your thoughts on, 

like, what the breaking point might be for 

passing those expenses along?

And any other thoughts on just how to 

help those, but still remain contractors, have 

access and affordability on that professionalism, 
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

so to speak?

MR. SCHREINER: Yeah. Great question, 

Scott. And I guess the short answer is we're 

going to find out. 

We essentially realized that, you 

know, facing the challenge of supply for organic 

inspectors amongst contractors, that we're 

competing for, you know, well-qualified, highly 

trained inspectors' time with other certifiers.

And across the different inspectors 

that we've been using on a contract basis -- we 

work with around 50 -- we see a variety of 

diverse race.

And one of the things we'll attempt to 

do, and we plan to do by primarily doing the 

shift to employees, is establish just a base rate 

for inspections that we offer for our clients.

So that's one way that we hope to 

control the costs, and also control consistency 

year over year for clients with certification 

expenses.

Now that being said, bringing them on 
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as employees, there are the admin and overhead 

expenses associated with that, and health 

insurance, retirement plan, paid time off.

But, we really feel like that 

recognizes the value of inspectors, and we feel 

like we have to do that to take care of them and 

to really acknowledge the key role that they 

play.

VICE CHAIR RICE: Okay, thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, Chris. 

We were going to move on to Erika Rohr Luke, 

followed by Jessica Shade, and then Maria Elena 

Lombardero Ventura.

Erika, please go ahead.

MS. ROHR LUKE: Hi, can you hear me?

MR. ELA: We can.

MS. ROHR LUKE: All right. Thank you 

for the opportunity to comment to the National 

Organic Standards Board at this fall meeting. My 

name is Erika Rohr Luke, and I am speaking today 

on behalf of Marrone Bio Innovations.

Marrone develops and manufactures 
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

effective and environmentally responsible 

microbial and plant extract products for 

integrated pest management. And I would like to 

speak to you today about the sunset of EPA List 

4, the inerts of minimal concern.

Marrone requests that this board does 

not sunset List 4. Instead, we recommend taking 

actions which encourage the EPA to re-engage on

List 4 maintenance. Second, that the Board does 

not sunset List 4 without a replacement list in 

place and with a longer transition period, like 

ten years.

Third, that the Board does not 

recommend Safer Choice as a replacement. It's 

not a good list or a good program for identifying 

pesticide inert ingredients, as the Safer Choice 

Program has no expertise or history in evaluating 

the properties needed to develop safe and 

effective agricultural inputs that must be 

formulated to address a diversity of 

environmental conditions, crop, and cropping 

conditions and worker and consumer safety needs.
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Finally, again, MRC asks that NOSB 

recommend NOP and EPA to work together with the 

biological products, grower, and NGO to update 

the current list of NOP-compliant inerts, as well 

as more efficient and effective system to 

encourage innovation in this area.

We make these requests because if List 

4 is replaced with Safer Choice, there will be 

some products that can be reformulated, but many 

likely won't be able to. And likely none in the 

shortest timeline that could be implemented. 

If a replacement list was in place 

today and pesticide manufacturers could start 

reformulating now, it could easily take at least 

five years for some products to be reformulated 

and field-evaluated for efficacy based on the 

lack of limited list of products allowable under 

Safer Choice. Some may take longer and some may 

never be able to reformulated.

Once a new formulation is validated, 

the regulatory process from developing toxicology 

data and storage stability data and then securing 
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

EPA and state approvals will add another three to 

five years to bring a new product to market. 

Farmers will be left for years without safe and 

effective tools to grow abundant, high quality 

organic food. Safer Choice lacks entire 

categories of inerts, including those necessary 

for dry formulations.

Many ingredients on Safer Choice do 

not have tolerance exemptions, so they won't be 

available for use in pesticides. Developing 

tolerance-exempt pesticides are a key objective 

and selling point for NOP-compliant pesticides 

and the growers that use them.

In summary, sunsetting List 4 without 

a replacement list in place is not viable for 

pesticide developers and therefore not viable for 

growers, especially on the proposed timeline. 

Therefore, MBI suggests that NOSB work 

with NOP to directly -- that NOP work directly 

with EPA's senior level staff to obtain an 

updated listing of all ingredients currently 

approved by the EPA that continue to meet the 
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

standards of List 4.

I thank you for your time and 

consideration of our comments. I had heard some 

questions posed on the topic earlier, and I would 

be happy to try to address them if you would like 

to pose these again.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much. Looks 

like Asa has a question.

MR. BRADMAN: I think the Board in 

general feels that there's, that the current 

situation is broken -- well, I should say I speak 

for myself. But the current situation is broken, 

and there are substances on the List 4 that would 

never qualify as acceptable for an organic 

pesticide. 

So these are synthetic materials. And 

the goal here is not to replace or, you know, the 

reason to vote yes or no on it would not -- well, 

I should say yes for the removal -- would not be 

to simply replace the SCIL Safer Choice List for 

what's existing on the, in List 4. Rather, the 

goal here, based on previous recommendations, is 
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to kind of open the doorway to a process that 

would accomplish some of the things that you're 

recommending.

And so I wouldn't characterize this as 

just taking the SCIL, which was developed for 

cleaning and other products in many cases, but 

there is overlap. But to develop a, you know, 

organic-specific list of inerts, which we don't 

have. Right now we have reference to an existing 

list that is admittedly not maintained and not 

functional. 

So this has been going on for years, 

and we need some way to move this forward. So 

I'm kind of making a comment here. But in 

previous comments by stakeholders, there's been 

some pretty clear maps to move ahead on this. So 

I'd be interested in having you comment on those, 

rather than just saying we need a proposal 

concurrent with this sunset vote. 

It seems to me there's been a lot of 

history that's already been made, and my question 

is how to best move that forward. Because the 
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

current situation is broken.

MS. ROHR LUKE: Yes, we agree as well. 

And as mentioned, this isn't the way to fix it. 

And it sounds like you're asking for what the 

new solution that should happen along with List 

4?

MR. BRADMAN: Right, I mean, if you 

look back at past recommendations and quite 

detailed comments by stakeholders, there's some 

fairly -- there's some concrete recommendations 

that would move things forward. So, you know, 

what do you want that's new that hasn't already 

been talked about over the last five-plus years?

MS. ROHR LUKE: Well, I would -- we 

did mentioned that we would like the NOSB to 

recommend to NOP to work with the EPA and the 

other stakeholders mentioned, the biological 

products, the growers, other NGOs to update the 

current List 4 into something that is NOPcompliant, something that's going to be efficient 

and an effective system to encourage innovation 

in this area.
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you. I would just 

recommend that you really submit some proposals. 

I mean, I think you should look carefully at 

what's been talked about over the last, you know, 

decade really. And, you know, I think that's 

where the conversation has to go is, you know, I 

think we have a roadmap. And then moving forward 

is starting to -- I guess say driving down the 

road is what we need right now.

MS. ROHR LUKE: Right, yeah, I think 

the crux of it is I, you know, we're hoping to 

have the, you know, rather than starting with delisting List 4, to start with the conversation 

of, you know, re-engaging the EPA.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay, thank you. I 

think that recommendation is really important.

MS. ROHR LUKE: Are there any --

MR. ELA: All right, thank you, Erika, 

we appreciate that.

MS. ROHR LUKE: Great, thank you for 

your time.

MR. ELA: Let's see, I'm sorry, so we 
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

have Jessica Shade, then Maria Elena Lombardero 

Ventura, and then Lynn Coody and then Mitch 

Clark. And I think we might be missing a couple 

of those people, so I'll also ask Allison Flinn 

and Emily Musgrave to be ready as well.

So Jessica Shade, please go ahead.

MS. SHADE: Hi, everyone, my name is 

Jessica Shade, I'm the Director of Science 

Programs for the Organic Center. We're a 

nonprofit organization that communicates research 

on organic. We collaborate with academic and 

governmental institutions, and we really fill 

gaps in knowledge areas about organic food 

farming.

So I'm just going to really quickly 

highlight a couple of our current projects that 

were informed by NOSB priorities, and then go 

into a few suggestions for additions to this 

year's NOSB research priorities list.

So we were really happy to see that 

economic and social impacts of organic farming 

were on the list. One of our current research 
201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

projects tries to untangle some of this by 

quantifying yield impacts of soil health 

practices with the goal of acting as an immediate 

incentive for encouraging the adoption of best 

soil-building practices in organic. 

Because it's going to connect all the 

dots between the most important strategies for 

building soil health and sequestering carbon that 

also translate into higher, more consistent 

yields.

And one of the things that we're 

hoping for is that by including this category on 

the list, it encourages more economic 

measurements to be made in organic studies. 

Because while we were able to find yield data to 

connect, to do our analysis, most of the studies 

don't actually track the full suite of variables 

that would be needed for a full profitability 

comparison like input costs. 

So that's something that can't be done 

right now that we would love to see done in the 

future if studies start collecting that data. So 
202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that's really encouraging to us that that 

priority is on the list.

We were also happy to see that plant 

disease management and invasive insects are both 

on the list. Citrus greening disease is an issue 

that has been highlighted, you know, by the NOSB 

research priorities for several years now. And 

we're really thrilled that we were finally able 

to secure some federal funding in the form of an 

OREI planning grant to develop a proposal that 

takes a systems-based approach to combat citrus 

greening in organic groves.

We have an open call for organic 

citrus producers to share their experience with 

us via a survey, and we're going to be using that 

information to apply for a full OREI proposal in 

the next funding cycle. 

So it's really helpful that NOSB is 

highlighting the importance of that issue through 

the NOSB research priorities, because that helps 

organizations like the Organic Center, like other 

academic institutions get large-scale federal 
203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

funding, because we can cite it as a priority.

And we also would like to see soil 

health protection for our organic farmers (audio 

interference) pesticide residues. I'll leave it 

there. 

MR. ELA: That clock goes fast. Are 

there any questions? Thank you so much, we 

really appreciate feedback on the research 

priorities, because we know they are used, and it 

is helpful to keep refining and including those.

We are going to move on. Is Maria 

Elena present, did you find her, Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: I have not found her -

-

MR. ELA: I don't believe --

MS. ARSENAULT: Yeah, I've not found 

her in the list, Steve.

MR. ELA: Okay, so we are going to 

move on to Lynn Coody and then Mitch Clark, 

Allison Flinn, and Emily Musgrave.

So go ahead, Lynn.

MS. COODY: Hi, everyone, I hope you 
204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

can hear me.

MR. ELA: We can.

MS. COODY: Okay, great. My name is 

Lynn Coody, and I'm presenting comments for the 

Organic Produce Wholesalers Coalition, seven 

businesses that distribute fresh organic produce 

across the United States and internationally.

Paper crop planting aids. OPWC 

appreciates the revisions to the annotation and 

addition of the definition. We thank the 

Subcommittee for its diligence in incorporating 

feedback from prior public comments. OPWC now 

concurs with the Subcommittee that this material 

should be added to the national list.

Ammonia extract. We have reviewed the 

petition, and based on its contents, have 

concluded that this material is not compatible 

with organic production, as it is highly soluble, 

detrimental to soil organisms, and chemically 

identical to the ammonia used in conventional 

production. We do appreciate the Subcommittee 

ordering a technical report to provide more 
205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

information.

List 4 inerts. We strongly disagree 

with the Crop Subcommittee's recommendation to 

de-list EPA List 4 inerts during its 2022 sunset 

review. Loss of this listing would result in 

tremendous disruption due to the inevitable gap 

between the dissolution of one system of 

regulating inerts and implementation of an 

updated system.

We reiterate our support for the 

NOSB's prior recommendation on inerts, however, 

we read the Subcommittee's justification for delisting is based on orderly implementation of 

this prior recommendation. This would require 

bridging the old and new regulatory systems on a 

very tight timeframe imposed by the sunset 

process, a goal that based on past attempts is 

simply wishful thinking.

We urge the Board to re-list inerts 

and then to work cooperatively with NOP to 

establish a new system for regulating inerts.

Marine macro algae. We have multiple 
206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

concerns about this proposal, which are detailed 

in our written comments. I will mention a few 

here.

One, the document for this meeting is 

the public's first opportunity to see the full 

text of the proposed annotations. Two, the 

document comes as a proposal rather than a 

discussion document, which limits opportunity for 

growers to provide feedback prior to the NOSB's 

votes.

Three, we specifically do not support 

the proposed listing within Section 602. The 

annotation focuses on practice standards for 

harvesting marine macro algae. If this topic 

falls within NOP scope, then we think it would be 

more straightforward to include such information 

in Section 203, which would place it with other 

practice standards used to regulate non-synthetic 

fertilizer materials.

We reiterate our request to the Board 

that the Materials Subcommittee work on this 

issue in consultation with Crops, Livestock, and 
207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Handling Subcommittees to fully assess the 

impacts of the proposed algal harvest 

restrictions on all types of organic operations, 

as well as on material suppliers.

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Lynn. If you 

could have used six more seconds, you would have 

been in the running for the exact time.

MS. COODY: Oh.

MR. ELA: We appreciate you coming in 

a little bit earlier, we don't have any 

complaints.

Questions? I don't see any questions 

from the Board, Lynn, but we always appreciate 

your comments.

MS. COODY: Okay, thank you.

MR. ELA: Yup, take care. We're going 

to see -- is Mitch Clark present? Okay, we don't 

see Mitch, so we are going to move on to Allison 

Flinn, and then followed by Emily Musgrave and 

Adam Warthesen.

Go ahead, I just lost my place, 
208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Allison.

DR. FLINN: Thank you very much. Can 

you hear me?

MR. ELA: We can.

DR. FLINN: Great. Good afternoon, 

Mr. Chair and members of the Board. My name is 

Dr. Allison Flinn, I'm a veterinarian and the 

Director of Public Policy and Government 

Relations for Merck Animal Health.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak 

today in support of approving fenbendazole for 

emergency use in organic laying hens. We took on 

this effort in response to requests from organic 

poultry farmers seeking to access a solution for 

internal parasites when other management efforts 

were not successful.

We strive to ensure positive animal 

health and welfare outcomes in accordance with 

the needs and desire of farmers to help them 

obtain the solution that is best for the animals 

in their care. It is important to note the 

specific situation in which we are considering 
209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this medicine for use.

We are not here to advocate for 

disrupting the values of organic production 

systems. We are here to advocate for helping 

those birds which may encounter a situation where 

emergency treatment is the right thing to do. As 

you heard earlier this afternoon from Mr. Carter 

and Dr. Mozisek, raising hens outdoors in pasture 

conditions has a multitude of benefits and 

presents some potential parasite burden 

challenges.

We have immense respect for and 

recognize the hard work, care, and attention to 

animal health and wellbeing that organic farmers 

commit to. Consumers place significant value on 

the benefits of organic production and have high 

expectations as to the care of animals raised in 

accordance with organic standards, as was noted 

earlier today.

Hens that are suffering from a high 

internal parasite burden experience unnecessary 

stress. We seek to offer an option for organic 
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

production to intervene if required. A previous 

meeting highlighted a concern about the lack of 

clarity in the regulations as to what constitutes 

an emergency use of fenbendazole. We recognize 

this concern and agree it should be addressed to 

provide necessary clarity on this topic.

As I mentioned previously, we do not 

support unregulated or inappropriate use of this 

important medicine in organic laying hen 

operations. Such a practice would not be in line 

with the standards set out in the National 

Organic Program.

We submitted written comments which 

suggest a quantitative approach that could be 

used and recommend that the poultry veterinary 

community, being an objective scientific entity, 

put forward a protocol which could be utilized. 

We propose that poultry veterinary 

experts, such as those members of the American 

Association of Avian Pathologists or the American 

College of Poultry Veterinarians, for examples, 

collaborate to clearly define an objective 
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

assessment of an emergency use situation for 

internal parasite treatment.

Should such a science-based objective 

protocol be recommended by this respected group 

of experts, organic farmers and their 

veterinarians would be able to accurately 

document that the criteria had been met to ensure

compliance with allowable use cases.

I'll close with affirming a sincere 

appreciation for the public stakeholder input 

process. It is so critical to hear all 

viewpoints, and giving them careful consideration 

as the Board carries out its important mission.

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, are there -- it 

looks like Sue has a question. Guess what, Sue, 

you're still on mute.

MS. BAIRD: I caught it myself that 

time. Have you seen an increase in worm 

populations in organic flocks?

DR. FLINN: I'm sorry, could you 

repeat that? I had my audio go a little goofy 
212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for a second.

MS. BAIRD: I said have you seen 

increase in worm population in organic flocks.

DR. FLINN: I would have to refer to 

our written comments for the survey that we 

conducted. So any further followup or sciencebased technical information we would be happy to 

provide as requested, but I'm not able to answer 

that.

MS. BAIRD: Okay, thank you. Dr. 

Donna Kelly, who is a professor microbiology in 

Pennsylvania Pathology Diagnostic Lab stated that 

in -- since 2017, roundworms have increased 900%. 

Heterakis roundworms increased 400%, and 

blackhead increased by 200%. And she is stating 

that these worms very potentially would be 

carrying -- they would carry some kinds of 

bacterium, enteric bacterium into the eggs.

Do you have knowledge of those kinds 

of numbers?

DR. FLINN: I would have to defer to 

my poultry veterinary expert colleagues at this 
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

point, I apologize. Thank you.

MS. BAIRD: Yeah, no worry. I tried 

to ask him but didn't have time, so. But that 

was I found fascinating, thank you.

DR. FLINN: Yup.

MR. ELA: Yeah, and I apologize too 

for cutting you off before, we were just running 

late on time. But if, yes, you, Allison, if you 

could submit any thoughts on that to Michelle 

that could get passed around to the Board.

DR. FLINN: We'd be happy to --

MR. ELA: Next up -- great, thank you 

so much for your comments. I think what we're 

going to do is we will go to Emily Musgrave, and 

then Adam Warthesen, and we'll take another short 

break before we move on to the rest of the list. 

We are running approximately 20 minutes behind, 

but overall I think we're doing pretty well. But 

we'll keep ourselves focused here.

So Emily, please go ahead.

MS. MUSGRAVE: Can you all hear me?

MR. ELA: Hear you, but you might 
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

speak up just a touch.

MS. MUSGRAVE: Okay. Good afternoon, 

my name is Emily Musgrave. I'm the Organic 

Program Manager at Driscoll's. I would like to 

thank the NOSB as always for their commitment to 

protect the integrity of the organic program and 

uphold the vital regulatory processes of the NOP. 

I would also like to thank both the NSOB and the 

NOP for their willingness and flexibility to hold 

two virtual meetings.

My comments focus on biodegradable 

bio-based mulch, or BBM; marine macro algae and 

crop fertility inputs; wild native fish for 

fertilizer production; and the continued listing 

of EPA List 4 inerts.

I'll begin with the topic of 

biodegradable bio-based mulch. Understandably, 

the Board is concerned about the effects of soil 

health from the BBMs when the material degrades. 

A four-year research study comparing the soil 

health of conventional PE mulch to BBMs showed no 

harmful effects of BBMs on soil health. 
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Although longer term studies are 

needed to continue to continue to validate this 

point, the scientific research conducted to date 

are good examples of what to expect from BBMs 

when they degrade. Dricoll's urges the NOSB to 

rewrite the language in the 2013 policy memo on 

BBMs that includes requirements manufacturing 

companies can meet.

Driscoll's does not support the 

proposal for marine macro algae and crop 

fertility inputs as it is written, and we believe 

it should be sent back to the Subcommittee for 

further work. This is a very complex proposal 

that impacts one of the most widely used products 

by organic growers worldwide. We believe this 

proposal needs further research and discussion in 

order to get it right, and we believe the Board 

should get it right. 

Driscoll's does not support the 

proposal on wild native fish for fertilizer 

production as written. We believe this proposal 

should also be sent back to the Subcommittee for 
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

further work.

Driscoll's appreciates the Board's 

continued efforts on the subject of sourcing 

sustainable marine materials, including those 

used in liquid fish fertilizers. However, we 

respectfully ask for more time for the community 

to weigh in on a change to the regulations that 

is so consequential to the industry.

Driscoll's supports the continued 

lifting of EPA List 4 inerts of minimal concern 

on the national list. Removing EPA List 4 from 

the national list without another system in place 

for organic growers would be irresponsible. 

Driscoll's urges the NOSB to keep the EPA List 4 

on the national list until another solution is in 

place.

I thank the National Organic Standards 

Board for you service, and for consideration of 

my comments.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much. It 

looks like we have some questions. Emily first.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you, Emily, for 
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

your comments. I was wondering if you could give 

me some specifics about the marine macro algae 

document in particular and what further research 

we need in that proposal to get it right.

MS. MUSGRAVE: Yeah, thanks for the 

question. I also kind of agree with Lynn Coody's 

comments that this was the first time seeing it 

and it was -- those annotations, and it's quite a 

lot. 

So one suggestion we have maybe is 

holding kind of an industry feedback session on 

the topic if something like that is possible. So 

kind of the public and the Board could get some 

really specific questions about those annotations 

answered.

MR. ELA: Okay, next, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Hi, I wanted to ask, you 

know, given Driscoll's involvement in the berry 

industry and the heavy use of polyethylene films 

in strawberry production, in organic strawberry 

production, I'm curious, is any of that material 

recycled? And how is it usually disposed of each 
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

year? 

And do you have any growers that you 

contract with who are using the current 

biodegradable mulches, and how are they handling 

it, if that's the case? And by the current 

biodegradable mulches, these would probably be 

conventional growers if they're using material 

that doesn't meet the current organic standard.

MS. MUSGRAVE: Yeah, thanks for the 

questions, Asa. So your, what was your, the very 

first question you mentioned? I think there was 

a couple in there, what was your very first? It 

was about --

MR. BRADMAN: Disposal of --

MS. MUSGRAVE: Disposal.

MR. BRADMAN: -- used polyethylene 

films, which are so extensively used in berry 

production.

MS. MUSGRAVE: Yeah, so it's my 

understanding that because of, you know, the way 

it works with those PEs being in the field for so 

long and, you know, the dirt on them that they're 
219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not -- we've tried. I think our teams have gone 

to, you know, over 50 different places trying to 

recycle those, and it's my understanding that 

we're not actually able to do that. 

That nobody really takes them because 

of, you know, the dirt and how -- I'm not sure 

into the why, but I know that we're really not 

able to recycle. Which is why, you know, so many 

of our growers really want an alternative, 

because all of that plastic mulch is going to the 

landfills.

And then as to your -- so the answer 

to that would be as far as I know, we're not able 

to recycle that, so that's all going to the 

landfills. 

And then to your second question, I 

think we really do have some, I know we have lots 

of organic growers interested in using BBMs, but 

I do think we are working with some conventional 

growers to trial these BBMs. And I'd be happy to 

get back to you on some of the specifics once I 

talk to our R&D team. But I know there's 
220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

definitely a lot of interest there.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

MS. MUSGRAVE: Yeah.

MR. ELA: Any other questions? Thank 

you very much, we do appreciate it. We're going 

to go to Adam Warthesen and then take a break. 

And after break we're going to start with Jake 

Evans, Ehsan Toosi, and then Ramy Colfer.

So Adam, please go ahead.

MR. WARTHESEN: So thank you. Just do 

a mic check, can you hear me?

MR. ELA: We can hear you, go ahead.

MR. WARTHESEN: All right, well good 

afternoon, Board members and staff of the 

National Organics Programs. Sorry we're not able 

to meet in person, but like many of you I've 

become accustomed to this Zoom lifestyle, for 

better or worse. 

At CROPP Cooperative, my role as 

Director of Government Relations and Industry 

Affairs is to support our regulatory team, who is 

going to be commenting later on some of the 
221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

materials in front of the NOSB. But I also do 

work on policy and advocacy at state and federal 

level. So today my comments are going to be more 

reflective of expansive rulemaking efforts that 

the National Organic Program is involved in.

I would say this is that, you know, 

critical to a healthy and competitive organic 

theory sector is consistent application of the 

standards. And regrettably, the National 

Organics Program and USDA has just utterly failed 

to accomplish on the top of origin of livestock. 

I think we have a really clear 

situation here that's broadly recognized within 

the organic dairy industry and across the organic 

community that we have one set of certifiers and 

their clients with an interpretation of the 

regulations over here, another set of certifiers 

and their clients with interpretation of the 

regulation over here. 

And what ends up happening is a gulf 

in between them on what is the appropriate 

conditions for how dairy animals achieve organic 
222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

status. This is not new because in 2013 we had 

an OIG report. In 2015, there was a proposed 

rule, 2019 a second comment period on that 

proposed rule. 

And in those comments that were 

provided, it was virtually unanimous in support 

for allowing a one-time event that permits the 

transition of a conventional herd to organic, and 

then thereafter a dairy farmer or producer would 

only source those dairy animals managed 

organically as from the last third of gestation. 

So the continuous transition of replacement 

stock would be prohibited.

So not only has this sort of ability 

for the Agency to give us a final rule and 

determination on this, which has created this 

competitive harm, been hard on the industry, but 

it's now out of step with federal law. 

The Further Consolidation Act of 2002, 

which was the appropriation bills we passed in 

December of this past year, stated that not later 

than 180 days after the date of enactment, the 
223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Secretary of Agriculture shall issue a final rule 

based on the proposed entitled rule origin of 

livestock.

We are now -- that was June 17. Now 

we're 125 days past that date. So I want to, you 

know, commend the Board, who previously in 

October of 2017 had a recommendation that urged 

the Department to continue to advance this, to 

remain consistent and to, again, sound off on 

that expression. The industry has demanded this, 

Congress is aligned with this. It really needs 

to become the, you know, the conclusion.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, Adam. 

Are there any questions for Adam?

All right, appreciate it, Adam. We 

are going to take a short break. If we could 

reconvene, we're running about 20 minutes behind, 

yeah, about 20 minutes behind. So maybe if we 

could reconvene at, like in seven or eight 

minutes rather than the full ten minutes, so that 

would be at 44 minutes past the hour. So we'll 

talk to everybody in like seven or eight minutes 
224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

again. Thank you.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 12:36 p. and resumed at 

12:44 p.m.)

MR. ELA: All right, this is Steve 

again. I think we will go ahead and restart 

here. And we're running just a little behind but 

it looks like we can make some of that up. And 

so Michelle, are you ready?

MS. ARSENAULT: I am ready. The next 

set of speakers has a slide deck, so I'll just 

wait for Jared and/or Devon, I don't know who'd 

projecting them right now, to get those up and 

running. I just saw the screen blip, so I think 

they're all cool.

MR. ELA: So we are going to start 

with Jake Evans, followed by Ehsan Toosi, and 

then Ramy Colfer, and then after that Michael 

Menes.

So Jake, are you ready? Do we have 

Jake?

MR. EVANS: Yes, I'm on, I'm on. 
225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Steve, can you hear me?

MR. ELA: Okay. Yup, we can hear you. 

Go ahead, Jake.

MR. EVANS: Next slide please, if you 

can, Steve. Thank you.

Good afternoon, I'm Jake Evans, 

founder and CEO of True Organic Products. We are 

the largest organic fertilizer supplier in the 

US, serving the vast majority of organic produce 

birding (phonetic) and specialty crop growers in 

the nation. 

With over 20 years in the organic 

industry, I've had the pleasure to work with some 

of the best organic farmers in the world. I've 

seen soils come back to life by focusing on 

microbial health. I have seen growers innovate 

by understanding what their ground needs to be 

healthy, feed that need, and create the most 

nutritious crops while producing near 

conventional yields.

I have seen conventional farmers 

migrate to organic practices after experiencing 
226

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

disease and pest suppression on the organic 

ground. I have seen the complete transition of 

organic soil biomes and soil (unintelligible) 

while adjacent conventional fields are completely 

sterile. 

All this being possible by feeding the 

soil carbon-rich compost, plant and animal 

materials found in nature, utilizing microbial 

breakdown to transform nutrients and crops, 

fulfilling the original principles of the organic 

movement.

Unfortunately, despite all this good, 

I have seen fraud in the crop input that's 

unimaginable, fraud at all levels, the 

manufacturer level, the distributor level, and 

the grower level. The crop input category has 

had and continues to have substantial regulatory 

challenges. True Organic Products funded the 

private investigation into Port Organics, which 

led to an FBI sting which found massive fraud of

blending of synthetic ammonia and fish.

The industry couldn't detect the basic 
227

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of blending of fish with ammonia. How will they 

regulate synthetic ammonia blended with ammonia 

extracts utilizing the same tools we had ten 

years ago, including isotope ratio? OMRI made 

this clear in their written comments.

True is not submitting this petition 

for a competitive advantage or competitive 

reasons. As an industry leader, True has been 

contacted and explored multiple domestic and 

international ammonia suppliers, being welleducated in the process. I respect many of those 

who support ammonia extract and believe they have 

good waste management intentions. 

While True has had an opportunity to 

bring ammonia extracts to the masses, we have 

not. We firmly believe AE is not right for 

organics. In all my years in the industry, I 

have yet to see a crop input material which will 

have a more negative impact on our entire 

industry and will defy the progress and the 

principles of an entire organic program.

Ammonia, the most commonly used 
228

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

synthetic fertilizer, is ammonia, regardless of 

how it's produced. The soil doesn't know the 

difference, the plant doesn't know the 

difference, the regulators don't know the 

difference, and I don't believe the farmers will 

use them differently.

Thank you for your time and the review 

of this petition, and I look forward to some 

other comments from my associates. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Are there questions from the 

Board? I just have a question. In terms of, we 

heard from previous speakers that the difference 

between carbon -- that it was pretty easy to 

check per carbon-nitrogen ration from synthetic 

ammonia versus organic ammonia, so to speak. 

Could you speak to that?

MR. EVANS: Yes. The problem with 

that, what will occur is in a pure form, the 

isotope is a tool. The problem is is when you 

blend those together, there is a large gap. And 

organic ammonia, being about 20 times more high, 

of a higher cost than synthetic ammonia, blending 
229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ten or twenty percent in, synthetic into organic, 

is big range and there'll be a gap that isotope 

ratio will not detect. And that's the range that 

major fraud will occur. 

When you have tanks of synthetic 

ammonia at ranches with growers and you have an 

organic ammonia, and maybe a grower is having a 

bad month and he could blend a thousand gallons 

over to the organic tank and save 30 or 40 or 

$50,000, that's a risk for fraud.

When there's a small distributor that 

sells organic ammonia, when he has his chemical 

tanks and also supplies organic farmers with 

their fertilizer and maybe he has some bills 

haven't been paid, and he could blend 100 or 200 

gallons in and increase his profit margin three 

or four hundred percent, that's huge risk for 

fraud.

When there's suppliers internationally 

and domestically that could produce -- that could 

blend 10-20% in, that's where the fraud risks 

occur. And that's what happened with Port 
230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Organics, and I believe that's what will happen 

with this product. And there's no tool to detect 

that.

MR. ELA: Great, thank you for 

elucidating that. Any other questions? All 

right, we will move on. Thank you, Jake.

MR. EVANS: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Ehsan Toosi, I don't, I 

probably mispronounce your name, but you are next 

up, followed by Ramy Colfer, and then Michael 

Menes.

Ehsan, go ahead.

DR. TOOSI: All right. Can you hear 

me?

MR. ELA: We can hear you.

DR. TOOSI: Okay. Could you go to the 

next slide, please. Yes.

Good afternoon, everyone, my name is 

Ehsan Toosi. By training, I'm a soil scientist 

and obtained my PhD ten years ago. Since then, 

I've worked as a researcher in academia, and 

later joined the Ag industry. And the focus of 
231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

my research publications on my work has been soil 

carbon and oxygen cycling, specifically in 

relation to sustainable agriculture.

I have been a member of research and 

development at True Organic Products for the past 

two years.

Regarding the AE technology, I have a 

consideration that I would like to share with the 

Committee. One of the principles of organic 

cropping as an approach to sustainable 

agriculture is improving soil fertility to 

biological processes, commonly referred to as 

soil biological fertility.

Ammonium and nitrate are plantavailable nitrogen forms. Naturally ammonium 

supplied to plants occurs during microbial 

breakdown of complex compounds in soil, the socalled ammonification process. Direct addition 

of ammonium to soil is not a natural process, so 

even if it is technically non-synthetic, it 

should not be allowed in organic farming.

The practice, I mean the direct supply 
232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of ammonium to soil, minimally involves the soil 

food web because it bypasses many, many processes 

in the soil nitrogen cycle. And this is not in 

line with a principle of organic farming.

I appreciate your time and I'm happy 

to take any questions.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Are there 

questions? I will just ask the question again is 

that we've heard before that if there's a ammonia 

extract that has a high carbon-nitrogen ratio, 

does that carbon get sequestered in the soil the 

same as if you were adding a, like a manure or 

something else that's not broken down?

DR. TOOSI: So if there's a source 

that the carbon to nitrogen ratio, and nitrogen's 

in the ammonia form is high, is a chance to 

carbon sequester in short, right?

MR. ELA: Correct.

DR. TOOSI: Yes. Typically, the 

larger C to N ratio is, the higher probability of 

carbon sequestration is. But that's just from 

the chemistry of the input. In the management in 
233

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the determines (audio interference) end of the 

day, for example, the (audio interference) and 

other inputs that how much carbon sequestration 

you have. 

But yes, when you have a lower C to N 

ratio, probably you have higher losses of carbon 

of the input to the atmosphere during the 

biological processes. Usually microbes, they 

decompose about half of the carbon from the input 

and it goes back to atmosphere. Half of that 

remains in the microbial biomass and it returns 

to soil over time.

MR. ELA: Great, thank you. Are there 

any other questions? Thank you, Ehsan. We are 

going to move onto Ramy Colfer, followed by 

Michael Menes, and Jessica Knutzon.

Go ahead, Ramy.

DR. COLFER: Okay, can you hear me?

MR. ELA: We can.

DR. COLFER: Okay, great. Thank you 

for listening to us today. My name is Ramy 

Colfer. I have worked for the last two years in 
234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the Research and Development Department at True 

Organics. Before I came to True, I spent 18 

years working in the Internal Farming Department

at Earthbound Farm, where I was involved with our 

production. And before that, I received at PhD 

at UC Davis.

What I learned during my time farming 

at Earthbound Farm was that in order to solve 

problems in organic farming, you really need to 

take a approach that embraces ecological and 

biological processes, and these processes take 

time. 

For instance, for fertility 

management, you know, we would utilize practices 

such as cover crops, using organic amendments 

such as natural organic fertilizers and compost. 

And these are carbon-based, very complex 

molecules that break down slowly through 

microbial activity by feeding the soil food web.

And similarly with pest management, 

we've used things like promoting biological 

control using insectary strips, like shown here, 
235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as well as using botanicals and microbial 

products, crop rotation, and good variety 

selection. 

And really, all these approaches take 

time, they require a lot of planning, and they 

also require a little hammer approach. Really, 

it's little steps that do little things and in 

accumulation they solve big problems.

And my concern is with these new 

ammonia products that they are immediate, they 

have immediate, quick responses, and they are a 

big hammer. And I'm afraid the problems that 

they could create if they become commonly used 

will be much like what we see in conventional 

agriculture.

And I fear that, you know, if they 

become widely used, we could see excessive 

vegetative growth, which could lead to increased 

pest and disease problems, as well as increased 

risk for environmental pollution. And for these 

reasons, I encourage the Board to prohibit the 

use of ammonia products in organic farming.
236

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Are there 

questions from the Board? All right, thank you 

very much. We are going to move on to Michael 

Menes, followed by Jessica Knutzon and Kyle 

Bailey.

Michael, please go ahead.

MR. MENES: Very good. Thank you, can 

you guys hear me okay?

MR. ELA: We can hear you.

MR. MENES: Great. If you could go to 

the next slide, please. My name's Mike Menes. 

I've worked for True Organic Products for 11 

years now, and I've been given the opportunity to 

get involved in the organic industry from the 

many aspects. This includes serving on the OTA 

Board of Directors and also on the California 

Organic Products Advisory Committee. And also 

various other task forces.

One of my most profound experiences is 

submitting a petition to the NOSB specifically 

for ammonia extract. So I truly thank you for 
237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the opportunity to comment on something that I 

consider a pivotal point in the organic movement 

and the organic industry.

You've now heard from my esteemed 

coworkers, who have provided some insight from 

their perspective roles on the negative impacts 

in the use of ammonia extract. To complete the 

narrative, I want to reiterate that the 

definition proposed in the petition is 

purposefully broad.

We have a slightly better 

understanding of the multiple ways, where and how 

to make ammonia extract. In the end, the focus 

should be on the finished product. What is in 

the bottle, where does the biology happen, and is 

it found in nature? Does it fit into the organic 

principles? These are fundamental questions.

So, many alternatives already are 

approved for organic farming that do not bypass 

the soil food web. I'll give an example of this 

would be liquid fish. 

I will add that I am in support of the 
238

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

liquid fish petition, given that it does include 

the waste-derived -- includes waste derived from 

human and animal consumption. Liquid fish is 

found in nature and it does fit into organic.

I submit to you today that this a 

foundational question. AE is not compatible with 

organic farming principles. Multiple 

technologies exist, some of which are already in 

play, so the ball is rolling. Focus on the end 

product, and you will see that it is not found in 

nature. It does not feed the soil, but bypasses 

it. And furthermore, the methods for testing it 

are unclear.

I ask that you review the process for 

the petition to prohibit ammonia extract and 

continue to be -- for it to continue to be 

expedited. Thank you for your diligence in the 

perfecting of the organic industry through the 

principles and the organic seal. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Are there any questions from 

the Board? Mike.

MR. MENES: Steve, you cut off there 
239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on me.

MR. ELA: Sorry about that. You all 

make a number of liquid fertilizers. And I guess 

I would be curious, one, of how different liquids 

don't bypass the soil, as you're talking about. 

And then also would there be any 

benefit to putting a percentage, like if I grow 

apples, you know, I can supply 20% of my nitrogen 

needs through liquids and the rest through some 

kind of soil application of a solid. Would there 

be any benefit or difficulty in doing that?

MR. MENES: Okay, so two questions 

there. The first one I would just mention that 

how do you define a liquid fertilizer that's 

suitable for use. And I go back to being mostly

like a carbon base, a protein base, and not all 

the way back to the fundamental starting 

material. 

But also, where is that biology 

happening? Is there something that's happening 

in the soil that constitutes feeding the soil and 

feeding into that soil food web. All of this 
240

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

really is in the petition, going back to that. 

And what was your second question 

again there, Steve? It was --

MR. ELA: Oh, it was would there be 

any benefit to, I mean, there are a number of 

liquid fertilizers out there. Is there any 

benefit to limiting the total amount of nitrogen 

that might applied to a crop, you know, like 

through a percentage or something. I mean, 

sodium nitrate we had said it can only be 20% of 

the crop needs. Would that be an approach to 

take with something like this?

MR. MENES: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, 

there's certainly an option to follow that same 

kind of approach. My first concern would be what 

Jake had mentioned to, alluded to earlier, was 

the organic fraud potential for that. Again, 

we've outlined the fraud potential in there and 

the fact that it's very similar, so similar that 

you can hardly tell the difference between. 

If you allow a little bit, would that, 

would somebody take advantage of that? So I 
241

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

would be cautious about that, that use of that in 

a smaller percentage. But at the same time, that 

would still be open to that, knowing that there's 

a real organic fraud potential there.

MR. ELA: Great, thank you. Any other 

questions?

Thank you very much, Michael, we do 

appreciate it.

MR. MENES: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We were going to move on to 

Jessica Knutzon, Kyle Bailey, followed by Allison 

Carrington. 

Jessica, are you here? Go ahead 

please, and state your name and affiliation.

MS. KNUTZON: Hi, I'm Jessica Knutzon 

from CP Kelco. You can go ahead and move to the 

next slide please. 

Thank you all for the opportunity to 

present our oral comments on behalf of CP Kelco. 

These comments are in reference to our written 

comments that were submitted earlier. Two of my 

colleagues will be presenting next, with more 
242

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

information around low acyl gellan gum. So if I 

don't cover something that may answer some 

questions, my colleagues definitely will.

To start off, I want to go through the 

process of how gellan gum is made. All gellan 

gums, both high acyl and low acyl, are made from 

the same bacteria, which is found in nature on 

water plants such as water lilies. With a 

nitrogen and carbon source, that bacteria is 

fermented and then pasturized.

For both high acyl and low acyl gellan 

gum, the pasturized product is precipitated, 

dried, and milled. However, the low acyl has two 

extra steps before being precipitated that gives 

it some different properties than high acyl 

gellan gum. The de-isolation and the 

clarification processes impart unique attributes 

to low acyl gellan gum, which I will review in 

just a moment.

Low acyl gellan gum has the same CAS 

number as currently NOSB-approved high acyl 

gellan gum and is labeled as gellan gum on the 
243

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

label, as is high acyl. Next slide, please.

Aside from the minor differences in 

the manufacturing process, high acyl and low acyl 

impact complimentary functionalities. Low acyl 

gellan gum has a very dense network, is highly 

aggregated, which leads to more brittle texture 

and more clarity. High acyl has a less dense 

network that allow -- sorry, pardon, than low 

acyl. It is less aggregated, resulting in a 

soft, flexible texture and some opaqueness. Next 

slide, please.

So some of the key properties that my 

colleague Kyle Bailey will go through next for 

low acyl gellan gum are its high gel strength; 

its excellent flavor release; it has amazing 

stability with heat and acid; has sparking 

clarity; has flexibility when melting and 

setting, which is important for many 

applications; and it is compatible with other 

hydrocolloids. Next slide, please.

And some of the key applications that 

you'll find low acyl gellan gum in are ready-to-
244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

eat water gels, baker fillings, confectionary. 

And those first three are important because this 

creates a vegan option whenever you want to 

replace gelatin in certain products. For -- you 

can use it in yogurt, sorry, dairy-based yogurt. 

Now we have to clarify. 

And fruit preparations and spreads 

that are outside of the standard of identity. It 

can be used in icings and frostings and different 

types of beverages. Again, as I mentioned the 

stability in acidic environments makes it very 

unique. And in other applications such as 

toothpaste, sun screen, body mist and washes and 

nutraceuticals. And my colleague will go more 

into these as well.

Made it with three seconds.

MR. ELA: Perfect, thank you for that. 

Unfortunately, three seconds doesn't quite 

qualify you for the perfect time, but it's pretty 

darn good, we'll give you the gold star for that.

MS. KNUTZON: I usually go over, so 

I'm proud.
245

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Okay, that counts. Are 

there any questions? All right, thank you very 

much, Jessica.

MS. KNUTZON: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

Kyle Bailey, followed by Allison Carrington and 

then Patty Lovera.

Kyle, please go ahead.

MR. BAILEY: Great, thank you. Can 

you move to the next slide, please.

My name is Kyle Bailey, and I too am 

with CP Kelco. And I am also speaking in support 

of the addition of low acyl gellan gum to the 

list of non-agricultural synthetic ingredients 

allowed in organic products.

As you can see in this chart that I 

have, I've got a comparison of low acyl gellan 

gum versus other gelling agent hydrocolloids that 

are currently allowed to be used in organic 

products. And we'll highlight some of the 

specific functionalities that low acyl gellan gum 

brings to formulators.
246

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

One main attribute is low acyl gellan 

gum to form fluid gels at very low use levels and 

deliver longterm suspension of insoluble 

particles, such as fruit pulp, jelly pieces, or 

spices and herbs. Fluid gels formed with low 

acyl gellan gum have a minimal impact on 

mouthfeel viscosity, unlike alginates, and are 

highly transparent, unlike high acyl gellan gum.

Kappa carrageenan's use as a 

suspending aid is really limited to dairy-based 

beverages because of the interaction with the 

protein, while iota carageenan is typically in 

dressings or alternative dairy milks at the 

expense of a more viscous mouthfeel.

Another major good point of its 

functionality is its ability to provide heatstable gels. These heat-stable gels can be used 

in bakery fillings and water dessert gels. As 

another example, low acyl gellan gum can be used 

in both neutral and acidic fillings, such as 

chocolate and fruit respectively, to provide 

structure and prevent the filling from boiling 
247

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

out the baked good, resulting in excellent 

consumer acceptance.

Perhaps, more importantly, it can 

function in these types of environments without 

constraints such as pH or soluble solids in the 

way that both pectin -- both types of pectin have 

to. Thus, low acyl gellan gum can work in a 

broader working range and allow manufacturers to 

streamline their ingredient usage.

In summary, the unique qualities of 

low acyl gellan gum as seen and discussed here 

today allow for its use as a single ingredient 

across a wide variety of food and beverage 

applications and allow for different 

functionalities such as gelling and suspending. 

In terms of gelling, low use levels go a long way 

and can provide very firm textures.

And lastly, it is stable to both 

acidic and neutral conditions.

I urge the NOSB to approve the 

petition to have low acyl gellan gum approved to 

the list of non-agricultural synthetic 
248

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ingredients, and thank you for your time today.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Kyle. Are there 

any questions from the Board? I don't see any 

questions, so appreciate it, Kyle. We're going 

to move on to Allison Carrington, followed by 

Patty Lovera and then Stephen Walker.

Allison, please go ahead.

MS. CARRINGTON: All right, can you 

hear me?

MR. ELA: Hear ya.

MS. CARRINGTON: Excellent. So my 

name is Allison Carrington, I work for a city 

council based out of Atlanta, GA, and I wish to 

thank the NOSB for allowing us to speak on the 

need for organic vegan low acyl gellan gum.

Low acyl gellan gum is nature-derived 

and it's made to the process of bacterial 

fermentation, which doesn't rely on other natural 

resources. It's a very controlled process. And 

in the next few minutes, I'm going to discuss the 

significance of having organic low acyl gellan in 

capsule technology. So we're on the correct 
249

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

slide now.

So low acyl gellan gum from a 

structured function relationship allows for the 

development of two-piece snap hard cap. And when 

we formulate with this ingredient, we have the 

ability to create various release times, which 

are aligned to health claims. So a standard 

release time in 30 minutes, 15 minutes, or 

delayed release, like enteric properties.

Using that variability some of the 

consumer health ingredients that can be delivered 

with these capsules are pertinent to digestive 

health, nutritional oils like fat-soluble 

vitamins. We can target male-female population 

needs, looking at different ages, parameters. We 

can also offer an animal-free solution in a 

capsule. Next slide.

So why is organic low acyl gellan gum 

the optimum choice? Well, what we've done is 

upon investigation or examination, we've looked 

at other possible alternatives. 

So xanthan and locust bean gum, well, 
250

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we utilize them within the system. The viscosity 

is so high that when we look at depositing 

droplets into the pin, it prevents this from 

being created. So that capsule shell, the actual 

integrity cannot be formed.

Pectin on a standalone use basis has a 

very low viscosity, a lot of splashing. It also 

produces a film that's more on the weaker side. 

Agar itself is very inefficient because of the 

extended setting temperatures.

So to give you a comparison of why we 

believe a low acyl gellan gum is aligned with 

this application. And the last slide, please.

So vegan organic capsules with low 

acyl gellan gums offer the following functional 

characteristics. That polymer film I just spoke 

about, it has great integrity, the shelf-life is 

high. It has a very rapid setting, resulting in 

dry, cool caps with good mechanical properties 

for the consumer to consume.

There is very consistent capsule lotto-lot quality achieved, which ensures the claims 
251

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of release time. So we're looking at a capsule 

that's organic that has the ability to share 

optimum utilization and absorption of active 

ingredients in the human body.

Lastly, organic low acyl gellan gum is 

the best solution for the vitamins, minerals and 

supplements market.

So in closing, we've been observing 

very high consumer demand towards the (audio 

interference) label and the organic supplement 

industry. And so we know the facts presented 

today, and I'm going over, I took some of Kyle's 

time. We know the facts presented today show 

that organic low acyl gellan gum is the only 

solution that really meets the consumer needs in 

the capsule market.

So I thank you for your time.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Allison. Any 

questions for Allison? All right. Thank you 

again, Allison, have a good day. We are going to 

move on to Patty Lovera, then Stephen Walker, 

followed by Michael Crotser.
252

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Patty, please go ahead.

MS. LOVERA: Can you hear me?

MR. ELA: We can hear you.

MS. LOVERA: Okay, great. Hi, 

everybody, my name is Patty Lovera, and I'm the 

Policy Director for the Organic Farmers 

Association. Today I'm going to cover a couple 

of topics impacting organic farmers that the 

National Organic Program is considering. And on 

Thursday, OFA's Director will comment on several 

specific issues on the NOSB agenda.

The first issue I'm going to cover is 

organic certification cost share. So not 

surprisingly, OFA members are very upset about 

the decision by the Farm Services Agency to cut 

2020 reimbursement levels for the organic 

certification cost share program. 

We understand that NOP and AMS no 

longer administer this program, but we urge them 

to -- the NOP in particular to reach out to FSA 

to try to better understand how this happened. 

It seems like there's been a lot of confusion and 
253

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

bookkeeping and delays that led to this situation 

this year and how we can prevent it in the 

future.

A second ongoing topic that we just 

heard about a little while ago is in dairy. We 

were also disappointed that the NOP did not meet 

the deadline set by Congress for finalizing a 

rule on the origin of organic livestock. 

We urge the NOP to work as quickly as 

possible to address this longstanding gap in the 

organic standards and level the playing field for 

organic dairy farms. And we hope to hear an 

update on the status of that rulemaking at the 

full meeting next week.

On container and greenhouse 

operations, OFA continues to be concerned about 

inconsistent enforcement of the three-year 

transition after the use of a prohibited 

substance. The memo from the NOP in 2019 left 

many questions unanswered in this area. 

This summer, OFA, the National Organic 

Coalition, and the Accredited Certifiers 
254

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Association conducted a survey of USDA-accredited 

certification agencies to assess how certifiers 

interpret the standards for transition within 

greenhouse, hoop house, hydroponic, and indoor 

operations. 

Thirty-four certifiers responded, and 

their responses indicate a wide range of 

interpretation about how long these operations 

must wait after the application of a prohibited 

substance.

So we're encouraged that the ACA 

working group is focused on this issue, and we 

urge the NOP to work closely and collaboratively 

with the ACA to provide some clarity on this 

question as soon as possible.

And then finally, on the strengthening 

organic enforcement rule, one topic that we've 

specifically wanted to flag here at the NOSB 

meeting is the topic of grower groups. So OFA's 

aware that there are successful and well-run 

grower group networks around the world that 

provide a viable way for small producers to 
255

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

participate in the organic market. 

But we believe that this issue 

deserves a more thorough conversation among the 

entire organic community on how to strike the 

proper balance between allowing this unique 

system and reducing the potential for violations 

of the standards for unfair economic conditions 

for growers. The best place to have this 

discussion is the NOSB. 

So we suggest taking the grower group 

section out of the proposed rule so we can have 

this conversation without delaying the rest of 

the rule, which needs to be implemented as soon 

as possible.

Thanks.

MR. ELA: It looks like Scott has a 

questions for you.

MR. RICE: Yes, thanks, Steve. Thanks 

for your comments, Patty. And in regards to your 

comments on the Organic Cost Share Program, that 

is something in CACS Subcommittee and in other 

calls with the NOP, I definitely raised similar 
256

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

concerns. Our own agency has had just a 

tremendous amount of frustration ourselves, and I 

just wanted to let you know that, you know, that 

is on our radar. We've brought it up to the 

program, and Jenny and her team have been really 

responsive in doing what they can. But as you 

noted, it's out of their responsibility directly, 

but, at the very least, it felt like they were 

really hearing that concern and did what they 

could to kind of reach out to their colleagues 

but still, obviously, frustrating.

MS. LOVERA: Thanks. Yes, we also 

think there's also lots and lots of education to 

do that maybe NOP could help FSA get out to their 

county offices. The reports we get about the 

confusion and the process just keep on coming, so 

there's still more work to do for organic, in 

that sector, I think.

MR. RICE: Yes, definitely. Thanks.

MR. ELA: Emily has a question.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you so much for the 

work that was done on the survey to certifiers 
257

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

regarding requirements for the transition period 

under various different applications. It was 

extremely detailed and covered probably every 

conceivable situation in the three-year 

transition period may or may not be applied by a 

certifier. And I saw the results were very 

varied, and there was significant variation, at 

least in some areas, between the way that 

certifiers are or are not applying three-year 

transition period. So this is actually, not 

surprisingly, a question for the program if 

they've seen these survey results, and, if so, 

what their thoughts on that are.

MR. ELA: We will see, does anybody 

from the program want to respond to that?

DR. TUCKER: This is Jenny. I just 

went off mute. Can you hear me?

MR. ELA: Yes.

DR. TUCKER: Okay. I just received 

that survey this week. It came to me through a 

couple of different avenues so appreciate the 

work that went into it and look forward to 
258

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

reading through it and see what we can -- I would 

like to better understand what the survey asked 

and what the responses were. So thank you to 

everybody who participated in that process.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Jenny. Any other 

questions? Thank you, Patty. Much appreciated.

We are going to move on to Stephen 

Walker, the Michael Crotser, and then Alison 

Watkins.

Stephen, please go ahead.

MR. WALKER: Good afternoon. I'm 

Steve Walker from MOSA. MOSA certifies 2200 

organic operations, so we manage a lot of skills, 

experience, and logistics. I'm grateful for the 

discussion on the human capacity element of our 

work.

We support strong standards to 

maintain organic success, fill gaps, and uphold 

trust. Usually, we find improvements are well 

targeted, but we're conflicted, as these often 

place more burden on certifiers. Our capacity is 

near tapped, and more requirements can make 
259

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

certification less accessible. Sometimes, 

regulatory process gets in the way of our organic 

vision for a thriving organic world. That vision 

includes all in this movement.

It seems no new rule simplifies 

processes for the humans involved in our work. 

Reviewers and inspectors still burnout when their 

work becomes detail obsessed, managers are 

challenged to align systems, communication, and 

training with new requirements, and farmers spend 

more time on records and pay more for 

certification as we try to stay fiscally sound.

So as we improve our label, we also 

look for practical respite where risk assessment 

might lighten some burdens, like we consider use 

of innovative technology for parts of inspections 

and risk-based inspection scheduling. We also 

call for timely NOP clarification when rule 

interpretation is inconsistent.

I've been joking that my task here is 

to distill an 11-page written comment into three 

minutes. I won't try too hard, and I don't talk 
260

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that fast anyway. So just read our comments, but 

here's a few points. What's working well? NOP 

interface, the learning center, and good 

collaboration with other humans in our unique 

line of work. Cost share helps make 

certification accessible. Our regulatory sector 

is not reasonably funded. Certifiers can't 

continually fund our burdens on the backs of 

organic farmers, especially in this uncertain 

global landscape. We ask for federal organic 

fiscal research and policy support to be on par 

with that for conventional agriculture.

We recognize pre-competitive 

challenges, including finding training and 

retaining inspectors and review staff, 

competitive pay, geographic gaps, and labor laws 

for contractors. We're concerned about 

prescriptive training and qualification 

requirements. Education, training, and life 

experience beyond organic ag provide useful, 

necessary skills. Organic specifics are 

teachable. Softer skills are more elusive. 
261

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

These include critical thinking and diverse 

communication skills, farm-side manner.

I hope this discussion will ease our 

burdens and help us maintain our passion for 

organic and its needed positive global impact.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Stephen. Are 

there questions? I don't see any. Thank you for 

your presentation. Oh, wait, Mindee has a 

question. Hold on. Go ahead, Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: Thank you. It's more of 

a comment really. I just really appreciate the 

tenor of most of this communication, the humor 

and positivity.

MR. WALKER: Well, thank you. It's 

nice to hear. I like jokes.

MR. ELA: Me, too. All right. Thank 

you, Stephen. We're going to move on to Michael 

Crotser, followed by Alison Watkins, and then 

John Hendrickson.

Michael, please go ahead. I'm not 

seeing Michael. Michelle, is he here?

MR. CROTSER: Hello. Can you guys 
262

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

hear me all right?

MR. ELA: We can. Go ahead, Mike.

MR. CROTSER: Okay. I apologize about 

that. It's great to hear all the familiar voices 

out there and good to join online for the NOSB. 

I wish we were all in person to see friends and 

colleagues, but we'll have to settle for the next 

best thing.

I'm Michael Crotser. I'm the 

certification manager at CROPP Cooperative. We 

appreciate the work of the NOSB and the NOP to 

support organic agriculture, and thank you for 

the opportunity to speak today.

Today, I'll comment about sunset 

review of whey protein concentrate, WPC. We 

support removing WPC from 205.606(c). CROPP 

Cooperative represents, roughly, 2,000 family 

farms across the United States. One primary goal 

of the cooperative is to market organic goods on 

the behalf of our farmers and add value across 

our supply chain. CROPP Cooperative is a major 

supplier of organic WPC. We produce liquid whey 
263

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

through organic cheese production. Our whey is 

condensed and sent to co-packers to be processed 

into WPC.

WPC production also yields lactose, 

thus marketing of these two products are closely 

linked. WPC is used to add protein to foods, 

such as infant formula, bars, sport drinks, and 

adult nutritional beverages. We have a good 

understanding of this supply chain.

Organic dairy whey is now profitable 

and maximizes the value of our supply chain. 

Utilizing whey reduced the costs of our goods, 

minimizes whey disposal, and provides new markets 

for organic goods. Both international and 

domestic markets are important.

Sixty percent of our whey is processed 

into whey powders, and we plan to utilize our 

entire supply. A search in the Organic Integrity 

Database shows 24 certified entities that offer 

whey protein concentrate, whereas a search for 

the acronym WPC has 5 listings. Currently, nonorganic WPC can only be used in certified organic 
264

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

products if the WPC. Therefore, replacing nonorganic WPC with organic WPC will not 

significantly impact the current supply of 

organic WPC.

Today, organic WPC is fully available 

in form and volume and the supply will grow. In 

fact, our WPC supply is greater than market 

demand, whereas large volumes are sold on the 

conventional market.

The processing infrastructure has

grown dramatically since WPC was placed on the 

National List. There is no need to list WPC on 

205.606, and CROPP Cooperative encourages the 

NOSB to recommend the removal of WPC.

And those are my comments. And thank 

you for your time to speak today.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much. Are 

there any questions? All right. We appreciate 

your thoughts.

MR. CROTSER: Thanks, everyone.

MR. ELA: Yes. And then we're next up 

with Alison Watkins, then John Hendrickson, and 
265

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

then Beth Rota. Go ahead, Michael. Alison, I 

mean. I'm sorry.

MS. WATKINS: No problem. My name is 

Alison Watkins, and I'm the Scientific and 

Regulatory Manager for the International Food 

Additives Council. IFAC is a global association 

representing manufacturers and end users of food 

ingredients, including a number of substances 

permitted for organic food production.

IFAC strongly supports the Handling 

Subcommittee's recommendation to relist waxes, 

wood rosin at 205.605(a), as well as a 

recommendation for the technical correction to 

remove the references to wood resin and only 

refer to wood rosin in the listing. Wood rosin 

is an important material for organic food 

production.

IFAC also strongly supports the 

Handling Subcommittee's recommendation to relist 

calcium phosphates at 205.605(b). Not only do 

calcium phosphates provide critical technical 

functions in numerous organic foods, they also 
266

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

serve the public health by providing two 

essential nutrients in food calcium, which is 

underconsumed by most Americans. They may also 

be used to replace sodium phosphates in food and 

lower the sodium content.

The 18 colors derived from 

agricultural products in 205.606 are essential to 

the organic production, as most, if not all, of 

them lack sufficient supply of organic 

alternatives to meet the demand. Organic juices 

are not standardized across the entire market for 

shade, and most are weaker in strength by 30 to 

50 percent and more expensive than their 

nonorganic alternatives.

We also reiterate that there are no 

organic purple potato juice or organic paprika 

currently and a very limited supply of organic 

carrot juice, black and purple carrot juice, 

grape skin extract, grape extract, and elderberry 

juice. Unless adequate organic supplies can be 

confirmed, IFAC supports relisting all of these 

colors.
267

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Inulin-oligofructose enriched, IOE, is 

used as a source of dietary fiber to reduce sugar 

content in many foods. Fiber is another widely 

underconsumed nutrient, so IOE helps food 

producers and consumers fill the fiber gap. 

There are no commercially-available organic forms 

of IOE. Therefore, we strongly support the 

Handling Subcommittee's recommendation to relist.

Finally, IFAC supports relisting corn 

starch. There are not enough certified organic 

acres of corn planted in the U.S. today to meet 

the demand with the organic market. According to 

the USDA, the U.S. produces 14.4 billion bushels 

of corn based on the 2018 - 19 data. According 

to the U.S. Green Council, the U.S. produces, 

roughly, 39 million bushels of organic corn each 

year, which means, roughly, 0.3 percent of the 

14.4 billion bushels of corn produced in the U.S. 

each year is organic. As in our comments, native 

corn starch is central to the production of 

numerous organic products, from the organic

bakery products to gummies and jelly beans.
268

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

IFAC supports the petition to add low 

acyl gellan gum to the National List and the 

Handling Subcommittee recommendation regarding 

exchange filtration. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Are there

questions? I have a quick follow-up. I just 

didn't get things written down fast enough. You 

said there was no organic purple carrot juice, or 

what were the two you said specifically?

MS. WATKINS: Organic purple, organic 

purple potato juice and organic paprika are the 

two that we said no.

MR. ELA: Okay. And you say there is 

some supply of the others but just not enough or 

in the wrong form?

MS. WATKINS: Yes, yes, limited supply 

of the remainder.

MR. ELA: Okay. It looks like Asa has 

a question.

MR. BRADMAN: Just to follow-up on 

Steve's comment, you said most, if not all. 

Which are the ones would you say are in better 
269

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

shape in terms of organic supply?

MS. WATKINS: I would have to consult 

with our color suppliers to answer that question 

accurately. We did go into detail on a number of 

them in our written comments, so we do have some 

additional information in our written comments.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Dave, you have a question.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. I was surprised 

to hear that 0.3 percent of the harvested corn is 

organic. Do you have any figures on what it 

would take in the way of an increase in organic 

corn production to meet the demand? It seems to 

me to be a crop that we certainly should be able 

to produce and meet a demand in the national 

level.

MS. WATKINS: Yes. The specific data 

that I received was the last to the 2019 data, 

but I can reach out to our corn suppliers, starch 

suppliers, and ask if they want to supply any 

additional information on that.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. I guess, 
270

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

particularly, maybe not so much acreage of 

organic corn in the U.S. but what it would take 

in terms of acres with some average yield to meet 

the demand in the U.S. for these products. Thank 

you.

MR. ELA: Emily has a question.

MS. OAKLEY: Thanks. Just a quick 

follow-up to Steve's question. You said that 

there is no organic paprika available. Does that 

mean in the quantity that you need it? Because 

when I do a search on the Organic Integrity 

Database, I see quite a number of producers 

growing organic paprika.

MS. WATKINS: Well, so I will followup with our color suppliers on that, but paprika, 

the paprika extract, so that would be the 

paprika, taking the organic paprika into the 

extract. But I will follow-up on that.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, Alison. 

Appreciate it. We were going to move on to John 

Hendrickson, then Beth Rota and Eugenio Geraldo.

John, please go ahead.
271

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. HENDRICKSON: Hi. John 

Hendrickson, owner of Small Farm Works, a small 

family business that sells paper pots in North 

America, and the person who submitted the 

original petition to allow paper pots on organic 

farms.

I'm here to express my support for the 

NOSB proposal to add 205.2 and 205.601, which 

will define paper-based crop planting materials 

and allow the use of such planting aids, 

including paper pots, on certified organic farms. 

These materials are environmentally benign and 

incredibly beneficial, especially for small-scale 

organic farmers. They enhance productivity, 

efficiency, and profitability, while decreasing 

the use of disposable plastics.

My only concerns about the language 

and specifications in the motion are these: 

first, there could be misinterpretation of the 

limitation that paper planting aids contain a 

minimum of 60 percent cellulose-based fibers. I 

believe the Committee's intent is that the 60-
272

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

percent minimum refers to the natural pulp part 

of the paper. There are, however, synthetic 

cellulose-based fibers, such as rayon. Rayon is 

made from cellulose, but it's manufactures are 

synthetic, as opposed to natural cellulose fiber. 

My written comment includes some suggested 

language to clarify that issue.

Second, as was included in my public 

comment at the April meeting, I remain concerned 

about the applicability of ASTM D6866 as a 

testing protocol to determine the biobased 

content of paper-based planting aids. According 

to a head scientist at a university laboratory 

that does extensive ASTM D6866 testing, this test 

is not reliable for paper products made from wood 

pulp.

I look forward to further 

clarification about how verification will occur 

and look forward to working with a third party, 

such as OMRI, to ensure that the paper pots that 

I sell meet the final requirements set forth by 

the NOP.
273

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

In response to the Committee's desire 

to see continued innovation and an increase over 

time in the biobased content of paper-based 

planting aids, I'm pleased to report that Nitten, 

the paper pot company whose products I import and 

sell, has announced the commercial availability 

of a new paper chain product starting in 2021 

that replaces synthetic strengthening fibers with 

natural hemp fibers. We're anxious for this new 

product to be used and evaluated by farmers in 

the U.S.

Nitten is committed to providing 

products that are ecologically sound and to 

improve them over time and, as such, I'm in favor 

of the NOSB periodically revisiting this 

annotation to increase the percentage of biobased 

ingredients as innovation and advancements are 

made by the manufacturers of paper-based planting 

aids.

Finally, I'd like to sincerely thank 

the members of the NOSB Crop Subcommittee who 

have worked on this rather complicated issue of 
274

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

paper-based planting aids and have developed what 

appears to be a sound and practical proposal. I 

urge you all to bring this matter to a vote and 

to vote yes to allow organic farmers to use paper 

pots and other paper-based planting aids.

Thank you very much for your time.

MR. ELA: Very well done on time, 

John. You're definitely in the running with the 

others that did that exactly. It looks like Dave 

has a question for you.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. Just a thank you 

to John for his patience, one; and for providing 

information when we, you know, when we needed it 

to help inform our thinking. So I just wanted to 

thank you for that.

MR. HENDRICKSON: My pleasure.

MR. ELA: Any other questions for 

John? Thank you, John. We appreciate it.

MR. HENDRICKSON: Thank you, Steve.

MR. ELA: We're going to move on to 

Beth Rota and Eugenio Geraldo and then Alicia 

Jorgenson. Beth, please go ahead.
275

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ROTA: Good afternoon. I am Beth 

Rota with Quality Certification Services, a USDAaccredited certifying agent. We appreciate the 

call for public input and shared solutions 

related to human capital. A special thanks to 

Dr. Jenny Tucker for your leadership in this 

realm.

Effective management of human capital 

in organic certification is critical to the 

ongoing success of the organic label. If human 

capital is not strategically managed, the organic 

community will face workforce shortages, limits 

to certification services, and increased risks 

from fraud.

Organic certifiers are staffed by 

amazing, dedicated people who are knowledgeable 

and committed to preserving trust in the organic 

label. The problem is that our ranks are not 

growing fast enough to keep pace with the 

expanding industry. Each year, there are more 

organic producers and products needing 

certification. Meanwhile, the maturing 
276

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

certification process requires more time and 

technical expertise to review inputs and 

ingredients, evaluate processes, and investigate 

potential fraud. Certifiers need staff with 

specialized knowledge to assess compliance of 

unique products and operations; and, at the same 

time, our reviewers and inspectors must be able 

to serve a very diverse industry.

In some, the workload is growing in 

size and complexity faster than new staff or 

contractors can gain the needed experience to 

conduct certification tests efficiently and 

effectively. Furthermore, organic certifiers 

compete with access to a limited pool of 

qualified and competent individuals, both within 

and outside of the certification community. We 

cannot match industry salaries for top talent. 

As part of a nonprofit whose mission 

includes supporting and promoting organic 

agriculture, we oppose cost-prohibitive 

certification fees that will limit the types of 

operation that can afford certification, 
277

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

especially considering reduced cost-share 

funding. QCS invests considerable resources and 

training and mentoring our reviewers and 

inspectors to ensure our certification program is 

compliant and a quality service. However, we 

lose our investment when staff transfer to work 

for a different certifier or leave the 

certification community altogether.

Recognizing these challenges, the 

organic community needs to provide training and 

incentives for individuals to choose organic 

certification as a meaningful career path. We 

suggest exploration of the following opportunity: 

connecting with students at universities, trade 

schools, and extension programs through NOPsponsored webinars about careers in organic 

certification; an NOP-facilitated internship 

program that recruits interns, provides basic 

training, and connect interns with interested 

certifiers who can offer direct experience; a 

database of experts and topics such as food 

science, plant pathology, and pesticide residues 
278

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

available for contract by certifiers; and 

interactive certification and inspection job 

board hosted by NOP.

Finally, increases in cost-share 

funding are needed for certifiers to offer 

competitive wages and maintain robust 

certification programs that meet the needs of the 

organic community.

MR. ELA: Thank you for those 

comments. Are there any questions from the 

Board? Seeing none, thank you, Beth. We 

appreciate your thoughts.

MS. ROTA: Thanks.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

Eugenio Geraldo, followed by Alicia Jorgenson and 

then Jill Smith. Go ahead, Eugenio.

MR. GERALDO: Thank you. You hear me? 

So my name is Eugenio Geraldo, the Chief 

Technology Officer for NuOrganics, and I'll be 

talking to you about ammonia in manures.

Next slide, please. The organic 

production goals are defined in 7 CFR, and 
279

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

include foster cycling of resources, to promote 

ecological balance, and to conserve biodiversity. 

Next slide, please. An organic plan is a tool 

to bring the principles of organic production to 

practice. It includes manuring as a soil 

fertility management practice. Manures are rich 

in ammonia and phosphorus and, if not properly 

applied, can include environmental contamination. 

The organic plan includes controls to minimize 

contamination when manures are applied.

Next, please. The current practice of 

manure application uses about 50 to 75 percent of 

the ammonia originally present in manures, 

creating a cascade of environmental impacts. 

Manure ammonia can be recovered and avoid the 

resource loss of this valuable ammonia and the 

environmental impacts associated to the loss to 

the environment.

Next slide, please. By collecting 

ammonia, the goals of organic production are 

fulfilled: Foster cycling of resources as it 

recovers a loss resource, ammonia, and reduces 
280

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the need for imported nitrogen fertilizers. It 

also promotes ecological balance and conserves 

biodiversity as it avoids the release of ammonia 

to the environment and reduces water pollution by 

enabling precise application of nitrogen and 

phosphorus. It minimizes leaching of ammonia and 

nitrates and also the saturation of phosphorus 

associated with application of manures. Finally, 

it avoids contamination by pathogens, as required 

by the U.S. Code.

Next slide, please. Properly used 

ammonia is a central concept in soil fertility 

management in organic agriculture. The 

enhancement of soil carbon and nitrogen cycles 

catalyzed by microorganisms of the source of the 

majority of nitrogen for the crop. This is a 

central concept in organic agriculture.

Ammonia is the preferred nitrogen 

source for both of the organisms in the carbon 

and nitrogen cycle that feeds the cycle and 

provides the food for the plant.

Next, please. As a result, the soil 
281

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

carbon and nitrogen enhancement in organic 

agriculture, manure ammonia -- (audio 

interference) 

Nitrogen in this case is not toxic but 

an enhancer. OFPA provides the regulatory 

framework to use manure ammonia for environmental 

protection, soil fertility enhancement, and 

farmer benefit.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Eugenio. 

Questions from the Board? I do have one question 

myself. One of the things that often comes, say, 

with fish emulsions or manure is it's not just 

ammonia and nitrogen that you're adding or 

phosphorus. It's a number of other nutrients 

that are included in the manure, as well. It 

seems like when you extract the ammonia from the 

manure and just apply that, you don't get that 

whole spectrum of micronutrients. Do you have 

any thoughts on that?

MR. GERALDO: Yes. By splitting 

nitrogen and phosphorus from the manures enables 

you to apply manure, the phosphorus and the 
282

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

manure to meet the crop needs, along with the 

rest of all the micronutrients. Then you're not 

over applying phosphorus and saturating 

phosphorus in soils, and also it enables you to 

apply ammonia only when the plant needs in a very 

precise manner without risk of contamination, as 

needed. And so you get the best of both worlds 

and precise application of phosphorus and the 

micronutrients in the rest of the manure and 

precise application of ammonia.

MR. ELA: So you're saying that in 

this ammonia extraction that we've been talking 

about, such as the petition is about, that after 

the ammonia or phosphorus is extracted that the 

manure then would still go ahead and be applied 

to the crops; is that correct?

MR. GERALDO: Correct. That's 

correct. And it would be applied in a way that 

does not saturate the soil with phosphorus. So 

precisely apply both of them that usually in 

manures and in a ratio that is not exact for 

crops. And besides that, you minimize the risk 
283

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of pathogenic transfer to foods and feeds.

MR. ELA: It looks like we have some 

additional questions. Emily first.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you for your 

comments. But listening to you explain that, a 

producer could use the ammonia extract and not 

apply the manure, correct?

MR. GERALDO: It could be, it could be 

the case. But according to the needs of OFPA, 

you need to have the green manures. You also 

need to have other sources of organic nitrogen. 

This would be only to minimize the in-season and 

to provide the in-season needs, just very much 

the same as you use right now fish emulsions and 

other fish products. But this would be a 

locally-sourced nitrogen, and it would be a 

resource we covered.

MR. ELA: Dave, did you have a 

question? It looks like you may have pulled your 

hand down.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, I had the same 

question as Emily. Thank you.
284

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Okay, great. Rick, you have 

a question.

MR. GREENWOOD: More of a comment. 

When I first transitioned to organic for my 

avocado trees, I went to chicken manure and just 

about killed my trees because trying to get 

enough nitrogen in the salts, and avocado trees 

are very sensitive. So I see a real advantage in 

being able to split out the nitrogen from the 

salts, so I can see it could be a very useful 

product. Just a comment.

MR. ELA: Sounds good. Any other 

questions? Thank you, Eugenio. We're going to 

move on. We appreciate your thoughts.

Alicia Jorgenson, followed by Jill 

Smith and then Kirk Sparks. And we may not, we 

haven't seen Kirk on the list, so, Kirk, if 

you're out there, could you let Michelle know? 

And then if Kirk is not there, we'll go to 

Jennifer Berkebile.

So Alicia.

MS. JORGENSON: Hi. Can you hear me?
285

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: We can.

MS. JORGENSON: All right. Hello. My 

name is Alicia Jorgenson, and I'm on the 

University of California Santa Cruz's 2020 iGEM 

team. IGEM stands for Internationally 

Genetically-Engineered Machine, and it is a 

global nonprofit organization that tackles 

humanitarian issues through the use of synthetic 

biology and biotechnology.

Traditional microplastic forming 

polyethylene films are allowed in organic 

farming, while films that biodegrade and 

replenish the soil are prohibited solely because 

they are produced through recombinant DNA 

technology. USDA organic regulation 7 CFR 205.2 

states that organisms and feed stock must not be 

derived from excluded methods, which include 

recombinant DNA technology.

To measure the safety of a product 

based upon its method of production says nothing 

about the end product and everything about that 

method. The exclusion of recombinant DNA 
286

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

technology implies a bias towards that 

technology, but there is no apparent rationale as 

to why the National Organic Standards Board 

believes organic farming and recombinant DNA 

technology are incompatible.

This exclusion supports a technology 

that promotes cancer and global warming in order 

to support and ethical stand against genetic 

engineering. We understand that products of GMOs 

are excluded due to the potential carryover of 

modified DNA into the environment. Clearly, a 

validation process must be developed to ensure 

that modified DNA is not present in the film or 

the degradation product.

Through prohibiting products of 

recombinant DNA technology, the NOSB inherently 

supports the use of nonsustainable petroleumbased films and stands in the way of sustainable 

alternatives to toxic polyethylene films. We are 

developing a bacterial cellulose-based 

thermoplastic mulch film produced by the 

recombinant kombucha bacterium K. rhaeticus.
287

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Furthermore, each of the components of 

our plastic will include only proteins, 

carbohydrates, fatty acids, and lipid products, 

all of which are working within our bodies at all 

times. These components may be synthesized and 

expressed through recombinant DNA technology, 

though our final product will include no intact 

DNA. Curing methods may include UV or gamma 

radiation, temperature exposure, or enzymatic 

degradation.

In accordance with the European 

standard EN 17033, all of these biobased 

materials are fully field compostable and reduce 

the threat to people or the environment posed by 

current methods. We see no reason why 

recombinant DNA technology is incompatible with 

organic farming, as both practices can be used to 

the advantage of humankind in a clean and 

sustainable fashion.

Thus, we ask that the Board reevaluate 

recombinant DNA technology as a viable method of 

mulch production. I want to thank the Board for 
288

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

its consideration.

MR. ELA: Asa has a question for you.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes. I appreciate your 

comments. I'm not aware of any films that use 

recombinant DNA products to make an agricultural 

film. My understanding right now, the primary 

barrier, at least on one front, for the use of 

biodegradable films is that all of them contain a 

significant proportion of petroleum-derived 

material and that there aren't any available yet 

that are 100-percent biobased, which is kind of 

the limitation here.

Now, you bring up this issue about 

excluded methods, but I'm just curious are there 

any available agricultural films that meet the 

100-percent biobased content that may also, you 

know, may be produced by excluded methods? I'm 

not aware of any product like that. 

MS. JORGENSON: Yes. So there are 

some starch-based films and other cellulose-based 

films on the market. They actually use excess, 

like, biowaste, so I don't believe any films on 
289

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the market do use recombinant DNA technology. 

This is just a sustainable way to use bacteria 

that are present, you know, to produce a base for 

plastic that can be used in the agricultural 

industry.

MR. BRADMAN: Because the films that 

you refer to, I'm not aware of any that are being 

produced and used in agricultural settings, 

which, you know, require a certain degree of 

flexibility and strength and that sort of thing. 

I mean, if you know of 100-percent biobased 

materials. It seems there's a strong preference 

in the agricultural sector for plastics or 

plastic substitutes that are biodegradable. I 

mean, I would like to hear about that. And then, 

again, if there are any that are produced that 

would meet our current annotation, except for the 

fact that they're produced by excluded methods, I 

would like to see those products.

MS. JORGENSON: Right. I would have 

to get back to you on that. I know that the 

films on the market right now, they have been 
290

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

approved, obviously. I believe they're 100-

percent biobased. I know the starch one and the 

cellulose one.

The problem with the cellulose one on 

the market now is that it is not flexible. If 

you actually have a sample of it in your hands, 

you can, you know, physically tear it apart. And 

because these films are used as bed mulches, 

right, they have to be super elastic, the 

installation procedure in the field is that the 

tractor will drive over it as it tills it into 

the ground.

So that's why recombinant DNA 

technology would, that's how it would come into 

play, right? You need to add something to the 

cellulose in order to make it more elastic, and 

that component, which is termed a plasticizer, 

that would be produced through the use of 

recombinant DNA and technology.

So while there are films on the market 

that are probably biobased, they are missing 

components that allow them to be, you know, to 
291

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

meet the growers' needs, right, to be elastic.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes. I mean, that's 

what I'm saying, and it sounds like using 

language like "would be," so you're proposing 

that down the road, if there are films that meet 

the needs of agriculture, except for the use of 

excluded methods, they might be acceptable. And 

I would like to see those if they're developed.

MS. JORGENSON: Yes.

MR. ELA: One other thing I just want 

to point out is it's not just the choice of the 

NOSB to not accept the excluded methods. It's 

actually codified in OFPA as part of the law, so 

it's not something that we necessarily have 

determined ourselves as an NOSB.

But, Mindee, you have a quick 

question, and then we're going to move on.

MS. JEFFREY: Yes. I think that the 

beauty of this organic system and the democracy 

in being part of the USDA is that the rationale 

for why the organic community has chosen to 

exclude transgenic technology is all there for 
292

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you to read in public documents, and it's a lot 

about process-based over product-based and that 

the organic system takes the totality of the uses 

of its input into consideration before allowing 

their use, rather than just evaluating the end 

past potential risk, for example, of the 

technology.

So I highly encourage anyone who has 

questions as to why organic looks at excluded 

methods in the GMO category as not allowable in 

organic, it's all there for you to read as part 

of the federal documents.

MR. ELA: All right. Thank you, 

Mindee. We're going to move on. Thank you, 

Alicia.

MS. JORGENSON: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Next up, we have Jill Smith, 

followed by Kirk Sparks, Jennifer Berkebile, and 

Tasha Sparks. So, Jill, please go ahead.

MS. SMITH: Okay. Can you hear me 

okay?

MR. ELA: We can hear you.
293

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. SMITH: Okay. Well, good 

afternoon, everyone. I'm Jill Smith representing 

the Western Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, 

also known as WODPA. And I'm also an organic 

dairy producer myself. I'd like to thank you for 

the opportunity to comment today on behalf of the 

approximately 285 organic diaries we represent 

throughout the West.

We appreciate your prior support on 

origin of livestock and ask for your continued 

aid in achieving a final rule. We look forward 

to quickly finding a common sense solution so all 

dairy operations are adhering to the same 

standards that are in line with the true 

intentions of organic dairy production.

WODPA members have worked for years to 

change this rule in an effort to improve upon 

organic standards and create consistency across 

all sizes and types of operations when 

transitioning. Without clarified guidelines, our 

family farms suffer the negative financial 

impacts by the lack of a market for organic 
294

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

cattle, lower milk prices, and the economic 

disadvantage we face by raising our young stock 

organically versus those practicing continual 

transition.

Sadly, I spoke with an organic dairy 

producer just yesterday who is shutting down 

their farm. They can't survive our difficult 

organic dairy marketplace any longer. And losing 

this dairy means we're losing yet another one of 

our founding members of WODPA. They worked hard 

to build the organization, shared their wisdom, 

and provided the model for organic dairy 

producers in the way they cared for their land 

and animals. The number of organic dairy 

producers and family farms is shrinking, while 

the organic milk market continues to grow. 

Holding everyone to the same standards is 

essential to our livelihoods.

To that end, we support discussion 

around the human capital strategy for organic 

inspectors and reviewers, as it is vital to 

organic integrity. The size and complexity of 
295

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic operations continues to grow, making it 

essential for well-qualified inspectors to 

provide consistent application of guidelines and 

supporting the overall integrity of organics.

Moving on to substances, we previously 

provided comments on whey protein concentrate 

being removed from the National List. Removal 

was recommended in 2015 and comments at the 

spring NOSB meeting showed continued support of 

its removal. The organic dairy product pipeline 

has continued to grow in supply and processing 

capabilities, reducing the need for inputs from 

the conventional market.

Removal of WPC further supports our 

dairy producers with the usage of our organic 

milk. We provided written comments on the 

livestock substances considered for sunset 

review. We largely support the relisting of 

these substances, as they're necessary resources 

to ensure we meet the highest animal welfare 

standards in caring for our livestock, especially 

as we face unique situations inherent to grass-
296

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

based livestock systems.

Thank you again for the opportunity to 

provide comments today, and thank you, Board 

members, for your service to the organic 

community.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Jill. Any 

questions for Jill? All right. Oh, Sue has a --

well, maybe she doesn't. Thank you, Jill. We do 

appreciate it.

MS. SMITH: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Next up is Kirk Sparks. 

Michelle, you weren't able to find Kirk is my 

understanding?

MS. ARSENAULT: That's right. I don't 

see Kirk as one of the participant. Kirk, if 

you're out there and I'm not seeing you, give a 

shout out.

MR. ELA: All right. We're seeing if 

Kirk is there. We're going to move on to 

Jennifer Berkebile, and after that is Tasha 

Sparks. And then we're going to cycle back real 

quickly through the people that we didn't find 
297

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

when we first called them. And then just so 

people know, I think we're going to go ahead and 

do maybe another half hour or so to cover some of 

the people that are on our wait list.

So go ahead, Jennifer. Or, wait, I 

just lost my list. Did I get that right? 

Jennifer, yes, go ahead.

MS. BERKEBILE: Yes. Thank you. 

Hello, everyone. My name is Jen Berkebile, and I 

am the Materials Program Manager at PCO. We 

certify over 1600 organic operations throughout 

the U.S. Today, I'll be commenting on paper for 

use as a crop production aid, corn starch, EPA 

list for inerts, and biodegradable biobased 

mulch.

I first want to briefly talk about 

corn starch. The Handling Subcommittee has voted 

to remove corn starch from 205.606, which would 

mean that only organic corn starch would be 

permitted in organic or made with organic 

products. However, many baking powder products 

contain corn starch, and the corn starch makes up 
298

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

less than 70 percent of the product, making even 

baking powder that contains organic corn starch 

exempt from certification and not able to be 

certified. There is no organic baking powder.

Without the option to use a nonorganic 

corn starch in these baking powder products, it 

will no longer be permitted in organic processing 

because, even if organic corn starch is used, the 

exempt baking powder will most likely not be 

permitted to be used as an ingredient in an 

organic product per 205.310(b) because it is

processed at an exempt operation. Therefore, 

baking powder will be effectively no longer 

permitted for use in organic processing.

PCO appreciates the Crop 

Subcommittee's work on paper crop planting aids. 

We support the clear and verifiable definition 

for these materials at 205.2, as proposed. PCO 

also supports the listing of paper-based crop 

planting aids as crop production aids at 

205.601(o). We agree with the ACA to allow a 

pesticide as an ingredient in a paper-based crop 
299

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

planting aid, the product itself would need to be 

EPA registered and labeled as a pesticide.

It is also PCO's understanding that 

the product itself would need to be used as a 

pesticide to allow any pesticidal ingredients. 

But because there is no allowance for paper-based 

crop planting aids as pesticides, this use will 

not be permitted unless it is separately listed 

as 205.601 as a pesticide.

Finally, we also support the 

recommendation to amend the introductory 

paragraph to 205.601 to clarify that crop 

planting aids at 205.601(o) do not need to meet 

the pesticide requirements at 205.206(b).

PCO appreciates that the Crop 

Subcommittee is working on biodegradable biobased 

mulch film. We received more comments and 

questions and feedback on this material than any 

other from both conventional and organic farmers. 

We do not support the continuation of the 

current listing with no change. We support 

either the removal of the listing for 
300

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

biodegradable biobased mulch film, as it does not 

allow for any products currently in the 

marketplace, or we support a sound and sensible 

listing that allows for products currently in the 

marketplace or products that can be developed.

Finally, PCO supports consistent 

voting on EPA list for inerts for both use in 

crop and livestock pest control materials. We 

also strongly encourage timely rulemaking that 

includes a removal and replacement plan for EPA 

list for inerts.

Thank you for the opportunity to 

comment today.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, Jen. 

Are there any questions for Jen? Kim has a 

question for you.

MS. HUSEMAN: Good afternoon. Can you 

go back through your comment on corn starch and 

give me an example of a material that you're 

speaking to?

MS. BERKEBILE: Sure. So baking 

powder is specifically what I'm talking about. 
301

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Baking powder products often contain some corn 

starch, but they contain less than 70 percent 

corn starch. So the bulk of the product is a 

nonagricultural ingredient. That's allowed at 

605, but it is nonagricultural. That's the bulk 

of the product.

And then a small amount of the 

product, less than 70 percent, is corn starch, 

which is an agricultural component. Because less 

than 70 percent of the product is agricultural, 

it's exempt from certification under the 

exemptions. So products that contain less than 

70-percent organic agricultural components are 

exempt from certification. However, these 

products that are exempt, they can't be labeled 

as certified organic, they cannot be used as 

ingredients in a certified organic product. So 

you couldn't use baking powder in a certified 

organic product even if the baking powder 

contained organic corn starch, because it's 

processed at an exempt operation, the corn starch 

cannot be labeled as organic or used as an 
302

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic ingredient in a certified organic 

product. And that is at 205.310(b). It 

specifically says a product produced or handled 

at an exempt operation cannot be used as an 

ingredient in a certified organic product.

Does that make sense?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes. It's long and 

cumbersome, but, yes, it does make sense. I 

appreciate you going back through that.

MS. BERKEBILE: Sure.

MS. HUSEMAN: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Any other questions for Jen? 

Scott, you have one.

MR. RICE: So, Jen, on that note, 

maybe I just haven't had an opportunity to think 

through this on the fly, but could you not have 

that operation opting into certification, or are 

you thinking that it would just not be sensible 

for them to do so, or am I missing part of the --

MS. BERKEBILE: I don't think that 

products that, I don't think that operations that 

process products that contain less than 70-
303

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

percent organic agricultural components can be 

certified. I don't think they can be certified. 

So I don't think there is any possibility for 

these baking powder products to be certified 

organic --

MR. RICE: Okay, right.

MS. BERKEBILE: -- because the bulk of 

the product is not agricultural.

MR. RICE: Got it. I was not 

following that point there. Okay. Thanks.

MR. ELA: All right. Thanks, Jen. 

Appreciate it.

MS. BERKEBILE: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Next up we have Tasha 

Sparks, and I believe she was another one that 

you couldn't find; is that correct, Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: That's correct. I 

didn't see Tasha in the speaker list. Tasha, if 

you're out there, yell.

MR. ELA: I believe one person that we 

did skip over that wasn't present was Brian Ward. 

My understanding is that Brian might be 
304

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

available.

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. We also have, 

Alan Lewis is on the line with us, as well.

MR. ELA: Okay. So let's go to Brian 

first. Brian, go ahead.

MR. WARD: Hello. How are you doing? 

My name is Brian Ward. I've been with Clemson 

University for many years, and I don't have a 

PowerPoint presentation or anything like that. 

Actually, I don't have my books in front of me to 

reference certain, you know, numbers and codes 

and so on and so forth. But I do have one, well, 

one of the questions I have is about the use of, 

in the generic rule, about the use of ethylene 

products on pineapple. And I'm wondering why 

it's not labeled for use as a ripening agent for, 

let's say, processing tomatoes. That's one 

question I have.

The other question I have is that I 

have a patent on nitrogen ammonium-based 

fertilizer that utilizes bacteria that are not 

GMO and are not using unapproved salts but are 
305

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

utilizing actual soil amendments that are 

currently OMRI and NOP approved, and these 

bacterial extract the ammonium from the nitrogen 

and basically turn it into liquid ammonium. 

That's a stable product, and I wanted to know 

why, like in California, they've put limits and 

registrations on how high the nitrogen content 

can be. I just wanted to, that's the only two 

questions I have for this evening. If someone 

can please share with me. That's it.

MR. ELA: Sure. Thank you, Brian. I 

think we can't fully go into that, just partly 

because of time constraints, but I would 

encourage you to get in touch directly with the 

program. And, like, for the difference between 

pineapple and tomato, that would require a 

petition for an annotation change on our part, so 

the reasoning would have to be laid out and we 

would have to review it. And then in terms of 

the California issue, you would actually, that 

you would have to contact them directly. We do 

not control their verbiage. I would just 
306

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

encourage you to talk to them directly.

Emily, real quickly.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, I was just going to 

explain partially the pineapple example. It is a 

contentious one among some stakeholders, but it 

also was an example or an exclusion that was 

allowed because of uniformity of ripening, 

whereas tomatoes ripen at different times on the 

vine depending upon the variety or more 

simultaneously depending upon the variety but 

don't require the same degree of uniform ripening 

for commercial viability of the crop. But I 

agree with Steve. More questions to the National 

Organic Program will help you answer I think some 

of those specifics.

MR. WARD: Okay. Do I have a couple 

seconds, or no?

CHAIR ELA: We actually need to move 

on.

MR. WARD: Okay. That's fine.

CHAIR ELA: We're a little bit behind 

time. But I would encourage you to reach out to 
307

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the Program with questions.

MR. WARD: Okay. Sounds good. Thank 

you.

CHAIR ELA: Thank you. Alan Lewis, I 

actually skipped over you before I went to Brian. 

Go ahead, Alan.

MR. LEWIS: Sound check. All good, 

Steve?

CHAIR ELA: You're good. Go ahead.

MR. LEWIS: Great. Well, Steve, I was 

actually going to yield my time to smarter people 

than me, but now that the biotech industry has 

floated the issue of proposing bioplastic mulch 

or film in the industry, I'm going to use 60 

seconds as a reminder that that's going to start 

with extracting natural gas to make ammonia to 

put into the soil as we've heard about and then 

we're going to artificially mutate corn seed and 

plant that in that sterile soil, raise that up 

using glyphosate, another dirty ingredient. 

Then that corn is going to be 

converted into high fructose corn syrup, fed into 
308

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

fermentation vats with another artificially 

mutated organism that eventually will spit out or 

poop out a polymer. And all of the spent seed is 

now a biohazard that has to be incinerated.

So the idea that that's an organic 

product because the DNA of the last organism has 

been removed is just preposterous. And let's 

just nip this in the bud. 

And I'm going to stop there and let 

everyone get to dinner a minute sooner. Thank 

you.

CHAIR ELA: Thank you, Alan. Any 

questions for Alan?

(No audible response.)

CHAIR ELA: Always appreciate your 

thoughts, Alan.

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve, if you're still 

talking, you were on mute.

CHAIR ELA: Yes, I don't know where I 

ended up. I took -- picked my finger up. 

So, Douglas Deveaux, Maria Elena 

Lombardero Ventura, Mitch Clark, Kirk Sparks or 
309

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Tasha Sparks. Are any of those available?

MS. ARSENAULT: I have not seen any of 

those folks on the line.

CHAIR ELA: Okay. With that we are 

going to go to a few people on our wait list even 

though we're going to go over -- a little bit 

overtime. We're hoping to get to some of those.

So is Roz Lehman available? And after 

Roz there would be Doug Middleton and Michael 

Sligh. 

Roz, are you there?

(No audible response.)

MS. ARSENAULT: She was earlier. I 

don't see her anymore.

CHAIR ELA: All right. How about Doug 

Middleton?

(No audible response.)

CHAIR ELA: Michael Sligh, are you out 

there?

(No audible response.)

CHAIR ELA: Michael Hanson?

(No audible response.)
310

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR ELA: This could be fast.

Vincent Chebny?

MS. ARSENAULT: Vincent's on the line 

with us.

CHAIR ELA: All right.

MS. ARSENAULT: Get him un-muted here. 

I've asked you to un-mute your line. I'm not 

sure if you've having trouble. You may have to 

hit *6 on your phone. There we go. 

CHAIR ELA: So are you finding Vincent 

Chebny yet?

MS. ARSENAULT: I think he dropped 

off.

CHAIR ELA: Okay. Phil LaRocca?

MS. ARSENAULT: Oh, no, he's still 

there. Sorry.

CHAIR ELA: Oh, Vincent is? Okay. 

We'll go back to Vincent.

MS. ARSENAULT: Looks like he's not --

Vincent, if you're trying to un-mute, you can hit 

*6 on your phone, or you might have to hit *6 on 

your phone.
311

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

(Pause.)

MS. ARSENAULT: Okay. Steve, I'll 

chat with him.

CHAIR ELA: Switch with him?

MS. ARSENAULT: If you want, yes.

CHAIR ELA: Okay. Phil LaRocca?

(No audible response.)

MS. ARSENAULT: Phil wants to cancel. 

And so I just got a message from Noah and Noah's 

on the line with us.

CHAIR ELA: Okay. We can go to Noah.

MS. ARSENAULT: He's on via phone.

MR. LAKRITZ: Can you hear me?

CHAIR ELA: We can hear you, Noah. Go 

ahead.

MR. LAKRITZ: Hi. Good afternoon. My 

name is Noah Lakritz and I'm a policy and 

outreach specialist with California Certified 

Organic Farmers, CCOF. CCOF represents over 

4,000 certified organic farms, processor/handlers 

and certified organic businesses throughout North 

America.
312

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Today I'd like to focus my comments on 

three areas: First, I'd like to discuss the 

effects of delisting or annotation changes for 

widely used ingredients and encourage the NOSB to 

consider the process that certifiers and 

producers would have to take to comply with those 

changes. Second, I'd like to highlight the 

importance of NOSB review of novel ammonia 

products. And finally, I'd like to highlight a 

suggestion we have regarding the human capital 

management discussion document.

CCOF encourages NOSB to be mindful of 

the potential effect that delisting or annotation 

changes can have for materials prevalent in 

organic systems. One complicating factor is that 

the presence of widely used listed materials and 

multi-ingredient blends broadens the range of 

products potentially affected by delisting and 

annotation changes. This may complicate the 

process of verifying product compliance. To 

ensure the organic system can adapt a significant 

phase-in period and efforts to ensure viable 
313

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

alternatives are allowed should a company changes 

to the listing of widely used materials.

CCOF supports the relisting of aquatic 

plant extracts to the National List. Eight 

hundred and eighty of our certified organic 

farmers list aquatic plant extracts in their 

organic system plans. We are not aware of any 

commercially available alternatives to these 

products. Delisting of these materials would 

require that organic farmers make substantial 

adjustments to their long-standing fertility 

management plans.

Similarly over 1,000 CCOF members list 

liquid fish products in their organic system 

plans. We wanted to highlight a potential 

challenge with -- can you still hear me?

CHAIR ELA: Yes, we can still hear 

you. Go ahead.

MR. LAKRITZ: You can still hear me? 

Okay. Sorry.

This definition limits fish waste to 

being a byproduct of fish harvested for human 
314

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

consumption. This may be hard to verify as the 

eventual use of harvested fish may not be 

apparent at the point of harvesting or even 

initial processing. One potential use not 

encompassed by this is fish harvested for use in 

pet food, which was mentioned earlier. 

We are particularly concerned with the 

Crops Subcommittee's proposed delisting for EPA 

List 4. Most if not all commercial pesticides 

approved for use in organic production include 

inert ingredients. CCOF does not support any 

change that would exclude all commercially 

available pesticides for organic producers.

We would also like to restate our 

encouragement for the NOSB to prioritize the 

review of novel ammonia fertilizer products. 

CCOF encourages the NOSB to seek information and 

to pursue discussion regarding the potential for 

fraud in the production of ammonia extract.

And it looks like I'm out of time, so 

I'll have it there, but we appreciate the Board's 

consideration of the human capital management 
315

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

discussion document. Thank you.

CHAIR ELA: Thank you, Noah. Are 

there any questions for Noah?

Wood has a question.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Noah. Noah, does 

CCOF think that the aquatic plant extract 

annotation doesn't need to be -- doesn't have any 

merit in being improved or changed in any way? 

It's good as is?

MR. LAKRITZ: I can't comment 

specifically on that. I think that CCOF is open 

to continued improvement of the standards, but we 

just wanted to restate sort of a general comment 

that these really widely used materials, there 

has to be extra care with changes, annotation 

changes and delisting because we just don't want 

to upset the balance in the system and we want to 

make sure that certifiers, MROs and producers 

have time to adjust.

CHAIR ELA: Any other questions?

(No audible response.)

CHAIR ELA: Thank you very much, Noah.
316

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. LAKRITZ: Thank you.

CHAIR ELA: We do appreciate it.

Sarah Reed I believe is on. 

MS. REED: Hi.

CHAIR ELA: Sarah, would you like to 

ahead?

MS. REED: Yes, can you hear me?

CHAIR ELA: Go ahead. We can.

MS. REED: All right. Hi, my name is 

Sarah Reed and I'm the handler certification 

director at California Certified Organic Farmers, 

CCOF. I'm going to comment on the sunset reviews 

of cornstarch, carnauba wax and orange shellac. 

And I believe cornstarch may have already been 

brought up, but I'll go through my comments as 

well.

Consideration of cornstarch on 205.606 

brings forth a layered issue. As the Handling 

Subcommittee noted in their discussion various 

forms of organic cornstarch appear to be 

available and abundant, however cornstarch is not 

always used as a stand-alone ingredient in 
317

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic process products. 

For example, cornstarch is often 

present in baking powder. Since baking powder 

contains less than 70 percent cornstarch, baking 

powder cannot be certified organic even if the 

cornstarch is certified organic. If cornstarch 

is removed from 205.606 and is considered an 

active ingredient in baking powder, then organic 

handlers may not be able to use baking powder in 

organic claim level products if the baking powder 

contains cornstarch. The result could be that 

only made with organic claim level products could 

contain baking powder. 

A possible correction could be to add 

an annotation to cornstarch at 606 limiting its 

use as an ingredient within baking powder, and we 

understand that that would be a separate future 

NOSB agenda item.

So I'm going to pivot to carnauba wax 

and orange shellac, which brings up similar 

issues. As noted by the Handling Subcommittee 

these ingredients are frequently combined with 
318

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

other ingredients to form multi-ingredient fruit 

coatings. CCOF is not familiar with the percent 

organic content of these materials, however, if 

there is typically less than 70 percent organic 

content in the finished product, then fruit 

coatings containing carnauba wax, containing 

organic carnauba wax or organic orange shellac 

may not be eligible for organic certification.

Without a clear pathway for 

certification of materials with products 

containing less than 70 percent organic 

ingredients organic processors could lose access 

to fruit coatings and baking powder if these 

materials are sunset. 

Thank you for your time and 

consideration.

CHAIR ELA: Thank you very much, 

Sarah. 

Any questions for Sarah?

(No audible response.)

CHAIR ELA: All right. We appreciate 

it.
319

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And we're going to go back up to 

Vincent Chebny, who we had trouble getting unmuted.

So, Vincent, you are on.

MR. CHEBNY: Ah, yes. Can you hear 

me?

CHAIR ELA: We can hear you.

MR. CHEBNY: Okay. Great. 

(Audio interference)

CHAIR ELA: Vincent, you're pretty 

distant and not very distinct. Maybe could you 

move closer to your mic or something?

MR. CHEBNY: Yes. Is that any better? 

Can you hear me now?

CHAIR ELA: That is better. Let's try 

that.

MR. CHEBNY: Okay. Great. So --

(audio interference)

CHAIR ELA: Vincent, I'm going to 

interrupt again. You're still -- it was better 

for a minute there, but then we lost you again. 

It's very distant.
320

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CHEBNY: Can you hear me now?

CHAIR ELA: Marginally.

MS. ARSENAULT: Vincent, if you want 

to hang up on the computer and dial in on the 

phone, I think we may have a better connection.

MR. CHEBNY: Okay. Great.

MS. ARSENAULT: Do you have the --

CHAIR ELA: We'll keep your slot.

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes.

MR. CHEBNY: Can you hear me better 

now? No better?

CHAIR ELA: It's a little better.

MR. CHEBNY: Okay. I'll get off and 

then I'll call in --

(Audio interference)

CHAIR ELA: Okay. Yes, let's try a 

call-in. We'll come back to you, Vincent, here 

in a second.

Is Fritz Dramm available?

MS. ARSENAULT: Fritz is on the call 

with us. 

MR. DRAMM: Yes, sir.
321

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ARSENAULT: There he is.

CHAIR ELA: All right.

MR. DRAMM: Yes, I am.

CHAIR ELA: Yes, go ahead, Fritz.

MR. DRAMM: Well, thank you very much 

for allowing me a few minutes here. I'll do my 

best to strike right down to that last tick of 

the clock so I can win a prize.

Again thank you to the NOSB, the Board 

members and the NOP for allowing us to provide 

comments. I did provide some written comments 

recently on the topic of 205.601(j)\(h) which 

helped define and gave some clarity to what fish 

offal inputs might go into a liquid fish 

fertilizer product which we make. 

Dramm Corporation is a small 

organization in Wisconsin. I'm the manager of 

fertilizer production at our plant in Algoma and 

we've been making a liquid fish fertilizer 

product for about 20 years now. A very simple

sort of thing.

But I just -- really just wanted to 
322

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

echo my written comments and say that we 

appreciate the attention to the topic and that --

just to -- maybe to explain to everybody else for 

their appreciation and understanding what we do 

is we collect fish offal scrap from commercial 

operations around the Great Lakes. And we 

collect basically just about as much as we can 

every year. And it's a challenge sometimes 

getting enough. 

But in all cases what we are 

collecting is -- including bycatch and the 

processed offal from operations. And so we get a 

range of racks and fish guts and heads and skins, 

and whole fish for that matter, too. It varies 

from state to state around the Great Lakes, so --

what fish we'll actually get. As an example, 

here in Wisconsin the DNR will actually take the 

female fish that are caught in a DNR weir that 

harvests eggs and they'll actually take the 

smaller fish and donate those to a food pantry.

In Michigan for instance if you cut a 

fish while you're doing this sort of processing, 
323

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

taking those eggs -- if you cut a fish, you 

cannot resell it. So we end up getting that fish 

there.

So I guess my point is it's a mix of 

things every year. It's very difficult to 

identify any one particular species that we do --

let's not say -- we know what species we are 

bringing in, we just don't know the balance of 

the volume that's coming our way. So I don't 

know if that's helpful to anybody or not, but 

that is something that we -- or that I think is 

important to mention.

I think other than that we probably 

have other topics and issues along the lines of 

liquid fish fertilizer products that we'd like to 

discuss, but at this point right now I don't know 

that we're quite prepared to dive in with great 

vigor and trying to change anything. We're 

pleased with --

(Audio interference)

MR. DRAMM: So unfortunately I didn't 

hit my zeroes. Darn it. But I appreciate again 
324

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the opportunity and I yield my time.

CHAIR ELA: Thank you. Emily has a 

question for you.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you for your 

comments, and thank you for your written comment 

as well. 

And there was some suggestion by some 

commenters in their written comments that this 

proposed annotation, while it might only affect 

let's say 40 percent roughly of the currently unrelisted products, that it would affect a large 

percentage of the material available because 

those producers are producing a large amount of 

the liquid fish products that are consumed by 

producers. Do you have any thoughts on that?

MR. DRAMM: Yes, internally we've had 

a brief discussion about that in the last couple 

of weeks, but I don't believe that that impact 

would strike close to home for us necessarily. I 

really would probably want to fall back and put 

some thoughts together with some of my cohorts 

here before I said anything more, Emily. I'm 
325

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sorry for lack of a detailed answer there.

MS. OAKLEY: No, no problem. Thank 

you.

CHAIR ELA: Thank you very much, 

Fritz. We do appreciate it.

Okay. Michelle, have we got Vincent?

MR. CHEBNY: I'm back.

CHAIR ELA: That is so much better. 

Thank you, Vincent, for bearing with us.

MR. CHEBNY: Oh, great.

CHAIR ELA: Go ahead.

MR. CHEBNY: I'm glad to hear that. 

Once again, my name is Vincent Chebny. I'm with 

Trece Incorporated. I'm the laboratory research 

and development manager.

At Trece we make semiochemical-based 

monitoring products, mating instruction control 

products, gustatory stimulant and adhesives for 

insect trapping. And the reason why I'm 

attending this meeting is that -- because I have 

a concern for the delisting of the inert 

ingredients that are allowed for this organic 
326

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

production.

We currently produce over 23 

semiochemical products that are formulated with 

approved inert ingredients on the Inert 3 and 4 

list, and so removal of these ingredients would 

essentially eliminate all of the semiochemical 

products that we offer for use in organic 

production. 

And so the consequences of delisting 

any of these products would be loss of monitor 

products that we make, which are semiochemical 

monitor dispensers. And these are used in 

industry to gauge whether there's a pest problem 

and when it's time to apply a control material to 

target the pest problem. So without this organic 

growers, they don't have the ability to apply the 

control material efficiently because they don't 

know when the insects are in the field. And this 

will also lead to higher crop loss from insect 

damage and also poor utilization of these control 

materials.

Quickly No. 2, the loss of the mating 
327

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

disruption product from delisting these inert 

ingredients. They won't be able to be sold at 

all, and so they will not be able to decrease the 

population of these insects by disrupting the 

mating. And so that has an effect on your crop 

damage. So without this they're going to have --

growers are going to have to apply larger amounts 

of control materials and suffer a higher loss of 

crop damage from these insects.

Our No. 3 product that I would say 

would be -- you know, a hurt to the industry is 

our gustatory stimulant products. So we aid 

these to be able use with pesticides to lower the 

amount of the controlled pesticide materials. 

Growers can lower their pesticide usage 2 to 10-

fold. So if they're not able to use these 

registered products using these inerts, then 

they're going to have to use more pesticide and 

hopefully they won't have as high insect damage.

And so these 3 and 4 Ingredients 

Inerts, they're requiring our formulation of 

products they help control the active ingredient 
328

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

usage and without controlling the active 

ingredient it will just be degraded by the 

environmental conditions, which is light and 

oxygen, heavily. So we rely on these inert 

ingredients to protect them from degradation.

And so control release and protect from the 

environment is very important in formulating any 

product, especially ours.

So that's kind of where I'm at in our 

concerns for removing these Inert Ingredient 4 

lists, and I'll leave it at that.

CHAIR ELA: All right. Thank you, 

Vincent.

Any questions for Vincent?

(No audible response.)

CHAIR ELA: All right. We appreciate 

you hanging with us here to make your comment.

MR. CHEBNY: Thank you for having me.

CHAIR ELA: Yes. 

I know everybody is tired. I'm 

thinking we'll do one more and call it a day.

Michelle has gone down the list and Mike Dill is 
329

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the only one she can find.

So, Mike, if you're willing, we'll go 

to you and then wrap this up. And the other 

people that we didn't get to on the wait list 

we'll try and get back to you on the coming --

the Thursday public comments.

So, Mike, go ahead.

MR. DILL: All right. I am here. Can 

you hear me?

CHAIR ELA: We can hear you.

MR. DILL: All right. Perfect. Well, 

thank you for holding off for one last comment. 

My name is Mike Dill and my comments are on 

behalf of Organically Grown Company, an OPWC 

member organization.

I'd like to comment on the 

Subcommittee recommendation to remove EPA List 4 

from the National List. We agree that it's time 

to make some progress, however, we cannot support 

the proposal as it's written. We think it is 

irresponsible for the Board to propose moving 

forward without the due diligence required for 
330

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

such a significant change. 

I actually find it quite alarming that 

the Crops Subcommittee is proposing a vote of 

this magnitude without having providing 

stakeholders sufficient information. In the fall 

NOSB packet there was no needs assessment, no 

analysis, no comparison, no timeline to 

completion, no memorandum of understanding 

between NOP and EPA, no formal agreement, and 

most importantly nothing that quantifies the 

impacts of farmers, input manufacturers or the 

supply chain from the potential loss of hundreds 

of inputs.

I'm also left wondering if you can 

consider -- or you consulted material 

manufacturers to learn how many years it takes to 

formulate, conduct field trials, reformulate, 

create packaging, seek federal and state 

registration, then manufacture, distribute these 

new products.

I'm also wondering if you've 

researched how this impacts -- or how this could 
331

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

impact currently allowed National List materials 

that require inerts for their functionality like 

Bt, for example. Will the current Bt active 

ingredients work if formulated with safer 

choicing ingredients? I think we need to know 

that.

I also didn't see a technical report 

or a aide-by-side comparison of the list for 

inerts and safer choice ingredients. Since 

pesticide formulations are proprietary, the 

public cannot advocate for individual ingredients 

as we would for other National List materials. 

Thus, it would make sense for the NOSB to 

research and have analysis done by someone who 

has access to the ingredients used in formulated 

products, and a technical report would serve this 

purpose.

How can you -- how can organic 

stakeholders like me and you make an informed 

decision given the level of information provided 

here? The most telling statement in your 

recommendation is one that leads the reader 
332

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

hanging. You state of the 365 inert ingredients 

that are used in OMRI listed products 153 appear 

on the Safer Choice List. So what about the 

other 212 ingredients? There's no further 

mention or consideration to them in this 

recommendation.

It was mentioned repeatedly today that 

there were several options over the years to move 

forward, so I'm left wondering why those didn't 

end up in the proposal for the public to comment 

on and how with all those options we ended up 

with Safer Choice being the proposed path forward 

despite it not being an appropriate solution and 

contains ingredients that have no business being 

in the pesticide?

With Safer Choice, we're no longer 

talking inerts. We're talking ingredients. And 

I guess I ran out of time.

CHAIR ELA: Mike, thank you for your 

comments.

Are there questions for Mike? 

(No audible response.)
333

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR ELA: Mike, I'm just going to 

ask you real quick -- Asa's got a question after 

me. So I mean we're faced with the quandary of I 

think -- like such as in 2015 where if we relist 

the list for ingredients; I mean it's a broken 

list, there's no way to add new ones to it, that 

we're stuck with an old system and there's no way 

to encourage the program to move forward on some 

other choice, whether it be Safer Choice or 

something else. If we delist, vote to delist, 

then we prod the program into having to do 

something with what is now a broken list.

What would -- so we're kind of caught 

in this quandary. What is -- in a -- for a 

sunset we can't actually propose new annotations 

or new materials. We're just looking at that 

sunset by itself. So how would you propose we 

proceed?

MR. DILL: Well, I absolutely 

understand the issue that you're facing, that 

we're all facing, and I think we all want to move 

forward, but putting the pressure on the NOP is 
334

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not the right move. And I don't think that's 

fair from the NOSB that has the responsibility to 

come up with a thoughtful proposal to an end 

plan, so it seems like we have half of it figured 

out. That's -- and that's that we want to move 

forward. But we don't have a viable solution to 

actually achieving that end.

And I look at -- like in SOE the NOP 

proposed for instance that for imports that we 

work with CPD and develop a program to track and 

approve all those imports and issue import 

documentations, or certificates. So that 

actually takes partnership with another agency. 

And I don't see how we can just say that we want 

to develop a relationship. And that's quoted in 

the proposal. It says that we want a 

relationship with EPA. 

But if that's not done -- and we 

haven't started that. And we don't even know if 

they're on board. And if this is going to be a 

proper path forward, it just seems way too 

premature. We can't let that hang out there and 
335

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

just hedge our bets on the fact that EPA is going 

to agree with allowing Safer Choice ingredients 

in pesticides. I don't even think we know if 

that's doable yet.

And if I look at Safer Choice and look 

at all the ingredients that they have, I mean 

they have different classes that include skin 

conditioners, fragrances, colors, antimicrobials, 

it just doesn't seem like that is the right 

solution here when we're talking about pesticide 

inerts and then we're switching it to a list of 

ingredients that contain skin conditioners.

So I think the only path forward is to 

reconvene the task force, make a goal that we are 

going to have a proposed solution where there's 

an agreement in place between the agencies 

involved, that we create that list, we review all 

the materials, do the proper analysis of what's 

going to be left off, what's going to be 

included, and then move forward with either a 

petition for a new listing that has either a 

category or the individual ingredients, and that 
336

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

would allow us the opportunity to the next time 

this sunsets. Then we can delist that. 

But in the meantime at least we have 

two lists that we can be working off and we can 

give folks time to reformulate their products, do 

all the trials that they have to do and really 

just -- you know, this is a big deal. We can't 

just reformulate overnight. I think we've heard 

that from several commenters today that actually 

work with inputs. And just putting the pressure 

on the NOP is not the right way to go about this. 

And hedging our bets on EPA wanting to move 

forward with this as well.

CHAIR ELA: Thank you. Yes, I'm sure 

that will be part of our Board discussion.

Asa, one last question.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes, I mean I think you 

highlight some of the challenges for the current 

industry, and I guess there's also concern that 

-- for example, there's a suggestion that this is 

a 10-year process, and we're essentially already 

five years into it. I mean there was a series of 
337

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

recommendations made in 2015 and earlier that 

began to actually address many of your concerns 

and little or no action has been taken since 

then.

I mean I totally agree that we need a 

working -- there needs to be a working group on 

this and it needs to be active. And there needs 

to be a review of both the materials on List 4 

and List 3. And where there may be overlap with 

the Safer Choice -- the SCIL list, I think 

there's a bit of a misperception here that the --

we're talking about replacing List 4 with this 

SCIL list. Rather, that is really a suggestion 

for a process; and this goes back years, many 

years, to provide a framework to work with EPA to 

evaluate inert ingredients. 

And we do have this problem that it's 

been broken, but it's been broken for a long 

time. I mean we've lost -- from your perspective 

it sounds like we're just starting it fresh and 

we're not -- from what I see we're not starting 

fresh. This has been going on for a long time 
338

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and has not been properly addressed. And then 

there are materials in List 4 that I think many 

would -- like patently are not acceptable in 

organic.

So I agree we need to move forward and 

how to do that is -- I think is what we're all 

trying to figure out.

MR. DILL: Yes. No, and I totally 

agree. And like I said, I think we all agree, 

everyone wants to move forward, but I would like 

to see some sort of process where we can either 

vet a couple different options. You said there 

are several options out there. I personally --

and it sounds like a lot of other folks don't 

agree that Safer Choice is the way to do forward, 

but if we can have -- and I'm not sure if this is 

allowed or not, but if we can have a sanitizer 

panel outside of the NOSB meeting, can't we do 

something similar to that with inerts where we 

can do some work outside of the two yearly 

meetings and actually make some progress and get 

some stakeholder input on what the actual path 
339

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

forward should be? 

When I read the proposal it just 

sounds like we're going to delist and we're going 

hedge our bets on Safer Choice. I mean that's 

what comes across in the fall packet. And I 

think that's -- right now with everything we've 

had to do in the last six months -- first we 

didn't see any indication that this was going to 

happen after the spring meeting. 

Then we had SOE, which consumed the 

entire organic trade, and that was the main focus 

over the last 90 days, which overlapped with this 

NOSB meeting. We just didn't have the time to 

really get in there and think about what other 

processes could be put in place, what other 

options we have. And I hate to say it, but we 

just didn't have the band width to do the 

homework that we normally would on an NOSB 

meeting because of SOE.

So I just think that it's premature to 

delist without any kind of a process, a clear 

process forward, and I'm afraid of what we'll end 
340

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

up with because Safer Choice doesn't seem like 

the right option and I think we really need to 

sit at the table, NOP with EPA, and just develop 

an organic-specific list based off of EPA List 4. 

We set up the criteria. And perhaps we can use 

the criteria that Safer Choice has in place, but 

we can't use their list because it includes so 

many items that have no business in a pesticide 

product.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes, I think what 

you're --

CHAIR ELA: I think --

MR. BRADMAN: we're describing is 

potentially what -- can I make one more comment, 

Steve?

CHAIR ELA: Sure. Asa, hold on. So 

if it's a comment, no. If it's -- we're well 

over time now and some of this is really a 

discussion for the full Board meeting. So I 

don't mean to cut you off, but we've given Mike a 

lot more time than some of the other speakers. 

But I would love to hear your comments in the 
341

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

full Board meeting, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay.

CHAIR ELA: So, Mike, I appreciate it, 

and we appreciate your thoughts as well as though 

those of others. 

MR. DILL: Thank you very much.

CHAIR ELA: With this -- I know we 

went considerably over time. Thank you for 

everybody's patience. It makes for a very long 

day, but I really want to reiterate that we do 

appreciate every stakeholder's viewpoint on this 

really. It really does help our deliberations on 

all these materials.

So I want to remind people that we do 

have another public comment session on Thursday 

in the same format. We'll go through that as 

well. We'll try and get to a few more wait list 

people.

Michelle, or any of the program 

people, do you have any further comments before 

we call the meeting or adjourn until Thursday?

MS. ARSENAULT: I have nothing to add. 
342

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Just the link that you guys used to join the 

webinar today is the same link for Thursday, and 

it's available on the National Organic Standards 

Board meeting web page, or wherever you got it 

the first time around. So thank you, everyone.

CHAIR ELA: All right. Yes, thank 

you, everybody, for hanging with us. Thank you 

for the Board for hanging with us and we'll talk

to you again on Thursday. 

All right. Everybody have a good day 

or evening, or whatever it is. Take care.

MS. ARSENAULT: Thank you, everyone.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter

went off the record at 5:48 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + + +

PUBLIC COMMENT WEBINAR

+ + + + +

THURSDAY, 

OCTOBER 22, 2020

+ + + + +

The Board met telephonically at 12:00 p.m., 

Steve Ela, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT

STEVE ELA, Chair

SCOTT RICE, Vice Chair

JESSE BUIE, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

JERRY D'AMORE

RICK GREENWOOD

KIM HUSEMAN

MINDEE JEFFERY

DAVE MORTENSEN

EMILY OAKLEY

NATE POWELL-PALM

A-DAE ROMERO-BRIONES

DAN SEITZ

WOOD TURNER
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

STAFF PRESENT

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, Advisory Committee 

Specialist, Standards Division

JARED CLARK, National List Manager, Standards 

Division

DAVID GLASGOW, Associate Deputy Administrator, 

National Organic Program

DEVON PATTILLO, Agricultural Marketing 

Specialist, Standards Division

JENNIFER TUCKER, Ph.D., Deputy Administrator, 

National Organic Program; Designated 

Federal Official

SHANNON NALLY YANESSA, Director, Standards 

Division
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

12:00 p.m.

MS. ARSENAULT: Welcome, everybody. 

It looks like we have a good number of folks on 

the phone with us already and I imagine join as 

the day goes on. All right. So just a few 

housekeeping issues before we get started before 

I turn it over to Jenny.

So first of all, thank you for joining 

the second day of the comment period for those of 

you who were on Tuesday. Everything went really 

well on Tuesday. Thank you guys so much. I 

thought it was a little quiet in the chat box. 

So hopefully, you guys will chat with each other, 

say hello. We've all been separated for so long.

So if you're on line, you should be able 

to see an instruction slide. Jared, are we 

previewing? There we go. Now you're seeing me, 

huh? How about we put the instruction slide.

There'll be an instruction slide on the 

screen intermittently with phone numbers in case 

you're having audio issues and you want to dial 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in instead of being on the computer, that we'll 

have that available. I've also added it to the 

chat box. So if you're (audio interference) phone 

number, you'll find it there as well.

If you're having any technical issues, 

you can go to the Zoom.com website. Their help 

center is pretty responsive and really helpful. 

You can live chat with them or you can call them 

on the phone as well for quicker access.

We are recording the webinar, and I'm 

going to start the record button. There we go. 

So we're recording the webinar. We also have a 

transcript, as we usually do, available after the 

Board meeting concludes next. It usually takes 

a couple weeks for us to get the transcript. We 

have to make it ADA compliant before we post it 

on the website. So that'll delay it a little bit.

We've asked the -- speakers had to sign 

up in advance in order to talk, and Steve is going 

to call on folks in the order that's on the schedule 

that we sent out. And so we're asking everybody 

else or even the speakers to make sure that you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

mute your mic while we're going along. And then 

you can unmute yourself as it gets near your time 

to speak. Or we can unmute you from our end as 

well.

If you hover over your Zoom screen, 

you'll see a chat box at the bottom. You guys are 

welcome to chat amongst yourselves. We're not 

answering technical questions via the chat, and 

chat is not part of the official record. So we'll 

just leave it open so you guys can chat with 

yourselves.

You'll find your mute button and your 

video button in the lower left-hand corner of the 

Zoom window. So you can mute and unmute yourself 

there. If we see noise on the line, we'll mute 

you from our end as well.

I'm going to start a timer at the 

beginning of speakers' comments. And you'll also 

see the timer in a pinned window on your screen. 

At the end of three minutes, you'll hear a very 

loud beep. So I don't there'll be any issue with 

you knowing what time to stop talking.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And then Steve will ask any Board 

members if they have questions. So don't mute 

yourself right away after you comment is done. 

There may be follow-up questions.

I'm going to -- let me set a couple 

seconds on the timer so you can see it. All right. 

Jared, do you want a spotlight? Oh, no. That's 

me, all me. Let me switch webcams here. All 

right. So hopefully, people can see the webcam 

if you're on the computer with us. And in two 

seconds, you will hear a very loud beep.

All right. That marks the end of your 

(audio interference). We ask that you end your 

sentence and keep your mic on so in case there's 

follow-up questions from the Board. All right. 

I'm going to turn the mic now over to the NOP, 

National Organic Program Deputy Administrator 

Jenny Tucker. Jenny?

DR. TUCKER: Hello, everyone. It's 

great to see so many names back for a second day 

of public comment. I also see some new names on 

our participant list today. And so I am going to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

repeat our introduction and call to order that we 

did on Tuesday to formalize the kickoff of today's 

session.

And so Michelle, thank you so much for 

a great logistic lead in and all the work that's 

gone into preparing for today. My name is Jennifer 

Tucker. I'm the Deputy Administrator of the 

National Organic Program.

First, welcome to all our National 

Organic Standards Board members. We are meeting 

again online during unique and challenging 

circumstances. Your continued dedication and 

flexibility have allowed this ongoing practice of 

engagement and transparency to continue.

I would particularly like to 

acknowledge our five Board members who are 

beginning the last meeting of their terms. And 

so that's Jesse Buie, Emily Oakley, Dan Seitz, 

A-dae Romero-Briones, and Scott Rick. I am sorry 

to not be able to give you a huge hug of thanks 

for all your work during this meeting and the 

meetings that have come up before.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We're grateful for your hard work and 

service for the last five years. Let's give them 

all a round of a Zoom applause, and this is how 

we do that for folks who have not been with us 

before. So this is what Zoom applause looks like.

To all our public commenters, thank you 

for sustaining this participatory process in this 

format again this fall. We thank you for signing 

up to have your voices heard. I also thank our 

audience. You serve as important witnesses to 

this public meeting process, and we're grateful 

that you're here.

This webinar continues a series of 

virtual webinars that will occur over multiple 

days. This is the second day this week. There 

will be three days next week. And then one day 

in November we'll have a panel on sanitizers. 

Meeting access information for all meeting 

segments is posted on the NOSB meeting page on the 

USDA website.

Transcripts for all segments will be 

posted once completed. This meeting, like other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

meetings of the National Organic Standards Board, 

will be run based on the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act, FACA, and the Board's policy and procedures 

manual. I will act as a designated federal officer 

for all meeting segments.

To close, I want to thank the National 

Organic Program team for their amazing work in 

getting us here today. So when I mention your 

name, if you could go off camera just so everybody 

can see you and to go ahead and wave. You've 

already heard from Michelle who does an amazing 

job in working with this Board and with the 

community throughout the year.

We also have on with us Devon Pattillo, 

policy analyst extraordinaire. We have Shannon 

Nally Yanessa who is our Standards Division 

Director, David Glasgow who is an Associate Deputy 

Administrator. And I want to welcome our new 

National List Manager, Jared Clark. So Jared's 

now been with us for a few months and has done 

stellar work in his new role. So we're very happy 

to have him here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I also want to thank Steve Ela, Chair 

of the Board, who led our virtual meeting so well 

on Tuesday and last spring and who I know will do 

the same for the rest of this meeting. Steve, you 

are an amazing collaborative partner, and we thank 

you very, very, much. I'm now going to hand the 

mic to Shannon Nally Yanessa, the Standards 

Division Director, who's going to do a roll call 

of NOSB members and NOP staff. Thanks so much for 

being here, everybody.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Thank you, Jenny. 

Good morning, good afternoon. Good to see 

everybody back again for day two of the public 

comments. So roll call for the NOSB members, Steve 

Ela?

MR. ELA: I am here.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Thank you. Scott 

Rice?

MR. RICE: Present.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Thank you. Jesse 

Buie?

MR. BUIE: Present.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Thank you. Sue 

Baird?

MS. BAIRD: Here.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Asa Bradman?

MR. BRADMAN: Here.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Jerry D'Amore?

MR. D'AMORE: Here.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Rick Greenwood?

I'm not -- oh, there. Okay. I see 

Rick. Kim Huseman?

MS. HUSEMAN: Present.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Mindee Jeffery?

MS. JEFFERY: Good morning.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Good morning. 

Dave Mortensen?

MR. MORTENSEN: Present.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Emily Oakley?

MS. OAKLEY: Present.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Nate Powell-Palm?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Present.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: A-dae 

Romero-Briones?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Present.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Dan Seitz?

DR. SEITZ: Present, hi.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Thank you. And 

Wood Turner?

MR. TURNER: I'm here. Good morning.

MS. NALLY YANESSA: Good morning. 

That completes the roll call for the NOSB. So I'm 

going to hand the mic back over to Steve Ela who 

is the NOSB Chair.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Shannon. Much 

appreciated and good morning or I guess good 

afternoon to everybody. Thank you so much for your 

participation last Tuesday on our virtual public 

comments, and we look forward to another session 

today. I do want to say we may -- on Tuesday, we 

did run a bit over to try and incorporate some of 

the people on the wait list. And that may also 

happen today as well just because I had lots of 

people.

I'd like to go over a few things. First 

of all, I want to note the five new members that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are going to replace the five members that are going 

off. We look forward to these five new members 

on the Board, and you will officially start in 

January. But I know some of you may be on this 

meeting today. Hopefully, we don't scare you off 

and look very much forward to having you 

participate on the Board.

The public comment policy that we 

follow today is from our policy and procedure 

manual. If you need any details, you can refer 

to that. But just as a quick overview, all 

speakers who will be recognized did sign up during 

the registration period. As I mentioned, we do 

have a wait list from that registration period that 

we'll try and get to.

Speakers will be called upon in the 

order of that schedule. And each of you will have 

three minutes, and we will have time for questions 

from NOSB members. When you do start to give your 

public comment, if you would please give your name 

and affiliation for the record. That way, our 

transcriptionist can know who you are.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We do not allow proxy speakers. And 

most importantly, individuals providing public 

comment shall refrain from making personal attacks 

or remarks that might impugn the character of any 

individual and also even impugn their intentions 

as to what they were thinking. If that happens, 

I will do my best to immediately cut you off and 

ask you to rephrase. And if it continues, we will 

move on to the next speaker.

The process is I will announce the next 

speaker and then the person or two after them so 

those people can be ready to speak. Each speaker 

has three minutes as Michelle noted, and the timer 

will start when the speaker begins. When the timer 

goes off, please complete your sentence and end 

your comment when you hear the timer. That is such 

that we can go ahead and give time to the Board 

to ask questions and be fair to our following 

speakers.

Board members will indicate to me if 

they have questions by raising their hand. And 

I will recognize them in turn. If for some reason 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you can't raise your hand on Zoom, please feel free 

to interrupt me as we start to move to the next 

speaker and we'll make sure and get to you.

Only NOSB members are allowed to ask 

questions, and I will ask the NOSB Board to ask 

questions rather than make comments. We do not 

have a large amount of time for each speaker, and 

I would like to make the most use of each speaker 

we can by asking them their thoughts rather than 

making comments of our own. We will have the full 

Board meeting next week to interact among ourselves 

and make comments as to how each of us feel on a 

certain topic. Are there any questions from the 

Board?

If not, we will go ahead and jump in 

to the public comments. Our first speaker today 

is going to be Bjarne Pedersen. I know Bjarne is 

traveling, and so we may have to skip over him and 

come back to him. Next speaker after Bjarne is 

Kaat -- and I'm sorry, Kaat -- Kaat Bracquine and 

then Robin Hadlock Seeley followed by Albert 

Straus. Bjarne, are you on the phone?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Okay. We will -- he let us know that 

he might not be present. But we'll circle back 

to him at the end of the day. So Kaat, are you 

present?

MS. BRACQUINE: I am.

MR. ELA: Okay. And you can tell me 

how to properly pronounce your name. But --

MS. BRACQUINE: All right.

MR. ELA: -- please go ahead.

MS. BRACQUINE: Okay. So my name is 

Kaat Bracquine, and I'm speaking on behalf of 

Lonza. Thank you for putting up these slides which 

we indeed have here as a support to the information 

shared. So thank you for the opportunity for Lonza 

to express our support for the NOSB to vote in favor 

of adding low acyl gellan gum to the National List.

When you go to the next slide, you'll 

see that we want to bring really specific attention 

to the market segments of dietary supplements 

supplied by Lonza with our Capsugel capsule 

portfolio. So as you do know, there is a growing 

demand for organically certified dietary 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

supplements. And therefore it's also crucial to 

ensure that the regulatory framework enables the 

manufacturing of a vessel for the delivery of these 

nutritional ingredients that are in line with the 

demands for organically certified products.

Lonza has been engaged in the research 

and development of organically certifiable 

capsules since many, many years. And as you can 

see on the next slide, the qualification of gelling 

agents, which is an important capsule ingredient 

-- Capsugel ingredient, does require careful 

evaluation. So not only does the gelling agent 

facilitate manufacturing of the capsule and that 

can be seen on the left-hand side.

These are the two functionalities that 

the gelling agent needs to fulfill to be able to 

make the capsule. It also strongly determines the 

performance and the functionality of the capsule 

as a dosage form for the user. So it needs to have 

certain robustness for mechanical resistance. 

And most importantly obviously, it needs to 

disintegrate for content release in the body.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So going to the next slide, we can show 

that our R&D experts have actually studied very 

carefully all the currently listed alternatives 

on the National List but none of which have provided 

satisfactory results so far. So as an example, 

the high acyl gellan form but also the gums listed 

actually, they are not compatible with the required 

manufacturing conditions to be able to make the 

film and the capsule. And also potentially, the 

results -- not potentially but actually -- the 

results in poor quality capsules.

Now you do see that carrageenan is 

indicated with a question mark. Carrageenan is 

indeed compatible. It's currently in the market 

and actually in U.S. NOP certified dietary 

supplements using Lonza's plant capsules based on 

pullulan and they're made with clay. But that's 

carrageenan. It's at the heart of considerable 

debate over recent years and hangs potentially on 

the negative consumer perception.

So therefore, Lonza is in favor of the 

admission of the low acyl form to the National List 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as can be seen on the last slide where indeed the 

low acyl form is the only alternative to 

carrageenan which fulfills all the requirements. 

So thank you kindly for your attention and 

consideration of this information.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much. Are 

there any questions?

(Audio interference) much for your 

presentation. We do appreciate it.

MS. BRACQUINE: You're very welcome. 

Thank you.

MR. ELA: We're going to -- have a good 

day. We're going to circle right back around to 

Bjarne. We couldn't quite get him on as we called 

his name. So Bjarne, please go ahead.

Do we have him on, Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: He's on. I just asked 

him to unmute his microphone. I see him in the 

list. Bjarne, if you're trying to unmute, you may 

have to hit *6. Oh, it looks like you're on your 

computer, not on your phone. Not yet. Sorry, 

Steve. Not yet. Maybe we'll go on to the next 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

speaker and come back.

Now Steve, if you're talking, we can't 

hear. You're on mute.

No, Steve. You're still on mute, *6 

on your phone.

MR. ELA: There we go. Got it.

MS. ARSENAULT: There you are.

MR. ELA: Can you hear me now?

MS. ARSENAULT: We can hear you.

MR. ELA: Okay. My space bar was not 

working. Let's move on to Robin Hadlock Seeley 

and then we'll come back to Bjarne. So Robin, 

please go ahead.

DR. HADLOCK SEELEY: Thank you very 

much. I'm Dr. Robin Hadlock Seeley, marine 

ecologist and recently retired senior research 

associated at Cornell University. I have four 

points to make today on the marine macroalgae 

proposal.

I'm speaking about rockweed, 

ascophyllum because it's a seaweed species most 

used in crop inputs worldwide and because in Maine, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

95 percent of all harvested seaweed is rockweed. 

Point one, 44 percent of consumers choose organic 

apparently because it's, quote, better for the 

environment, unquote. Point two, the 

precautionary approach to harvesting rockweed or 

protecting rockweed dependent species by NOSB is 

appropriate, even if complete knowledge about harm 

is missing because of risk to dependent species.

A precautionary approach to rockweed 

harvesting has already been taken by several 

federal agencies and state agencies in Maine. And 

in addition, Maine has listed seaweed harvest as 

a risk to shore birds. There's no doubt in Maine 

that cutting the rockweed forest posted both harm 

and risk.

Point three, OFPA requires for 

synthetics that not harm to the environment occur 

in production. So for rockweed, what is harm? 

This slide shows a terrestrial forest on the left 

of the slide. And when you cut a mature maple or 

oak down to a 28-foot stump, you remove the tree 

canopy. Just as when you cut a rockweed tree to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a 16 inches shown on the right, you remove the 

rockweed canopy. Next slide, please. We can 

actually skip that one, please.

The harm is that the height of the 

seaweed decreases about 72 percent from my data 

and grows back very slowly, two inches a year where 

I live. Biomass decreases. Bycatch is removed, 

including other seaweeds and small animals. And 

when the seaweed grows back, it grows back bushy 

like a shrub, not like a tall tree. And one longer 

term study showed that biodiversity takes more than 

three years to recover. Slide, please.

And just as a reminder, just as bird 

forage for insects in the woodland canopy, eider 

ducklings and black ducks and shore birds forage 

for small prey in the underwater rockweed canopy. 

Point four, others have correctly pointed out that 

the proposed annotation is not detailed enough to 

cover crop inputs harvested from different 

locations. But the correct arena, I believe, for 

working out the details is in a task force 

developing guidance, not further postponement of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

forward progress on this issue.

Please support the proposed annotation 

so that seaweed-based inputs meet NOP standards 

for both risk and harm and consumer expectations. 

The annotation could've been a lot more protective 

and I kind of wish it had been. But I do support 

this middle way forward.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Robin. Are there 

questions? Dave has a question.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, thank you for the 

presentation and for the time you've committed to 

this process and expertise. Some public 

commenters are -- have suggested that third-party 

certification is a good substitute for the 

subcommittee's annotation and accompanying 

guidance. Do you agree and why?

DR. HADLOCK SEELEY: I don't agree that 

state agencies should be a substitution for this 

simply because their standards are not anywhere 

near what NOP's standards are as written in the 

regulations. Others have suggested MSC standards 

could be substituted as a third-party standard. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But there again, the standard is much weaker than 

what the regulations for organic actually require. 

They have a minimizing impact standard rather than 

a not harmful or a maintaining, improving natural 

resources standard. So in my opinion, it's a 

weaker standard and not one that lines up with the 

NOP regulations.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Dr. Seeley.

MR. ELA: Emily also has a question.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, thank you. I have 

two questions. We did hear from commenters 

regarding harvesting and conservation areas. So 

I wanted to ask if you think prohibition of 

harvesting and conservation areas is needed and 

if so, why, is the first question. And then the 

second question is, is relying on state regulation 

sufficient to govern the harvest, because we have 

also heard from some harvesters stating that state 

regulations are already adequate. Thank you.

DR. HADLOCK SEELEY: So the first 

question was about whether the prohibition on 

harvesting and conservation areas is needed, and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

my answer to that is a very strong yes. I've been 

monitoring the harvest off and on over the last 

few years. And just in the last two years, there 

have been Maine Coast Heritage Trust, the biggest 

marine land trust in Maine, habitats on their 

islands harvested.

A National Audubon bird sanctuary has 

been harvested twice. Inland fisheries and 

wildlife, wildlife management areas which are 

maintained for the wildlife and particular shore 

birds have been harvested, the Nature Conservancy 

preserves. I could go on. But the regulations 

in Maine are -- they're not there to protect those 

areas. And so I would think that the national 

organic program regulations would need to do that 

in some way.

And the second question was whether 

state regulations are enough. In Maine, they're 

clearly not. I can only speak in Maine because 

I know those best. But there's such inadequate 

regulations on any seaweed harvesting in Maine 

right now.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The harvest regulations only require 

for one species, rockweed, a 16-inch cut above the 

holdfast and that's it. No limit on take. No 

limit about timing, seasonal timing. No limit on 

area. And so the state regulations are really not 

adequate and would not achieve the goals of the 

National Organic Program.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Wood, you have a question?

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Dr. Seeley. Can 

you share a few more thoughts on where you feel 

like the annotation could be stronger? You made 

a comment about that.

DR. HADLOCK SEELEY: I talked a lot in 

my comment just now about architecture. And one 

of the annotations talks about after a cut, the 

three dimensional architecture should begin to 

approach what it had been before. The problem with 

repeated cutting is that the rockweed plant never 

gets a chance to achieve what it was in its original 

wild native formation, the tall tree form.

So as what is apparently happening in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Nova Scotia based on Dr. Heike Lotze's 

observations, there's so much harvesting that the 

plant or the rockweed, the seaweed plant -- it's 

not a plant, but think of it as a plant. The tree 

begins to grow back. It gets cut, and then it grows 

back in this bushy form.

And then eventually, if left alone 

after a number of years, 12 to 18 years in some 

cases, that original forest form would come back. 

But the problem is the harvesters are interested 

in biomass. And so when the plant produces enough 

biomass, no matter what the three dimensional 

architecture is, it comes into another harvest so 

that instead of being a wild forest, it's more like 

a managed woodlot. And so I would've preferred 

in particular for that annotation to say, resumes 

its original three dimensional architecture, but 

instead it reads, starts to approach three 

dimensional architecture. That's just one 

example.

MR. TURNER: Thank you. That's 

helpful.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: One more quick question and 

then we need to move on.

MR. BRADMAN: Some of the comments 

emphasize that a relatively small proportion of 

the total biomass is harvested each year. But I'm 

wondering if you had some comments on the total 

area that's impacted. And is there an acceptable 

proportion of biomass, and related, an acceptable 

proportion of area that might be harvested without 

long-term impacts?

DR. HADLOCK SEELEY: Yeah, so I call 

this the biomass argument, the one percent of 

biomass argument. The problem is that as one 

percent of biomass keeps being taken every year 

and then those harvested areas are left behind, 

more and more area is impacted. More and more 

shore bird habitat is impacted. So the area that's 

caught and recovering keeps expanding.

And I'm actually working on a GIS model 

that would direct harvesting into low conservation 

value areas and try to keep it away from high 

conservation value areas. So there is some room 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for area -- for spatial management. But we're 

nowhere near there yet.

MR. ELA: All right. Thank you very 

much. We do appreciate your comments. Next up 

we have Albert Straus, then followed by Steve Etka 

and Abby Youngblood. Albert, please go ahead.

MR. STRAUS: Hi, I just want to thank 

you all for your service and through this pandemic. 

It's been challenging. What it's showing, this 

pandemic is showing that local organic farming and 

food systems are essential to our survival and that 

we're showing that livestock or organic dairy 

farming can be a solution to climate change, 

produce a high quality food, and be a solution --

I mean, and think that organic -- excuse me, the 

grazing standard is really essential to uphold for 

carbon sequestration, building soil, and creating 

value. Excuse me.

Also, we're seeing that livestock are 

helping -- having a crucial role in wildfire 

mitigation. And we're seeing in California that 

we've been out of balance that way. And also, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we're seeing that farmer's markets and direct to 

consumers or CSAs is really becoming really a 

viable way for farmers to get more of the dollars 

as well as during this pandemic for consumers to 

get their food more directly from farmers at a high 

quality. So I'm really encouraging you to uphold 

the organic standard, strengthen them, and we can 

really be a solution to climate change as well as 

the local farming and food systems. So thank you.

MR. ELA: As always, we're always 

paying attention to what we do. Are there 

questions for Albert?

Not seeing any, thank you again, 

Albert.

MR. STRAUS: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We're going to move on. Bob 

McGee has cancelled, so we're going to move on to 

Steve Etka followed by Abby Youngblood and then 

Christie Badger. So Steve, please go ahead.

MR. ETKA: Good afternoon. I'm Steve 

Etka with the National Organic Coalition. Organic 

operations are facing many challenges due to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

pandemic and climate-related disruptions. On top 

of this, in August, USDA's Farm Service Agency 

announced a reduction in reimbursement rates for 

the Organic Certification Cost Share Program.

This is unacceptable because the 2018 

Farm Bill provided new funding for the program but 

also directed USDA to use the program's carryover 

balances from previous years to fund the program 

for fiscal years 2019 through '23. However, 

through misrepresentation of the carryover 

balances, FSA is now claiming to be short of funds 

and unable to fulfill the funding directives of 

the 2018 Farm Bill. We urge the NOSB to call the 

Secretary of Agriculture to fix this problem which 

was created by FSA's own accounting discrepancies.

Organic operations and retailers are 

facing many disruptions during the pandemic. They 

are adapting, but many face large expenses to keep 

employees safe and to provide food to communities. 

While some organic operations have benefitted 

from USDA's Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, 

CFAP, for many, the first round of CFAP payments 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

did not work well.

The CFAP 2 makes some improvements, but 

many of the payment rates are still too low. NOP 

put forward policy recommendations to respond to 

the pandemic-related needs of the organic sector, 

including certification cost share reforms, direct 

payments tailored to organic farmers, assistance 

to cover COVID-related expenses, bonus pay for food 

system workers, expanded funding for the Paycheck 

Protection Program, and expanded nutrition program 

funding including more online food access options.

NOP strongly supports the 

strengthening of organic enforcement proposed 

rule. We made many very detailed comments on the 

proposed rule noting several areas for 

improvement. And we urge USDA to finalize the rule 

as soon as possible.

NOP encourages the NOSB to not only 

express support for the proposed rule but also to 

work with NOP to identify gaps for further action. 

OFPA requires USDA to consult with the NOSB about 

organic standards. In our comments, NOC has asked 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that the NOP provide an analysis of the provisions 

of the rule and how they compare to past NOSB 

recommendations on these topics.

NOC is deeply disappointed that the NOP 

has failed to finalize the origin of livestock 

regulations by the June 17th deadline. There's 

an urgent need to improve how conventional 

livestock are transitioned into organic herds. 

A proposed rule was issued in 2015 to close the 

loophole that allowed for the continuous 

transition of conventional animals and organic 

herds.

Congress mandated that USDA finalize 

that rule, and that's not happened. So NOC has 

called on the NOP to provide a full explanation 

regarding the lack of movement. We urge the NOSB 

to do the same.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Steve. Are there 

questions for Steve?

I am not seeing any, so we appreciate 

your comments, Steve.

MR. ETKA: Thanks.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: We're going to move on to Abby 

Youngblood and then followed by Christie Badger 

and Mark Keating after Christie. Abby, go ahead.

MS. YOUNGBLOOD: Good afternoon. I'm 

Abby Youngblood, Executive Director at the 

National Organic Coalition. And I want to start 

by thanking you NOSB members for all of the hours 

that you have dedicated in service to the organic 

community. And I especially want to thank A-dae, 

Dan, Emily, Jesse, and Scott for your five years 

of service on the Board. NOC has valued working 

with each of you, and I hope that you will stay 

in touch even after you leave the Board as we 

continue to work to transform our food and 

agriculture system for the better.

One of NOC's top priorities for 2020 

is advancing organic as a climate change solution. 

The organic regulations are strong. They require 

proper tillage and soil building practices that 

sequester carbon. But the regulations also need 

to be improved.

One area for improvement is better 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

enforcement of soil building, cover cropping, crop 

rotation, and biodiversity practices. We've 

heard from multiple certifiers that it's not easy 

to determine when they should issue noncompliances 

for operations that fail to adhere to these 

requirements. More guidance is needed, and the 

NOSB should work on this issue.

The NOSB should also recommend a 

restriction on the use of highly soluble sources 

of nitrogen in organic agriculture because 

overreliance on these sources of fertility is 

inconsistent with organic principles, and it can 

short circuit soil building practices that 

sequester carbon. NOC supports the petition to 

prohibit the use of ammonia extract in organic.

I want to talk now about the three-year 

transition requirement. This fall, NOC worked 

with the Accredited Certifiers Association and the 

Organic Farmers Association to conduct a survey 

with certifiers about when they require a 

three-year transition after spraying a prohibited 

substance. The survey results demonstrate the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

high level of inconsistency across certifiers.

Out of the 20 different scenarios that 

we presented to certifiers, there was only one for 

which certifiers were in agreement. We provided 

the NOSB with the full survey results in aggregate 

form. And we look forward to working with you and 

with the Accredited Certifiers Association and the 

USDA National Organic Program to find a path 

forward for greater consistency.

In my last few seconds, I want to 

highlight three issues. I want to encourage the 

NOSB to take an active role in building a more 

diverse and inclusive organic movement. Second, 

I want to urge the NOSB to continue its work on 

excluded methods. The organic community and the 

NOSB has been clear in their opposition to genetic 

engineering in organic and have also expressed the 

need for more certainty about what is excluded, 

what is allowed, and why.

And finally, I want to reiterate our 

concern about the continued certification of 

hydroponic and container operations. This is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

another area of inconsistency, and we believe that 

we should immediately halt continued certification 

of these operations in the absence of clear 

standards. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Abby. It looks 

like Emily has a question for you.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you very much for 

you work, Abby, on the three-year transition survey 

and for providing those results to the Board and 

to the program. And I was wondering if you had 

any suggestions for particular next steps the NOSB 

could take in trying to encourage the NOP to move 

forward on this topic.

MS. YOUNGBLOOD: Thanks, Emily. I 

think that the survey results are instructive 

because they point to some of the -- they point 

to a lot of different areas of inconsistencies and 

they also pinpoint a few of the questions that just 

remain unresolved. And so from my perspective, 

it makes sense for the NOSB and the Accredited 

Certifiers Association to take a closer look on 

some of those unresolved issues.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I'll just point to a couple of them. 

Like, if there's a concrete floor in a greenhouse 

operation, does that mean you don't need a 

three-year transition? If you put containers or 

transplants up on a bench, does that mean you don't 

need a three-year transition? For a poultry 

operation, if you have an outdoor access area and 

you cover that over with concrete or gravel, does 

that mean you don't need a three-year transition?

These are some of the scenarios that 

our survey showed there was confusion or a lot of 

different practices out there across certifiers. 

So I think there needs to be work done at the NOSB 

level to solicit input on how we handle these 

different situations. And I think it would also 

be -- I think ACA could also provide some different 

options for how we could treat these different 

scenarios based on current practices or best 

practices that they develop.

MR. ELA: Great. Thank you very much, 

Abby. I don't see any further questions, but we 

appreciate your comments. Next up is Christie 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Badger followed by Mark Keating. Mark, if you're 

out there, you might let Michelle know since she 

isn't seeing you right now. Then Harriet Behar 

and Johanna Mirenda. So go ahead, Christie.

MS. BADGER: Okay. Can you hear me?

MR. ELA: We can.

MS. BADGER: Thanks. Hi, my name is 

Christie Badger and I'm a consultant with the 

National Organic Coalition. In our NOSB comments, 

Mark had a comment regarding continuous 

improvement as a core value. I'm going to be 

holding this core value as the overarching theme 

of my comments.

Paper pots. We're requesting that the 

Board acknowledges the listing has known 

deficiencies that need to be considered by future 

boards, the need for continued research and the 

need for NOP guidance to ensure certifier 

consistency. Biodegradable bio-based mulch film, 

gene technology, microplastic, nanoplastics 

affect the secondary metabolites, affects the 

overall soil health, soil biology, soil nutrient 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

balance, soil tilth, effects on livestock that 

graze these areas in subsequent years, the list 

goes on. We maintain that this product is not 

ready for prime time.

Aquatic plant extracts other than 

hydrolyzed. Interpreting the parenthetical 

clause, other than hydrolyzed, is confusing, 

making it unclear as to what is allowed and what 

is not. We request that the NOP and National List 

manager clarify what is meant by this clause to 

clarify the issue. Inerts. A memorandum of 

understanding is an important part of the framework 

and process. The MOU is essential to 

transparency.

Low acyl gellan gum. When considering 

adding materials to the National List, there should 

be a higher standard for synthetics, especially 

when we already have a nonsynthetic to do the job. 

In addition, listing materials for the potential 

or not future gains is a slippery slope and sets 

a dangerous precedent. Where will we draw the 

line?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Ion exchange filtration. Only resins 

and their associated recharge materials approved 

for this use should be allowed in organic food 

processing and only when approved for listing on 

205.605(b). Chemicals added during the ion 

exchange process must be listed on the label. 

Petition process for synthetic materials, what is 

the barrier?

Without a more robust petition and 

sunset review process, how do we evaluate materials 

petitioned to or sunsetting from 606? Kelp. What 

is the barrier for producing these ingredients in 

organic form? Based on the fact that there are 

102 suppliers of organic kelp listed in the OIG, 

it would appear that the greatest barrier is the 

allowance for nonorganic use by the listing in 606.

Colors, limited scope TR. 

Fenbendazole must go back to subcommittee. Marine 

materials, thank you. What a tremendous effort.

MR. ELA: Wow, Christie. You timed 

that exactly. You're in the running for the exact 

timing award. Emily has a question for you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: That was a pretty amazing 

use of your time. Very well planned out. I just 

wanted to ask regarding marine materials and your 

support for the proposal. If you could tell us 

whether or not you think now is the time to vote 

for this or it needs to go back to subcommittee, 

what your thoughts on that are.

MS. BADGER: Within NOC, I would say 

that we greatly agree with Dr. Seeley. And we want 

to see forward movement on this. You and many 

members on the Board and those before you have put 

tremendous effort into this. We do support the 

middle line approach that you all have come up with. 

And yes, we would like to see this voted on.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Any other questions for 

Christie?

Thank you, Christie. And good job on 

the time.

MS. BADGER: Thanks.

MR. ELA: Next we have Mark Keating 

followed by Harriet Behar and then Johanna Mirenda. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It looks like we do have Mark. So Mark, please 

go ahead.

MR. KEATING: Good afternoon, 

everyone. How's everyone doing?

MR. ELA: We're good. Go ahead.

MR. KEATING: Good, yes. This is 

remarkable. My name is Mark Keating. I operate 

Wheel of Life Consulting. I want to give thanks 

to God for allowing us all to come together in this 

wonderful organic community that we serve.

Many on this call will remember Room 

3501 in the USDA South Building, the old AMS meeting 

room, now named for Dr. Ken Clayton. And that's 

when I got started in the NOSB process, 1998. And 

we used to be able to fit everybody into that room 

who wanted to have a say. And now it takes the 

worldwide web. So just tremendous growth.

And I want to recommend that the marine 

material program go back to committee and back to 

the drawing board. I think it would be really ill 

advised to pursue this type of annotation. You're 

going to hear and already have heard from many 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

experts who know about this subject than I do.

I'm going to stick to kind of a more 

general argument regarding organic certification. 

I was the lead crop, livestock, and National List 

specialist who contributed to writing the final

rule with USDA. I've also done over 1,000 organic 

inspections over the last ten years. I've been 

a professional at writing standards. I've been 

a profession at verifying compliance.

And I have seen this trend for a long 

time to essentially micromanage materials through 

two -- well micromanage materials through the 

annotation process and then deny farmers and 

processors materials that would otherwise, in my 

opinion, be very valuable additions to their 

toolbox as we like to say. Trying to write an 

annotation like this is really trying to reverse 

engineer a perfect organic system.

It's kind of the assumption that if we 

only allow these perfect materials and if we then 

get out to the farm and we isolate all the allowed 

perfect materials from the prohibited bad 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

materials, then we've got a wonderful organic 

operation on our hands. The world just doesn't 

work that way. It's certainly not the world that 

I see on the farms.

I'm going to wrap up real quickly. I 

have other things to say, but you may all know that 

Mennonites families, they love to write scripture 

and inspirational sayi8ngs on the walls in their 

home. And I saw one just perfect for the organic 

community the other day. It said, we may not have 

it all together, but together we do have it all.

MR. ELA: All right. Thank you very 

much, Mark. Emily has a question for you.

MS. OAKLEY: This is just a 

clarification. I don't think that the 

subcommittee expects that the annotation on marine 

materials is at all perfect or would lead to perfect 

materials. I don't think that was our objective 

in trying to do it. It is to establish the 

continuous improvement goal and core value that 

Christie actually just talked about. So thank 

you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. KEATING: Valid point. I 

appreciate you pointing that out. We are 

approaching but never achieving perfection. 

Organic certification is a process of continuous 

improvement. Thank you for correcting me.

MR. ELA: All right. Thank you very 

much, Mark. And Michelle and the NOP staff so 

gently corrected me that I was looking on a list 

from a few days ago. So actually, Harriet will 

be next followed by Gwendolyn Wyard and Laura 

Batcha. And Johanna Mirenda will be after them. 

So Harriet, please go ahead.

MS. BEHAR: Hello, NOSB members. My 

name is Harriet Behar, and I am a longtime organic 

farmer, inspector, educator, and advocate and an 

alumni of the NOSB. Fenbendazole. Please 

consider the precedent you are setting if you 

approve this material for poultry since the organic 

livestock and poultry practices regulation was not 

implemented three years ago.

There are no clear rules for the type 

of systems and living conditions for poultry that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

would lessen the need for this parasiticide. 

Organic ruminants must be on vegetated ground and 

receive nutrition from their pasture which usually 

leads producers to rotate their animals. Poultry 

have no such requirement, and many of the large 

poultry houses have one bare ground area used 

continuously by each flock and subsequent flocks.

There's no definition of what emergency 

is. So if the birds continually reinfect 

themselves in these small outside areas, the 

proposed listing will allow for repeated and 

continual use throughout the use. The definition 

of organic refers to a system. And the allowance 

of this material discourages any type of systems 

approach to parasite control and instead 

encourages poor practices since they can rely on 

this material as a crutch.

The precedent you vote to allow this 

material is that it is okay to have a residue of 

a synthetic parasiticide in organic food. It is 

essential you not go down this road to keep the 

integrity of the organic label at a place where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

consumers can continue to trust the producers do 

all they can on their farms to not have synthetic 

residues in the food that is sold as organic. As 

an organic inspector, I have spoken with organic 

egg producers who have told me they will not use 

this material and are considering the option to 

label their eggs in a way that clarifies their 

nonuse of synthetic parasiticides and that their 

eggs have no residues.

Paper pots. I was disappointed to see 

the removal of the requirement that if the higher 

bio-based content was commercially available, that 

would be required. As we have heard from John 

Hendrickson, the manufacturer of the paper pots 

he sells, has stepped up to provide organic 

producers with a paper pot without synthetic fibers 

due to the NOSB's previous discussion showing your 

preference for this. It is very difficult to 

modify listings.

So when placing something on the 

National List, consider its long-term impact. The 

more we learn about synthetics and plastics in our 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

environment, the more we see their numerous 

negative consequences. I recommend sending this 

back to subcommittee since we now see that paper 

pots can be made without synthetic fibers. As a 

beekeeper, I support the relisting of formic acid 

and encourage the NOP to work on the agriculture 

standards.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, Harriet. 

So close to the exact time, but not quite. Very 

well done. Nate has a question for you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you for your 

comments, Harriet. I was hoping to see if you had 

experienced or contacted any producers who have 

expressed that they feel like they need 

fenbendazole to control parasites in their flocks.

MS. BEHAR: No, I have not. I have 

probably inspected 30 or 40 hen houses in the past 

two years, and I have asked every single producer. 

And none of them told me they needed this material 

and were actually somewhat outraged that was even 

being considered.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Dan has a question.

DR. SEITZ: Hi, Harriet. Thank you 

for your remarks. I also have a question on 

fenbendazole. So you mentioned that certain 

cultural methods really go a long way to addressing 

the problem of parasites. And I've certainly 

talked to a number of local egg producers in our 

area who don't use it and hadn't even heard of that 

as a possibility, the organic egg producers. And 

what I'm wondering is, can you describe more fully 

for us the types of operations that seem to have 

these types of problems and what would be the 

cultural approach to their solving that?

MS. BEHAR: Well, I think just as in 

ruminants and mammals, if you rotate the pasture 

-- and I have seen even very large hen house have 

numerous pastures, large pastures with shade 

structures so that encourages the chickens to move 

away from the buildings -- and then left those areas 

rest, even come in and plant oats after the area 

has been denuded to encourage vegetation and soil 

biology to then work with -- kind of help have a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

more diverse biological activity in the soil and 

right there at the soil line with the plants. If 

the birds only have bare ground to be on and it's 

the same bare ground they use every day and from 

flock to flock and year to year, you are not going 

to lesson the presence of parasitic eggs in the 

soil where the chickens would then pick it up.

And that would mean that there would 

be an emergency with these flocks continuously 

throughout their life cycle as well as the life 

cycle of subsequent flocks. So you're not really 

dealing with it at all culturally if you are not 

looking to rotate those areas which would mean you

would need more land base, just as the ruminants 

do, for having a healthy flock.

MR. ELA: Sue has a question.

Sue, guess what. You may be on mute.

MS. BAIRD: Of course I am. Okay. 

Hi, Harriet. It's good to hear from you.

MS. BEHAR: Hi.

MS. BAIRD: I appreciate your 

perspective on the fenbendazole. And everyone 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

shares the concerns of a residual of any type. 

Your assessment of needing larger pastures, 

though, seems to be negated by the testimony or 

the public comment from CROPP as we know who is 

one of the leading pastures for poultry and 

although not in the written comments this time but 

were in the spring comments. So they're seeing 

increasing numbers of worms in their poultry due 

to climate change, too many wet springs, those 

types of things.

I found concerning that -- this really 

was concerning to me. Dr. Donna Kelly from 

Pennsylvania, she's a professor of microbiology 

in the avian pathology service. And she says that 

in their diagnostic laboratories for birds that 

are having problems that the worms have increased 

900 percent since 2017. She goes ahead and 

although not petitioned, she says they're really 

concerned about the fact that it's in meat birds, 

escaping -- bacteria escaping through the leaky 

gut caused by the worm populations and even getting 

into the meat.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Man, we're all conflicted on this. 

There is precedent that we have allowed residuals. 

We allow aspirins because for the health of the 

livestock. We allow aspirins to be given to the 

animals, and there's a residual of aspirins. But 

no one seems to care. How do you respond to that, 

Harriet?

MS. BEHAR: Well, I think that again 

we are not encouraging the use of a systems-based 

approach of having enough land so you can rotate. 

And just as in a ruminant system, you can actually 

have less land available to the animals if you 

manage them correctly and move them regularly. 

So if you understand your parasite issues and 

rotate the birds out of an area long enough so the 

cycle of egg to parasite is past its time.

We're not working on that at all, and 

the allowance of this material would not allow it. 

Now I know there was some discussion at some point 

about maybe allowing it one time or that kind of 

thing. But just allowing it carte blanche with 

no restriction whatsoever I think just will lead 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to a huge amount of abuse.

And there will be certain flocks where 

they use this, pre-putting the birds out on 

pasture, then they're out on pasture for many a 

month or two, and then they use it again. And it 

could be three, four, even five times during the 

life of one flock of chickens where they could be 

given this fenbendazole because there's no 

definition on how many birds would've had to have 

it during your postmortems, if you're testing. 

I mean, it's just a huge open hole to walk through 

that just allows for less and less land area for 

poultry houses because they know they can deal with 

parasites by using this parasiticide.

MS. BAIRD: Would you support this 

going back to the subcommittee and working on some 

of those issues you just outlined, perhaps defining 

how often it could be used, how the criteria --

whether it's posting the birds and doing some types 

of quantitative analysis of how many worms are in 

there so that we could perhaps get this thing right? 

Would you support it going back and us having time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to work on this rather than voting on it?

MS. BEHAR: Absolutely I would support 

that and especially if the subcommittee looks at 

the use of natural materials such as higher amounts 

of grit in the chickens' ration as well as various 

systems-based approaches because there are 

producers who don't need it. So what are they 

doing that's right --

MS. BAIRD: I think --

MS. BEHAR: -- that others can learn 

from?

MS. BAIRD: Right. From what I'm 

understanding from comments we're reading, it is 

probably a location and climate issue on why some 

are having it and others are not.

MS. BEHAR: I agree.

MR. ELA: And Sue, I'm going to --

MS. BEHAR: I mean, I think it could 

go back to subcommittee and to look at both of very 

limited use and/or during review of the organic 

system, what have they done on the farm for 

prevention.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: Right. We have actually 

submitted that for a research topic, Harriet.

MS. BEHAR: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Sue, I'm going to move on to 

Dave. He has a question.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you. I'm sorry.

MR. ELA: Then we'll move on to the next 

speaker.

MS. BAIRD: Right.

MR. ELA: You don't have to apologize. 

But go ahead, Dave.

MS. BEHAR: Hello, Dave.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. BEHAR: I will answer your email 

one of these days.

MR. MORTENSEN: Nice to hear from you 

again. Harriet, I have -- this practice you've 

just been discussing with Sue and the logic that 

underpins the request seems to me to set up a 

worrying slippery slope. I personally have a hard 

time seeing why we wouldn't entertain a request 

for glyphosate or Roundup use for a weed outbreak 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

or chlorpyrifos for an insect outbreak. Could you 

speak to whether or not we would be setting up kind 

of a slippery slope where it'd be hard to walk back 

the logic that was used to move forward with this?

MS. BEHAR: Well, yes. And so that is 

true. But again, the organic definition talks 

about a systems-based approach. And the use of 

fenbendazole -- the need for fenbendazole is really 

a failure in the system. And we have learned 

amongst ruminant producers that you can control 

parasites when you are knowledgeable of the life 

cycle of the parasite you're dealing with and the 

rotating the pastures so the animals are not 

continually reinfecting themselves.

I don't think there's been quite enough 

research on parasites in poultry. And as a matter 

of fact, the FDA has only recently approved this 

for poultry. It has not been allowed, I think, 

prior to about 18 months ago.

So again, this is a very new material 

that is brought forward, and I don't think that 

we have really dug into the systems that we need. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I agree that it is somewhat of a slippery slope 

to say just a little bit now and then we save 

ourselves for later. We'll work on it later to 

fix the system, but we need this little bit now. 

I think that can be very problematic.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thanks, Harriet.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much for your 

thoughts, Harriet. We do appreciate it and hope 

you do well up in Wisconsin. Next we're going to 

move on to Gwendolyn Wyard, then Laura Batcha, and 

then come around to Johanna Mirenda. So 

Gwendolyn, go ahead.

MS. WYARD: Okay. Can everybody hear 

me?

MR. ELA: We can.

MS. WYARD: Excellent. All right. 

Well, good morning to everybody from the West 

Coast. My name is Gwendolyn Wyard, and I'm the 

vice president of regulatory for the Organic Trade 

Association.

And first, I would like to address the 

outgoing NOSB members, Scott, Jesse, Dan, Emily, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and A-dae. Thank you for your five years of 

service and for your commitment to organic 

agriculture and time and contributions are 

sincerely appreciated. Moving into the agenda 

topics, I'll be highlighting our written comments 

on ion exchange filtration and commercial 

availability as it applies to 205.606 of the 

National List.

Starting with ion exchange, we believe 

that success is underway because NOSB is finally 

reviewing the use of ion exchange filtration. The 

uncertainty around this allowance has carried on 

too long, in fact, almost 20 years, and has 

undoubtedly led to inconsistency between 

certifiers. We strongly support NOSB moving 

forward with the subcommittee recommendations so 

that it can be taken up by NOP and formalized in 

the NOP handbook. Clarification in the handbook 

is critical to bring about transparency and uniform 

regulatory decision.

We also want to make sure that everyone 

understands that the use of ion exchange must be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

included in the certified operator organic system 

plan and approved by the certifier. This includes 

all of the resins, membranes, and recharge 

materials that may be used. It all gets looked 

at by the certifier. The certifier must conduct 

a thorough review and ensure that all materials 

and practices are in compliance with the organic 

regulations. This is current practice, and it's 

important that the NOP guidance reflects this 

information as well.

Moving on to commercial availability 

in 205.606, I'd like to draw your attention to the 

one-page comment we included with the results of 

our sunset survey. We've included some insights 

and suggestions on the evaluation of commercial 

availability which is undoubtedly a provision in 

the regulation that is challenging both to 606 and 

to organic feed usage as well. OTA will be the 

first to applaud the sound removal of an ingredient 

from 606, and we have a track record for supporting 

these efforts.

That being said, please do not vote to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

remove an ingredient from 606 unless you feel 

confident based on good data that an organic 

alternative is commercially available. Ask 

yourselves, is the supply stable or is it fragile? 

Voting material off the National List to make a 

point or drive incentive is not consistent with 

OFPA criteria and it creates a messy outcome any 

way you slice it. I think there are better ways 

to address the issue and drive incentive.

And second, please keep in mind that 

the review does not end with NOSB. An ingredient 

on 606 must be used in organic form when it's 

commercially available, and certifiers are 

carrying out this review directly with each 

certified operation on at least an annual basis. 

Organic form of several 606 ingredients can be 

found in many of the organic products we know and 

love.

So there's proof that the process is 

working. It's critical that we recognize and 

support the certifier and the review process. The 

efforts that are, in fact, being made by the organic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

industry and the power of consumer demand and

market-driven outcomes. Thank you so much for 

your time.

MR. ELA: Well done, Gwen. Other 

questions --

MS. WYARD: In the running.

MR. ELA: -- for Gwen? Yeah, in the 

running, although you kind of stretched out there 

at the end a little bit.

MS. WYARD: I did. I did. I know. 

I did that trick.

MR. ELA: So any questions for Gwen? 

Gwen, I'm not seeing any right now, so we are going 

to move on to Laura Batcha followed by Johanna 

Mirenda and then to Kate Mendenhall. So go ahead, 

Laura.

MS. BATCHA: Great. Laura Batcha 

here with the Organic Trade Association. Can you 

hear me, Steve?

MR. ELA: We sure can. Go ahead.

MS. BATCHA: Perfect. I want to take 

a few minutes to speak about inerts with the Board. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I think first the Organic Trade Association 

certainly agrees that the current listing for 

inerts is problematic and the reference to List 

4 is obsolete in support of the good work that the 

Board did, culminating the in the 2015 

recommendation to modernize the review system for 

inert ingredients under use in organic 

agriculture.

And we absolutely share the frustration 

that I think the Board carries and that you're 

hearing from many stakeholders about, what are we 

left to do when the recommendations that are passed 

by the Board remain unimplemented by USDA? And 

I think this is one of the prime examples of that. 

We're working hard in some policy updates to try 

to put more of an affirmative obligation back onto 

USDA to advance these recommendations when they 

go forward.

But just to underscore, it's so 

frustrating for stakeholders. It truly, truly is. 

That being said, I think we have some real cautions 

against vote to remove the listing for inerts and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

its sunset review for a number of reasons that I'll 

walk through.

I think, first and foremost, it sets 

a terrible precedent to vote to delist in a manner 

that's inconsistent with the criteria established 

and particularly in this case of an available 

alternative. I think we're concerned with some 

of the sort of underlying discussions in the 

thinking on this proposal that perhaps the Board 

would be voting to delist when they don't really 

mean for inerts to be delisted but instead mean 

to send a message to USDA and that there'd be some 

communication from USDA that that strategy as a 

political tactic is sort of an okay road to go down. 

I think it sets up a dynamic that really does by 

into the idea that the general recommendations that 

the Board passes do not matter.

I think it diminishes the reputation 

of the Board when you take an action that's 

inconsistent with the criteria established in 

OFPA. And I think it's very important to remember 

that there are thousands of stakeholders that are 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not in the room or on the Zoom. And what they see 

coming out of this is the Board voting to delist 

inerts which are an essential tool for production 

in organic agriculture. So I'd urge you to 

consider an alternative pathway with the 

resolution, sending a clear signal to USDA, you 

must pick up 2015 an move forward. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Laura. Are there 

questions for Laura? Asa has one.

MR. BRADMAN: Laura, I have a few 

questions.

MS. BATCHA: Sure.

MR. BRADMAN: One, just a general 

statement. We really shouldn't be using the word, 

inerts. These substances are not inert, and that 

really dates back to EPA. And I think it's kind 

of tragic that this term is used for biologically 

and toxicologically -- potentially biologically 

and toxicologically active substances. So I 

encourage all of us to not use the word, inert.

MS. BATCHA: I agree with you on that, 

Asa. So thank you for that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: We also have on the 

current list for list substances that are, in my 

view, antithetical to organic standards. So when 

we talk about OFPA and we talk about the organic 

movement, we have materials there. Particularly, 

I'm talking about the NPE.

But there's others that really haven't 

been evaluated that are just, in my mind, totally 

unacceptable in an organic format. And we're 

referring to a list that I think it was 14 years 

ago was essentially made obsolete by EPA. So I 

mean, you could argue that voting to delist it is 

throwing out the bath with the bathwater.

But we have a list here that's currently 

-- it's really not part of the bath. And from EPA's 

point of view, it doesn't exist. So it's not just 

to send -- voting to delist it would not be just 

to send a political message. It's an affirmation 

that the current system is broken.

So I guess my question is, how would 

you deal with that? And then also would you also 

support with a system that makes these adjuvant 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

materials not proprietary? I know I feel that 

these -- we have this process where besides the 

active ingredient, other materials are hidden. 

And right now, there's no way for a consumer to 

know what's being used on their food except with 

respect to these lists which include materials that 

in some cases are probably unacceptable. So I 

guess I'd like your thoughts on that.

MS. BATCHA: Sure. Thanks, Asa. And 

I just want to acknowledge your -- we're lucky to 

have you on the Board with this discussion because 

you're a true scientific thought leader on these 

questions. A couple things that I would say.

Agreeing with the scenario that you'd 

laid out and it's hard, I understand, for me to 

sit here and argue for process when clearly the 

system is broken because it was a good 

recommendation in 2015. And it provided a pathway 

for USDA to begin working with EPA through a 

memorandum of understanding, but out an ANPR and 

start tackling these questions. And we sit and 

we look, and we're close to six years of pass and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

things haven't happened. And it's so darn 

frustrating. So I completely get that.

As it relates to specific substances 

and their extreme sort of incompatibility with 

organic that are bundled into this listing, Asa, 

I think to remember that petitions could 

effectively and quickly be used to prohibit 

specific substances. And that's a path that this 

Board could go down and move through. And I think 

you'd find that the community truly did support 

you there.

I think everybody sort of stuck with 

this the way it is listed currently. So there is 

a pathway through the petition process to go after 

those specific substances because while the system 

is broken, it is a vote to delist. And there are 

stakeholders out there that will just see that.

And one of my concerns is that it 

undermined the reputation of the Board in terms 

of following the criteria for the decision making 

and also that it sets up a system where this kind 

of action has to happen in order to get USDA to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

say they're paying attention. I think whether or 

not those actions then would happen would have to 

come to pass. But I think we're really concerned 

about the idea of going off the criteria, voting 

to do something with the understanding that it 

won't happen in its sort of absolute form that it 

was passed.

Like, what happens when that's a 

completely different set of players involved in 

those discussions. And that sort of, 

quote-unquote, agreement or pathway isn't 

something that is generally supported by organic 

stakeholders. So I think that there's risk there. 

But I think the biggest point is consider the 

petition to move very quickly to prohibit the 

specific substances that are of the highest 

concern, Asa.

MR. ELA: So Laura, before we move on, 

I have one quick question related to that. And 

this is a very unusual listing in that it covers 

many, many -- hundreds of materials where most of 

our other listings cover a single material. And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

given -- I mean, given what we just talked about, 

it is arguable that a number of these materials 

might not fit off the criteria.

So we would have a responsible to vote 

them off because they don't fit off the criteria. 

It seems to me this is a rather unusual situation 

that doesn't necessarily set precedent. And I'm 

curious about your quick thoughts on that.

MS. BATCHA: Well, I think maybe if 

you're as close to it as you are, Steve, and you 

understand all those nuances, you could say it 

doesn't set precedent. But again, think about the 

people who are -- all the circles out that are 

watching this and a farmer that relies on tools. 

And then what they see is the Board being willing 

to make a vote like that to delist.

And so I think that's the bigger issue. 

I personally and as an organization, we really 

support the recommendation process from NOSB to 

USDA about how to handle these issues within 

organic agriculture. And that 2015 

recommendation was really good. It provides a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

pathway where you could have the ANPR.

You can get the work going with EPA and 

find something that is much more compatible with 

organic systems and safer for the public, right? 

So that work is done. And I think really full 

pressure on getting USDA to pick up that 

recommendation and move like the Board has done 

in prior circumstances with a resolution might be 

considered.

MR. ELA: Well, thank you very much. 

We appreciate --

MS. BATCHA: Thank you.

MR. ELA: -- your thoughts. We are 

going to move on to Johanna Mirenda and then 

followed by Kate Mendenhall and Brenda DeShields. 

So Johanna, please go ahead.

MS. MIRENDA: Great. Hi, can you hear 

me?

MR. ELA: We can hear you.

MS. MIRENDA: Hi, I'm Johanna Mirenda

of the Organic Trade Association, and I'll be 

commenting today on marine macroalgae. OTA has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

been engaged on this topic for over four years of 

NOSB meetings. This time, unfortunately, our 

attention was dominated by the overlapping comment 

period of the massive strengthening organic 

enforcement proposed rule.

Finally seeing rulemaking action on 

years old NOSB recommendations like grower groups 

is an important reminder of how much patience this 

process requires and the benefits of having quality 

recommendations that can stand the test of time. 

The dedication of the Materials Subcommittee 

demonstrates this exact type of patience. And 

were so appreciative of the hard work that's gone 

into this issue over the years.

We last left off with this topic one 

year ago with conflicting opinions from Board 

members and stakeholders on a discussion document 

and no clear path forward. We now see the 

subcommittee has been working very diligently 

since then, reaching a new milestone at this 

meeting by debuting its proposed solution. The 

proposal presents for the first time a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

comprehensive set of harvest parameters for 

seaweed used in crop fertility inputs.

We incorporated on the National List 

through one new annotation on 601 and one new 

listing and annotation on 602. These amendments 

are unmatched anywhere else on the National List. 

They are the longest annotations ever presented. 

They would be the first to include a full practice 

standard of production and harvest of an 

agricultural input. And the new listing at 602 

would be the first of its kind to prohibit an 

agricultural input unless harvest parameters are 

met.

Rarely, if ever, is a new annotation 

or new listing accepted on the first try, 

especially ones of this magnitude. Scientists 

working with the subcommittee on the annotation 

got at least three rounds of revisions. And now 

organic stakeholders deserve their chance to 

inform the annotation.

Commenters admit to not having time to 

fully take in the proposal. But initial reactions 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are encouraging that we are on our way to consensus. 

But we're not there yet. Hopefully, the Board 

will give stakeholders the opportunity to find 

consensus on language that meets sustainability 

goals, is practical for seaweed harvesters to 

implement, and maintains farmer access to 

critically important fertility tools. OTA 

remains committed to this work and we hope NOSB 

is too. We recommend sending the proposal back 

to subcommittee to work on three things.

Start addressing commenters' specific 

concerns with the annotation language. Make sure 

gaps and technical information are addressed 

appropriately with particular attention to 

globally representative data and impacts on supply 

and availability of seaweed fertilizers and get 

direct confirmation from NOP on the legal options 

for rulemaking on these recommendations, 

specifically regarding the appropriateness of 

adding a new listing without a petition as this 

authority is not addressed in the NOSB policy and 

procedures manual. These actions will give the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

time needed for building consensus and the 

assurance that we're working towards and 

actionable and effective proposal. Thank you for 

considering these comments and your continued 

dedication to the issue.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Johanna. It

looks like Emily has a question for you?

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you for your 

comments, Jo, and for the tenor of your comments. 

Really appreciated. And I also appreciate your 

questions regarding the NOP and legal options for 

rulemaking and did just want to say that we did 

discuss as a subcommittee with the NOP the proposal 

in detail.

And we construct it in a way that would 

make it most eligible for the rulemaking process. 

But one question I have is you suggest we send 

this back to subcommittee and think that we are 

getting close to consensus. And I actually 

genuinely thought that that was the case over the 

course of the summer as well but was surprised 

towards the end of the summer to find that there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

was a tremendous amount of resistance among 

harvesters and processors in particular.

And I'm not clear, I guess, why the OTA 

Marine Materials Task Force didn't engage earlier 

in the process with the annotation because I did 

send it out as a first draft around in early 

February to all the stakeholders that had been 

engaged in this process, including you, and did 

ask for feedback later in that same month in 

February from the Marine Material Task Force for 

that initial round of the annotation. So my 

question is, why didn't we hear from them then? 

And if we send it back, are truly, genuinely likely 

to reach consensus?

MS. MIRENDA: Thanks for the question, 

Emily. The annotation that was emailed in 

February was outside of the formal NOSB process. 

And honestly, I didn't even know that that was 

going to be the opportunity you were looking for 

to get public feedback on the annotation.

I think the real risk of passing this 

proposal as it's written today is that it's not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

allowing for any substantive changes to the 

proposal. So the stakeholders, including seaweed 

harvesters and organic farmers that are directly 

impacted by the proposal and maybe weren't included 

in the internal email exchanges outside of the 

public process wouldn't get any of their 

substantive feedback incorporated since the 

language that the Board would be voting on was 

developed before receiving our comments through 

the public process. So I would respectfully 

disagree that there was an opportunity for broader 

stakeholders to participate and engage in giving 

feedback on the annotation because the annotation 

itself was not published formally for public input 

until last month.

MS. OAKLEY: Is it --

MR. ELA: Thank you, Johanna.

MS. OAKLEY: -- okay if I follow up with 

a quick question?

MR. ELA: Sure. Go ahead, Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. Yeah, so we 

did end up meeting with the OTA Marine Materials 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Task Force via the phone. And I do respectfully 

disagree. I think I did try to specifically say 

I would really like to hear what the Marine 

Materials Task Force feels about this proposed 

wording on the annotation language.

But I think the challenge that the Board 

has to take into consideration with something like 

this is that we have a diversity of comments. We 

have comments that come in support of something 

like this. We have comments that come with either 

opposition or specific criticisms or suggestions 

for improvement. And as we listen to all the 

different stakeholders, how, I guess, would you 

determine that we should consider the comments from 

scientists, both those that participated in the 

annotation writing process and those that have 

submitted written comments? How do we weight that 

against the harvesters' and processors' concerns?

MS. MIRENDA: To answer the question 

on our meeting with you, it was very generous of 

you and we are so appreciative that you took time 

to accept our task force's invitation to discuss 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the issue. During that meeting, we asked about 

an update on the annotation language, and you were 

unable to share the language with us. That was 

another indicator that we were sort of waiting to 

see what would happen during the upcoming meeting.

And so really this fall 2020 meeting 

is the first time that stakeholders are seeing the 

formal proposal on the annotation language. 

Again, the content and the scope is unmatched from 

any other listing on the National List, and we care 

deeply about getting this issue right. We care 

deeply about taking our time and avoiding 

unintended consequences without clearly 

understanding the impact.

The comments I'm seeing coming in 

through the docket from harvesters, there doesn't 

appear to be any that are confirming that they can 

confidently understand and comply with the 

regulations as written. So that's concerning, and

I think honoring this public process, the NOSB 

process, warrants the subcommittee to accept 

comments during this first-time meeting of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

presenting the annotation and integrating that 

feedback into the annotation.

MS. OAKLEY: Final comment --

MR. ELA: We have --

MS. OAKLEY: -- we will definitely be 

integrating comments into sessions and are noting 

them well. So thank you.

MR. ELA: Yeah, we have one more 

question from Dave. Can you make it fairly quick 

and Johanna as well? We need to move on.

MS. MIRENDA: Yes.

MR. ELA: Go ahead, Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Sure. I guess maybe 

it's a statement more than it is a question. But 

we've been working on this for the four years I've 

been on the Board. We had a scientific panel. 

We had harvesters. We had scientists. We had 

ecologists.

So I think the tenor of suggesting or 

the notion that you're suggesting that we haven't 

vetted these ideas with folks, I don't agree with 

that. I mean, I can't even imagine. I mean, if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I went back and counted, we've had hundreds of 

public comments about this, this year and last --

each go round. So I don't agree that this is 

something that hasn't been shared with folks in 

open discussion, probably more than any other thing 

we've covered in the four years I've been on the 

Board.

MS. MIRENDA: I respect that so much, 

Dave. And I have been there with you on all of 

those meetings, reviewing the proposals. Even in 

my previous position as technical director of OMRI, 

I was in these meetings reviewing the proposals 

and providing comments.

The key difference, though, is that at 

this meeting, the first time we're seeing the 

annotation. This is where the rubber hits the 

road. And there's a lot to consider. I mean, just 

ask the NOSB members that have been wrestling with 

the paper pots annotations. The words really 

matter. And I think it would be a disservice to 

the public organic stakeholders to pass this 

proposal that was written prior to receiving any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of their direct comments on the annotation 

language.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Johanna. We do 

appreciate your thoughts. We are going to move 

on to Kate Mendenhall followed by Brenda DeShields 

and Ender Iniguez.

It's my understanding that a couple of 

those people may not be on the call. We are getting 

close to a break time. So we may take a quick break 

after Kate if those other two people are not on 

the line. So Kate, please go ahead.

MS. MENDENHALL: Thank you, members of 

the NOSB, for the opportunity to speak before you 

today. My name is Kate Mendenhall, and I'm the 

Director of the Organic Farmers Association. And 

I'm also an Iowa organic farmer. OFA was created 

to be a strong voice and advocate for certified 

organic farmers. We are led and controlled by 

domestic certified organic farmers, and only 

certified organic farmers vote for our policies.

Organic integrity continues to be the 

top priority of U.S. certified organic farmers. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The NOSB in partnership with the NOP plays a 

crucial role ensuring that our national standards 

uphold high organic integrity. My comments today 

focus on four areas of your agenda.

Paper pots. OFA has testified 

numerous times on the importance of this resource 

to small organic growers. We support the NOSB 

process and agree with the subcommittee's 

assessment in support for paper pots as an 

allowable synthetic and defined planting aid. The 

pandemic has made clear that communities need more 

small to mid-sized organic farmers. Paper pots 

help organic farmers that are in line with already 

approved inputs. Thank you to the subcommittee 

for your work on this and to the NOP for allowing 

the necessary continued discussion.

Biodegradable mulch. OFA received a 

proposal in our 2020 annual policy development 

process last winter to take a position on 

biodegradable mulch. But the proposal did not 

receive any farmer support to take it forward to 

a vote. With that knowledge, to answer your 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

question, is the availability of biodegradable 

mulch a make or break situation for the viability 

of farmers' organic systems? We would answer no 

as it was not a farmer priority. We recommend 

continuing with the current annotation with no 

change and adding it as a research priority, 

focusing NOSB time on more pressing organic policy 

priorities. Biodegradable mulch seems like an 

urgent issue for a few large growers, but this 

priority is not shared by the nation's 19,000 

organic farmers.

Whey Protein. We support the 

subcommittee's vote to remove whey protein 

concentrate from 205.606 of the National List. 

It's always exciting when the organic community 

can fulfill our own organic demand. Go dairy.

Fenbendazole. OFA opposes the 

subcommittee motion to amend the listing for 

fenbendazole. We are concerned this amendment 

would allow prophylactic use of a parasiticide that 

is a synthetic band-aid on an animal management 

problem. There is not a national need for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

fenbendazole. Rather, the requests are coming 

from a handful of large chicken houses.

The problem should be addressed 

organically with the health of the birds and eggs 

as the focus. This amendment would allow a 

synthetic residue in an organic food product which 

would reduce the integrity of the organic label 

and consumer trust. Why would we put more burden 

on that already fragile organic problem? 

Fenbendazole should be left alone.

I appreciate all of your dedication to 

working for the full organic community, for hearing 

public comment this week and for the farmers on 

the Board especially. We've carved out time 

during a busy harvest to represent organic farmers' 

interest and a strong organic label. Thank you 

to the outgoing NOSB farmer members, Emily and 

Jesse, especially for your five years of service.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, Kate. 

Are there questions for Kate?

I am not seeing any. We appreciate 

your comments, Kate. Quickly, is Brenda DeShields 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

or Ender Iniguez -- are either of those present, 

Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: I don't see Brenda on 

the line with us by name or phone number nor do 

I see Ender.

MR. ELA: Okay.

MS. ARSENAULT: If you (audio 

interference) here and I'm not seeing you, you want 

to yell or talk at a normal level.

MR. ELA: Well, if you are on the line, 

either of you, please let Michelle know. But given 

that we can't see you, I think we'll take a 

ten-minute break. We will come back at 11:00 --

well, it's my time -- 20 minutes to the hour and 

resume.

When we come back, we'll have Nate Lewis 

followed by Jackie DeMinter and then Jeremy 

Sutherfield -- or Sutherland. Excuse me. So if 

you all would be ready when we come back, that would 

be great. So we will see you at 20 minutes to the 

hour. Thank you much.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

went off the record at 1:33 p.m. and resumed at 

1:40 p.m.)

MR. ELA: All right. It looks like 

it's 20 minutes to the hour, so I'm going to call 

everybody back.

Michelle, are you ready?

MS. ARSENAULT: I'm already.

MR. ELA: Okay. We don't give you much 

of a break. Thank you to all the Staff for what 

you do.

We are going to start with Nate Lewis, 

followed by Jackie DeMinter and then Jeremy 

Sutherland. Nate, looks like you're there so go 

ahead.

MR. LEWIS: Hey, thanks folks. Nate 

Lewis, Oyster Bay Farm.

My wife and I farm organic poultry, 

livestock and crops in Olympia, Washington. And 

we are the stewards, the current stewards, of 

sacred lands of Squaxin Island Tribe nearby.

I think first and foremost, I'd like 

to make sure that the NOSB here is, my suggestion 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that all meetings go to a virtual format in the 

future. This would reduce the carbon footprint 

of the FACA Board by thousands of metric tons of 

C02.

It would allow more inclusivity for 

those without the resources for travel. And it 

would prevent the privileged from having undo 

impact on NOSB decisions through late night 

politicking.

So please consider that as an option, 

I think it's working really well. And there is 

no reason for us to all fly around the country.

Inerts should be renewed and NOSB 

should nudge NOP with productive solutions. Like 

using all the saved money from going to a virtual 

format to evaluate all List 4 inerts not yet on 

SCIL to the SCIL criteria so that at the next sunset 

there is actually a working or replacement for List 

4.

Ammonia extracts are incompatible with 

organic because they act like conventional 

fertilizer. These products are the only soluble 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

nutrients available to organic producers, with the 

exception of sodium nitrate, and enabled producers 

to bypass the soil biology process. Please add 

to 602 with haste.

The marine algae proposal is 

troublesome. The annotation reads like a Dickens 

novel. And I question whether the addition of a 

new substance to the national list without a 

petition is even legal.

Lastly, the one topic that directly 

effects my operation on this agenda is 

fenbendazole. I strongly encourage you to pass 

this proposal at this meeting.

We raise organic chickens on pasture, 

rotate and stock appropriately. And we actually, 

fortunately, haven't had problems with parasites 

to date.

However, if we did, we would want to 

have a tool. And I'm confident our customers would 

want us to have one as well. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, Nate. 

It looks like, thank you, Nate. And Nate has a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

question. Go ahead, Nate.

(Laughter.)

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thanks, Nate, for 

your comment. Was just hoping to see what your 

thoughts are on, if emergency treatment status of 

fenbendazole is actually enforceable on the 

certifier level?

MR. LEWIS: I actually, I think it is. 

I think that's an area that could use some more 

guidance from NOSB.

I've commented before on this 

particular issue, and I'll reiterate that again 

that we already have the tools in the regulation 

to prevent the hypothetical fraud that's going on, 

that's sort of entered into the conversation about 

whether this tool should be allowed.

There is a lot of talk about misuse and 

using it as a crutch and that kind of thing.

The regulations, just to remind folks, 

already prohibit the routine use of parasiticides. 

And the term routine use of parasiticides is 

defined in 205.2.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, that's where I would focus energy 

in the livestock subcommittee in the future on 

putting some more contours around the existing 

regulations that certifiers are out there 

enforcing. And not to use sort of a hypothetical 

as a reason to not approve this tool.

I am a small producer. I do all the 

right things, I do all the preventative practices 

that have been brought up. Those tends to work.

But climate change is here. We don't 

have hard freezers in the northwest anymore. 

There might be times when we can't rotate the way 

we want to, and parasites can build up.

Having a tool in a emergency situation 

like that is imperative so that the welfare of the 

animals can be maintained. So, thanks for that.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Asa has a question.

MR. BRADMAN: Just with respect to 

fenbendazole. Would you support some sort of 

waiting period after use, which I guess would mean 

losing sales, eggs and other product?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. LEWIS: I think in the theory of 

that is reasonable. Sort of a precautionary 

approach.

I think my only hesitation would be 

consistency among the other uses of parasiticides 

where there are wait times for cattle and we doubled 

them. And that's sort of been the general 

practice. It's hard to double zero.

So, if there was good information about 

sort of a rationale behind that wait time, then 

I would be in support of it. At this point I don't, 

I think if we're going to be consistent doubling 

zero is still zero. So, the proposal, as written, 

is being consistent.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Sue has a question. On mute 

again.

MS. BAIRD: I'm sorry. I don't know 

why I do it every time.

Nate, as a certified organic poultry 

operation, would you have, would your customers 

have a problem with you selling your products as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

non-organic?

Because if they have no leeway to do 

a withdrawal of eight days, which is what they're 

saying to get a complete zero residual, what would 

you do with those eggs for eight days?

MR. LEWIS: I would probably give them, 

well, it would sort of depend. I think, I would 

assume they would still be legal to sell or at least 

give away, so they'd probably go to the food bank, 

where a lot of our pullet eggs go because there 

is no market for that. Or I might get some pigs.

I think we could probably work through 

that. I don't see that as an insurmountable issue. 

I just, again, don't know if it's necessary.

MS. BAIRD: Well, how many chickens do 

you have?

MR. LEWIS: We do, we have flocks of 

500 that we rotate out annually. So we'll have, 

we just sold our, well, I don't like calling them 

spent hens because they're not spent, but the ones, 

the older hens that were going into molt we just 

sold them.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The new ones are coming on right now. 

And we get our replacement flocks at the beginning 

of summer so that our largest production is during 

the winter months when egg consumption is highest.

But we rotate flocks of 500 in three 

set, let's see, eight and a half by 20 to 25 foot 

mobile coops designed around OLPP stocking 

densities for pasture housing.

MS. BAIRD: Okay. Okay. What if you 

have 5,000 birds?

MR. LEWIS: I would be washing a lot 

more eggs.

(Laughter.)

MR. LEWIS: I don't see that ever being 

a reality for us. I suspect that would simply make 

the rotations need to be larger.

And I think that that practice can 

still, I think the rotation practice and preventive 

practices can still be effective at minimizing 

impacts from parasites, but once parasites do show 

up there needs to be a tool available to effectively 

eliminate those from the flocks.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: And if you had 15,000 

birds?

(Laughter.)

MR. LEWIS: I think it would just be 

the same thing, but farther on. I have personally 

seen flocks of 15,000 birds very well managed in 

pasture systems. And I don't know specifically 

whether they had parasite issues that need a 

control but I suspect they do since they're living 

creatures and farmers can't be 100 percent perfect 

all the time.

MS. BAIRD: Thanks.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Nate, we do 

appreciate your thoughts.

We're going to move on to Jackie 

DeMinter followed by Jeremy Sutherland and then 

Jerry Hatfield. Jackie, please go ahead.

MS. DEMINTER: Hello. My name is 

Jackie DeMinter. I am the certification policy 

manager at MOSA.

We certify almost 2,200 organic 

operations throughout the United States, including 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

over 1,900 with crops, more than 500 grow 

vegetables.

I'll be summarizing our written 

comments on paper, mulch film, liquid fish, marine 

macroalgae and sunset materials. First, thank you 

all for your work.

This meeting is our second virtual 

opportunity where the entire organic community can 

be involved, which shows that it is possible to 

have this wider engagement available on a permanent 

basis. We hope this action will continue.

Paper pots. We continue to support 

listing of paper for use as a plant production aid, 

with suggested clarifications detailed in our 

written comments.

We recommend that the NOSB exclude 

biodegradable, bio-based mulch film, and limit the 

other 40 percent of ingredients to non-synthetic 

materials, other permitted substances at 

205.601(j), which is nutrients, and synthetic 

strengthening fibers, adhesives or resins.

By adding this clarification to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

term defined, we can be sure that we will not be 

inadvertently allowing unintended ingredients.

ASTM D6866 testing should be the only 

verification permitted. Also, cellulose-based 

may need further definition.

We have considered the rayon fibers, 

which comes from cellulose in the paper pots as 

synthetic reinforcing fibers that we'd think of 

as being in the 40 percent.

Finally, we encourage all 

manufacturers to plan to list their products with 

an MRO, and with the USDA's BioPreferred Program.

Mulch film. Almost 500 MOSA certified 

operations report using a mulch product. We know 

our clients would appreciate an alternative to 

plastic mulch.

We do not support any of the four 

operations presented, which do not include 

verification of an amount of bio-based content. 

Which seems like the logical step forward. 

Again, the USDA's BioPreferred Program could be 

used.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Liquid fish. This is the first time 

we are seeing the proposed language, and we 

recommend that the document carry over to spring 

to allow for more important.

Liquid fish is a common input in the 

significance of the definition of fish waste, needs 

further vetting.

Aquatic plants. We support re-listing 

of aquatic plant extracts and do not support the 

proposal for marine macroalgae.

Our written comments outline how 

significant these products are to MOSA farmers. 

And since this is the first time we are seeing 

the proposed annotation, we encourage this topic 

to carry over until spring to gather input on the 

proposed annotation.

List 4 inerts. We support the 

direction outlined by the livestock committee and 

do not support the direction of the crop's 

subcommittee. And we strongly encourage a unified 

approach forward.

Finally, I want to echo the comments
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

already made on cornstarch. We have the same 

concern regarding baking soda.

Thank you for the opportunity to 

comment.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, Jackie. 

Are there questions from the Board for Jackie? 

I am not seeing any, so we do appreciate your 

thoughts.

MR. BRADMAN: I have a question.

MR. ELA: Oh. Go ahead, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: On the bio-based content 

for the films, what would you recommend?

MS. DEMINTER: Just going off of your 

proposal for the paper pots, it seems like there 

are two materials that are relatively, or could 

be relatively similar, considered similarly. I 

mean, if you're going with an 80 percent content 

on the paper pots for bio-based content, then that 

seems like a logical step forward with the mulch 

film as well.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay. Currently none of 

the mulches are even close to 80 percent. So that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

would be, I guess that's one of the challenges with 

these materials. That would essentially not 

permit them.

But I agree, we need to consider that 

as an option.

MS. DEMINTER: So, I would encourage 

you to look at the films that are listed on the 

USDA's BioPreferred Program cite under products. 

We noted a couple in our comments.

And maybe I could just point you to our 

written comments.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Jackie.

MS. DEMINTER: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to one to Jeremy 

Sutherland followed by Jerry Hatfield and then Lee 

Frankel.

It's my understanding that Jeremy may 

not be present. We'll give one call out. Jeremy, 

if you're out there, could you let Michelle know. 

Okay.

I think we will move on to Jerry 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Hatfield, followed by Lee Frankel and then Ken 

Ross. Jerry, please go ahead.

MR. HATFIELD: All right, thank you. 

I am Jerry Hatfield. I'm a retired USDA ARS 

Laboratory Director and scientist. I have a 45 

year research career and I spent 30 years as 

director of the National Lab for Ag and the 

Environment in Ames, Iowa.

For the past 15 years I've been working 

on soil health as the foundation of climate 

resilient agriculture and crop production 

efficiency, as well as the path towards improving 

soil health.

I think there is a lot of confusion 

about the word ammonia and ammonia extractions and 

everything. And if we go back, ammonia is mostly 

associated with this idea of the Haber-Bosch 

process where we take nitrogen out of the air under 

intense heat and pressure and we create anhydrous 

ammonia.

However, the oldest form of ammonia 

formation is actually biological activity. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Microbiological degradation of organic material 

produces ammonia. This incurs not only within the 

soil, also within manure and a number of different 

things.

And so, in reality, this process of 

ammonia formation is biologically driven. And if 

we think about the ammonia extracts that are being 

talked about today, they're not really an ammonia 

extract, they're really a concentration as well 

as a capture technology.

But in reality, what I want to spend 

most of my time on today is how ammonia materials, 

ammonia nitrate, ammonium, really begins to 

influence soil health.

Whether it will change soil health, we 

need two ingredients. We need energy coming from 

carbon, we need nutrients coming from nitrogen.

And so, in addition, soil health really 

requires a energy food supply. It needs water, 

it needs air and it needs shelter, and all of that.

But in aspect, when we think about 

ammoniacal nitrogen, which is really ammonium that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is formed within the soil, the added material has 

a C to N ratio of about three to one. If we really 

want to increase soil health we have to increase 

the available energy.

We have to increase the carbon piece, 

along with the nitrogen piece, and make it 

available in there to allow that. And what we've 

seen over time is as we begin to increase that

carbon content we have that continued fostering 

of biological activity that leads to soil health.

That is the pathway forward in all of 

this. We see all these positive things happening. 

And so, we really have got to think about these 

materials as having carbon and nitrogen 

components.

And I realize soil health is very 

complex, and so if you have additional questions 

I'd be glad to answer those for you, either here 

or offline some time.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Jerry. Are there 

questions from the Board? I don't see any but I 

do have a question myself.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, you were saying if the three to one 

ratio, if we really want to feed the soil, we need 

to increase that carbon content. We heard last 

Tuesday a number of people about the ammonia 

extracts as being in that three to one, five to 

one ratio.

How do we, if we allow these straight 

ammonia extracts, how do we increase that carbon 

ratio?

MR. HATFIELD: Well, they have, those 

have a carbon ratio in there, I think the other 

pieces, if you look at this, soils actually begin 

to develop a very interesting balance in 

themselves.

If you think about adding sugars in 

there, which are pure carbon sources, you see a 

flush in that, that the system begins to balance. 

The material, like SuperSix, has got a three to 

one ratio already in there.

I don't consider those, I don't 

consider anything that's biologically derived. 

And ammonia extract, it basically is releasing the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

nitrogen and ammonia form. And you see that in 

the soil all the time.

And so, I think we have to be very 

careful of the definitions that we're using on a 

lot of these different processes.

MR. ELA: Looks like Dave has a 

follow-up question. Dave, go ahead.

MR. MORTENSEN: Hello, Jerry. Dave 

Mortensen here.

I was trying to sort out in my mind the 

distinction between conventional application of 

ammonia to a crop. And this method, as an organic 

method of adding ammonia to a crop, I recognize 

the source of the ammonia is different.

But could you talk about how this, this 

form of fertilization where you're spiking or 

pulsing ammonia into the system is similar and 

different to that use by a conventional farmer 

fertilizing their crop?

MR. HATFIELD: Yes. If you think 

about it, anhydrous ammonia, one of the first 

things that it does is, in order to react within 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the soil these, any synthetic source is going to 

be devoid of carbon.

So, it's going to be freely, it's going 

to be available. But it's also going to pull water 

out of that.

If you think about building soil 

health, one of the things you need is water. And 

so, this conversion of anhydrous into a form that's 

available to that plant is going to pull a lot of 

water out. And we see that different dynamic in 

all of this.

I think the other piece, when we think 

about improving soil health, when we're improving 

carbon within that soil, I think that becomes the 

foundation. Because if we want to improve this 

in adding a carbon-rich fertilizer back to that 

soil, then we get close to the balance that allows 

that microbial activity to achieve its purpose.

And what we often see is that when we 

look at changes in soil health properties, 

aggregates, excavates coming out of the system and 

everything else, we see a very positive benefit. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We see a spike in CO2 release, which is indicative 

of respiration, that we don't see when we add the 

synthetic materials like anhydrous into the soil.

So that's, it really is a very complex 

system when we start putting into the soil. The 

nitrogen cycle is a very complex system in a lot 

of this.

And so, we can achieve that release in 

there but it's not the path to improving soil health 

and fostering some of this activity that we want 

to achieve at the end.

MR. MORTENSEN: Just a quick 

follow-up.

MR. HATFIELD: Yes.

MR. MORTENSEN: If we wanted to, if an 

organic farmer wants to increase the carbon content 

of the soils, they would almost certainly not turn 

to this sort of application but rather cover crops 

where the carbon and nitrogen ratio is really more 

in the ballpark of 30 or 40 to one.

So, I guess I just am trying to sort 

out the difference between cultural practices that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

build soil health in pulsing with a specific 

nutrient like this.

MR. HATFIELD: Well, I mean, if you go 

back and you look at this, the 30 to one is a little 

high in terms of carbon. Nitrogen is actually 

going to start decomposing and that microbial 

system will get it down closer to probably an eight 

to one, in terms of all of this.

And part of that coming out from, why 

cover crops do what they do, is the excavates coming 

out of that root system.

And when we look at this, there is a 

very rapid decomposition of those roots going on 

when we begin to apply materials that are closer 

than that three to one, five to one ratio. Because 

we have a lot more energy available to them.

And so, that's the process that's going 

on within that soil. And so, if you look at that 

path of soil health change, what you are seeing 

is that, yes, you can add that material.

But the other piece that goes with that, 

like I said, is the root excavates. There's a lot 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of things that are given off by the biological 

material in that, that didn't decompose as well, 

that are still closer in that, say that three to 

ten to one ratio, in all of this.

And so, that's, when you start adding 

those fertilizers, you're speeding that process 

along.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thanks.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, Jerry, 

we do appreciate your expertise on that.

MR. HATFIELD: You're welcome.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

Lee Frankel, followed by Ken Ross and then Adam 

Seitz. Lee, please go ahead.

MR. FRANKEL: Thanks. Good afternoon 

and good morning. My name is Lee Frankel. I'm 

speaking today as the executive director of the 

Coalition for Sustainable Organics.

We believe that everyone deserves 

organics. We support the USDA policy that 

continues to certify container production systems, 

including hydroponic and aeroponic systems.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We also support the USDA's definition 

of organic production as it states the following. 

Organic production. A production system that is 

managed in accordance with the act and regulations 

in this part to respond to site-specific conditions 

by integrating cultural, biological, and 

mechanical practices that foster cycling of 

resources, promote ecological balance, and 

conserve biodiversity.

We believe that the organic program 

should remain open and inclusive of a variety of 

approaches, for growth to respond to their 

site-specific conditions.

Regardless of your position on 

containers, I did want to make sure that you're 

aware of the latest efforts to diminish the role 

of the NOSB that formulates organic policy. The 

recent lawsuit filed in the Ninth Circuit against 

the USDA and the National Organic Program seeks 

to have a single judge with no organic experience 

decides the 2017 recommendation of the NOSB in the 

longstanding USDA National Organic Program Policy 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on containers overruled and declared as invalid.

If the lawsuit is successful, nearly 

all fruit trees, amongst vegetables, will be 

decertified under Section 6508 as they use 

seedlings, nursery trees that use containers at 

some point in their production cycle.

Let's keep the NOSB and NOP comments 

and input process as the place for policy issues 

that are decided. These forums allow us to come 

up with the best solutions to meet the needs of 

the organic community.

I also wanted to take this opportunity 

to directly state my appreciation for Jesse, Emily, 

Dan, A-Dae and Scott for their service and their 

patience to help me personally spread my 

understanding of the various perspectives of the 

organic community. I hope I have helped you as 

well to make inform decisions and acting in the 

community.

I want to give thanks to all the NOSB 

members and the NOP Staff present for their time 

and your service. And I'm open to answer any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

questions you may have.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Lee. It looks 

like Asa has a question.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes, I have a question. 

As you know, these issues around container 

production have been very controversial and 

difficult to grapple with.

But I have a question about the 

transition period. And when we pass a 

recommendation on native habitats we recommended 

that native habitats that have not been disturbed, 

there should be like a ten year period between 

converting them to agricultural and their 

acceptability as a certified organic system.

I would be interested in your 

organization's position on a similar idea for open 

farmland in a situation where people are building 

buildings, putting concrete over soil. Would 

that, would a ten year wait for organic be 

acceptable in that setting?

I think one of the issues with container 

systems is that if we look, say, in an urban setting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

where there is contaminated soil, asphalt, a roof 

building, those are all potential environments 

where containers might make a special sense.

But I'm curious about what your 

organization would say about a ten year transition 

if farmland was converted to a covered hydroponic 

system, a container system?

MR. FRANKEL: That's not something 

that I've directly discussed with them to have any 

type of special positions. So, Tim kind of shared 

some of my observations.

But the first one is that a number of 

these facilities are located on traditional farms 

where there is kind of fuel production. And these 

container facilities are part of that whole farm 

management where the green waste from the 

containers, the substrate, potting soil mix 

itself, are incorporated into the crops in the 

fields outside of the greenhouses.

So I think making it maybe kind of more 

difficult to have those integrated type operations 

would kind of damage what I think are some of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

maybe best practices that are out there.

Yes, so the other general item is that 

the containers are often used to kind of keep 

organic production in areas that are often 

conventional. Production going around and it's 

difficult to kind of achieve that sort of balance 

of beneficial insects and different pests and the 

organic systems just get overwhelmed if they don't 

have like screens or shading up around to protect 

those plants.

So, again, I guess those are kind of 

some of the issues that would kind of argue against 

that ten year transition period. But also 

understand that once you do have great organic 

soil, you've been building for years and years, 

you don't want to take that out of production.

So, it's something that the coalition 

doesn't have a formal opinion on, but I think it's 

in general, it's talking about responding to the 

site-specific conditions. I'd prefer leaving 

items up to kind of the judgment of the grower and 

their certifier to figure out what makes the most 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sense to kind of fulfill those kind of principles 

of ecological balance concerning biodiversity and 

cycling of resources.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay, thank you.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Lee, we appreciate 

your thoughts. We are going to move on to Ken Ross, 

followed by Adam Seitz and then Peter French. Ken, 

please go ahead.

MR. ROSS: My name is Ken Ross. A 

retired political scientist with training in 

environmental studies. And I'm a board member of 

the Rockweed Coalition in Maine.

I was a plaintiff in Ross versus Acadian 

Seaplants in which the Maine Supreme Court rules 

unanimously against the company in 2019 that 

landowners, not the public, own the rockweed.

My remarks today pertain to rockweed, 

or Ascophyllum nodosum, a seaweed species mostly 

commonly used in seaweed crop inputs.

The OFPA requires that substances 

approved for organic production not be harmful to 

the environment. Rockweed harvesters claim that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

they are not over harvesting rockweed biomass and 

therefore there is no harm to the environment.

But marine scientists recognize that 

the tall rockweed fronds create an underwater 

forest of high ecological value.

Birds of high conservation value, you 

see some in this slide, feed there. And dozens 

of marine species feed and shelter in it. 

Including at least 23, which are commercially 

important. Including cod and herring.

When the rockweed forest canopy is 

removed, that is about 70 percent on the average 

of the height of the rockweed trees, it significant 

reduces the values of these trees on the forest. 

And for wildlife and for fisheries.

The loss of the canopy takes years to 

grow back. And is usually cut again before 

reaching its original height. And it never gets 

to regain its ecological functions.

So the Maine Coast has gradually turned 

into a rockweed farm at the expense of fisheries 

and wildlife. That is a substantial harm to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

marine environment.

This is why the proposed annotations 

for rockweed crop input, seaweeds, are essential. 

They could have been a lot stronger, but as 

written, the annotations are a good compromise.

The rockweed coalition asks as you vote 

for the proposed annotations in the marine mackerel 

algae proposal.

Organic consumers, I think, expect that 

when they buy a crop fertility input or a product 

growing from these inputs, has been produced in 

a way that does not harm wildlife, wild seaweed 

forests or risk to species that depend on these 

forests. Thank you.

MR. ELA: No, no thank you. It looks 

like Emily has a question for you.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you for your 

comments. And I was wondering if you could tell 

us in what ways the annotation could have been 

stronger as we see this as a compromised position, 

so I think it would be helpful for folks to hear 

ways that it could have been stronger?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ROSS: Sure. I have read it of 

course and thought a little bit about it, but I 

don't, other than a ban, other than a rule that 

just declares that they're not environmentally 

benign, then these, which is stronger, which it 

would be a stronger position, that these, I 

classify, are in regard as a somewhat less robust. 

And therefore I call them compromises.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

MR. ROSS: I may not be meeting your 

question exactly. I'm not in a position, at the 

moment, to reform the writing of it in a way that 

might answer your question.

MS. OAKLEY: No. I mean, I think that 

does answer our question because I think we've 

tried to explain that there are some stakeholders 

who would prefer to see some species, rockweed in 

particular, has been mentioned as not harvested 

for this purpose. Which is kind of one end of the 

spectrum.

And the other being that there is no 

regulation needed. So, I think we were trying to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

find this as a middle ground between those two 

different ends of the spectrum. So thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Ken, we appreciate 

your thoughts. We are going to move on to Adam 

Seitz, followed by Peter French and then Eli 

Chandler. So, Adam, please go ahead.

MR. SEITZ: Good afternoon. My name 

is Adam Seitz and I serve as a senior reviewer and 

policy specialist for Quality Assurance 

International. An international certifier based 

in San Diego.

Check your local grocery and you'll 

definitely find the QAI mark well represented on 

its shelves.

Ion exchange. QAI supports the NOSB 

handling subcommittee's recommendation, and we 

encourage the NOSB to adopt it as written.

Cornstarch. I need to amend figures 

provided in our written comments. I failed to 

consider the number of QAI certified operations 

using baking powder, and other leavening products 

formulated with cornstarch as a labeled declared 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ingredient.

I noted in our written comments that 

16 of our operations have demonstrated that the 

cornstarch they use is not commercially available 

in organic form. Additionally, the majority of 

baking powders we've approved contain cornstarch, 

and approximately 18 of our operations use 

non-organic baking powder.

Add that to the original 16 for a total 

of about 34 operations using non-organic 

cornstarch. This is still likely an 

underrepresentation.

While not advocating for or against 

removal of cornstarch, we do not share concerns 

that its removal would totally prevent the use of 

baking powder in similar leavening formulations 

for organic operations.

QAI certifies products as ingredient 

panel only. These are the types of products exempt 

from certification requirements per 205.101(a)(3) 

and (4).

Operations that handle products with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

less than 70 percent organic content or that only 

identify organic ingredients in the information 

panel, while exempt from requiring certification, 

can still seek certification so that their products 

can be used in further process of organic goods.

Accordingly, we actually have eight 

operations using a certified baking powder 

formulated with organic cornstarch.

Glycerin. We urge the Board to 

approach changes to the status of glycerine with 

caution. Its recent classification and 

annotation change resulted in a solid disruption 

to both certified operations and certifiers like 

QAI.

We've spent a disproportionate amount 

of time reviewing and deliberating glycerin 

compliance. And ultimately we take a deep dive 

in our review because we found simple attestations 

of compliance from glycerin manufacturers to 

sometimes being false. Not typically 

intentionally, I'll add.

Keep this in mind when contemplating 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

new annotations for any material, including marine 

macroalgae and fish-based fertilizers. Which 

certifiers likely do not have the resources to take 

such a deep dive on.

Finally, I'd like to encourage the NOP 

to recommend that the NOSB take up the work topic 

of how we ensure organic integrity, the safety of 

inspectors and meet our societal obligation to 

limit the spread of COVID-19 via the required 

onsite inspections.

This pandemic isn't going anywhere

soon, and hard to say whether this experience will 

be an isolated blip or a repeating occurrence due 

to our proliferation and largely wholesale 

discount science.

This topic needs to come to the 

forefront of NOSB deliberations and NOP efforts. 

Resource should be devoted to developing modern 

inspection tools and requirements to address 

continuing certification during global crises.

Finally, I'd love to share a minute and 

40 second story about certification of virtual 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

inspection pandemic hardships for certified 

applications, but my time is up, so only if someone 

asks.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: Are there questions for Adam? 

I'm not seeing any, Adam. Thank you very much 

for your comments, we do appreciate them.

MR. SEITZ: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Next up is Peter French, 

followed Eli Chandler and then George Seaver. So, 

Peter, please go ahead.

MR. FRENCH: I'm Peter French, quality 

control supervisor for Thorvin, Incorporated. 

I've worked with Thorvin since 1983.

Following me you will hear the comments 

from five others who share concerns and questions 

about the marine macroalgae proposal. Each of us 

works with and for the marine community's 

ecosystems from which seaweed is harvested 

representing several parts of the supply chain over 

several regions of the country.

Eli Chandler, operations manager of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Thorvin, Incorporated, George Seaver, 

vice-president of Ocean Organics, Dave Hiltz, head 

of regulatory compliance for Acadian Seaplants, 

Shep Erhart, founder of Maine Coast Sea Vegetables, 

and Bill Wolf, founder of Wolf & Associates in 

Thorvin.

Next slide please. We agree with the 

many public comments in support of restoring 

healthy, sustainable harvest practices for marine 

macroalgae.

Yet the public comments you have 

received also show that there's many questions on 

this recommendation. We're here to discuss those 

concerns.

You will hear that many questions 

raised by public comments need time for 

consideration by the NOSB. The language in the 

annotation is not clear.

Harvesters are committed to protecting 

this resource. Third party oversight is working.

As written, annotation cannot be 

implemented. These listings would have a big 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

impact on organic farmers but little impact on 

harvest.

This recommendation will not protect 

seaweed populations or ecosystems. And there are 

other solutions the Board should consider.

Next slide please. In particular, 

please note the letter from 20 former NOSB Members. 

Including the drafter of the Organic Food 

Production Act asking that you not vote on this 

recommendation and follow the process for listing 

new materials in making annotation 

recommendations.

This is the first time the public is 

seeing this recommendation. To quote their 

letter, the most complicated annotation to be added 

to the national list is not the time to deviate 

from NOSB practice of giving time for transparent 

public comment and subcommittee and NOSB review 

and reaction to those comments.

We are committed to forging a path 

forward with you, taking thoughtful steps to assure 

we reach the desired outcome. I'd be happy to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

answer any questions, if there are any.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Peter. Are there 

any questions? I am not seeing any at this point, 

so we appreciate your presentation.

We are going to move on to Eli Chandler, 

followed by George Seaver and then Dave Hiltz. 

Eli, please go ahead.

MR. CHANDLER: Okay. Can you hear me?

MR. ELA: We can hear you.

MR. CHANDLER: Okay. I think I need 

Slide Number 4 up please. Nope, back a couple. 

One more. There you go. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Eli 

Chandler. I've worked for Thorvin for 20 years. 

I appreciate the Board's time and effort invested 

in this topic.

I'm fully committed to environmental 

protection and sustainable management practices. 

A college education is in environmental studies. 

Specifically aquatic ecology and ethics.

The proposal, as written, while 

carefully thought out, is ambiguous and leaves much 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to interpretation. The accredited certifiers 

association and several organic certifiers express 

concerns about the impact of this on organic 

producers and the lack of clarity about how these 

proposed regulatory changes would be implemented 

or enforced.

The ACA noted that this would have a 

large impact on organic producers stating that kelp 

is an extremely common input. ECL echoed these 

concerns.

Mostly expressed similar concerns and 

more. Stating that consistency must be maintained 

in dealing with the same inputs put to different 

uses.

In relation to the fact that this would 

require different standards for verification for 

kelp for feed uses versus crop input uses.

MOSA goes on to comment that this 

verification of this proposal would possibly be 

by harvester affidavit. QAI said much the same, 

by seeking attestation from the supplier and 

manufacturer that a product complies.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Several of these same certifiers 

request that the proposal be delayed, allowing for 

more public comment time and clarification. 

Twenty past NOSB Members submitted a similar 

request.

While the proposal is well constructed 

and attempts to address possible concerns in areas 

where commercial harvests of Ascophyllum nodosum 

routinely occur, presents serious challenges for 

other species, as well as their areas where there 

is currently no harvest and therefore no local 

oversight.

Using these annotations, as written, 

is the sole guidance for establishing a commercial 

harvest as the potential to allow for marine 

macroalgae harvest that no one in the industry said 

are sustainable, ecologically sound or best 

management processes. I doubt very much this was 

the intent of the proposal and request that the 

proposal be returned to subcommittee for 

additional clarification.

I'd be happy to answer any questions 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you may have.

MR. ELA: It looks like Emily has a 

question.

MS. OAKLEY: Hi, Eli, thank you for 

your comments. Yes, you're right, it is not the 

subcommittee's intention to come up with something 

that is not feasible.

I know that you harvest with your 

company, either largely or entirely certified 

organic, I believe to the wild crop standard which 

states that a wild crop must be harvested in a 

manner that ensures that such harvesting or 

gathering will not be destructive to the 

environment. And will also sustain the growth and 

production of the wild crop.

And you note that you feel the 

annotation that's been proposed as ambiguous, but 

I also think that this wild crop standard is pretty 

ambiguous. And we addressed no recognition of why 

that might be due to the number of species and 

environments under which it's being applied.

How does your harvester, or certifier, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sorry, take this ambiguous term in the wild crop 

standard and apply or it interpret it to your 

harvest of seaweeds and Ascophyllum nodosum in 

Iceland? Thank you.

MR. CHANDLER: Okay. So, they defer 

to the Marine and Freshwater Research Institute 

in Iceland for some of that where harvest is 

regulated by the recommendations of that 

institute.

And currently, the harvest equates to 

less than two percent of the total biomass of the 

harvest site. And the rotational four year 

rotation of harvest ensures regrowth. Also only 

harvesting such a small percentage of the material 

in the area.

It's been documented that, well, is 

assumed to have little to no impact on the rest 

of the flora and farm. And that's from the 

researchers there in Iceland.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

MR. ELA: All right, Eli, I see no other 

questions. Thank you for your testimony.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. CHANDLER: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

George Seaver and David Hiltz and then Shep Erhart. 

George, go ahead please.

MR. SEAVER: Yes. My name is George 

Seaver. I'm vice-president of Ocean Organics 

Corporation in the Coast of Maine.

I've been making rockweed based 

fertilizers here for 43 years. I moved up in 1977.

The slide that's on the screen right 

now is the one right after mine, but either way. 

Please go to the next slide where it shows Andrew 

harvesting. Nope, backup. Backup, backup. 

Backup. There.

This is our seaweed being harvested in 

this picture. It's a fellow named Andrew who we've 

worked with for about ten years. This is one of 

the beds that he repeatedly goes to. But it does 

sort of illustrate that there is a real abundant

growth of rockweed.

I can only speak to how this annotation 

could impact commercial harvesting in Maine. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

There is no group of people more committed to the 

future of Maine's coastal ecosystem then those of 

us who have invested our lives in the development

of products that rely exclusively on that 

ecosystem.

As a member of that group, and as a 

reliable supplier of seaweed products to organic 

food producers, I believe that as written, the 

proposed annotation would be impossible to comply 

with. Our businesses would certainly survive, but 

supplying inputs to organic growers would likely 

come to an end.

The commercial seaweed processing 

companies in Maine have long been proactive in 

protecting the resource and the ecosystem. The 

Maine Seaweed Council was formed about 20 years 

ago for that purpose.

For many decades, the Maine Department 

of Marine Resources has managed all the natural 

resources within the category of fisheries. And 

specifically, with collaboration from the 

industry, university researchers and several 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

conservation groups, developed a 60 page fisheries 

management plan to formalize and clarify the 

management of the seaweed fishery itself.

The time we invested in developing that 

plan was explicitly to ensure that the state 

regulators would have the information they would 

need to determine if the level of commercial 

harvesting ever began to negatively impact the 

ecosystem.

Go to the slide of the two letters 

please. These letters on the slide were provided 

by the Department of Marine Resources. I asked 

them to summarize what kind of history they've have 

with us, as a fishery.

They confirmed in detail their 

authority. And it was noteworthy that DMR 

collaborates with three additional committees to 

establish policy and regulations.

Their Marine Resources Committee, 

comprised of senators and representatives, the 

Marine Resources Advisory Committee, made up of 

appointed representatives from the different 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

commercial fisheries, and the Seaweed Fisheries 

Advisory Council, made up of commercial seaweed 

processors and associated researchers.

To paraphrase, the DMR has gotten only 

two complaints of incorrect harvesting. It's 

gotten 30 complaints where someone thought 

harvesting shouldn't be going on but nothing to 

do with harvesting.

Upon your investigation, one was not 

a violation of hype of cut regulation, and the other 

one was fixed the next day. I can stop right there 

and answer questions.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Emily has a 

question.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you for your 

comments and testimony. Does Ocean Organics 

harvest Ascophyllum nodosum?

MR. SEAVER: Yes. That's what that 

picture was. That's us harvesting for our 

process. We make liquid extracts and have for 30 

years.

MS. OAKLEY: So, does the company 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

engage in the harvest itself or does it hire from 

independent contracts from who --

MR. SEAVER: We buy seaweed from 

independent contractors. Workers comp for 

seaweed harvesters is something I don't want to 

be part of so we tell people what we want, instruct 

them where we want, how we want it harvested, 

meaning the rules, plus the Department of Maine 

Resources has rules too, and then we buy it from 

them.

MS. OAKLEY: Okay, sorry, I caught, or 

I didn't quite hear what you said. You do buy it 

from independent contractors?

MR. SEAVER: We buy it from 

subcontractors, or private contractors actually, 

who harvest it for us. And they may harvest it 

for other people too, but they harvest it for us.

MS. OAKLEY: Okay. And do you ever go 

out on boats to ensure that they're harvesting 

according to the standards that you've set out and 

how frequently do you do that?

MR. SEAVER: I personally haven't. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

have driven by the sites, as you can see in that 

slide. You can tell pretty quickly if somebody 

has been misharvesting.

There have been no complaints. We have 

relationships with the landowners and the, the 

letters from the Department of Marine Resources 

do a pretty good job of pointing out that, and they 

have every right and purpose to go around and look 

at harvesting areas.

There is just not a problem yet. 

There's never been any research or any 

scientifically based, or even scary stories, about 

harvesting anywhere around the areas where we 

harvest on the mid-Coast Maine. And as far as I 

know, the rest of the Coast of Maine. We only do 

the mid-Coast area.

I don't think there is a problem here. 

I think someday there could be, but I don't think 

there is one yet.

MS. OAKLEY: Do you know how 

frequently, last question, sorry, Steve, the DMR 

goes out to visually inspect harvests? How often 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are those performed?

MR. SEAVER: I think it's on an as 

needed basis. They know based on the tonnage 

reports of what's harvested, they know how much 

seaweed is being harvested in different regions.

It's notable that there is a tremendous 

amount of the Coast of Maine, the Coast of Maine 

is 3,000 miles, there is a tremendous amount of 

the Coast of Maine that will never be a good place 

to harvest for reasons of logistics or currents 

or winds or density, or whatever it might be.

We take about two percent of the biomass 

from the Coast of Maine. Mother nature tears off 

about 40 percent every year.

MS. OAKLEY: This is more of a question 

of, how often the DMR is going out to do onsite 

inspections. Like, how many staff do they have?

How capable are they of in fact 

performing inspections and going out to make sure 

that harvesters are in compliance with the 16-inch 

cutting rule?

MR. SEAVER: I'm answering you as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

directly as I can. A, I don't know how many people 

they have or how often they go out.

But what I'm trying to say is that they 

go out as needed. There's lots of fisheries.

And the interrelation between all of 

those fisheries is what you call the ecosystem, 

which you know better than I do probably.

But the point is, the Department of 

Human Resources is overseeing all of the fisheries 

and all the interrelations between the fisheries. 

And they know that at two percent tonnage, that 

they've got other, so to speak, fish to fry.

The lobster industry is far more 

impactful on the ecosystem, far more, than the 

seaweed industry.

So, if you're looking for me to say, 

I don't know how often they go out, it's true, I 

don't know how often they go out. I do know they 

go out often enough so that they are satisfied that 

the ecosystem is operating, if not optimally, fine.

I mean, the ecosystem is a 

extraordinarily dynamic thing. The word, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

maintain the ecosystem, is kind of like an oxymoron 

because it's changing every day. We have climate 

change issues, we have water temperature issues, 

we have invasive seaplants that find their way in.

The ecosystem is about as dynamic as 

you can imagine. And they are monitoring the whole 

system. And to the number of times they go out 

in a boat and look where someone might have 

harvested, I don't think that there is enough 

harvesting for them to see it as an issue, frankly.

The moment someone complains they look 

into it. And they did. They had 32 complaints 

in over a period of like five years.

And those complaints, most of, 30 of 

them, literally, were people who wondered if that 

person is supposed to be harvesting down there 

because they bought some land on the shore, and 

yes, they can harvest there.

One of them was, well, no, there is 

nothing wrong with the way the harvesting was. 

They sent a boat out.

And the other one, and this is probably 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the most important one, the other one was, there 

was damage being done because it was a mechanical 

harvester in fact, there was something that wasn't 

working right and so they zoomed in and fixed it.

I mean, I think that's probably the 

exception that proves the rule and should assure 

you that it's being covered.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

MR. ELA: George, I'm going to jump in. 

We've got one more question from Dave Mortensen.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. Thank you, 

George. I, so we've heard from folks, we had a 

science panel present to the Board, and then we've 

done a lot of reading. And some of us have done 

a lot of touching base with folks harvesting, as 

well as the science community that studies these 

impacts.

And I guess I just wonder, how do we 

reconcile the statement on the one hand that there 

appear to be no effects, and then on the other hand 

there are significant effects of an ecological kind 

that we've heard from a number of marine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ecologists?

I guess I just ask you, how do you see 

that, those two are different perspectives? No 

effect, no adverse effect.

MR. SEAVER: Okay.

MR. MORTENSEN: And the adverse 

effects on the other hand.

MR. SEAVER: I think there is two 

different questions being asked and therefore both 

answers can be correct. Is there a potential that 

over harvesting could occur and there could be 

damage to the ecosystem that would be driven or 

caused by that, absolutely.

That's why I was on the committee that 

worked on this document so that the Department of 

Human Resources would have all the specifics about 

the seaweed ecosystem and the seaweed resource so 

they could monitor it.

The fact that this, and we tried to get 

Emily to give us the research papers that showed 

there was an actual problem that had been 

documented on any, well, the Coast of Maine is all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we can deal with, but the possibility of damage 

is absolutely real.

The timing of that damage, it just 

hasn't ever come yet. We're still at such a low 

impact that what we've been doing in advance of 

that problem is probably going to prevent that 

problem from ever happening.

But I don't believe you are going to 

find too many people who have studied and 

discovered where damage has occurred, certainly 

on the Coast of Maine. Because I don't think there 

has ever been any, and I've been doing it, well, 

23 years.

MR. MORTENSEN: And I guess, and I'm 

just trying to work the logic through in my mind. 

If you really believe, and then a question that 

you believe.

You believe that there is no adverse 

impact, why would additional oversight be such a 

concern?

MR. SEAVER: Well, the way the 

annotation is written, it would be impossible. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

For example, the architecture of the seaweed is 

tremendously variable, even if people had never 

moved to Maine. Depending on the current, the 

salinity, the water temperature, the wave action, 

the slope of the ground.

Because, if you do go out there in a 

boat or with your diving mask on, you'll find that 

the architecture is as variable as you can, you 

can't even imagine.

When you look at the overall 

variability of the architecture and the small 

percentage of the coast that ever gets harvested, 

and then it does come back denser, it does come 

back, if you go back every, about three years, you 

get more biomass and sometimes plants aren't as 

tall.

By the way, the tall plants are the ones 

that get broken off by nature and float around and 

get in your propeller.

But anyway, the point I'm working on 

here is that the scale of the harvesting is nowhere 

near the level where it would have a significant 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

impact on how the resource is living. I mean, 

nowhere near the impact that the natural variation 

has.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thanks.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, George, 

we appreciate your thoughts and experience.

MR. SEAVER: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

David Hiltz, followed by Shep Erhart and then Bill 

Wolf. David, please go ahead.

MR. HILTZ: Hi everyone. Thank you 

very much. Emily, or Emily, sorry. Michelle, can 

you go ahead to the next slide.

So my name is David Hiltz. I am the 

director of regulatory affairs with Acadian 

Seaplants Limited. A global manufacturer of 

marine algal products from Nova Scotia, Canada.

We thank the materials committee for 

their time and effort investing into this topic. 

And we appreciate the opportunity to once again 

comment on it.

Next slide, again, please. Acadian's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

director of resource science, Dr. Raul Ugarte, 

recently participated in the 2019 expert's panel 

on marine materials where he shared his 25 years 

of scientific expertise on (audio interference) 

resource management activities in various 

countries in the North Atlanta.

Despite the significant progress that 

has been made to date, we feel their remains to 

be more work to be done. Acadian is deeply 

concerned with the proposed annotations to aquatic 

plant products and the impact they will have on 

these products as viable crops from the MOP organic 

agricultural activities.

Next slide please. Firstly, marine 

macroalgae is collectively one of the largest 

biomasses on earth.

Trying to write one annotation that 

applies to so many different species, harvesting 

methods and ecosystem is a very complex task. We 

would suggest it would instead require a more 

specie specific expertise and science.

With respect to prohibited harvest 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

areas, we suggest that a blanket prohibition, as 

proposed, is overreached as the commercial 

activities permitted within these areas can often 

be quite specific.

For example, for the focus of 

protections offshore species, coastal seaweed 

harvesting could be permitted under local rules.

The statement suggesting re-harvest

cannot occur until full biomass recovery has 

occurred, will be particularly challenging 

developing. What is the scope of this 

architecture description?

There is no mention of scale, so what 

exactly is prohibited from re-harvest?

A single plant that was previously 

kelp, a seaweed bed, a coastal sector. This 

ambiguity is open to various interpretations.

In addition, the wording of this 

annotation may not achieve the desired result to 

producing ecosystem impact. Under a proposed, 

this proposed wording, a harvester could 

completely clear cut a sector of mature seaweed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and the completely re-avoid harvesting the area 

for an extended period, until the plants can 

recover to pre-harvest architecture.

That approach would undoubtedly have 

a massive impact on the ecosystem and is not the 

approach we advocate.

Concerns with this part of the 

annotation were raised by a number of the 

scientists consulted for the process with many of 

them pointing out that this wording will basically 

disqualify us with our own based products from use 

in organic agriculture.

The suggestion bycatch must be 

monitored and prevented is also problematic. 

There is no way to completely prevent bycatch in 

a commercial harvest of a coastal marine algae, 

there should instead be an assessment of the radar 

bycatch as compared with the abundance and natural 

mortality of the species, and if warranted, a 

sublimated approach.

To conclude, a proposed annotation 

contains many ambiguous sections and Acadian 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

cannot support this. The potential for misguided 

use in the future may lead to problems with 

currently regulated harvesting activities that 

have proven to be scientifically sound for years.

As such, we recommend the 

recommendation to be rejected and sent back to the 

Committee for further study. Thank you very much.

MR. ELA: Thank you, David. Are there 

questions? It looks like Emily has one.

MS. OAKLEY: Sorry, thank you. And 

apologies to my fellow Board Members for having 

a lot of questions. This is just a group of folks 

I definitely would like to get more feedback from, 

so thanks for bearing with me.

In terms of the harvest timing wording, 

I think that I just want to underscore that the 

word that is in there that says approaches the 

biomass and architecture was intentional to not 

be too prescriptive because, you're right, this 

is certainly open to interpretation, which is why 

the proposal calls for a scientific taskforce to 

help do species specific guidance and rules.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But I just want to also say that I think 

that the issue of someone coming in and clear 

cutting in the area that you gave would be precluded 

by other measures within the harvest parameters. 

But I do really appreciate the time that Dr. Ugarte 

gave and really respect his feedback.

And definitely you tried to 

incorporate, and did incorporate, some of his 

specific wording. And thank you for your 

participation in this process.

MR. HILTZ: Thanks, Emily. And again, 

I agree somewhat with your first comment. It's 

the interpretation part of it that would leave this 

open to someone who has an alternative motive for 

using this exact annotation to say, you're 

harvesting system does not apply.

Acadian going in the way we harvest, 

we don't cut every plant. We cut only a few plants 

in a given area and then go back to that same area 

year-after-year.

But if someone said, oh, well, you 

harvested that area in the previous year, you can't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

go back there, that would then prevent us from going 

in and harvesting the way we do. So, it does pose 

problems.

And depending on how the annotation 

would be interpreted by those times you use it, 

in whatever way.

MS. OAKLEY: But just to follow-up, I 

mean, the interpretation would be, certainly by 

the harvester, but then also, if someone were to 

choose to get certified organic and follow this 

process through the organic certification, it 

would be through the certifier.

So I think, this is very much internal 

to the organic production system annotation. Not 

something intended for other users to apply. If 

that makes sense.

MR. HILTZ: Thank you.

MR. ELA: All right, thank you very 

much, David. We are going to move on to Shep 

Erhart, followed by Bill Wolf and then Severine 

Fleming. Please go ahead, Shep.

Do we have Shep, Michelle?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ARSENAULT: Shep is on the line. 

I just ask you to unmute.

MR. ERHART: Can you hear me now?

MR. ELA: We can hear you, Shep. 

Please go ahead.

MR. ERHART: Oh good. All right. I 

was muted.

Good afternoon. And thank you for 

taking the time to listen to our comments on this 

important topic.

My name is Shep Erhart. My wife and 

I founded Maine Coast Sea Vegetables in 1971 to 

feed ourselves and a few friends and some local 

seaweeds. Now this thriving company is run by our 

daughter and owned by its 22 employees.

Since helping to develop organic 

standards for wild crafted seaweeds in 1993, I've 

worked with dozens of harvesters along the Maine 

Coast and Bay of Fundy to introduce them to 

sustainable harvesting and handling through the 

organic certification process.

As you have seen, my written comments 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

highlight specific questions some of these 

harvesters have raised over implementing each of 

the annotations in this proposal. So I won't 

elaborate.

But please take into account that the 

harvesters I've talked to, as well as those 

submitting comments, are certain the annotations, 

as written, cannot be met.

Consequently, I believe many of them 

will divert their harvest to the non-organic 

market. And this will have an adverse impact on 

the supply of marine algae for many organic inputs. 

Which, in turn, will disrupt the organic farmers 

who use these inputs.

So while the harvest of seaweeds from 

the organic market is relatively small, the 

potential impact of these annotations on the 

harvest, and those downstream, is big.

Of course, my knowledge is based 

primarily on my experience in this bioregion, but 

I questioned whether you have enough information 

to fully understand what consequences these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

annotations will have in other bioregions of the 

world.

I appreciate the NOSB's concern about 

the state of marine algae harvest worldwide. We, 

in the industry, are also concerned, and aware, 

of the increasing global demand, the 

inconsistencies and harvest protocols and local 

regulations, please the added stressors of climate 

change.

And yes, there is work to be done that 

these annotations point towards. Such as setting 

aside research areas, developing universal biomass 

assessment standards, broadening understanding of 

seaweeds ecological services and refined methods 

for minimizing bycatch.

But in my opinion, the current 

annotations will not further this work and are 

premature. I would ask the Committee, table this 

proposal and consider establishing a seaweed 

taskforce to more carefully assess the complex 

information needed to develop a guidance document 

that applies to multiple species in multiple 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

bioregions. Thank you for your time.

MR. ELA: Well done on your time, Shep.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELA: Emily has a question for you.

MS. OAKLEY: That was good timing. 

Thank you for your comments. I just wanted to 

answer the question regarding whether or not the 

NOSB is prepared to address other regions of the 

world and other species.

I think it's an excellent point, but 

just wanted to help you understand that some of 

the scientists, all of the scientists that were 

contacted and replied, come from a broad range of 

both geographic regions and species of studies.

So we understand that this is a very 

broad annotation that is trying to cover, you know, 

several dozen different species that are harvested 

globally for organic crop inputs, but try to craft 

it inasmuch as a general way as possible to be 

applicable to the different species and geographic 

regions, got input from scientists working on 

different species in different geographic regions, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and agree that what's needed next is a task force 

that would elucidate and specify species- and 

region- specific guidelines probably starting with 

maybe the most highly harvested and used macro 

algae species first and then kind of triaging and 

working the way down through time.

So I just wanted to provide that 

information. Thank you.

MR. ERHART: Thank you. And were 

there any harvesters consulted on, you know, a 

larger scale or worldwide scale or just scientists?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes. So the harvester 

who was part of the scientific panel in the fall 

2019 was consulted and involved in the process up 

until the end.

I will say that, as I mentioned earlier 

when we were discussing with Joe that, you know, 

we did invite the OTA task force to provide comment 

earlier, but I also will acknowledge that I think 

that the first basis of this annotation is to make 

sure that it is scientifically sound and that is 

why we worked initially with the scientist and also 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Dr. Ugarte who works with one of the largest 

harvesters of Ascophyllum Nodosum Acadian 

Seaplants and has obviously published many papers 

on this.

As to other international harvesters, 

you know, they have not been tremendously vocal 

in this process or made themselves known even 

though OMRI did actually put something a couple 

of years ago in their newsletter letting folks know 

about this process and inviting feedback, but it 

has been difficult to get international feedback 

on this topic to date but we certainly have tried.

MR. ERHART: Thank you. And if it does 

go forward in any form I really encourage you to 

include the harvesters in the conversation.

They often don't want to show up, but 

they are very important because they are the ones 

who actually and have to live with these 

annotations.

MS. OAKLEY: Absolutely. As an 

organic farmer myself I fully appreciate and 

understand that dynamic and I think the scientific 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

task force would absolutely have to include 

scientists from the industry.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, Shep. 

We appreciate your insight. We are going to move 

on to Bill Wolf, then Severine Fleming, followed 

by Lucie Zillinger.

Bill I know is a consultant, but could 

you also introduce who you might be representing 

at this point. So go ahead, Bill. Bill, we are 

not hearing you. Can we have --

MR. WOLF: Can you hear me now?

MR. ELA: There we go.

MR. WOLF: Okay.

MR. ELA: We can, Bill. Go ahead.

MR. WOLF: Great. I am Bill Wolf, 

President of Wolf & Associates and founder of 

Thorvin. I would like you to please review the 

many written comments that we have already 

submitted on other topics.

Today I will discuss marine macroalgae. 

We are representing both my firm and the clients 

who are on this call.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I have dedicated my life to improving 

the health of our planet, next slide, please, and 

especially protecting seaweeds, which make up over 

60 percent of the earth's biomass.

My organic farming career began, like 

Shep, with harvesting seaweed but as a fertilizer 

in 1971. This earthworm on your screen has been 

acting as an NOSB mascot as earthworms are 

biomonitors to measure best farming practices and 

they, too, love seaweed.

Next slide. I thank all of you for the 

time and thought put into the macroalgae 

recommendations, but this is not a middle ground 

that is ready for a vote.

Twenty former NOSB members asked that 

you not vote at this meeting. They have seen what 

happens when NOSB makes recommendations that need 

more work.

NOP has difficulty or just can't 

implement them and they go into regulatory 

purgatory. You have from certifiers who have 

questions about wording and are unsure about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

verification.

They report that as a non-organic input 

they will only rely on affidavits. You have heard 

from scientists who have concerns about 

interpreting and implementing the annotations, 

problems with wordings, science, scopes, species, 

and regions.

Even supporters agree that there is a 

need for more work, calling for guidance and more 

input from scientists. Even some strong 

supporters think that this proposal will require 

onsite verification, which is not the case.

This is the first time that this complex 

proposal is being seen by the public and most 

stakeholders do not consider it to be a middle 

ground.

Proposals to add a substance to the 

National List need to provide the data required 

in NOP 3011, but this recommendation does not do 

so.

Perhaps most important, there has not 

been a public review of the bigger issues this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

raises, establishing the procedure for oversight 

of the impacts of all inputs.

No public comment opposed sustainable 

harvests, but you have many comments that this 

proposal won't accomplish that objective.

Next slide, please. Please consider 

two better options to accomplish our mutual goal, 

either require third party oversight which public 

comments have suggested or develop guidance about 

harvesting.

For all of these reasons we ask that 

this proposal be returned for further review.

MR. ELA: Well done on time as well, 

Bill. Emily had a question.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you, Bill, for your 

comments. I wanted to just ask if you -- You 

mentioned that you were here representing your firm 

and the clients on the call. I was wondering if 

you could tell us which clients on the call you 

are here representing.

MR. WOLF: Thorvin, Acadian, Ocean 

Organics. I also will comment that we have about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

30 other clients listed on our website who are 

interested in this topic and are not seaweed 

harvesters but are very concerned about this 

approach to the regulatory process and would be 

harmed by inputs, losing inputs.

We work with several farming groups, 

farmers, and processors. And, again, you can go 

to our website for a list of some of the clients. 

I hope that helps answer your question.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Sue has a question.

MS. BAIRD: Guess what, I did it the 

first time. I read your comments and I would like 

for you to elaborate a little bit on the concerns 

you have with the process itself, specifically you 

talked about listing the new substance our 

submission outlined.

It's expressed as the outline of 

parameters for the Board to follow and you are 

saying that this proposal does not meet those 

requirements. Could you comment on that, please?

MR. WOLF: Yes, I would be happy to. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Thank you, Sue, for asking about it. The 

challenge here is that new lists -- There are two 

areas of concern about the proposal regarding 

placing a listing on 602.

The first concern is that nowhere in 

the Organic Foods Production Act or the regulatory 

framework for outlining the National List is there 

an indication that 602 should be used to prohibit 

inputs except for the purpose of inputs that could 

do harm to the agricultural production system.

So that's a big concern, that we are 

opening a door to a process that has not been 

publicly vetted or discussed but instead was 

presented as part of a macroalgae proposal.

In the implication in the way the 

proposal was written it didn't call out 

specifically that it is a petition to add a new 

listing to the National List, but rather stating 

that seaweed in general will be prohibited on 602 

as a prohibited substance similar to arsenic or 

nicotine or other poisons as though it itself is 

harmful to organic farming but could be allowed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

if these specific annotations, which we do not 

believe are actually workable, could be complied 

with. So that's problem number one.

Problem number two is that there is a 

process for petitioning substances. My firm has 

worked with the NOSB to draft petitions to add and 

remove materials from the National List and there 

is guidance issued by NOP and normally a petition 

is submitted and carefully reviewed to determine 

if it contains all of the qualifying components 

for informing the Board and the public as to why 

the materials should be added or removed.

For example, one of those requirements 

is that if something is going to be prohibited the 

alternatives that would be available if something 

is prohibited needs to be disclosed and stated.

So this process in this proposal does 

not contain the information that the Board or the 

public can assess in the same way that they might 

review and are required to have information about 

adding something to the National List.

Finally, I reviewed the NOSB's policy 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

manual and procedures manual. I don't see where 

it states that the Board unilaterally can add 

something to the National List. It just isn't 

there. It doesn't say that they can modify.

They can respond to petitions, they can 

remove annotations, they can add substances that 

have been petitioned, but there is nothing in the 

policy manual that allows for this.

I think that the Board needs to take 

a look at the process. Now I do want to say that 

I do appreciate the thoroughness and the five years 

of discussion involving seaweeds.

I am a strong proponent for creating 

clear guidance. I was a strong proponent for the 

NOP issuing guidance around harvesting of seaweed, 

around clarification that seaweed is allowed to 

be harvested and certified, further clarification 

by NOP regarding whether that it is required to 

be certified organic for livestock.

I was also an active participant and 

supporter of the NOP guidance about 3 percent 

nitrogen because all of those became very effective 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and manageable tools that could succeed, you know, 

at accomplishing the mission of continuous 

improvement in the organic standards.

MR. ELA: Hey, Bill, I'm going to jump 

in here --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. WOLF: Sure. But I --

MR. ELA: -- because we're starting to 

run significantly behind time.

MR. WOLF: Just briefly, that's why I 

believe that guidance is the appropriate path and 

it's possible to use both of those suggestions 

together that were on the screen a moment ago. 

Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Bill, for your 

input. We always appreciate your thoughts. We 

are going to move on next to Severine Fleming, 

followed by Lucie Zillinger, and then Jason 

Ellsworth.

Michelle, I know you said that Severine 

had some issues going on that might it be a little 

bit later or --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. FLEMING: I'm here.

MR. ELA: Okay, great. Go ahead.

MS. FLEMING: Hello. My name is 

Severine Fleming and I thank so many of the people 

here and especially the elders who created the 

seaweed sector.

I farm in Maine on Cobscook Bay in 

Washington County. I am a MOFGA certified 

operation producing wild blueberries and other 

products, including edible seaweeds.

I moved there for the seaweed, but I 

am coming because I am 15 years an organizer in 

the Younger Farmers Movement, passionate about 

recruiting more young people into this work.

I am a co-founder of the National Young 

Farmers Coalition, co-founder and board president 

of Agrarian Trust, and current director of the 

Greenhorns.

Organic agriculture as we all know is 

a reform movement about restoring balance, an 

ecological approach to farming, understanding that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

agriculture occurs within a context, a carbon 

cycle, a water cycle, a nitrogen cycle.

As you may know the Passamaquoddy Tribe 

has banned the taking of rockweed from their 

shores. It is this ecological context that I refer 

to and in the holism that is attracting young people 

into organic agriculture.

As we consider this age of climate 

consequence we must understand that there will be 

an increase in demand for the organic inputs and 

the organic products that we are here to produce.

Maine is successful in recruiting a 

high number. It's the highest per capita new 

farmer entrance in the United States. We have a 

vital regional food economy and amazing prospects 

for succession in following the footsteps of our 

organic leaders and elders.

I have witnessed from my foreshore at 

the foot of my farm from the beach where I collect 

seaweed for fertilizer the mining of rockweed by 

irresponsible harvesters in blue Acadia boats.

I really affirm in my testimony now the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

need for a task force and a greater level of 

oversight and stewardship for this wild resource 

which is of global marine significance.

We have whales, porpoises, herring, 

shorebirds, migratory birds. We have an 

incredible wild seaweed ecology and an incredible 

wild marine ecology in this area that we really 

need to protect.

I urge the committee to pursue this task 

force and also to recognize that we have waterways, 

harbors, and river mouths that are nitrogen laden 

as we have tremendous nitrogen pollution on land 

could farm seaweeds be used as a fertilizer as an 

alternative to mining our last wild places.

Because we care so passionately about 

this issue we created a 10-minute film and a website 

about seaweed. It's called 

www.seaweedcommons.org. I have a small amount of 

time left.

There was a recent blockbuster movie 

on Netflix released called "Kiss the Ground" which 

promotes the expansion of restoration agriculture 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and, indeed, also promotes eco-fertilizers in the 

abstract.

As we look at the fair wild standards 

and other practices of countries that have a higher 

ecological standard we must be sure not to allow 

for speculation and expansion beyond conservation 

goals that we all hold in common. Thank you so 

much.

MR. ELA: Thank you. It looks like 

Dave has a question for you.

MR. MORTENSEN: Severine, on complex 

issues the Board and the NOP don't have the best 

track record for turnaround time.

What do you think the risks are of us 

resolving this in let's say ten or 15 years from 

now as opposed to taking some action, imperfect 

as it is, now or waiting for what realistically 

is probably another ten years of back and forth 

and that kind of thing?

Could you give us a sense for the 

urgency of need?

MS. FLEMING: Well, what I watch from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

my farm is boats coming and taking millions of 

pounds of wild biomass and what I watch is 

disrespectful and aggressive guys in boats taking 

despite, you know, despite the lawsuit that was 

done and, you know, will we stop before it's too 

late or will we notice that we are going in a 

direction that is imperiling the rest of the marine 

ecosystem and we will take time to consider and 

prevent that harm.

I think I am a young person and I want 

to be using seaweed as a fertilizer on my farm for 

a long time and I recognize the value of seaweed 

as a food, but, you know, as a condiment it is 

valuable as a source of minerals to dairy cows, 

as a foliar spray for citrus.

Those are values that we also want to 

sustain into the future. We destroy and degrade 

we won't have that opportunity, so let's take care 

in advance.

You could say that the Canadians have 

gone too far too fast, and that's been well 

documented in the world of marine science.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Severine. Emily, 

did you have a question?

MS. OAKLEY: I did lower my hand, but 

I was going to ask, Severine, with your work with 

young farmers do you have a sense of how young 

farmers feel in regard to the sources of inputs 

that they use?

I know that's a very general statement 

and you can't possibly give a pulse on all young 

farmers because it's a very diverse group, but you 

are speaking, as you said, on behalf or as someone 

who has worked with young farmers so I thought I 

would just see if you had any sense of that.

MR. ELA: And, Severine, can you keep 

your response fairly concise?

MS. FLEMING: Sure. Well, there is 

young farmers and there is young farmers of the 

sea and I think that there are increasing numbers 

of young people interested in farming seaweed and 

having that farm seaweed as a part of the organic 

market as well and you could make a very strong 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

argument that you won't be able to do remediation 

aquaculture and sell it competitively with wild 

mined seaweed.

As far as consumers, you know, and young 

farmers who are wanting to stand up and say, this 

product was grown ethically it doesn't look good 

if it's being grown from something being taken from 

the last habitat of the right whales, you know, 

from these very important fattening grounds.

And consumers do care. Consumers do 

care.

MR. ELA: Severine, thank you so much 

for your insights. It's great to hear from young 

farmers.

MS. FLEMING: Thank you kindly.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on. 

Yes, take care. We are going to move on to Lucie 

Zillinger and then Jason Ellsworth and then Angela 

Wartes. Go ahead, Lucie.

MS. ZILLINGER: Good afternoon, 

everyone.

MR. ELA: Go ahead.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve, I'm sorry. I 

accidentally muted you while you were talking, 

Lucie. Sorry. You should be unmuted now.

MS. ZILLINGER: Okay. Can you hear 

me?

MS. ARSENAULT: I got you now. 

Thanks.

MS. ZILLINGER: Thank you. Yes, I am 

Lucie Zillinger, petition writer on behalf of 

Legnochem for the addition of sodium carbonate 

lignin, also known as sodium lignin, to the 

National List with lignin sulfonates as a dust 

suppressant. I am also a certified organic 

farmer.

Legnochem has been supplying lignin 

sulfonates and sodium lignin to conventional and 

organic markets in the U.S. and Canada for 30 years.

Both our petition and the NOSB 

technical report have established that sodium 

lignin met all the criteria for allowing a 

synthetic material and is fully compatible with 

a system of sustainable organic agriculture.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The technical report even went so far 

as to state that "Its use as petitioned is 

ecologically beneficial." I would like to address 

the crops subcommittee point of view that there 

is no need to add another lignin to the National 

List because there are already lignin alternatives 

available for use.

In our written comments we have 

detailed how the lack of supply and practical 

availability of allowed lignin are severely 

limiting manufacturers from providing soil 

amendment products for organic producers.

Organic demand for approved lignin 

binders has been increasing with the growth of the

organic sector while overall supply has shrunk to 

20 percent of what it once was.

Many mills have closed due to lack of 

demand for their fiber, others are burning it to 

produce electricity, or they have re-purposed it 

into higher value additive products for industry.

Supply is further exasperated because 

the conventional market competes directly with the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic market for these lignin binders.

In 2019 the Canadian Organic Regime 

voted to add sodium lignin to their list of 

permitted substances along with lignin sulfonates 

based on a petition put forward by Ecocert due to 

the supply issues identified here and demand from 

organic producers.

We note that Canada saw the same 

criteria as the NOSB crop subcommittee and made 

the determination that it was necessary for organic 

agriculture.

This petition is wholly driven by the 

needs expressed by manufacturers and vendors 

responding to demand for organic product. Several 

letters have been submitted to the NOP in support 

of our petition.

We feel this is only a small sampling 

of what this could be as we generated these in a 

3-week turnaround before the comment period 

closed.

The letters clearly state that their 

ability to supply organic product is currently 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

limited or totally prohibited by the lack of 

available lignin and they are not able to meet 

demand from their organic customers.

It's also interesting to note -- Sorry 

about that. It's also interesting to note that 

written support for re-listing lignin sulfonates 

is further evidence of the need for lignin binders 

in the organic sector.

We regret not focusing on the supply 

shortage in the original petition as it was the 

impetus for our case. But it is our hope that now 

the NOSB recognizes the very real necessity for 

adding sodium lignin to the National List.

Thank you for your time and 

consideration.

MR. ELA: We have a question from Rick. 

Go ahead, Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Question for you, why 

is there more sodium carbonate lignin available 

than lignin sulfonate?

If you talk about a supply issue, I saw 

probably 25 supporting comments for the lignin 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sulfonate and only a handful for the carbonate.

So I was just wondering is it the 

process that is different that would allow you to 

make more of the carbonate lignin?

MS. ZILLINGER: No. At this stage 

sodium lignin is considered a semi-pulping process 

and there are just not as many available mills that 

fabricate this in North America or the world.

And so I think what is happening is we 

would just be adding two more mills to the inventory 

to make it available to organic farmers that are 

not available now in a very constrained market. 

Did that answer your question?

MR. ELA: Great. Yes, I think it does. 

All right. Thank you very much, Lucie.

MS. ZILLINGER: Thank you for your 

kindness.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

-- Yes, thank you. We are going to move on to Jason 

Ellsworth, Angela Wartes, and Sam Welsch.

After Sam we will take a break. We are 

running a little bit behind here, so I apologize 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for the late break, but hopefully we'll be able 

to catch up some of this time.

So, Jason, please go ahead.

MR. ELLSWORTH: Thank you. Good 

afternoon. I am Jason Ellsworth from the 

Wilbur-Ellis Company.

I believe one of the guiding principles 

of organic agriculture is the consideration of our 

actions with respect to the whole system, our farm, 

the community, and the world.

We can't look at one product under a 

microscope and not consider its origination and 

value to the whole system.

Ammonia from animal and livestock 

operations is lost to the environment through 

handling, transportation, and application thereby 

contributing to environmental challenges that are 

well documented.

Processes to capture this nutrient for 

use as a fertilizer enabled growers to better 

manage the soil health and vitality of their crops 

and limits nutrient loss to the environment.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

For these brief comments I will give 

three examples of many that are out there of how 

these products are important for organic crop 

production.

One. These products enable growers to 

use high C to N ratio products that would be of 

benefit to the soil by increasing carbon but limit 

availability of nitrogen to the crop in the short 

term.

Two. Growers who are limited on rates 

for manure applications due to high soil test P 

levels now have an option to supplement the manure 

or compost they have previously applied with these 

nitrogen only products.

Three. In areas of the country where 

efforts are being made to limit nitrogen in the 

groundwater these products enable a grower to apply 

less nitrogen as compost or manure and, thus, 

minimize risk for excessive mineralization after 

harvest and supplement with a source of nitrogen 

that can be used immediately and more timely by 

the plant.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Please note these ammonia-based 

products complement, not replace, other sources 

of nutrients from manures, waste, compost, and 

green manure needed to build a healthy and 

productive soil. Building a sustainable and 

healthy soil is key to successful long-term

production.

Finally, I do want to note these ammonia 

products will go through the organic listing 

process and all manufacturers will be audited from 

source material to finished product.

These processes are to eliminate fraud 

and verify the process to capture this ammonia. 

I believe that these are acting as they should 

be and as intended.

I hope the Board sees the value of these 

products and their fit in the larger organic 

system. I thank you for your time.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, Jason. 

Are there questions?

I am not seeing any questions. We 

appreciate your comments. We are going to move 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on to Angela Wartes and then Sam Welsch and then 

I think Tim Pitz is maybe not present but we'll 

check when we get there.

So, Angela, please go ahead.

MS. WARTES-KAHL: Thank you very much. 

Can you hear me?

MR. ELA: We can hear you.

MS. WARTES-KAHL: Great. Hello. My 

name is Angela Wartes-Kahl and I am a co-owner of 

Independent Organic Services based in Alsea, 

Oregon.

I have participated in most parts of 

the organic industry as a certified organic farmer, 

inspector, and I worked for a certifier for several 

years.

Now I am a consultant for a textile 

operation seeking the GOTS certification. I am 

still an inspector member of IOIA.

My oral comments are directed to the 

compliance accreditation and certification 

subcommittee regarding the human capital memo from 

Deputy Administrator Jenny Tucker.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Thank you NOSB members for your long 

volunteer hours for the betterment of our industry. 

I would like to highlight the written comments 

submitted by IOIA on this topic.

"The industry knows what makes a 

qualified inspector. We even know a lot about how 

to make a good inspector. What we don't know 

enough about is how to create an environment which 

facilitates that to happen at a pace and scale to 

meet the needs of the sector."

My recommendation for this includes the 

assistance of the U.S. Department of Labor in 

creating a structured apprenticeship program for 

organic inspectors and reviewers.

The Office of Apprenticeship would be 

my first call. The DOL recognized the first ever 

national apprenticeship program for management 

system auditors in the spring of 2019 created by 

the Independent Association of Accredited 

Registrars, the IAAR, in partnership with 

Workcred. A working example exists and we should 

investigate this option.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We need a predicable standardized 

process that begins with the training courses and 

moves through to apprenticeship, not only teaching 

the application of the NOP rule on site but also 

the business of inspection work, logistics, 

travel, efficient report writing, invoicing, 

managing, insurance, and continuing education are 

all important parts of this career.

We need to answer these questions to 

be competitive in the auditing industry. What can 

the new inspector anticipate in the number of 

assignments and the projected average annual 

income, which brings me to the individualized pay 

scales of certification bodies.

This practice contributes to poor 

retention in our job market. Inspectors are 

stepping into the unknown. We need to codify an 

industry-wide pay scale based on training, 

experience, and, dare I say, living wage.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel 

as IOIA outlined in their comments. Plenty of work 

has been done to identify the problem and offer 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

solutions for training and retention of 

inspectors.

Now we need to collaborate, build a 

framework for an apprenticeship program funded 

with contributions from organic brands and start 

accepting applicants all before the NOP lassos 

uncertified brokers and pulls them into the 

regulatory scope.

This subcommittee is uniquely 

positioned to gather all of the players and move 

us forward at a steady clip. I look forward to 

hearing the committee's discussion on this topic 

and encourage a multi-agency approach to address 

human capital as labor issues. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much. Are 

there questions?

Not seeing any we are going to move on, 

but we appreciate your thoughts. Thank you so 

much.

We are going to move on to Sam Welsch 

and then Tim Pitz and Zea Sonnabend after the break. 

Sam, go ahead.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. WELSCH: Hello. I want to 

summarize my support or opposition to the following 

items.

I oppose adding fenbendazole to the use 

for with poultry to the National List. I oppose 

adding ammonia to the National List. This 

substance works against the requirement to obtain 

fertility primarily from the management of organic 

matter in the soil.

I support the removal of EPA List for 

inerts. I support the removal of so-called 

biodegradable mulch. Such a product does not 

exist and there is growing concern about 

environmental contamination from micro- and 

nanoplastics.

Although I support the development of 

tools such as paper pots for growers, I oppose the 

proposed listing. This is a formulated product 

with multiple synthetic and natural ingredients.

The NOSB policy manual states that 

formulated products are ineligible for petitions. 

This is a wise policy because it is much easier 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to evaluate, that is for inspectors to evaluate 

the individual substances than a formulated 

product.

It is encouraging that the manufacture 

of paper pots has been successful in developing 

a product that uses hemp fiber instead of synthetic 

fibers.

When the standards are clear, 

appropriately strict, and consistently enforced 

manufacturers have a stable environment within 

which they can develop compliant products.

This product was petitioned because of 

the lack, previous lack, of clarity that resulted 

in some certifiers allowing paper pots and others 

not allowing them.

If no one would have approved these 

non-compliant products the incentive to develop 

a compliant product within the existing standards 

may have been successful much sooner.

Because this listing is for a 

formulated product rather than a substance it will 

be difficult, if not impossible, for certifiers 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to enforce this consistently.

Since one of the purposes of the office 

is to assure consumers that organically produced 

products meet a consistent standard this 

recommendation could take us in the opposite 

direction.

As most of you know if you know me I 

am all about consistency. Big threats to 

consistency include using the standards to justify 

decisions that have been predetermined rather than 

looking at the facts and then applying the 

standards to those facts in a systematic and 

appropriate manner.

We've got too many decisions made based 

on what we want as an outcome rather than what is 

appropriate given the facts and the substance and 

the situation being reviewed.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Sam. Questions 

from the Board?

I am not seeing any. We always 

appreciate your perspective. You make us think, 

Sam. We are going to move on to Tim Pitz if he 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is available.

Michelle, it sounded like before you 

weren't able to find him?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes, I haven't been 

able to find Tim. I am not sure he is on the line 

with us.

MR. ELA: Okay. Well, then I think 

we'll go ahead and take a short break. If we could 

just do it for like five minutes since we are 

running somewhat behind. Let's return at 33 after 

the hour. Thank you, everybody.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 12:28 p.m. and resumed at 

12:33 p.m.)

MR. ELA: We will go ahead and get 

started again so that we attempt to stay somewhat 

on time here. It would be nice to get through some 

of the people on the wait list as well.

So we are going to jump in with Zea 

Sonnabend, Bob Durst, and then David Moore.

Michelle, are you ready again?

MS. ARSENAULT: I'm all ready. I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

going to ask Zea to unmute herself.

MR. ELA: Yes. All right. We're 

putting the pressure on you, Michelle. But thank 

you, to Jared and Devon as well. 

So Zea, go ahead.

MS. SONNABEND: Okay. Well, I'm Zea 

Sonnabend. I am a former NOSB member from 2012 

to 2017, former member of the Inerts Working Group, 

the lead author of the 2015 NOSB Recommendations 

for the EPA List for Inerts. I'm addressing the 

comments as a private citizen and an organic farmer 

with no group affiliation, but a career of 

experience on this subject.

I have grave concerns about allowing 

inerts to sunset without something in place to 

substitute for it. I understand more than anyone 

the frustration in how long it's taken to work 

through this, since I've been working pretty much 

my whole career on this. And since Laura didn't 

directly answer this question earlier, I will just 

say that the organic community as a whole has always 

believed that full disclosure of the inert 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ingredients should be achieved. However, 

recognizing that that's not really as achievable 

for us organic farmers as a group, we're trying 

to do our whole set up for dealing with these 

substances is what we have been trying to do 

instead.

When we passed the language for inerts 

in 2015, we had been working with EPA Safer Choice 

for about a year. It is enough to get an agreement 

to work together, but very large percentages of 

the details were not worked out, how it would be

paid for, how a decision making would work, who 

would do the actual work and things like that.

We anticipated it would take most of 

those five years of the sunset process to achieve 

the program and I think some commenters 

misunderstood because it wasn't just to using the 

SCIL list, it would be to create a new section of 

the list that would be specifically for these 

pesticide-use products that were reviewed.

I don't know why you think that 

something that couldn't be done in five years is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

suddenly going to be done by 2022. And by taking 

off inerts without a plan in place, you're pulling 

the rug out of some organic farmers.

The 365 materials that OMRI indicated, 

there's no programs that even address the 153 that 

would be on the SCIL list and would therefore be 

okay. And then 2012 are not yet on the SCIL list, 

but the new program would be designed to review 

them and put some of them on a list and leave others 

off.

So it is very wrong to assume that 212 

materials are not compatible with organic 

agriculture without taking a closer look at them. 

Some of them are. Some of them aren't. There 

has been no financial incentive for anyone to have 

the ones that are reviewed.

The sunset process is supposed to rely 

on new information to take anything off the list 

that is not necessary or has concerns about the 

criteria in OFPA, yet you're proposing to remove 

2012 or maybe 365 materials without any evidence 

through sunset. I sympathize --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Thank you.

MS. SONNABEND: What?

MR. ELA: I'm going to cut you off. 

Your time is up.

MS. SONNABEND: This is my last 

sentence.

MR. ELA: Asa has got a question for 

you.

MS. SONNABEND: Okay.

MR. ELA: Go ahead, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: I have a couple of 

questions. One, I wanted to -- can you please say 

what you were going to say?

MS. SONNABEND: Well, just that I 

sympathize with you that something needs to be done 

about inerts, and I've put several suggestions in 

my written comments which I don't have time to 

necessarily say here. But it's the system that's 

broken and you should not be taking it out on 

farmers.

MR. BRADMAN: You said that taking 

things off the list is supposed to be based on new 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

information, but I mean the way these materials 

are on the list, not because they were evaluated, 

there's kind of a generic reference to a list by 

EPA by standards that would not really be upheld 

today. 

And you know, we have a quandary where 

there's materials that are at least in my mind some 

that really just inappropriate. And it's been 

five years and nothing has happened. So we have 

a broken system. 

I guess my question is here, do we throw 

it out or do we find some way to fix it? And it 

just seems strange to me that we're referencing 

a list that's explicitly not maintained by EPA.

And therefore, the list itself isn't valid.

MS. SONNABEND: Nonetheless, the list 

is in the federal law for organics, the reference 

to the list. So those things are on the national 

list. So throwing them out, it puts the vast 

majority of organic farmers at a disadvantage or 

even out of business because almost anyone in 

perennial crops uses things that have things that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

wouldn't automatically transfer over. That 

doesn't mean all those things are NPEs. Hundreds 

of them you probably have no idea because you don't 

know -- how they're characterized. It's all kept 

confidential. But they might be okay. They might 

not be okay. They all are on the list and so you'd 

be throwing them off the list.

You have to try something different. 

I mean I appreciate that the solution at hand is 

hard, too, but what you're doing sounds very much 

like what our government is doing with the 

Affordable Care Act to tell you the truth. No plan 

in place and just let's pause it so we can have 

something better.

MR. ELA: All right, well, thank you, 

Zea. We always appreciate your thoughts, 

especially the former board member.

We are going to move on to Bob Durst 

and then David Moore and them Ramzi Sulieman.

Bob, please go ahead.

MR. DURST: Thank you much. I'm Bob 

Durst with Simple Organic Solutions, a consulting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

company, and I'm representing Ingredion and other 

clients. And I want to address three issues on 

today's comments.

First, don't sunset what may be 

cornstarch. Second, I'll comment on ion exchange, 

and third, don't remove references to EPA List 4.

On native cornstarch, it's up for 

sunset vote in the upcoming meeting. And contrary 

to what one might think, sunsetting this material 

will have an adverse effect on organic cornstarch 

production. One would normally expect removal of 

a non-organic material to incentivize the 

production of an equivalent organic product, but 

in this case it will have an adverse effect on the 

production of that organic product.

Currently, native cornstarch is used 

in the production of organic cornstarch as the 

intermediate material to flush the equipment when 

switching from conventional to organic product, 

thus preventing commingling of organic with 

conventional product.

Flushing between conventional and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic production is a common practice in many 

dry organic production systems where a full wet 

cleaning in impractical. If this flushed material 

has to be switched to organic starch, the cost of 

production becomes prohibitive and counter 

intuitively, the production of organic cornstarch 

would be threatened. 

There would also be concerns about the 

loss of different functional forms of native 

cornstarch because it's not just a single material 

which are not currently available in organic form.

Moving to ion exchange. The recent TR 

on the ion exchange process and materials has 

recommended that the ion exchange resins do not 

need to be petitioned continued use in organic 

production. We agree with this assessment. The 

TR also recommended that the recharged materials, 

specifically, strong acids and bases must be 

included on the national list. These materials 

are necessary for cleaning the resins and returning 

them to their original status. These recharged 

materials have been widely used and are currently 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

allowed with appropriate steps to prevent 

contamination of the organic products. Much is 

intermediate steps, water rinsing, for instance, 

are used after cleaning and sanitizing operations.

Currently, strong bases are listed 

under 605(b), but no strong acids are available 

for this cleaning step. We don't disagree with 

the possibility that strong acids be added to the 

national list with an appropriate annotation, but 

they are to be used only for recharge of ion 

exchange materials. But the issue is with the 

length of this petition process, who will submit 

this petition to the NOP, and what will happen while 

this proposed petition works its way through the 

system.

We would ask that no changes to the 

current practices be implemented until such time 

as this proposed petition has had time to be 

submitted, reviewed, TR generated, and NOSB has 

a change to rule on it.

Finally, EPA List 4. Much as I loathe 

the EPA List 4 regulations because of materials 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

which are still not allowed (audio interference) 

after being approved, just at the end of life of 

the list and thus never published in the Federal 

Register, please don't change the current EPA List 

4 status until there is an alternative. Safer 

Chemical List is not a suitable substitute for 

pesticide inerts. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Are there questions for Bob? 

Bob, I have a question. My understanding was that 

the status quo on ion exchange was that the 

understanding was that all recharged materials do 

need to appear on the national list or be naturally 

derived, where the question was really about 

whether the resins need to be on the list.

So I'm curious about your comment that 

there are no strong acids on the list. What's 

being used to have those resins being recharged 

and still complying with guidance?

MR. DURST: Well, at the current time, 

they're often being recharged with strong acids, 

typically, HCL. And the methods that have been 

worked out by people that are using it are to follow 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that with an approved material like citric acid 

which is not strong enough in and of itself to 

recharge the resins that have been deemed 

acceptable by the certifiers as an intermediate 

step. But it's really not -- it's really not as 

practical as it should be in the recharge of those 

resins.

MR. ELA: Thank you. I don't see any 

other questions, so we appreciate your comments.

MR. DURST: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

David Moore, followed by Ramzi Sulieman, and then 

Marie Burcham.

Please go ahead, David.

MR. MOORE: Thank you. Good 

afternoon. I'm David Moore. I'm a California 

licensed agricultural pest control advisor and 

qualified applicator and I work for Neudorff.

A vote to delist List 4 inert 

ingredients is not supported by any finding of 

fact. List 4 inert ingredients meet the criteria 

for the national list and no new information has 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

been presented to justify removal. Absent facts 

to show cause for removal, a vote to remove without 

an appropriate transition is arbitrary and 

capricious. A vote to delist is also extremely 

poor public policy. It will damage the livelihood 

of many organic farmers and producers and it will 

cause years of disruption to the organic industry. 

These harms are not imaginary. They are detailed 

exhaustively in written comments.

A vote to delist is directly contrary 

to the best interests of the organic community as 

a whole, which is your constituency. Form letter 

submissions by an advocacy group are not 

representative. 

Organic farmers oppose this vote. 

Organic apple growers comprising 23 percent of U.S. 

organic applies, as well as their industry and 

research associations, oppose this vote.

Jacob's Farm Del Cabo opposes this 

vote. Del Cabo sources from 1100 organic farming 

families across northern Mexico. 

Driscoll's opposes this vote. Berries 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are the second largest category of fresh organic 

produce at $550 million in 2017.

Organic dairy opposes this vote. 

Western Organic Dairy Producers Alliance 

represents 285 organic dairy families including 

Straus Family Creamery, the OG of organize dairy.

Other organic businesses oppose this 

vote. Organic Produce Wholesalers Coalition, 

with $376 million of organic sales in 2019, opposes 

this vote.

CROPP Cooperative with 2,000 organic 

member growers and over $1 billion in organic sales 

in 2019 opposes this vote.

And OTA, representing almost 10,000 

organic businesses, in a U.S. market of $55 billion 

opposes this vote.

Accredited Certifiers oppose this 

vote. CCOF, MOSA, and QCS representing 6,000 

certified organic businesses oppose this vote. 

And the Association of ACAs, representing 64 ACAs 

globally opposes this vote.

OMRI opposes this vote as they are the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Who's Who of the organic establishment as many 

companies including Neudorff that are long-term 

suppliers to organic farmers oppose this vote.

A vote to delist for inert ingredients 

is directly contrary to the best interests of the 

whole of the organic community which is your 

constituency. Please vote accordingly. Thank 

you.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, David. 

Are there questions? I have a question seeing 

no others. I get the long list of people opposing 

the vote. What is the -- has anybody proposed a 

viable alternative for removing List 4s?

MR. MOORE: Well, I think the petition 

process is appropriate for removing problematic 

materials until an appropriate solution is worked 

out. I have followed this personally for almost 

ten years now. I'm very familiar with the 

processes of working through government 

regulations. As Miles once said, it's a giant 

python. I would imagine it would have taken ten 

years or more to come up with a proper solution. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

If there are problematic inerts in use today, the 

petition process is the appropriate process in the 

short term.

MR. ELA: But given that this started 

in 2000 -- well, we've had it much longer than that. 

This really came to the forefront in 2015, and 

the Board hasn't seen any petitions. What would 

be the next steps?

MR. MOORE: I think the status quo is 

fine.

MR. ELA: Even given that other groups 

have noted that many of the inerts on the list are 

not truly inert and some of them may actually 

violate OFPA rules?

MR. MOORE: They have the right to 

petition.

MR. ELA: Thank you very much, David. 

Any other questions from the Board? All right. 

We appreciate your thoughts.

Next up is Ramzi Sulieman, followed by 

Marie Burcham, and then Tim Stemwedel.

Please go ahead, Ramzi.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. SULIEMAN: Can you hear me?

MR. ELA: Yes, we can hear you, go 

ahead.

MR. SULIEMAN: My name is Ramzi 

Sulieman. I am the Chief Operating Officer at True 

Organic Products. Thank you for this opportunity 

to comment on the use of liquid fish as a fertilizer 

in organic cropping systems.

True Organic Products is deeply 

committed to the environmental stewardship and 

fully supports the objective of assuring marine 

ecosystems are well protected. My focus, 

actually, is on manufacturing operations and 

ingredient procurement. Too many factors of 

liquid fertilizer that utilizes fish solubles are 

waste products from production of fish meal and 

fish oil, the majority of which are sold for animal 

feed. 

These solubles are a proven tool in 

organic fertility programs and have been allowed 

and successfully used for many years. This 

protein encourages soil health by permitting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

microbial activity in the soil where the material 

is mineralized. 

Use of our products of fish meal and 

fish oils is ideal and that has always been allowed 

for use in organic farming. It is an effective 

fertilizer. It utilizes a waste stream that 

otherwise would be disposed directly into the ocean 

and it contributes to a sustainable food production 

system.

Fertilizers that use the byproducts of 

fish meal and fish oil are widely accepted by 

farmers and comply with NOP and organic regulations 

worldwide. 

As an industry, we have not been able 

to fully assess the impact of the proposed 

annotation for liquid fish fertilizer as this is 

the first time that we have had an opportunity to 

see or comment on the substantial change in 

regulations. However, initial review of it and 

the proposed new definition indicate that it (a) 

is not a viable enough definition of post-consumer 

waste is modified to include the use of waste 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

streams in the manufacturing of animal feeds; and 

(b) would not be easily or uniformly enforced.

Please reject this proposal as written 

or modify the proposal so that the annotation and 

definition include the use of byproducts from the 

manufacturers of animal feed. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you for your thoughts. 

Are there questions? I am not seeing any 

questions, so we appreciate you testifying.

MR. SULIEMAN: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

Marie Burcham, then Tim Stemwedel, and then Helen 

Kees.

Please go ahead, Marie.

MS. BURCHAM: Can you hear me?

MR. ELA: We can hear you.

MS. BURCHAM: All right. My name is 

Marie Burcham, and I am an attorney and the policy 

director for The Cornucopia Institute. The stated 

purpose of OFPA is to establish uniform standards 

that will then be used to govern the marketing of 

organic products, assure consumers that organic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

products meet a consistent standard, and to 

facilitate commerce in organic food. OFPA 

requires an organic plan which for crops must 

include provisions designed to foster soil 

fertility. The rule mentions that this should be 

done primarily through the management of organic 

content of the soil through proper tillage, crop 

rotation, and manure.

How are large-scale hydroponic 

operations meeting these requirements, especially 

when many build on top of bare soil effectively 

preventing the improvement of natural resources 

and cycling of nutrients?

In addition, it is entirely unclear how 

hydroponic operations can meet any of the other 

numerous baseline requirements of both OFPA and 

the regulations. If the requirements for soil 

written into law do not apply to these systems, 

then what does apply to these operations?

OFPA's purpose is not being fulfilled. 

Organic crops do not meet a consistent standard 

as long as hydroponic operations are allowed under 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the label. The NOSB has never voted to allow 

hydroponic and aquaponic production.

To continue to allow certification 

before the NOSB has fully reviewed these systems 

and made recommendations to the NOP goes against 

OFPA's foundational principles. 

Let's be clear, Cornucopia does not 

think that hydroponics is compatible with organic 

law. However, if the NOSB deems certain 

hydroponic systems appropriate for organic

certification, those systems would still need --

should still not be permitted unless and until 

standards are established. Right now, its 

production and practice is completely untethered 

what is expected of organic produce. Clarity is 

needed not only for consumers but for certifiers 

who are being left to interpret and apply rules 

in a vacuum.

As already stated, OFPA dictates broad 

authority to agencies to enact regulations and 

establish uniform standards. However, in recent 

years, the USDA has denied that they have the power 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to create regulations to this end. This is an 

incorrect interpretation of the law. 

There are several examples of failures 

to enact rules that fulfill the purpose of OFPA. 

Foremost in my mind is the withdrawal of the 

organic livestock and poultry practices rule. 

Other rulemaking that would ensure that organic 

products meet consistent standards are the 

original livestock rulemaking and the badly needed 

rulemaking on the conservation of native 

ecosystems.

I ask that the NOP keep up the pressure 

on the NOP to make those regulations and 

comprehensive guidelines for protecting the 

integrity of consistent organic standards under 

organic labels.

Thank you so much for your time and 

attention.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Are there 

questions? I am not seeing any questions. We do 

appreciate your thoughts.

We are going to move on to Tim 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Stemwedel, followed by Helen Kees, and then Melody 

Morrell.

Tim, please go ahead.

MR. STEMWEDEL: Thank you. Good 

afternoon. My name is Tim Stemwedel. I'm an 

agronomist and have been a manufacturer of organic 

fertilizers since 1990. My company, California 

Organic Fertilizers, is a stakeholder in the 

ammonia issue.

First, I'd like to dispel the implied 

idea that ammonia is bad. Ammonia ion NH3 occurs 

in nature and is an integral component of amino 

acids, proteins, enzymes, and chlorophyll. 

Ammonia is also microbial food and an essential 

element to the nitrogen cycle.

As a side bar, I'd like to point out 

that synthetic ammonia is approved by the NOP for 

the use of humic acid formulation. 

Our natural ammonia products have been 

determined by CDFA to meet the laws and regulations 

if organic inputs through a two-year vetting 

process. Our natural ammonia is derived from a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

biological process, not a chemical one. 

MR. ELA: Tim, could I interrupt real 

quickly? Could you speak up a little more? 

You're a little faint on our end.

MR. STEMWEDEL: All right, can you hear 

me better?

MR. ELA: Much better. Thank you.

MR. STEMWEDEL: Okay. Better? All 

right, good. 

Okay, our natural ammonia is derived 

from a biological process, not a chemical one. 

So we've got a -- it's a low nitrogen analysis of 

5 percent compared to synthetic ammonia at 20 to 

90 percent.

It's usually applied to irrigation and 

diluted to less than 200 parts per million to supply 

nitrogen to crops when the nitrogen demand is 

higher than the soil can supply. It's used because

of the carbon and nitrogen ratio of about 3 to 1. 

This ratio provides over 80 percent 

plant-available nitrogen after mineralization. 

This is in contrast to manure that has a carbon 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and nitrogen ratio of more over 25 to 1 and a 

plant-available nitrogen of less than 40 percent.

Organic matter building is essential 

to organic agriculture, but is conducted between 

crop-growing cycles because increased soil 

microbial activity consumes available nitrogen in 

competition with the crops. This is why in-season 

fertilizers with lower C-N ratios are more 

effective.

I believe that there is also a growing 

sustainability problem in organic agriculture. 

We need cleaner input products. We need products 

that don't negatively impact the farm and global 

environment, and don't incentivize social 

degradation by association with unfair labor and 

human trafficking.

Natural ammonia reduces the need for 

excessive application of nitrogen due to the 

ability to use precision applications as needed. 

This lowers the contamination caused by excess 

phosphorus and run off from manures and nitrate 

leaching in the ground water. Our technology can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

use many different heat spots such as manures, food 

waste, and animal processing waste. The 

simplicity of the process and options for heat 

spots make this scalable in quantity and where it 

can be made. This lowers transportation costs and 

imports of raw materials.

Our technology allows for the capture 

of greenhouse gases such as methane and CO2 and 

the use of otherwise unusable material to produce 

clean, natural nitrogen inputs. There's an 

increasing shortage of nutrient inputs for organic 

agriculture. We need new products like natural 

ammonia if we desire to increase production and 

reduce cost to consumers.

Regarding fraud, there's no basis to 

support the assumption that natural ammonia is more 

susceptible to fraud than any other input. Thank 

you.

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve, if you're 

talking, you're on mute.

MR. ELA: Can you hear me now?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Okay. Thank you, Tim. 

Looks like there's a question from Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Hi, Tim. Thanks for 

your testimony. I was wondering -- right at the 

end there, you said that there's an increasing 

shortage of nutrients and nutrient options for 

organic farmers. I was hoping if you could expand 

on that a little bit.

MR. STEMWEDEL: Well, the need for 

in-season nutrients continues to expand as it 

increased the amount of protection that we have 

in agriculture, but the raw material sources are 

finite. So there's only -- if we just said okay, 

we're just going to use the majority of the 

nutrients now being applied are manure-based 

materials, well, what happens when we run out of 

manure? How is organic going to grow beyond that? 

And it's the same thing I've seen in 

my career. I've seen the prices of things like 

feather meal and even with fish, I've seen it 

continue to escalate and it's escalating because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the demand that's being driven by organic 

production.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I'd like to follow 

up with that. Do you see -- I am in the Midwest 

and that's where I sort of occupy in the farming 

states. There's so much more manure than we could 

ever hope to utilize. 

Do you for some reason see a 

disappearance of that manure source from feed lots, 

poultry houses, these operations?

MR. STEMWEDEL: Well, some of it's 

competitive, you know, towards other activities. 

I don't see it disappearing. I just see if 

there's -- that if it's going to be consumed, 

there's not going to be enough of it. I mean if 

we have a system that was a dependent upon manure, 

what happens when the manure -- when we run out 

of sources of manure?

MR. POWELL-PALM: I will dream for that 

day, but I personally don't see it coming.

MR. STEMWEDEL: I mean we have 

regulations that we can throw in also. We can take 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a look at the pressures against manure, you know, 

the ground water issues, the run off issues, the 

high phosphate issues accumulating in the soil. 

We can't continue down that path.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: It looks like Dave has a 

question as well for you, Tim.

MR. MORTENSEN: Towards the end there 

you said we need to increase production and reduce 

costs. And I didn't hear you mentioning things 

like cover cropping which if we're thinking about 

end sources and between and even really cropping 

within the season, you know, what about the role 

that legumes play in end provisioning?

MR. STEMWEDEL: Well, that goes back 

to my statement about managing organic matter 

between cropping cycles. That's the cover 

cropping with the compost applications. It's all 

these things that we currently do now as our farm 

plans to improve the soil health.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, I guess I just was 

thinking about Nate's question and the role that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

things like cover crops coupled with 

tactical-timed applications that manure play in 

the demand of the crop. I think the idea of pulsing 

with ammonia has just been a concern where we're 

bypassing the cultural practices that build soil 

health.

MR. STEMWEDEL: Yes. It's just really 

these products are designed to be used on a 

precision basis if the supply the amount of 

nitrogen that the croppings run short of because 

when you take the release rates that are coming 

from all the other activities that we do, they're 

not in sync, they're asynchronous with the demand 

of the crop.

MR. ELA: I have a question for you, 

Tim. In the process you used to capture the 

ammonia bacterial process, I assume, are those 

naturally occurring bacteria or where are those 

bacteria derived from?

MR. STEMWEDEL: Yes, they originally 

came from a local dairy, but once it started up 

in the digester, they've maintained their health 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in the digester and keep reoccurring, so we don't 

have to re-seed anything. But they originally 

came from a dairy.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Thank you for 

your thoughts. We appreciate your testifying.

We are going to move on to Helen Kees, 

and then Melody Morrell, and then Robert Morse. 

So Helen, please go ahead.

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve --

MR. ELA: Do we have Helen?

MS. ARSENAULT: She's on the phone with 

us. I just asked her to unmute her line. Maybe 

having some difficulties.

Helen, if you are on your phone, you 

may have to unmute it and hit *6.

I don't think she's unmuted just yet.

MR. ELA: Okay, well, let's go on to 

Melody Morrell and we'll come to Helen next if we 

can get that figured out.

So Melody, why don't you go ahead and 

then we'll come back to Helen.

MS. MORRELL: Okay, can you hear me?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: We can year you.

MS. MORRELL: Excellent. My name is 

Melody Morrell. I'm a director at The Cornucopia 

Institute. A stated purpose of the Organic Foods 

Production Act of 1990 is to assure consumers that 

organically-produced products meet a consistent 

and uniform standard. Instead, and to the great 

frustration of organic consumers, we find 

industrial organic production and authentic 

organic production sharing the same field.

Organic dairy production is a case 

study in the pernicious influence of industrial 

agriculture combined with a failure of the USDA 

to protect the integrity of the organic label.

Factory organic dairy have inserted the 

loopholes into the regulations that allow for 

continuous transition of conventional animals. 

They can sell their own organic calves at a premium 

and buy cheaper conventional yearlings raised on 

antibiotics and milk replacements. We're all 

aware of the problem.

As the origin of livestock rule 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

languishes, the organic dairy market value has 

acquiesced to artificially low prices resulting 

in cynical industrial practices. Dairy farmers 

who work hard to maintain their organic integrity 

have come before the NOSB and the NOP again and 

again, asking for a level playing field.

In the absence of a meaningful rule 

change, industrial dairy itself has now provided 

an elegant, if repugnant, answer. Aurora Organic 

Dairy is poised to open an organic heifer factory 

that will house 7,000 animals on 1900 acres in arid 

High Plains, Colorado. The heifers will come from 

Aurora's milking operations at five months of age. 

They will then become replacement animals on 

Aurora's dairy operations and presumably some 

number of them will be sold at premium prices to 

other dairies. All of this organic livestock 

production is said to happen in the heart of Dust 

Bowl country, even as climate change make drought 

a future certainty.

OFPA reminds us that organic production 

is managed to respond to site-specific conditions 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

by integrating cultural, biological, and 

mechanical practices that foster cycling of 

resources, promote ecological balance, and 

conserve bio-diversity. The cynical, organic 

production performed by Aurora and other 

industrial dairies relies on off-farm inputs, 

feedlots, and manure lagoons. 

The water for this operation will come 

from the depleted Ogallala Aquifer. The water 

table has fallen so low in High Plains that rivers 

have dried up. But this operation is planning to 

irrigate organic pastures and water 7,000 heifers 

with the remains of the ancient reservoir.

The grasses in the pasture will likely 

be annuals that survive only because of this 

irrigation. There will be no conservation of 

bio-diversity. There will be no ecological 

benefit at all. This is not the consistent 

standard that consumers believe they are digesting 

when they chew their organic dairy. This is a 

perversely efficient end run around organics. 

Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Yes, thank you, Melody. 

Dave has a question for you.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you for the 

comment. Could you briefly speak about the impact 

of such large dairies on the fate of small and 

middle-sized family farms that rely on dairy for 

their livelihood as we sort of wait on this ruling?

MS. MORRELL: Yes, I can say that I hear 

from small organic dairies with frequency, myself, 

and my colleagues at Cornucopia. They're being 

driven out of the industry. It's impossible to 

get the correct price for dairy in this market. 

The efficiencies that perhaps we all think are 

in order is something that we want in agriculture 

are, in fact, loopholes. That's the issue.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Looks like Nate has a 

question.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Just a quick comment 

-- quick question. Do you have any members on --

do you know of any studies that have been conducted 

showing how many animals the loophole to origin 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of livestock represents? How many conventional 

animals would be prevented from being freshened, 

and entered into the milking line, as you currently 

state this problem exists?

MS. MORRELL: I don't in hand. I 

actually am not familiar with anything done that 

way, but I can check back and I can actually attempt 

to answer that question offline.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MS. MORRELL: Thank you.

MR. ELA: That would be great if you 

get those numbers and send them on to Michelle and 

she can distribute them to the Board.

We are going to move on and actually 

I'm going to step back one step to Helen Kees. 

I see her on the line now. After Helen, we're going 

to go to Robert Morse, and then Susan Brawley.

Helen, go ahead. We're not hearing 

you, Helen.

MS. ARSENAULT: Helen, your phone is 

unmuted, but we're not hearing you. Maybe hit *6 

on your phone.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Maybe we'll keep trying for 

Helen here and we'll go to Robert Morse and then 

come back to Helen.

Robert, if you're on, can you please 

go ahead.

MS. ARSENAULT: Robert is on the line 

with us. I just lost him I think. 

MR. ELA: We'll come back to him as 

well. How about Susan Brawley?

DR. BRAWLEY: Can you hear me?

MR. ELA: We can hear you, Susan. 

Thank you. Thanks for being ready on the spot 

here. Please go ahead.

DR. BRAWLEY: I'm Susan Brawley from 

School of Marine Sciences at the University of 

Maine and I appreciate the opportunity to comment 

on marine macro algae and crop fertility 

guidelines.

So the part that I'm still concerned 

about is harvest timing which reads that repeat 

harvest is prohibited until biomass and 

architecture of a targeted species approaches the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

biomass and architecture of undisturbed natural 

stands of the targeted species in that area.

And the reason this is a problem is that 

I have never seen an undisturbed natural stand, 

of any foundational habitat forming macro algae 

in either the intertidal zone or the shallow 

subtidal.

The organisms that exist there have 

adapted over very long periods of time, in some 

cases over 100,000 years to frequent disturbance 

and this both physical in terms of storms and ice 

scour and also biological. There are some small 

crustaceans called isopods that, for example, in 

the ascophyllum that's harvested in much of the 

North Atlantic, will poke holes in the air bladders 

and then that weakens the individual so that storms 

cause even more breakage.

So I believe very strongly in both the 

efficacy of sustainable harvesting and also the 

need for no-take areas, marine reserves. And in 

that case, not only of no-take areas for marine 

algae, but also no fishing of lobsters or fish or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

urchins or anything else. 

In other words, going forward, we need 

sustainable harvesting and we need marine 

reserves. I'm quite proud of the Maine industry 

because they established a trade association more 

than three decades ago in which conservation of 

the natural resource was one of their driving 

principles. And in general, I think they've done 

a good job of it.

So I want to appeal to you to make sure 

that your wording in these items including bycatch 

and the harvest areas has a meaning that cannot 

be interpreted differently by people who are for 

harvesting and against harvesting because I think 

that would be a disservice to really everybody and 

could prevent this very valuable source of material 

from marine algae from being supplied to 

terrestrial organic farms. And I'd be happy to 

answer questions.

MR. ELA: Thank you. It looks like 

Emily has a question.

MS. OAKLEY: Hi, thank you so much for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

your time and effort and expertise and also for 

your written comments that help clarify this and 

you wrote in your written comments undisturbed 

natural stands must be clarified to mean 

undisturbed by harvesting.

Do you believe that we can make that 

clarification and satisfy that concern?

DR. BRAWLEY: Not unless you have 

assigned sectors because it would be too hard for 

you to know what has been a harvested area. So as 

I also commented in my comments online, I feel quite 

sad that the recommendations of our committee that 

was organized by the Maine Department of Marine 

Resources in 2014 has a fishery management plan 

for Rockweed was not instituted because it had both 

recommendations for post-life sector management 

and designation of no-harvest areas. If there 

were such areas, it would allow you to know what 

has been harvested.

There are some Maine companies, again, 

because of their conservation -- the driving force 

of their conservation that actually have records 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of where they have harvested going back decades. 

But that's not universally true, so you know, from 

your third-party status I'm not sure in 

practicality that the change I suggest would be 

in the end achievable. Do you understand what I 

mean?

MS. OAKLEY: I do. And I also noted 

that you recommended that the Board read the Maine 

regulations and I think that's an excellent idea. 

I was wondering if you think that the 

scientific task force that this proposal calls for 

could look to those recommendations that were made 

and adopt or adapt some of those specifically for 

the annotation's implementation.

DR. BRAWLEY: Well, I can only speak 

for myself. I mean I would be willing to help, 

but there are several other people who were 

involved and you would need to contact them. But 

I think most of them would be willing to do so.

In one case, Raul Ugarte is not so much 

in North America any more, but ascophyllum is one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of the most abundant macro algae in the North 

Atlantic. And so he would still have the same 

perspective in terms of where he's working.

There's a copy of the Fishery 

Management Plan on the Maine Department of Marine 

Resources' website. So it's still very available.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. 

MR. ELA: Thank you, Susan. We 

appreciate your expertise and graphs.

We are going to circle back to Helen 

Kees and then Robert Morse.

Helen, can we try again, are you there?

MS. KEES: Good afternoon.

MR. ELA: You are there. Go ahead.

MS. KEES: Good afternoon. In tandem 

with my family, I own and operate a diversified, 

certified organic family farm in west central 

Wisconsin. We are certified in three scopes, 

livestock, crops, and processing and direct market 

the bulk of our meats, produce, and forage. We 

celebrated becoming a century farm in 2019.

Over the last 26 years, we have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

diligently worked to meet and exceed the spirit 

and the letter of Title VII CFR Part 205. 

Organic certification provided the 

gateway to us and thousands of others to use the 

USDA certified organic seal. AMS was charged with 

making sure that the seal not be used in a way that 

would negatively impact the value and integrity 

of the seal. The seal was reserved as a marketing 

tool for products that meet or exceed the national 

organic standards.

I am here today to insist that the 

integrity and value of the USDA certified organic 

seal be rehabilitated. And if that requires 

decertifying multi-million dollar industrial 

operations, then that's what it requires be it 

dairy, beef, poultry, eggs, grain or hydro.

Essayist Martin Shaw advised that we 

lose touch, when we lose touch with our wingspan, 

we hunch. It is time to stand ramrod straight, 

regain your wingspan and recommend that 

rehabilitation of the seal be taken directly by 

the NOP administrators or that the NOP order their 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

accredited certifying agents to do the job.

I have served on the Cornucopia 

Institute Board of Directors since its inception 

and remain on the Board determined to gain some 

resolution for farmers that still believe in what 

the seal legally represents.

Producers and processors who had the 

foresight to recognize that organic produce and 

fiber could not be produced simply through 

avoidance or prohibited inputs, but instead that 

it must be produced on a foundation of continual 

improvement of the soil and surrounding ecosystem. 

We producers have the moral authority to demand 

that the integrity and value of the seal be 

restored.

Those that have turned organic 

production into natural resource mining operations 

must be informed that they can either come into 

compliance or be decertified. Importing feed, 

fertilizers, set, semen, and even soil while 

failing to positively impact the surrounding 

ecosystem may produce food and fiber, but it does 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not, not produce certified organize food or fiber 

per Title VII CFR Part 205 that qualifies for the 

use of USDA certified organic seal. 

With hope in my heart and determination 

in hand, I thank you for your efforts.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Helen. Are there 

any questions for Helen from the Board?

We appreciate your thoughts. We are 

going to move on to -- were we able to get back 

to Robert Morse, Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. Robert is on the 

line with us.

MR. ELA: All right, we'll go to 

Robert.

MS. ARSENAULT: Robert, you may have 

to hit *6 on your phone. I've unmuted you from 

my side or asked you to unmute from my side. We 

lost him.

MR. ELA: Okay, maybe we'll go on to 

Kyle Mathison and then come back to Robert. After 

Kyle, we'll have Caleb Goossen, and then Leslie 

Touzeau.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So Kyle, if you are on the line, please 

go ahead.

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve, I'm not finding 

Kyle either.

MR. ELA: Okay. Any luck with Robert?

MS. ARSENAULT: Robert, unmute and *6 

on your phone? Maybe. He just jumped up the list 

here. It doesn't look like it's Steve.

MR. ELA: I'll see how much I move along 

here. Let's go on to Caleb Goossen and then Leslie 

Touzeau and then Tollef Olson.

Caleb, are you there? Looks like it. 

Go ahead.

MR. GOOSSEN: Yes, I'm here. I'm 

Caleb Goossen, the crop specialist for MOFGA which 

has more than 6,000 members and certifies more than 

500 operations.

Regarding paper crop aids, MOFGA and 

many farmers were very supportive of the original 

petition for paper chain pots which are largely 

bio-based and so similar to previous materials that 

many certifiers have allowed the use for over a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

decade. They're valuable for small farmers to 

reduce labor and reliance on tractors and their 

associated costs.

However, I fear that this new 

generalized listing may unintentionally allow for 

new products with a relatively large percentage 

of non-bio based material, possibly not yet 

imagined by the organic community to be 

automatically allowed with no apparent mechanism 

to ensure the amount of non-bio based material 

allowed is reduced in the future.

I do feel that paper chain pots which 

are almost entirely bio based should be available 

for the many small organic farmers that have come 

to rely on them.

Regarding ammonia extracts, fertility 

substances of high solubility have always had 

restrictions placed upon their use in organic 

agriculture and ammonia extracts should be no 

different if allowed at all.

In addition to fraud potential, 

allowing the unrestricted use of non-synthetic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ammonia extract would remove a major 

differentiator of organic agriculture and would 

strike at the core of organic fertility philosophy.

Like Eric Sideman, MOFGA's crop 

specialist before me and former NOSB member, I feel 

that all highly soluble sources of nitrogen 

fertility should only make up a total of no more 

than 20 percent of a crop's nitrogen needs at the 

most for use in specific situations such as cold 

soils.

Regarding biodegradable mulches, no 

studies evaluated broader impacts on soil, 

terrestrial, and water food webs, let alone plant 

uptake of microplastics or their by-products, 

their decomposition products.

Allowing biodegradable plastic mulch 

would mean trading potential accidental release 

of microplastics from conventional plastic mulches 

for a larger guaranteed intentional release of 

micro and nanoplastics as biodegradable mulches 

decomposing.

In one study, just four years of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

repeated biodegradable plastic mulch use resulted 

in up to 30 percent of mulch fragments to still 

be visible to the naked eye. While concerning 

enough on its own, I would also caution against 

visual confirmation of degradation which cannot 

tell us anything about the micro and nanoplastics 

or their overall fate and impacts. I suppose it's 

better than nothing.

No studies have evaluated long-term 

impacts of these biodegradable mulches on soil 

health and adoption of these materials will mean 

decades of repeated applications. And so I 

believe there probably will be short and long-term 

buildup of intermediate and (audio interference) 

decomposition products in the soil respectively. 

MR. ELA: Are there questions? Looks 

like Dave has one. 

MR. MORTENSEN: Caleb, thank you for 

your comments. Could you give us a bit of a sense 

for how farmers that you work with would be impacted 

if the paper chain pot products were not available?

MR. GOOSSEN: My apologies, I muted. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

There are several farmers that have told me 

specifically that they would drop organic 

certification in favor of using the paper chain 

pot system that it's that much of a time savings 

for them in terms of labor needed as well as 

equipment and the capital investment that that 

equipment would mean.

Many farmers are trying their best to 

only use two-wheeled tractors for very light 

tillage or other small jobs and are trying to avoid 

larger tractors that would pull up a transplant. 

So the paper chain pot system helps them to both 

not use tractors for that, as well as not pay nearly 

as much in labor costs.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Caleb, I have a question 

before we move on. You mentioned that the 

percentage of bio-based material in terms of the 

paper production needs versus paper pots, we've 

had feedback from the current manufacturers that 

that 80 percent bio-based material is the realistic 

number at this point, that we would hope that it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

would go up. But I mean 80 percent is fairly high 

in some of these other paper products that use as 

planting needs are fairly high.

Could you just go back to that and say 

kind of your concerns again?

MR. GOOSSEN: Sure. And I don't know 

the specifics of the make-up of the paper chain 

pot company, but I understand it's a larger 

bio-based content, but so that having been the 

initial petition that sort of kicked this entire 

discussion off, and it does seem to be a discussion 

that needed to happen as paper, as we understand 

it, is more complicated than it was previously 

understood or it just changed over the years when 

it was initially listed in other categories. But 

then that opening up of that conversation has 

allowed other manufacturers to start wanting their 

products and I'm not -- I can't say without a doubt 

that none of the farmers I work with want those 

other products, but not many that I've spoken to 

have ever brought up them. Well, I can't say 

anyone has ever brought them up to me.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So it seems like it opened up the barn 

door and suddenly there's a lot of different 

manufacturers and without knowing the specifics 

of these other manufacturers and their products, 

my fear would be that they might be primarily 

seeking to be able to label something for a home 

consumer as organic and that's why they're looking 

for something that will allow their product as 

well. Again, I don't know that entirely, but 

that's just my fear.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. GOOSSEN: As opposed to -- 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. GOOSSEN: -- our small farmers.

MR. ELA: Yes. We did talk to the 

paper pot folks and I mean it sounds like that could 

be changing, but they were in that 85 percent range 

bio-base, even the products that had been used in 

the past. So we're trying to make sure they were 

acceptable as well as not just limit our listening 

to one company.

We appreciate your comments. Thank 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you so much. It's always good hear other 

perspectives.

We are going to go back to -- Michelle, 

are we having any luck with Robert Morse?

MS. ARSENAULT: Sorry, now I can't 

unmute myself. He's still on the call with us, 

but his phone is still muted and I cannot unmute 

it from my side.

Robert, if you're there, unmute and *6 

or *6 and unmute. Not working.

MR. ELA: We'll keep trying. Okay, so 

let's go on to Leslie Touzeau, Tollef Olson, and 

then Garth Kahl.

Leslie, please go ahead.

MS. TOUZEAU: Great. Good afternoon. 

My name is Leslie Touzeau, and I am the Material 

Review Specialist for Quality Certification 

Services. QCS currently certifies over 1200 

operations globally. Thank you for this 

opportunity to provide comments and thanks to all 

for making sure that virtual public comments run 

smoothly.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I would like to use my time today to 

discuss the sunset of list for inerts and 

paper-based crop planting aids. QCS encourages 

consistency across subcommittees on the decision 

surrounding EPA's list for inert ingredients. 

Based on the public comments and subcommittee 

discussion, clearly stakeholders are in agreement 

that the current system of evaluating inert 

ingredients and pesticide products is broken. 

To continue approving ingredients for 

organic production based on the system that has 

long been obsolete is detrimental to the integrity 

of our organic program. 

The question that remains is how to most 

effectively proceed. QCS continues to support the 

2015 NOSB recommendation which calls for 

collaboration with the EPA, utilize the Safer 

Choice Program, and we strongly encourage the NOP 

to take up the recommendation without delay. 

We echo the sentiments of the Livestock 

Subcommittee who noted that there are several 

well-defined paths forward, but the process is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

likely to take considerable time and is unlikely 

to be completed before the sunset date of 2022.

We understand that the impetus to 

remove EPA List 4 inerts is to provoke the NOP into 

action. However, given the stagnation on this 

issue, there is no guarantee that this intended 

outcome will be realized. And so QCS supports the 

renewal of EPA List 4 inert ingredients at 205601 

and 205603 because there is no alternative at this 

time.

Of all of the 2015 recommendations was 

to make the transition to a new inert ingredient 

system as seamless as possible for organic 

producers. We believe that part of the seamless 

transition is passing from one system to another 

without interruption. Without a viable 

alternative in place, we feel it is risky to remove 

these materials from the national list and doing 

so may prohibit the use of hundreds of critical 

pest control products that are vital to the success 

of organic farming. 

As for both of those crop planting aids, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

QCS commends the NOSB for careful consideration 

and examination of these materials. Paper raised 

crop planting aids are valuable tools for organic 

farmers, and we have submitted comments previously 

in favor of their continued allowance.

 QCS supports the proposal to allow 

paper based crop planting aids with a few suggested 

revisions to the language for clarification. 

As mentioned in our written comments, 

while we support many of the revisions based on 

feedback from the spring NOSB meeting, we have some 

concerns with the language as written. We suggest 

removing the language from the annotation that 

allows for paper based planting aids with 

compliant-added pesticides simply because many 

products containing pesticides will likely need 

to be registered with the EPA and reviewed as a 

pesticide posing a challenge for material review 

as the product would be considered both a pesticide 

and crop production aid.

We also support revising the definition 

at 2052 to limit the types of additives allowed 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to make up the remaining 40 percent of 

non-cellulose based fibers to strengthen 

reinforcement fibers adhesives and binders as 

noted in the 2019 technical report.

Please see our written comments for 

complete suggested language revisions. Thank you 

for your time and dedication to our organic 

community.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Leslie. Are 

there questions from the Board? I'm not seeing 

any, but I do have one myself.

In terms of the added language for the 

-- as you just noted about binders, strengtheners 

and such, what -- to me that seems like a pretty 

open list. What materials would you be afraid of 

that would not fit that criteria?

MS. TOUZEAU: So I think the concern 

is that the 40 percent of non -- you know, the 60 

percent cellulose based fibers, that the remaining 

40 percent could possibly be things that we haven't 

even considered yet.

It could be things like biodegradable 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

plastics, micro plastics. It could be some kind 

of novel synthetic ingredient that a manufacturer 

would add to a paper product for some reason.

And so kind of the idea behind being 

a bit more explicit in what that 40 percent looks 

like is to go off of some of the materials that 

are listed in the 2019 Technical Report that had 

been listed as the types of strengtheners, fibers, 

adhesives and binders that are in current products 

on the market.

I don't know what those products are 

off the top of my head. I don't have the Technical 

Report in front of me but that's one of the thinking 

for QCS

MR. ELA: Sure. And I am never -- I 

want to be clear. I'm not against specificity in 

trying to limit the number of things. I am just 

worried that that language, you know, let's say 

a microplastic or something else could easily be 

claimed that it was a strengthener for example or 

a binder.

So to me the additional specification 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

actually most people could get around it by a claim 

that it fell under that list. So do you have just 

quickly any thoughts on that?

MS. TOUZEAU: Yes. I mean, that's a 

valid point. Again, I would have to go back to 

look at the Technical Report to just remind myself 

of what some of the listed materials are there.

But I think the idea is that there are 

materials that are currently on the market for 

products that we are currently approving that we 

have deemed acceptable. And so being specific 

about what the remaining ingredients are would 

prevent some future ingredient that we haven't yet 

encountered that could slip in there.

MR. ELA: Sure. Do you think it should 

be sent back to subcommittee or would it be okay 

to pass the proposal? I mean, the program has to 

rework the wording anyhow to go to rulemaking. 

And could we suggest they include that kind of 

language or should we send it back so that it's 

explicitly in the proposal?

MS. TOUZEAU: So I think, you know, we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

recognize that tremendous effort has already gone 

into evaluating these materials. And we very much 

appreciate the Board for the work.

We do believe that it is important to 

get this definition and its annotation right. And 

we currently have an allowance from the NOP that 

allows our clients to continue using some of these 

products. And we want to avoid any unintended 

consequences down the line.

So we just -- we would encourage the 

Board to take the time, as I know that you will, 

to weigh the breadth of the comments from us and 

from other stakeholders, both written and oral, 

and discuss these concerns and address these 

concerns about clarifying language.

I think that if that's something that 

can be done -- if that's something that can be done, 

if some of these revisions can be added without 

it having it to go back to subcommittee, we would 

support that. But we just want to emphasize that 

it's important to us and to our clients that we

get this definition and annotation right.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Good. You know, fair 

enough. All right. Well, thank you very much for 

your thoughts.

MS. TOUZEAU: Thank you.

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

Tollef Olson, Garth Kahl and Greg Tobey unless we 

happen to have found Robert on the line.

MS. ARSENAULT: Hey, Steve. I think 

we sorted out a solution to Robert. Darrin, is 

your line unmuted?

MR. MORSE: Can you hear us?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. We can hear you.

MR. MORSE: Yes. Good afternoon. 

Robert Morse. Thank you for inviting me to speak 

this afternoon.

I am the president and founder of North 

American Kelp located in Waldoboro, Maine. Next 

year we celebrate our 50th year of harvesting and 

processing rockweed here in the great State of 

Maine.

I have several beds that have been 

continuously harvested for that time period and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

scientists are welcome to come and view them. I'll 

take them out, whatever they need to do to get to 

them. And you can maybe tell me that I've been 

doing something wrong.

They're more productive than they've 

ever been, part of that is to do with a slight 

warming of the water in the winter so that we 

haven't had ice now, major ice damage, for probably 

five years.

The last year for the last 12 months 

we've been doing an extensive study on the acreage 

where rockweed grows on the intertidal zone on the 

coast of Maine. And we've come up with a biomass 

figure that's substantially higher than what we 

had been using before. And the harvest now is well 

below -- the total harvest of rockweed on the coast 

of Maine is well below 1 percent of the total 

standing biomass.

So I'm not sure what this regulation 

is supposed to be doing and what we're supposedly 

doing wrong, but we don't see it on this end.

Also earlier today there was a marine 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

scientist on the claim that where rockweed 

harvesting is like harvesting an old growth forest. 

I'm also a wood lot owner. And when we harvest 

the tree, we harvest the whole tree from the bottom. 

If we take the top of the tree off, yes, it would 

stop total growth and the tree would be wasted.

In rockweed harvesting, we take the 

tips of the rockweed and the regrowth happens from 

the tips. So we never remove the whole plant. 

We don't disturb the holdfast.

I developed in 1995 a mechanical 

cutting system that we've been working with since. 

And it tips the rockweed and from there the 

rockweed will regenerate. Not all seaweeds will 

regenerate from their tips like that, but the 

rockweed plant does.

So the regrowth is phenomenal. And 

these crops right now it's a two year -- it varies 

from bed to bed but about a two year recovery after 

harvest to reharvest.

If anybody has any questions, I'd be 

glad to answer them.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Sure. Does anybody have 

questions? I don't see any. Thank you very much 

for hanging with us, Robert. And I'm glad we 

finally were able to hear you.

MR. MORSE: Yes. My phone system, I 

apologize, it wouldn't take star 6. But we're on 

the computer now. Thanks for bearing with me.

MR. ELA: No worries. We're glad to 

hear from you. All right. We are going to move 

on to Tollef Olson. Tollef, thank you for being 

on and then letting Robert go in. We'll follow 

with Garth Kahl and then Greg Tobey. Tollef, go 

ahead, please.

MR. OLSON: Good afternoon. My name 

is Tollef Olson. I'm the President of the Maine 

Seaweed Council. I'm a rock harvester, and I'm 

also an aquaculturist. I actually put the first 

farm in in the United States for growing seaweed. 

And I'll circle back to that.

Seaweeds have been used for millennia. 

The indigenous coastal communities have used it 

as fertilizer and food for tens of thousands of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

years.

To come into the more recent times, in 

the last few centuries, seaweed has also been used 

extensively by all of the indigenous coastal 

communities. And an example of what happens if 

you start to reach the maximum harvest potential 

could be used with Hawaiian royalty from several 

hundred years ago. They started to put some 

gardens in.

If we move on to more recent times with 

the European colonization of the United States, 

and we have the Europeans moving a lot from 

Normandy, Ireland, the Hebrides, all of these North 

Atlantic exposed coastal areas, they have been 

using the fucoids for centuries to augment and 

build soil, and they also used them for a lot of 

human food products.

When they immigrated to the United 

States, they continued to do this. An example 

would even be my wife's grandfather and his 

relatives had farms upstate. They hauled 

truckloads of rockweed up there to augment the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

rocky and acidic soil there and build better soil.

In the last few decades, we've seen 

things modernize a little bit. We've seen China 

since the 1950s start farming seaweeds as they 

reached their potential wild harvests. They 

exceeded the potential wild harvest.

In the last decade here in the United 

States, we've seen a lot of growth in the industry 

overall, but we've also started to do the science. 

Dr. Nichole Price at Bigelow Labs has firmly 

established that when we harvest seaweed while 

they're firm that we're removing large amounts of 

sequestered CO2, nitrogen and phosphorous and then 

whether we're turning them into human food or we're 

using them for fertilizers, it's preferable to a

lot of the alternatives. And it's actually 

improving the environment in which it grows.

After all these millennia of use, we 

still have -- in the environmental concerns, one 

of them was by-catch. Well, we've been harvesting 

seaweed for thousands if not tens of thousands of 

years. And the by-catch species are all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

surviving. There's so much nutrient overload in 

the U.S. it's incredible. The entire eastern 

seaboard is considered to be nitrogen impaired.

Harvesting, farming and improving 

seaweeds from the ocean is a virtuous cycle. And 

to just all of a sudden to start putting on 

restrictive regulations that don't really 

accomplish anything is not a good way to move this 

industry forward.

I thank you very much for your time.

MR. ELA: Emily has one.

MS. OAKLEY: Hi. Thank you -- excuse 

me, sorry -- for your comments. I just wanted to 

say that I'm not sure that it's fair to compare 

indigenous use of seaweed to the commercial scale 

of harvest that's currently happening now.

And I just want to clarify that this 

proposal is not intended to stop the use of seaweed 

because you're right. Farmers use this for crop 

fertility inputs all over the world and certainly 

all over the U.S.

So just to make it clear, the intention 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of this proposal is to simply ensure that the 

parameters are meeting scientifically sound 

measures for not just the biomass return but the 

ecosystem itself. Thank you.

MR. OLSON: And that is why I brought 

up the aquaculture facet of it. If we start to 

exceed the ecosystem availability, we do already 

voluntarily in our industry -- we are already 

building into alternatives that will allow us to 

not exceed those parameters.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes. And I think that 

aquaculture could be something for the future. 

And it was definitely pointed out in 2019 by the 

scientific panel as a potential for the future in 

a rapidly developing science. So thank you.

MR. OLSON: You're welcome.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Tollef. We are 

going to move on to Garth Kahl followed by Greg 

Tobey. Greg, if you're on the line, Michelle isn't 

seeing you so please let her know. And then we'll 

have Heather Spalding and Nicole Dehne. Garth, 

go ahead.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. KAHL: Hi. Can you hear me?

MR. ELA: Yes.

MR. KAHL: My name is Garth Kahl. I 

have been an organic grower for over 30 years and 

an organic inspector for going on 25 years and a 

consultant/owner with independent organic 

services for 10 years.

I'm also a hopeless organic policy wonk 

who is crazy enough to spend his birthday giving 

oral comments to the NOSB while fully realizing 

that this is nothing compared to the sacrifice all 

of you are making. Thank you all for your service, 

really.

You already have my written comments 

on a variety of issues. And I'm sitting here 

drinking my tea sweetened with organic agave syrup 

to remind you to support continuing to allow ion 

exchange technology in organic processing. But 

that's not what I want to talk about today.

I want to Deputy Director Tucker's 

human capital memo. I want to bring both the 

Board's and the NOP's attention to the IOIA's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

excellent written comments on this subject and 

highlight a few of their points and add a few of 

my own.

Independent contractor inspectors. 

As the IOIA remarked, it is a benefit to the health 

of organic certification to have inspectors who 

work for multiple agencies. Independent 

inspectors are more likely to comment to the NOSB 

and the NOP. They are more likely to mentor new 

inspectors regardless of who the apprentice might 

go on to work for.

Having been both a staff and 

independent inspector, I would also like to add 

that independent inspectors are more likely to see 

issues across the supply chain, precisely because 

they may inspect many different operators in a 

region, even if these operators are certified by 

different ACAs.

Independent inspectors are by nature 

resourceful, motivated and passionate about 

organics. Any solutions to the human capital 

dilemma must include this option for current and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

incoming inspectors.

Apprenticeship. The industry 

absolutely requires a robust, well-funded 

apprenticeship program that lays out a clear 

pathway for new entrants once they have passed a 

recognized inspector training.

As an IOIA trainer, I can tell you that 

graduates of even the best inspector training, 

IOIA's of course, are not ready to start working 

as inspectors. They need on-the-job training and 

an experienced inspector mentor.

Having mentored many new inspectors, 

both as a staff and an independent inspector, I 

believe this is the biggest barrier to bringing 

new people into the trade. It is not reasonable 

to expect a new inspector, regardless of their 

prior education or experience, to pay thousands 

of dollars for an inspection course only to then 

have to travel and work without pay for several 

additional months while they accrue the necessary 

number of shadow inspections.

Similarly, it is not reasonable for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

mentor inspectors to have to take on the extra work 

of training a new colleague, again for free, only 

to risk having the new person take local work away 

from them.

Mentor inspectors must be compensated 

for their time, and mentee inspectors must receive 

enough of a stipend so that the apprenticeship 

period is not an undue hardship.

Thank you very much, and I welcome your 

comments or questions.

MR. ELA: Garth, it looks like Scott 

has a question.

MR. RICE: Hey, Garth. Happy 

Birthday.

MR. KAHL: Thank you.

MR. RICE: And thanks for joining us 

and thank you -- thanks to you and Angela for your 

thoughts on this. I appreciate both of your 

considered comments.

Thinking about how to get everybody on 

the same page on this, you know, you mentioned 

apprenticeship as a tool to onboarding so to speak. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And once we say that we have a system like that 

in place, you know, there's been also a discussion 

of credentialing or licensing. Do you see that 

as a next step in this process?

MR. KAHL: I do. Yes, I do, Scott. 

And thanks for your question. We do need to step 

it up a little bit. I mean, this is a career. 

This is a trade. We are an important part of the 

food system and absolutely. I think that 

credentialing is part and parcel of that. I think 

that a recognized apprenticeship program that 

leads to accreditation of inspectors at various 

levels.

So, again, as the IOIA has proposed, 

you know, I would foresee 100 and 200 and 300 level 

inspections. So, you know, a simple crop 

inspection might be 100, and someone would be 

accredited or credentialed to do that versus a 

complicated crop and livestock inspection or a 

complicated multi-ingredient handler might be a 

300 level inspection.

I absolutely do think we need that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

You know, we need to make this a professional trade 

and it needs to be both compensated as such but 

also credentialed as such.

MR. RICE: Great. A follow-up on 

that. You know, I think also in some of the 

discussions we've had around inspector 

qualifications in the past on this board and in 

just broader conversations, there's been some 

concern that requirements for credentialing or 

licensing or accreditation as well as minimum 

requirements for training could further constrict 

an already constricted inspector environment or 

inspector pool.

What's to say those inspectors out 

there are going to jump on board with this? And 

sort of tied into that, you know, IOIA has a robust 

membership, but it certainly doesn't represent 

every inspector out there. So any thoughts on how 

to sort of close the ranks on that?

MR. KAHL: Well, I think it's kind of 

a two-edged sword. We do need credentialing and 

accreditation. We also need some kind of -- I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

would say that the apprenticeship program needs 

to be funded and maybe we tap the brands for that 

to set up a foundation or some kind of a structure, 

either with IOIA or some other entity, to actually 

have a vibrant apprenticeship program so that 

provided people pass the initial test and take the 

class that they would have some kind of a subsidy 

to help them, you know, undertake those months of 

apprenticeship.

But I also think that, and Angela 

mentioned this in her comments, we need some kind 

of consistent national wage guidelines for 

inspectors so that, yes, inspectors would become 

more professional and become accredited but they 

would also across the boat be expected to be 

compensated as such.

I mean, currently we're in the 

situation where we not only make less than the food 

safety inspector, but we make less than the rabbi, 

many of us, less than the rabbi doing the kosher 

inspection.

And, honestly, it doesn't need to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

like that, and it shouldn't be like that. You 

know, I envision professionalization across the 

board, a professional career track but also 

professional accreditation and credentialing 

requirements.

MR. RICE: Great. And I appreciate 

you speaking to those points and sorry to have 

missed Angela earlier. You know, we all benefit 

from being online, but I also had an electrician 

boring a hole in the wall behind me.

MR. KAHL: Well, thank you.

MR. RICE: Thanks for your 

understanding and thanks to Angela.

MR. KAHL: Yes. Thanks to all of you, 

again.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Garth. Enjoy your 

tea and anything else later in the night. We 

appreciate you being on.

We are going to move on to Greg Tobey 

-- it looks like maybe he wasn't but in case he 

is -- Heather Spalding, Nicole Dehne and Julia 

Barton. We will try and circle back around.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I know we have at least one person that 

we had to skip over earlier and then we'll try and 

get a few people on the wait list even though it 

means we will go a little bit over time. We're 

trying to make sure we get all the comments we can.

So did we find Greg, Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: I don't see Greg, 

Steve.

MR. ELA: Okay. Let's go on to Heather 

Spalding, again, followed Nicole Dehne and then 

Julia Barton. Go ahead, Heather.

MS. SPALDING: Good afternoon. Can 

you hear me?

MR. ELA: We can hear you.

MS. SPALDING: Great. My name is 

Heather Spalding, and I'm the deputy director of 

the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners 

Association.

Now this is my first time participating 

in an NOSB meeting and over the two days I have 

learned a lot. So I really want to thank you for 

the tireless efforts that you've made to defend 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the integrity of organic standards.

MOFGA is a broad-based community that 

educates about and advocates for organic 

agriculture, illuminating its interdependence 

with a healthy environment, local food production 

and thriving communities.

We started organic farm certification 

in 1972, certifying 27 farms following Rodale 

Organic Garden certification guidelines.

Today we certify more than 530 farms 

and processing facilities. MOFGA is a member of 

the National Organic Coalition, which has 

submitted detailed comments on our behalf.

Two big challenges for our farmers 

right now are financial impacts from the COVID-19 

pandemic along with extreme weather events, 

particularly the ongoing drought which has 

prompted Secretary Perdue to designate all but one 

of Maine's 16 counties as disaster regions.

With these clear and present challenges 

in mind, MOFGA encourages the NOSB to advise USDA's 

Farm Service Agency to restore organic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

certification cost share reimbursement rates, to 

strengthen enforcement of climate-friendly 

practices required by the organic regulations to 

ensure that organic is the gold standard for 

addressing climate change and call for immediate 

implementation of the origin of livestock rule.

MOFGA is committed to understanding and 

addressing barriers to participation in organic 

certification for farmers of color and encourages 

the NOSB to do the same.

Regarding specific items in the NOSB 

proposal, we are concerned about some shifts toward 

relative risk assessment in lieu of continuously 

improving and strengthening standards.

You heard from our organic crop 

specialist, Dr. Caleb Goossen, regarding concerns 

about synthetics and paper pots and 

petroleum-based substances in biodegradable, 

bio-based mulch films intentionally added to the 

soil.

We also are concerned about allowing 

pesticides in the films as this would be contrary 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to integrated pest management.

Regarding inerts, we understand the 

complexity of the process and the timeline involved 

in making progress in this area. Please kickstart 

the rulemaking process by approving the Crop 

Subcommittee's motion to remove the listing of List 

4 inerts.

And finally regarding marine 

macroalgae, MOFGA supports the Board moving 

forward with an annotation instead of requiring 

certification of crop input.

Organic certification can help protect 

marine ecosystems from agrochemical runoff and 

microplastics and overharvesting of ocean 

resources.

Last year, MOFGA certification 

services director Chris Grigsby served on the 

Marine Materials panel. We have not yet had the

chance to vet the impact of the certifier approval 

verification of the proposed language or its effect 

on the seaweed industry. Thank you so much again 

for your time.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Excuse me. We'll move on to 

Nicole.

MS. DEHNE: Can you hear me? Hello? 

Can you guys hear me okay?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. We can hear you 

now.

MS. DEHNE: Thank you, sir. Okay. 

I'm Nicole Dehne. I'm the certification director 

for Vermont Organic Farmers. I represent over 700 

organic producers in the State of Vermont. I want 

to thank the NOSB members for all of your hard work 

and for the opportunity to give comment today.

I've got a couple of things I want to 

talk about. The first is paper pots. We are 

grateful to the NOP and the NOSB for how the review 

of paper pots has been handled.

We continue to hear from our producers 

about how important this tool is for their farms. 

It's often regarded as one of the most important 

innovations for use on organic small scale farms 

that has occurred over the last few years.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We agree that the adhesives and 

synthetic fibers in the pots are also in recycled 

paper and mulches and should therefore be allowed 

in paper planting aids as well.

We also agree that adding the allowance 

for virgin paper is important to make sure that 

products currently on the market would be allowable 

and to ensure that products for future use can be 

developed. We feel that requiring 60 percent 

cellulose-based fibers and 80 percent bio-based 

content achieves a balance for allowing this 

material to be used but restricts the amount of 

material derived from petroleum.

Like the paper planting aids, we feel 

there is a path forward to allow a biodegradable, 

bio-based mulch that's not 100 percent bio-based 

but does restrict what's allowed in the 

manufacturing process to address concerns for soil 

health.

This compromise would mean that as an 

organic community, we're taking the important step 

forward to reduce plastic use on organic farms.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We agree that we need to be careful 

about the effect of these synthetic polymers and 

their potential to accumulate in small particles 

of plastic in the soil. We think research on this 

topic should continue.

But we struggle with the impact of 

organic eggs extensive dependence on plastic. And 

we don't feel that this should be taken lightly. 

We feel we have a responsibility to try to reduce 

our plastic use, and we feel that BBM is one way 

to do this.

The use of plastic on vegetable farms 

in the Northeast has really been increasing since 

the 1960s. These days, plastic mulch is used 

almost universally on tomatoes, peppers, egg 

plants, melons, sweet potatoes, winter squash, 

zucchini, cucumbers.

On many farms the list doesn't stop 

there. It's often used on any horticultural crop, 

including garlic, onions and lettuce. Because of 

this, if you take a walk on the majority of organic 

veggie farms and fruit farms, you'll find small 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

pieces of ripped plastic from years of plastic use.

We absolutely have a problem with 

residual plastics on organic farms. Dairy and 

livestock producers are also using plastic for 

wrapping and storing feed. The use of plastic in 

organic eggs is omnipresent.

The majority of farms do have residual 

plastic pieces in their fields or in their field 

edges. So we support a proposal that requires 

removal of the film when feasible. And we would 

recommend that the NOSB provide some examples of 

when it might not be feasible to remove the film, 

for example, when 50 percent has begun to 

biodegrade in the soil.

Our certified producers in Vermont feel 

it's time to reduce our dependence on plastic as 

an industry. And many of them feel that BBM would 

be an important step towards the net goal.

MR. ELA: Great. Thank you very much, 

Nicole. Are there questions? I'm not seeing any. 

We appreciate your thoughts.

MR. BRADMAN: Steve.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: We are going to move on to 

--

MS. DEHNE: Thanks.

MR. ELY: Yes? We're going to move on 

-- well, wait. Asa has a question, Nicole, if 

you're still there.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes. Sorry. So I just 

wanted to get your thoughts on this idea of 

comparative risk. We have comments that the idea 

of comparative risk is not written into the law 

and should not be a standard for evaluating 

materials.

And then it sounds like you're 

advocating that we do consider comparative risk. 

And I know for me personally I'm torn on these 

issues just because the plastic use in organic is 

so substantial and widespread.

Has your group followed that up in kind 

of the larger philosophical sense or you're just 

kind of zeroing in here on, you know, polyethylene 

films are bad and we need an alternative?

MS. DEHNE: Yes. I think, I mean, this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

might be where we depart from our colleagues a 

little bit in that I think we do think it's 

important to compare the use of plastic in its 

relationship to the use of biodegradable, 

bio-based mulch.

So, yes. We think that, you know, like 

I said, we don't think we should ignore -- we need 

to continue to do the research to make sure that 

soil health isn't going to be negatively affected.

But at this point, the research is not 

clear. And we need to make sort of an impact on 

plastic use in organic farms and in the organic 

industry. And we have an annual producer meeting 

every year.

We had farmers come last year and that's 

what they wanted to talk about is that they were 

saying -- veggie producers that were saying when 

I go to workshops now, this is what I see is just 

more and more promotion of plastic as a tool. And 

it concerns me, and I feel like, as a farmer, I 

should be doing something about this.

So, you know, that's what we're hearing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

from kind of our constituents. That's what we're 

passing on.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Great. Thanks, Nicole. 

Okay. We are going to move on to Julia Barton and 

then we'll go to Bjarne Pedersen. And if anybody 

else that we skipped over on the list, Brenda 

DeShields, Ender Iniguez, Jerry Sutherland, Tim 

Pitz, Kyle Mathison or Greg Tobey are on the line, 

please let Michelle know. Otherwise, we'll spend 

a few extra minutes on our wait list. But go ahead, 

Julia.

MS. BARTON: Thank you. Good 

afternoon. My name is Julia Barton with the Ohio 

Ecological Food and Farm Association. I'd like 

to thank you all for your service and to share some 

comments on a few topics.

Fenbendazole for use in poultry. 

OEFFA does not support the addition fenbendazole 

for use in poultry as proposed. Poultry 

producers, many of whom produce (audio 

interference).
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: Julia?

MS. BARTON: This material is not 

needed.

MR. ELA: Julia, we suddenly got kind 

of digitized where we're having a little hard time 

catching your words. You might try it again here, 

and we'll see how it is.

MS. BARTON: Okay. I apologize. I do 

not have broadband where I'm located. I might need 

to call back on the phone. I heard you all all 

day.

MR. ELA: You're fine now.

MS. BARTON: Is that okay? All right.

MR. ELA: Yes. You're fine now. 

Let's try it again.

MS. BARTON: Okay. I'll just begin 

with fenbendazole again. OEFFA does not support 

the addition of fenbendazole for use with poultry 

as proposed per (audio interference) is not needed. 

Producers reported back --

MR. ELA: We lost you. We lost you 

again, Julia. What if we go to our next speaker 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and come back to you and maybe you could call in. 

It works great and then we lose part of it.

MS. BARTON: Okay. I'll try the 

phone. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Yes. We'll go to our next 

one and come right back to you. Let's go to Bjarne 

Pedersen. Bjarne?

MR. PEDERSEN: Yes, hello. Can you 

hear me across the Atlantic?

MR. ELA: We can hear you across the 

Atlantic. Go ahead.

MR. PEDERSEN: Okay. Thank you for 

your patience. Well, I had some personal issues 

to attend to earlier so I wasn't able to make it 

in the beginning.

My name is Bjarne Pedersen. I am a 

consultant for Ellepot in Denmark. And I will 

comment on the petition for the paper pots.

Let me say that we're happy to see the 

petition this time, which we believe will be the 

first step in using paper pots made of virgin paper.

We think the motion is easy to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

understand considering actually the huge 

complexity of paper in general. Earlier I 

commented on the use of recycled or newspaper, and 

it's not really a solution for paper pots.

It is a very undefined material and also 

for newspaper I have shown that it's not really 

that easy to make a degradable product out of it.

We think the level of 60 percent 

cellulose-based fiber is a fine level as well as 

the 80 percent of bio-based. I'm working as a 

developer and the remaining 20 percent, which is 

not really defined gives me the opportunity to look 

into other solutions which could also actually 

include animal fibers just to mention something 

not being cellulose. I don't know if wool or silk 

is considered to be bio-based actually. Perhaps 

that is my lack of understanding the English 

language.

One thing I would like to repeat from 

a concern we have from the written comment on the 

third-party assessment. We really would 

recommend that only laboratory testing would be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the only option on this verification of the 

composition by a qualified personnel is really not 

sufficient. It's impossible for anyone to tell 

if there is more than 20 percent being 

non-bio-based or more than 40 percent 

non-cellulose in a paper.

So our recommendation is that the 

product assessment should be only done based on 

independent lab testing results.

We're really looking forward to this 

motion being accepted so that the growers will know 

which type of papers they can be allowed to use 

for organic crop.

So that's the comments, and I'll be 

happy to answer any questions.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Are there any 

questions from the Board? I don't see any, Bjarne. 

Thank you so much for staying up late to give us 

comments. We do appreciate that.

MR. PEDERSEN: You're welcome.

MR. ELA: Julia, are you back?

MS. BARTON: I'm unable to get through 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on the phone for some reason.

MR. ELA: Well, let's try it, and we'll 

do our best. Go ahead. We got your fenbendazole 

or at least the start of it so you can start there.

MS. BARTON: Okay. I'll just 

summarize. Stop me if I become muddled. 

Essentially our producers, both barn producers and 

pastured poultry producers are telling us that 

fenbendazole is not needed.

What we do need instead of materials 

to enable management and system modeled after 

conventional production is actual poultry 

standards similar to what we were provided in OLPP. 

We need to fortify the systems approach of organic 

production, not input substitution, which is what 

is being requested here.

Human capital -- can you hear me okay?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes.

MR. ELA: Keep going.

MS. BARTON: Okay. We have renamed 

this agenda item stewardship of expertise as we 

take issue with the term human capital. We 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

appreciate (audio interference) document. (Audio 

interference). Their agenda items must be 

petitioned and approved.

The NOSB, as an independent advisory 

board, must have autonomy in the development of 

its own work agenda. When a topic of this 

magnitude is added to the work agenda but other 

topics of large or difficult scope such as 

container production systems, for example, are 

denied or removed, the voices of stakeholders are 

silenced.

That said, we agree that this topic is 

important, and we appreciate Dr. Jenny Tucker's 

ongoing leadership in this arena. In particular, 

we appreciated the question regarding how 

candidate pipelines can be developed in a way that 

maximizes diversity and inclusion so that those 

working in the organic community can better 

represent the diversity of the public we serve.

OEFFA is pleased to be continuing a 

relationship with Central State University, a 

historically Black land grant university in Ohio, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

which has prioritized organic agriculture in its 

extension work. It's growing its staff and will 

be serving currently underserved members of the 

organic and sustainable agriculture community.

Finally, the timing and format of 

meetings, OEFFA's Grain Growers Chapter has 

continually requested an alternative to the 

current meeting schedule. Shall I continue just 

briefly?

MR. ELA: Finish your -- yes, we'll 

give you just a touch more here.

MS. BARTON: Thank you. This part is 

important. On behalf of our growers, they have 

suggested moving the schedule back two weeks each 

meeting, which would mean the meeting would rotate 

throughout the year equally benefitting and 

inconveniencing various stakeholders over time.

And finally we just wanted to thank you 

for the digital format. We agree with other 

commenters that it increases access. And I'll 

just stop there. Thank you.

MR. ELA: Thank you so much for hanging 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

with us there, Julia. Are there any questions? 

All right. I don't see any. Thank you, again.

Let's see. We are going to go to our 

wait list at this point. I know we're over time. 

It's a long day for the Board and we actually --

it looks like most of our wait list is present which 

I think probably is longer than we want to go. 

But I'm kind of willing to go to 40 minutes after 

the hour. I know some Board members may have to 

step off for personal reasons. But we'll just get 

through as many as we can and kind of go from there.

We're going to stop with Tom Buman 

followed by John Foster and then Hamsa 

Shadaksharappa. Shadaksharappa, sorry about 

that. Go ahead, Tom.

MR. BUMAN: Yes. Can you hear me 

clearly?

MR. ELA: We can hear you.

MR. BUMAN: Okay. Thank you for the 

opportunity to provide oral comments regarding 

ammonia extracts. My name is Tom Buman, and I'm 

the CEO of Precision Conservation. For the past 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

30 years, I have worked in the environmental arena, 

beginning my career with USDA and then 24 years 

as CEO of my own company.

During that time, I've dedicated myself 

to enhance and protect soil and water quality with 

a focus on Iowa. As you probably know, Iowa leads 

the nation in producing many agricultural 

commodities. Along with that distinction, Iowa 

is also number one in the production of livestock 

manure.

Consequently, Iowa is beset with one 

of the worst records for nutrient losses into 

water. Organic farmers can play a growing part 

of this cleanup if they can maintain flexible and 

practical solutions while still maintaining high 

organic standards.

Organic farmers have limited choices 

when it comes to organic fertilizers, which often 

drives them to either overapply or underapply 

certain plant nutrients, a real dilemma for sure.

When farmers are forced to overapply 

phosphorous in order to achieve proper nitrogen 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

levels, the effect can be too much phosphorous for 

surface waters.

Conversely, when farmers reduce their 

nitrogen application as to not overapply 

phosphorous, the outcome produces crop 

inefficiencies and requires more acres to produce 

the same crop.

Flexible fertilizer blends can help 

organic farmers be a part of the water quality 

solution by helping them manage their nutrient 

inputs more appropriately.

Recently, new processes have been 

developed to isolate and remove nitrogen from 

animal manures. This novel approach of capturing 

ammonia from animal manure before it is otherwise 

released to the atmosphere is not only good for 

organic farmers, it is good for the environment.

In reviewing the comments submitted to

the National Organic Standard Board, it is evident 

to me that these manure-derived nitrogen products 

have strong support from organic farmers. That 

being said, I do not know of any farmers who suggest 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

these products will become their sole source of 

fertilizer.

While manure will always play a 

critical part of Iowa's organic fertilizer program 

building soil carbon, with these novel products 

organic farmers can achieve a more perfect blend 

of nutrient and continue to maximize environmental 

sustainability and grower economics.

Iowa organic growers are uniquely 

positioned to positively impact Iowa's water 

quality. Organic growers need flexible options 

that still preserve organic standards and 

environmental safety. I ask you to reject any 

efforts to limit ammonia extracts captured from 

livestock manure. Thank you.

MR. ELA: It looks like Nate has a 

question.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I was just hoping to 

see if you had any inputs on sort of the whole 

system's result of incorporating true crop 

rotations on organic farms.

If you're using alfalfa or other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

legumes, you don't have the issue of running to 

phosphorous overfertilization. And so I am 

worried that this would disincentivize the use of 

manure and organic farms are kind of fantastic 

because they are manure sponges and then you see 

manure kind of as brown gold rather than laced.

And so is there not a reason to focus 

more on how do we get a more robust crop rotation 

in rather than simply supplementing kind of in the 

more input oriented vein of conventional 

agriculture?

MR. BUMAN: Well, I think maybe I would 

approach it this way. If we could handle manure 

appropriately so we could not lose that ammonia, 

we would all be in favor of doing that in our 

management processes.

This is just a way of saying, okay, 

instead of, you know, changing the way we handle 

it or anything else, we're going to take it. And 

we're going to create a stream that allows us to 

capture that before it's released into the 

atmosphere.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And so I don't see it that we are not 

using manure. We still are continuing to use the 

manure. We get a valuable byproduct from the 

process that is still an organic material that 

we're putting on. It just allows us access to it, 

an option that has more flexibility.

And so I would never support the idea 

that this would eliminate the use of manure. I 

think what it does is create a stream that we would 

typically lose under a lot of conditions and allows 

us to kind of inject that into the manure stream.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Steve, if I may 

follow-up real quick. As an organic grain farmer, 

what would be my incentive to not just use liquid 

nitrogen derived from manure exclusively and skip 

the hassle and the headache of dealing with manure 

altogether?

MR. BUMAN: I would think that's 

because you still need your phosphorous and 

potassium and your micronutrients. And the number 

one source is still raw manure.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. ELA: All right. Thank you very 

much, Thomas. We are going to go on to John Foster 

and the Hamsa Shadaksharappa and then Brent Lytle. 

Let's go to John.

MR. FOSTER: All right. Sound check. 

All good?

MR. ELA: You're here.

MR. FOSTER: Great. Thanks, all, for 

your service on the Board and for those of you about 

to leave congratulations on that newfound freedom. 

It feels good, I can tell you, when you're done.

On the inert question, and Asa, I'm 

sorry to continue using that word, but it's the 

one that's in the book so there we have it. But 

on that, as I mentioned in the April meeting, I 

would still assert they're essential for organic 

production and urge you to recommend continuation 

of these materials.

I think I'll just speak as you've 

covered the details and the whys pretty well. So 

I won't do that again. I would also encourage 

implementation of that 2015 NOSB recommendation. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

That really was a nice piece of work.

It was a long time in coming with a lot 

of stakeholder input, a lot of seriousness and it's 

been sitting there for a while. So as I did in 

April, I really would suggest trying to just push 

that forward.

There's a lot of parallels I will add 

with this situation and the old -- some of you 

veterans will recognize this, the old synthetic 

substances policy statement that was in the early 

2000s. And that was as a function of FDA's 

eventual insistence that indirect food additives 

would be allowed, and this came up in the context 

of ion exchange resins for what it's worth. That 

was early 2000s.

And at the time that came up as a 

complaint or an objection, it was filed around 

organic high fructose corn syrup. There are some 

parallels with that indirect food additives list. 

The guidance is no longer on the web, but it was 

there for many years.

There are some precedents for other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

agencies and their conglomerated lists that go back 

quite a bit to the very origins of NOP. So there 

may be some wisdom there.

Since I have a couple more seconds here, 

on this marine materials topic, I really do 

understand the desire to see a lot of hard work 

come to some sort of fruition. I totally get that.

In reading this, I really don't feel 

like it would be productive to move it forward at 

this time. I really suggest having a subcommittee 

look at that some more. I know it's painful.

I know that really, really well because 

2010 to 2015 was a very contentious period of time 

on the board, and I certainly was in the thick of 

it then. We came up with some really good work 

and still that 2015 recommendation sits.

So I know how hard it is to see good

work sit. But there is a time, and this is it, 

I think. Let it sit and get some more comments 

and work it until it's right. Thanks.

MR. ELA: All right. Emily has a quick 

question.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: Hello. I just wanted to 

make a clarification, but thank you for your 

comment.

I don't think it's a matter of the pain 

of, you know, seeing hard work come to fruition 

or not. Although, of course, I definitely 

understand because I truly would be the first to 

recommend that it go back to subcommittee if I 

genuinely thought that that would lead to a 

proposal or an annotation that everyone could agree 

to. But it's just been a very complicated process. 

And I'm not sure that will ultimately be possible 

to satisfy everyone.

I had hopes for that absolutely. But 

I'm not sure that ultimately is an achievable goal.

MR. FOSTER: Got it.

MS. OAKLEY: So I just wanted to say 

if I'm pushing it forward, it wouldn't be because 

I don't want to see the work moving on. I'm happy 

for someone else to work on it if that will 

ultimately lead to positive results. Thank you.

MR. FOSTER: Fair enough. Fair 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

enough. Well said.

MR. ELA: Thanks, John. We appreciate 

your insights. A historical perspective is always 

good. We're going to move on to Hamsa and then 

Brent Lytle and then Alice Runde. Go ahead, Hamsa.

MR. SHADAKSHARAPPA: Okay. Thank 

you. A very nice job on a difficult name. So I 

appreciate that.

We have a company called Renewtrient. 

And we have two locations in Iowa and Colorado 

that recover animal manure and process that into 

fertilizers used by growers across the Midwest, 

the Plain states and the Western U.S.

Our main point relates to the ammonia 

extract petition. We strongly believe that 

ammonia captured from natural manure should be

distinguished from general ammonia extracts.

It is important to note that the Organic 

Board received about 20 written comments from 

independent growers and grower groups. They 

clearly voiced their concern with the potential 

that it could potentially delist or ban manure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

captured ammonia. From that, the Board can 

extrapolate how widely used and important manure 

products are.

Organic farmers all across the country, 

not just our customers, have been reliant on manure 

as part of their overall organic program for many 

years. These farmers are now seeking improved 

manure products to meet more specific needs. They 

desire fertilizers with targeted nutrients to 

avoid wasted costs and damage of overapplication 

mentioned by a previous caller.

They also want products that allow for 

the transport and access or animal manure based 

products in wider geographies. And they also seek 

more product options to manage the environment in 

their local watershed as part of an overall organic 

program.

Please remember ammonia from manures 

would be lost the air and waterways if not captured 

and used beneficially.

Also as other callers have mentioned, 

such products are not a replacement for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

excellent organic inputs currently being used. 

They are an important supplement that growers are 

asking for to meet specific needs.

Organic farmers know their soil health 

based on practical experience built over many 

years. They have the most to gain from sound 

organic and regenerative practices. It's 

precisely because they depend on long-term soil 

health that they use manure derived products.

In closing, we request the Board to seek 

more feedback from growers and objective organic 

experts as part of their evaluation of the extract 

petition.

We'd like to please ensure that 

manure-derived ammonia products are not delisted 

or banned on the NOP as an unintended consequence.

Thank you for the comment to 

participate and comment in your process.

MR. ELA: Nate has a question for you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you for your 

comments. Just a quick question on you were 

mentioning that ammonia not captured through this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

process would be lost to the air and waterways. 

Do you have an idea sort of what number of animals 

your company represents as far as manure taken out 

of potentially reflowing into the greater 

watershed environment?

MR. SHADAKSHARAPPA: I don't have 

that, you know, those numbers, that calculation 

handy. But we can certainly follow-up and get you 

that information.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you. And just 

one more follow-up question. How do you see if 

the greater sort of consensus is that we want to 

encourage whole systems thinking, do you see the 

use of this product as encouraging farmers to 

either introduce livestock onto their crop 

programs or cooperate with their feedlot or CAFO 

neighbors?

MR. SHADAKSHARAPPA: Well, yes. I 

mean, that's a complicated question. I think we 

are more focused on the grower needs and what 

they're asking for.

I think when you start talking about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CAFO and large farm operations, that becomes a more 

complicated question. I think what we're seeing 

is that the growers are asking for more tools in 

their toolbox.

They have specific issues they're 

trying to address as part of an overall program. 

And we believe that, you know, the recovery of 

ammonia and byproducts that would otherwise be 

wasted and make its way into, you know, unintended 

places can be better be captured through 

technologies and used more beneficially for those 

farmers.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. SHADAKSHARAPPA: Sure.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Hamsa. We are 

going to move on to Brent Lytle, followed Alice 

Runde and then David Epstein. Go ahead, Brent.

MR. LYTLE: All right. Can you hear 

me?

MR. ELA: We can hear you.

MR. LYTLE: All right. My name is 

Brent Lytle. I'm the agronomy manager for Farm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Nutrients in Rembrandt, Iowa. First off, we would 

like to thank the NOSB for the opportunity to speak 

in favor of manure-derived ammonia extract 

fertilizers continuing to be approved for organic 

production.

At Farm Nutrients, we understand 

organic fertilizers. Founded in 2003, we apply 

nearly 850,000 tons of chicken litter annually to 

over 400,000 acres. Nearly one-fourth of our 

customer base for raw litter is organic on either 

a small scale or a large scale.

It is with these organic growers in mind 

that we oppose the petition limiting ammonia 

extract fertilizers in organic agriculture.

Manure derived ammonia extract 

fertilizers provide a valuable tool to organic 

growers by being utilized as a nitrogen source with 

very low levels of phosphorous and potassium.

Many of our organic customers are 

looking for new ways to apply supplemental nitrogen 

to their crops. Many of them have tried top 

dressing raw manure while their corn crop is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

growing, which requires them to purchase 

specialized application equipment and is costly 

and time consuming.

They also risk the overapplication of 

phosphorous and subsequent phosphorous loading of 

the soil, which contributes to runoff and water 

quality problems, an extremely important issue in 

our area of the country, in addition to nitrogen 

management practices.

The access to these products containing 

immediately available nitrogen and a high carbon 

to nitrogen ratio similar to the raw litter product 

from which they are derived adds another option 

to organic growers as a part of a whole farm 

nutrient management program.

We ask that the NOSB sees the merits 

of these products and continues to approve their 

use for organic production agriculture. Thank 

you.

MR. ELA: Thank you. Questions? Go 

ahead, Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Sorry. If farmers 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are shorting up on nitrogen that they're having 

to top dress their corn, should they not be 

considering a more robust crop rotation whereby 

through forages or other annual legumes they 

realize more nitrogen in their soil prior to 

planting that farm crop?

MR. LYTLE: The growers that, I guess, 

in particular that I've spoken to are utilizing 

crop rotation practices to try to make a more robust 

nitrogen management program. They're also 

utilizing raw manure as a whole farm program. And 

they're seeing some supplemental need and some more 

available nitrogen need when it comes to in season 

and a high yielding corn crop.

Many of our growers are going for 

obviously higher corn yields in this instance and 

are seeing some supplemental end being a good in 

season option for them to manage runoff, nitrogen 

runoff, phosphorous runoff in their watershed 

areas.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you.

MR. ELA: Great. Thank you, Brent. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We're next going to go to Alice Runde, David Epstein 

and Caleb Adams. Go ahead, Alice.

MS. RUNDE: Thank you. Good 

afternoon. My name is Alice Runde. I'm the 

coalition manager for the National Organic 

Coalition.

My comments today pertain to continuous 

improvement, racial equity in the organic 

movement, consent calendar voting and minority 

opinions in NOSB subcommittee decisions and 

published materials.

Organic agriculture is not in archaic 

production mode, one based on an understanding of 

ecology and complex systems. Organic 

practitioners do not seek silver bullets but rather 

seek improved ways of working with nature.

As such, the organic community has 

always placed a high value on continuous 

improvements. Organic regulations need to be 

updated continuously in order to embrace 

continuous improvements. The regulatory process 

does not support the need for ongoing updates. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The USDA must support continuous 

improvement by educating OMB and others of the need 

to make frequent regulatory updates as organic 

grows and strives towards its goal of achieving 

agroecosystems that are ecologically, socially and 

economically sustainable.

The organic label has long focused on 

ecological and economic sustainability. Focusing 

on social sustainability is also paramount to its 

success. We recognize that access to the organic 

movement and organic certification has not been 

equal across racial groups.

NOC would like to see the NOSB 

prioritize research into, for example, one the 

barriers to participation and organic 

certification for farmers of color. Two, 

technical assistance needs for underserved and 

underrepresented communities and three, 

developing markets for ethnic specialty crops and 

culturally relevant fruits and vegetables.

We support the NOSB in exploring ways 

to encourage the NOP and organic stakeholders to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

expand their work and resources to further address 

this issue.

NOC encourages the NOSB to work with 

the NOP to identify languages that the organic 

material should be translated into and then work 

to identify the appropriate means of acquiring and 

sharing those translated materials.

NOC opposes the use of a consent agenda 

in NOSB meetings, especially for the use proposing 

the discussion documents, grouping sunset items.

While it may appear that grouping 

sunset listings could save time, we believe that 

the opposite outcome is likely. Grouping listings 

would take more time to debate over the 

appropriateness of the grouping.

If, as the discussion documents 

suggest, these agenda items are non-controversial 

and the only time that would be saved would be 

running through the roll call group.

Finally, NOC urges NOSB subcommittees 

to include minority opinions in their publishing 

materials. The admission of minority opinions 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

does a disservice to the democratic process and 

all of the expertise that comes to this Board.

Providing minority views reflects of 

the federal process for documenting public input 

and can better serve the NOP in its work. 

Understanding the reason behind a requirement 

always helps with greater buy-in and support.

When the NOP publishes a rule for public 

comment, it must explain the reasoning leading up 

to it and the inclusion of all of the issues 

discussed in NOSB materials would (Audio 

interference). Thank you for squeezing me in at 

the end of a very long day.

MR. ELA: Thank you, Alice. I am not 

seeing any questions. We will go to David Epstein. 

Michelle has let me know that Caleb and Maddie 

aren't present that she can tell. So if you are, 

let her know.

But it's been a long day and I know we 

had given the people at the top of the wait list 

a chance on Tuesday. We would love to hear from 

you, but I'm going -- after David, if the other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

two aren't present, I'm going to have to call it 

a day just for the sanity of the Board. So I just 

want to give you that heads-up. Dave, go ahead.

MR. EPSTEIN: Yes. Thank you, Steve. 

And I thank the Board wholeheartedly for staying 

late and being willing to hear our concerns.

I represent the Northwest 

Horticultural Council, which represents the 

Organic Trade Group producers of Washington, 

Oregon and Idaho. Our members produce over 90 

percent of the fresh organic apple crop that's 

available in this country and a significant volume 

of organic pears and cherries as well.

My chief concern today is with 

delisting List 4 inerts. I know you've heard it 

from a number of people. And I understand that 

EPA is no longer maintaining the list and that you 

need to decide how to move forward. But delisting 

all of these inert ingredients without a well 

thought out path forward on how to address 

inclusion of these materials in existing products 

that are critical to organic production will create 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

many problems for producers.

Growers will lose tools that are 

necessary for their production while the NOSB 

considers next steps.

Pheromone mediated mating disruption 

is a cornerstone of organic home fruit production 

with organic agricultural research at WSU, that's 

Washington State University, stating organic 

programs should always use mating disruption as 

a basis for organic codling moth management.

List 4 inert ingredients are used in 

pheromone dispensers to stabilize pheromone, 

allowing the devices to remain effective 

throughout the growing season.

Dimethyl ether, one of the materials, 

is the propellant used in aerosol pheromone 

dispensers. Without the addition of these inerts 

both hand applied and aerosol dispensers will not 

remain viable for use by organic producers.

And with that pheromone disruption is 

a management tool for codling moths and other 

tortuous pests. Organic apple and pear production 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

will decrease significantly.

In addition to the importance of these 

products, the mating disruption, the Washington 

State Department of Agriculture Organic Program 

reports that the majority of all pesticide products 

used by organic producers are formulated with List 

4 inerts.

Estimates by members of our Northwest 

Horticultural Council Organic Committee state that 

a decision to delist these inerts had results in 

loss of mating disruption could lead to the loss 

of 50 percent of organic home fruit production from 

our area within just a couple of years and even 

steeper declines in the following years.

We ask the Board to consider the 

immediate impacts that delisting List 4 will have 

on the availability of products critical to organic 

production.

Our growers need transparency and 

predictability to remain productive and delisting 

with that well-defined path forward will result 

in immediate, and I understand, unintended 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

impacts on the abilities of organic growers to 

remain viable.

Once again, thank you for staying late 

to hear my concerns.

MR. ELA: Thanks, Dave. Any last 

questions for Dave? All right. I think we're 

going to call it a day. My apologies to the 

speakers at the top of the wait list. Again, we 

did try and get to you on Tuesday, and I hope that 

you were able to submit written comments. 

But we have to at some point cut this 

off. It's been a very long day. And I appreciate 

the Board members for sitting in all this and asking 

great questions. And I appreciate the 

stakeholders for all the great comments. It 

really does help to inform us on the board, and 

I know you caught our ear on many things.

And we will start again next week, next 

Wednesday, for the full public meeting where the 

Board will have to digest all these comments and 

come to our own conclusions as will, of course, 

be public deliberations. And I do want to remind 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

people about the sanitizer panel that will be in 

November as well.

So, once again, this concludes today's 

public comment webinar. We do appreciate all your 

thoughts and thank you and hope you have a great 

afternoon and evening.

Michelle, do you have anything else? 

I'm not hearing anything. So we'll see you all 

next Wednesday. Go ahead, Michelle.

MS. ARSENAULT: I was just going to say 

thank you, everyone. Thanks, Steve. And thanks 

to the entire Board and everyone who listened in 

today. And we'll see you guys on Wednesday at noon 

Eastern.

MR. ELA: Take care, everybody.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 5:39 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + + +

FALL 2020 MEETING

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY

OCTOBER 28, 2020

+ + + + +

The Board met via videoconference at 

12:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Steve Ela, Chair, 

presiding.

PRESENT

STEVE ELA, Chair

SCOTT RICE, Vice Chair

JESSE BUIE, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

JERRY D'Amore

RICK GREENWOOD

KIM HUSEMAN

MINDEE JEFFERY

DAVE MORTENSEN

EMILY OAKLEY

NATE POWELL-PALM

A-DAE ROMERO-BRIONES

DAN SEITZ

WOOD TURNER
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ALSO PRESENT

DR. JENNIFER TUCKER, Deputy Administrator, 

National Organic Program; 

Designated Federal Official

DAVID GLASGOW, Associate Deputy Administrator, 

National Organic Program

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, Advisory Committee 

Specialist, Standards Division

LEA-ANN BIGELOW, Director, Interagency 

Collaboration, Customs and Border 

Protection Office of Trade

JARED CLARK, National List Manager, Standards 

Division

SHANNON NALLY YANESSA, Director, Standards 

Division

DEVON PATTILLO, Agricultural Marketing 

Specialist, Standards Division

BETSY RAKOLA, Director, Compliance and 

Enforcement Division

JONATHAN VELEY, Director, Agricultural Marketing 

Service Trade Systems Division
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CONTENTS

Call to Order, Agenda Overview,

Introductions ................................. 4

Secretary=s report ........................... 13

NOSB report .................................. 14

National Organic Program Update .............. 23

Livestock Subcommittee

Topics: Proposal: Fenbendazole

- petitioned ................................ 110

2022 Sunset substances reviews:

Butorphanol ................................. 129

Flunixin .................................... 135

Magnesium hydroxide ......................... 138

Poloxalene .................................. 142

Formic acid ................................. 149

EPA List 4 - Inerts of Minimal Concern ...... 151

Excipients .................................. 188

Strychnine .................................. 195

Policy Development Subcommittee

Topics:

Discussion Document: Consent

Calendar Voting ............................. 198

Compliance, Accreditation, & Certification

Subcommittee

Topics:

Discussion Document: Human Capital

Management .................................. 209
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

 12:05 

a.m.

MS. ARSENAULT: Welcome, everyone, the 

National Organic Standards Board, day one of the 

public meeting. If you're on line and you're 

having audio issues, there are phone numbers for 

-- on the screen. You can always call in on the 

phone instead of using your computer.

Attendees are going to be in 

listen-only mode. So you should not be using your 

microphone or camera. If you have technical 

issues you can use the chat button. So if you hover 

over your Zoom screen down in the -- in the middle 

at the bottom you should see a chat feature. 

So feel free to chat in if you have 

questions or trouble hearing. That would be good 

for me to know. And I am going to turn it over 

to Jenny Tucker, the division -- the NOP deputy 

administrator, to officially start the NOSB 

meeting. Thank you.

DR. TUCKER: Thanks so much, Michelle.

Hello, everyone, and thank you so much 
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for joining us today. I am Jennifer Tucker, deputy 

administrator of the National Organic Program, 

part of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service, or 

AMS. 

This session continues our fall 2020 

National Organic Standards Board meeting, which 

started last week with two online public comment 

sessions. Meeting access information for all 

meeting segments is posted on the NOSB meeting page 

on the USDA website.

We are recording and transcripts for 

all sessions will be posted once completed. I'm 

serving as USDA's designated federal officer for 

this meeting. 

This meeting, like all other meetings 

of the National Organic Standards Board, will be 

run based on the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

and the board's policy and procedures manual. 

Steve Ela, the board chair, will be 

introducing board members in a few minutes. Right 

now, I'd like to briefly introduce and thank key 

National Organic Program team members.

First, Michelle Arsenault, our 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

advisory board specialist. I've been incredibly 

lucky to work with Michelle for almost eight years 

now. She supports the board every day and in every 

way, and I know that many of you in the community 

have called upon her for help as well. So 

Michelle, thank you. 

We're going to give a Zoom applause, 

so wave both hands up to the camera and that is 

how we applaud. So big applause for Michelle. 

Thank you for all that you do.

Next, I want to both introduce and thank 

Jared Clark. He is our new national list manager. 

So Jared, if you're not on camera, go on camera 

and wave. 

He has been a tremendous addition to 

our team over the last several months.

Devon Pattillo, our agricultural 

marketing specialist, has been wearing several 

hats over the past few months, including helping 

Jared to get up to speed with us and supporting 

many projects.

So, Devon, you continue to be amazing. 

Thank you very, very much.
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And then we should have Shannon Nally 

Yanessa on the line. She is our standards division 

director. I want to thank her very much. And then 

we also have online Betsy Rakola, our compliance 

and enforcement director, who'll be speaking with 

you later, and John Veley, who is our trade systems 

director.

So let's give a big applause for all 

of the NOP staff. They've worked very hard to 

bring us all together here today.

And so now let's take a quick look at 

our agenda. We're going to be meeting from 12:00 

to 5:00 Eastern today, tomorrow, and Friday with 

an hour break in the middle of each day. 

There will also be a sanitizers webinar 

in November. And so today's agenda will mirror 

our standard format that we would use if we were 

face to face. The board chair will get us started 

and then we'll have some time for an NOP update. 

So as a preview from what you're going to 

hear from me, you're going to hear from Betsy 

Rakola, and then we have a special guest from 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Customs and Border Protection who will give you 

an update today.

Then we'll take a break and then we will 

move into the subcommittee work after that break. 

Okay.

And now I want to thank the National 

Organic Standards Board. You are all amazing 

people, bringing diverse experiences and views to 

our world (audio interference) together to virtual 

meetings and we -- as we all respond to 

site-specific circumstances here, so to speak, and 

so I thank them very, very much. 

I want to particularly acknowledge our 

five board members who are beginning their last 

meeting of the term. So, normally, we would give 

them a big hug. 

But since we can't do that, we're going 

to applaud for Jesse Buie, Emily Oakey, Dan Seitz, 

A-dae Romero-Briones, and Scott Rice. So thank 

you so much for your service.

And now I want to give a particularly 

special thank you to Steve Ela, the chair of the 

board and of this meeting. Let's signal our round 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of applause in advance for a great meeting and now, 

Steve, I turn it over to you.

MS. ARSENAULT: Steve lost his video 

momentarily. I've asked him to unmute. Steve, 

looks like your line is muted at the moment.

(Pause.)

MS. ARSENAULT: I think we may have --

oh, no, there he is.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Now can you hear 

me?

MS. ARSENAULT: Now we can hear you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. We'll just keep 

punching *6 until it comes up.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: Well, welcome, 

everybody. My video dropped off but, obviously, 

I'm on the phone here and I'll soon get my video 

back. But I, first of all, really want to thank 

the NOP staff for everything they're doing, 

especially on these Zoom calls but always even in 

public meetings there's a tremendous amount of work 

that they do in the background that we don't see 

or you don't see. 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But their support is hugely, hugely 

helpful to making all this happen. So thank you, 

Jenny and Devon and Jared, Michelle, Shannon, all 

the others that are making this happen.

I do want to introduce the board 

members, but before I introduce the sitting board 

members we will be welcoming five new board members 

come January and I'd like to recognize them, and 

I'm sure I'm going to -- I'm going to learn to 

pronounce names here later on.

But Amy Bruch, Logan Petrey, Dr. 

Carolyn Dimitri, Brian Caldwell, and Kyla Smith 

are going to be joining the board. So we look 

forward to having you on and your participation 

and we will certainly miss the five board members 

that are going off the board. But this is a 

wonderful experience for the board to recreate 

itself and for new perspectives to come in.

So now I'd like to introduce the sitting 

board, and if you all could -- as I say your name 

if you could say present because this also serves 

as the roll call.

Sue Baird?
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Sue, are you there?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right.

Asa Bradman?

MR. BRADMAN: Here. 

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse Buie?

MR. BUIE: Present.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry D'Amore?

MR. D'AMORE: Good morning. Here.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I am here, Steve Ela.

Rick Greenwood?

MR. GREENWOOD: Here.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim Houseman?

MS. HUSEMAN: Present.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee Jeffery?

MS. JEFFERY: I'm here.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave Mortensen?

MR. MORTENSEN: Good morning from 

rainy Durham, New Hampshire.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: Has Emily been able to 

get on? Emily Oakley?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes. Present, and I 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

apologize and good morning from rainy Oklahoma.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Well, you don't need to 

apologize because I'm in the middle of trying to 

get back on as well. 

So Nate Powell-Palm?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Present.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott Rice?

MR. RICE: Present.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae Romero-Briones?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Present.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan Seitz?

MR. SEITZ: Here.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And Wood Turner?

MR. TURNER: Dreaming of rain in 

California. I'm here.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Excellent. Well, it 

looks like we have everybody present. So very, 

very glad to see that and, like I say, I will get 

on as soon as I can here. 

With that, I am going to turn it over 

to Jesse Buie to give the secretary's report.

MR. BUIE: Okay. NOSB members, do you 

accept the meeting minutes from the April 2020 NOSB 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

meeting as written and are there any corrections? 

CHAIRMAN ELA: And since I can't see 

people's hands right now, please jump in and say 

if there's any corrections.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Hearing 

none --

MR. BUIE: Okay. The minutes are 

accepted.

CHAIRMAN ELA: That sounds great. 

Thank you very much, Jesse, and we appreciate your 

multiple times as secretary.

Next, I'd like to move into the chair 

report and NOSB update. Today, and I'm sorry, 

again, you can't see me and I won't be able to juggle 

my computer as we -- as I talk but I'll get on 

shortly.

I want to -- I do want to talk about 

three things from the NOSB chair perspective. I 

want to talk about our board culture, our 

leadership on larger topics and also making the 

most of public comments and resources.

So to jump in, again, I'd like to 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

welcome our five new board members and express my 

thanks to the five board members that are going 

off. 

It's very hard to believe that you five 

are only a year ahead of us because the leadership 

and mentorship you provided to my class was 

stunning and exceedingly helpful in helping us come 

-- get to know the board and know the board 

procedures. 

Also, it's -- you know, I heard one 

commenter on the public comments talk about how 

we should always keep the meetings virtual so that 

more people can participate and we can save the 

-- our carbon footprint from a number of flights.

And I understand that and agree with 

that on a certain extent, but I also -- I think 

this meeting especially we're really starting to 

feel some of the board culture deficits and mostly 

just I think it is so important for board members 

to get to know each other on a personal level as 

well as on a professional level, and I think we'd 

like to have some esprit de corps on the board and 

really kind of know where everybody is coming from 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and I think that happens very much when we have 

in-person meetings.

And the same as well for interactions 

of stakeholders. We have recognized that not all 

stakeholders can attend the in-person meeting. 

But I think it's very important as well 

for us to interact in person because it does give 

context to all the work we're doing and how we can 

move organic forward.

So I'm hoping that by spring we might 

be able to meet in person. We'll see how that plays 

out and I hope especially that we can have an 

in-person meeting to train our new board members 

that are coming on that there's a lot to learn in 

a short period of time and that in-person training, 

I think, is immensely helpful. So we'll keep our 

fingers crossed. But I do want to thank the 

community for the participation we have even on 

a virtual meeting.

The next thing, I think, that I really 

struggle with on a number of materials that are 

bigger concept materials -- I'll just point out 

marine materials specifically -- but our 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

stakeholders and our -- and part of our mandate 

for the NOSB is to look at the bigger issues in 

organic and to provide some guidance as to how the 

program and organic in general should deal with 

some of these larger issues.

Yet, it's also immensely difficult on 

the board to deal with these larger issues partly 

because we only have two hours of calls a month 

and partly because these bigger issues are 

inherently divisive to the community. 

There's a wide range of opinions of how 

we should deal with certain topics and, as such, 

it's very hard to come to consensus and it's very 

hard to find a middle ground. And so I think we 

really need to look at, as an organic community, 

how we can ask the board to deal with these larger 

issues, find some kind of middle ground, and not 

-- and accept that middle ground even though both 

sides might be unhappy. 

I think we need to talk more about this 

because I've seen a number of these thorny issues 

come up and they get derailed by one side or the 

other not being happy with the outcome and I think 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that's, certainly, the prerogative of our 

stakeholders to not be happy with the outcome. 

I think polite debate is essential to 

how we move organic forward. But I also think we 

need to consider how we can take those more thorny 

and contentious issues and actually come to a 

resolution that as an organic community we can --

we can move them forward.

I also recognize the dilemma, and this 

is something I've realized more as I've been on 

the board, that when we pass something off to the 

program, especially on these bigger topics, when 

the program has to go through guidance or 

rulemaking that's a very difficult process, and 

I had not -- prior to this I had not realized the 

level of scrutiny that those rules get from 

economic inputs to legal inputs to effects on other 

agencies, et cetera, et cetera, and I think when 

we get to more divisive or difficult topics that 

we may not all totally agree on, it makes that 

rulemaking even more difficult. 

So when we look at the stack of things 

that have not been implemented by the National 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Organic Program, some of them truly are frustrating 

and yet others I look at and think how is it possible 

to make a rule on that when it's very likely to 

get the sense as we go to public comments during 

that rulemaking.

So I think that's something else we, 

as an organic community need to think about of how 

we can make some of these decisions on these bigger 

topics that really do govern the shape and the form 

of organic in this country while having to follow 

certain guidelines of rulemaking and coherence 

within the government.

Finally, I'd just like to say -- talk 

a little bit about making the most of comments and 

resources. We did have a number of comments about 

the overlap of strengthening organic enforcement 

and the NOSB comments.

You know, I just want to say that, 

certainly, was not intentional. The SOE comments 

were somewhat at the mercy of publication in the 

Federal Register and when things pop up it was 

unfortunate.

But I do want to thank Jenny for at least 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

trying to, before that was published in the Federal 

Register, putting the document out there on a 

webinar so that people could start to think about 

it before it was published.

But I do understand the time 

constraints and the bandwidth of our stakeholders 

and trying to reply to both of those documents at 

once, and it was an unfortunate coincidence. 

But we appreciate all of you really 

working to make comments on both things, and I have 

to say a number of the comments this time for the 

NOSB docket were very compelling and stunning, and 

thank you for all your hard work.

And, finally, I just want to finish up. 

We did have several comments on the sanitizer 

panel being outside of the main meeting. 

I'm not sure where those comments come 

from because in the past we have also done, for 

example, a discussion call on hydroponics that was 

outside the main meeting, and I think part of our 

judgment in moving that sanitizer panel to its own 

date was really so we could give that panel its 

due diligence. 
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

If we put it in as part of these next 

three days then we feel time constraints in order 

to get through the whole docket whereas putting 

it on its own day really gives us more time to 

utilize those panelists and allow the board to 

query and ask questions and debate and make the 

most of those three people's time. 

So I hope everybody can attend that 

sanitizer panel. I'm really looking forward to 

it. We have had a number of people over time and 

many, many comments saying we need to take a 

cohesive look at sanitizes in general and that's 

a very difficult task that I hope the sanitizer 

panel will start us down that road.

One last thing. In terms of virtual 

meeting and in terms of how the board will vote, 

on our first vote we are going to go alphabetically 

just to keep things straight.

So on the first vote we will start will 

Sue Baird and go alphabetically through the board. 

On the second vote, we will start with Asa Bradman. 

We'll move one alphabetical letter down 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and continue moving one person down each time we 

vote so that a new person starts the vote each time. 

And I will call the vote. I will call 

people's names off and they will have to give an 

oral vote yes, no, abstain, refuse.

Also, in terms of kind of the run of 

the meeting because I'm the one that can see people 

raise their hands, once we get to a discussion part 

of each topic, I will call on people in order that 

I see the raised hands to have the board discussion. 

If I can't see somebody's hand I'd urge 

that board member to jump in, at least let me know 

that you are wanting to give a comment. So with 

that, are there any questions from the board? And 

you will have to say them orally because I can't 

see the raised hands function at this point.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Well, thank 

you again for the board to make this time and, 

again, for all the time you have put in before this 

on phone calls and discussions. 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This last -- the spring meeting we did 

have just one vote and that turned out to be --

send something back to the subcommittee. This is 

a much different meeting in terms of the number 

of votes. I think last we counted there were 

50-some votes. 

So it will keep us on our toes, it will 

keep us awake, and I hope we can have some fun at 

the same time while we go into some deep discussion.

With that, I would like to hand the mic 

back off to Deputy Administrator Jenny Tucker, who 

will give the NOP report and introduce some other 

people as well.

So, Jenny, please go ahead.

DR. TUCKER: Thank you, Steve, so, so 

much and thank you for that very, very thoughtful 

statement. I have genuinely appreciated our 

ability to talk instructively and candidly about 

these issues. 

So thank you for your ongoing work to 

build that partnership and that collaborative 

relationship between the program and the board. 

So a sincere thank you.
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

My update here will be actually quite 

short. There is a recorded update in the Learning 

Center that is quite a bit longer and gives you 

the full range of what's happening with the 

program. 

But I wanted to give a lot of time and 

space for other voices here today. So I'm going 

to kick us off with a few slides and updates, and 

then I'm going to turn it to Betsy Rakola for a 

compliance and enforcement update. And then we're 

going to pause for some questions from the board 

and then we will turn to our guests, and I'll come 

back and introduce our guests when we get there. 

So it's a little bit of a roadmap for the next 

half hour, hour or so. And so next slide, Devon.

And so teaser, if you have not been in 

the Organic Integrity Learning Center recently you 

can now self-enroll. So you can sign up for your 

own account in the Learning Center. 

It is, indeed, free and there is also 

a mechanism that if you have lost your password 

you can recover your password. If you go to the 

course called NOP Presentations you will see the 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

NOP update, and as we did in the spring different 

NOP team members are presenting on each topic. 

It's somewhere between 35 and 40 

minutes or so. So if you haven't had a chance to 

look at that before the meeting, please go ahead 

and do, though that's a longer presentation here 

today. 

So next. I wanted to say a word about, 

again, the unique circumstances that we find 

ourselves in and I wanted to emphasize again that 

organic control systems are remaining resilient 

and strong, clearly, shifting dynamics over time 

as the situation unfolds. 

But I wanted to acknowledge all the work 

that is continuing to happen out there in the world. 

And so the upper right picture here is CCPB in 

Italy, and so they apparently are back in the office 

with masks on. 

And I love the fact that the adverse 

action process map is on the wall behind them and 

so that helps make sure that we take adverse actions 

in a way that respects due process while also 

ensuring fair fast enforcement. 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So thanks to them for sending us that 

picture with Exhibit A in the background. And we 

do have inspections that are continuing on the 

ground. Certifiers have found a number of ways 

to continue to ensure compliance throughout this 

period. 

So I want to say a huge shout-out and 

thank you to all the certifiers and to all the 

certified organic operations out there who are 

continuing to protect organic integrity during 

these times.

Next slide. All right. I would like 

to now give an update on origin of livestock, and 

so here's where we are with origin of livestock. 

This has been a longstanding area of interest and 

of controversy for the organic industry, and I want 

to say this continues to be a program priority. 

Continues to be a program priority.

There is broad support for a final rule 

in the organic community and the topic involves 

a complex set of variables and legal questions. 

Public comments over the time have also shown that 

there are different perspectives and 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

interdependencies between specific rule 

provisions. 

And so (audio interference) and the 

organic community had been expecting a final rule 

this summer, as had we, and we have felt very 

confident that we could meet those expectations. 

And so when we met in the spring, I told you that 

the rule was in legal review at that time.

So as we drafted the final rule and the 

final rule went into review, specific legal 

questions and complexities became clear and the 

review of the final rule raised some concerns that 

could jeopardize the agency's position. And so 

USDA needs to address those legal questions and 

concerns in a way that will truly address industry 

goals for the long term.

After many, many years of working on 

this rule, we all want the same thing: an 

enforceable rule that will stand up in court. 

Lawsuits are a reality that we must consider, and 

so any final rule must be developed in a way that 

is consistent with the law. So we have considered 

a number of options and have decided to develop 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a second proposed rule for public comment. A 

second proposed rule for public comment.

This will allow us to propose specific 

provisions that we believe, based on agency 

experience, will make the rule more enforceable 

and that will provide the -- will allow the public 

to provide input on changes that have been thought 

of since the 2015 proposed rule.

And so here are three examples of issues 

that have arisen since the proposed rule comment 

period in 2015 and the reopening of the comment 

period in 2019.

One relates to the regulatory unit, and 

so the 2015 proposed rule proposed the regulatory 

entity or unit be at the person level. But this 

is really inconsistent with how the other NOP 

organic certification requirements work, which are 

at an operation level. And so that was going to 

make enforcement more complicated and not 

consistent with other scopes.

Another complex issue has to do with 

animal movement, so regulating the movement of 

transitioned cows, and then a final issue relates 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to whether the regulation falls within the 

authority provided in the Organic Foods Production 

Act.

So those are the issues that have come 

up during this period. So based on these issues, 

we are writing a second proposed rule right now, 

okay, and USDA has strong support for that path. 

Once written, the rule will, again, 

enter USDA clearance. Again, it begins with a 

review by the Office of General Counsel. I can't 

right now commit to a specific time frame. 

However, this, alongside strengthening organic 

enforcement, continues to be one of our highest 

priorities. 

So, Devon, next slide.

I want to give a sneak preview of our 

FY 2021 goals. We go into more depth in our 

recorded presentation. We just started a new 

fiscal year here in the federal government and so 

we have just started fiscal year 2021, and so our 

goals remain consistent with past years. 

We have reoriented them a bit. 

Previously, strong organic control systems and 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

supply chain traceability were two separate goals. 

We have made such progress in those areas that 

those goals are now pretty much indistinguishable. 

And so our four goals are strong organic 

control systems, robust enforcement, developing 

the standards, and engaging partners and 

stakeholders. 

So in the first, on strong organic 

control systems, accreditation oversight, import 

certificates or fee priorities, compliance and 

enforcement, Betsy's going to be talking about 

robust enforcement, the work we have been doing 

on berry imports. 

I'm thinking a more tiered approach to 

complaint management. With respect to standards, 

strengthening organic enforcement, origin of 

livestock, and the ongoing conversation about list 

three and four are important elements of that goal.

And then finally, engaging partners and 

stakeholders, training and engagement continue to 

be key priorities for the program. And so with 

that, I'm going to now turn it over to Betsy Rakola 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for a more in-depth look at compliance and 

enforcement topics and then we're going to open 

it to questions for the board.

MS. RAKOLA: Thanks. Let me start my 

presentation here. All right. 

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you 

to all of our board members on the NOSB for your 

time today. Just so that I know, can everyone see 

my slides and are you only seeing my slide? Yes. 

Okay. Great. Thank you.

So my name is Betsy Rakola and I direct 

the NOP's compliance and enforcement division. 

I am in my tenth year with the NOP and today I'll 

share some highlights from our recent work as well 

as a preview of our work plan for the upcoming year.

So I've highlighted three areas here 

that broadly define our compliance and enforcement 

work. We partner with other federal agencies. 

We surveille or monitor high-risk sectors and we 

investigate complaints, the more traditional 

activities that people may think of.

These high-level goals translated into 

four specific goals for fiscal year 2021 related 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to partnership, import supply chains, livestock 

compliance, and complaints operations. I'll 

review each of these areas in turn and in more 

detail over the next few minutes. 

Our first goal is to partner with other 

enforcement agencies. One of the NOP's most vital 

partners is the Office of the Inspector General, 

which is the criminal law enforcement arm of the 

USDA.

OIG agents work closely with federal 

prosecutors at the Department of Justice on 

high-profile cases. Our partnership with 

criminal agents is critical because bad actors will 

always find a way around the rules.

But thanks to our collaborative 

investigations, we have had a major impact in 

stopping fraud. As you may have read in the media 

articles shown here, domestic grain fraud has been 

a significant theme of criminal organic 

investigations during recent years. 

In 2019, the U.S. Attorney publicized 

guilty pleas from five different individuals. The 

fraud charges involved over $140 million in grain 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

fraud and the penalties for these serious crimes 

included multi-million-dollar fines as well as 

prison time. This widely publicized 

investigation is still ongoing. 

As you can see in the article shown 

here, in February 2020 a South Dakota man was also 

arrested on organic fraud charges, in this case 

totaling about $75 million. The NOP had revoked 

this business's organic certificate several years 

earlier. 

Further information on these ongoing 

investigations is kept private until the 

defendants have exercised their right to fair 

treatment through the judicial system. 

Confidentiality requirements are often 

stricter for criminal investigations than they are 

for civil proceedings, and these protections are 

necessary to protect everyone's constitutional 

right to due process.

The NOP and the OIG have sought ways 

to build each other's capacity for conducting

specialized organic fraud investigations. The 

photos shown here is from one of several joint 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

training activities which deepened this 

partnership. 

In 2019, the NOP delivered a multi-day 

training for many OIG agents and in 2020 the OIG 

agents then trained our certifiers. Each arrest 

that is made in these high-profile cases serve as 

an important deterrent to these bad actors.

The NOP also partners with numerous 

other federal agencies both within and beyond the 

Department of Agriculture. The slide here shows 

a short list of our key partners, each of whom 

collaborates with us on unique compliance issues. 

It's these many hands that make our enforcement 

work a success.

I want to shift now to our second goal 

on import surveillance. Thanks to the addition 

of Ph.D. economists to the NOP team, risk-based 

surveillance of organic imports is now a regular 

part of our core work.

We have committed to conducting at 

least three region-focused surveillance actions 

over the coming year where we (audio interference) 

to evaluate their organic integrity.
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Import surveillance involves analyses 

of long and complex supply chains. This graphic 

shows a potential shipping path for a vessel of 

grain originating in the Black Sea region, passing 

through Turkey, and finally traveling all the way 

to the U.S. Pacific Northwest. 

The NOP uses a number of different data 

tools and market experts to identify indicators 

of fraud. We use these indicators to identify key 

suppliers independent of the complaints process.

Our surveillance work is informed by 

trade data to ensure that NOP is analyzing 

suppliers who have a notable impact on the U.S. 

markets. When selecting complex supply chains for 

review, we must make sure that we are using our 

resources widely. Over the last few years, we have 

transformed data analysis from a new initiative 

to a standardized tool for evaluating organic 

production. 

If we see sudden changes, such as the 

chart here showing steep increases of soybean 

imports from India, we use those indicators to open 

new surveillance activity.
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Through close cooperation with our 

trading partners this summer, the NOP was able to 

identify and stop imports of nonorganic soybeans 

from India in just a matter of weeks. This is 

another example where many hands strengthened 

organic integrity and those investigations are 

ongoing.

Another critical data tool is yield 

analysis. The NOP is using crop yields and 

agronomic data to evaluate a key question: were 

there were enough organic acres to grow what a given 

farm sold as organic? 

This is a seemingly simple question but 

it's a complex one to answer, and this type of 

evaluation is critical to validating organic 

harvest abroad as well as here at home.

Now I'd like to shift to our third goal 

on livestock compliance. NOP is expanding what 

was formerly known as our Pasture Surveillance 

Program to encompass more of the livestock supply 

chain. 

This is another new initiative that has 

become part of our core operational work. We will 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

continue our boots-on-the-ground program over the 

coming year and we will also complement those 

onsite observations with new technology tools such 

as aerial imagery.

So what is our livestock organic 

compliance program? Since 2018, the NOP has 

conducted unannounced onsite visits to organic 

dairies and livestock operations. The main goal 

has been to evaluate compliance with the organic 

pasture and grazing standard. 

In the coming year we expect to review 

more live cattle sales facilities to ensure organic 

integrity. This program uses highly trained 

federal livestock auditors and a range of 

risk-based selection criteria to give the NOP a 

snapshot of organic dairy compliance all across 

the country.

Our 2019 livestock compliance program 

covered the states highlighted in green on the map 

that you see here. We found most dairies to be 

in compliance and all dairies we visited were 

grazing at or above the 120-day minimum requirement 

for grazing on pasture.
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Where we found evidence of 

noncompliance we took action. This resulted in 

noncompliance for certifiers, surrenders of 

certification by two dairies, a proposed 

suspension to another dairy, and a settlement 

agreement with one certifier.

Our surveillance activities did 

confirm some inconsistencies. So the NOP has 

launched a robust dairy compliance training in our 

online Learning Center. We expect that every 

certifier who oversees dairies will complete that 

training.

We are currently nearing the end of our 

2020 surveillance season, which we kicked off with 

a multi-day training in the state of California 

just before the stay-at-home orders took effect. 

The photo at the bottom of this slide 

shows our training procedures on site. We have 

been fortunate to be able to continue these 

on-the-ground visits.

As you can see from the photo on the 

top, our auditors are taking appropriate safety 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

precautions. As I mentioned before, livestock 

sales activity is an increasing concern and this 

is another area where NOP is partnering with other 

federal agencies. 

Our main policy focus for surveillance 

this year was assessing temporary confinement of 

ruminant dairy cows to ensure compliance with the 

regulation. 

This is an area where some certifies 

were allowing flexibility or management practices 

that were not practices allowed by the organic 

regulations. Certifiers are receiving 

noncompliances for these approvals because 

allowing noncompliant practices results in unfair 

competition. We are working to restore a level 

playing field for all organic dairies.

Finally, I want to share an update on 

our fourth goal regarding our complaints and 

inquiries work, which is the bread and butter of 

compliance and enforcement. 

Our goals here relate to timely 

investigations where we have committed to closing 

75 percent of new complaints and inquiries within 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

one year of receipt. 

Complaints to the NOP continue to 

provide critical insights into market actors and 

we continue to review each complaint that is 

submitted to determine the best course of action.

The NOP has invested heavily in 

reducing our complaints backlog and I am proud of 

our progress on fast fair enforcement. Over the 

last two years we reduced our open case load by 

one-third and we also reduced our backlog of older 

complaints by two-thirds. 

Again, thanks to funding from the most 

recent farm bill, we have been able to hire 

additional staff to close simple complaints 

quickly while still investing in those complex 

investigations that take more time.

This slide shows a snapshot of our 

complaints and our inquiries. As the market 

grows, so too does the volume of our incoming 

complaints. 

So viewing these complaints through a 

risk-based lens is critical to our success. We 

are able to resolve 40 percent of our 750 incoming 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

complaints and inquiries just by providing 

educational information to our customers. 

This is a big shift that has saved us 

from investigating businesses that show no 

evidence of noncompliant behavior. It also gives 

us the opportunity to educate consumers about 

organic labels as well as resources like the 

organic integrity database.

For the remaining 60 percent of 

complaints, we open a traditional investigation 

to find out whether someone broke the organic 

rules. I'm pleased to say that three out of four 

cases end with voluntary compliance or with a 

finding that no one did break the organic rule.

As you may have seen in this pie chart 

from our quarterly enforcement dashboard, most of 

our investigations end when farms and businesses 

comply with the organic rule. Compliance is our 

goal and when the NOP communicates with farms and 

businesses, most of them do the right thing. 

Many investigations also conclude that 

while the initial allegations did raise concerns, 

the final evidence did not show any violations of 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the organic rule. 

While sometimes the investigations 

help us to verify compliance by certified 

operations, we try to minimize time spent 

investigating complaints with no violations. 

Our other typical closing actions 

include various administrative actions such as 

written warnings or complaints for hearing with 

an administrative law judge, as well as the other 

outcomes you see listed here. 

We continue to rely on the California 

state organic program and our foreign trading 

partners to investigate complaints in their 

geographic areas.

When we have the evidence to support 

enforcement actions, we use a variety of tools to 

levy penalties, establish settlement agreements, 

and in rare cases refer bad actors for criminal 

investigation. 

This figure shows the investigative 

trends at the NOP over the last 10 years. In 2017, 

NOP began applying that risk-based approach that 

I mentioned to separate our incoming inquiries from 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

substantiated complaints. 

This has sped up our investigative work 

on cases that have a larger impact and has also 

created the space for those kinds of data-driven 

surveillance work I mentioned earlier in this 

presentation. 

Again, with the additional resources 

provided by the most recent farm bill, we are now 

resolving more complaints than we receive each 

year.

The pie chart here sheds a little light 

on those inquiries that the NOP did not accept for 

investigation. Many of those inquiries are just 

questions. 

A common example would be a complaint 

where a person thinks that a product is 

noncompliant because it says organic but doesn't 

display that USDA seal. We resolve those sorts 

of complaints with educational information about 

what is required versus optional on organic labels.

In rare cases our customers do respond 

to us with additional evidence to explain that 

original inquiry. When that happens, if we can 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

then substantiate that inquiry we will open an 

investigation and instead treat the inquiry as a 

traditional complaint.

The final thing I'd like to share with 

you today is the launch of our online complaint 

filing form. Complaints from consumers, 

competitors, and certifiers will always provide 

vital information to the NOP and we want to make 

the complaint filing process clear and as easy as 

possible. 

Last winter, we launched an online 

complaint filing form, which has been a big 

success. While this online form has streamlined 

the process for both the NOP and our customers, 

I want to assure everyone that we will always accept 

complaints by email, phone, or postal mail. Our 

goal is to remain transparent and accessible to 

our stakeholders.

So that is the end of my presentation. 

It's always a pleasure to have an opportunity to 

spend time with the NOSB. And with that, I will 

turn it back to Chairperson Steve Ela to facilitate 

the next item on the agenda.
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you very much, 

Betsy. I do appreciate it, and it's always -- it's 

fascinating to see what you're doing for 

enforcement. 

So we appreciate your efforts because 

I know -- I don't know how many times we heard about 

this in the -- you know, in the -- when I first 

came on the board about what we needed to do for 

enforcement.

So with that, I will open it up to the 

board to ask questions of Jenny or Betsy. Do 

people have questions? If you do, go ahead and 

raise your hand. I think I have -- I have vision 

again.

So, Emily, please go ahead.

MS. OAKLEY: Thanks, Steve. This is 

a question for Jenny regarding the survey results 

from ACA, Organic Farmers Association and the 

National Organic Coalition, regarding differing 

interpretations and application of the three-year 

transition period in greenhouses, hydroponics, and 

poultry operations, and I think the results kind 

of gave us some of the data that we had at least 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

received anecdotally through public comments in 

the past and gave us some numbers to show where 

there is inconsistency. 

And I know that the NOP already said 

that they would be taking this up and looking at 

it but is there a specific way that the NOSB can 

help further this topic and, particularly, getting 

consistency and interpretation of that three-year 

transition period. So thank you.

DR. TUCKER: Thank you very much, 

Emily. It's good to see you, and Steve, good to 

see you on camera now. Glad you were able to add 

the visual to the audio visual there. 

So I want to thank everybody who 

participated in the survey and the group that put 

the survey together, and so I know that anytime 

you're doing something like that and trying to get 

responses from all those certifiers it's a heavy 

lift. So a big thank you to the -- to the groups 

that spearheaded that and made it happen. 

And so I think it also -- for me, it 

was a really good reminder of what a nice 

partnership has been built over time between these 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organizations. We meet very regularly now with 

the Accredited Certifiers Association. 

We have had a lot of great conversations 

about areas where inconsistency site-specific 

conditions, that it can be hard to kind of parse 

out what is a topic of site-specific conditions 

versus what is an overarching inconsistency. 

So we very much value the survey. I 

appreciate everyone who participated in that and 

we'll review that carefully.

At this point in the game, we know that, 

you know, hydroponics and containers and 

greenhouses they're all very much connected. 

There is a lawsuit underway right now related to 

hydroponics and so while that is in the court system 

we're going to see what happens with that. 

And so once that makes its way through 

the court system, so a part of the NOP -- civics 

of NOP as the judicial branch has an important role 

to play in judging and shaping, sometimes, policy, 

and so we're going to let that play out and then 

that will help guide next steps and how -- what 

that looks like for the program for certifiers and 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

with the board.

So thanks for the question.

MS. OAKLEY: Can we do a quick 

follow-up?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: I definitely appreciate 

and understand the program restraints with regards 

to hydroponics and even some greenhouse areas where 

there, you know, might be -- it might be open to 

interpretation as to hydroponics, as to 

containers, et cetera.

However, the survey did point out 

inconsistencies in areas unrelated to that like, 

you know, growing and a greenhouse or a hoop house 

in the ground or the poultry example, I think, is 

a pretty big one. 

I definitely live in poultry country 

and have seen some of these things as well. So 

I was wondering if there might be room to work on 

some of these less controversial or potentially 

litigated areas now before that litigation process 

goes through because that could take a long time 

and some of these areas could, potentially, get 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

clarity sooner.

DR. TUCKER: I'm open to those ideas. 

We'd like to take a bit more time with the survey 

and so that's a fairly recent deliverable and so 

we'd like to review that. 

And I believe that the work agenda 

process with the board has been working really, 

really nicely in the past few years in terms of 

the sort of framing out what is the advice that 

we are seeking related to the standards.

And so that has been a collaborative 

process, I believe, with the board and I could 

certainly see that process playing out here. We 

need a bit more time to review the results of the 

survey.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there other 

questions from the board?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: I have one myself for 

Betsy and, I guess, you as well, Jenny. What --

in terms of enforcement, I know the CACS 

subcommittee spent quite a bit of time under 

Scott's leadership when I first came on the board 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

about dealing with enforcement and that was 

especially at the height when we were hearing about 

ships coming in to port and lots of imports and 

such.

Is there anything -- what can the NOSB 

do to support you or, I mean, is this pretty much 

a program level thing at this point where the NOSB 

has passed on some of those things to you or there 

are things that the NOSB needs to do to continue 

to support you in that enforcement?

DR. TUCKER: Yeah, I'll respond first.

Then if Betsy wants to jump in.

I think the work that the board did in 

response to the imports agenda item a few years 

ago, we had asked the board to consider import 

oversight as an agenda item. 

That led to a very insightful panel and 

discussion document, which I think did inform 

strengthening organic enforcement as that 

unfolded.

So a lot of enforcement really does have 

to happen within sort of the federal family, so 

to speak. So there are many hands within the 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

federal government that are supporting that 

effort. 

But a lot of it does stay kind of behind 

the curtain. So I think that strengthening 

organic enforcement will be a very significant 

initiative and there are going to be probably lots 

of questions that come from that and so the devil 

will be in the details with respect to certifier 

consistency, which we all value. 

And so I have no doubt that that will 

lead to more conversations with the board, moving 

ahead. You know, our work is never done here. 

Our work is never done, and so there 

will continue to be bad guys who will continue to 

find ways to try and cheat the system and we will 

continue to find ways to protect the farmers 

playing by the rules. And so this will continue 

to be a work in progress and the board is an 

important part of that conversation.

Betsy, anything you want to add?

MS. RAKOLA: No, I'd just say sort of 

previewing what you'll be hearing shortly from Lea 

Bigelow from Customs and Border Protection, we are 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

doing a lot of work within the federal family and 

that is an area where by having these new 

partnerships we have been able to explore and 

develop a lot of new tools. 

The more we partner and the more serious 

the issues get, the more they are held confidential 

and so that does sort of challenge the ability to 

collaborate with the NOSB on some of these issues. 

But I have enjoyed seeing how rapidly 

the work has evolved and how rapidly new 

opportunities and solutions have come available 

the more that we continue to partner with other 

federal agencies on these extraordinarily complex 

import oversight topics.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you very much.

Looks like Scott has a question. 

MR. RICE: Thanks to both of you for 

those presentations. I wanted to circle back to 

you, Jenny, on the Organic Integrity Learning 

Center.

I think there's been a lot of great work 

done on that, clearly, and in reviewing all the 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

comments for the Human Capital document, which 

we'll get to a little later, a lot of folks pointed 

to the Learning Center as a great resource.

Among those comments, folks were 

interested in seeing that be a resource not just 

limited to the certification community but to 

potentially universities or technical colleges, 

kind of giving folks an idea of what certification 

looks like as a potential career and I want to just 

clarify access to that and also acknowledge that 

there are some things that are probably better 

suited not open to everyone.

I know that's kind of hard sometimes 

when you're generating content of public dollars. 

But just wanted to clarify who's able to access 

that.

DR. TUCKER: Yeah, what a great 

question. I appreciate that, Scott.

The Organic Integrity Learning Center 

has -- it's still kind of young, right. We're in 

our second year of it and I think there are a lot 

of possibilities for the future that blend well 

with the Human Capital Initiative that we just 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

haven't explored yet. 

So right now, anyone can get an account 

on the Organic Integrity Learning Center and anyone 

can access any course with one exception. That 

we did serve as a pilot test we have established 

a special course for NOP auditors that only NOP 

is allowed to view.

You know, originally, when we set up 

the Learning Center we did contemplate a kind of 

a different audience kind of segmentation where 

there would be courses that only certifiers can 

take, and we may go there. We may end up having 

specific courses that only certification staff or 

inspectors can take. 

There are lots of logistics on how to 

go about doing that. I also think there is a role 

for pointing to other resources and highlighting 

potential career paths through the Learning 

Center. 

So that was something that we had 

envisioned early on that we just haven't done yet 

and we just haven't gotten there yet. Could we 

have a process for reviewing external content and 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

then having it be kind of a placeholder in our 

learning management system that then points to 

another resource but, essentially, says we support 

this training. 

Now, there are all sorts of criteria 

and processes that would have to go into that. 

But I think as we think about career paths and 

learning paths within colleges and universities, 

how do we build those partnerships not only person 

to person but system to system.

We had just launched a couple of food 

fraud, organic fraud, courses that were done in 

cooperative agreement. A university system 

contributed to those courses. 

So I think that's a very early example 

of how this could play out. There's a lot of online 

learning that's happening around the world right 

now and we're all learning a lot in unique time. 

So I'm excited about, Scott, where that 

could go and I don't consider anything off the table 

in how we -- how we think about it with respect 

to both becoming part of a larger ecosystem of 

learning but also thinking are there going to be 
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

times where we really need to deliver to a very

specialized audience.

And we're going to restrict access to 

courses based on that, and I do think that that's 

allowed as long as we explain why certain groups 

are allowed and certain groups aren't.

MR. RICE: Great. Yeah. Thank you. 

I think it's that sensitivity to and perhaps 

that's the motive about sort of limiting the 

accreditation audit side of it and had some 

conversations about, you know, laying out the path 

to fraud in showing how we investigate, for 

instance, and just be mindful.

DR. TUCKER: Yeah, that's sort of the 

downside of openness and transparency. I think 

this is going to continue to be a tension in this 

community and it's one that we might as well get 

out on the table and really talk about is openness 

and transparency are absolute core values in 

organic and we support those, and we got some bad 

guys out there who are more than happy to learn 

from our openness and transparency. And so that 

becomes, I think, is what makes organics so 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

interesting and vibrant over time.

MR. RICE: Great. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yeah, thank you, Jenny. 

It looks like Jesse has a question for you.

MR. BUIE: Yeah, and this is kind of 

for Betsy. During your inspections, have you 

found much noncompliance in the acreage versus 

yield production? And I'm -- I hope I'm 

pronouncing that right, the acreage versus the year 

production rate.

MS. RAKOLA: Yeah, we have found some 

troubling concerns there and I think that we have 

seen certifiers respond nicely over the last couple 

of years to start to pay some more attention to 

the quantitative aspects of certification, which 

I'm helping my seven-year-old with math right now 

and I think yield analysis to them feels like New 

Math feels to me. 

But I think folks have really invested 

a lot in it and we have been also trying to figure 

out, you know, how do we make these tools simpler, 

can we make something that is replicable. 

I know a question we have gotten 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

frequently is, do I have to do this for absolutely 

everyone I certify. We're all trying to make sure 

that certification can be timely and cost 

effective.

And so, again, there's sort of that 

balancing act of, you know, risk-based analysis, 

risk-based certification decision making, making 

sure that we're appropriately thorough to the 

complexity of the size, the impact of the farm, 

while also wanting to make timely decisions.

So I think all of that is moving in the 

right direction. When we did first start taking 

a look at these -- some of these numbers, some of 

them were a little bit alarming. 

There was just simply no way that the 

harvest numbers we were seeing were possible on 

the acreage we were able to identify and may have 

been a little bit of a supportive bias saying, you 

know, organic farmers have been innovative and have 

produced great yields. 

That is true, and we still need to make 

sure that we're reality checking just what a 

particular acre can produce, what we have seen in 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a specific region, and for certifiers that are 

really spreading their geographic reach or 

spreading across a lot of crops, we also need to 

make sure certifiers are asking good questions 

about do I have the capacity to understand this 

region, do I truly understand what is normal in 

this state, in this country, do I have the level 

of familiarity I need to be able to sort of compare 

-- you know, kind of come up out of the organic 

system and look, you know, left and right and make 

sure that the numbers we're seeing for organic 

harvests make sense.

So, again, I think things are moving 

in the right direction and we did -- we did find 

some problems when we first started this work.

MR. BUIE: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Betsy, could I actually 

follow up on that? I know for ourselves, and I'm 

in specialty crops. I don't know how it works in 

the major commodity crops.

But, for example, with crop insurance 

we have to turn in our yields annually and they 

are quite specific on the records to document that. 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

While that's not organic per se, you know, we do 

at this point have to say whether it's organic 

production. 

But is there a way to -- well, and also, 

you know, what we found in this area is the county 

averages are pretty easy to beat if you're -- if 

you're an astute grower. So, I mean, we probably 

doubled that at times or occasionally even tripled 

it.

But is there a way to link at least some 

of that -- those crop insurance numbers for -- at 

least for a county to be able to get kind of a 

realistic sense of what's possible and then 

identify or flag those that go well above that?

MS. RAKOLA: Yeah, I think those are 

kind of exactly the kinds of questions we are 

continuing to ask as we look at all of the available 

data sources and try to make sure that we're 

selecting the right ones, and then also applying 

what do we know, what does the research say, are 

there particular crops where the organic systems 

are historically out--performing conventional 

versus things like our field crops where there may 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

be sort of statistically a yield drag on a global 

scale. 

And so that's why I rely on my Ph.D. 

economists to ask and answer those tough questions. 

We are doing a lot of communicating with the 

various different data agencies that we have here 

in the United States, and then if we're looking 

at some of these questions overseas we're working 

a lot through our agricultural attaches that are 

part of USDA at our embassies all over the world 

and making sure that we are finding best available 

data in those countries as well. 

And we're not stopping with the data. 

We are also trying to work with those market 

experts that I had mentioned to say, all right, 

here's what the numbers tell us. Did we get it 

right or did we get it wrong; what would you say 

from your knowledge on the ground. 

So it's really an iterative learning 

process. We are oftentimes simply asking the 

question and, in response, seeing the farm 

surrender its certification. So the questions 

themselves can be very powerful.
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Looks like Rick has a 

question.

MR. GREENWOOD: A quick question for 

you, Betsy.

Sometimes law enforcement is used as 

a tool between competitors, and I was just curious 

does that ever happen in the organic industry where 

someone puts in a complaint about a competitor? 

Have you run into any of those kinds of issues?

MS. RAKOLA: Sure. I think it's human 

nature. That is certainly something that we see 

from time to time. So it's sort of a double-edged 

sword. 

Often, your competitors will have a 

unique perspective that we, sitting in the National 

Organic Program offices couldn't see, and we need 

to make sure that we are evaluating the interests 

of the person who is filing that complaint and what 

objective they may be trying to achieve. 

So for us, it is all about the evidence. 

So we will take a look at the evidence. If the 

evidence does show noncompliance and does show 

concern, then we would enforce. 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

If the evidence mostly shows a 

competitive self-interest and no evidence of 

noncompliance, then we would not take action. So 

we try to view everything through as neutral a lens 

as we can and make sure that we're putting 

everything in context before we would take any 

enforcement action.

That's a good question, I think.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there any other 

questions for the board?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: I'm not seeing any 

further questions. So thank you so much, Betsy. 

It's always fascinating to hear this -- your side 

of things and I think, as you said, your Ph.D. 

economists. 

The data trail is pretty stunning how 

you worked through that. I'm glad I don't have 

to sit in that cubicle and figure all that out.

But with that, Jenny, I'm going to turn 

it back to you and you can go on with your 

introduction. So but thank you to both of you for 

being open to questions. 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. TUCKER: I want to thank Betsy 

very, very much for being with us today. This is 

sort of one of the benefits of a virtual meeting 

is we can invite all these people to come and talk. 

So, Betsy, thank you for being with us today.

MS. RAKOLA: My pleasure.

DR. TUCKER: And so our next speaker 

is Lea-Ann Bigelow, and I'd like to share -- before 

I share Lea-Ann's bio, I want to tell you why you 

need to know about Lea-Ann, why Lea-Ann is so 

important to everything that we're doing right now 

when it comes to import oversight. So let me tell 

you a little bit about Lea-Ann.

She -- we have really gotten to know 

here through our monthly meetings of our Organic 

Interagency Working Group, and so the farm bill 

required the standup of the Organic Interagency 

Working Group. 

We have been meeting monthly now for 

way more than a year, and Lea-Ann is the 

representative from CBP, leadership 

representative from CBP, and many of her staff also 

attend the meeting. 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But she's a real critical partner with 

us on everything that we're doing in that CBP 

relationship. So I wanted to make sure you knew 

why Lea-Ann is important before I tell you more 

about her.

And so Lea-Ann is a recognized sort of 

strategy and operations expert. She has lots of 

experience in innovation, coalition building and 

leadership in both the federal and the private 

sector. 

So right now, she leads CBP's very broad 

mission to collaborate with more than 50 federal 

agencies who are involved in cross-border trade, 

and so she's very much involved with state, local, 

foreign governments (audio interference) other 

global trade partners working on topics in trade 

policy, trade-facilitating technology, and trade 

security and enforcement. 

And so she leads three major operating 

branches within Customs and Border Protection. 

One is One U.S. Government at the Border, 

affectionately called 1USG, so One U.S. 

Government, Quota and Agriculture, and the 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center, which 

is an interagency fusion center that works to 

reduce illicit trade in unsafe products to protect 

health and safety of consumers while also 

expediting the flow of compliant international 

trade and the entry of imported products that meet 

U.S. standards, and in fact, we now have a staff 

member who is very much engaged with CTAC thanks 

to Lea-Ann's bridge work there.

So in her current role, she also 

administers the Border Interagency Executive 

Council, a very, very important forum where 

different government agencies all come together

to coordinate on issues related to customs, 

transport security, health and safety, sanitary 

requirements, conservation, trade, all sorts of 

agencies with border authority and 

responsibilities to measurably improve supply 

chain processes. 

So Lea-Ann is at the center of a whole 

lot of activity at CBP and has just been a wonderful 

partner. She oversees right now all the agency 

technology enhancements to the automated 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

commercial environment. 

We have talked about that a lot in these 

meetings, the ACE environment, that is the sort 

of system of record by which electronics, trade, 

and financial transactions are overseen by CBP and 

that's where the organic import certificate lives. 

And so tying all that together.

I'm going to now turn it over to Lea-Ann 

to give us her perspective. 

Lea-Ann, so grateful to have you with 

us here today. I know how busy you are. So thank 

you for being part of our journey here.

MS. BIGELOW: Oh, gosh. Thank you. 

Thank you, Dr. Tucker, and incredible to hear you 

say how busy we are. I know how busy you are. 

I think it's mutual.

Can everyone here me? Good. Okay.

So I'm presenting from a very small 

screen so I have my notes on the same page as the 

Zoom meeting where it's a little tricky to balance. 

But esteemed representatives of the 

NOSB, good afternoon. Before I begin, please let 

me say how grateful I am for the opportunity to 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

speak to you today about U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection's commitment to strengthening organic 

imports and strengthening the enforcement of 

organic imports. 

I also want to thank you for your work, 

your work, the board's work, in helping to develop 

and uphold strong, sound, and sustainable U.S. 

organic standards on behalf of global producers 

and consumers.

Last but not least, I must echo and 

share appreciation for Dr. Tucker and her team in 

the National Organics Program. It's been a sheer 

delight partnering with Jenny, Betsy, and Jonathan 

and the entire team to advance the current NOP 

rulemaking import certification and bring to 

fruition the organic agriculture mandates of the 

2018 farm bill.

They're one of the most dynamic 

forward-leaning can-do teams I have the pleasure 

to work with. So thank you very much, Jenny.

And as a proud member of the interagency 

working group on organic imports, as Jenny 

mentioned, I know full well the actions we are 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

taking to modernize organic trade processes to 

ensure full traceability and tracking of imports 

and account for the increasing complexity of the 

organic supply chain are critical ensuring the 

continued growth of the organic sector. They're 

critical to ensuring the safety of consumers and 

protecting the integrity of the USDA organic seal.

In the time I have with you today, I'd 

like to cover a few things: some background on why 

organic agriculture is a trade priority for U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, a glimpse, very 

quick glimpse, into the U.S. Customs operational 

ecosystem, and give you a sense of the progress 

we have made as a result of the interagency working 

group on organics imports. 

Toward the end of my presentation, I'll 

also make some specific asks of the NOSB and we 

would dearly like your help in the coming months 

and years. I think there are ways that we can 

support one another.

I also want to recognize something that 

Betsy had mentioned right off the bat, that while 

CBP, like NOP and NOSB, is committed to full 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

transparency and openness regarding U.S. 

government standards and rules and requirements 

at import, we pride ourselves on our extensive 

public/private sector, engagement mechanisms, and 

the outreach and education we provide to trade to 

foster informed compliance with U.S. import and 

export rules.

But CBP is also a law enforcement agency 

and some of our methods in strengthening organic 

enforcement will and must remain protected as law 

enforcement is sensitive. 

This may pertain to what I'm able to 

share with you in response to questions you may 

have and may shape future presentations to the 

board.

You see, I am already -- I'm already 

asking to come back and share more information with 

you over the coming years.

So next slide, please.

So why is organic agriculture a big deal 

for Customs, for U.S. Customs, and why did it come 

to be a priority?

A little background. The Trade 
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, 

as we like to know it TFTEA, was signed into law 

in February 2016. 

TFTEA was the first comprehensive 

authorization of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection as an agency since the Department of 

Homeland Security was created in 2003.

The overall objective of TFTEA is to 

ensure a fair and competitive trade environment. 

We're all interested in that. Thanks in part to 

TFTEA, CBP has since embraced a renewed approach 

to trade facilitation and enforcement.

This includes seven priority trade 

issues, or PTIs. PTIs represent the highest risk 

areas that can cause significant revenue loss, harm 

the U.S. economy, or threaten the health and safety 

of American people.

These seven PTIs, priority trade 

issues, of which agriculture is one drive 

risk-informed investment in CBP resources and 

enforcement and facilitation efforts including but 

not exclusive to the selection of audit candidates, 

special enforcement operations, outreach, and 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

regulatory initiatives.

TFTEA did not prescribe or otherwise 

delineate why agriculture was included as a PTI. 

But the facts speak for themselves. As you all 

know, U.S. agriculture and related industries are 

a bedrock sector of the U.S. economy, employing 

one in ten of the U.S. population and contributing 

over a trillion, approximately 5 percent -- a 

trillion dollars to U.S. GDP and fiscal 2019 marked 

more than 52 successive years that U.S. agriculture 

has enjoyed a trade surplus, although the surplus 

fell to below 5 percent from double digits in prior 

years.

As you can see from the chart, 

agricultural imports to the U.S. and imports --

imports are the bread and butter of CBP's Office 

of Trade, totaled $131 billion in 2019. 

Of all agricultural subsectors, and 

again, I'm not telling you anything you don't know, 

organics is the fastest growing, increasing in the 

double digits annually, and in fact, I believe 

Jenny shared with me previously that it accounts 

for nearly 5 percent of total U.S. food sales. 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Is that right, Jenny?

So it's critical to U.S. -- the U.S. 

economy and it has a potential for significant 

economic impact and return for the U.S. and can 

help us even the trade playing field.

The 2018 farm bill requires that CBP 

and USDA AMS work in close concert on ensuring 

compliance of organics inputs. 

Partnering with AMS and improving 

organic enforcement standards at the border plays 

extremely well to CBP's strengths, aligns with 

CBP's mission and is well received by key 

stakeholders for both of our agencies. 

So no wonder it's one of our major 

priorities in 2021.

Next slide, please.

MS. ARSENAULT: Lea, you're muted.

MS. BIGELOW: Oh, sorry. I was just 

saying that 2020, with all of its challenges, has 

nevertheless been a very productive year for the 

CBP's partnership with USDA AMS organics program.

In April 2020, the AMS deployed an 

organics certification focused enhancement to the 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

automated commercial environment, or ACE, 

otherwise known as the single window for trade.

The ACE electronics certificate allows 

for automated processing of organics import 

certifications. Links back to AMS's organics 

registration system and supports that product 

integrity and traceability. 

Also beginning in 2020 AMS began 

working in earnest with CBP on joint import 

monitoring, risk assessment, and enforcement via 

the Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center, 

CTAC.

CTAC is an interagency fusion center 

hosted by CBP. We don't run it. It is an 

interagency organization of 12 member agencies and 

growing, so AMS is in addition to those 12 existing 

members, and we work together. We're hosted by 

CBP but it is an interagency group.

The purpose of CTAC is to reduce illicit 

trade in unsafe products, protect the health and 

safety of U.S. consumers, whether people or 

animals, and expedite the flow of compliant 

international trade and the entry of imported 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

products that meet recognized U.S. government 

standards. 

So it's the two sides of the coin, 

always looking to protect our borders from illicit 

dangerous goods. Meanwhile, we have to facilitate 

and, as always, a tricky balance but something that 

we are deeply sensitive to.

CBP will use AMS NOP's uniform national 

standards -- that's their published organic 

regulation -- the strengthening organic 

enforcement rule once it is final to regulate trade 

at the border and further improve enforcement of 

organic standards at the border.

CBP and NOP are collaborating on a 

phased implementation plan regarding the use of 

NOP import certificates to identify fraudulent 

imports and capture aggregate organic import data.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the 

mutual strengths of CBP and the National Organics 

Program is our commitment to transparency and 

providing the latest information to trade 

stakeholders in a timely fashion. Not always real 

time but as timely as possible so that decisions 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

can be made by the trade community.

In 2020, this has included 

informational announcements to trade through a 

wide variety of established channels, both those 

operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Customs and Border Protection, and our interagency 

partners.

We have also delivered training 

webinars for major brokerages, trade brokerages, 

and CBP's federal advisory committee, the 

Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee, 

or the COAC.

We have provided advanced notice to 

importers and their representatives through CBP's 

various platforms including the trade bi-weekly 

ACE stakeholder meetings and a messaging system 

that sends automated messaging out to the millions 

of trade participants that use the automated 

commercial environment. 

A critical step in strengthening 

organics compliance and enforcement will be to 

continue this outreach in education. 

As Betsy noted in her presentation, 
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

NOPs compliance program has a direct correlation 

between -- has seen a direct correlation between 

training, education, and awareness and a reduction 

in noncompliance. 

So the more we can get the message out, 

train, increase that information flow and make sure 

that the stakeholders and the trade community 

understand their obligations when it comes to 

organics, the better our compliance rates will be. 

We'll always have the outlier (audio 

interference) the deliberate bad actors. But, 

overall, our compliance will grow.

Towards the end -- towards this end, 

CBP's agriculture trade priority issue has 

designated 2021 as the year of organics education 

and compliance with CBP and AMS working in 

collaboration to provide training and education 

to trade members, congressional representatives, 

CBP field officers, and CBP policy analysts 

regarding organic certification labeling 

requirements and more.

This gels well with the NOP's strategic 

goal of engagement and outreach for fiscal year 
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2021.

I'm going to pause there briefly.

Jenny, are there -- would there be any 

questions or any -- any questions in the chat box 

so far?

DR. TUCKER: No. We will hold until 

the end of your presentation for the board members 

to ask their questions. So keep on going. You're 

doing great.

MS. BIGELOW: Wonderful. Thank you.

It's always a little nerve wracking 

when you're the talking head and you can't 

necessarily see anybody else. But thank you.

DR. TUCKER: This is why I stayed in 

camera so you'd have somebody to talk to.

(Laughter.)

DR. TUCKER: It's always -- it's really 

nice to have another human being up on the screen 

responding to you. So keep going.

MS. BIGELOW: It is indeed.

Well, next slide, please.

In order to ensure that goods entering 

the United States meet all import requirements and 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

comply with U.S. standards and laws, imports must 

pass through what I like to call the two front lines 

of trade facilitation and enforcement. 

One of our front lines is, as this 

picture would indicate, our physical inspection 

personnel, import specialists at our ports and 

Centers of Excellence, and CBP's agriculture 

specialists. 

CBP is a field-based organization with 

328 ports of entry and an operational presence in 

52 countries. We have more than 1,700 employees 

working internationally. 

CBP has, roughly, 25,000 CBP officers 

at our ports and a much smaller and still mighty 

corps of 2,500 agriculture specialists, our 

aggies.

Each year, CBP agriculture specialists 

intercept tens of thousands of actionable pests, 

those identified through scientific risk 

assessment and study as being dangerous to the 

health and safety of U.S. agricultural resources. 

They're looking for hidden threats in 

truckloads and trainloads and containers of fresh 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

items that could seriously damage or threaten U.S. 

agriculture, our natural resources, and our 

economy. 

I cannot overstress how critical the 

agricultural specialists are on our front -- that 

first front line. Extraordinary and terrific 

scientists as well. Some of the best 

entomologists we have in the United States are CBP 

agriculture specialists. Very proud of the work 

they do.

Now, if we could move to the next slide. 

I'm going to do a little bit of footwork here and 

go -- we'll go back to that previous slide again 

towards the end of the presentation. 

So next slide, please.

The other front line for trade and 

imports is the automated commercial environment. 

So I think it was -- it was hinted at earlier by 

one of the board members that you've heard lots 

about ACE. 

But, so hopefully, I'm not repeating 

anything. But I want to stress that this is truly 

a front line when it comes to monitoring and 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

enforcement of the imports coming to our country. 

We cannot -- we simply cannot do it with 

our boots on the ground and the individuals at the 

ports. They are one important front line and this 

is the other. 

The Automated Commercial Environment 

is the United States' single window for trade. 

It's the primary processing system through which 

the trade-related data required by all government 

agencies is submitted and processed, which means 

all import and export transactions for goods coming 

in and out of the U.S.

Calling the U.S. single window a second 

front line is certainly not meant to diminish the 

incredible, tireless, and oftentimes ingenious 

efforts of our women and men in field operations. 

But it remains true that the volume of 

trade made it long ago impossible for us to process 

imports and exports manually. The volume, the 

sheer volume, necessitates state-of-the-art 

automated processing and monitoring capabilities. 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Give you some statistics for a typical 

day of trade at CBP. Each day in 2019 CBP processed 

through its two front lines 78,000 truck, rail, 

and sea containers. 

Nearly 100,000 entries of merchandise 

at our air, land, and seaports of entry were filed. 

$7.3 billion worth of products came in to our 

country every day, and we exacted $224 million in 

duties, taxes, and other fees.

On the flip side of the enforcement 

work, we actually seized $207,000 in undeclared 

or illicit currency and $4.3 million worth of 

products with intellectual property rights 

violations. That's per day.

We also intercepted 314 pests every day 

at U.S. ports of entry and 4,695 materials for 

quarantine, including plant, meat, animal 

byproducts, and soil. So a very busy daily regimen 

for everyone at CBP.

So I think you can see why this mandates 

strong and streamlined automation of which the 

National Organics Program has already begun to 

avail itself through its new message set 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

implemented this year.

Beyond its use as a real-time import 

monitoring and surveillance program, ACE also 

enables the big data import data analysis that 

Betsy referenced during her presentation enormous 

swarms of data coming through our system every day, 

and we store it and it's there for historical 

analysis.

ACE is the U.S. system of record for 

import data. Even the Census Bureau and the Bureau 

of Economic Analysis get their raw data from ACE 

and then they process it into our formal U.S. trade 

statistics.

So just a little bit more about ACE. 

I don't want to cover old ground, but I think just 

giving you a sense of how ACE works is important 

to the work of the Organics Program.

We have 49 different partner government 

agencies. In each of those that includes the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. Each of those has a 

memorandum of understanding with Customs and 

Border Protection to enable the use of ACE and 

continual real-time data sharing around 
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

importation data, and some agencies utilize export 

data as well. This allows for the paperless 

streamlined processes that benefit both government 

and industry.

The transition to ACE was actually 

enabled by an executive order in 2014. We have 

had an automated commercial system of some form 

or another for many decades. 

But, really, the modern instance that 

we are using now that can do so many things and 

combine so many different partner government 

agencies' data needs that only came into play as 

a result of the executive order in 2014 and we 

pushed the final core implementation phase out in 

February of 2018. 

So it's still a pretty recent 

development that we have this wonderful united 

single window for trade in the U.S.

So thinking forward -- if you wouldn't 

mind moving back to the previous slide -- so we're, 

clearly, always working on enhancements to ACE and 

need your help with that and thinking through how 

we can use automation, the tools available to us, 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to further strengthen organic enforcement and make 

sure that the standards are being upheld 

internationally for U.S. imported organic foods.

That said, where we need your most 

urgent help over the next year, as I'd referred 

to before, we're very keen on doing outreach and 

engagement for 2021 and I think that the NOSB can 

help with doing that trade engagement and 

compliance work. 

So if we can put the ask out to you, 

and I'd love your reaction to this, to join with 

us in helping to educate the larger organics 

community in the U.S. and globally about the 

importance of trade compliance and compliance with 

the new organic standards and the rule that is being 

finalized that will be enormously helpful and 

reduce noncompliance. 

It would also be helpful to this end 

to have your support in developing a fact sheet. 

CBP often issues fact sheets to the trade 

community which provide a very brief, concise, and 

user friendly -- precise, concise, and user 

friendly lineup of all of the authorities and 
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

requirements for a particular sector of imports.

We recently did a fact sheet, for 

instance, on cut flowers, of what are the many 

requirements to send in cut flowers, including 

organic cut flowers, to the United States. 

It would be wonderful if we could 

develop something similar for organic so that our 

staff within CBP and all those in the trade 

community can refer to this publicly--facing 

document.

We would also like to invite you to be 

available for joint stakeholder training of the 

trade community and to provide potential leads of 

organizations and stakeholders that you think 

would stand -- could benefit from additional 

outreach and training over the next years or so.

So with that, Jenny, I would like to 

stop there and see if there are any questions.

DR. TUCKER: Lea-Ann, we're going to 

turn it over to Steve to facilitate questions from 

the board. But I want to give a big round of 

applause for your presentation. 

Thank you so, so much for being here. 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It is a true honor getting to work with you. So 

thank you so, so much for the partnership.

Steve?

MS. BIGELOW: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: We'll try that again.

I have to say those numbers are pretty 

stunning. I can't imagine keeping track of all 

those and but anytime you visit a border or a port 

you definitely see those -- the amounts of things 

that go through and then, certainly, APHIS and your 

insect interception. I mean, as we have more and 

more invasive insects that we all deal with that's 

a critical part, along with the fraud enforcement. 

So it looks like Dave Mortensen has a 

question for you.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, thank you very 

much for the presentation. It was very 

interesting. 

I had two questions. Back in late 

2016, 2017, the board, along with NOP and the many 

NGOs and farmers that the board represents heard 

that we were badly understaffed in APHIS to do the 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

work that needed to be done on the increasing 

numbers of inspections that needed to be performed. 

I wasn't clear. Is -- are the CBP ag 

specialists, the 2,500 that you mentioned, are they 

APHIS people?

MS. BIGELOW: No, they are not.

MR. MORTENSEN: Okay.

MS. BIGELOW: I think, sir, the 

response would be -- would be similar with regard 

to the CBP staff. We're never anywhere near well 

enough staffed to deal with the level of -- with 

the threat level for agricultural pest and disease, 

and a lot of that is stemming from the movement 

to e-commerce platforms, smaller packages, and 

mail for the shipment of agricultural products. 

And so if you can think about the numbers that 

I presented actually don't include mail. Mail is 

on top of that.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah. Okay. Okay.

MS. BIGELOW: So I can't speak and 

would not wish to speak for APHIS. But if our 

experience is any guide, I'm sure that they're 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

suffering similar under staffing problems.

MR. MORTENSEN: And I guess just to 

follow then, and not to suggest that there's a 

problem but how does -- how does -- my sense was 

that APHIS was, like, seriously under staffed and 

there were several federal presenters at a panel 

session that we had that indicated that, you know, 

we had a real problem there and it was going to 

be hard to really ratchet up enforcement at the 

border if we didn't have better kind of oversight.

Now, it could be that the ACE system 

has helped to take the pressure off the, as you 

said, boots on the ground. But I was just trying 

to get a sense for how well covered we have things.

MS. BIGELOW: Yes. We will have to 

rely, as we do for all of our threat streams, not 

just, you know, fraudulent organics, we have to 

rely on ACE, and ACE is -- it's a system but it's 

also a legion within CBP and across the interagency 

of analysts that are using this data.

So there's very active surveillance and 

monitoring, risk assessment, and enforcement work 

that happens because of the data in ACE.
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We have long relied on physical 

inspections which, you know, I think we probably 

connote agricultural inspection with physical 

inspection because we have the visual. 

And I wasn't helping with my 

presentations. I showed you some of our wonderful 

agriculture specialists with the grapes. It's a 

very real part of the job. We're always looking 

to keep that at a very small fraction. 

The physical inspections are a small 

fraction as we're hoping to catch things before 

they even get here. One of the things that I didn't 

specify is that we're looking at ACE through ACE. 

We receive bill of lading data, so 

that's pre-arrival information for shipments. 

It's notoriously difficult to analyze sometimes 

because it's not as -- the architecture around the 

bill of lading is old as the hills but there's a 

lot of free form designation of goods. When you 

get to an actual entry and make a filing in ACE 

it's not quite as free form. 

You have to pick a few things and you 
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

have to pay duty. On the manifest, it's really 

a cargo description. It can be very broad and it 

can lump lots of different goods in a major 

container or vessel together. 

So difficult to analyze but we're 

getting better at it, doing that text analysis, 

and I think, generally, very, very eager to combine 

all of our different data assets for analysis to 

help us in this constant battle against (audio 

interference).

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, and I can -- from 

personal experience we who ship like to lump versus 

split because it's a lot less writing. So I can 

imagine what you're up against.

But Rick has a question.

MR. GREENWOOD: A quick question. 

A number of years ago I was a science 

advisor with FDA in the Los Angeles District and 

so we had the San Ysidro port of entry. We did 

a lot of testing of pesticide residues in 

strawberries and salmonella in shrimp.

I didn't hear you mention FDA in your 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

presentation, and, obviously, I caught you, yeah. 

So we're both looking at the same things and I'm 

wondering how you coordinate now in this system. 

Since you're both looking at that -- FDA has 

entomologists, too -- how do you parse out the work 

now?

MS. BIGELOW: Oh, that's -- and that's 

the genius of the ACE system. Prior to the single 

window, which is thusly cool because we are 

combining U.S. government equities and authorities 

and data needs in one system, FDA was collecting 

data through its proprietary system in a separate 

fashion. 

Now we coordinate not just in terms of 

data collection but we have always coordinated in 

terms of our resources at the ports.

So I didn't mention the FDA nor did I 

mention NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

or APHIS in particular because they are part of 

that 49 federal government agency -- the broader 

interagency One U.S. Government movement that we 

have to work with and coordinate with at the border. 
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It's very -- I think Betty was the one 

who said this -- it's extraordinarily complex. 

But we -- thanks to our systems, we have been able 

to make it a little easier both for trade and for 

ourselves in terms of working together and finding 

those threats.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. No, thank you.

MS. BIGELOW: Mm-hmm. One thing more 

--

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate? Okay.

MS. BIGELOW: -- with FDA and APHIS. 

CBP has labs and scientific services capability, 

which I didn't mention as well. So we share 

science. 

We share -- we share our scientific 

analysis and the work that FDA does and the entire 

HHS enterprise is crucial for that, and I think 

without that shared capacity if we were just trying 

to do everything in silos we would not be anywhere 

near as effective as we are.

MR. GREENWOOD: No, thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Funny how cooperation 

helps on things. Striking.
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BIGELOW: Absolutely.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate Powell-Palm has a 

question for you.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you so much for 

your presentation. 

I just wanted to ask a bit of a follow-up 

question on CBP's ACE system. I was interested 

to see that for different products AMS set up a 

different message set, I think is how you described 

it, that allows them to get pretty specific 

information based on a particular product, for 

example, like, imported pistachios being tested 

for aflatoxin.

And so I was wondering if you could 

offer any thoughts on how we might get to that point 

for imported organic products, having a similar 

level of detail in product-specific requirements. 

Like, if we could specify in areas of 

concern for imported products like testing for GMOs 

or pesticide residue for countries of concern or 

importers of concern.

MS. BIGELOW: Sure. Well, I think 
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it's probably much like the enhancement that NOP 

has developed and deployed for the certification. 

If we can develop business requirements and 

actually provide some very fine-tuned -- you know, 

we'd have to do some up front analysis. 

But I don't think there's anything 

that's not possible in terms of what you've just 

described. There's no -- there's no real 

technology boundary.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Okay.

MS. BIGELOW: Really, the process and 

procedural and potentially legal boundaries to 

collecting that data.

Jenny, did you -- did you want to chime 

in there? Certainly don't want to put NOP on the 

spot. But, you know, we're here to support at CBP. 

We're happy to try anything when it comes to (audio 

interference) within the system.

DR. TUCKER: Yeah. So I agree with 

that assessment. I think, you know, as the data 

start to flow in, I mean, the organic import 

certificate, or message really has just been 

programmed and businesses are just start to use 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it in a very, very early, early, early kind of pilot 

-- very long pilot phase.

And so as we start getting data and we, 

at the program, will be able to make better 

decisions on where that surveillance is needed, 

where do we need to do more sampling and testing, 

what does that look like based on all that risk 

assessment, we're going to learn a whole lot over 

the next year here. And so that will inform a 

myriad of next steps.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you so much.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jenny, just a quick 

question for you. What -- I can't remember what 

of the 50-some staff you have now, if I remember 

right, what -- how many are dedicated to 

enforcement?

DR. TUCKER: So Betsy's team is about 

20 people right now. That's in compliance and 

enforcement. But we have also built out in 

accreditation overseeing the certifiers and we now 

have a five-person team in trade systems. And so 

we are in the 60s. 

We have a few new people starting and 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

our count changes sort of every day as we have new 

staff come in. But Betsy's team has doubled and 

that doesn't even include external support that 

we use through a contract to work on some of the 

complaints. So, you know, we have put those 

resources to good use.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I'm just then thinking, 

as Lea-Ann talks about the number of things they 

inspect and you say as the data starts to flow in 

I hope you have a good computer. 

So it is kind of, again, I'm going to 

say stunning what kind of forensics you have to 

do to tease out some of these -- some of these 

anomalies, I guess. So I'm very impressed.

DR. TUCKER: Yeah, back to -- back to 

Betsy's Ph.D. economists, you know, that's why we 

really looked ahead and hired those -- hired those 

folks.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, and I'm sure 

Lea-Ann's has -- you know, has the same -- same 

sort of staff. But are there any other questions? 

MS. BIGELOW: Well, I think across --

CHAIRMAN ELA: Go ahead. Yes.
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BIGELOW: Steve, I was going to say 

I think across the U.S. government I'm very proud, 

not just of our individual agencies but also the 

U.S. government's advancements and use of data 

science and investments in both the critical talent 

needed to do the data science but also the systems. 

I think over the last three to four 

years it's just been a groundswell of effort there 

and across all different domains, not just the 

enforcement and monitoring work we're talking 

about. So I'm hopeful that that'll just continue 

to grow and our capacity will build.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yeah. Yes. Well, it 

sounds like it's needed.

Are there any other questions from the 

board for Lea-Ann?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: I'm not seeing -- I do 

know, Lea-Ann, that any time we have had 

presentations from your agency I think it's eye 

opening. 

So thank you for taking the time and 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

helping with us, and I think I can speak for the 

board in saying we are curious how we can help and, 

certainly, our Certification and Accreditation 

committee has not -- with strengthening organic 

enforcement out they haven't had lots to do. But 

I'm sure they're just waiting for more work to be 

put on their agenda.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: But no, I think, 

seriously, it is -- we look forward to that 

collaboration and what we can do to really protect 

our organic growers and handlers. So is there 

anything else?

MS. BIGELOW: Yes, I'm sure --

CHAIRMAN ELA: I'll turn it back to --

good. Yeah.

MS. BIGELOW: I included a contact 

email there. It's for my Quota and Agriculture 

branch and I would like to give recognition to two 

people that are attending today. I believe 

they're watching. Julia Peterson, who is the 

branch chief for Quota and Agriculture. So she's 

really our lead on the agriculture priority trade 
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

issue, and Drew Veilhaber (phonetic) who is a 

superstar member of our Quota team -- our 

Agriculture and Quota team.

So if anyone wants to get in touch with 

us, the email that I provided at the end of the 

presentation is a good way to do it.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yeah, thank you so much. 

So I'll let you get back to your day job.

But, Jenny, I'll turn it back to you 

to just -- if you have any further comments and 

then I'll take it and we can break for lunch. But 

do you have anything, Jenny?

DR. TUCKER: Just a final thanks and 

round of applause for Lea-Ann for being here. I 

think that was very informative for all of us. 

We have really, really enjoyed working with her 

and her team. So thanks to the community for being 

with us through these presentations, and we turn 

it over, Steve, to you for next steps.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. And I -- and I 

hope in the future if we do get back to in-person 

meetings maybe we can find a way to hybridize so 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that we can bring some of these people -- as you 

said, you can't have them travel because of the 

time commitment but find a way to link in some of 

these people so we can get their expertise while 

making it not a huge time demand. I think -- again, 

as technology advances hopefully we can do that.

Thank you.

DR. TUCKER: But I do think Lea-Ann was 

willing to come to Iowa with us. That's where 

we're supposed to be. So that's how important this 

is. So, you know, instead she's attending from 

-- remotely. But yeah, I think there are lots of 

future opportunities for that in a face-to-face 

world. So --

CHAIRMAN ELA: Well, knowing that we 

have snow on the ground here and were down to three 

degrees the other night, and hearing the 

temperatures in Cedar Rapids, we may be happy we're 

not traveling to Cedar Rapids right now. 

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: But as much fun as it 

would have been.

But with that, we are going to break 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for lunch. We will return at 2:00 Eastern time 

and -- let's see, yeah. Oh, this is where I always 

get messed up on my times. 3:00 Eastern time. 

Am I right? 

Help me out here, Michelle. Yes, 3:00 

Eastern time, and we'll move on at 3:00 Eastern 

time into the Livestock Subcommittee along with 

policy development and the CACS Committee.

So we will see you all at 3:00 o'clock 

Eastern and enjoy your lunch break, and we will 

talk to you after that.

All right. Thank you so much. 

CHAIR ELA: I'm just going to quickly 

go through roll call for the Board again, so we 

document that everybody is back from break and, 

especially, since we're going to be having some, 

some votes, after this. So, Sue, are you here?

MS. BAIRD: I am.

CHAIR ELA: Sue, are you -- thank you, 

Sue.

MS. BAIRD: I actually --

CHAIR ELA: Is there --

MS. BAIRD: -- flashed my video for 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you.

CHAIR ELA: Oh. Excellent. I can't 

see everybody's video, the way my screen works, 

so I can only see a few. But, Asa, are you here?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Present.

CHAIR ELA: Jerry? Jerry, are you 

there?

We'll come back to Jerry. Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Here.

CHAIR ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Present.

CHAIR ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: I'm here.

CHAIR ELA: Okay. Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Here.

CHAIR ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Present.

CHAIR ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Here.

CHAIR ELA: Scott? Do you see Scott?

MR. RICE: Present.
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Here.

CHAIR ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Here.

CHAIR ELA: Wood? Wood, are you out 

there? Do you see him on the screen --

MS. ARSENAULT: He --

CHAIR ELA: -- Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: He was here a moment 

ago. He dropped off, yes.

CHAIR ELA: Okay. Jerry, are you out 

there?

MS. ARSENAULT: Jerry is mute.

CHAIR ELA: Do we see --

MS. ARSENAULT: Let's see. Jerry, you 

may --

CHAIR ELA: -- if he is there?

CHAIR ELA: Okay. So it looks like 

Wood is the one we're, we're missing. All right, 

well why don't we -- we'll keep our eyes open for 

Wood, when he joins. Let's welcome back, 

everybody.

I want everybody to notice that I'm 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

wearing my livestock shirt. Well, I don't have 

a livestock shirt, so I think, last spring meeting, 

I used some cows, so in the interest of keeping 

the range wars to a minimum, I'll use sheep for 

this discussion. And you can see our Australian 

Shepherd that we use to herd our trees in the 

background. It's very important for a fruit farm 

to have a herd dog.

I'm going to turn it over to Sue, for 

the Livestock Committee. So, Sue, do you want to 

take it away, with Livestock?

MS. BAIRD: Yes. Thank you, Steve. 

Livestock Committee had eight sunset reviews and 

one petition proposal for fenbendazole. And, 

fenbendazole's coming up and I, I'm taking the lead 

on that.

This is the third time that we've 

considered fenbendazole. We had a petition, in 

July of 2019, to, to, to change our annotation for 

fenbendazole parasiticides, which is 

205.603(a)(23).

And then, (a)(23)(i), fenbendazole CAS 

number 43210-679, milk, or milk products, from a 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

treated animal, cannot be labeled, as provided for 

in subpart (d), of this part, for two days following 

the treatment of cattle, 36 days following the 

treatment of goats, sheep, and other dairy species.

And the Petition asks that annotation 

be amended, to allow use of fenbendazole, for 

laying hens and replacement chickens intended to 

become hens.

The -- as I said, this is the third time 

we've considered that, the first time was a 

discussion paper that was, actually, led by Ashley, 

at that time, who's on, as the Lead, for this 

particular product.

We had a lot of comments on 

fenbendazole, but a prevailing comment was that, 

we would ask for a limited TR, considering the fact 

that, the biology of a bird is so much different 

than mammals.

And so we followed up on that and we 

did request a TR, limited TR, just specifically 

for poultry. We received that back and then, we 

considered, again, in April of 2020, we had not 

received the TR, at that time, and so we're bringing 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the results of that TR into the discussion today.

As you can imagine, this has received 

a whole lot of comments, both from our producers 

and from the consumer. The major reason for the 

consumer concern is that the residual that is still 

in the egg, at two ppm, for up to eight days.

Producers were getting varied 

comments. Some had stated that they absolutely 

must have it. Others are saying well, you know, 

we do well without it.

So that's kind of where we're at, and 

so I just want to open it up for discussion from 

everybody.

CHAIR ELA: Great. Thank you, Sue. 

I will open it up and try and call on people, and 

Nate has a question, comment.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you, Sue. And 

thank you, so much, for your work on this material. 

I think it's been really interesting. This is 

my first year on the Board, and so I've been excited 

to see this happen.

As, in addition to being an organic 

farmer, I'm an organic inspector and I get to spend 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a really great amount of my time on the road 

visiting organic farms.

It was a little bit different this year, 

but as a large component of my work, I do a lot 

of organic poultry layer operation inspections.

And, when I first got on the Board, I 

was able to, kind of, put into my back pocket that 

we're working on fenbendazole and I was able to 

take to each of my inspections the question of, 

so what is your parasite level and how are you 

grappling, how is this economically affecting you, 

posing that questions to my inspected parties.

And, over about -- I've inspected just 

a little over two-million birds this year. And 

resoundingly the answer has been that organic 

layers are going well.

That there's a respectively, you know, 

robust production system that isn't running into 

a lot of parasite issues that are economically 

damaging to prospects of these farmers.

And, I was also able to call up and pose 

the question to some really large egg processors, 

have you gotten complaints of worms in eggs, and 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

again, unanimously, no, the worms have not -- we 

have not gotten any complaints from consumers, or 

any evidence, when we're screening eggs, of worms 

in our eggs.

And so for me, I really like to approach 

this process, and again, this is my first year, 

but I really wanted to approach this process that, 

if farmers in industry, the folks who I've spoken 

to and who are on the ground, you know, possibly 

requiring this substance, if they're not calling 

for it, I think it's a poor precedent to set that 

we would add something that I don't think has had 

sufficient callout, by the folks who would actually 

use it.

And so that's why I would, I would think 

that there's a, you know -- I, in my experience, 

I have not seen a lot of farmers or handlers 

actually say that they need this product.

MS. BAIRD: Steve, am I to admit the --

CHAIR ELA: Comments?

MS. BAIRD: -- discussion, or you? 

I'm sorry, I don't know the procedure.

CHAIR ELA: I'll, I'll head it and call 
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on people and --

MS. BAIRD: All right.

CHAIR ELA: -- then, if you --

MS. BAIRD: Thank you.

CHAIR ELA: -- want to respond --

MS. BAIRD: Because you can see it --

CHAIR ELA: -- to it --

MS. BAIRD: -- I can't.

CHAIR ELA: -- go ahead, but --

MS. BAIRD: Right.

CHAIR ELA: Yes. Other, other 

comments from the Board? Scott, go ahead.

MR. RICE: Thanks. And -- yes. Sue, 

thank you for all your work on this. I know that 

it's something that Ashley a lot on as well, and 

I would just echo Nate's thoughtful comments on 

the topic of need and necessity.

I generally am supportive of tools in 

the toolbox and, obviously, want to be judicious 

in how we do that, especially around synthetics.

But, I think, you know, in thinking this 

through and, you know, there's -- none of us want 

consumers to be finding worms in eggs.
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But, as Nate pointed out and as others, 

in public comments, we haven't really been hearing 

that, or seeing it. And, I think I would rather 

be on the side of the discussion explaining why, 

perhaps, if it ever happens, there's a couple eggs 

that are found versus, why organic is still organic 

and the gold standard, but also, trying to explain, 

why there is, potentially, some residue in an egg.

I just feel that, in this particular 

material, I haven't seen the bar met for, for that 

essentiality. So those are my thoughts at the 

moment.

CHAIR ELA: Dan, you're next.

DR. SEITZ: Thank you. Also, thank 

you, Sue, for your work on this, I appreciate that. 

And, also, I just want to offer a few perspectives 

from both what I understood from testimony and 

comments submitted, and also from public members' 

perspective.

So I would echo the concern about there 

being a chemical residue left in the eggs. And 

just for the record, I do eat raw eggs, not plain, 

but in the form of mayonnaise and eggnog, which 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is coming up, so I would have a concern about that 

and I think other consumers would.

We did hear that parasite infestations 

can be addressed through cultural methods. 

Another comment was that the idea of an emergency 

was too vague, at this point.

And then, I would think it would be very 

antithetical to a consumer's perspective that an 

entire flock would be doused with a synthetic 

chemical.

So this is a very different situation 

from where an individual animal, as is the case 

of the livestock use. And then there were a number 

of certifiers and producers who absolutely did not 

see a need, as was mentioned a little bit earlier.

So again, I think there's sort of a 

critical mass of things that would caution us from 

adding this to the list at this time.

CHAIR ELA: Next up is Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Well, I'm really torn with 

this, because, as a farmer, you know, we're always 

interesting in having tools to deal with certain 

situations. And with that in mind and the, you 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

know, there are circumstances where the culture 

methods, cultural practices have not worked.

So I'm really struggling, from the 

standpoint of having a tool and then having another 

substance that, you know, that because of the, we 

don't have a time delay, could be problematic. 

So I'm really favoring it, but it's hard to do 

that with, with those drawbacks.

CHAIR ELA: Thanks, Jesse. It looks 

like Sue, you had a follow-up?

MS. BAIRD: Yes. I -- and I appreciate 

everybody's comments and especially Nate's 

experience in going out. I do, though, you know, 

PCO said that all of their egg layers were asking 

for the product.

I don't know if it's because they know 

it's out there and so they want it, or maybe they'd 

been -- I'm not sure why. And then, I've done some 

of my midnight farmers here in Missouri, who said 

yeah, we're seeing worms in eggs.

And, so I'm wondering if it's not, 

perhaps, climate-driven. In some drier areas, 

they're not seeing the egg problems, as some of 
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the more -- you know, we get 40-something inches 

of rain a year, so we have a lot of cool, wet days.

And, in fact, Organic Valley said that 

in the spring, they were seeing more and more, 

because of the cool, wet days, climate change. 

And I'm not sure if that's what the reason is, 

but -- I don't know.

You know, we did get the testimony from 

the Penn State pathologists, avian pathologists 

that said they'd seen the increase 900 percent, 

since 2017.

Now, we don't know if that's in organic. 

That's probably just in all poultry, completely. 

So I'm -- I'll be honest, I'm torn as well.

CHAIR ELA: Next up, we have Rick and 

then, Dave. Go ahead, Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. Thanks, Steve. 

My concern and Dan mentioned it, is the quote, 

emergency use definition, and I was reflecting, 

a number of years ago, I studied American foulbrood 

in honey bees, and one of the treatments was 

Terramycin.

And, Terramycin was used as a 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

treatment. But what happened was, and I know this 

from the field, watching the beekeepers, they 

thought if a little was good, just throwing it in 

the hives all the time was better, so it became 

a prophylactic use.

And I'm just afraid, if it gets 

approved, that it may be misused. And that's 

obviously true of any of the things that we approve.

But I have some major concerns about 

that, even though it is a tool. A little is okay, 

and to prevent things, why don't we just give them 

to the flock, so I have some concerns about that.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you.

CHAIR ELA: Dave, go ahead.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah. And I, you 

know, I also recognize a lot of work's gone into 

this and, and I appreciate that. I'm particularly 

concerned about the motive action of the compound 

being a cell-division inhibitor.

And the thought of residues of a 

compound like that, in food eaten by, you know, 

by folks who -- our cell division is fundamental 

to all life, but particularly for children and 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

unborn children in pregnant moms. So that's a big 

concern of mine.

And I'm also excited that we, as a 

Board, have, I guess, we'll vote on it, but in our 

research priorities for 2020, have highlighted the 

need for systems-level work to, you know, improve 

our capacity with our foundational practices that 

help mitigate and, hopefully, prevent this problem 

from being in a flock in the first place. So 

I -- those, those are some thoughts that I have 

about it.

CHAIR ELA: Thanks, Dave. Asa, you're 

next.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes. I mean, I think 

many of the other comments echo my concerns about 

this material. And I guess the notion of an 

unlabeled ingredient, unlabeled residue concerns 

me.

And, I understand that, you know, if 

we have a withdraw rate of zero plus zero, it still 

equals zero. But, you know, it seems to me there 

is information on retention, in terms of biological 

half-life in poultry, and that, you know, given 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this is a synthetic pesticide, essentially, for 

controlling these infestations, flock-wide, you 

know, not on an individual basis, you know, I would 

prefer to see some sort of withdrawal period.

Especially, given that as Dave said, 

there may be vulnerable populations, in terms of 

intake, and particularly children and others.

So and again, also, just within the 

principle of organic, the idea of, you know, an 

unlabeled ingredient or residue concerns me.

CHAIR ELA: Are there other comments 

from the Board?

Wood has a comment, question. Go 

ahead, Wood.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Steve. I just 

wanted to point out that I'm agreeing with a lot 

of these, a lot of the comments I'm hearing, about 

concerns about residue and, and appropriate means 

for managing parasites.

I just wanted to make the point, to 

anyone who has concerns about the animal welfare 

issues associated with, you know, leaning against 

this inclusion is that, you know, that's -- I 
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

certainly share those concerns.

I'm deeply concerned about the animal 

welfare issues that are implicit in not using this 

material, or not allowing this material to be 

advanced, but I do think that is trumped by some 

of these other considerations that we're hearing 

in the discussion.

CHAIR ELA: Anyone else from the Board?

All right. With, with that --

MR. D'AMORE: Excuse me. Steve. 

Steve, I did have my hand up and, I guess it doesn't 

register.

CHAIR ELA: Okay.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: I'm sorry, Jerry, I didn't 

see it. Thank you for stepping in.

MR. D'AMORE: No, not at all. And Sue, 

I, too, thank you for all the work and having 

followed this, and I guess I'll have to admit that 

I'm in awe of the rest of my teammates, who are 

so scientifically based in their observations, or 

through practical experience, with Nate, as well.

I get closer to a comment that Scott 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

made, where he went towards the consumer. And I 

will tell the team that, from the first reading 

of this, I've had an uncomfortable feeling.

And it was heightened when one of our 

team members asked, well, at the end of the day, 

these eggs are going to get cooked and does it get 

cooked out of the product, and the answer there 

was no, it doesn't.

No cooking will reach the temperatures 

that would preclude this from potentially being 

passed along. So I, too, am in the camp of the, 

you know, the rewards don't seem to be balanced, 

or to seem to outbalance the pluses on this one.

CHAIR ELA: All right, then. Thanks, 

Jerry, for jumping in. For some reason your hand 

didn't pop up. And so the other Board Members, 

do the same, please, if for some reason, I don't 

see you or call on you. Any other comments, before 

we go to a vote?

All right. In that case, we will move 

to a vote. The motion is to amend the listing for 

fenbendazole, to include fenbendazole for use of 

laying hens, or replacement chickens, intended to 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

be laying hens, at 7 C.F.R. 205.603(23)(i).

The motion was made by Sue Baird, it 

was seconded by Kimberly Huseman. We are going 

to start the voting with Sue Baird.

MS. BAIRD: I'm going to say yes.

CHAIR ELA: Asa Bradman?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIR ELA: Jesse Buie?

Jesse, are you there?

DR. SEITZ: Still muted, if you are, 

Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Sorry about that. No.

CHAIR ELA: Thanks, Jesse. Jerry 

D'Amore?

MR. D'AMORE: Respectfully, no, as 

well.

CHAIR ELA: Rick Greenwood?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIR ELA: Kim Huseman?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIR ELA: Kim, we're not hearing 

you -- okay. Wait -- yes. Mindee Jeffery?

MS. JEFFERY: No.
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR ELA: Dave Mortensen?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIR ELA: Emily Oakley?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIR ELA: Nate Powell-Palm?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIR ELA: Scott Rice?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIR ELA: A-Dae Romero-Briones?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIR ELA: Dan Seitz?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIR ELA: Wood Turner?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIR ELA: And the Chair votes no. 

Scott, what is the take on that?

MR. RICE: You want -- I'd pass that 

over to our Secretary, Jesse, if you would like?

CHAIR ELA: Sorry, Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Great.

CHAIR ELA: That should've been -- I'm 

sorry.

MR. BUIE: Okay, hold up.
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: I'd be happy to --

MR. BUIE: Okay we --

MR. RICE: -- confirm what I have, 

though.

MR. RICE: As we get --

MR. BUIE: Okay, who -- we --

MR. RICE: -- our legs under us.

MR. RICE: I have one yes and 14 no.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: All right, well with that, 

the proposal fails. Or the -- yes, the proposal 

fails. Okay, Sue, I'm going to turn it back to 

you, for the sunset substance reviews.

MS. BAIRD: Am I supposed to read it, 

or is Jerry supposed to read it? I'm confused now.

CHAIR ELA: The sunset you are supposed 

to read.

MS. BAIRD: Okay, thank you. The --

CHAIR ELA: I'm sorry.

MS. BAIRD: The next one, first Sunset, 

is butorphanol, and that is Scott. Butorphanol 

is CAS 42408-82-2. Federal law restricts this 

drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral 
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

order of a licensed Veterinarian, in full 

compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 C.F.R. Part 530 

of the Food and Drug Administration Regulations.

Also, for use under 7 C.F.R. Part 205, 

the NOP requires, (i), use by or on the lawful 

written order of a licensed Veterinarian.

And, (ii), a meat with raw period of 

at least 42 days, after administering to livestock 

intended for slaughter, and milk discard period 

of at least eight days after administering to dairy 

animals. Scott.

MR. RICE: Thanks, Sue. Butorphanol, 

we had a, pretty much, a reiteration of the comments 

that we did in the spring, overall support, noting 

that this is an important, if not infrequently 

used, control for pain and overall welfare of the 

animal.

We did have one comment that 

specifically asked that the Subcommittee that 

information be presented about impacts of 

butorphanol and its metabolites when excreted, as 

well as, given its extra-label use, there was a 

comment requesting the NOSB get a written 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

determination from FDA, regarding the illegal use 

of butorphanol in food animals.

These are a couple of items that might 

be considered for our next sunset round. I would 

say, in terms of animal welfare and the, what 

appears to be from comments, infrequent use that 

it would still suggest this is essential to 

production. I would turn it back for questions.

CHAIR ELA: Thanks, Scott. Are there 

questions on this material for -- questions, or 

comments, for, for Scott, or for anybody else? 

Asa.

Go ahead, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Sorry --

CHAIR ELA: Asa, you --

MR. BRADMAN: -- sorry.

CHAIR ELA: -- may be on mute.

MR. BRADMAN: I -- yes.

CHAIR ELA: There you are.

MR. BRADMAN: Sorry. I mean, I guess, 

in contrast to the last material, this does have 

a withdrawal period. And I think that kind of 

reflects consideration of, you know, the goals of 
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic and the careful use of pharmaceuticals and 

animal pharmaceuticals.

So, you know, as with all of these 

materials we'll be talking about today, in terms 

of veterinary medicines and livestock, you know, 

there's always room for more information, and I 

would be curious to see more about, you know, how 

it's excreted, if it's getting into pasture, and 

things like that.

But, my understanding that this is not, 

certainly not used herd-wide and it does have 

considerations for withdrawal and I think that 

favors it.

CHAIR ELA: Any further comments, or 

questions?

All right, not seeing any, we'll move 

to the vote. There's a motion to remove 

butorphanol from 205603 of the National List of 

the Organic Food Production Act. The motion was 

made by Scott and was seconded by Dan. I believe 

the voting starts with Asa. Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Okay, I --

CHAIR ELA: And then, just to be clear, 
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a yes vote -- oh gosh, I'm going to get this wrong, 

now. A yes vote is to remove butorphanol from the 

National List, a no vote is to keep it on the list.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you. No.

CHAIR ELA: So -- okay. Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIR ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIR ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIR ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIR ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIR ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIR ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIR ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIR ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIR ELA: A-dae?
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIR ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIR ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIR ELA: And the Chair -- Sue. 

Sorry, Sue.

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIR ELA: And the Chair votes no. 

Jesse --

MR. BUIE: It --

CHAIR ELA: -- what is there --

MR. BUIE: -- 15 no, 15 yes -- 15 -- zero 

yes, 15 no.

CHAIR ELA: All right. The motion 

fails --

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: -- so we will -- that should 

be relisted. Sue, back to you, for the next 

Sunset.

MS. BAIRD: The next sunset is flunixin 

and I've got the lead on it. It is -- oh, I'm 

supposed to read it first. I'm sorry. Okay.
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Flunixin referenced 205.603(a), as 

disinfectant, sanitizer, and medical treatments, 

as applicable, 12 flunixin, CAS Number 38677-85-9, 

in accordance with approved labeling, except that 

for use under 7 C.F.R., Part 205, the NOP requires 

a withdrawal period of at least two-times that 

required by FDA.

Flunixin is a non-narcotic, 

nonsteroidal analgesic agent, with 

anti-inflammatory activity. It's used 

intravenously or intramuscular, and used to reduce 

fevers, lung inflammation, typically accompanies 

bovine respiratory disease.

And so overwhelmingly, both in spring 

meeting and this meeting, we've had people that, 

states that it is imperative that, our producers 

are saying it's imperative that we keep it on.

CHAIR ELA: All right, questions from, 

or comments, from the Board?

All right, I am not seeing any, so we 

will move to the vote. The motion is to remove 

flunixin from 205.603 of the National List, based 

on the following criteria, under the Organic Foods 
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Production Act.

The motion was made by Sue, it was 

seconded by Dan. I believe we will start with

Jesse on the vote. So, Jesse -- and, again, this 

is -- a yes vote is to remove it from the list, 

and no vote is to keep it on the list.

And I will note that for anything to 

be removed from the list, it takes a two-thirds 

vote by the Board. So, Jesse, your vote?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIR ELA: Jerry?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIR ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIR ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIR ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIR ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIR ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIR ELA: Nate?
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIR ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIR ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIR ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIR ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIR ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIR ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIR ELA: And the Chair votes no. 

Jesse, what is the vote?

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, 15 no. The motion 

fails.

CHAIR ELA: All right. Sue, back to 

you, for the next sunset.

MS. BAIRD: The next sunset is 

magnesium hydroxide, CAS Number 1309-42-8. 

Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on 

a lawful written or oral order of a licensed 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA 

and 21 C.F.R. Part 530 of the Food and Drug 

Administration Regulations.

Also, for use under 7 C.F.R. Part 205, 

the NOP requires use by or on a lawful written order 

of a licensed veterinarian, and this is Jesse's.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Magnesium hydroxide 

is used as an antacid for temporary relief of upset 

stomach.

Subcommittee review, the public 

comments found that magnesium hydroxide, compliant 

with OFPA and the Committee does not recommend 

removal from the National List.

For a special note, one of the 

stakeholders summarized that the annotation 

restricting the use of the product as a medical 

treatment, at 205.603(a)(18), causes confusion, 

but -- and that was just as an aside.

So the Subcommittee recommends that 

magnesium hydroxide not be removed from the 

National List. Are there any questions?

CHAIR ELA: I'm sorry, I missed the 

mute button. Are there any other questions from 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the Board?

I do not see any, so we will move to 

the vote. The motion is to remove magnesium 

hydroxide from 205.603. The motion was made by 

Jesse and was seconded by Kim.

I believe Jerry votes first on this. 

And I do -- before we go to a vote, I neglected 

to say at the top of all this that we did poll the 

Board for conflicts of interest or refusals, and 

we did not have any from any of the Board Members.

So I just needed to -- neglected to read 

that into the record, but it is proper for all Board 

Members to vote on all these materials. 

Jerry, starting with you on the vote, 

a no vote indicates -- a yes vote indicates to 

remove the product from the list, a no vote means 

to keep it on the list. Go ahead, Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Sir, my vote's no.

CHAIR ELA: Steve -- I mean, Rick?

Rick, we're not hearing you. Rick, are 

you out there?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

I'm trying to press that pink button --
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR ELA: So you=re not out there, 

okay.

MR. GREENWOOD: -- but I think Michelle 

muted me.

CHAIR ELA: All right. All right, 

Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: I vote no.

CHAIR ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIR ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIR ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIR ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIR ELA: Scott? Scott, you may be 

have been on mute.

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIR ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIR ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIR ELA: Wood?
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIR ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIR ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIR ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIR ELA: And the Chair votes no. 

Jesse, the vote?

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, 15 no.

CHAIR ELA: Sounds great, thank you 

very much. I have to laugh at this, because the 

mute button is akin when we're in the live meeting 

where we forget to punch the button on our mics, 

so I don't think we've lost or gained anything in 

these virtual meetings.

Sue, back to you for the next sunset.

MR. BUIE: You're right, I did it the 

same way, so --

CHAIR ELA: We're consistent.

MS. BAIRD: Consistency, that's right. 

Our next substance is poloxalene, and poloxalene 

is 205.603(a), and this is Dan's product.
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SEITZ: Okay. So poloxalene is 

used for the emergency treatment of bloat. And, 

it's used fairly infrequently, but it's considered 

to be an essential tool to have for that, for 

treatment of that life-threatening condition.

The comments that were received this 

time around were very much the same that we received 

last time. About ten comments supported 

continuing to list Poloxalene.

There were two comments that cautioned 

that there should be strong evidence for continuing 

this, but generally speaking solid in favor of 

continued relisting. And also the Subcommittee 

agreed that it should be relisted. Any questions, 

or comments?

CHAIR ELA: Asa has a comment.

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah. Dan, I've read, 

you know, many of the comments and see, I understand 

the support for this and that it's used relatively 

infrequently.

You know, it is a synthetic. 

Chemically, it's close to many of the plastics 

we're talking about. And it, you know, it's 
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

described as a copolymer of polypropylene. And 

I'm just wondering, it seems like the last 

technical review of it was in 2001. And, you know, 

I'm just inclined to wonder if it's time for an 

update here, given that it's been 19 years and that, 

you know, this is clearly a synthetic and derived 

probably from petroleum feed stocks. And I, 

again, I see that, you know, the infrequent use, 

might, combined with its essentiality, apparently, 

in some situations.

But I'm just a little concerned that 

we don't have up-to-date information on fate and 

transport and, you know, I want, possibly, 

alternatives, but really, kind of, fate and 

transport.

And I'm not going to vote against it, 

or I'm not going to vote to relist it, but it feels 

like, you know, going on 20 years, it's time for 

an update for this material.

CHAIR ELA: Asa, I would absolutely 

agree that that's a very good point and I'm not -- I 

don't remember back to when we were talking about 

the need for TRs, why that wasn't flagged as a 
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

useful step to take. I think that's an excellent 

observation and, unfortunately, obviously, it's 

up for vote this meeting.

CHAIR ELA: Kim, you had a question, 

comment?

MS. HUSEMAN: Asa, well-pointed out, 

but triggered me to, on the 2001 review, but I'm 

going to go back to the two commenters that did 

not promote the relisting.

If I'm hearing you correctly, Dan, 

there was not alternatives, or other information 

provided, other than just a comment to delist, is 

that correct?

DR. SEITZ: It wasn't even necessarily 

a comment to delist, it was sort of, I would say, 

a general statement that is certainly a reasonable 

one that, unless there's strong evidence for need 

of this, it should not be relisted.

MS. HUSEMAN: Okay.

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

MS. HUSEMAN: Okay. Thank you for 

clarifying that. Just, in the industry, you know, 

I don't know all the tools that are available for 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

bloat, but I would lean strongly towards the ones 

who have promoted relisting it, at least until more 

further evidence can be provided, with a more 

current review.

DR. SEITZ: Yeah. I mean, I did not 

come -- I did not see something that was -- that, 

any comments that said, we actually have this other 

substance that works just as well that better 

conforms to the organic standards. It seemed to 

be a, something of a unique substance there for 

use. I'm not --

MS. HUSEMAN: Thank you.

DR. SEITZ: I don't raise livestock, 

so I can't speak from experience.

MS. HUSEMAN: Thank you.

CHAIR ELA: Are there any other Board 

Members that wish to ask a question, or make a 

comment?

Not seeing any, we will move to the 

vote. The motion is to remove poloxalene from 

205.603(a) of the National List, based on the 

following criteria and the Organic Food Production 

Act. The motion was made by Dan and seconded by 
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Nate. We will start the vote with Rick, I believe. 

Rick, go ahead.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIR ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIR ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIR ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIR ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIR ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIR ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIR ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIR ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIR ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIR ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIR ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIR ELA: Jerry? Jerry, you're on 

mute, I think.

MR. D'AMORE: Sue, I borrowed that out 

of your playbook.

The answer's no. Thank you.

CHAIR ELA: And the Chair votes no, as 

well. I thought we were going to have a perfect 

round there, but not quite. We'll keep working 

on it. So, Jesse, the vote?

MR. BUIE: Zero yes -- zero nos, 15 yes, 

the motion fails.

MS. BAIRD: Other way around.

CHAIR ELA: Thank you.

MR. D'AMORE: Other way around.

CHAIR ELA: I think you got that the 

other --

MR. BUIE: Oh. Oh. Oh --

MR. BUIE: -- zero yes, 15 no.

MS. BAIRD: Right.
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR ELA: And the motion fails.

MR. BUIE: Right.

CHAIR ELA: Thanks, Jesse.

Sue, I'll give it back to you for the 

next one.

MS. BAIRD: Yes. And this would be 

205.603(b) formic acid, and this is Nate's.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you, Sue. 

Formic acid is a pesticide employed to control 

Varrora and tracheal mites in honeybee hives, 

deployed in the form of a compressed pad inside 

the hive and the material volatilizes to kill the 

mite throughout the hive, including mites that 

attack the broods.

And across the comments, both in the 

spring and for this meeting, it has been consistent 

that this is a material we want to keep, as we don't 

want it taken off the List.

I think it's a fairly uncommonly-used 

material, partly because it's only used in 

apiaries, but the folks who do raise bees and the 

certifiers who do have certified operations who 

are listed in their OSPs do identify it as a 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

critical material without an adequate substitute. 

Any questions from anyone?

CHAIR ELA: I am not seeing any, so we 

will move to the vote. The motion is to remove 

formic acid, 205.603(d) of the National List. 

Now, the motion was made by Nate, it was seconded 

by Scott, and so we will start with Kim on the vote.

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIR ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIR ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIR ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIR ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIR ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIR ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIR ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIR ELA: Wood?
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIR ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIR ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIR ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIR ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIR ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIR ELA: The Chair votes no. 

Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, 15 no, the motion 

fails.

CHAIR ELA: All right. Sue, back to 

you.

MS. BAIRD: Our next sunset material 

is EPA List 4, inerts of minimal concern, and this 

is Scott's.

MR. RICE: Thanks, Sue. This is a 

broad-listing category. If any of us is 

unfamiliar with this after public comments, 
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

perhaps you missed public comments.

There's been a lot of discussion on this 

across both the Livestock Subcommittee and with 

Asa's leadership on this in Crops, and a lot of 

robust discussion.

I think, it's safe to say that the Board 

is looking for some forward motion on moving from 

this outdated list thing that's no longer supported 

by EPA and finding a way forward.

We've had some, lots of discussion on 

Boards previous to ours, and a 2015 recommendation 

that points to the Safer Choice List as a potential 

way to do that.

I think it's worth mentioning, you 

know, we heard from stakeholders that using a Safer 

Choice List as a direct replacement for EPA 4, List 

4, isn't practical, noting that the List is 

predominantly cleaners, or for substances using 

cleaning agents. But, I think it's important to 

note, as Asa did in his comments, and hopefully 

he can elaborate on this. You know, we weren't 

looking at it as a direct replacement, per se, but 

as a model for the architecture for review and a 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

listing system that uses that as a model, but it's 

tailored to those materials that would be used in

organic production. Again, let Asa expand on 

that.

And, you know, we're, I think, united 

in our agreement that we'd like to move beyond this. 

I think it gets down to how we want to send that 

message and make that motion.

And, you know, from our Subcommittee, 

we moved out of Subcommittee with a motion to relist 

for 603. Obviously, Crops came to a different vote 

on that.

I would like to think we can send a 

comment, message, you know, in our recommendation, 

but I think it's pretty clear that we're united 

in just wanting this to move forward, so I think 

it just gets down to that board process.

I would just note, I think, from a 

stakeholder and transparency perspective, I don't 

think it's good practice for the Board to move 

recommendations forward, if we know they are with 

the understanding that they're not going anywhere.

I think that, even if there is an 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

understanding amongst some of us, some of our 

stakeholders of what that means, it's, I think, 

not a best practice, in my opinion, because, we 

don't have those stakeholders at the table to sort 

of see all the nuance and inside baseball as to 

maybe why we're doing that.

I'd prefer see a recommendation to 

relist and move to just a real strong message to 

the program that we really want to see this move 

forward. So with that, I would move it to 

questions and discussion.

And, also, I think, if for the benefit 

of those who didn't hear the comments from Dr. 

Tucker during the Webinar, it might be useful to 

hear from her some thoughts on this. I'll turn 

it back to you, Sue and Steve.

CHAIR ELA: Thanks, Scott. Yes, I 

think Jenny did make some comments during the oral 

comment section, but I would turn to her and ask 

her if she would restate her thoughts on List 4.

We know it's a complicated subject and 

we obviously struck a chord with our, our 

stakeholders. Go ahead, Jenny, if you're willing?
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. TUCKER: I'll restate what I said 

during public comment. But, actually, I want to 

add a big picture summary statement right out 

front, that I think an inherent tension with the 

question before the Board right now is nothing 

inspires like a deadline, and nothing is as scary 

as a deadline.

And so I think that is directly related 

to, sort of, the question of do we -- to relist 

or not to relist, and how do we want to perceive 

that deadline, in terms of inspiring, or just 

really scary, and that seemed to be reflected in 

the full range of comments that I've heard.

So this is very much a complex problem. 

You know, when we don't move ahead with something, 

we did not move ahead with this in 2015. And I 

was very clear when I took this position that it 

was going to be a while, before we're going to pick 

this one up, because we had other priorities. 

There were other things we had to get done, and 

so I think it is complex and it, also, is time.

I think the way Safer Choice has been 

described over this meeting has been very helpful, 
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as sort of a model, as an architecture, just, you 

know, it's not a ready-to-go list.

It is not a ready-to-go replacement for 

Lists 3 and 4 and I think people learned a lot about 

the nature of what this List is and how it's built.

You know, one important feature, 

depending on how you look at it, a feature or bug, 

is -- Safer Choice is not codified in the 

Regulations. I mean, it's -- Lists 3 and 4 were 

in the EPA Regulations, and Safer Choice is not.

And so one question comes when you're 

referring to another list held by another agency, 

if that's not codified in their regulations, it's 

not under the same Administrative Procedures Act 

controls as our Regulations.

And that's when the legal questions, 

and we have spoken with our Office of General 

Counsel about this rule, that raises very real 

questions.

So I want to right now, kind of, focus 

on process of what, given that complexity and given 

that, I think, public commenters pointed out that 

it would take time to figure this out, given its 
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

complexity.

Let's remind ourselves of the process 

here. NOSB has a very specific role and NOP has 

a very specific role, and so you are considering 

you know, in the NOSB role, what you want to do 

with this listing.

If you vote on a -- to remove. So if 

there is an affirmative vote, a decisive vote to 

remove, then it would be referred to the Program

and we would then engage in a rulemaking process 

that would be governed by the Administrative 

Procedures Act.

And that has a slightly different set 

of criteria than what the Board considers. So we, 

for example, have to consider economic impact. 

We have to include the cost benefit analysis.

And so the -- we would not be able to 

finalize rulemaking to remove without rulemaking 

to replace. There has to be a replacement 

mechanism in order for removal to be successful, 

in those cases.

That would have to really go 

hand-in-hand to be workable, and that replacement 
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is further complexified by the fact that we do need 

an NOSB recommendation to add a synthetic.

And does referring to this other 

third-party list that's an interesting framework, 

but not actually a list, is that actually a 

recommendation to add a synthetic, and so the, 

again, the complexity of the legal questions.

Given the complexity, a common tool 

used in the federal government, we haven't used 

it as much in the Program, but this is a good use 

case for it, is an advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking, where we would describe the problem, 

you know, like I'm doing now, and describe a range 

of options for moving forward with a replacement 

that would happen concurrently with a removal.

That would give the opportunity for 

formal comments and a public comment process in 

response to that advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking, which would give us a lot more data 

in terms of, well, what do we actually need? Do 

we need a different kind of recommendation from 

the Board, as a replacement? What are our options 

moving ahead? So that would be, we talk often at 
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

NOP about agile project management.

Rulemaking is not particularly agile, 

but this is a way of learning about what the best 

solutions are moving forward, in a process that 

would be controlled and governed by the 

Administrative Procedures Act.

So, Steve, what else would you like me 

to cover in that? That's essentially the key 

points that I covered during the public comments.

Let's see, the only other point I wanted 

to make that OGC brought up. I already talked 

about the fact that referencing a non-codified list 

in the Regulations can be problematic. It's, 

also, you know, as with some other rules we've 

talked about in the past, you do have to read the 

statute very carefully here.

When the statute, Organic Foods 

Productions Act, was written, it was written with 

this kind of Lists 3 and 4 in mind, in the context 

of that kind of legislative action.

Without Lists 3 and 4, OFPA can actually 

be read in a very different way, when those lists 

go away, and so the interpretation of Organic Foods 
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Production Act and what it actually allows for, 

with respect to this category of materials without 

Lists 3 and 4, there are some statutory authority 

questions that would also come up. That would be 

something that we would describe in an advanced 

notice of proposed rulemaking, to get public 

comment on.

But, this is another one similar to 

origin of livestock, where, well, the statute says 

something, what does rulemaking look like, in a 

way that, legally, is linked to the statute.

So now I'm going to stop. Steve, what 

did I miss that you'd like me to cover?

CHAIR ELA: I just have one question 

that, to make clear in my own head. If, 

hypothetically, the Board voted to delist, and -- I 

mean, the sunset is, I believe, in two years, if 

I -- off the top of my head.

If we weren't successful in coming up 

with an alternative within that two years, does 

the sunset automatically relist, if no other 

rulemaking is taking place?

DR. TUCKER: I think that becomes 
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

what's called an invalid listing, and somebody's 

going to IM me and tell me if that's wrong, 

but -- and so it would've been something that 

would've been voted to have been removed, but 

wouldn't actually have been removed. So it would 

still be on the List.

I think, sort of -- we have other 

parallel cases where the Board has made a 

recommendation and we have not implemented that 

recommendation. It certainly would start the 

clock. That is a potential risk, in terms of 

causing some market confusion.

If we don't finish in time and there's, 

kind of, this time, well, where the Board has said 

it should sunset, but we have not been, we've not 

removed it, then -- I'm getting texts in. This 

is why it's great to have a team.

So they're telling me that we would 

renew it, to maintain the listing. So we would 

renew it to maintain the listing. If we weren't 

ready to go with a replacement, at that point, we 

would renew it, and then we could do rulemaking 

later, to really remove it. So it would stay --
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR ELA: Okay.

DR. TUCKER: -- on the list to provide 

that market certainty. Sorry.

CHAIR ELA: Yes. Nope, it's a complex 

question. I asked it because my sense was that 

it would automatically renewed, if we didn't go 

to --

DR. TUCKER: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: -- rulemaking, to delist --

DR. TUCKER: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: -- it, but I wanted to make 

sure, before I misspoke. So --

DR. TUCKER: Yes that is correct and 

I --

CHAIR ELA: Okay, thank you.

DR. TUCKER: -- really have to 

emphasize that, so ignore what I said before. That 

was wrong, it would relist. Apologies.

CHAIR ELA: No worries. It's actually 

heartwarming to see you struggle with some of these 

questions, too. It makes all of us feel a little 

more human, so.

With that, I'm going to open it up to 
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

questions from the Board. And normally I will let 

all the, the Board speak, before I chime in, but 

this is one time I'm going to take the Chair's

prerogative to put my comment in first.

And I think this is one where every 

Board Member's going to have to vote based on some 

faith and some trust, either way. Scott and I 

think we come down on opposite sides, a little bit, 

but I think we agree, in general, and it's not 

really a coming down on opposite sides, we're both 

straddling the fence, leaning one way or the other.

And at the risk of irritating and 

alienating most of the stakeholders, of which I 

am one, I know what Harold Austin said, that if 

these materials are delisted with no alternative, 

that 60 percent of the Washington specialty tree 

fruits would go away. I disagree with Harold; I 

think it would be a much higher number. I think 

it would probably be 90 percent, and I would be

one of those people that would go away if these 

materials weren't allowed.

So it does have a very visceral impact 

on my own operation, as well as my stakeholders. 
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

However, having said that -- so I'm not in favor 

of having these materials delisted at all without 

a viable alternative. I want to make that very 

clear.

And I think a lot of the stakeholder 

comment we heard was a very visceral and strong 

reaction that these materials would go away and 

then we'd all be in a boat-load of trouble.

And so I want to be very clear that I 

am not in favor of that. However, I'm going to 

take the unusual step of saying I believe in 

delisting.

I know there have been comments that 

says this may not be a good procedure. That really 

we should only vote to delist something when there 

is a viable alternative present.

However, I also think this is a very 

unique listing, in the sense that it's a listing 

for over 200 materials. Most of our listings are 

on one material that we can very easily see if 

there's a viable alternative or not, and vote on 

that.

So I think, because of this unique 
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

listing and the number of materials covered, it's 

very hard, initially, to say what the viable 

alternative is.

I also know that, in listening to the 

public comment, and I tried to ask some questions 

in that, our stakeholders are against removing it, 

but I did not hear any great comments of how we 

should move forward to rectify this situation, and 

I think that's the real issue.

So my thoughts are, we have two choices, 

one is to delist, one is to relist. If we delist 

it, we do create some paranoia in the marketplace 

and some uncertainty, but I think these materials 

cannot be delisted, because of the economic impact, 

until we have something that will replace them.

So I think -- I want to emphasize, I 

truly believe that we will not lose these materials 

until we have something to replace them.

The advantage to me of delisting are 

a couple. One is, I think we put the ball in 

Jenny's court, unfortunately for her. But we 

really show that we don't believe this is a valid 

listing and that it is a broken link, because of 
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that EPA is not renewing this.

I think it's a real problem for 

manufacturers that want to make new products, 

because there's not a way to put a new product on

this List, or have any new products relisted. So 

we're stifling innovation, even though we're also 

then protecting what is already there.

So I think it is a bad listing. And 

so by putting it in Jenny's court, we are giving 

her ammunition to go to her higher-ups and say, 

this is a very high priority. And I believe that 

it will be a high priority in the NOP at this point.

The other advantage is that the NOP has 

paid staff. And they have people that can be in 

direct contact with EPA, through interagency 

agreements.

The NOSB does not have that, and I worry 

that, if we vote to relist, it's going to fall -- we 

can ask for a work agenda item for the NOSB, but 

we only have two one-hour calls a month, and I think 

it is an overwhelming task for the NOSB to work 

on as a volunteer group, and to look at over 200 

materials.
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

If we don't come up with some viable 

grouping, I think there's no way that the NOSB can 

look at 200-plus materials and that many TRs, and 

do it in a cohesive manner.

So I would rather see the NOP work on 

it, in conjunction with the NOSB, and open this 

with stakeholders, through the, as Jenny said, the 

proposal getting advanced rulemaking, and really 

have the paid people come up with a grouping that 

makes sense in the EPA context, as well as, the 

USDA context.

So I understand that this is unusual, 

but I really believe that delisting is the best 

way we can force the Program to deal with this, 

and I'm very worried, if we vote to relist, that 

we will be in this same exact spot in five years.

So that is my comment and my argument 

to delist, even though it is unusual. But I, 

again, I want to say that I am not in favor of taking 

the materials away until we have something else 

to replace them. With that, I will be quiet and 

turn it over to other comments, from the Board.

Emily, and then Asa. Emily, go ahead.
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: Thanks for your excellent 

explanation, Steve and Scott. I definitely 

understand where you're coming from as well and 

I think, you know, this is a tremendously 

complicated situation. I would also just say 

that, you know, I know we heard from public 

commenters concerned about sort of the optics and 

also just the process of delisting something as 

you stated without the need to replace it but I 

just want to emphasize that I think relisting it 

in its current broken form also sends a similarly 

negative message. So I support the comments that 

you made. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Go ahead, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you, and thank you, 

Steve. I think you kind of summarized the issues 

very well and I appreciate that. And also, I 

appreciate Scott's position as well. And also, 

you know, I am sensitive to and understand a lot 

of the objections we heard on particularly the 

pesticide industry side last week. You know, I 

have gone to biopesticide industrial alliance 

meetings and I've followed this field carefully 
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and, you know, I think there is a lot of merit in 

the development of less toxic and softer materials 

in agriculture.

And I think that industry has provided 

leadership and, you know, is developing and seeking 

out markets for better materials and to the extent 

that we have materials that can overlap in the 

organic sector and hopefully also into the 

conventional sector that are less toxic and have 

less environmental and health impacts then that 

is a net positive, absolutely. You know, we have 

heard as Steve said that, the current listing with 

the defunct EPA list four inhibits innovation. 

And then just structurally, as part of the organic 

community and the way the overall system works, 

there really has to be opportunity for input on 

what goes on the national list.

And we have this situation where, you 

know, we have a reference, I guess as Jenny would 

say, on a statutory basis, but it's a reference 

that's actually not maintained by the agency. So 

I feel like we need to move forward in a way that 

can provide both -- could be responsive to all 
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sectors of the organic community and that 

ultimately, we'll come up with a better system.

And I guess I'll say one more thing 

again, you know, I know no one pats me on the back 

for this one but just in principle I don't think 

we should have unlabeled inerts in any pesticide 

formulation. And when, at least especially in the 

organic sector, when you bought a pesticide that 

was OMRI-approved and have the list of all 

ingredients. I know that's unpopular in many 

manufacturing fronts but both conventional and 

organic side but I'll put in that little pitch here

in addition to my comments on this.

CHAIRMAN ELA: We'll go to Dave and 

then Rick.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, I appreciate the 

thought of full synthetic comments that have been 

made and definitely the written public comments 

were stinging at times. But I think the point for 

me, one of the points that really is compelling 

is Steve's last point about is this really the right 

thing for the National Organic Standards Board to 

be doing or is this some sort of interagency larger 
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

task that's conducted perhaps in concert with NOSB.

But there is no way that the time is 

available to do this justice with a volunteer board 

in my view. Given that the scope of the work that's 

needed here it is on the scope of, you know, a cadre 

of BPA folks and others working together with NOP 

and NOSB to get the job done. So I just think it's 

undoable to do it well, and I think it's not wise 

for us to kid ourselves to think that we can do 

it well when we really can't do it well with a 

volunteer board that is overwhelmed with work as 

it is.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Dave. Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. Steve, again, 

thank you for your thoughtful comments. And I have 

a couple of things. Number one, I hope we can get 

away from the term inert. That just drives me 

crazy because we know that there's a number of items 

out of the 200 that we probably wouldn't allow if 

they came up now as a petitioned item. And so I'm 

glad that we're going to review it. And again, 

Dave and I talked one time I think at one of the 

other calls about the fact that it really does it's 
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

going to take a lot of thoughtful analysis and the 

board really doesn't have the time to do well.

And so I think that, you know, even 

though we have been cautioned about delisting it, 

I'm for it. I was against it in the beginning 

because of the optics but it just makes more sense 

to me to move it over to the NOP and I know that 

Jenny has hundreds of people that will work on this 

starting tomorrow, so I'm not concerned. But, you 

know, all kidding aside it's just, it's the wrong 

thing now. And I know when I buy an organic insect 

treatment and it's 1% active ingredient and 99% 

inert, in the past I never quite knew what that 

was, and now I know that I don't know what it is 

and some of it might not be something that I want 

to use. So I go with removing it and having a new 

system at some point.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Other comments from the 

board? I know that this is a hot potato and it's 

strongly felt. It looks like we have Sue and then 

Dan and then Nate.

MS. BAIRD: Yes, and I appreciate the 

complexity of this and I appreciate Steve's comment 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and I will state that when this first, we first 

started discussing this method of moving forward 

it caused me great angst in my tummy thinking about 

potential to our producers and it still scares me. 

But they are so complex and if nothing else, if 

Jenny were not so inclined to move forward, I think 

as soon as we delist this, and especially of course 

we're talking livestock now, but I think we're 

talking both.

When we get a lot of our producers who 

all of a sudden can't use products because their 

inerts are no longer allowed, that if NOP does not 

move quickly, they will probably have a lot of 

lawsuits on their hands. So with that, assurances 

that we will get some kind of quick movement to 

have a true review by those scientists who are more 

qualified to review all of these things than 

perhaps I am, it seems to be the way to go.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Go ahead, Dan.

DR. SEITZ: I would just like to echo 

Asa's broader comment that any substance that comes 

before the board in the future should list every 

last ingredient, that there shouldn't be any trade 
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

secrets or something that is left out because the 

manufacturer would not like to reveal what the full 

set of ingredients is in a substance. If a company 

or a user is interested in something being listed 

as acceptable and organic, the board should have 

full knowledge of what's in that in order to be 

able to make an informed decision.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate, you're up next.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I wanted to just echo 

again the deep leadership that I feel like you've 

offered, Steve, on this and the amount of time that 

everyone I've had conversations with so many folks 

about this very subject and I still feel deeply 

conflicted. I thought the comment in the oral 

comment period was that similar to, you know, 

taking away healthcare without and identified 

alternative really resonates with me and I think 

that I am first and foremost and farmer, and I never 

want to move forward without a real idea of how 

we're going to this on behalf of other farmers so 

not to cripple the tools that farmers have and need.

And I also, in looking back, I wasn't 

here then, but the 2015 recommendation I think was 
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

very clear and I wish it would be implemented and 

put to rulemaking, but yes, I would say it's --

Sue said it well, it just leaves me kind of sick 

that we don't have an alternative before delisting. 

But I just wanted to say thank you everyone for 

the deep consideration that's gone into this.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa, you have another 

comment?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes, just to add and 

reiterate that we do have these, you know, 

recommendations from 2015 that I think help, you 

know, provide a roadmap as to go forward. I'm also 

just so impressed with comments submitted by the 

National Organic Coalition this time around and 

last spring and they derive in part from the 2015 

recommendation and prior discussions.

You know what, I think we do have some 

clear ideas about how to move forward and 

understanding that we're not, some of the 

discussion about EPA was not to simply replace the 

SCIL list, you know, list forward with the SCIL 

list, rather it was to open up a process and, you 

know, I think that's what we're all kind of voting 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for now is that process, it will be.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Anybody else from the 

board? I will note that we will continue this 

discussion in crops as well since it's on both, 

some sorts on both sides of crops and livestock. 

Well, I am seeing no other comments at this point. 

What I'm going to -- oh, Scott has a comment. 

Go ahead, Scott.

MR. RICE: Sorry, I didn't, couldn't 

find the button fast enough. Just a quick question 

as a follow-up for Jenny. I mean, is there 

anything that would prevent the program from moving 

towards something like the notice of proposed 

rulemaking for the board to vote to relist? Is 

that a scenario that can happen were you to do that? 

Just for the sake of understanding.

DR. TUCKER: Sure. To understand what 

the options are. You know, on one hand nothing 

inspires like a deadline. On the other hand this 

would be a pretty tight deadline. You know, I have 

been calling them inerts but I will train myself 

to call them something else, so other ingredients. 

I have started, we've started that discussion 
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

internally. We do have support for an advanced 

notice of proposed rulemaking, ANPR.

Based on the conversation that has 

happened during the public comment period and 

during this meeting, and the fact that you did give 

us a 2015 recommendation that we haven't moved 

forward with, I had said about a year and a half, 

two years ago that it would be at least a year and 

a half before we could pick it up and here we are. 

So I think there is an argument for moving forward 

even if you relist it. And there's nothing as 

inspiring as a deadline. So it would be very hard 

from -- I can't commit to a timeframe here and how 

that timeframe would be different.

Ultimately the regulatory agenda 

process that we've all been sort of engaging with 

over the last few years here remains the process. 

And so it would need to go through a process to 

get on the regulatory agenda. I have started the 

discussion internally about the importance of 

doing an ANPR and there is support for doing that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: I just wanted to say I've 
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

been torn up about this decision as well and I feel 

like, you know, it's, to your point, Steve, the 

idea of not having critical materials available 

is beyond my ability to comprehend but at the same 

time, you know, I think we have to move forward. 

And I think what I'm realizing as a first-year 

board member is that I, you know, this is a 

complicated, everything we do is complicated. 

Everything we're doing here is quite, it taxes the 

brain in ways I never really imagined and I'm 

feeling like my -- I'm leaning in the direction 

of trusting the process to your point and to Jenny's 

point.

But I did want to ask Jenny a question 

on the notice of advance rulemaking. Can you give 

a sense, Jenny, of sort of how, just as a gesture, 

you know, any signal to the community, how quickly 

would that notice occur if we did vote to remove 

it from the list? I'm just curious if, you know, 

is that something that's months away? Does is come 

on the heels of this meeting fairly quickly? Or 

can you give any sense of that? I know you said 

you're hesitant to discuss timelines about the 
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

process in general, but I am curious about the 

notice.

DR. TUCKER: Yes, an advanced notice

of proposed rulemaking it is something that goes 

through the standard clearance process within OG 

-- so it would go through the Office of General 

Counsel first and then it would go to 

administration. I don't know if an ANPR has to 

go through OMB or not. And if somebody on my team 

knows the answer to that feel free to text me in. 

And so we would need to figure that out. I think, 

you know, Jared, since he got here has been very 

involved and has been in staff level meetings with 

the EPA and a number of meetings, at least a couple 

meetings with OGC at this point.

So I think he's already started to put 

together what would end up being the ANPR, getting 

it through the clearance process is just, it is 

a process. It is less weighty in that all we're 

doing is kind of describing our problem and 

describing what the different options are. We're 

not actually proposing anything so we don't have 

to do an economic analysis write-off and things 
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

like that. And so that makes it a little bit 

easier. Shannon has signaled that she thinks that 

we don't think an ANPR would have to go through 

OMB. We'd have to confirm that but that sounds 

right to me, I just didn't want to say it without 

somebody else agreeing with me. So spring-ish. 

Yes, there are a lot of factors --

CHAIRMAN ELA: You use ish like I use 

--

DR. TUCKER: There are a lot of factors 

that would, could impact our timing, so I just, 

spring-ish is the best I can do. And I promised 

myself that after SOE and OMB for nine months that 

I wasn't going to do timeframes anymore so I'm going 

to slap my own wrist for that one.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I'm going to -- we're 

getting a little short on time. We're going to 

have more discussion on this in crops as well. 

I'm going to make one comment and then Sue can make 

a final comment and then we'll move on from there.

I guess I still feel strongly that I 

want to, sorry Jenny, but I really want to hold 

Jenny's fingers to the fire of having them work 
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on this and I think the best way to do that is to 

vote to delist. I truly believe that there is no 

way that this is going to be delisted without a 

viable alternative because the status quo is 

relisting on either with the two year deadline or 

just because I see no way it will go through 

rulemaking with the economic impact it would have.

And so, you know, Harold Austin=s 

comments about how much, you know, the devastation 

it would cause if these were removed I think can 

also be taken in the positive sense that there's 

no way these will be removed because of the economic 

consequences. So I want to put all the pressure 

I can on Jenny and then, you know, she can use that 

for higher-ups as well to say this really should 

be a very high priority within the program.

And I also, I just believe that even 

if we don't finish this in two years and they are 

relisted, we have started the process then on the 

program and I don't see it as being abandoned once 

we've started down that road. And, you know, then 

in five years when it is, if it does get relisted 

and we're back at the sunset review, we will have 
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a viable alternative at that point to put forward. 

So I just, I want to put all the energy we can 

behind this to move it forward and put all the 

pressure we can on Jenny. Apologies, Jenny, but 

Sue, one last comment and then we'll close out 

discussion.

MS. BAIRD: This has been great 

discussion and, Steve, I guess I was just going 

to say the same thing you did. Even if we vote 

to delist, that doesn't mean the NOP is going to 

move to take it off the list. We've seen that 

happen in the past. And I think that's the 

assurance that our producers will have is that if 

we voted to delist it, I don't see it ever coming 

off the list until we have a true viable option. 

So producers can breathe easy. They're not going 

to lose their products.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. We're a 

little bit overtime on this discussion but I think 

it's a really good discussion and it really is 

needed just because we -- I will apologize to our 

stakeholders in that while we thought we really 

did a good job on the write-up on all this, we 
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

probably didn't, weren't clear enough on some of 

our thoughts and I do apologize for the uncertainty 

that we created in the community because that 

certainly was not our intention and it was not our 

intention to take away these materials.

What I'm going to suggest is since we 

have a similar, a very similar discussion in crops 

tomorrow -- oh, Mindee, you have your hand up. 

Is it very quick, because I'd like to move on.

MS. JEFFERY: Sure. I'm just really 

cognizant of all the tension and taking in all the 

perspectives and want to remind us that consumers 

choose organic because of their concerns about 

pesticides overwhelmingly. And in this 

situation, in our community, I really see this as 

a moment where we can begin a new kind of 

partnership in the community where we hear all 

concerns and trust our partnerships both with the 

board and with the program.

And I think that's a really interesting 

moment in organic, that this is a moment we're in 

where all sides are taken into consideration in 

difficulty looking towards both the board and the 
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

program we're working together on something that 

we need to make progress on, and it's something 

that we need to open ourselves up to choosing 

powerfully in moments like this, especially in a 

time like this in our history as a country.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank, Mindee. All 

right. I'll close out discussion. What I'm going 

to suggest is because we do have this same --

they're different in livestock and crops, but 

essentially the same discussion, I would like to 

defer this vote to we have a section for Friday, 

on Friday for deferred votes. I would like to 

defer this vote to Friday so we can have the 

discussion in crops as well and give that airtime 

equally to livestock. Does any of the board have 

any objections to deferring this vote until Friday?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. As such we will 

defer it to Friday and that will give crops a chance 

to give their discussion as well. Okay, moving 

on, Sue, we will move on to excipients.

MS. BAIRD: Yes. Excipients are 605 

-- 205.603F, and then it correlates to the 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

definition which is found in 205.2, which says any 

ingredients that are intentionally added to 

livestock medications, but does not exert 

therapeutic or diagnostic effect at the intended 

dosage, although they may act to improve product 

delivery enhancing absorption or controlling 

release of the drug substances that are used in 

new animal drug applications, but not as approved 

by FDA and in animal care, healthcare products that 

do not carry the NADA registration.

They're also using new drug 

applications in drugs marketed for human 

consumption that may be administered to animals, 

such as aspirins. There are about 8,000 

excipients available. And they're found 

ubiquitously in all of our drugs and biologicals. 

We've got our comments basically are correlating 

this to the same thing as inerts. Excipients do 

many times exert some kind of a therapeutic or

diagnostic effect at the dosage. We've been 

called as a livestock to provide consistency in 

the interpretation and in the definition.

We've been asked to state that they must 
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

have adequate information about the identity and 

function of the excipients. There's comments 

saying that we need clear meaning for it for 

production age, and yet with all of this confusing 

and inconsistencies among certifiers for what is 

allowed as excipients and what are not all allowed 

as excipients, and we had that pointed out several 

times in the comments. Producers overwhelmingly 

are crying that we must keep excipients on the 

national list. They're saying we cannot remove 

excipients unless we have information on products 

that would pertain to the effects on the health 

of the animals. Some stated that if we took 

excipients out, that especially some of our 

sanitary, sanitation products, it would impact 

food safety, it would be a food safety impact as 

well.

So overwhelmingly from producers, 

we've been asked to keep excipients on the list.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Are there 

comments and thoughts or questions for Sue? Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: I had a question. This 

might be for Scott more than Sue if we're at that 
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

stage of the discussion. But maybe, well, just 

from a certification point of view, in some of the 

comments, I mean, there's some overlap here with 

kind of inerts in some ways, although these aren't 

necessarily broadcast into the environment in the 

same way that many pesticides are.

It sounds like there's a role there for 

certifiers to actually review materials and drugs. 

I want to understand that a little bit more. I've 

been trying to read up on that and that there seems 

to be potential there for discrepancies or 

inconsistencies among how excipients are viewed. 

I don't know if you can provide clarification on 

that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott, you want to try 

and answer that? Or Nate as a certifier? Or I 

guess Sue as lead? I think you stumped them, Asa.

MS. BAIRD: Hearing from neither of the 

others I will say that I would agree as a reviewer 

and as an inspector of several different 

certifiers, I would agree there probably is 

inconsistency and the amount of time to research 

through excipients -- yes, there's probably 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

inconsistencies.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I will make a comment 

and then we can move on. I recognize that this 

is very similar to the list scores and that some 

stakeholders may say we're being inconsistent. 

I think that the big difference on this one is 

really that, to me, is the list of things that the 

excipient has to be number one, two, three, and 

four, and that it, you know, that does -- is a pretty 

restricting list.

I also, we had pretty strict rules on 

the use of these drugs and biologics in livestock 

and also often have the referral dates on them so 

I do feel like it's a little different situation 

where there are more restrictions on these. So 

I don't feel like they're quite the same situation. 

Any other comments from board members?

Okay. I do not see any so we'll move 

to the vote. The motion is to remove excipients 

from 205.603 of the national list. It was made 

by Sue, seconded by Jesse. Jesse, am I correct 

we're starting with Mindee or Jesse or Scott?

MR. RICE: I think --
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BUIE: Sorry, I was on mute. I 

think it was -- what I had was, let's see, one, 

two, three, four five, I think we're on Kim if I'm 

not mistaken.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I think we started with 

her last time.

MS. HUSEMAN: I was the first one the 

last time.

MR. BUIE: Okay. All right. So we're 

on to Mindee. Sorry about that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: So we're on to Mindee. 

Okay. No worries, just wanted to double check 

my note taking. So vote on the motion again of 

a yes vote is to remove, a no vote is to keep it 

on the list. So, Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse? Jesse, are you 

there? We didn't hear a vote.

MS. BAIRD: Should we count him as 

absent?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Still not -- Jesse, are 

you there?

MR. BUIE: I'm here. Can you hear me?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Now we can. 

What is your vote again, Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Okay. No. I -- no, no.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Perfect. Somehow we 

couldn't hear you. So, Jerry?
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. D=AMORE: No as well.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the chair votes no. 

You want to give us the tally, Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, 15 no. The motion 

fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jesse. 

Okay, Sue, you're last sunset.

MS. BAIRD: Yes, this is 205.604, 

prohibited non-synthetic substances strychnine, 

Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you. So 

strychnine is a toxic alkaloid that is a 

transparent crystalline power and it's what they 

use to poison rodents and other animals. And it 

leads to a fairly violent death in those mammals 

that consume it. Comments both in the spring and 

the fall were unanimous that overall across I think 

it was about 30 commenters gave their support to 

relist it. Any questions on that?
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Any questions for Nate 

on this, or comments? I do not see any so we will 

move to the vote. The motion is to remove 

strychnine from 205.604 of the national list. The 

motion is by Nate, it was seconded by Jesse. We 

will start with Dave. Dave your vote?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D=AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the chair votes no. 

Jesse, the count?

MR. BUIE: Is zero yes, 15 no. The 

motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Thank you 

very much, Sue, for your leadership on the 

livestock subcommittee. I believe that finishes 

the livestock section and thank you to all the 

committee members on that committee. I know there 

was a lot of discussion, especially on 

fenbendazole, but also on the spores as well as 

the others. So we appreciate the time and hard 

work on that.
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

With that we're running a little bit 

ahead of time so it's possible we will go a little 

bit overtime at the end. But I wanted to make sure 

and give the list for plenty of time for discussion. 

We're next going to move to the Policy Development 

Subcommittee. Rick, I will turn it over to you.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. Thank you, 

Steve. We have a discussion document that the 

committee prepared about the potential use of a 

consent agenda in our meetings. And for those of 

you who are not familiar with them, if you haven't 

read the document, they're used many times in 

government when there's non-controversial issues 

that come up for a vote. Anyone on a board of if 

it's a board of supervisors can pull an agenda item 

for further discussion or comments, but after that, 

the group of (Inaudible) can be voted on as one 

group.

So what the thought is is that this 

would be a method to possibly streamline some of 

the meeting agenda when we have examples of what 

we consider non-controversial items like ammonium 

carbonate and ammonium bicarbonate, rather than 
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

doing each of those separately potentially having 

them come up for one vote. What we wanted to do 

was get some discussion from the board about this 

to see if it's anything that has interest where 

people can, we can talk about it now to see if it's 

worth the Policy Development Subcommittee doing 

additional work on it. If people aren't 

interested, you know, we can go back to business 

as usual.

We did get two comments from the written 

comments. One was against it and one was for it. 

So we're not going to get a lot of leverage there, 

but I'd like to open it up for discussion. And 

I think we might even use today's livestock 

subcommittee. If you think back to some of the 

items that we've talked about, they've been read 

into the record, people haven't had any 

discussions, and then we go through the voting.

So we could, if you think about it, list 

all of the ones that we did just a few minutes ago 

and then people obviously would have pulled out 

the inerts, they could pull out the excipients, 

but then we could vote as one vote for all of the 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

others. Probably save, you know, save some time 

for each of these for the meeting for other more 

thorough discussions. So I'll stop here and get 

an idea of how people think about it and whether 

it's worth looking at. Just another way to work 

on our policies and procedures and see if there's 

a way to make them more efficient.

MR: ELA: Thank you, Rick. Is there 

discussion among the board, or comments? Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Sorry, I --

CHAIRMAN ELA: Go ahead, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: I had to unmute there. 

You know, I think this is an interesting idea, 

Rick. I would be concerned though that, you know, 

individual materials get evaluated individually, 

but I do feel like I'm not sure if now is the time 

to discuss it, but I do feel like there's 

inefficiency in our system where we often repeat 

content and review and discussion in the spring 

and the fall and at the extent that we can spend 

less time on sunsets and more time on -- less time 

that's duplicative, and more time on other 

imperative policy issues then, I mean, I think 
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

there's some time value in that.

I get heartburn right now, but I also 

sometimes take a longer term if, you know, I was 

on the board for seven years, the kind of two and 

a half year rookie period I would have a longer 

period where I felt more comfortable with the 

process. With that, something to consider even, 

you know, we have this five-year sunset renewal 

process. I do think that there's potential for 

increases in efficiency and more time for us --

a way to reduce duplicative time on some issues. 

And anything that moves in that direction I think 

will be helpful.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, good comments. 

And again, I agree with you, you know. Maybe we 

spent 15 minutes just reading through some of the 

sunsets and we've done that several times, that's 

time really that we could spend on some of these 

issues, like the excipients or the inerts that have 

more meaning, I think, and need more discussion. 

So now how we do that is another issue but no, 

it's a good point.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave and then Emily and 
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

then Wood. And hopefully Asa didn't give you a 

heart attack with the possibility, with the thought 

of extending your terms. Go ahead, Dave.

MR. GREENWOOD: No, he was talking 

about you, Steve. I think I have a term limit.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, I agree with Asa. 

And I think the intent of what you're working on, 

Rick, anything we can do to, you know, provide more 

time for discussion of the more difficult issues. 

I do like the idea of triaging the list, which 

is how I see what you're describing here. I think 

the, you know, the thing that comes to mind then 

is if we were going to do it that way, what's the 

process by which grouping occurs, right?

So that way we don't, you know, because 

often we skip down to the nitty-gritty after the 

last public comment and, you know, like oh, this, 

you know, this one's really an issue we need more 

time on and this one is a no brainer that, you know, 

everybody agrees that this is going to go through. 

So I just, I guess I would just underscore the 

importance of the process by which if we did do 

this, something was grouped into the, you know, 
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

doesn't require, you know, let's triage the less 

-- these seven don't require, you know, the 

additional time.

MR. GREENWOOD: No, I agree. And that 

was one of the things that we actually talked about 

in the committee. It's one thing to think about 

this in general terms, it's another thing to how 

we actually operationalize it and make sure that 

it fits within the guidelines of the system where 

we have people's votes on record too. So there, 

you know.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, yes,

MR. GREENWOOD: It's complicated even 

though it sounds pretty simple.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Next we have Emily, then 

Wood, then Sue, and after that we will probably 

have to move on just so that I want to make sure 

we get the strengthening, or the human capital 

management and then CACS. But go ahead, Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Thanks, Rick, for your 

work on this. And I was also surprised by the lack 

of public comment on this, so I was wondering if 
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

PDS might, I mean, not that they weren't two very 

important comments, but that more stakeholders I 

should say didn't weigh in. So I was wondering 

if PDS might consider reissuing this or putting 

forward some more questions for the spring to see 

if there's additional feedback because, you know, 

like Dave stated, I think we all agree absolutely 

with the need to find more time to discuss the 

issues that require more debate.

And we're also looking for ways to do 

that that doesn't preclude robust discussion or 

make someone feel like they're not able to bring 

up a point for fear of, you know, not going with 

a consent calendar view. So is there a way that 

we could put out some questions perhaps to the 

stakeholder community to help us try to resolve 

that issue and that challenge that we're facing 

and see if there might be some other ideas that 

folks have.

MR. GREENWOOD: No, okay. And good 

point because I actually expected to have a number 

of comments because people might think it's a way 

to limit discussion and that we would, you know, 
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

use it to ramrod things through and that isn't the 

intent at all. And anyone who has been to county 

board of supervisors meetings knows that, you know, 

things get pulled and discussed and that starts 

other discussions. So it's not a way to just 

rubber stamp votes. But yes, that's a good idea 

maybe about reissuing it.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood and then Sue.

MR. TURNER: I may be reiterating some 

points that have already been made, Rick, but I 

love this idea and I just wanted to make the point 

that , you know, as long as there's not a -- I think 

sometimes we have to make sure we're moving in the 

direction where individual voices on committees. 

And on the board we have the ability to raise those 

voices and, you know, I don't want there to be sort 

of a, you know, a sense where there's momentum at 

a committee level to kind of move forward when one 

person may feel like they have a need to sort of 

hear how others on the board, on the full board 

may feel about this in open discussion, bring an 

issue in open discussion.

So as long as there's some way I think, 
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and you're thinking about this, that sort of makes 

sure individual voices are heard and if there is 

a strong feeling by an individual person to be able 

to bring something to the board for full discussion 

that there's an opportunity to do that. I think 

this is a great way to think about efficiency and 

really getting to the heart of the matter of what 

we're here to do.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, and I, to me a lot 

of it being through a number of these meetings now, 

is we do so many thing, I hate to say it, by rote, 

but on the sunsets in particular, we spend a lot 

of time saying yes, yes, yes, and I'm just thinking 

that maybe we can do that in one set of yes, yes, 

yeses, or no, no, nos, than, you know, take 

strychnine as an example or something. But it'd 

be interesting. So you had one more comment?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. Just for the 

record I want to make sure I'm not taking 

strychnine.

MR. GREENWOOD: Oh, okay.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue, go ahead.

MS. BAIRD: Yes, not identical but 
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

similar method was used back when the first 

five-year sunset and they had all of these 

materials that they had to review and there was 

obviously no time for it. And they just kind of 

whipped through them very quickly and kind of 

grouped them together and voted to relist. And 

then the action was taken by the policy that we 

broke them down and that's the reason we're really 

working on 2022 stuff so that we won't ever have 

that happen again.

So I think that there is a 

quasi-precedent set for this type of a motion and 

I really think it's something that needs to happen. 

We need time to really consider those issues that 

are -- and I'm not saying not -- I started saying 

that are important, the rest of them are not, that's 

not what I mean. But, yes, we do need to have 

quality time on some of the issues and others are 

just more easily determined.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. No, yes, good 

comments. And, Steve, yes, I think you should 

watch out for strychnine based on some of your votes 

but that's okay.
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Fair enough. It just 

always worries me when somebody says take 

strychnine. But I will just say for my own comment 

and we need to move on is the only worry I have 

is I still think we need to present on each sunset 

the pros and cons to honor our stakeholders and 

the public comments that went in. So I hate to 

just group them and then not have any recognition 

that we have read the public comments.

And then secondly, it makes my head spin 

as to how to think about grouping things. Maybe 

it's because my head already spins. But it kind 

of adds another layer onto things. I just think 

we want to make sure we're very clear to our 

stakeholders and the other board members on how 

we group things. So I'm not necessarily against 

it, I just think there needs to be a high amount 

of transparency. And I know you agree with that 

as well.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Well, thank you, Rick. 

We appreciate your comments. We're going to move 

on to Scott as the chairperson of Compliance, 
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Accreditation, and Certification Subcommittee. 

Scott, why don't you take it away. I know we're 

going to run a little bit overtime and I think 

that's okay. I think we've had some important 

topics this afternoon. So, Scott, I want to make 

sure we give you your due time as well. So go 

ahead, Scott.

MR. RICE: Okay. Thanks, Steve. And 

always challenging I know to be the last for the 

day, but I appreciate everybody sticking around 

for this. I think it's a pretty great one to dive 

into. We had saved 30 minutes for this and I've 

got about, I mean, we received a lot of great 

discussion and comments. So I did want to 

acknowledge and honor those and really give it a 

good shot at summarizing. So I've got about 10 

minutes or so to just give you that summary and 

then looking forward to board discussion. I just 

wanted to give you sort of a lay of the land there.

I wanted to start by extending thanks, 

my thanks are that of a number of stakeholders and 

Jenny for drafting this memo and kickstarting the 

conversation. Judging from the comments we 
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

received and some of the discussions that have 

already taken place, timely and pre-write for 

further exploration as our certification role 

grows and expands its responsibilities and scope. 

The need for bolstering our community in practice 

and inspection certification is pretty clear. 

Mainly clear by the constraints placed on our 

system by the pandemic that we're living through.

Certification and inspection work 

isn't easy and requires a high degree of technical 

skill and understanding. IOIA put a fine point 

on it when they said in their comment, we're facing 

a potential and imminent crisis of an adequate 

number of qualified, trained, and ready 

inspectors. Before diving into the details of the 

comments that we did receive, I wanted to pause 

for a moment and acknowledge some commenter's 

concern with the use of the term human capital.

While there's a broad body of work from 

which that term is drawn, some expressed the term 

comes across as dehumanizing or impersonal and 

generally they don't feel comfortable referring 

to humans as capital. Some suggested alternatives 
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for the term included human capacity, perhaps 

stewardship of expertise, so something that we can 

continue to discuss.

The comments received offered a wealth 

of suggestions and thoughts across the human 

capital dimensions identified in the memo. I made 

an effort to organize those according to the 

dimensions outlined in the memo and identify some 

common themes. That said, there's much crossover 

and many of the ideas expressed are shared across 

those dimensions.

A common concern across many of the 

ideas shared is a need for funding to move them 

forward. The initiation of a credentialing system 

for inspectors, an inspector cooperative, or a 

central database of inspectors and evaluations. 

All of these require some sort of funding. With 

margins tight it's difficult to see this coming 

from the inspectors themselves, but some 

commenters offered suggestions for funding sources 

such as organic manufacturers, USDA, or 

capitalizing on existing programs and networks.

Data, or the lack thereof, figures 
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

pretty prominently in many comments as well. 

There's a need to have a better understanding of 

just how many inspectors are out there. The ratio 

of inspectors that certify operations, the range 

of inspector compensation, geographic location of 

inspectors, the list goes on. The data gap also 

extends to the ability to determine performance 

history of the inspector pool.

So starting as Jenny's memo did with 

strategic workforce planning, there was some 

themes of collaboration. ACA pointed to the 

collaboration with IOIA and NOP as a positive 

impact on the development of inspectors and staff 

through education, training, and networking. One 

of the weaknesses on that is that not all inspectors 

are associated with IOIA or ACA. Other 

collaborations include joint ACA, NOP and IOIA 

trainings. Town halls for IOIA inspector members, 

quarterly certifier inspector dialogue calls, all 

provide a form for identifying strengths, 

weaknesses, and strategies.

Moving on to work force in general, IOIA 

noted inspector interest and registration in 
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

online courses is down this year. Virtual 

conferencing and webinars though can reach 

potential inspectors and build up that interest. 

As we enter a period when more operations will 

require a certification under the strengthening 

of organic enforcement role, the industry needs 

to be seeing that greater interest and not that 

attrition building up that inspector and reviewer 

workforce.

Geographical shortages were 

identified, particularly in the southeast U.S., 

which is seeing growth in organics but lacks a 

robust inspector pool posing some challenges and 

opportunities as well. Navigating state, local, 

and federal labor laws can be challenging when 

working with contractors and can also prevent 

providing services such as direct training or 

offering an hourly rate.

Moving to talent management, in 

particular pipeline development, there was a focus 

on apprenticeship. Many long-term inspectors are 

pulling back on inspection work as they near 

retirement. Also had a concern for exposure 
201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

during the pandemic. That presents an opportunity 

to tap into their experience and cultivate 

mentorship and apprenticeships with new 

inspectors. But to so that requires, again, 

something to cover the expenses of what that 

structure will look like. With virtual 

inspections taking place, technology definitely 

offers opportunity to expand with apprenticeships.

While virtual training and 

apprenticeship can be a burden to the value of 

face-to-face mentorship and skills conveyed in 

person can't be overstated. It's just a real 

valuable part of that relationship. Another lower 

cost option shared was an open office hours concept 

that provides an open forum for Q&A outside of a 

formal training and allows some good dialogue 

between inspectors as well as inspectors and 

reviewers.

Some other commenters pointed to IOIA 

as a natural fit to host an apprenticeship program 

and they are currently managing and looking to 

develop further such a program. Some identified 

other partners such as ACA, IFOAM, NOC, OTA, to 
202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

develop further partnerships in this regard.

One commenter pointed to the Department 

of Labor's apprenticeship program in auditing as 

a model for how we could move forward with inspector 

apprenticeships, and I think that's just a good 

area to look at in general of what those, build 

on existing programs and resources.

In terms of work force sourcing IOIA 

appointed the potential resources for inspector 

pool as being new farmers, crop advisors, retiring 

farmers and professionals. Also important to 

reach folks at a younger age to present the organic 

sector field, through career options, through 

organizations such as FFA, 4-H, and others.

Many pointed to the costly investment 

in training inspectors and reviewers, staff, or 

contract, only to see those folks go work another 

certifier, whether for greater compensation, more 

workplace flexibility, or other factors. 

Recruitment sources outside the organic sector 

include looking at forensic sciences, agro, food 

science, sources could come from the organic 

industry itself via QA managers with processing 
203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

firms or farm managers, production side.

One great idea was to match research 

assistants with NOSB members to help conduct and 

provide literature reviews, write drafts, support 

NOSB members in their work. We've just heard from 

discussion about the challenges we face as the 

board that has a lot on its plate. So that was 

a wonderful idea to also expose those folks to 

pretty high-level technical detail and 

understanding how our industry works. Also 

setting up university work study programs can help 

expose student to the industry.

Looking at recruitment and management, 

excuse me, matching during recruitment, some 

expressed difficulty in finding inspectors and 

reviewers who have direct experience in specific 

production areas, especially livestock. To 

tackle this, certifiers hire inspectors who 

conduct those inspections for other certifiers or 

reviewers who have done this work with other 

certifiers because, again, that's a limited pool 

of knowledge sometimes. Of course a weakness of 

this is that kind of cannibalizes our certifier 
204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and inspector work force where, as I said earlier, 

you just trained somebody and off they go. But 

a strength is that cross pollination can improve 

overall skills of our certification world and the 

inspection community.

ACA and certifier members pointed to 

the potential of an interactive job board 

accessible by certifiers, universities, and other 

organizations. There was broad support for the 

idea of an inspector registry, excuse me, which 

would bring awareness of the breadth and skills 

of the full inspector pool.

Comments cautioned such as registry 

would need to be mindful of confidentiality and 

walk a careful line when it comes to sharing 

evaluations of rating of inspectors, like a due 

process and how that works. Of course you don't 

want to have a blacklist of sorts without having 

some way of managing that in a due process kind 

of way.

In terms of ensuring recruitment 

practices, some noted the potential of overly 

prescriptive qualification requirements to limit 
205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

otherwise promising and talented individuals, 

especially those who may be socially disadvantaged 

and who may not have had access to education but 

have gained experience from other life experience.

Turning to performance management and 

evaluation, we got a lot of comments on 

compensation. Many comments reflected the 

challenge of compensating inspectors or as 

inspectors securing compensation themselves that 

reflects the expertise, training, and experience 

level which they operate. Some inspectors may 

also keep fees low and believe that they need to 

do so to remain competitive with fellow inspectors, 

or to secure work with certifiers to take the lowest 

bid versus the best fit.

Lower compensation is a risk to organic 

integrity for the inspector feels rushed to 

complete an inspection in order to keep their 

margins at a level that offers them a living wage 

who are at a rate that the operation is paying. 

Some commenters suggested six traits recognized 

by all certifiers and inspectors could help raise 

all to a wage to acknowledges that experience and 
206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

education. Some said they were actually in 

cost-share payments having a downstream impact on 

compensation and then inspectors may keep these 

lower than necessary to meet margins and expenses. 

Recognizing that cost if often passed on to 

certified operations.

Looking at evaluation, data 

management, inspection performance, and 

qualification could be helpful in tracking the 

number of inspections and scope conducted each 

year. Continuing education hours, field 

evaluations, complaints, again, some data that is 

super useful. But evaluation can be subjective 

and numerical measures such as number of 

inspections conducted or hours of training 

completed don't tell the full story of an 

experience. One comment raised mentioned that 

standardization officer used in certain auditing 

schemes should be responsible for ensuring 

consistency and adherence to recognize levels of 

performance.

And finally, credentialing. Some 

pointed to the need for an industry-wide 
207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

credentialing system similar to licensing but this 

requires funding and likely as to be standardized 

would need to be accredited itself.

Finally, professional support and 

educational infrastructure. A lot of really great 

thought on education. Folks pointing to look for 

opportunities to engage with the universities 

including supporting curriculum that mirrors 

training for certification reviewers and 

inspectors. A natural focus could be on land grant 

universities with outreach to historically black 

land grant colleges and as well to regional 

technical schools.

Local small business associations and 

state extension services also great resources for 

developing business skills for colleges and 

universities with campus farms. A call to involve 

students with a certification for those farms to 

foster a greater understanding of that 

certification practice, excuse me, process. Kind 

of moving beyond just the production practices that 

we offer on those farms. Kind of presenting 

certification as a professional option.
208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Again, the learning center is a great 

space for students and professionals and a great 

resource. Education is key, but some caution that 

over prescriptive requirements and some concern 

for what FOE has laid out a bit could tighten an 

already pool of inspectors.

We also need specialized audit training 

and traced back and mapped out auditing, 

investigation, and interviewing. Also I think 

very essential we heard about the soft skills that 

make good inspectors, such as curiosity, critical 

thinking, good communication, knowing how to kind 

of read a room and when to stop talking and let 

the other person keep going. Foundational skills 

that's for anyone going into the business 

themselves such as time management, budgeting, 

accounting, information technology and software 

also very crucial.

Some comments on the essentiality of 

inspectors be experienced in the scope and scale 

of production of the inspections, assuming the 

operations they're inspecting. That's something 

we heard a lot in our conversations around fraud 
209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and some of those, I think we tackled in earlier 

discussions.

And I'm at the end here. Professional 

support as independent contractors, inspectors do 

not have access to a common source for liability 

and health insurance. Some good ideas about 

organization of perhaps IOIA, perhaps another that 

has an umbrella policy that would cover their 

members. For a number of areas apprenticeship 

training insurance, some commenters pointed to the 

role of an inspector cooperative or broader 

association to meet two of those shared needs.

Those are about as fast as I can move 

on a pretty deep topic and just really fantastic 

to get the response that we have already and really 

would just point to those comments that we received 

during -- on the docket in further detail. But 

we would love to hear some other ideas from the 

board or reflect on what was heard already. So 

I'll hand it back to Steve.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Scott. Wow. 

Good job. It is a hugely complex issue obviously 

and it's not one I was aware of until you all have 
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

been starting to talk about it. Now it does make 

me worried. I think it's a huge topic for organics 

and especially where certifiers are really the key 

to our whole system in terms of verification. So 

thank you for summarizing that. And I'm worried 

that as you leave the board your immense knowledge 

on this will go away but I also know we have other 

board members who are going to pick it up. But 

your thoughts and work on this as well as organic 

enforcement will be sorely missed. It looks like 

Dave has a comment.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, I just wanted to 

say thanks to Scott and too what I thought, for 

me at least, was it's not my area of expertise by 

any stretch and I really appreciated the written 

and public comments that in the same way that Scott 

would appreciate the much more deeply than I. I 

thought the creativity and the kind of 

problem-solving oriented approach to the 

suggestions was really cool.

I love the idea of universities 

stepping up and playing a bigger role and I could

see all sorts of possible ways based on things that 
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

were suggested and based on personal experiences 

with getting research projects certified as 

systems experiments where we could have done more 

to leverage that as a learning opportunity, as 

opposed to a kind of hoop we had to jump through. 

So I thought there was some very thought-provoking 

things said, so thanks, Scott, and stakeholders.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Other people from the 

board comments? Creative ideas and what we, you 

know, if you see any fast forward on this, Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Following up on some of 

Dave's comments, when I first look and started 

writing my notes to what you were saying, Scott, 

the list kept getting longer and longer because 

of just bullet points. How do you eat an elephant 

one bite at a time? So, you know, I think there's 

so many aspects that you touched on. It seems it 

needs maybe to go into different, you know, several 

silos. And hitting on also the education 

component, when I think of other industries and 

how the university system, and very specifically 

land grant schools, tend to be all over this.

You know, I think there is, you know, 
212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I'm not in that arena directly today but just the 

potential for opportunity to help create a 

standardized education system, or at least an 

approach that can be so vertically integrated. 

And when you touched on college farms and the 

schools that I've been part of and their farming 

operations, there's a huge need there and a 

potential through, you know, funding of some sort 

of course, but in order to expose individuals in 

that learning environment from the ground up. So 

I'm excited to see where this goes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: I was like Kim, 

trying to keep up with all the note taking from 

Scott's bullet point bacchanal but I think that 

the one think I just wanted to add to that because 

I think that was just a truly comprehensive summary 

of all the input that's been given. I'm pretty 

close to this issue just as I've been an inspector 

since 2012 and a teacher of organic inspectors 

since 2017 and so these discussions are kind of 

part of my every day.

But the one thing that I think that we 
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

miss in these discussions is being an organic 

inspector is just the most incredible job. It's 

just a job that I feel like few farm kids could 

ever imagine having and I don't think we do a very 

good job of selling that. And so I think when we 

talk about integrating it into universities and 

other more formal education programs when I was 

at an, you know, in a college of agriculture in 

Montana, oftentimes professors would pose what job 

do you want when you graduate? And in many ways, 

that's sort of a limited list depending on where 

you live.

You can be a salesman of some sort, you 

can maybe be an agronomist for a company, but if 

you're truly into organic agriculture, lots of 

times there's not a long list of jobs for you other 

than starting your own farm or joining a larger 

operation as a farmer agronomist. And so when we 

talk about this, I think things like every 

independent contractor job needs a better access 

to healthcare. And so I think that's not something 

unique to organic inspectors.

But I think talking about it as this 
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

pretty incredible viable job that allows the status 

of organics to also be elevated when we see formal 

tracks at universities training and expecting 

folks to get jobs as organic inspectors after their 

coursework I think does nothing but improve and 

increase the general public knowledge about the 

organic certification process.

So I'm not saying anything that anyone 

doesn't know, but I think reminding ourselves that 

the enforcement work, rather the reporting work, 

of the organic inspector is what keeps us all going, 

but it's also, it is not judgery it is just an 

incredible privilege of a job. And so I encourage 

everyone who's interested in seeking it further, 

but also just wanted to color the conversation a 

little bit with that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Nate. You know 

I was actually going to call on you whether you 

wanted to or not. Because I know your experience 

in that is interesting. I mean, as an organic 

grower, we're certified in the state of Colorado 

so we get state staff that are also doing many other 

things such as pesticide inspection and such and 
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

so they have diverse jobs so I don't really see 

the independent inspector side of things.

So this has been a very interesting 

conversation for me to listen to and again, I think 

it's incredibly important. Are there any other 

comments from the board for Scott or CACS on this?

MR. RICE: I would just offer, you 

know, this isn't the end of the discussion. I 

think Jenny's intent was this would kind of kick 

us off. So I might be heading out but I know that 

all of you and the new folks coming in, we've got 

Kyla Smith taking the certifier seat and she has 

a deep wealth of experience on this as well. So 

I think it's just the beginning of the conversation 

and I'm happy to share my bullet point bacchanalia 

with anyone who cares to have it.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Great. Well, thank 

you. I don't see any other comments from the 

board. But I want to recognize that Sue is also 

has been an inspector and I know has been interested 

in this as well.

So I want to thank the board. I 

apologize for going overtime but I think it's been 
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for good reasons on the discussion here, especially 

on fenbendazole and inerts and such. And I 

apologize to the Policy Development Subcommittee 

and CHCS for not having a shirt for you or a 

background change for you as well. I don't want 

you to feel slighted. I just wasn't adept enough 

to change all those on the fly.

But with this we are going to stop for 

the day. We're going to recess until tomorrow at 

noon eastern time where we will pick up with the 

Handling Subcommittee and I hope you all have a 

good afternoon, or good evening. And we will see 

you all tomorrow. So thank you. Michelle, do you 

have anything before we sign off?

MS. ARSENAULT: No. It's just --

CHAIRMAN ELA: I guess not.

MS. ARSENAULT: -- that the link for 

the board meeting is the same for all three days 

so if you got there through the NOSB web page, it's 

the same link. Maybe you bookmarked it.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. We could 

never do that.

DR. TUCKER: I just wanted to say thank 
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you, Steve, this was a complicated day today with 

all these votes. We didn't do that as much in the 

spring. And so very nicely facilitated. Thank 

you so, so much. Nicely, nicely done.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Well, thank you. And 

thank you for the background support on all this. 

It is important. So we will see everybody 

tomorrow at 12 noon eastern time. I still have 

trouble with my conversions. So have a good 

evening. Take care. 

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 5:19 p.m.)
1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + + +

FALL 2020 MEETING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

OCTOBER 29, 2020

+ + + + +

The Board met via videoconference at 

12:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Steve Ela, Chair, 

presiding.

PRESENT

STEVE ELA, Chair

SCOTT RICE, Vice Chair

JESSE BUIE, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

JERRY D'Amore

RICK GREENWOOD

KIM HUSEMAN

MINDEE JEFFERY

DAVE MORTENSEN

EMILY OAKLEY

NATE POWELL-PALM

A-DAE ROMERO-BRIONES

DAN SEITZ

WOOD TURNER
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ALSO PRESENT

DR. JENNIFER TUCKER, Deputy Administrator, 

National Organic Program; 

Designated Federal Official

DAVID GLASGOW, Associate Deputy Administrator,

National Organic Program

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, Advisory Committee 

Specialist, Standards Division

JARED CLARK, National List Manager, Standards 

Division

SHANNON NALLY YANESSA, Director, Standards 

Division

DEVON PATTILLO, Agricultural Marketing 

Specialist, Standards Division
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CONTENTS

Handling Subcommittee

Proposal: Low-acyl gellan gum

- petitioned .................................. 7

Proposal: Ion-exchange filtration ........... 21

2022 Sunset substances reviews:

Kaolin ....................................... 59

Sodium bicarbonate ........................... 62

Waxes - nonsynthetic (Wood resin) ............ 64

Ammonium bicarbonate ......................... 71

Ammonium carbonate ........................... 74

Calcium phosphates (monobasic, dibasic,

and tribasic) ................................ 76

Ozone ........................................ 79

Sodium hydroxide ............................. 82

Carnauba wax ................................. 84

Colors (18) .................................. 93

Glycerin .................................... 173

Inulin-oligofructose enriched ............... 183

Kelp ........................................ 186

Orange shellac-unbleached ................... 194

Starches: Cornstarch (native) ............... 203

Starches: Sweet potato starch ............... 205

Turkish bay leaves .......................... 209

Whey protein concentrate .................... 211

Materials Subcommittee

Topics:

Proposal: Marine Macroalgae in

Crop Fertility Inputs ....................... 219
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

(12:03 p.m.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: Welcome back, everybody, 

to the Thursday edition of the of the NOSB meeting. 

I just finally got my video on so I will be putting 

up a different background picture. Once I get it 

up, I want Rick to notice that I am promoting 

avocados. 

I think as we move into Handling, once 

I get my picture up, I want you to notice the 

beautiful flaky pie crust, or galette crust, with 

apple in it and a little glop of guacamole on the 

side and we'll decide where handling goes.

MR. GREENWOOD: I appreciate that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Notice to people that 

I have my Handling shirt on with a martini which 

is obviously a handling product through 

fermentation. We will jump in.

Jenny just noted -- made some comments 

about how well yesterday went and we'll keep our 

fingers crossed that today goes as well.

Asa, are you on now?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Oh, okay, great. 

Sounds good. 

The schedule for today is we're going 

to do Handling and the Materials Subcommittee will 

take a break in the middle of Handling because we 

have a fairly extensive docket in the Handling 

Subcommittee. I am now going to turn it over to 

Asa to handle the Handling Subcommittee.

Asa, just as a heads up, Jared does have 

intros for both low acyl gellan gum and ion 

exchange. So, Asa, it is you.

MR. GREENWOOD: Steve, do we need to 

do a roll call?

CHAIRMAN ELA: That would probably be 

a good idea. Thanks, Rick. I appreciate that. 

Yes, we will do a roll call.

Sue, are you there? Sue, are you on 

mute?

MS. BAIRD: I am.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Excellent. We 

wouldn't want you to change.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: If you change, you won't 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

be predictable and then we won't know what's 

happening. 

So Sue is here. Asa, you're here. I 

heard your voice already.

Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Present.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I am here. Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Present.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: Here.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee.

MS. JEFFERY: I'm here.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Here.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Present.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Here.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott.

MR. RICE: Here.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae.
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Here.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan.

DR. SEITZ: Here. 

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood.

MR. TURNER: Here.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. With that, 

Asa, it is your court now.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you. I must say 

learning to navigate all of this laptop screen is 

a little challenging. I tried to set up a dual 

screen situation here last night but without 

success. 

We have a very long agenda today so we 

can get right into it. I think our first issue 

of the proposal for the low-acyl gellan gum. 

Scott, I think you're the lead on that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And Jared will have an 

intro for that.

MR. BRADMAN: That's right. That's 

right, yeah. So why don't we get started. 

Sorry, Jared.

MR. CLARK: Low-acyl gellan gum has 

been petitioned for addition to 205.605 for use 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in processed organic product. The petition was 

submitted by CP Kelco in August 2019 with the 

petition addendum received in March 2020.

I will now pass it back to you, Asa, 

to introduce the lead on this proposal.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you. Again, Scott 

and Jerry, I think you had the lead on this.

MR. RICE: Yes, I had this one. Jerry 

also is taking a look.

As Jared noted, we've got a petition 

for low-acyl gellan gum and this was petitioned 

in the low-acyl form. It's worth noting in 2004 

CP Kelco petitioned to add gellan gum to the list 

and the NOSB recommended it be added. Proposed 

rule was published in 2009 and in 2010 it was added 

to 605(a).

At that time an annotation limited its 

use to high-acyl form which is what appears there 

now. Also outside of USDA organic regulations 

there's no differentiation between the low and 

high-acyl gellan gum made in regulatory approval. 

For instance, the CAS numbers are identical and 

they are, from a regulatory perspective, treated 
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the same.

To manufacture the low-acyl form an 

alkali is added. The temperature is raised to 

remove acetyl groups. A strong acid is then used 

to lower the pH and the gum is recovered from 

pollution by clarification and precipitation. 

The high-acyl form is not subject to this 

deacetylation with an alkali fault and, thus, would 

be nonsynthetic.

After fermentation the high-acyl form 

is precipitated from pollution with isopropyl 

alcohol. It is that deacetylation and the removal 

of the acetyl groups that results in a chemical 

change and, thus, at the time of rulemaking NOP 

determined that in accordance with the NOP 

definition of synthetic that the resulting 

substance is synthetic. At the time of rulemaking 

they made that clarification on that 

synthetic/nonsynthetic determination.

The low-acyl gellan gum is used in a 

number of different food formulations for, as you 

might expect, gelling purposes; put in jellies, 

suspension of things in drinks and milks, 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

nutritional products, quite a number of items.

I think one of the unique properties 

about this, or one of the properties that I think 

brings consideration to the Board is the use of 

low-acyl gellan gum in hard and soft capsules which 

give the functionality that can't be achieved with 

other materials on the national list.

As you may recall from a lot of 

discussion about carrageenan before and by this 

Board, that is the only material that has been 

listed which offers hard and soft capsule with the 

function and properties needed for such a use.

Excuse me a moment. We did initially 

bring this forward as a discussion -- we did not 

initially, excuse me, bring this forward as a 

discussion document because we felt its similarity 

to the high-acyl form in the discussion and 

documentation on that from the 2018 technical 

review on gum, as well as the discussion around 

low and high at the time of listing, as I mentioned, 

initially provided enough ground to move forward 

with the proposal versus that discussion document.

As I noted, it's technically synthetic. 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

However, from a regulatory perspective it's 

identical in the high-acyl environmental and human 

health perspective. The production of the 

material doesn't present significant concerns. 

The solvent used separates the gum at 

the dissolution phase of the process, which is 

typically isopropyl alcohol, and the residuals of 

those levels are established. Further, there is 

a recovery procedure used to reclaim that isopropyl 

alcohol in terms of any exiting the system.

I think for me the option of this for 

use in vegetarian capsules is perhaps the most 

persuasive argument for the listing. Consumers 

have voiced concern over the years with carrageenan 

as I noted. It's our understanding that low-acyl 

gum in combination with other structural 

components such as pullulan which is in federal 

rulemaking to be added to the national list to 

provide that alternative.

In terms of comments, we did receive 

comments from the Petitioner and other 

manufacturers supporting this and highlighting 

those uses in dietary supplements to provide a 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

non-animal base alternative. We heard from a 

candy company that would see this as functioning 

a little more easily in some of their formulations 

than the low-acyl formulation.

You heard comments opposing this 

listing citing that the synthetic is not necessary 

and taking issue that there are unique properties 

to this and that those are already available 

without the addition of this.

With that, I will turn it back to 

discussion.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right.

MR. BRADMAN: So I think -- so, Steve,

you have the information on who's raising their 

hand?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yep, yep. We'll open 

it up. Do any of the Board members have questions, 

comments? 

I'm not seeing any at this point. Oh, 

Emily has one.

MS. OAKLEY: Well, I actually was going 

to try not to have a comment so I wouldn't speak, 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

but then since no one had a comment, I thought I 

would go ahead and just say that I do find this 

material to be a little bit challenging because 

I, like Scott, find the uses for an organic 

vegetarian capsule to be very compelling.

And I also find the argument stating 

that there should be, in essence, a higher bar for 

adding materials to the national list. That is 

also compelling so I just wanted to put it out there 

that I find myself conflicted on this one.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Emily.

Dan has a comment.

DR. SEITZ: Just a question. There 

were comments that said, if I understood correctly, 

in essence this was not necessary that there were 

other substances that could meet these needs,

perhaps not as ideally as this one. I 

was just wondering how this subcommittee -- if 

someone could speak to what it was about the comment 

saying -- recommending not to list. How did they 

view those comments a little bit more specifically. 

Scott, you referenced those but I would like to 

hear a little bit more of the thinking process that 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

got you to recommending approval.

MR. RICE: I think for me -- sorry. 

For me this comes down to the -- where one feels 

about synthetic versus nonsynthetic on the list. 

I agree that we should be judicious in those 

synthetics that we do add to the list and that we 

keep there. 

I think in terms of the comments that 

we received, I still found that we don't have a 

lot of options, as I understand it, for 

encapsulation and to provide that vegetarian 

alternative. 

In terms of the use of -- I think we 

turned to pullulan as one that was brought up 

earlier and had predominately been used as a 

vegetarian alternative and a nonsynthetic that 

will be on the national list as an option. 

I think if you add this as another 

option to be used with pullulan or another 

substance to make that usable capsule, I think when 

we're seeing increased consumer demand and an 

interest in that vegetarian option, this presents 

a fairly -- a very low toxicity and low concern 
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

option. Does that help address what you were 

getting at, Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes, thank you. 

Appreciate it.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott, I guess I have 

a question or comment. I think I would feel a 

little differently about this if it was actually 

-- I mean, for our list it's a different substance 

but essentially, as you noted right off the top, 

it is not generally separated as high-acyl and 

low-acyl and kind of given that it makes me wonder 

why we separated it. I mean, do you see any 

compelling reason to have them separated at this 

point?

MR. RICE: Well, I think the synthetic 

and the nonsynthetic determination would keep them 

on different parts of the list so that would be 

-- that would be the rationale for having them in 

two different places if that's what you're asking.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks. Any other 

comments?

 Seeing none, we will move -- Dave has 

a comment.
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, I just had a 

question. I see that the way that it's handled 

internationally varies from one entity to another. 

For example, European economic community doesn't 

list it and another place doesn't list it and then 

another one does list it. Did you get any insight 

into whether our approving this could influence 

the ability to sell an organic product abroad?

MR. RICE: No, I did not review trade 

implications. I think it's also important to 

note, though, that materials are listed 

differently in different regulations so I think 

we need to remember that just because something 

like gellan gum isn't explicitly listed would not 

necessarily prohibit it from that regulation. It 

really just depends on the regulation.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Scott.

Moving on, we will move to the vote. 

Okay, thank you. So we have a classification 

motion that was to classify low-acyl gellan gum 

as non-agricultural synthetic. It was made by 

Scott and seconded by Jerry and we will start the 

voting on that classification, it looks like, with 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: So, Emily, this is the 

vote to classify it as --

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay, great. 

Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott.

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae.

MS. ROMER0-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood.

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry.
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee.

MS. JEFFERY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Chair votes yes. 

Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Fifteen yes, zero no. The 

motion passes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Now we will vote 

on the national list motion. The motion is to add 

low-acyl gellan gum to the national list to 

205.605(d). The motion was made by Scott and 

seconded by Jerry. We will start the voting with 

Nate. Just to remind people, this is not a sunset 

so the motion is if you vote yes, it is to add it 

and if you vote no, it is to not add it to the list.

Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott.

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae.

MS. ROMER0-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan.

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood.

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee.

MS. JEFFERY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave.
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Abstain.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Chair votes yes. 

Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Okay, 14 yes, one 

abstention. The motion passes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Thank you 

very much.

Back to you, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay. Well, our next 

topic is the ion exchange filtration.

Steve, you're on deck for that, and also 

Scott.

CHAIRMAN ELA: That is correct.

Jared, do you want to give the 

introduction to this?

MR. D'AMORE: No, sir, I don't but I 

would like to make a comment.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jared, not Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Oh, I'm sorry. While I 

have you, may I continue to a second?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Let's wait until we get 
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it introduced.

Go ahead, Jared.

MR. CLARK: Ion exchange was referred 

to the NOSB by the NOP via an August 2019 memo. 

The memo requested a review and recommendation 

from the Board to help address inconsistencies in 

how the ion exchange process was being reviewed 

for use in the production of organic processed 

products. In support of the NOSB's review of the 

process, a technical report was written and posted 

to the NOP website in August 2020.

I will now pass it back to the proposal 

lead, Steve Ela, for discussion.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Jared. 

Jerry, do you have a real quick comment 

before I introduce it?

MR. D'AMORE: No, sir. Not to this one 

so let's just keep on going.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Let me get my 

screen changed here. So ion exchange, as Jared 

noted, was referred to the NOSB by the Program to 

help give our recommendations on discrepancies as 

to whether either just the recharge materials 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

should be on the national list, or whether both 

recharge and the resin materials should be listed.

It's a complicated topic that certainly 

involved some chemistry as well as regulatory 

issues. We received comments from a number of 

people, both on the side of kind of maintaining 

the status quo that only recharge materials need 

to appear on the national list, to comments that 

compellingly argue the opposite, that both 

recharge materials and the resins should appear 

on the national list.

Just reading from a few of the comments, 

for example, one commenter supports the allowance 

of ion exchange filtration as an organic processing 

method. In general I would say there were very 

few comments saying that it should not be used at 

all so most commenters agree that it should be 

allowed, but then it comes down to the details.

This is one that supports our previous 

recommendation that we just -- this is from a 

discussion document last spring that only the 

exchange recharge materials must be on the national 

list. 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This one in particular; While allowing 

ion exchange push for that there must be -- the 

use of it must be described in detail on the 

certified operator's organic handling plan and 

that is reviewed and approved by the operation's 

certifying agent. So they did want some oversight 

of the process and to have it just used without 

verification by the certifying agency.

One of the issues that came up is FDA's 

classification of ion exchange resins. There's 

no doubt that they are second food additives but 

then it is whether they met the criteria further 

on of being approved contact substances. This was 

a little unclear because FDA changed their 

regulations. I don't have what year right in front 

of me but it meant that some of these resins were 

classified as approved contact substances. 

And others, because of the change in 

FDA policy, they were only classified as secondary 

food additives but probably would have met the food 

context surface definition. It's just the food 

contact surface definition was put in later in the 

process.
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

At this point NOP has said that if it's 

food contact substance, it's allowable but there 

were certainly a number of comments saying just 

because FDA makes a policy, it is not a given that 

a national organic program or the NOSB should 

follow that guidance, that organics often have a 

higher level of review than another government 

agency might have.

This is complicated and we received a 

lot of comments about this. I personally kind of 

come down on the side that they are food contact 

substances by the way I read the text. That can 

be argued and I'll be curious to hear other Board 

members' take on that.

If they are food contact substances, 

then I tend to lean on the fact -- if the resins 

are, let me be clear, then I tend to lean to the 

fact that they do not need to be on the national 

list and only the recharge materials do.

I think the next question, once we get 

past that kind of debatable, at least in the public 

comment question of food contact or secondary food 

additives, is whether the resins are inert. We
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

know that the word inert is kind of a hot topic 

at this point so it really becomes are the resins 

degrading into the material that's being filtered.

The TR was a little -- basically did 

not cover this well but didn't provide any 

compelling evidence that the resins do degrade and 

there are remnants of the resin material in the 

final substance. 

One commenter noted that this resin 

degradation and malfunction is a concern and that 

the TR did not comment on potential health effects 

from the resin material leaching into treated food 

products. At the time of this TR no published 

studies on human health effects of ion exchange 

degradation were found.

I will say in my write-up in the spring 

I did use that without that issue of public health 

effects or exchange the resin degradation into the 

product. It seemed like the resins were on the 

more inert side of things.

There are a couple references that 

people brought up of where resins do degrade but 

they did not have good documentation with them. 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

We can argue and comment in the Board of whether 

we should delay this and ask for specific studies 

of whether that happens or not or whether we move 

forward with the information we have at hand.

The same commenter said that the NOSB 

may see a need and opportunity for further research 

to understand the impact of leaching resin 

materials on human health. This commenter 

questioned the subcommittee conclusion that they 

made last spring that the fate of lost functional 

groups that leached or charged ion from resins 

would be in the recharge material and not at least 

to some degree in the organic product.

I don't think there's a lot of question 

that the recharge material that replaces ions on 

the resins could be present in the final product. 

I think the real question is whether the resins 

themselves are relatively inert or whether they 

do contribute to residues in the final product.

I think the last thing that I'm going 

to say is that the NOP itself has been somewhat 

fuzzy on this. A number of commenters noted how 

there have been memos that have not made it to 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

guidance. There have been memos that have been 

rescinded. The general take has been that only 

the recharge materials need to be certified but 

that has been a little fuzzy at times. 

The most recent comment from the NOP 

that really landed this on our desk was that the 

resins do need to be certified. The status quo 

prior to putting this on our desk was in general 

that only the recharge materials needed to be on 

the national list, the resins did not, although 

OMRI did take a little bit different take on that.

With that, I think I'm going to open 

it up to questions. There was certainly a lot more 

technical detail in the comments that I can spend 

a lot of time covering and I can go into any of 

those in more detail if the Board members would 

prefer, but I think at this point I'll open it up 

to questions from the Board.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you, Steve. I'm 

looking forward to input on this, the comments and 

the proposal. I think there's definitely some 

complicated challenging issues there so I'm hoping 

we get some hands raised and I would love to hear 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

more input and thoughts from the Board.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Same here. 

Scott, I don't know if you as kind of 

the co-lead on this and as a certified 

representative want to chime in with anything on 

this as well.

MR. RICE: Yeah, I think you did a great 

job of summarizing what we saw. I think 

specifically on the certification side we did hear 

some good comments from certifiers. 

As you noted, I think there's been some 

unclear communication in the past and not a 

definitive one that certifiers can point to as far 

as something from the NOP and so I think I'm no 

great fan of having something in the regulation 

that requires instruction or guidance to get 

everybody on the same page. 

But I think in this instance because 

of the history that we have, it would certainly 

be helpful for the NOP to come up with something 

like that. I think that would help bring any sort 

of outline -- sort of action on this in line. 

That's what I think most certifiers are operating 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in a manner that is parallel with what our 

subcommittee recommendation is here.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I would agree. To me 

there is the argument of secondary food additive 

versus food contact substance and that was really 

the gist of a lot of the comments, but I think, 

you know, the other maybe bigger is are these resins 

degrading into the final food product. 

They certainly are -- the ion exchange 

is changing the nature of the final food product 

but are the resins themselves. From the TR and 

the other data I've seen it showed they weren't 

but certainly some people called that into 

question.

Scott, you have your hand up again?

MR. RICE: Yeah, just real quick. I 

would say -- just reiterate that these materials 

are looked at by certifiers and the expectation 

that they be on the OSP reviewed and approved. 

Secondly, there's -- it would be helpful for 

guidance or instruction from NOP, I think. 

It's also their option to get a legal 

opinion on whether or not this does fall into that 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

food contact substance. Depending on whatever 

legal opinion might emerge from that, the Board 

can certainly take a look at this again. There's 

always that option as well.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily, you have a 

comment?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, thanks. I had a 

question. I know you and I had discussed this 

offline but I just wanted to ask particularly about 

the comments from Emily Brown Rosen. I also wanted 

to know if the Program had a chance to look at those 

and, if so, what their thoughts on that might be. 

I should have asked you to look at them 

earlier so apologies for putting the Program on 

the spot right now. Yeah, just curious but if they 

have had a chance and what they think of them.

CHAIRMAN ELA: So that's a question for 

the Program at this point, Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Does the Program want

to jump into this one?

Jared, Devon, or Jenny?
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ARSENAULT: I think they're 

working on it.

MS. OAKLEY: If not, I apologize 

for --

DR. TUCKER: Yeah, honestly at this one 

I think the comment has already been made that the 

Program had a little bit of inconsistency on this 

topic. I don't want to add to any of -- we would 

like to see what the Board does and then we will 

consider what to do next. We just don't know yet 

honestly and so it would be really inappropriate 

for me to just speculate on the moment. 

It's been said it's a really complex 

topic. I will generally say that -- generally that 

instructions as a general rule are used for topics 

where the impact is on certifiers so the audience 

for an instruction we generally do an interim 

instruction with request for comment is when it's 

focused on certifiers, or something that impacts 

the broader industry, like this would, that would 

be more appropriate for rulemaking or guidance, 

but I would not want to speculate at this time what 

that would look like if we moved forward.
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Jenny. I'll 

jump in a little bit. I mean, I think Emily Brown 

Rosen makes -- she really lays out the ground work 

well as some of our other commenters did. You 

know, this sort of does come down to food contact 

versus secondary food additive, but it also, as 

I said, does come down to do these materials 

actually, you know, leach into the -- breakdown 

into the product. 

I think, Emily, there's one of her 

points how would one calculate the amount of ion 

exchange resins leaching into the product when used 

to mobilize enzymes used during manufacture of high 

fructose corn syrup. In this example they make 

an assumption that 20 percent of the resin is lost 

into the corn syrup through column leaching over 

the service life of the column. We 

don't know what the service life is though there 

is no reference given for the basis of this 

assumption. Further research into the issue of 

migration seems warranted, especially given the 

concerns mentioned in the TR. 

It's still -- I haven't seen any data 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

other than either minimal or speculative that says 

these resins are breaking down in any significant 

manner into the food product. I think that remains 

that it could be classified as no evidence. It 

could be classified as an unanswered question.

She also says, you know, like a 

sanitizing spray containing sulfuric acid sprayed 

directly on seeds or sprouts. Clearly this would 

not be permitted on organic food at present. If 

NOSB were to decide that ion exchange resins are 

permitted as a food contact substance, would that 

precedent apply to all of the substances. We can't 

just allow this loophole in one category and set 

a precedent for all the others.

I guess to me personally it still comes 

back to that sulfuric acid is having an effect on 

those sprouts whereas I'm not sure that the resins 

are having an effect on the food. There's kind 

of a subtle difference there. 

There's no doubt the recharge materials 

are because those ions are being exchanged into 

the food. I think the claim could be made they 

are -- the resins are food contact surfaces that 
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

really are like a vessel versus an active agent. 

I mean, I'm pretty comfortable 

forwarding this on to the Program with the 

recommendation that only recharge materials need 

to be listed but I would not be adverse to the 

argument if somebody felt differently that they 

strongly felt that the resins did contribute to 

the final product.

Let me get back to Zoom. Dave and then 

Asa.

MR. MORTENSEN: So I'm speaking on 

limited knowledge here and that knowledge is using 

some of these kind of columns in research for 

binding and releasing compounds that you're 

measuring in the soil.

I definitely agree with the first 

paragraph that the exchange would result in some 

loss off the column so that part seems entirely 

consistent with my understanding of how these 

things work. My understanding also, though, is 

that the membranes and resins age and as they age 

their integrity drops and then you stop using them 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

at some point. 

So I -- based on some of the public 

comments, I would imagine that there are things 

coming off these exchange columns that are moving 

with the food probably at very low concentrations 

and probably increasing as the column ages. That 

would be my understanding of this. 

It would seem to me then that if that's 

true, which I think it is true, it would seem that 

it would argue that you would want to -- we would 

want to have the substances that are used to 

manufacture the membranes in resins be something 

that is looked at and is part of the review in the 

same way that the ions would be reviewed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: This whole arena has been 

new to me just from a food processing point of view. 

Although like Dave I've used some of these perhaps 

similar materials in a lab related to DNA and things 

like that. I supported this recommendation and 

I think I still do but I'm kind of on the fence 

a little bit. 

I'm thinking of the analogy of, you 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

know, concerns that have been raised about BPA and 

migration of materials from food packaging into 

food products as a potential NOSB issue. I guess 

when I think about this a little bit more, you know, 

maybe it's because I'm an academic and do research 

but it does seem like more research would be 

warranted. 

I'm not sure if that would affect this 

decision on a short-term basis but it does seem 

like more information would be helpful. I don't 

know if that would affect this decision right now, 

but there could also be a recommendation to look 

into that question more carefully, you know, 

breakdown contamination from resin materials.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Asa. Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Just a quick 

comment. As an organic inspector, I think about 

food contact surfaces and substances a lot. And 

there's a lot of questions that go into writing 

a report when we consider those.

And so I think it is really a legal 

question for our food contact substances in general 

needing to be on the list. But if we talk about 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

degradation of materials, I would see that quickly 

spiraling into all materials that come in contact, 

like the boiler. You know any surface would then 

have to be possibly listed.

So I think that's where I see -- if we're 

going to say the degradation of materials in 

contact, we would want to, I think, sort of temper 

that to -- that's a much broader conversation.

I think if I understood Asa's comment 

right, you know, then we're talking about 

microplastic migration and packaging degradation 

and all these different things, which I don't think 

is what we're really getting at here with this 

particular conversation.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave, you had another 

comment?

MR. MORTENSEN: I forgot to drop my 

hand. But I guess that's a very helpful extension 

of the logic, Nate. I guess it seems to me that 

-- but I might be wrong. Maybe this isn't 

accurate, you know. It seems to me that the 

surface of a stainless steel vessel or something 

that is much less likely that in the aging process 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

significant release of compounds occurs.

And you would use that logic to guide 

us to look at the processes like membranes and 

resins for example that we know age and that in 

the aging process there are chemical reactions that 

would result in a release or, you know, just wear 

and tear and thus release of those materials into 

the food stream.

It seems a little different to me, but 

it's probably a continuum, you know, because when 

Asa brings up packaging, you know, the lining of 

cans and bottles, I mean, there's a whole lot in 

there. But it just seems to me that in the 

synthesis and manufacture of processed foods that 

we would want to be really careful with the intimacy 

of the degradation process during that whatever 

it is -- during the aging of those columns.

So I see it as a continuum, I think. 

And it seems to me that this is on one end of the 

continuum that is a little more worrying to me than 

the other end by quite a bit actually I would think.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Dave. And 

other discussion. And, yes, this is a topic, I 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

mean, I think we use plastic tables in our operation 

and plastic totes and, you know, things that there 

can be a fairly, you know, it's not a fleeting 

contact. We have totes in our cooler or plastic 

bins for food safety reasons.

But it is -- I hear Emily Brown Rosen's 

comment of, you know, the continuum of what we 

allow. And I hear Nate's, you know, continuum on 

the opposite side. And, Dave, you know, you just 

made points as well. Scott has a comment.

MR. RICE: I think actually Wood was 

before me. I'll defer to him.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Scott.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I'm sorry, Wood. I had 

you covered up. Thanks.

MR. TURNER: No worries. I just want 

to say I find Dave's comment really compelling. 

And I'm struggling with why the resin would not 

be -- would not also be included. And I guess what 

I'm trying to understand a little bit here from 

the certification standpoint and from sort of the 

process standpoint is what the implications are 

for pushing this back, you know, studying it 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

further because I just -- you know, what are we 

looking at here if that's the case?

Are we really going to get some 

compelling research? Is it so far out that, you 

know, we're going to be in a state of limbo for 

a period of time if we ask for more study on this?

Or, you know, can someone speak to that, 

Asa or Scott, in particular? And I guess Scott 

more on the certification side. Are there other 

real implications there? Is it fundamentally 

unenforceable if the resins did end up being 

included in the recommendation?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Go ahead, Scott.

MR. RICE: Yes. I think this may sort 

of tie nicely into my question, really, or sort 

of comment and question.

I think we're in a spot that we don't 

often find ourselves on the Board here depending 

on how you look at it, I guess. NOP asked us to 

take a look at this, make a recommendation. We're 

not necessarily recommending the addition of 

materials. We're trying to provide some 

clarification.
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But I think, you know, we're not adding 

anything that's not already there. And that's not 

to say we shouldn't be looking at these things. 

I think all of you have been making some really 

great comments on the whys of that and the why nots.

I guess my question goes perhaps back 

to the program. What would outside of a guidance 

or an instruction as Jenny described, sort of 

what's our next step? You know, you asked us to 

take a look at this. We've got a recommendation 

here for you.

And just for the benefit of how we 

understand the process, what can we expect? Is 

there going to be that more research? Is it just 

going to be a thanks? Okay. We'll just keep 

going. That might be helpful in this discussion.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I know Jenny wanted to 

make a comment at the end of this discussion as 

well. So, Jenny, it might be a good time to jump 

in.

DR. TUCKER: Yes. Actually what I was 

going to say at the end, actually I think that 

answers that question is, you know, pausing and 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

moving, you know, back beyond this particular 

technical comment, topic, you know, this is a new 

process that whereas there has been a certifier 

conflict on materials. We sent out a memo thinking 

-- to certifiers -- that was going to resolve that 

conflict.

We all want consistency. This all 

essentially comes back to certifier consistency, 

right? And that's a goal for all of us. And so 

when we try to have certifier consistency with a 

memo, it ended up, oh, wait. This is way more 

complicated, which is why it came to the Board.

This is a new process. We're sort of 

trying out the process on a very technical and 

difficult topic.

I think the reality is while the Board 

has been deliberating on this, certifiers are 

continuing to do what they believe is correct. 

And so in the memo to the Board we included sort 

of how certifiers are interpreting. We know this 

is a source of inconsistency.

And so the question will be what does 

the Board propose to resolve that inconsistency? 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And if the Board is not able to make a 

recommendation to resolve that inconsistency, for 

right now I think the inconsistency is going to 

continue.

We will get a question from certifiers 

of am I to issue? This all comes down often to 

the noncompliance process. So a certifier's 

question is, do I issue a noncompliance to an 

operation that's doing it a certain way or not? 

That will be what certifiers want to know. Is 

this a noncompliance or not?

I think given the range of different 

technical views without an additional policy 

statement, it would be very hard to give anybody 

a noncompliance on this right now, right? It is 

a known contentious issue.

So I think the statute quo would 

continue to happen. This is one source of 

inconsistency among certifiers. We know there are 

others. And so then it will end up becoming what 

is the priority both for the program and the Board 

on which inconsistencies really, really, really 

need attention and how quickly? Which ones are 
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

having the biggest impact on the market?

So within that grander scheme is how 

we would ask a question of what is the priority 

on addressing this as a policy issue versus other 

issues? So I want to take us back to that big view.

However, we handle this moving forward 

is going to set a precedent on how we handle these 

material conflicts that we defer to the Board.

I think this is also -- final statement 

-- a really good reminder of how hard it is to be 

a certifier. And that certifiers are out there 

making good faith decisions every single day.

And given site specific conditions, 

given differences in interpretation made in good 

faith on highly technical content, it is really 

hard to be a certifier. And that does lead to 

sources of inconsistency. Which ones we choose 

to take and move forward becomes the big, big 

multimillion collaborative question, literally 

multimillion dollars in some cases.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. Yes. Good 

point, Jenny. And we know it's widely used. And 

I think this is another one of those examples where 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we know got beat up on the precautionary principle 

and other documents. But this is one that, you 

know, as you said, there's already a discrepancy 

in certifiers. It's already a widely used 

process.

So whichever way we make a decision, 

we're going to have an economic impact one way or 

the other. And it's sometimes hard to look back 

and change things versus if it's already widely 

used, and there is a lot of money involved.

Just to sort of finish this up, are 

there any other questions from the Board? If not, 

I'm going to throw it out to the Board to give --

I see Scott's got a question --

MR. RICE: Scott has a comment.

CHAIRMAN ELA: -- or comment. Who 

does -- well, Scott go ahead.

MR. RICE: You know, call me biased, 

but coming from a certifier world, I would say this 

is a priority, and we'd love consistency. 

Obviously, we've got a host of issues before us 

and always do and always will. But this is one 

I know that we've batted around for quite some time. 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So however it comes, we'd love to see some 

resolution. Thanks.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave, do you have 

another thought? And then I'm going to throw 

something out to the Board. So go ahead.

MR. MORTENSEN: Just quickly, Steve, 

right? You know, like, you referred to the 

precautionary principle. What would be so 

problematic for us to just reword this and say that 

we believe until we have better data that, you know, 

that the materials, recharge materials, resins and 

membranes, should be on the list as opposed to --

CHAIRMAN ELA: I think the issue --

yes. I think the issue is that as Scott and Jenny 

both alluded there is some interpretation among 

certifiers that the resins do need to be on the 

list. There are other certifiers that have said 

they do not.

And so there are a number of 

manufacturers using the ion exchange filtration 

with resins that are not presently on the list. 

And so we suddenly changed that the resins do have 

to be on the list it might really change the playing 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

field of what is already going on. And certainly 

there were some comments about that that some of 

these materials that we use and love in the organic 

world might disappear if we change to having resins 

have to be on the list as well or certainly there 

could be some considerable disruption in the 

organic industry.

And I think that's probably true. If 

we include all of them, they have to be on the 

National List, it would create some significant 

heartburn and some delays and maybe make some 

products disappear or probably make some products 

disappear.

MR. MORTENSEN: So, I mean, you could 

be voting no, too, because you think this is too 

restrictive or because you think it should be more 

restrictive.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. I think that's 

true. So, Nate, one quick one and then I'll trot 

on.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I think for me, and 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I really appreciate Jenny's insight in this, is 

just sort of a legal clarification. It's seems 

like it's not so much a research question but more 

a legal question as to the review of what materials 

need to be listed and considered ultimately inputs 

as opposed to contact services.

And I think there's -- just like I 

alluded to before, there's so many that could fall 

under that that I think limiting this particular 

item to be needing to be reviewed as an input 

material would, I think, just -- it wouldn't serve 

the greater question of what's going into the food 

and wouldn't give us a framework, in the inspection 

world, to really move off of going forward.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Say that, again, Nate. 

I didn't quite follow. So are you saying this 

would be a precedent that would open up kind of 

a quagmire? Or explain a little more for weight.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes. It seems like 

getting clarification from the program if it is 

a -- what food contact surfaces need to be 

considered inputs or substances that are going to 

be ultimately needing to be listed rather than just 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

surfaces or substances.

And so it seems like taking just resins 

or recharge materials in this very specific 

instance wouldn't really give us -- wouldn't answer 

future questions as to does, you know, packaging 

material that could migrate into food substances, 

does that need to be listed? Things like that. 

And sorry for not articulating quite clearly. 

I'm still working this through in my head.

But if we get more guidance legally of 

what needs to be listed, then we would be in a much 

better position to use that guidance across a 

broader range of materials and for certifiers to 

take that forward.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Thanks for 

explaining to me at least more on that, Nate.

Well, I'm going to ask the Board -- we 

have a couple choices here. We can send this back 

to the subcommittee for more work and try and 

clarify some of these issues and to talk more with 

the program. We can vote on it now.

As it standards it's really -- it's to 

say the recharge materials should be on the 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

National List but not the resins. And I guess we 

can -- I'm not really sure what the ramifications 

are if we vote it down.

I think if we vote it down it says that 

we're not comfortable with this language. But I'm 

going to -- I guess, Jenny, would you still want 

us to work on it further? You know, the Board isn't 

happy with this particular wording and let's go 

back to the drawing board and work on it further? 

Or would you just take it as a quagmire that you're 

going to let certifiers be inconsistent? I'm 

sorry to throw that at you.

DR. TUCKER: Yes. I'm going to defer 

to the Board on this. If it's something you want 

to keep working on, we would certainly -- you know, 

it is an open work agenda item. And so if you 

decide to tell us, we know it's an open work agenda 

item, but for the love of God, take it away from 

us. I mean, we would leave that up to the Board. 

That's up to the Board, I believe.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes. I guess to answer your 

question, Steve, for me I would like to vote this 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

through as it is. It would at least send, you know, 

some message of consistency. But I think to Nate's 

point, we need somebody's opinion, a legal opinion, 

on the food contact side of things more than we 

need the Board to research what it already has.

I don't think giving the Board more time 

to look at this is going to result in a whole lot 

of difference other than making a call on looking 

at every food contact substance. And I think that 

is not the direction that this Board should go. 

I think that is a legal question that should be 

settled with the work from NOP. That's where I'm 

at on this.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Nate, last 

comment?

MR. POWELL-PALM: I just fully concur 

with Scott.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. So I think what 

we will do hearing these comments is we will go 

to a vote. And what I will do as Chair is if it 

passes, we will obviously pass it on to the NOP 

and probably put in the cover sheet that we think 

that this is a legal issue that NOP needs to resolve 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

with some of their legal staff.

If it fails, I would then say that we 

should probably keep it on our work agenda. And 

what I would ask from stakeholders and other people 

is to submit research articles talking about the 

breakdown of the resins so that we have better 

clarity on that. And if we don't get that data 

or if it doesn't exist, then I would have a hard 

time not moving forward with the recommendation 

as it is.

So why don't we go to a vote. A yes 

vote is to approve the recommendation that we only 

look at recharge materials and not the resins. 

A no vote is to reject that process at this point 

and go back to work on it some more.

So we will start with Scott, I believe.

MR. RICE: I vote yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue, we're not hearing 

you? Okay. Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: I'm going to vote no on 

this. I'm going to need to put a little more 

thought into it.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'MORE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: The Chair votes yes.

MR. TURNER: Did you miss Jerry?

(Simultaneous speaking.)

MR. D'AMORE: I said yes, Wood.

MR. TURNER: I'm sorry. I missed it.

MR. D'AMORE: No problem.

CHAIRMAN ELA: As Jesse is doing the 

tabulation on this, I assume this requires a 

two-thirds vote because it is a proposal for the 

program, whatever. So unless I hear differently, 

we're assuming a two-thirds vote to pass.

MR. BUIE: Nine yes, six no. The 

motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Fails, okay. We will 

take it back under consideration. Thank you, 

everybody, for your thoughtful input on it. It 

certainly is a complicated topic.

With that, we're going to move on to 

the sunset reviews. Asa, I'll turn it back over 

to you. And, Asa, if you would just give an 

introduction to each one. You don't need to read 

the whole annotation but at least something so our 

transcriptionist knows what we're talking about.
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: Okay. Thank you, Steve. 

So, everyone, now we're moving into the sunset 

votes. And our first material is kaolin, a clay 

often used for -- well, for a number of processing 

purposes. And, Kim, I think you're onboard for 

kaolin.

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes. Thanks, Asa. So 

for kaolin, similar to the spring, there were very 

few comments. However, it is used. Based off of 

certifier response, a brief notation here that 

there possibly could be a substitute already 

allowed but most comments are positive to re-list 

kaolin.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Are there 

questions from the Board, comments?

MR. BRADMAN: Just I wanted to make one 

comment that there was some concerns about this 

material in terms of nano scale size of this and 

that there was encouragement for annotation to 

limit the use of that although I think in general 

we have limitations on the use of nano materials. 

And an annotation would be beyond the scope of 

the sunset review right now.
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. HUSEMAN: Correct. Thank you for 

bringing that up, Asa. There was a comment that 

was made about that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. We're going to 

the vote. The motion is to remove kaolin from 

205605, the National List. The motion was made 

by Kim and seconded by Asa. And we will start with 

A-Dae. And once again on this just to remind 

people --

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: -- yes, that the yes is 

to de-list and the no vote is to re-list. And A-Dae 

voted no. Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse? Jesse, we're 

not hearing you.

MR. BUIE: No.
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'MORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no. 

Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, 15 no. The motion 

fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Asa, back 

to you.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you. So let's 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

move on to our next material, sodium bicarbonate. 

We have a motion to remove sodium bicarbonate from 

605A. And I think Mindee, you're onboard for 

sodium bicarbonate.

MS. JEFFERY: Good morning. Thank 

you. It's a pretty essential substance listed 

with wide usage. No comments suggesting that we 

de-list. And I really appreciate the highlight 

of the undercurrent that relates to baking powder 

and corn starch by the certification community 

along with this substance.

So I appreciate those level of details 

even though it doesn't necessarily affect sodium 

bicarbonate and appreciate the level of detail by 

the certifier community of its wide usage.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Are there 

comments, questions from the Board? I do not see 

any so we will go to the vote. And the motion to 

remove sodium bicarbonate from 205605A of the 

National List was made by Mindee. It was seconded 

by Asa. And we will start with Dan.

DR. SEITZ: That would be the easiest 

vote I have ever made. No.
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'MORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no. 

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, 15 no. The motion 

fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jesse. Asa, 

back to you for waxes.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay. We're now moving 

on to waxes, non-synthetic, wood rosin and not 

resin as we have here in the agenda. So, Kim, I 

think you're on deck for that.

MS. HUSEMAN: Okay. Thanks again, 

Asa. So as we are evaluating wood rosin for sunset 

review, the feedback on fall comments, there are 

uses. This is a product that is used for a coating 

on fruits. It's used in other applications 

pertaining to food and candy substituted with other 

waxes.

However, given the climate, given 

exports and limitations having wood rosin in the 

toolbox is what is needed as comments have been 

made in the space. You know, using wood resin, 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it's been asked that we remove and only be referred 

to wood rosin.

You know, beyond that as stated in the 

spring there was some concern around annotation 

so having it added with fruit coatings. That it's 

listed as an ingredient since it could potentially 

be consumed. We still get the overwhelming 

response of the comments is it's supported to be 

re-listed as it's a strong tool in the toolbox for 

some of the handlers.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Are there 

questions? Asa has one?

MR. BRADMAN: Questions or discussion?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Discussion as well. 

Sorry.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes. So I just want to 

comment on two things. One, this, like, some of 

the other waxes that are used as fruit coatings 

or other coatings on products, I think that those 

are in some ways -- not in some ways, are unlisted 

ingredients in a food when you buy an apple or other 

fruit, for example, that has a coating particularly 

when you're eating the peel say in contrast to an 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

avocado. That should be labeled.

And, you know, I know there's concern 

about overuse of annotations, but I think we should 

make this a work agenda item to address labeling 

and also for this particular material, concerns 

about how it's manufactured and solvents and other 

materials used.

So that's just a comment. And that's 

beyond, again, the sunset review. But I think the 

annotation is a tool that in this case would be 

appropriate.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Other comments, 

questions? Wood.

MR. TURNER: I (audio interference) 

the suggestion that there could be some way to 

(audio interference) our process to continue to 

make this a better --

CHAIRMAN ELA: Hey, Wood, we're 

getting just kind of a digital sound. We can tell 

you're talking, but we can't understand it. Do 

you happen to have both your headset and computer 

on? We now lost Wood. Michelle, do you see Wood?

MS. ARSENAULT: I do see him. His mic 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is muted at the moment. Wood, you were just a 

little garbly there.

MR. TURNER: I don't know what's going 

on. Can you hear me now?

MS. ARSENAULT: It's still kind of 

garbled.

MR. TURNER: I dialed in (audio 

interference).

MR. MORTENSEN: I think that first 

part, he was agreeing with Asa.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: That's what I heard. 

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. We'll go to Kim 

and see if we can get Wood to be a little more clear.

MS. HUSEMAN: An excellent point, Asa. 

And you're going to see the common theme as I start 

talking through carnauba wax and also the orange 

shellac. It is a recurring theme, and I couldn't 

agree more that past sunset the comments that have 

come through, you know, bring up the valid point 

of further investigation into things outside of 

sunset should be addressed and looked at.

You know, one is, should this be listed 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as an ingredient as it's a coating on the substance? 

It's not always used, you know, but in certain 

circumstances and at certain times it is. And when 

it is, should it be known to the consumer that 

that's there?

So I just want to reference. You'll 

hear that same theme as we move through the rest 

of the waxes too.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Any other questions or 

comments?

MR. BRADMAN: Did we lose Wood?

MR. BUIE: Yes. Because the vote is 

going to start with him.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood, I think you said 

you're there. Let's try you and see if you can 

-- we will go to the vote. The vote is the motion 

to remove waxes from wood rosin from 205605, the 

National List. It was made by Kim and seconded 

by Scott. Wood, you are the first voter. Can you 

-- we'll see if we can hear a yes or a no.

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. That is a no from 

Wood.
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. TURNER: I say no. But I may say 

no. Wood votes no.

CHAIRMAN ELA: We got no. So Sue is 

next.

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry, are you back? 

You said he dropped off.

MR. D'MORE: I am back audio through 

the telephone. Everything else has failed. But 

my answer is no.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Rick? Rick, 

are you there? Not hearing from you Rick. 

Michelle, can you still see him?

MR. MORTENSEN: Rick is trying.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick, no. Okay.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no. 

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, 15 no. The motion 

fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Phew. I 

thought we might have lost all of California there 

for a minute. Asa, let's move on to ammonium 

bicarbonate. Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Sorry. Okay. We're on 

deck now with ammonium bicarbonate with Mindee. 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Thank you.

MS. JEFFERY: That was a big joke when 

I was a kid moving to California that if I moved 

there we were going to fall off so be careful, 

Steve.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Fair enough.

MS. JEFFERY: Ammonium bicarbonate is 

listed as essential with minimal uses but also 

supported for re-listing.

MR. BRADMAN: Any comment and 

discussion on ammonium bicarbonate? I know there 

was general support. I think there was one group 

that was opposed to it. Any discussion from the 

Board on ammonium bicarbonate?

CHAIRMAN ELA: I am not seeing anybody 

raise their hands. All right. We will move on 

to the vote. Thank you, Asa. The motion is to 

remove ammonium bicarbonate from 205605B of the 

National List. It was made by Mindee and seconded 

by Scott. We will start the voting at the top 

again. Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'MORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim? Kim, we're not 

hearing you. Still not hearing you, Kim. Do we 

have Kim, Michelle or Jared or Devon?

MS. HUSEMAN: Sorry. My vote is no.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Thanks, Kim. 

Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No. And I'm sure the 

community is really wishing we were in person by 

now.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wow, Wood, we can 

understand you actually. You actually came 

through really clear. Thank you for whatever you 

did. And the Chair votes no.

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, 15 no. The motion 

fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right, Asa, back to 

you.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you, everyone. 

And, Mindee, you're on deck again for ammonium 

carbonate.

MS. JEFFERY: Yes. Similar. Really 

minimal uses but also some notes from stakeholders 

that there aren't other alternatives and one 

stakeholder supporting de-listing, minimal use 

substance with some essentiality and some support 
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for de-listing.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Are there 

questions or comments? I am not seeing any so we 

will go to the vote. The motion is to remove 

ammonium carbonate from 205605B of the National 

List. That motion was made by Mindee. It was 

seconded by myself, Steve. We will start with Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'MORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae? A-Dae, are you 

there?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: The Chair votes no.

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, 15 no. The motion 

fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right, Asa, back to 

you.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you. And now 

we're on deck with Jerry for calcium phosphates, 

monobasic, dibasic and tribasic.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you, Asa. I've 

lost some of my support here in terms of 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

connectivity. I'll work from my hard copy.

During the April 2020 meeting, we had 

16 public comments. Most of them were written and 

nearly all in support of re-listing. Going on to 

October for this current section, written and oral 

comments totaled 12 new comments. Again, most of 

them were written and about a quarter of them were 

against re-listing meaning 75 in support of.

We had an initial concern regarding 

calcium phosphates centered around potential 

health issues. And we were tasked to do further 

investigations and concluded that no single 

phosphate additive can be implicated as an isolated 

factor and the subcommittee, the handling 

subcommittee, was in complete support of 

re-listing with a determination that there's no 

real substitute for calcium phosphates at this 

point, particularly in banked products.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jerry. Are 

there any questions or comments from the Board? 

I am not seeing any. So the motion is to remove 

calcium phosphates from 205605 of the National List 

that was made by myself, Steve, and seconded by 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Asa. We will start with Jesse.

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'MORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee? Mindee, we're 

still -- we're not hearing you.

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Mindee. Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no. 

Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, 15 no. The motion 

fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay, Asa. Asa, you're 

on mute. Still on mute, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: All right. I was trying 

to use my space bar there. Our next material is 

ozone. And we have a motion to remove it. And, 

Scott, I believe you're on deck for this one.

MR. RICE: Thank you. We received 

similar comments as we did in the spring. We had 

comments overwhelmingly supporting the re-listing 

of ozone. There was also comments requesting that 

ozone be included in overall review of sanitizers.

The Board is looking forward to our 

sanitizer panel in November. And I would just like 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to thank the Organic Produce Wholesalers Coalition 

for their very detailed comments on the many types 

of handling operations and many types of thesis 

for this. That was really informative, and I 

appreciate it?

MR. BRADMAN: Any comments?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there questions --

yes, questions or comments from the Board? I'm 

not seeing any so we'll go to the vote. The motion 

is to remove ozone from 205605 of the National List. 

It was made by Scott and seconded by Asa. We will 

start with Jerry.

MR. D'MORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no.

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, 15 no. The motion 

fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right, Asa. 

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you. Our next

material is sodium hydroxide. And, Mindee, you're 

on board for that one.
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. JEFFERY: Thank you. Comments 

reflected wide and essential usages and a lot of 

support for re-listing. A couple of commenters 

asked us to consider an annotation that would limit 

the use and maybe investigate for essentiality and 

then annotate to limit uses because currently the 

annotation only lists prohibited uses. That isn't 

really within the scope of the sunset review, but 

they did ask us to consider that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Are there 

questions, comments, about sodium hydroxide? I 

am not seeing any. So we will move to the vote. 

The motion is to remove sodium hydroxide from 

205605B of the National List with the annotation 

as prohibited for use in lye peeling of fruits and 

vegetables. We will start with Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'MORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no. 

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, 15 no. The motion 

fails.
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay, Asa. 

MR. BRADMAN: Okay. Our next material 

is car -- I'm probably not pronouncing it right 

-- carnauba wax. And Kim you're on deck for that. 

And I think this one is the beginning of some of 

our more interesting and complex discussions. So 

thank you, Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: Sure. Thanks, Asa. 

Quite a few comments were made, especially in 

comparison to the spring, on carnauba wax. 

Similar comments to what we saw with wood rosin. 

Some comments from certifiers listing in the 

multiple number of entities that do use carnauba 

wax. From fruit production facilities fully in 

support of re-listing the wax as maybe not always 

used in their everyday tools, but when needed 

especially on pears to help prevent scuffing. At 

certain times of year when the natural wax on the 

fruits isn't a strong enough barrier, this is an 

alternative or in-use. Again, support for if 

you're looking at an export market having 

accessibility to multiple different forms.

One commenter said that they do use 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic carnauba wax, but their application isn't 

prohibited or it's sufficient for a jellybean 

coating whereas potentially in other applications 

the organic form is not sufficient for their 

application.

It was noted the number of organic --

that there is organic availability and that should 

be taken into consideration, but still yet the 

organic form may have some downfalls to be able 

to be used in all applications.

Another vote to de-list essentially 

stated the abundance of availability of organic 

carnauba wax. So that was also mentioned.

I do appreciate the number of comments, 

especially coming from the industry and the 

production side to really go more in-depth as to 

what they were utilizing carnauba wax for and why 

it was important. Those really sum up the comments 

when last mentioned.

As we stated in our report, there is 

some concern around use of solvents for extraction, 

not part obviously of the sunset but something for 

the Board to consider as we move forward to evaluate 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

further.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there questions or 

comments for Kim?

MR. BRADMAN: I have a couple of --

sorry.

CHAIRMAN ELA: We've got Dave and then 

Asa. Go ahead, Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. I was just 

wondering, Kim, if you could just tell us a little 

bit about the split vote on this. I know it wasn't 

even/even but, you know, it was split. And I was 

just curious what some of the concerns were that 

were expressed there.

MS. HUSEMAN: Thanks, Dave. When we 

discussed this, the use of or the availability of 

organic forms was brought into consideration and 

being that is available and there is a suggestion 

there is ample supply available in the market I 

think brought some of that split vote.

I believe the underlying issue is there 

are synthetics that are involved in the extraction 

process that may not be part of this being on the 

list or is there handling entities that are maybe 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not adhering to the practice of the extraction. 

That was brought up also into the conversation.

But as the commenters mentioned, some 

of the organic form -- the organic form may not 

be applicable to all uses of the carnauba wax. 

And so I think that was the largest part of the 

split vote.

MR. MORTENSEN: Okay. Thanks, Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: And, Asa, if you have 

more recollection there, please expand, too.

MR. BRADMAN: Thanks. And also just 

looking through the comments, I think the comments 

are a little mixed up on this material. There was 

a few statements that were repeated that we 

recommended re-listing and actually the vote was 

to de-list it. And then the -- I shouldn't say 

de-list it. To take it off of 606.

And many of the comments, especially 

from, you know, orchard producers, apples and 

things like that, it doesn't really address the 

question of if it's -- you know, if we take it off 

of 606, it's still available as a tool. It's just 

that it has to be organically produced.
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So I think the question there is on 

availability. Oregon Tilth, I think, has an 

example. I think they hopefully specified in 

their comments that they have three that used a 

non-organic form and three that did use an organic 

form. So for me the question is availability of 

organic. And, again, I have the same concerns 

about this that there shouldn't be an unlabeled 

ingredient on a fruit that you are going to eat.

But, you know, I think the key question 

here is in terms of 606, or one of the key questions, 

is availability. And I don't feel like I have good 

data on that. But taking it off 606 would not 

eliminate it. That wouldn't de-list it or take 

away its availability.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there other 

comments? So, yes, a question from the Chair here. 

I hear what you're saying, Kim, in response to 

Dave's question. What is your -- I'm going to have 

to ask you just kind of point blank what's your 

gut feeling at this point?

MS. HUSEMAN: Given that I'm the first 

one up on the vote, should I save the suspense for 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the first one or?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Well, I guess, I just 

want to hear if you have any more to put in except 

for your vote.

MS. HUSEMAN: You know, I really 

appreciate the depth of the comments here compared 

to the spring. The spring did not bring about as 

many comments.

I do agree with Asa. I think there were 

duplicated comments for wood rosin as there were 

for carnauba wax. People were getting 

misconstrued in how they were trying to type their 

message if it was for or against because they voted 

differently between the two.

And so trying to decipher or put that 

aside, I cannot discredit that there are ample for, 

what seems to be in the market space, enough 

carnauba wax in organic form for the overall need 

in the space.

But I don't feel like I have enough 

information to say that that organic form will be 

sufficient for the applications that it's being 

used for today nor can I make a decision on if what 
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is available as an alternative if the organic 

carnauba wax is not sufficient and is another wax 

that's on list is that sufficient for their uses?

We'll get to another one that is a 

non-vegan option based on how it's produced. So 

that may or may not be a solution there.

So given that information is lacking, 

I'm going to vote that it stays on the list. I 

just don't think this is the time yet to remove 

it. But I think this should be a strong indication 

given the struggle with if it should be here to 

hopefully have people who are using the non-organic 

form to really look harder at what options you may 

have in an organic form.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Kim. Any other 

comments? All right. We will go to the vote. 

The motion is to remove waxes, carnauba, from 

205606 of the National List based on the following 

criteria, the Organic Food Production Act. So it 

was made by Kim. It was seconded by Scott, and 

we will go to the vote, starting with Kim as she 

so aptly noted.

MS. HUSEMAN: No.
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Abstain.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: This is a hard one. I'm 

going to vote no, but I'd like to see some more 

work on this.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'MORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no. 

Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Okay.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Give you a little bit 

of work here.

 MR. BUIE: Right. Okay, 3 yes, 11 no, 

1 abstention. The motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. Thank you, Jesse. 

We're trying to help keep you nimble here. I'm 

sure you appreciate that. Back to you, Asa. 

MR. BRADMAN: Okay. So our next set 

of materials are the 18 colors. So hopefully this 

will be smooth and easy I say a bit ironically. 

But Steve and Jerry, I know you are on deck for 

this.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And I will just jump in 

very quickly by saying I took this over last spring 

because I did not want to saddle any new member 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

with 18 colors, and it's certainly not my area of 

expertise.

But I'm going to turn it over to Jerry. 

Jerry has actually stepped in and run with this 

and interviewed a bunch of companies and 

individuals. And so he is the expert. I have 

deferred to him and will let him present the rest 

of the colors. So, Jerry, go ahead.

MR. D'AMORE: Steve, I'm not going to 

let you off the hook quite that easily. I consider 

myself your willing understudy. So you can jump 

in at any time.

I'd like to start by telling or saying 

to Kimberly, boy, do I understand your pain. And 

you might see some of that in what comes up here. 

If not, you'll see it a little later in the day.

So regarding colors, I'll obviously go 

through each one of them individually. However, 

it would be difficult to go through the October 

2020 written and oral comments without a brief 

review of the colors addressed as a whole, which 

is how they have been done historically.

Reviewing all the colors collectively, 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

there were 21 comments or presentations given in 

the spring and fall sessions. Most of them were 

written and about 80 percent of them in favor of 

re-listing.

This is the interesting part. Only 20 

percent of the commenters, both for or against, 

responded to individual colors or conversely said 

a fully 80 percent of the commenters responded to 

the whole category with a re-list or de-list 

recommendation and did not address individual 

colors. So I guess old habits are hard to break.

Further, the number one reason given 

for a recommendation to re-list or de-list centered 

almost exclusively around Super Bowl commercial 

availability.

Comparing the comments and subsequent 

communications emanating from the spring 2020 

meeting with the comments and conversations coming 

into this period, the issue of simple commercial 

availability is primarily the point of 

consideration. With that said, there has been 

increased dialogue with the manufacturing 

community but still with the same varying reports 
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as to commercial availability.

I need to tell you that almost 

universally I was getting comments about express 

types of concerns regarding supply chain due to 

the current pandemic.

Okay. Moving on to the beet juice 

extract, the handling committee recommended that 

this color be re-listed. Beyond what was 

available for consideration prior to the current 

public period, there was one new request to have 

this de-listed. However, I would recommend that 

the full Board consider beet juice extract color 

for re-listing due to my feeling of not suitable 

organic commercial availability.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Are there 

questions? And the only thing I will chime in on 

-- oh, Rick, go ahead.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. This isn't a 

question. This is a comment back to my proposal 

yesterday for the consent agenda. And we were 

talking about precedents. So what we're about to 

vote on is approximately 18 different items with 

one vote. So I just wanted to point that out 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

because it does show that we are in a sense using 

this as a consent agenda.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick, I disagree. 

We're going to vote on each of these individually 

because they are individual listings.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay.

CHAIRMAN ELA: We're not going to vote 

on them as a group. Sorry to disturb your point.

MR. GREENWOOD: So he's right 

historically.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. I am just going 

to throw out that this is a -- I agree with Jerry's 

assessment. This is a very complex group, and he 

will attempt to lump them together. But as the 

2015 Board dealt with, they were going to remove 

a bunch of these. It came up issues of form, 

powders versus liquids, et cetera.

In our public comments, we had at least 

one fairly large manufacturer of organic colors 

that said they could pretty much make anything in 

any quantity if there was questions for it and, 

you know, cost was really the only factor. Cost 
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is not part of our analysis.

So Jerry is happy to balance, you know, 

comments from manufacturers. He said yes, I can 

do this with comments from stakeholders, other 

stakeholders, saying, well, maybe but we can't seem 

to source it. So it's a very complicated topic. 

It looks like Dan has a question or a comment as 

well.

DR. SEITZ: My question to the 

subcommittee, if there was a split vote, was it 

always on the issue of whether there was enough 

organic supply or were there any issues that caused 

any of the split votes?

MR. D'AMORE: Almost universally 

suitable organic supply. There was a couple that 

came in on health issues. But even those were 

overwritten by suitable organic supply.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. Over the years 

that I've been on the Board the question has come 

up about, you know, like every meeting, I guess, 

really, that, you know, if we allowed a non-organic 

form when an organic form of something is 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

available, even if it's insufficiently available 

that we're de-motivating the private sector to move 

to make organic forms of the same thing more readily 

and widely available.

So my concern about approving these 

for, you know, seeing, as Jerry just said, it seems 

like, you know, in most cases there is an organic 

form available and a question of how much. And 

I guess the concern that we're creating a 

disincentive by approving all of these for the 

private sector to, you know, move truly organic 

things forward in the marketplace. That's a 

concern I have about this whole clump.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I'll make one quick 

comment before I go to Wood. Dave, as we go down 

through I think Jerry is not going to recommend 

re-listing all of these. There will be some for 

de-listing. So just to be clear, this probably 

isn't the clump. But go ahead, Wood.

MR. TURNER: That last comment, Steve,

may tie into what I was going to ask which was 

outside of sort of weighing, you know, one 

commenter versus another commenter or somebody 
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

saying there's a supply and somebody saying there's 

not supply, does the committee have any data to 

suggest, you know, any actual industry evidence 

about the availability of supplies or is it just 

truly based on the feedback we received from 

producers?

MR. D'AMORE: That's a great question, 

Wood. And, again, it varies throughout the 18 

items. And piercing the veil from the 

associations sometimes are limited in their 

budgets and sometimes we'll get their mandate as 

one of certification and not deeper into efficacy 

if you will.

Getting to the manufacturing community 

gave me a little bit more of a headwind to make 

some of the recommendations that I am. It's almost 

getting to the point where I wonder if I shouldn't 

read through all of them and then come back because 

Steve is right. I actually conferred with him 

because I think I'm out on a limb on a couple of 

these in terms of my recommendations to de-list. 

But that, too, comes from some pretty intimate 

--
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry, we just lost your 

audio. Can you get Jerry again?

MR. D'AMORE: I'm here. I got kicked 

out. If that happens again, please bear with me 

and I'll call in through AT&T rather than do this. 

If it happens one more time, give me three minutes 

to get back with you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sure. No, go ahead, 

Jerry. You're on the --

MR. D'AMORE: Yes. I don't know how 

far I got with Wood understanding what I was trying 

to say. As a matter of fact, I'm going to 

disconnect my camera because that may be part of 

my problem with bandwidth so please bear with me.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. And I'll jump in, 

Jerry, too, and this is where I really want to 

commend Jerry. I was really relying on 

stakeholder comments in looking through this. And 

they are very confusing and not very clear. And 

we tried to be very specific in our questions to 

stakeholders to answer this on a color-by-color 

basis and that was often not the case. 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But Jerry did reach out to a lot of 

stakeholders personally, companies that were for 

and against and companies that were manufacturers. 

So, Wood, Jerry's evidence is based on not just 

the stakeholder comments but actually taking the 

time to reach out to people as well to try and flesh 

this out a little bit.

MR. TURNER: That's helpful. I 

appreciate what Dave said as well. I totally 

understand what he's saying. And at the same time 

I feel like it's important to be able to understand 

what is actual fact about availability. So 

thanks.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. It's a tough 

topic as Kim noted.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes. And now I'll get 

to Kim again. In terms of feeling her pain, I went

through the initial pieces of this, taking a lot 

of this stuff at face value. And it comes down 

to a question are the intended consequences 

aligned?

But that doesn't make sense. I'll tell 

you that I was relying on some work documents that 
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

were showing, you know, a large number of people 

using, certifiers using, the 205606 in their 

answer. They would tell you how many people were 

using that product.

And it took me a couple of weeks to 

understand that I wasn't even asking the right 

question because a follow-on to that was, well, 

how many are using that same product in an organic 

supply? And sometimes you find out that you didn't 

ask the right question early enough because in a 

couple of cases they were already using more of 

the organic supply than they are the non-organic.

And, again, there's no bad intent here. 

It's just my questions weren't the right questions 

to begin with.

MS. HUSEMAN: I hear you, Jerry.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. We have thoughts 

from Scott and Mindee.

MR. RICE: Yes, thanks. Just, you 

know, I know it's been noted. But as a 606 

material, the certifier is always going to be 

asking for how that company sourced organic or 

attempted to source organic before going to the 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

non-organic option. And I think that's a process 

that works.

And, you know, it's reminder also as 

I'm sure was found by Jerry in his research, you 

know, it might be times when that is available and 

times when it is not. You know, supply and demand 

is a tough thing. So just keep in mind that that 

organic option is always the one that is looked 

at first and before the (audio interference).

MR. D'AMORE: Right. And your comment 

is to -- it's a question of timing as well, isn't 

it? Yes. Seasonality.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: Thank you. I saw the 

manufacturing community come in pretty strong for 

re-listing. I saw the Dressing Association, Happy 

Family, Food Additives Council asking for 

re-listing almost to the substances with a couple 

of specifics, beta carotene, black carrot, black 

purple and carrot juice.

But I also heard that there was a lot 

of impetus to move into the direction of really 

functional organic colors, but that they're not 
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

really there yet. And I think 606 works pretty 

well in that way. I think there can be an economic 

incentive to develop functional organic 

ingredients for 606 because then you do win the 

marketplace.

And so I'm pretty much in support of 

re-listing these colors in that I think it's a 

rather minor issue. There is plenty of support 

for re-listing. And thank you.

MR. D'AMORE: And, Mindee, broadly 

speaking, you're absolutely right.

MR. ELAP: Yes. And I'll jump in, too. 

I agree, Mindee, although I think we've seen from 

comments when you drill down a little more that 

there were some companies that said we are finding 

adequate supply of some of these. And this was 

the problem with the blanket comments versus 

specific comments. Even companies saying, well, 

we need this. You know, we're using other organic 

colors, and we need this. But then they wouldn't 

say what organic colors they were using.

I think that 606 in general is 

frustrating because it's really hard to get people 
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to commit to taking something off even if it's 

widely available. And so it's a tough one.

Are there further comments? Otherwise 

we're going to jump into the individual colors 

starting with beet juice extract. Any other 

comments before we move down that road? All right.

Jerry, if I remember beet juice extract 

was one you said we should re-list based on your 

research. Is that correct?

MR. D'AMORE: That is absolutely 

correct.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. If we don't have 

any further comments on this one, we will go to 

the motion to remove -- if I can get my screen to 

come up -- the motion is to remove beet juice 

extract from 205606 of the National List. It was 

made by myself and seconded by Mindee. We are 

going to start with Mindee.

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'MORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: The Chair votes no.
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 MR. BUIE: Zero yes, 15 no. The motion

fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Just a 

quick note on timing. I think what we'll do is 

we'll do two more colors and then break for lunch 

and then come back.

I think we're pretty much on schedule 

here. So let's do two more colors and then we'll 

take our hour break for lunch and come back to more 

colors.

So, Asa, back to you and Jerry on beta 

carotene.

MR. BRADMAN: I think really my role 

here is just to introduce the beta carotene extract 

color, and Jerry if you want to take it from there.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you sir. This is 

a short one. Research truly shows that this is 

one of the ones where suitable adequate supply is 

of a concern in the research that I did. And I'm 

recommending that we do re-list it.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Any other discussion on 

this one? Okay. The motion is to remove beta 

carotene extract from 205606 of the National List. 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It was made by myself and seconded by Asa. We 

will start with Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'MORE: No.
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no.

 MR. BUIE: Zero yes, 15 no. The motion 

fails. 

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. We will do one 

more. I'll just not put you on the spot, Asa. 

Jerry, on the black currant juice.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, sir. This one was 

one I had to do a deeper dive into because I took 

the split and I took it seriously. But what came 

out of the fall 2020 commenters specifically is 

a "expressed increase in the comfort level that 

there is sufficient suitable supply." I went up 

and did direct communications with manufacturers 

and have not an overwhelming consensus but a decent 

consensus that this color can be de-listed without 

undue disruption. That's it.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there questions and 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

comments? Discussion? Okay. I do not see any. 

So the motion is to remove black currant juice 

color from 205606 of the National List. It was 

made by myself and seconded by Mindee. We will 

start the vote with Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. D'MORE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

 MR. BUIE: Fifteen yes, zero no. The 

motion fails -- I mean the motion passes. The 

motion passes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: We're trying to keep you 

nimble, Jesse. Thank you. All right. It is 

12:06 so we went a little bit over lunch break. 

Well, we will come back at -- well, 12:06 my time, 

sorry, 2:06 Eastern. We will come back at 3 

o'clock Eastern Time after a break here, and we 

will get back to colors. All right. Thank you 

all.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 2:06 p.m. and resumed at 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

3:03 p.m.)

MR. D'AMORE: I think we're starting at 

black purple carrot juice color, if I am correct.

CHAIRMAN ELA: You are correct.

MR. D'AMORE: Asa, may I?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Absolutely, be my guest.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you very much. 

Black purple carrot juice color, the Handling 

Committee recommends relisting this color. 

During the period leading up to our public comments 

for fall, there were no new comments that came in. 

Based on the direct telephone conversations with 

stakeholders, I'm recommending that we relist this 

color for reasons of inadequate suitable supply 

of organic alternative.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there other comments 

or questions from the board on this one?

MR. TURNER: I would have a question and 

comment. Great work here. I just have a question 

that may be inappropriate for this forum, but I 

just wanted to know if you could give me any color 

on it.

MR. D'AMORE: Oh okay. 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. TURNER: That was horrible. Some 

of these colors seem like they're probably similar 

in the way they look. I'm just curious if there's 

ever any consideration between say black carrot 

juice and black currant. We went through the black 

currant conversation. Are these colors similar? 

Did you learn anything through your outreach to 

the need and those kinds of factors?

MR. D'AMORE: I tell you what. If I 

don't address that in the following ones to your 

full satisfaction, ask that again, but 

functionality is a big thing. As Dave or somebody 

pointed out, there's also seasonality as to when 

some of it is available. So there's a switch back 

and forth between our 606 and organic that doesn't 

even get registered sometimes. If you're approved 

at 606 and you want to put in organic, people don't 

feel compelled to say whoops, this is now organic.

Yeah, and there are some things, I'm 

learning new terms all the time, like orphan crops 

where people actually go out and specifically plant 

to this. That's become an alternative in some of 

these cases, too.
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. TURNER: Thank you --

MR. D'AMORE: Again, Wood, come back at 

me if you're not more satisfied by the end of the 

presentation.

MR. TURNER: -- for that one. It was 

great.

CHAIRMAN ELA: It's a good question, 

Wood, and I think that's one of the issues of all 

these is in some of them there's been questions 

that it's available, but it's the wrong hue or this 

hue is unstable. It's a pretty specialized 

industry, so it really is hard to suss out in a 

lot of ways. So we will move to the motion seeing 

no more comments. 

The motion is to remove black purple 

carrot juice color from 205.606 of the national 

list. It was made by myself and seconded by Asa. 

We are starting with Nate. Nate are you out 

there?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes, I am. I vote no.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I know we've all got the 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

post-lunch coma here. Some of you may not have 

eaten lunch. I did, but we'll get wound up again. 

A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue? Sue, you're on 

mute.

MS. BAIRD: No. 

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you. Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick? 

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no.

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, 15 no. Motion 

fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry, next is blueberry 

juice color.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, sir. The Handling 

Committee motion to remove blueberry juice color 

from the national list based upon commercial 

availability. Public comments put forth by 

participants in the spring and fall 2020 meetings 

offered no new challenges to the retention of this 

color. I'm recommending to remove blueberry juice 

color from the national list based upon commercial 

availability. 

I'll take all the questions on this one 

you want because I've managed over 3,000 acres of 

blueberry production. It's one of the ones I'm 

qualified for.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Excellent. I know Wood 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

has some, as well. Questions, comments, 

statements?

You're safe, Jerry. So we will go to the vote, 

and the motion was to remove blueberry juice color 

from 205.606 of the national. We are going to 

start with Scott.

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And then A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

MR. BUIE: Thirteen yes, two no, the 

motion passed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jesse. Now 

to Jerry again for carrot juice color.

MR. D'AMORE: Wood, this and two 

subsequent ones might come closer to being an 

example of what you asked. The Handling 

Subcommittee recommended that this color be 

delisted. I'll actually read what I wrote here. 

This color probably provoked more response than 

any of the colors. Unfortunately, the responses 

were themselves split along the lines of suitable 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

commercial availability. 

The strongest case made to retain 

carrot juice color on the national list did not 

argue that there wasn't enough organic supply, but 

rather focused on specific aspects of suitability, 

i.e., batch to batch conformity, color, and the 

strength of color. There is enough organic 

supply. Any heavy lifting would most likely 

center around organizing supply sources to get 

desired characteristics. 

Another solution would be or could be 

contract growing in the specific attributes, which 

could take several years to put into place. With 

that, I'm recommending to remove carrot juice color

from 606 on the grounds of adequate commercial 

availability.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Is there discussion? 

Asa has a question or comment.

MR. BRADMAN: I just want to make a 

general comment perhaps that was best said earlier, 

but colors are an interesting component of food 

products and food processing. I'm right now 

involved in an evaluation of synthetic food 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

coloring and potential health implications of some 

of those synthetic materials. On this end, I think 

in general the plant-based colors have a better 

profile in terms of safety and use.

I understand the need for uniformity 

across products, that having consistency is 

probably good for marketing and good for sales, 

although colors themselves don't really affect 

flavor and quality, although they may affect 

perception of it. Colors in general, I think, are 

an interesting item. It sounds like with this one 

there's enough supply, but organic agriculture is 

not so uniform chemically compared to conventional 

in terms of materials used for production. That 

natural availability seems like a natural result 

of growing something in a more natural system.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you, I agree.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Other comments or 

questions for Jerry? I do not see any, so we are 

going to move to the vote. The motion is to remove 

carrot juice color from 205.606 at the national 

list. The motion was made by Steve, it was 

seconded Scott. We are going to start with A-Dae.
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily? Are you there, 

Emily?
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: Sorry, yes. I thought I 

had it on.

CHAIRMAN ELA: No worries. Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

MR. BUIE: Fifteen yes, zero no, the 

motion passed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry, next is cherry 

juice color.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, sir. The Handling 

Subcommittee had an even vote, split on this one. 

The subcommittee's split vote did not provoke or 

generate any new information. Given a full review 

of the spring and 2020 stakeholder comments, and 

subsequent phone calls, I recommend removing 

cherry juice color from 205.606 on the grounds of 

adequate commercial supply availability of an 

organic alternative. Am I still connected?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, I hear you.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you.

DR. SEITZ: Yes, we can hear you, but 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

can't speak.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I had the mute on, my 

apologies. Again, I have to show you all that I'm 

human as well as the rest of us. I am not seeing 

any comments, so we will move to the vote. The 

motion is to remove cherry juice color from 205.606 

at the national list. The motion was by Steve, 

seconded by Kim, and we will start with Dan.

DR. SEITZ: Dan.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue? Sue, are you there? 

Sue, we're not hearing you.

MS. ARSENAULT: It looks like Sue may 

have dropped off the call. I'm not seeing her.

MR. BOYCE: We will put her down as 

absent on this one then. Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee:

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott.

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

MR. BUIE: Fourteen yes, one absent, the 

motion passed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Next up we have 

chokeberry aronia juice color, Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, sir. No new comments 

from the spring or fall public comment session. 

I'm emphasizing new. That's not to say there are 
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

no comments. I see no reason to change the 

direction of the subcommittee's recommendation to 

relist, so I do recommend a relist in favor of 

inadequate commercial availability of an organic 

alternative.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Any questions or comments 

on chokeberry aronia juice? Seeing none, we will 

move to the vote. The motion is to remove 

chokeberry aronia juice color from 205.606 of the 

national list. A motion was made by Steve, it was 

seconded by Mindee, and we will start with Wood.

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue? Sue, are you back 

with us? Okay, we will go to Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no.

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, fourteen no, one 

absent, the motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: We will move next on to 

elderberry juice color, Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Now on this particular 

color there were new comments, and the comments 

continued to support that this color is in limited 

organic supply and it should be relisted. Given 
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that and subsequent phone calls that I was able 

to make, I'm recommending that this color be 

relisted based on inadequate commercial 

availability of organic supply.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there comments? 

Seeing none, we will move to the motion to remove 

elderberry juice color from 205.606 of the national 

list. The motion was made by Steve, it was 

seconded by Asa, and we are going to start at the 

top again with Sue. We'll see if Sue got back on.

MS. ARSENAULT: No, I don't think she's 

on yet.

MR. D'AMORE: Sue has just texted that 

she's lost her electricity. 

CHAIRMAN ELA: We'll get her back on with 

the --

MR. D'AMORE: Right, she's asked that 

we send her the phone number.

CHAIRMAN ELA: We will get that to her. 

So we will count Sue as absent. We're going to 

start with Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: The Chair votes no.

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, fourteen no, one 

absent, the motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: On to grape juice color.

MR. D'AMORE: The Handling Subcommittee 

had an even split vote as to whether or not to 

relist. This particular color sort of follows the 

path of the carrot juice in that it is a 

coordination issue more than an organic 

availability issue. There appears to be great 

variety between the batches, making it hard to get 

a consistent batch. This appears to be more of 

an organizational issue around production and 

grower base. I recommend that we delist grape 

juice color.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there any questions 

or comments from the board? Dave has a 

question/comment?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, just a thought 

about Asa's comment about consistency. In the 

northeast, there are a number of different grapes 

grown. I've walked a number of these vineyards, 

and the color variation is huge, from all green 
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to almost black in color. I can imagine the color 

of the extracts must reflect, at least to some 

degree, that variation.

I just was curious, Jerry, like when 

you say it's a coordination problem I can imagine 

-- I'm just trying to think about the logistics 

of how you would get a certain grape color together 

in a way that it becomes part of a processing chain 

functionally. Is that like, California and 

Washington red grapes or dark plain grapes?

MR. D'AMORE: I appreciate that thought 

and question. It's one I wrestled with, and with 

time I asked myself what is the difference between 

the organic and non-organic grape production that 

we draw the distinction on how to answer that? 

It came up a lot in blueberries, and we actually 

got down to the genetic proposition, as well, and 

had a discussion on does conventional production 

actually alter the state of the product?

I'm the least of us on the board with 

a deep grasp of the science, but I can tell you 

that if you start with the same genetic 

proposition, let's say an Elliott blueberry, and 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you grow it conventionally and you grow it 

organically, I have never seen a distinction in 

the properties. Obviously there are sprays and 

residues that we could talk about. I asked myself 

the same question, Dave, and I came up with the 

thought of okay, what is the overall organic 

supply?

In blueberries it's 30 percent, which 

is high, of course. Is it really that much 

difference in terms of the organization behind 

getting the batch that you want because of the 

distinction between conventional and organic? I 

came up with no. We obviously have a smaller 

supply base, but the organizational piece of that, 

I don't think is much different.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thanks, Jerry, that's 

helpful. So the variation within an organic grape 

industry and a conventional grape industry is 

likely to be somewhat similar is what you're 

arguing, and that makes a lot of sense, so thanks.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you. I may get 

challenged on that at some point, but I went out 

and tried to get challenged on it. At the end of 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the day, I didn't find a compelling argument there.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thanks.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Thank you, Jerry. I 

appreciate the work you've put into this. I'm 

looking at grape juice color, and then the very 

next one we're going to vote on is grape skin 

extract color. Are there opportunities for some 

of these to be used interchangeably?

MR. D'AMORE: Also a good question, also 

one that I wrestled with. If you would hold that 

thought to the end of the next one, let's have the 

conversation then.

MS. HUSEMAN: But we're going to vote 

on this one now.

MR. D'AMORE: Good point. On the next 

one, the distinction is it's the grape skin. To 

go organic is a tough one because your supply source 

primarily are the wineries. That makes it a whole 

different kettle of fish.

MS. HUSEMAN: So what you're saying is 

to treat them very specifically independently and 
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not cross over different -- you didn't find that 

any way in the industry anyway to be a compelling 

argument?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

MS. HUSEMAN: Okay.

MR. D'AMORE: I find them to be two 

different things entirely as I look at them. Just 

that they happen to share the same grape start, 

but that's about it.

MS. HUSEMAN: Okay, thank you.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, ma'am.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Then Sue. Welcome back, 

Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Well, thanks. I totally had 

an electrical surge and everything went out for 

a bit. Again, I echo everybody else, Jerry, you 

did an incredible job. Your information is 

probably a lot more current than my memory. But 

in the past we've heard, and we're talking about 

past-past, we've heard a lot of constituents that 

state just because there's a lot of raw product 

out there, or maybe at least a medium amount of 

product out there, does not mean that there's 
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

enough by-product left over to make these colors.

That was a compelling argument back 

when, that we put these colors on because in the 

organic world we're such a small percentage of the 

conventional anyway, that all their product is used 

up. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that.

MR. D'AMORE: I think that gets a bit 

back to the conversation that Dave and I had a 

second ago. The availability, from what I've 

looked into, is there. The mechanism of going 

after it to create the right batches that you want 

I don't see is a big difference. There's millions 

and millions in blueberries, I can quote you 

billions of pounds being grown, 30 percent organic. 

What I get into, Sue, on this, and it's 

what challenged me a lot, and I think it's 

challenged the group a lot, is the notion that 

sometimes we just go with the flow and end up 

stifling innovation. If I've heard one thing that 

sort of has come to me directed to the group of 

us is that we may fall into that trap. These are 

judgment calls. 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I can't be adamant about any of it, but 

I think this does fall very much into the carrot 

juice in that if you don't allow people the 

opportunity to go out and make their effort to do 

their sourcing side, maybe that accusation is 

correct. The raw product is there.

MS. BAIRD: Could I --

CHAIRMAN ELA: Other -- go ahead, Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Could I follow up with that? 

I don't mean to take too much time. The other 

argument that we've heard in the past is that even 

if there were that raw product there, because it's 

such a small -- again, a small percentage of market 

-- that the processors that do these colors won't 

stop a process and just do organic colors because 

it's such a huge process to clean all their 

equipment down. 

I guess it's pretty specialized 

equipment to do the organic colors. I'm not trying 

to be argumentative. I'm just searching for 

answers here. I don't want to --

MR. D'AMORE: No, Sue, I don't hear you 

as being argumentative. I think there's a little 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

correction. There's not two different kinds of 

equipment that do that, but there's a great process 

of cleaning between various runs.

MS. BAIRD: Yes, yes.

MR. D'AMORE: I think that is a very 

legitimate concern. On some of these, Sue, part 

of what you had to start with is trying to determine 

how big an industry is this? You'll find that some 

of the things we're discussing that the entire 

volume of use is no greater than 10, 15 times per 

year. If you don't start from that base, you could 

get yourself, I think, into some interesting 

thinking that may not lead you to the right answer.

On this one, I have to tell you right 

up front, I couldn't get to that number. If I'm 

a little bit hesitant in being robust about my 

response, it's because of that. On others, you 

dig down far enough and you get people willing to 

talk to you, and you come up with that starting 

point. On some of these I'm very robust because 

I know that starting point, and on some of them 

I'm a lot less robust. I can't comment to this 

one. I don't know what the starting point is.
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: I appreciate that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Any other 

thoughts/comments? We're going to move on to the 

vote. The motion is to remove grape juice color 

from 205.606 of the national list. The motion was 

made by Steve, seconded by Asa. We will start with 

Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: I'm voting yes on this one.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

MR. BUIE: Fifteen yes, zero, the motion 

passed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jesse. 

Moving on to grape skin extract color.

MR. D'AMORE: So there was a nice lead-in 

to this with all of your other questions, and I 

really appreciate that. On this one, I'm looking 

at the skin extract as a true by-product. You 

start with something that has already been utilized 

to a great extent. In digging, I have found that 

the source and supply seems to be really limited 
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to a tie-in with the wine industry, where organic 

inputs appear to be limited in any case.

I think we would be putting an undue 

hardship on this particular color were we to delist 

it. So I'm recommending that we actually relist 

it.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Questions and comments? 

I'm not seeing any, so we'll move to the vote. 

The motion is to remove grape skin extract color 

from 205.606 of the national list. We are going 

to start with Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no.

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, fifteen no, the 

motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jesse. Next 

up is paprika.

MS. JEFFREY: So starting with paprika, 

beyond telling you that the subcommittee 

recommends the listing of this color, I will tell 
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you that there were 21 different references to the 

category in our just-concluded fall comment 

period. Paprika holds the distinction of being 

one of two colors that were actually referenced 

as colors and further referenced with a lackluster 

enthusiasm for trying to defend relisting.

Given that, I am recommending that we 

do delist it based on adequate supply, and to a 

certain extent based on the use argument, the total 

volume argument that I put forth in answering to 

Dave a little while ago. So that's a 

recommendation that we vote to delist paprika.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you. Let's move 

on to comments or thoughts. I'm not seeing any, 

so we will start the vote with the motion to remove 

paprika color from 205.606 of the national list. 

First voter is Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: No. Oh yes, I'm voting 

yes to remove it.

CHAIRMAN ELA: No worries, Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Chair votes yes. Jerry, 

that was almost a hanging cat.

MR. BUIE: Fifteen yes, zero nos, the 

motion passed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jesse. 

Pumpkin juice color next.

MR. D'AMORE: Pumpkin juice color, the 

Handling Subcommittee recommends delisting of this 

color. I'm going to use as part of my argument 

base for supporting that, as I did once before, 

is that when the community knows well in advance 

that we're not robust one way or the other, that 

we've got a true split vote on that and it provokes 

no reaction from the community, that tells me a 

lot. 

Whether you all agree that that's a lot 

is something we can discuss. There truly was no 

enthusiasm in defense of relisting, and with that 

I'm recommending that we vote to delist.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Discussion, comments, 

questions? I'm not seeing any so we'll move to 

the motion. The motion is to remove pumpkin juice 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

color from 205.606 of the national list. The 

motion was made by myself, was seconded by Mindee. 

Somehow it seems like an appropriate time of year 

to be talking about pumpkins. We will start with 

Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Chair votes yes. Did I 

get everybody on that one?

MR. BUIE: MS. MILLER:-hmm. Fifteen 

yes, zero nos, the motion passed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Moving on to purple 

potato juice.

MR. D'AMORE: The Handling Subcommittee 

recommends that we do relist this color. I didn't 

get a whole lot of information, and I'm suspecting 

it's because of its overall use. But I could find 

nothing that told me that there's adequate supply, 

so I do recommend that the board vote to relist 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

this color.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Questions/comments? We 

will move to the vote. The motion is to remove 

purple sweet potato juice extract from 205.606 in 

the national list. The motion was made by Steve, 

seconded by Asa. We're going to start with Kim.

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Chair votes no.

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, fifteen nos, the 

motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Onward to red cabbage 

extract color.

MR. D'AMORE: I'll say to my team 

members, I suspect I'm not alone when you start 

this process you have a feeling for where you stand. 

On red cabbage I got turned around. We have a 

split vote as to whether this should be 

reconsidered. Again, part of my criteria for 

decision-making on this is that split vote really 

did provoke a lot of stakeholders to get out there 
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and make some strong statements regarding the 

commercial availability. 

The little bit of digging that I could 

do beyond that does lead me to believe that we were 

not to relist this, that we would create some real 

barriers and undue hardship around the notion of 

suitable commercial availability. I believe it 

is an issue, so I recommend the board to actually 

relist this one.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Any other 

comments/questions on that one? I am not seeing 

any, so the motion is to remove cabbage extract 

color from 205.606 in the National List.

MR. TURNER: Asa has a question, Steve.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Wood.

MR. BRADMAN: I just had a question, 

Jerry, in terms of the comments and the discussions 

in the subcommittee that there were 24 listings 

on the Organic Integrity Database. I guess I just 

wondered if you could comment on that?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes. I've got a stack of 

papers behind me, and I know exactly what you're 

referring to. There was a rebuttal to that, that 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it's claim made of potential and not of actuality. 

I tried to get deeper into that and I didn't get 

return calls on it. I'm not saying that's a 

negative. Getting return calls are tough anyway. 

On this one, it's a good call, Asa. 

On this one I think I'm pretty public with my 

teammates that stifling innovation is one thing, 

causing undue hardship is another. I'm leaning 

towards this one as creating undue hardship. It's 

a weak case.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right, and Wood, 

thanks for pointing out that Asa had a question. 

I appreciate that.

MR. TURNER: Sure, happy to be the ad 

hoc parliamentarian. Jerry, I'm just going to ask 

another primer question here because I have an 

opening here. It's probably more general than 

just red cabbage. I'm actually curious if 

availability of organic color correlates at all 

to availability of the organic whole product at 

all, if there's any connection at all? 

I'm just curious if there's anything 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that we should glean from lack of the organic red 

cabbage color to lack of availability of organic 

red cabbage period. Maybe it's a little bit of 

a far-reaching question, but I'm actually curious. 

If the answer is no or you don't know, that's fine. 

I'm just curious if you have any input on that.

MR. D'AMORE: No, I appreciate the 

question. I think there was a previous commenter 

that got to the fringes of that. Matter of fact, 

may have said this. I think the entire category 

is one primarily around optics. How does it 

appear? It doesn't seem to be a big taste factor, 

if any at all. 

The argument has been made throughout 

this entire category to me that I appeal it's by 

appeal, and that it's a strong force. Many of you 

that have been on the retail side of things I think 

might agree with me. I guess the answer to your 

question is no, in a single word.

MR. TURNER: Thanks. No questions from 

me.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Any other questions.
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: Steve, I had a question. 

I didn't raise my hand. 

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sure, go ahead, Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Just on that line of 

reasoning, that's a crop -- and I'm no expert on 

acres of vegetable crop grown under organic. 

That's an understatement, but that's a crop that 

you rarely see, I will say at least in an 

eastern/northeastern supermarket. You'll see 

lots of other things, but you won't see a lot of 

organic red cabbage in the supermarket. Now you 

would see it in smaller markets and specialty 

places.

I do wonder the degree to which there 

would be large sources of where there could be a 

link there. If there's so little coordinated 

growing of red cabbage organically, then it would 

constrain the opportunity to extract dye from it. 

Maybe I was not following the thread that you and 

Wood were just discussing. 

But on the low end of production it 

seems like there would be a strong link between 

lack of the crop to extract from or residue from 
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the crop after it's been processed for some other 

purpose, like in the case of grapes.

MR. D'AMORE: Yeah, the way I understood 

Wood's question was a bit different than that. 

I understood him to be asking me whether or not 

there was any added value given by color than color 

itself. If that was the question, if I understood 

that correctly, it's still no.

To your point, I couldn't agree with 

you more, and that's one of the big things that 

we wrestle with. Red cabbage, I couldn't find a 

lot of organic production. In blueberries I'm 

going to tell you that it's such a hot commodity 

and there is such an organic premium for it that 

30 percent of the acres that I've attended to have 

been organic, 30 percent or better.

Wood, you could jump in on that, too, 

if you'd like in a minute. I think what you've 

asked is a very valid point, and it's probably the 

single biggest reason that I'm advocating for a 

relist of the color.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, thanks, Jerry. 

I might just have been not following the 
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

discussion.

MR. D'AMORE: No, no, no, not at all. 

It is counterintuitive to the dirty dozen, by the 

way.

CHAIRMAN ELA: So just to be clear --

go ahead, Wood?

MR. TURNER: Nothing more for Jerry on 

that. He just mentioned my name.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yeah, and just to be 

clear, Jerry, in my own head, you were recommending 

that this be relisted, is that right?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I will move on to the 

motion to remove red cabbage extract color from 

205.606 of the National List. The motion was made 

by Steve, seconded by Mindee. We are going to 

start with Mindee.

MS. JEFFREY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No. (Dog barking)

CHAIRMAN ELA: The chair votes no. I'm 

not sure how to take that last vote.
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. D'AMORE: That was a dissenting 

vote, I think. 

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, fifteen no, the 

motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Next to red radish 

extract color.

MR. D'AMORE: Not much different than 

the last one. It's one of the ones where you can 

dig and dig and dig and some of the information 

just doesn't present itself. If I'm making a 

decision, I'm erring on the side of cautious and 

not being disruptive. I found no new information 

in the spring or the fall meetings that would give 

me a push in either direction. 

With that as a backdrop, and not a very 

convincing one, I do recommend that we relist this 

color. I just wouldn't know how to go about 

directing somebody to a better alternative at this 

point.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry, my only comment 

is I find it ironic that you talk about digging 

and digging and digging for radishes.

MR. D'AMORE: Hey look, I'm not the only 
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

corny person on this board, though. I'll tell you 

that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: We're not to corn color 

yet, but -- are there questions and comments from 

the board? We will move to the vote. The motion 

is to remove red radish extract color from 205.606.

MR. D'AMORE: No, no, no, no, no. It's 

to relist it.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yeah, the motion though, 

you want to relist it, but we have to read the 

motion. 

MR. D'AMORE: Excuse me, sir.

CHAIRMAN ELA: The motion is to remove 

red radish extract color from 205.606 of the 

National List. It was made by myself, Steve, 

seconded by Kim. Just to remind people, a yes vote

is to remove it, a no vote is to not remove it. 

We are going to start with Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan? Are you there, Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No, no.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you. Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa? You there, Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no.
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, fifteen no, the 

motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: We're going to move from 

the bottom of the plant up to the top with saffron 

extract color.

MR. D'AMORE: The Handling Committee 

recommends that this color be relisted, and I'm 

going to read what I put down because I want to 

get it right. This color would be easy to relist. 

They sort of go with the flow. However, there 

was no real effort to show increased support from 

the stakeholder community during the spring or the 

fall meetings. The spring 2020 comments, in fact, 

seem to be ambivalent at best. With that said, 

I could not confirm sufficient appropriate supply. 

This is rhetorical to me. I think I 

know the answer. If we are tasked with assuring 

supply, I would recommend relisting. If the 

burden of assurance of supply falls on our 

stakeholders, I would recommend delisting. So I 

am actually recommending delisting.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Say that again, Jerry? 
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

You are in favor of taking it off the list?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, sir, I am.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And do you want to give 

your reasoning again on that?

MR. D'AMORE: Yeah. I guess this one 

is not me sitting back or us sitting back trying 

to figure it all out, which is appropriate and 

probably what we should do. I welcome any of that 

push-back. But when you can't get the stakeholder 

community to support something, or if they're 

actually lackluster or worse, I'm having a tough 

time with it.

At some point, a statement to good 

supply is something that should be made. I 

couldn't get it made by anybody. Anyway, given 

a very lackluster feeling from the community about 

helping me, at this point, come to a determination 

that it's worthy of staying on the list was a tough 

thing to come up with. But I deliberately read 

you everything to tell you that I am conflicted 

and you can ask me all the questions you want. 

I'm not much smarter about it. The 

call we're going to make right here is which side 
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

do we err on? Stifle innovation or do we go with 

a feeling of disrupting commerce with a vote? It's 

the first time I've done it to you, group. I'm 

asking for help.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Fair enough. Scott, go 

ahead.

MR. RICE: Just looking at what we voted 

on for red radish, if I'm not mistaken the rationale 

for keeping it on the list was that we hadn't heard 

from anybody. I just want to confirm the logic 

and hopefully apply it evenly across what we're 

doing. For something like saffron extract, I 

would think given that this is the most expensive 

spice in the world, it would be rarer to secure 

than a radish. But I'm just a little bit confused.

MR. D'AMORE: You should be. I think 

the distinction is that with the red radish, when 

I did the digging I got a response that I could 

sort of hang my hat on. And with the saffron, when 

I did my digging, it was sort of like how much is 

this even used? And as I stumble here trying to 

make my own case, I will tell you that I felt 

compelled to do a recommendation, but I'm sitting 
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on the fence. Your question to logic is a good 

one.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Other 

comments/questions? Okay, we will move to the 

vote. Oh, Dave I see you have your hand raised?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, I guess I just do 

think that Scott's point is one that was going 

through my mind. That is, I've seen this grown. 

If it's the flowers that are being used for the 

color, which I'm guessing it is, but I don't know 

that for a fact, that's a lot, a lot of flowers 

to extract pigment from that you would use then 

in the food coloring.

I just would wonder if the production 

is there in a way that could -- where the supply 

would be there and all of that. That one strikes 

me as hard to picture that, actually.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue and then Nate.

MS. BAIRD: Just a comment. Somebody 

had to petition this that needed it. I'm wondering 

if that person just didn't realize they needed to 

come back and make comments. I would agree, this 

would appear to be a very short-supply product. 
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Whoever that was that needed this saffron, and 

I don't know who it is, I would think if they needed 

it then they still need it now.

MR. D'AMORE: And I agree and I 

appreciate all the push-back here. I guess the 

last thing I would say is it's my findings, accurate 

or not, that this does classify as a new term that 

I've learned, an orphan crop. I suspect that most 

of this is done, when saffron is grown, it's grown 

specifically for this purpose to a large extent. 

Maybe what I'm doing is showing a little 

bit of irritation at not being able to get to the 

point of somebody helping me with this, and for 

that I would be wrong. So following logic, I would 

agree with my colleagues.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: I apologize if I 

missed this, but I think in the written comments 

there were two surveyed parties in the OTA comments 

that said they do need saffron. I didn't know if 

you had already mentioned that just as one data 

point of industry coming to us saying they want 
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it.

MR. D'AMORE: Yeah, you're right. I've 

got it right here in front of me. You're right.

CHAIRMAN ELA: We will move to the vote. 

The motion is to remove saffron extract color from 

205.606 of the National List. The motion was made 

by Steve, seconded by Asa. We are going to start 

with Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Well, you're good 

colleagues and I'm voting no, as well.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: The Chair is actually 

going to vote yes.

MR. BUIE: One yes, fourteen nos, the 

motion failed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: We are going to go to the 

last color, so we're going to go back down to the 

roots. Really this should be Jesse's, but we're 

going to turn it back to Jerry for turmeric.

MR. D'AMORE: I've concluded my list of 

18 with the ones that troubled me the most. I'm 
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not going to be -- here's turmeric. We have 

recommended delisting it. My comment is the 

stakeholder response has been lackluster in 

efforts to support the relisting. As an 

individual color, turmeric has some specific 

naysayers citing sufficient organic supply. 

Another stakeholder does not specifically 

refute that, but points out that the organic supply 

is predominantly offshore and perhaps suspect of 

fraud. With that, I am going to continue with the 

Board's feeling and recommend that we delist 

turmeric.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thoughts or questions? 

I just want to be clear, Jerry, you're saying to 

delist it?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I'm not seeing any 

comments/questions, the motion to renew turmeric 

extract from 205.606 of the National List. Motion 

was made by Steve, it was seconded by Kim. We are 

going to start with Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Chair votes yes.

MR. BUIE: Eleven yes, four no, the 

motion passed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jesse. Thank 

you, Jerry. That was a lot, and thank you for 

taking it off my back. You did a much better job 

at it than I would have.

MR. D'AMORE: I'm not sure of that, but 

I was happy to be there.

MS. BAIRD: I would certainly be waving 

my hands if you could see me. Thank you, Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: Sue, I thank you, too.

CHAIRMAN ELA: So Asa we're going to put 

it back to you and then we'll keep on going down 

the list with glycerin. You there, Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Sorry. I think our next 

substance here is glycerin. Jerry, you are again 

on the hot seat for this one.

MR. D'AMORE: Okay, glycerin, produced 

from agricultural source materials and processing 

using biological methods as described under 
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

205.270(a). During the April 2020 meeting, we had 

18 public comments, nearly all of them written, 

with nearly all of them in favor to keep it on the 

list.

The just-concluded 2020 October 

written and oral comments total 11 responders, with 

again, most in written form and most in favor. 

We had a split vote on this at subcommittee, with 

three out of five voting to keep glycerin on the 

list. Again, when I initially looked at this, I 

thought I was going to go in a different direction. 

Digging a little bit deeper, I find that glycerin 

has a wider use than I knew.

I got a deep-dive into flavors and how 

glycerin interacts with flavors. I've come to the 

conclusion that taking off the National List would 

be a disruptive move, so I'm recommending that 

glycerin be kept on the National List of 205.606.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Discussion, questions, 

comments? Dan and then Asa.

DR. SEITZ: I'm curious to ask perhaps 

Jerry or other members of the subcommittee. It 

was asserted that there is a potential large 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic supply available, that at least one 

producer is producing organic at much less than 

capacity. I was wondering how you all were, or 

some of you looked at this question of is there 

a sufficient organic supply or not? Because there 

seems to be strong divergence of opinion on that.

MR. D'AMORE: Yes. When you go to a 

certain level and you look, in my experience now, 

you get a certain set of answers that lead you in 

one direction. Then you peel the onion back a 

little bit further and you get another set of 

answers when it comes to the term adequate or 

suitable commercial availability. 

Again, I'm not 100 percent one way or 

another, but what I've taken away from this round 

of digging into how does it get used, what is it 

used for, what are its distinct properties that 

allow for its use, I'm of the opinion still that 

it would be disruptive. There's not enough 

organic supply to take this off at this time. Dan, 

I just can't be a whole lot more specific than that.

DR. SEITZ: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: Dan really asked the 

question I had.

MR. D'AMORE: Yeah, and folks, I knew 

this was going to come at me. I've been part of 

this subcommittee process. All of the questions 

that were asked at the subcommittee were good and 

certainly armed me to go forward and ask my 

questions. I won't find this as a naysay to my 

ability to get to the answers should you go the 

other way, but the digging that I did on glycerin 

really lead me to a broader category of uses than 

I had known originally. 

I think it would be in jeopardy of being 

disruptive, but there definitely are substantial 

claims of adequate organic supply. I guess claims 

is the word that I underlined that you couldn't 

see.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily, go ahead.

MS. OAKLEY: Thanks, Jerry. I'm 

pulling a Steve. I'm still just a little confused. 

I wholeheartedly appreciate and understand the 

nuances in the uses for this that may not have been 

fully appreciated maybe even by the public 
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

commenters. I'm still not totally clear how to 

reconcile that, the fact that the uses for glycerin 

can be unique, with this claim that it could be 

available. Is what could be available not going 

to meet the various different uses potentially for 

which manufacturers need glycerin?

MR. D'AMORE: Yeah, and again, the 

strongest pitch I got was from a group that did 

an effective job of showing me or assuring me or 

leading me down a path to assure myself that the 

utility of glycerin, and flavors is one of them, 

because flavors has just been certified organic 

within just this year, or within a year. Flavors 

is one of the ones where I was like, you probably 

don't have a good feel for how much of this stuff 

is needed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: My understanding also comes 

into play with glycerin and its functionality. 

Can you address that? Because some forms just do 

not function in some of the products. One form 

might work for one product and they would need 

another form of glycerin for others. Is that not 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

true, Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Actually you said that 

better than I did in my little comment. That is 

the driving piece of it. I hope I used the word 

functionality. One size does not fit all, and in 

order to give the broader community the 

availability that it does need to stay on the list 

-- and again, my method was just phone calls and 

piercing the veil and getting to manufacturers, 

and then going back up again and talking to 

associations and certifiers. It strikes me that 

at this point in time, we could be in jeopardy of 

being disruptive with a delisting.

MS. BAIRD: Functionality is one of 

those components of commercial availability, and 

the manufacturer does have to do that search for 

the certifier.

MR. D'AMORE: Correct. Are we still 

connected?

CHAIRMAN ELA: We are. I just wanted 

to show you I was human again. Sorry about that. 

Sounds like we're somewhat in agreement. Nate, 

one last comment and then we're going to go to the 
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

vote because we're starting to get behind on our 

schedule here. Go ahead.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Very quick, I think 

this was said before, but just kind of remind me 

as a matter for us all that the cool thing about 

606 is that it can be petitioned off at any time. 

If someone does bring evidence of sufficient 

organic supply, we can hear that petition and see 

it through to delist, as well. So I just like to 

remind myself that there's more opportunities as 

we get more information based on that organic 

availability.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you, Nate. I agree 

and I appreciate the comment.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa, one last comment.

MR. BRADMAN: I just wanted to ask about 

the comments related to glycerin being produced 

as a fermentation product and not agricultural and 

its listing on 606.

MR. D'AMORE: Well, you've got me there 

because the part that I looked at was that it's 

specified biological and physical under 

205.270(a). You may be catching a young member 
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

-- not young, excuse me -- a new member a little 

short on answers with that one, Asa.

MS. BAIRD: I would bet that was back 

when Gwendolyn Wyard and some of them did the 

synthetic versus non-synthetic, and somebody 

determined this was still agricultural.

MR. BRADMAN: Oh it's definitely still 

listed as agricultural, no question.

MS. BAIRD: Right.

MR. D'AMORE: It looks like there was 

discussion about this in 2015.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I'm going to jump in here 

unless there are more comments that are going to 

change the vote. We're starting to run well behind 

time so I'm going to go to the vote. The motion 

is to remove glycerin from 205.606 of the National 

List. The motion was made by Jerry, it was 

seconded by Kim. We are going to start the voting 

with Scott.

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A'Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan was that you that said 

no?

DR. SEITZ: It's yes.

MR. BUIE: Did Dan say yes or no?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sorry, thank you, Jesse. 

Wood? Wood, are you there?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Chair votes no.

MR. BUIE: It's two yes, thirteen no, 

the motion failed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jesse. Next 

up, Asa, is for you. Are you there, Asa?

MR. D'AMORE: I think he's just saying 

Jerry, it's yours.

MR. BRADMAN: Exactly.

CHAIRMAN ELA: This is going to be inulin 

oligofructose. Go ahead, Jerry.

MR. BRADMAN: Exactly, thank you. It's 

a mouthful.

MR. D'AMORE: Thank you. 

Non-organically produced agricultural product 

allowed as ingredients in or on products labeled 

as organic. It is a non-digestible carbohydrate, 

a soluble dietary fiber and a non-caloric 
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sweetener. Inulin oligofructose extract has 

distinct functionality with effects on texture and 

consistency of the food. During our April 2020 

meeting, we had about 25 public comments, nearly 

all written, with a full 75 percent in favor of 

relisting.

Our October 2020 written and oral 

comments totaled 12 new comments, with about 30 

percent against relisting. The Handling 

Subcommittee is in complete support of relisting 

inulin oligofructose. Again, from what I was able 

to dig, I am all in favor because of the distinct 

functionality with alternative products as the 

greatest driver towards that decision.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Comments? I'm not 

seeing any comments on this one, so we're going 

to go to the vote. The motion is to remove inulin 

oligofructose enriched from 205.606 on the 

National List. The motion was by Jerry, it was 

seconded by Scott. We are going to start with 

A-Dae.

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

MR. BUIE: What did Wood say?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood said no.

MR. BUIE: No? Okay.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFREY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Chair says no.

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, fifteen no, the 

motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa, back to you for kelp.

MR. BRADMAN: So our next material is

kelp. A-Dae, you're on deck.

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Great. So this is 

for 205.606 kelp and for use as a thickener and 

dietary supplement. Before I get into the 

description of the comments, there's a couple 

important considerations. One, kelp, as stated 

in the comments and as stated in our discussions, 

is a very ambiguous term because kelp can refer 

to many different kinds of algae and seaweed. 

We have many listings of algae and 

seaweed based on their Latin terms listed in other 
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

places. Also, it's kind of hard to aggregate how 

many comments were made about the 606 listing 

because we had many comments that cross-referenced 

the listing of kelp in other places, particularly 

crops, and also referenced the discussion document 

on marine algae. 

So in general, and again, like I said, 

it's hard to aggregate exactly pros and cons 

because of so many cross-references in the 

comments. I'm like Nate, sorry, I feel like 

sometimes 606 is sort of a loophole. Just 

historically I think you see materials get listed 

at 606 and then remain on the list and get really 

hard to take off, even with petitions. 

We see that with other materials, so 

I think there's a lot of consideration that should 

be had by the members in relisting kelp under 606. 

If you need more information, I think NOC, MOSA 

and Beyond Pesticides have very good comments that 

not only reference all the discussion points I've 

just made, but also have timelines about previous 

listings and cross-reference some of the 

discussion that still needs to be had around the 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

marine materials. 

In general, I think just to summarize 

some of the comments that kelp in itself is not 

a well-defined term. There are more specific ways 

to list kelp, whether that be by its Latin name 

or even by common names, that kelp is a very 

generalized term, which causes confusion. We have 

a couple comments. MOSA did a particularly good 

job of listing all the different inputs and 

materials that include kelp. 

Again, they're all listed by different 

Latin names and more specific terms, more specific 

references to algae. Again, this needs to be 

considered. So we did have a lot of comments in 

general. We had a lot of comments. Now were they 

specifically to the 606 listing? Yes, there are 

some that are very specific to the 606 listing, 

but there are far more comments about kelp in 

relation to other listings and the marine materials 

documents. I know we discussed this thoroughly 

in the subcommittee. Yeah, I'll leave it at that 

for now.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: Thanks. Thank you, A-Dae. 

I just think we can't underscore enough the 

challenge of having a word like kelp on the National 

List when we are using it to mean every single class 

of kelp. I can't say that this is an accurate 

parallel, that it would almost be like saying ferns 

or something like that. It's just very broad and 

could mean anything.

 Obviously the work that Dr. Jean 

Richardson tried to initiate to come up with Latin 

names for the National Listings is probably 

something that maybe there's more receptivity 

among the stakeholder community to start looking 

at. But this listing is just problematic in its 

generality, to say nothing of the fact that there 

are many of these macroalgae species that are 

available on the Organic Integrity Database. 

Since we're not sure which ones are used 

when people use the term kelp, it's hard to even 

say what is available organically or not. Thanks.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Anybody else? Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: I just want to echo some 

of A-Dae's and Emily's comments, and also just to 
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

highlight that kelp and seaweed in general, but 

kelp in particular is under a lot of stress. I 

think I pontificated at our last in-person meeting 

a little bit about how off the Northern California 

coast, the kelp populations are collapsing right 

now. 

I've read that there are similar trends 

going on in kelp forests off of Tasmania, and that 

there seems to be a particular vulnerability to 

disruptions related to climate change or changes 

in biota or bacteria or things like that, or changes

in the overall ecology. Here we're talking about 

I think they call it bull kelp, the big forest that 

we see.

I also know that seaweeds are very 

important to many cultural and culinary 

traditions. I do feel that we have this organic 

wild craft category, and it seems to me that that 

might be an appropriate place for this material 

as it's used for human food.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Just quickly, I agree with 

you, Asa. There are a lot of human use macroalgae 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

seaweeds that are being harvested according to the 

wild craft standard, as well as livestock feed 

that's being harvested according to the wild craft 

standard. If any of you go and purchase organic 

seaweed at your grocery store, that is being 

certified to the wild craft standard.

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: I'm just going to 

add something here, Steve. I think they brought 

up an important comment from stakeholders, is that 

there are some discrepancies between how we list 

kelp under 606 and how there are listings under 

205.237(a). I always get my provisions, but the 

livestock feed provision, which is required to be 

organic. So while we have it listed under 606, 

which is for human consumption, non-organic 

sources. 

Under livestock we have a similar 

listing for animal feed, which is required to be 

organic. So there are discrepancies in the types 

of listings, but again, if people are confused, 

they should be because kelp is so general. It's 

hard to really categorize exactly where this 

belongs.
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Great, thank you, A-Dae. 

We will move to the vote. The motion is to remove 

kelp from 205.606 from the National List. The 

motion was made by A-Dae, it was seconded by Steve, 

and we are going to start with Dan.

DR. SEITZ: Well, last time I had a very 

easy one and this is a very difficult one. I'll 

vote yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes for me.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry? You there Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: My vote is no, sir.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you. Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick, could you say that 

again?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: The Chair is going to vote 

no.

MR. BUIE: Eleven yes, four no, the 

motion passed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jesse. Asa, 

back to you for orange shellac.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you. So now we are 

on board for orange shellac, and Kim, I think you're 

on deck for this.
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. HUSEMAN: Thank you, Asa. This will 

be the final product that we have that has one of 

the toolboxes for those who are using waxes. 

Actually orange shellac is an excretion from an 

insect, so many of the comments referenced around 

again, a sunset, so annotation at a later time if 

it stays on the list. It's a non-vegan form of 

a hard coating.

It's used in jelly bean coatings. One 

notation from MOC was to add that annotation. 

Additionally, with orange shellac, there are 

different suppliers of jelly beans that are 

supportive of relisting. Another aspect to orange 

shellac, when you look at annotations, is the trees 

where the insects reside, maybe we should look at 

a limited TR around pesticide use.

That was brought up in conversation 

here. Again, I go back to very similar to low acyl 

gellan gum. An alternative to capsules is orange 

shellac, given some of that history there if we 

should allow that. This is another alternative 

that people are currently using. I don't have 

enough data here to say that it should be removed. 
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It is essential and commercial availability of 

organic is not prevalent. Just to wrap it up, I 

support the relisting.

MR. BRADMAN: Sorry, Kim, could you 

repeat your last statement?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yeah, I would support 

relisting. Going back to just commercial 

availability, I don't even know what commercial 

availability looks like for organic shellac or how 

that would be deemed. But reading through the 

comments that were posed in front of us, it is used 

vitally in the industry without a lot of 

alternatives, especially for jelly bean coating. 

Oregon Tilth remarked that they have two 

operations that use non-organic shellac with none 

that use organic shellac.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Any other questions or 

comments? We are going to move to the vote. The 

motion is to remove orange shellac from 205.606 

of the National List. The motion was made by Kim, 

it was seconded by Jerry. We are going to start 

with Wood.

MR. TURNER: No.
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: I'm voting no, but I really 

do want to follow up on an annotation in regard 

to these types of materials.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Chair votes no.

MR. BUIE: Zero yes, fifteen no, the 

motion failed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jesse. Just 

as a time check for everybody, we're definitely 

running behind here. We had the Materials 

Subcommittee scheduled at 4:30 Eastern. We're 

obviously over that time, so we're going to run 

late. I need to check with Dave in Materials, but 

one thing I'm thinking of is that as soon as we 

can wind up the Handling Subcommittee, we might 

go straight to the marine macroalgae proposal and 

then do the research priorities tomorrow morning. 

We're still going to run over time 

either way, but I think we can put research 

priorities in the morning and be okay, whereas if 

we put marine macroalgae in the morning, it's going 
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to be a long day tomorrow, as well. Just to give 

people a heads up, we are going to go a little bit 

long, but I just wanted to check in on that. We 

are going to move on, Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: I'm on deck right now with 

cornstarch, or should I say corn, new word, starch. 

I'm hoping we can have actually some robust 

discussion about this material. Corn starch is 

used as a thickener in many foods. It's also used, 

as I learned, with baking powder, and also in many 

other products affecting texture and flow and

things like that.

Really I think this is a classic 

discussion material for 606. There are many 

companies listed on the Organic Integrity Database 

that list corn starch. Depending on how you 

search, I get 55 and it seems like up to now 108 

in terms of corn starch as one word or two words. 

Maybe it's where you put your apostrophes. The 

point is that there's a lot of providers and 

suppliers of organic corn starch.

There have been a lot of comments that 

it's time to take this off of 606, and questions 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

about what are the barriers with there being 

adequate material for processing and food 

production purposes. There is also a strong 

sentiment among some manufacturers that the 

organic alternatives are not sufficient. A lot 

of those concerns are based on supply.

 Particularly for specific 

functionality and quality, that there are forms 

of corn starch that are different than others, and 

that a generic listing or supply of the material 

on the OID does not mean that there's functional 

material available for specific production 

purposes. In a way, that's kind of the crux of 

the issue here. 

In terms of the debate or the discussion 

in the subcommittee, there was this tension -- not 

conflict, but just the questions that were 

addressed were what is available and what is not? 

If there are needs for special forms of corn 

starch, those should be petitioned and listed 

separately given the apparently abundant supply 

of material. Our vote was to delist the material, 

but we were a little bit split on it.
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I voted to not delist it, and that was 

a basis that if there are specialized forms that 

are needed, maybe we can address this by 

annotation. The subcommittee was kind of 

unanimous in that there really needs to be a push 

to encourage more use of organically available corn 

starch. 

If there are specialized forms that 

need to be available that are not organic, the 

debate was more about whether we should accomplish 

that move to use the organically sourced material 

by delisting it versus keeping it on and then just

using an annotation to list the specialized forms 

for given purposes. I'm hoping that other folks 

can weigh in on this. Again, in general we were 

unanimous about wanting to encourage more use of 

organic corn starch. The question was how to go 

about that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Questions, comments, 

thoughts? Mindee, go ahead.

MS. JEFFERY: Asa, this was a great 

educational discussion for me through the whole 

process as a new board member, and I'm super 
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

grateful to all the commenters who pointed out the 

not-obvious uses in organic systems. I was 

passionate about delisting until, thank you, 

commenters for educating us, and now I feel more 

inclined to advocate for an annotation route. 

I was looking at it more from the 

perspective of GMO risk and consumer optics, and 

now I see that there are some pretty important 

functionalities that are pretty specific. I hope 

that we find a way to reasonably annotate.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Other thoughts from board 

members? Scott?

MR. RICE: Yeah, I just echo given what 

we've learned and what we know and some of the 

examples we've heard, I think this is a good 

candidate. If we're looking to limit it and know 

that it's available in other forms or for other 

uses, that an annotation could address that. But 

until then I would support relisting.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Scott. Dave, 

looks like you have a comment?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yeah, I guess I've been 

struggling with this one following the logic on 
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

colors and other things, and Jerry's thoughtful 

logic model that he laid out, which I liked a lot. 

When we're talking about a crop where we grow about 

a million acres of this crop, it's hard for me. 

I understand the argument about differential 

forms, and I understand that having the crop alone 

doesn't mean you have the refined form of corn 

starch that is needed in the industry. 

But I really worry with a case like this 

one that if we don't send a signal that we would 

like to see organic forms of this sort of thing 

from a crop that's hugely abundant and that our 

organic grain growers are arguing that they're 

having problems with price, it seems to me like 

a great solution is to incentivize more organic 

corn production of specialty cultivars that are 

used in corn starch extraction, among other things. 

So I'm just struggling with that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Anyone else? We are 

going to move to the vote. There is a motion to 

remove starches, corn starch, from 205.606 of the 

National List. The motion was made by Asa and it 

was seconded by Scott. We are going to start with 
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Sue, is that correct?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: That was a no, correct, 

Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, it was a no.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sorry about that. Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no.

MR. BUIE: Six yes, nine no, the motion 

failed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jesse. We're 

not going to let you rest easy here. Asa, back 

to you for sweet potato starch.

MR. BRADMAN: So our next material is 

sweet potato starch, and there's perhaps some 

similarities with the discussion about corn 

starch. But there was almost no public comment 

on this and very little discussion in spring. I 

expected more this fall and did not see it. We 

were split when we voted about this proposal, four 
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to three on the subcommittee.

Again, this was kind of an issue about 

606 and what's appropriate. In going through 

public comments this fall, there was very little, 

almost no information on use in terms of amount 

or where it's from or who's producing it. There 

was one comment -- I shouldn't say comment, but 

information from Oregon Tilth, and it looked like 

there that among their operations that are 

certified organic, 16 were using the organic form 

of it only.

There was really just very little other 

information of it. In another place, the use was 

listed but it wasn't clear whether it was organic 

or not organic. Our subcommittee discussions 

leaned towards removal from the National List. 

Based on the limited comment and among those who 

were listing it as using it and where there was 

information, it appeared that they were using the 

organic form of the material. Going forward on 

this material, I suggest that we do delist it. 

At least that's where my vote is going to fall.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Comments, thoughts, 
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

questions? I'm not seeing any. We will move on 

to the vote. The motion is to remove starches, 

sweet potato starch, from 205.606 of the National 

List. The motion was made by Asa, it was seconded 

by Jerry, and we are going to start with Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry? Jerry, you 

there? Can you see Jerry on the list, Michelle 

or Devon or Jared?

MS. ARSENAULT: Looks like he may have 

dropped off.

CHAIRMAN ELA: We will put him as absent 

for right now. Rick? Are you there, Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And that is a yes vote?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood? Are you there, 

Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MR. BUIE: What did Wood do?

CHAIRMAN ELA: He voted yes. Sue?

MR. TURNER: Yes. Can you hear me?

MS. BAIRD: Is it my turn?

CHAIRMAN ELA: It is your turn, Sue.

MS. BAIRD: So I'm going to say no.

CHAIRMAN ELA: The Chair is going to vote

yes.
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BUIE: Eleven yes, three nos and one 

absent, so the motion passed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jesse. Asa, 

back to you with Turkish bay leaves.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you. Scott, you're 

on deck now for Turkish bay leaves.

MR. RICE: Thanks, Asa. Turkish bay 

leaves. We did not receive a whole lot of 

different comments than we had in the springtime. 

Comments overwhelmingly supported removing this 

from the National List. With suppliers looking 

like they are able to meet demand at this point, 

and from subcommittee we had five yes and one no 

coming out of subcommittee to remove this from the 

National List. So again, it looks like organic 

supply has met demand and it appears there are 

stable supplies.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there any thoughts 

from the board members? I am not seeing any, so 

we will go to the vote. The motion is to remove 

Turkish bay leaves from 205.606 in the National 

List. The motion is made by Scott, it was seconded 

by Steve, and we are going to start off with Jesse.
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry? Jerry, are you 

there? Jerry just texted a yes. He may be having 

some connection difficulties, so he is voting yes. 

Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: As I drop leaves into a soup 

pot, yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

MR. BUIE: Fifteen yes, zero no, the 

motion passed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: One more for you, Asa. 

Well, two more, actually.

MR. BRADMAN: Now we're onto whey 

protein concentrate, one of our favorite and least 

time-consuming materials. A-Dae, I believe 

you're on deck for this.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae, do you want me to 

do this or do you want to do it?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: You go ahead and 

do it, Steve. I can do it. I'll do it and you 

can do the discussion document.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Either way, yeah.

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: I'll do this and 

you can do the discussion document. Yes, as Asa 
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

hinted, we discussed this thoroughly and 

constantly for quite a long time. You wouldn't 

be able to really tell that from the comments 

because there was almost, not quite, but almost 

a unanimous interest to delist this. It should 

be noted that NOSB voted unanimously in 2015 to 

remove whey protein concentrate from 606, but NOP 

kept it listed. We're going through the process 

again.

With that being said, there were a 

couple of compelling commenters. One was the 

Western Organic Dairy Producers, who did say that 

there was enough supply to delist this from 606. 

Also the CROPP cooperative, which is a 

conglomerate of dairy producers who say that they 

do have enough organic supply. If this should be 

taken off 606, they would have enough supply to 

meet demand with an organic product.

There are people who do use the current 

606 listing, but again, I found that the CROPP 

cooperative and the Western Organic Dairy 

Producers' comments to be convincing in that there 

is enough organic supply of whey protein 
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

concentrate.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, A-Dae. Is 

there any discussion from the Board? I am not 

seeing any. The motion is to remove whey protein 

concentrate from 205.606 of the National List. 

The motion was made by Steve, it was seconded by 

Jerry. We are going to start with Jerry. Jerry 

is still having some trouble. He is hearing, but 

he's not able to speak. We're going to call Jerry 

absent for this vote. Then we're going to go to 

Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?
201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-Dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry texted in a yes, 

so we can count that, and the Chair is yes. Jerry's 

vote is not going to make a difference in the 

outcome either way.

MR. BUIE: Fifteen yes, zero no, the 

motion passed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you. I know Jerry 

has called in and is trying to get unmuted somehow. 

We'll work with him on that one. Asa, one last 

thing for Handling.
202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: Yes. Now we have a 

discussion document related to whey protein 

concentrate related to a petition to remove it. 

It looks like Scott, your initials are first on 

this. Just an example of the time we're putting 

into this material.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Actually it's my 

initials, ASA.

MR. BRADMAN: Yeah.

MR. RICE: Thank you. You just really 

put the fear of God in me there for a second.

MR. BRADMAN: Sorry. Go ahead.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Better than a shot of 

coffee, Scott.

MR. BRADMAN: I've got to take my shot 

of coffee.

MR. RICE: I've got both, so I'll take 

the coffee.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jared, I know you have 

an intro on this one, but I'm just going to cut 

to the chase. As we just saw, we voted to delist 

whey protein concentrate on the sunset. We 

could've had the whey protein concentrate 
203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

petition, we could've had it up for vote, as well. 

I'm pretty sure the vote would've gone the same 

way.

The only reason I, as Chair, put it up 

as a discussion document rather than a vote is, 

given the last time that whey protein concentrate 

went to rulemaking for sunset, and the rulemaking 

did not go through. It was not delisted as the 

Board had previously voted. I would like to keep 

the petition in our pocket so if for some reason 

the voting does not go through again on whey protein 

concentrate, we can bring up the petition and 

either vote on it yet again. 

Or if there is some specific form that 

is not available that derails the rulemaking 

process, we could use the petition process to 

remove whey protein with a very strict annotation 

for that very small subset that might not be 

available. That is the quick round on the whey 

protein concentrate. My feeling is we'll let it 

sit, and it may be redundant if the delisting does 

go through on the sunset. 

But just in case that delisting doesn't 
204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

go through, we'll have the petition to work from 

to continue to try and delist this product. Are 

there any questions? I am not seeing any. Asa,

thank you so much. Whoever thought we'd spend a 

day on Handling? I haven't counted up the number 

of votes that we had on that, but it is a significant 

quantity. Thank you for your work as Chair on that 

and shepherding all of this through. 

Thank you to all the Board members that 

contributed today. It is a little bit after 5:00 

Eastern time, the time we were supposed to adjourn. 

We do have a pretty large schedule tomorrow with 

crops. What I'm going to do, unless Dave objects, 

I'm going to switch the two proposals in Materials 

Subcommittee and we will put research priorities 

to tomorrow. I don't think we can move marine 

macroalgae to tomorrow because that will then 

really put us behind the gun tomorrow, as well. 

We are going to run over time. 

We are going to do the marine macroalgae 

if everybody needs to get up and run around their 

computer 20 times to get the blood flowing again, 

maybe we can just roll call everybody and say you're 
205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in charge of it, and see if that wakes everybody 

up like we just woke Scott up. Dave is chairperson 

of Materials. I'm going to turn it over to you 

and ask that you readjust the schedule so that we 

cover marine macroalgae.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. Very good, 

Steve, and I agree with you that bumping 

researching priorities to tomorrow's start seems 

like a logical place to put that one. 

So I also was struck with Scott's report 

back on the interest around education and 

certification and Nate's comments and such and I'm 

now thinking we need an education priorities 

document going forward.

But anyway, let's get to the Marine 

Macroalgae in Crop Fertility Inputs.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you, Dave. 

I hope everyone has a cup of coffee or 

a cup of tea that they can cozy up with because 

I typically try to have short presentations, but 

this is not a short one; I'll admit it. So get 

cozy, and please bear with me because there were 

quite a bit of comments compiled from the public 
206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

comments, so I just want to give that process 

justice.

All right. I will begin. As an 

overview the proposal recommends two annotations: 

one at 205.601(j)(1) and one at 205.602. The 

annotations provide harvest parameters for marine 

macroalgae regarding harvest areas, methods, 

timing and bycatch. The proposal outlines the 

Board's previous four documents related to this 

topic over the past five years, but comments raised 

a need for the proposal based on the potential 

environmental impacts of harvesting and the 

regulatory environment. The proposal also 

explains the process through which the annotation 

language was created.

The proposal recognizes that not all 

questions can be addressed through an annotation 

alone and calls for an NOP-appointed scientific 

task force to help elaborate additional guidance 

and instruction to certifiers with a particular 

focus on species-specific parameters. The 

proposal also calls for a lengthy phase-in period 

of five years.
207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Public comments this time were divided 

generally between those with reservations or 

disagreement with the proposal and those in support 

of it. Some commenters did not take a position 

either way, but were concerned about the impact 

on supply. With regard to the comments opposed, 

they cover both the substance of the proposal and 

the process, and I will address both.

One certifier was concerned that some 

manufacturers would be unable or unwilling to 

attest to the annotation parameters. Another 

asked if on-site verification of the harvesting

company was required. And several others asked 

if an affidavit describing harvest parameters 

would be sufficient. On-site verification is not 

required in the annotation or the proposal. The 

NOP could describe in guidance what documentation 

would be needed and if an affidavit would be 

sufficient.

A certifier in Iceland provided helpful 

specific questions. They asked how would an 

inspector verify that all harvest sites have 

returned to the biomass and architecture similar 
208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to pre-harvest? How would an inspector verify 

that there is no bycatch or that some bycatch is 

acceptable? These are good questions that should 

be taken up by the scientific task force.

On inspector expressed concern about 

the likelihood of the proposal being, quote, a

feel-good measure and explained given what I know 

of the supply chains for these types of inputs I'm 

not sure how effective an affidavit signed by the 

input manufacturer is in the real world going to 

be in improving harvest practices.

We heard from a few farmers who were 

also concerned about impact on supply. We heard 

from companies that harvest macroalgae for crop 

fertility inputs and processors who purchase 

macroalgae from independent contractors. The 

companies were not in support of the proposal and 

recommended it be sent back to the Subcommittee 

for future work.

In terms of legal standing Section 6518 

of OFPA, (k), Responsibilities of the Board, (2) 

National List, states, quote, the Board shall 

develop the proposed National List for proposed 
209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

amendments to the National List for submission to 

the Secretary in accordance with Section 6517 of 

this title. Neither in Section 6518 nor 6517 does 

it state that a petition is required for the Board 

to make a recommendation to either 601 or 602 as 

claimed by some stakeholders.

Regarding the four areas of the 

annotation the comments received focused on 

concern over species-specific interpretation and 

only two proposed wording changes to address their 

comments.

Regarding prohibited harvest areas 

several harvesters expressed support for 

harvesting in conservation areas. They said if 

harvest activities were allowed by local 

governments they should be permitted in the 

annotation. That is a point that could be 

addressed through the scientific task force.

Regarding prohibited harvest methods 

concern was raised over interpretation of the 

language prevent reproduction. The intention of 

the language is not to exclude species and if there 

are concerns over a particular species and how this 
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

language should be applied to them, this also could 

be taken up by the scientific task force.

Regarding harvest timing the wording 

repeat harvesting was mentioned by one of the 

scientists who helped provide feedback on the 

annotation and suggested that undisturbed natural 

stands must be clarified to mean undisturbed by 

harvesting. That could be amended today to read, 

quote, natural stands undisturbed by harvesting.

Another key stakeholder suggested that 

the requirement should be that ecosystem function 

of the seaweed be maintained within an acceptable 

level. This could also be discussed by the 

scientific task force.

Regarding bycatch it was suggested that 

monitored and prevented should be replaced to say 

monitored and minimized. This was in fact the 

original language crafted, but was noted by some 

of the scientists as being too subjective. The 

proposed wording recognizes that some bycatch is 

impossible to avoid but harvesters should take 

steps to prevent it. 

The suggestion was made for, quote, a 
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

proposal for an annotation that aligns with 

existing government and private efforts such as 

harvest must have a third-party review to assure 

protection of the marine ecosystem. If a third 

party is considered to be an existing government 

effort, then this recommendation is for the status 

quo as harvesters are already obliged to follow 

the laws of the areas under which they harvest.

It's important to note that we only 

heard from one commenter who personally harvests, 

and this was a rockweed harvester in Maine. One 

commenter said he could support the proposal if 

the annotation in 602 were removed. The proposal 

includes a listing at 602 so as to create 

consistency between the synthetic forms of 

macroalgae used in 601 and the non-synthetic forms 

used.

With regards to comments in favor of 

the proposal there were several commenters who 

supported the proposal but were worried it didn't 

go far enough, and several also said that rockweed 

should be specifically prohibited. 

Several certifiers wrote in support and one 
212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

stated we believe that this revision is but one 

of the many important steps to ensure the organic 

standards protect our planet's intricately linked 

biodiversity, marine habitats and climate. 

Several expressed support for the annotation 

process. Another emphasized that environmental 

impact is intended to cover not only the farm 

ecosystem, but the materials used in organic 

production as well.

A coalition commenter said they 

strongly support the annotation and urge the NOSB 

to vote in favor of the action, and they also said 

they believe that the annotation is the most 

effective way to introduce enforceable protective 

rules for marine algae.

A conservation fund wrote that the 

annotation would prohibit seaweeds removed for 

processing into crop inputs from being taken from 

conservation areas. 

And a land trust with intertidal lands 

wrote that they supported the proposal, and in 

particular we agree that no harvesting of rockweed 

should occur on conserved lands without the 
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

permission of the land owner.

A conservation organization and land 

trust referred to loss of habitat caused by 

commercial harvesting as well as reduction of 

detritus. 

A lobster conservation organization 

wrote to explain the role of rockweed as important 

lobster habitat.

Coastwatch Ireland wrote we urge the 

full NOSB to vote yes for these proposed wise 

harvest and coastal management measures as an 

exemplary ecosystem protection initiative which 

can be highlighted in the organic label.

A retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service refuge manager wrote in support saying 

harvesting rockweed on a national wildlife refuge 

is not allowed without a special use permit, 

although I remain concerned that harvesters may 

not know this or may choose to ignore it.

A retire marine scientist wrote to say 

that the annotation represents a workable 

compromise between unrestricted wild seaweed 

harvest and eliminated wild seaweed harvest.
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

A scientist in Iceland wrote in support 

of this as a middle path.

A coastal ecologist working on science 

policy issues wrote the proposed annotation 

outline reasonable and achievable parameters for 

the harvest of marine macroalgae or seaweed for 

organic crop inputs. The proposal is mindfully 

improving resource and ecosystem longevity while 

sustainably supporting the use of seaweed in 

organic crop production.

Friday Harbor Laboratories at the 

University of Washington wrote the macroalgae that 

are the primary target of these regulations are 

key elements of intertidal and shallow subtitle 

habitats in the Northwest, Atlantic and elsewhere. 

Abundant solid scientific research has shown both 

how and why the macroalgae are important and how 

improper or excessive harvesting can do lasting 

damage to local ecological systems.

One of the scientists who helped 

provide feedback on the annotation wrote to say 

the guidelines set out in this proposal are thus 

by necessity of a general nature. They are 
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

guidelines which will need to be adapted for the 

species that is to be harvested. As a set of 

general guidelines I believe them to be a useful 

guide to maintain a sustainable harvest.

A marine biologist at the University 

of Maine's said the proposal looks to me to be 

exactly the direction managers and policy makers 

should go.

And finally, another stakeholder noted 

we would encourage the NOP and NOSB to continue 

its work on this important issue and develop more 

comprehensive guidance and/or regulations 

concerning marine material harvesting of all 

kinds.

So obviously there were a lot of 

comments and this couldn't be a comprehensive list, 

but those are some of the highlights.

If the Board votes to approve this 

proposal, these would be the next steps.

First, the NOP would form the 

scientific task force to address areas of concern 

raised by harvesters and processors, provide 

recommendations for guidance for interpretation 
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and implementation, and if needed any suggestions 

for clarifying the annotation language. The 

proposal cover letter would spell out the specific 

areas raised in public comments that need 

attention.

Second, the NOP would take the 

recommendations from the scientific task force to 

draft guidance.

Third, the proposal would go through 

rulemaking.

And finally, if it made it through 

rulemaking, it would have a five-year phase-in 

period. This is an 8 to 10-year process at a 

minimum. 

Contrary to some claims and public 

comment there are not thousands of species used 

in organic crop fertility inputs. There are 

perhaps a few dozen and only a few of these are 

the most widely used. As stated in the proposal 

the scientific task force could begin their work 

on those species.

Indigenous coastal communities have a 

long and important relationship with marine 
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

macroalgae and some tribes prohibit or restrict 

seaweed harvests such as the prohibition of 

commercial rockweed harvesting on the 

Passamaquoddy Tribe's Pleasant Point Reservation 

Land in Maine.

This annotation wording is broad enough 

to cover the different species and geographic 

regions of harvest but specific enough to capture 

more than just biomass recovery as is the focus 

of most regulations. 

Marine macroalgae play important roles 

in the broader functioning of the ecosystem such 

as nutrient cycling and retention, filtering of 

runoff, production of detritus, shore buffering 

from waves and storms, carbon storage, provision 

of food, habitat for year-round residents, 

foraging grounds, refugia from predators and 

breeding and nursery areas.

While the literature review in the 

proposal was provided to address the potential for 

environment harm from harvesting and to document 

the need for the annotation to ensure the inputs 

are consistent with the system of organic 
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

agriculture, that is not to suggest that macroalgae 

can't be harvested in a manner that minimizes harm. 

That is precisely what the harvest parameters aim 

to do. Just as stakeholders requested data on 

environmental impacts, the Board should be 

provided with more than personal assurances that 

harvests are sustainable.

I know there have been voices lobbying 

to send this proposal back to Subcommittee to, 

quote, allow for organic stakeholders to have their 

feedback considered by NOSB and integrated into 

the final annotation. I would gladly send this 

back if constructive feedback had been provided 

that could be incorporated into the annotation, 

but in combing through the public comments I see 

general concerns over interpretation that can be 

addressed by the task force. Moreover, we have 

heard from a significant number of scientists and 

stakeholders in support of the annotation, so if 

we consider their feedback it would be to vote this 

forward now.

The Board must also take into account 

whether changing the annotation would risk losing
219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

scientific support. I would ask my fellow board 

members who are considering sending this back to 

Subcommittee what specific changes do you gather 

from the public comments that need to be made? 

We heard the blanket statement that 

harvesters can't harvest to these parameters, but 

scientists are telling us this is a moderate, not 

radical step for maintaining the resource and its 

community. I believe that ample input has been 

solicited from all sectors of the community, 

including harvesters, nor do I see that actual 

changes have been provided. 

I believe sending it back is a delay 

strategy and that we have heard enough constructive 

and supportive comments to move this vote forward 

today. This is a move to maintain the process of 

continuous improvement in the organic industry.

And finally I want to thank NOP staff 

Jared, Devon and Shannon for reading and providing 

feedback on the proposal process as well as the 

scientists and stakeholders who gave generously 

of their time and expertise, and most of all to 

my fellow board members for their participation 
220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in this process.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Emily. And 

as we've been doing as we go along it's important 

to point out that the Subcommittee had voted 

unanimously to support the proposal coming out of 

the Subcommittee's work. 

So I don't know, Steve, you've been 

facilitating questions, but do we have questions 

from members of the Board about the proposal?

CHAIR ELA: Yes, we will -- thanks, 

Dave and Emily. We'll open it up.

Wood has a question/comment.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Steve. 

Thanks, Dave.

Thanks, Emily.

I just wanted to jump in. I supported 

this coming out of Subcommittee and I continue to 

support this proposal, and I just wanted to 

acknowledge that I do believe it is a middle road 

that is frankly overdue and needs to begin the 

process that is going to be protracted and take 

a while to get to a finish line. 

So I think it's our responsibility as 
221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the organic community to continue to advance the 

most conservation-oriented thinking around what 

organic stands for and I believe strongly that 

healthy oceans and healthy ecosystems is going to 

be essentially how we think about climate solutions 

over time, and frankly our long-term food supplies. 

So I continue to be supportive of the proposal.

CHAIR ELA: We have Asa, then Dave, 

then Dan, then Rick.

So, Asa, go ahead.

MR. BRADMAN: So I just want to make 

a few comments, but first just one to say thank 

you to Emily for all the incredibly work that you've 

put into this. I've just been so impressed at your 

thoroughness and thoughtfulness and your 

communication skills and I just really want to 

applaud all the work that you've done on this.

I think this is a really important 

document. I agree with you that we should vote 

on it today and not send it back to Subcommittee. 

I feel that it's really a special responsibility 

that we're going into another environment to 

extract resources and then put them on land to grow 
222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

food for ourselves. I understand that these have 

been used for a long time, marine materials, and 

that they're considered in many ways to be a 

ecological way of cycling resources out of one 

environment into the human cycle. That 

withstanding, I think that really imposes on us 

a special responsibility. 

And given the changes that are 

occurring in the larger environment with respect 

to climate change we've seen on the West Coast; 

I mentioned Tasmania, changes in seaweed 

populations and also in marine environments in 

general, I feel like this kind of sets the stage 

for thinking about it. These are used a lot as 

fertility inputs and often in a foliar application, 

which is as an approach to really feed the plant 

and not the soil. And I feel like that kind of 

raises it to another level in our thinking about 

this. 

So again, I think given that we're kind 

of almost invading or going into another 

environment in the same way we harvest fish for 

food, I think we should also really consider how 
223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we harvest plants from the ocean. So I think this 

is a really important first step.

CHAIR ELA: All right. Thank you, 

Asa.

We're going to go Dave, then Dan and 

then Rick. And then A-dae wants to be in and then 

to Scott.

So, Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, I just would --

I echo pretty much what -- almost verbatim what 

Asa said. I think that the whole issue that we've 

gotten into conversations about over the last three 

years, or I'm sure going back before that, about 

the boundaries that we place around sustainable 

organic production cannot end at the field or at 

the farm when we're relying on harvesting inputs 

from the ocean. And living near the ocean now it's 

I would say a daily subject in local newspapers 

about the depleted fishery and strained lobster 

industry, at least on the East Coast and the 

Northeast.

I think some of the -- quite a few of 

the quite specific critiques about how much biomass 
224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and this, that and the other thing -- I think those 

points can be addressed by the task force. I'm 

confident of it. So those concerns to me really 

need to be taken up by another group that will be 

working on the details of implementing of this. 

But seeing us moving forward on ecosystem service 

thinking in the same way that we did on land being 

broken out of natural lands for use in agricultural 

production, for organic production, this is just 

to me a logical and very consistent next step that 

we be looking at the macroalgae. 

So I, too, thank all the work that's 

gone in on Emily's part, but also in the 

Subcommittee's part in the reviews and the great 

deal of discussion that's taken place over this 

over the last several years.

CHAIR ELA: Let's see. I can't get to 

my list here. Just hold on.

Okay. Next we have Dan, then Rick, 

then A-dae, then Scott.

So, Dan, go ahead.

DR. SEITZ: Sure. First I too want to 

thank Emily for her incredible work and I 
225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

particularly appreciate the fact that she resides 

in a landlocked state, Oklahoma, and is looking 

out for those of us who live by the states that 

have seacoasts.

What I'd like to say is that having 

written regulations and policies for the last 30 

years it's precisely the policies or regulations 

that pertain to the most complex inter-related 

subjects that are the most difficult to craft in 

a way that would satisfy everyone. And 

additionally because the very subject matter is 

complex inevitably there will be areas where 

someone can take issue with a word or a phrase or 

an approach. 

And I want to say that because that's 

inherent in a situation like this, we have to accept 

that no matter what we draft, it will be open to 

that type of criticism. And I personally feel that 

this has reached the middle ground of being 

realistic. It certainly is something that would 

be open to strengthening or improvement over time, 

but you have to start somewhere, and inevitably 

with a complex subject like this you can't get it 
226

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

absolutely perfect. 

But certainly this has gone through an 

extensive process, back to Subcommittee a number 

of times, extensive input, and so I would support 

voting on this and urge people to support it.

CHAIR ELA: Thank you, Dan.

Next up is Rick, and then A-dae, then 

Scott.

MR. GREENWOOD: Thanks. And again, 

one of the things about being number four and five 

in line, everyone has already said all the things 

that I wanted to say. And again, I want to thank 

Emily. 

And my thought is I -- somehow I know 

this is an overstatement, but I think of some of 

this as strip mining, and I don't want to be in 

the position looking back 20 years in the hence 

saying what we were doing when you look at some 

of the land that's been destroyed. So I think 

there's a certain amount of urgency for this, and 

so obviously I'm going to support it. Thank you.

CHAIR ELA: Thank you, Rick.

A-dae, are you out there? I know you 
227

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

had to switch to your phone.

(No audible response.)

CHAIR ELA: Michelle, have we been able 

to get A-dae un-muted?

MS. ARSENAULT: Looks like she's not 

been able to so far. Oh, there we go.

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Hello? Can you 

hear me?

CHAIR ELA: Hey, there you are, A-dae. 

Go ahead. Yes, we can.

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes. That 

little pause was necessary because I -- I'm going 

to make some quick comments without getting 

emotional, but I'm first going to preface my 

comments in that I live in a family who relies on 

subsistence seaweed harvesting and we come from 

a community that relies on subsistence seaweed 

harvesting. 

And what I can tell you is in the last 

couple years the tribal people where I live have 

been consistently ringing alarms about the 

over-harvesting of seaweed and the commodification 

of seaweed that's being sold in organic markets 
228

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and higher-end restaurants, and it's causing a lot 

of havoc. One, when COVID hit many of the tribal 

communities who rely on the seaweed harvesting 

found that their seaweed beds have been depleted. 

And I just want to stress how serious that is. 

So the seaweed bed that my family 

harvested has been harvested for over, I don't 

know, probably 250 generations and to see it 

depleted in the course of two seasons is really, 

really alarming. And so I struggled with this 

proposal: one, because I think tribal communities 

don't want government agencies to regulate how they 

harvest their traditional foods. But on the other 

hand there is a great need right now to protect 

these resources, not only for the benefit of the 

tribal people who rely on them, but for the entire 

ocean ecosystem.

And so I'm in support of the proposal, 

but I do want to stress the need for an inclusion 

of tribal communities. Emily was so great and 

wonderful to mention the Passamaquoddy in Maine, 

but there are a great number of other tribes that 
229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

need to be involved because some of these beds that 

are being harvested in conservation areas or along 

public state parks are really traditional harvest 

beds that have been maintained for hundreds of 

years regardless of whether that's recognized by 

some of these state agencies, and there are 

numerous tribal authorities that are working on 

this issue. 

So in moving this forward again I'm 

going to -- I'm in full support of the proposal 

and with just stressing the fact for the need for 

tribal inclusion on this very important issue. 

Thank you.

CHAIR ELA: Thank you, A-dae, for 

balancing. I know you're trying to take care of 

kids as well, so really appreciate your viewpoint 

on that.

We will go to Scott and then Sue.

VICE CHAIR RICE: Thanks. Yes, again 

as Rick said, with all the comments that came before 

me, just great thanks to Emily for her deep dive 

on this. It's clear that you've done just tons 

of research and super appreciate it. I remember 
230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

first working on the document with Jean. Feels 

like a century ago, but it's come a long way.

And I'm really torn on this because I 

share a lot of the sentiments that many of you have 

already expressed in terms of the need to really 

look at the marine environment in a lens that looks 

at issues of carbon sequestration and buffering 

against climate change activities such as greater 

storms and looking it as we're going to see a lot 

more on blue carbon, referring to a green 

environment.

So I am in full support of protecting 

those ecosystems. And as a swimmer in the ocean 

and a diver I've seen some beautiful stuff and feel 

fortunate to have done so. 

And so I guess my comments touch more 

on that process side. And I recognize that that 

next step as Emily laid out would be a task force 

and rulemaking guidance. And it's -- relying on 

that guidance, as I've noted in other issues we 

talk about before the Board, gives me pause in that 

not -- it is helpful, but it not be regulation which 

is difficult from the certification end. And I 
231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

think there are examples where it's been very 

helpful and certainly in something that goes into 

such detail as this would be necessary, to say the 

least.

But I feel -- I have some deep 

hesitation when I look at the handbook from NOP 

and see that really we haven't seen anything added 

to it in the better part of four years with the 

exception of a few kind of statements on imports 

and things of this nature. I think it has a real 

potential to help our certifications and 

procedures themselves, but I feel like there are 

a lot of angles in this that would need to be really 

fleshed out since it -- we're -- been talking about 

almost a practice standard of harvest and whatnot. 

And so I am in support in theory and 

hesitant in process. So I appreciate you hearing 

that.

CHAIR ELA: Thank you, Scott.

I see Sue and then Emily.

Go ahead, Sue.

MS. BAIRD: I think Scott just 
232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

articulated better than I could my hesitation with 

the process. I'm again very, very thankful for 

Emily for all the work she's done on this and I 

think we all want to protect our aquatic wildlife 

and that ecosystem because we all depend on it. 

But the process from what I'm hearing 

perhaps, at least in perception, has not been quite 

followed. Normally we'd put forth a full 

proposal, then people have to have a discussion 

paper; in this case it's a proposal. We have time 

for the public to comment directly on that paper 

and then we go to vote later. And this is the first 

time this full paper has come out. I've 

heard from -- we public comment 20 different SB 

members. Past members have said wait a minute, 

this is not quite right. Please don't do this. 

We've heard from our harvesters that have said 

this is the first time we've seen this full 

proposal. Give us time to rally and make comments 

on this.

So I agree with Scott. In theory I love 

what we're doing and in -- not just in theory, but 
233

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in fact I love what we're doing, but I don't think --

I know that I cannot vote on this in this positive 

just because it appears that our process, at least 

by public perception, has not quite been followed 

correctly.

CHAIR ELA: All right. Thank you, 

Sue.

We have Emily and then Mindee.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, thank you both to 

Scott and Sue for those comments. And I did want 

to, if it's okay, just quickly address Scott and 

Sue's points. 

And I think what you said, Scott, is 

so true and it is exactly what I've struggled with 

in trying to think about this process over the past 

many years. Do you write this super long 

annotation that is going to need additional 

fleshing out? Do you -- we had looked at organic 

certification, as you well know, at one point. 

We got resistance on that front. 

And ultimately, as I might have 

mentioned during the oral comments, the wild crop 

standard itself is just inherently broad and very 
234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

vague and interpretation of it is kind of based 

on guidance, some of which comes from the NOP, some 

of which certifiers -- the certifying community 

has taken upon itself to also help try to craft 

as in the case of harvesting marine macroalgae to 

the wild crop standards.

So I think that the fact that a lot of 

angles would need to be fleshed out does not 

necessarily preclude moving it forward because I 

think that is just the inherent nature of a process 

like this. It is -- we cannot possibly address 

every single point, nor are we really expected to 

or able to, and that is why something like this, 

of this nature really does need to have the 

scientific task force kind of take it from here 

before any other further steps. 

And that scientific task force should 

include a huge range of stakeholder scientists from 

all different prospective harvesters that are also 

scientists, harvesters that aren't scientists that 

are key stakeholders in this. And as A-dae pointed 

out so articulately, tribal communities must also 

be a part of that conversation from the beginning.
235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So I think that that it is possible. 

Although perhaps not ideal, that given the 

complexity of the situation I do think it is 

possible to move this forward based on the 

understanding that guidance would be needed.

And then in terms of the process points 

that Sue brought up, I did try to address some of 

those points that were raised by the past NOSB 

members. In terms of providing a discussion 

document first versus a proposal that has varied 

at least quite a bit in my five years on the Board. 

Sometimes that happens; sometimes it doesn't. 

And then in terms of harvester feedback 

I don't want to alienate people and I highly, highly 

appreciate the feedback and participation that I 

did receive from many different stakeholders, but 

I just want to assure you that I -- I actually combed 

through my emails last night also and I 

specifically requested on multiple occasions 

comments from harvesters beyond the harvester that 

was part of this process, Dr. Raul Ugarte, because 

he was one of the four panelists from the fall, 

and all of those panelists were involved in this 
236

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

annotation process. And really they declined to 

provide comment. 

So I really wish they had. I wish they 

had told me at the time I need more time or whatever 

their thoughts were. I wish it had been more 

constructive, or anything. And I think despite 

that they did give us substantial comments this 

time around, for which I am really grateful. And 

I truly pored through them and isolated them both 

sort of in general terms and those by certifier 

questions and then those that are questions related 

to the four different provisions within the 

annotation. 

And so if we were to vote this forward 

today in the cover letter I would have maybe not 

the usual stuff, but have a very long cover letter 

that addresses these points and helps pinpoint both 

to the NOP and then to the scientific task force 

where these areas of concern are. And perhaps one 

of their first tasks would be to reach out to 

harvesters and to take some of those concerns as 

their first guiding point.

CHAIR ELA: All right. Thank you, 
237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Emily.

We have Mindee up next.

MS. JEFFERY: Thank you. Emily, I'm 

in awe of your work. And I can't say enough about 

that, so thank you, and for everyone else who's 

contributed to this project.

Sort of as a follow-up to A-dae's 

question, I'm really interested in recognizing 

tribal sovereignty as stewards of place. And so 

I'm wondering about your perspective on the part 

of the non-commercial harvests for whole and 

unprocessed seaweed are exempt. Is that something 

that you could see to be a partial umbrella to 

including indigenous communities as exempt from 

the parameters? Is that something you think would 

need to be fleshed out in guidance? Could it be 

fleshed out in guidance?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, that's a really great 

question, and I don't know if we have A-dae able 

to still answer questions. I know she mentioned 

subsistence harvesting, but I think that that would 

absolutely fall under that exclusion, which was 

a really good point that got brought up in public 
238

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

comment several years ago, which is why this whole 

public comment process is so fruitful and so 

meaningful, because like I hadn't thought of that, 

and that was a really good point.

I actually -- you know, I live in 

Oklahoma and I live in the Cherokee Nation and the 

U.S. Supreme Court just upheld a ruling, finally 

after hundreds of years of not doing so, that where 

I live is a Cherokee Nation Reservation. So I 

agree with you and feel very strongly about the 

importance of recognizing and deferring to tribal 

sovereignty in these areas, in all areas. And I 

think that would also be something that could be 

a first step that the scientific task force and 

stakeholder task force at large should look at and 

make sure that that is clearly addressed and 

covered in the language.

MS. JEFFERY: Can I ask a follow-up?

CHAIR ELA: Go ahead, Mindee. And 

then we're going to go to Kim.

MS. JEFFERY: Just process-wise in the 

grand scheme of proposals, adding something like 

that would be the only reason why I would vote to 
239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

go back to Subcommittee, just so you know. I 

really support this work and I think that's a really 

important perspective.

And so, Steve, can you shed any light 

on the -- or anyone shed any light process-wise 

on if that's a sticking point?

CHAIR ELA: There's two ways to look 

at it: We often -- there are always like little --

and I don't mean to call this a little detail at 

all, but we can often add some details that come 

up at the last minute into our cover letter that 

we passed the motion, we sent it onto the NOSB. 

But we add a cover letter to it saying, well, 

here's our rationale and here's why the decision 

was made for example in a sunset. We looked and 

there was no commercial -- or there was plenty of 

commercial availability and we had comments from 

a number of people and there were no comments that 

this was not commercially available. And so we 

kind of provide our rationale in that cover letter. 

Similarly some little tweaks saying we 

addressed somewhat Native communities in this, but 
240

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

really would like to see that specifically 

addressed, that these Native areas are very 

important. And if it goes to rulemaking or 

guidance that that part be included more 

forcefully. So that is one way.

And then the other way is that we 

specifically include it in the proposal. It's a 

tough one because I find we -- I mean I can only 

use paper pots as an example because that's what 

I'm lead on, but we've gone around many times on 

that one with proposals and each time there's a 

tweak, and mostly where it goes tomorrow. It might 

get sent back to Subcommittee or it might get voted 

it on. But at some point some of those tweaks we'll 

put in the cover letter and move it on. So some 

of these things can go around in circles, back and 

forth with different things. So my 

long-winded answer is I can't tell you exactly, 

but it is certainly something that could be 

included in a cover letter encouraging the program 

to take that into consideration and such. 

Jenny's just signed on. 

Jenny, would you like to make a comment?
241

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. TUCKER: Yes, I'm going to have to 

leave the building before the parking lot locks, 

but before I switch over to mobile I do want to 

say that as part of any kind of process we would 

do as USDA there is a tribal office and there are 

quarterly tribal consultations. And so that would 

certainly be -- a very, very active part of what 

a program would look into would be -- the standard 

part of our standards process in particular in this 

case would definitely be a very, very important 

consideration.

So you're going to see me fall off here, 

but I'm going to go mobile just so I can get out 

of the parking lot before it locks up. But I will 

continue to monitor. I can speak if need be.

CHAIR ELA: I thought we could have 

Night at the USDA Meeting here, but -- instead of 

Night at the Museum, but --

Okay. Who else do we have? Kim, I 

think you were -- had a comment that you wanted 

to make if I -- I may have missed it here.

MS. HUSEMAN: No, you're fine. I 

should lower my hand after further thought. I'm 
242

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

just going to echo the difficulty in, lack of better 

terminology, weeding through this particular 

proposal. 

So, Emily, thank you so much for your 

time and explanation.

And to my fellow board members for the 

discussion. I'm not going to say this is easier, 

but the time that we've taken on this is most 

helpful. 

CHAIR ELA: Let's see. Who else? I'm 

not seeing hands raised, but I -- this is such an 

important topic I kind of want to -- I don't want 

to put anybody on the spot, but I do want to hear 

from -- not necessarily all the board members, but 

a good chunk of them.

Jesse, I see you on the video so I don't 

want to put you on the spot, but I think this is 

important enough that I really value all the board 

members' input on this. So I may go ahead and call 

on some people that may not want to be called on. 

So I apologize, but I'm curious.

MR. BUIE: Well, first of all, Emily 

has done an outstanding job in covering all of 
243

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the -- I think all of the appropriate areas. 

Procedurally I guess that's what -- we're kind of 

at that point. I would like to see it move forward, 

but if there are issues, procedure issues that we 

have to deal with, then I mean let's deal with them 

and see what it will take to get it corrected.

CHAIR ELA: Thank you, Jesse.

And I'll chime in. I mean, I guess I 

can't speak to broader procedural issues, but I 

think it is not uncommon for us to go to a proposal 

straight from -- without a discussion document in 

between. And in this case Emily has put a number 

of discussion documents out, not specifically with 

this annotation, but there has been a long process 

moving to this proposal. It's only been in the 

last couple of years, based on actually my cohorts' 

comments, that it was hard to discuss things that 

we went to discussion documents before it was --

there was often proposals coming out right away. 

And then if they weren't correct, they would get 

sent back to Subcommittee. 

So I don't -- I guess I personally don't 

find the procedure of this being the first time 
244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

people have seen this unusual or different than 

things that have happened in the past. So I guess 

personally I'd like to take that off the table. 

I would like the decision to be made on substance 

and comfort, but I don't find the procedure any 

different than has often been used in the past. 

But, Nate, you have your hand up.

MR. POWELL-PALM: More obligatorily 

since I didn't want to be called on. I wanted to 

beat you to the punch, Steve.

(Laughter.)

CHAIR ELA: Fair enough.

MR. POWELL-PALM: But I mean, I echo 

so much of what everyone's already said. I think 

my only hesitation -- so I won't repeat what 

everyone's already said, but rather that I think --

and I'm -- this is my first year on the board, so 

I'm really grateful for the perspective on what 

is procedurally appropriate. 

What I'm running into is I do think that 

this is such an important issue. I think that all 

of the earlier comments made by Asa and Dave and 
245

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

many other folks about the respective impact 

organic farming has on these marine ecosystems --

that I would like to see us proceed in a way that 

makes it so that this annotation actually goes to 

become a rule. 

And I worry that the consistent 

signal -- not signal -- consistent information that 

we got during the oral comment period from the 

harvesters, basically none of the harvesters 

supporting it and feeling like it was a consistent 

break in procedure -- that leaves me worried that 

this, if we pass it, just ends up not having a lot 

of viability. And so I think I would like to see 

this be as viable as possible from a rules making 

point of view and go to the task force and carry 

on. And so that's my concern is that because at 

this point there wasn't a lot of buy-in from 

industry -- and whether or not it's correct to say

that -- enough time wasn't allowed for comment and 

review. That's -- I guess apologies 

for the in-articulation. I am overwhelmed by the 

amount of work and the thought that has gone into 

this, and so I feel like I'm not contributing a 
246

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

lot to the discussion other than I do hope that 

we could get to a point where it becomes something 

that has great impact on marine ecosystems and how 

organic impacts the greater world ecosystem by 

making sure that we do a procedure in the best way 

possible. So thank you. 

CHAIR ELA: Thank you, Nate, and thank 

you for volunteering before I had to call on you. 

I appreciate that.

Emily, you had another comment?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, thank you, Nate. 

And I just wanted to try to address some of that. 

I think that I don't want to minimize 

your concerns or anyone else's regarding either 

process or adequate time, but I just want to spell 

out that I asked two different individuals to 

please pass onto the OTA Marine Materials Task 

Force, and specifically the harvesters, whether 

or not the initial round of this language was 

something that was feasible. I even asked the 

question does this actually cover what you're 

already doing, because I thought that might have 

been a possibility. 
247

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I was told that someone was talking 

with harvesters and what came back was that there 

was a need to demonstrate an environmental need 

for this proposal. And then it was also requested 

that I solicit feedback from the five scientists 

that presented to the Marine Materials Task Force 

folks in the fall of 2019, which I did. They were 

all sent the draft language and several of them 

remained extremely engaged throughout the process 

and were very helpful in crafting particularly the 

final language.

And I tried to provide that 

environmental perspective buy-out literature 

review by spending -- sorry for everyone who did 

read it -- like a lot of time and a lot of pages, 

combing through the scientific literature. What 

are the impacts? When can it be minimized? What 

are the steps that need to be taken to make that 

happen? 

The other question that was raised by 

the harvesters was the 602 comment, but the -- I 

think I've explained already why that is in there. 

And program no way said that that was not something 
248

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that we could do as a board. The program did comb 

through this with us and provided us with really 

constructive feedback.

So the thing that I would just caution 

is that if you want to see this proceed and you 

want to do like what we can as a board to ensure 

that it does go to a rule, then -- I hate to say 

this, but I feel like that is voting on it now. 

I feel like sending it back is actually going to 

have a greater increase that it will not go before 

the Board, that it could then be voted on, or that 

you'll retain enough broad stakeholder support, 

including the scientists. 

Because the primary recommendation 

from the harvesters, aside from questions about 

interpretation of the language, which like I feel 

absolutely strongly and echo the comments of Dave, 

that those can and should and were intended to be 

dealt with by the scientific task force. 

But besides that the primary suggestion is 

that the annotation be rewritten to just say review 

by existing third-party entities, which is really 

just the status quo. It's like that's what they're 
249

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

already doing. Where if it were to include MSC, 

the MSC-ASC standard, that came fraught with lots 

of public comments who didn't want to see us try 

to require the whole other entity's third-party 

verification, and is much more complicated and much 

more involved than what these four provisions in 

this annotation include because it deals with 

social justice issues, economic issues, et cetera.

So I think that had there been something 

in the public comments that was like we want you 

to change x language, we want you to do A, B, C, 

and it was really constructively and clearly 

spelled out -- I think the argument for sending 

it back would be much stronger. But there is not 

that in the public comment. And in the absence 

of that I worry that sending it back will just lead 

to a different version of the same opposition that 

we're getting now. 

And I don't mean to say that people 

won't provide constructive comment, because I 

think that they will, but I also think that this 

is the time to capture the greatest number of board 

members that were present for the fall task force 
250

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

panel and have been involved in this for the longest 

amount of time. Sending it back is going to 

require a major re-invention of the wheel with the 

five new members coming on next year and the five 

new coming on after that. So just kind of begs 

the question if it would be able to continue.

And then I'll just say in closing let's 

just no forget how many stakeholders we did hear 

from, even if it was written form, saying that this 

is adequate. This is a middle ground. This is 

ready to go. 

So I don't want to put you in the 

position of feeling like you have to choose between 

like scientists versus harvesters, because I don't 

think that that is at all the dynamic that we're 

looking for here. I think that this can get voted 

forward and I think all voices can be heard through 

that scientific panel process.

CHAIR ELA: Dave, and then I think 

we're -- we've had a great discussion. We might --

we'll move on. 

But go ahead, Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, I just -- this 
251

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

point about sending it back, I feel also strongly 

about it. Of course everyone has the right to 

decide what we do here.

Pedaling in this morning I couldn't 

help -- I had this like word string going through 

my mind. Don't let perfection be the enemy of the 

good on this project. We could nickel and dime 

this for the next 10 years. We need more of this. 

We need a little bit more of that. Is it biomass? 

Is it the architecture? The panel will help 

resolve that kind of stuff.

I think that if we don't act on this 

now and support this we won't be coming back to 

this any time soon. And I think it's far too 

critical an issue for us not to act on it now and 

put this forward and say that we do support a 

sustainable organic system that respects all 

ecosystems that it draws on to grow the food to 

feed the people.

CHAIR ELA: Thank you, Dave.

I think we'll go to one last comment; 

Scott has his hand up, and then we'll move on.

Scott, go ahead.
252

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

(No audible response.)

CHAIR ELA: You're on mute, Scott.

VICE CHAIR RICE: Mute in two places.

From a sort of other process point; and 

sorry for being that person, but that's sort of 

the day-to-day, I'm -- Emily, I appreciate you sort 

of laying out what you thought are the next steps 

to kind of move this forward. And just thinking 

about -- we had another recommendation. There's 

been a host of recommendations that haven't been 

moved on by the program, but I -- what comes to 

mind is the biological diversity and natural 

resources. And that came -- that went through some 

time ago and we haven't seen any traction on that 

and I'm just curious how would we or you or the 

Board see that this actually moves somewhere and 

gets on a regulatory agenda? 

Because that's -- I guess my other 

hesitation in that process point of -- I think it's 

great. This Board makes fantastic 

recommendations, but we also I think need some 

assurances that those things move forward.

CHAIR ELA: All right. Emily, we'll 
253

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

let you give a short response and then we're --

we're well over time here, but I think it's been 

a great discussion. But go ahead, Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Thanks, Scott. I 

wholeheartedly concur and I actually think voting 

on this increases the likelihood that the USDA will 

see that the Board is moving in this direction of 

continuous improvement, and that these issues of 

biodiversity and conversation and actual resources 

that you mentioned are critical to the Board and 

to the stakeholders. And so I think having another 

proposal on their desk increases the chance that 

they will start working on these issues and not 

see them as outliers or anomalies.

CHAIR ELA: All right. Wow. I can 

only say that it is such a pleasure to serve on 

this Board given the amount of thought and from 

everybody. It is -- it's really stunning. I 

certainly personally do not have the expertise on 

these things and I so value everybody's different 

takes on this, and also that a 15-person board --

the level of expertise that everybody brings to 

it is just so useful. It really makes me believe 
254

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in this process. So thank you to everybody. 

Emily, thank you for -- I know the hours 

and hours you have put in on this. And I know other 

board members know that as well.

So I think we are going to move to a 

vote. There is a motion to adopt the proposal on 

marine macroalgae in crop fertility inputs. The 

motion was made by Emily. It was seconded by Dave. 

I believe we are going to start with Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, I'd like to 

approve.

CHAIR ELA: Okay. Thank you, Rick.

Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: Scott?
255

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

VICE CHAIR RICE: With all due respect 

to the work and the intent, no.

CHAIR ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: I can't. No.

CHAIR ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: Let's see. We started 

with Rick, so it is my vote. Chair votes yes.

Did I get everybody?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

MR. BUIE: Thirteen yes; two no. So 

the motion is adopted.

CHAIR ELA: All right. Wow. What a 
256

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

thing to end on. I guess it kept us all awake. 

Nothing like a long list of sunsets to stand with 

really important topic that I know we're all 

passionate about. And I don't hear anybody 

objecting to the concept at all. 

So with that, I know we went over time, 

but I'm glad we had plenty of time to discuss this.

We are going to go until tomorrow. 

We'll take a break and we'll again start at 12:00 

noon tomorrow. We're going to start with the 

research priorities of materials.

Thank you, Dave, for being willing to 

put that off until tomorrow.

And then we will continue on with the 

Crops Subcommittee at that time. Crops 

fortunately does not have, I don't know, 40 sunsets 

to do, but they also have some good discussion 

topics.

So thank you, everybody. Thank you for 

hanging with us for a long day of Zooming, and we 

will see you tomorrow at 12 noon Eastern Time. 

Take care. Thank you so much.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 
257

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

went off the record at 6:10 p.m.)
1

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + + +

FALL 2020 MEETING

+ + + + +

FRIDAY

OCTOBER 30, 2020

+ + + + +

The Board met via videoconference at 

12:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Steve Ela, Chair, 

presiding.

PRESENT

STEVE ELA, Chair

SCOTT RICE, Vice Chair

JESSE BUIE, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

JERRY D'Amore

RICK GREENWOOD

KIM HUSEMAN

MINDEE JEFFERY

DAVE MORTENSEN

EMILY OAKLEY

NATE POWELL-PALM

A-DAE ROMERO-BRIONES

DAN SEITZ

WOOD TURNER
2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ALSO PRESENT

DR. JENNIFER TUCKER, Deputy Administrator, 

National Organic Program; 

Designated Federal Official

DAVID GLASGOW, Associate Deputy Administrator, 

National Organic Program

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, Advisory Committee 

Specialist, Standards Division

JARED CLARK, National List Manager, Standards 

Division

SHANNON NALLY YANESSA, Director, Standards 

Division

DEVON PATTILLO, Agricultural Marketing 

Specialist, Standards Division
3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CONTENTS

Call to Order ................................. 5

Materials Subcommittee

Proposal: Research Priorities 2020 ........... 5

Crops Subcommittee

Proposal: Wild, native fish for

liquid fish products ......................... 14

Proposal: Paper (plant pots and

other crop production aids)

Petitioned ................................... 59

Proposal: Sodium carbonate lignin

Petitioned ................................... 87

2022 Sunset substances review:

Soap-based algicide/demossers ................ 98

Ammonium carbonate .......................... 100

Soaps, insecticidal ......................... 104

Vitamin D3 .................................. 107

Aquatic plant extracts ...................... 112

Lignin sulfonate ............................ 121

Sodium silicate ............................. 125

EPA List 4 0 Inerts of

minimal concern ............................. 130

Arsenic ..................................... 180

Strychnine .................................. 183

Discussion Document: Ammonia extract

Petitioned .................................. 186

Discussion Document: Biodegradable

biobased mulch annotation change ............ 197
4

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CONTENTS

NOSB work agenda/Materials update ........... 215

NOSB officer elections ...................... 223

Farewell to outgoing members ................ 235

Other business and closing remarks .......... 252
5

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

(12:01 p.m.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: Welcome back, everybody, 

to the last day of -- this is fall -- the fall NOSB 

meeting.

Thank you for hanging with us 

yesterday. I know we went considerably overtime, 

but I thought we had a great discussion and, as 

always, appreciate all the stakeholder input as 

well as the input from each Board member. So, I 

appreciate your staying late, but it was an 

important topic. And it is Friday, and I think 

we have a few more important topics today coming 

up.

One of the things we did not get to 

yesterday in Materials Subcommittee were the 

research priorities. So, I'm going to turn it over 

to Dave, as Chair of the Materials Subcommittee, 

to present the research priorities.

So, Dave, go ahead.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Steve.

The Materials Subcommittee worked hard 

on this. As is the case with any of the documents 
6

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that we work on, the proposal comes about by the 

Board members listening to the public comment, to 

the ideas shared with Committee members, and then, 

we meet to discuss as a subcommittee where is it 

that the research priorities really need to be 

sunsetted and where is it that new and emerging 

areas of need exist, as informed through that 

public comment process.

The subcommittees play a big role in 

channeling compelling areas of need for new insight 

that would inform their research priorities. For 

example, in the active discussion that unfolded 

over the past year and a half or so around the issue 

of parasites in poultry flocks, we refreshed and 

I think made more holistic the subject and the 

research needs around systems approaches to 

management of parasite loads in livestock and 

poultry, in particular.

I would say that in the years that I've 

been on the Board this represents maybe the last 

year a bigger overhaul. I think we had the feeling 

that we needed to collapse some things and 

restructure some of the priorities. And I'm happy 
7

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to report that I think we feel quite good about 

having captured those.

The public comments on the priorities 

generally were favorable. Some of the public 

comments indicated where research was underway 

under some of the priorities, which was very 

interesting to read about some projects funded by 

some of the NGOs that are stakeholders.

We were also very excited to learn that 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Competitive 

Grants Program, National Institute for Food and 

Agriculture, has embraced our priorities and they 

are helping inform the Request for Proposals for 

the next go-round of that program for things like 

transitions to organic and the agroecological 

bigger programs, some of these large, multimillion 

dollar projects.

So, a couple of comments for us to 

consider going forward, but I don't really envision 

that we need to be thinking that we need to do this 

in this draft right now. But it's a large 

document, and is there some way that we can run 

some sort of a mental sensitivity analysis and 
8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

weight the things that are more urgent in way of 

need than the document does?

And there were also a number of comments 

on BPA, and it's interesting in light of the 

discussion that we had yesterday about contact, 

Nate and Asa and others' contact, with food. We 

have that as a research priority. I think there 

was the feeling that we could maybe underscore its 

importance more strongly.

But, otherwise, I think the document 

was well-received and my sense is that the 

Subcommittee and the Board broadly is feeling quite 

good about the document.

That is the end of my report.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Dave.

I cannot see hands up to see if there 

are questions. So, if people just want to, if 

there are questions or comments, if Board members 

want to jump in, or one of the staff members, NOP 

staff, can help me with hands up. Are there any 

comments or questions or thoughts about the 

research priorities?

MS. OAKLEY: This is Emily.
9

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I just want to thank Dave and, also, 

Steve because I feel like this two-meeting process 

this year was just extremely helpful, and I think 

it gave stakeholders an opportunity to provide 

constructive feedback that we could incorporate 

in the year that we were voting on the proposal. 

So, thanks for that suggestion and for putting 

that process into action.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Emily. That's 

good to hear. I know it was a little more confusing 

at first because it was a little out of what we 

had done in the past, but I agree, I think it does 

help us make a more refined research priority list 

to approve.

Any other comments?

MR. RICE: This is Scott.

Dave, I think you mentioned yesterday, 

or alluded to, about the big, wide topic that we 

brought up in the CACS Subcommittee on human 

capital. And I don't know if there's a space 

moving forward to consider that as maybe not in 

the research perspective, as we've looked at this 

list, but an area certainly for attention as we 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

look at opportunities, as we talked about, with 

partnering with universities and things like that, 

but just some space there to consider those things 

and put it out there that the Board is interested 

in research of some nature, social science perhaps.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, I think that's a 

really great point, Scott, and I was really struck 

by your report back and the very strong and 

thoughtful stakeholder input that you were 

summarizing for us.

And I do think we certainly could think 

about ways of repackaging research priorities and 

expand it to research in education/outreach. I 

do think, listening to you reporting back, that 

we could have a very thoughtful summary of what 

are the education needs in organic, and that could 

be in the same document or it could be its own 

standalone document.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there other 

comments and thoughts?

(No response.)

All right. With that, we will move to 

the vote to approve the research priorities.
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I can't see who made the motion and who 

seconded. Can somebody help me out with that?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Motion by Dave, 

seconded by Emily.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Nate.

All right. We'll move to the vote. 

And I think we are starting with Rick, is that 

correct, Jesse or Scott?

MR. BUIE: I think it's Kim.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim? Okay. I may not 

have marked that.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes, I can kick it off.

So, I vote, yes, to adopt.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Mindee?

(No response.)

Mindee, are you there?

(No response.)

Mindee, we're not hearing you.

(No response.)

Michelle, can you see Mindee?

MS. ARSENAULT: Yes. I just asked her 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to unmute.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee just texted and 

said she votes yes. She said her whole system just 

shut down. Okay.

Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Thanks.

Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

MR. BUIE: Fifteen, yes; zero, noes. 

The motion passed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Thank you 

very much.

Dave, is there anything else for 

Materials?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, nothing to report 

at this time. There will be more things coming 

for the spring. But, yes, for this meeting, that's 

it.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Great. Thank you so 

much. We do appreciate it.

Okay. We are going to move on to the 

Crops Subcommittee. And, Jesse, I'm going to turn 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it over to you.

And I'm going to ask that we switch the 

paper pots and wild, native fish proposals, just 

while I'm still trying to get onto the visual part 

of the computer here.

So, Jesse, it is for you, and I know 

Jared has introductions for all the proposals to 

read off, just to give people the background of 

what's happened.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Welcome, everyone, 

and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the 

Crops Subcommittee for all its hard work and 

cooperation in getting us to this point.

So, we are going to switch here. 

Emily, we want to start with the wild-native 

proposal.

MS. OAKLEY: Certainly.

MR. BUIE: Okay. And who's going to 

read?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jared will give the 

introduction, and then, we can go from there.

MR. BUIE: Jared?

MR. CLARK: Thank you.
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, the work agenda item on wild, native 

fish for fertilizer production was initiated at 

the Board's request. During the previous sunset 

review for liquid fish products at 205.601 in 

spring 2018, testimony was received that some 

manufacturers are using wild, native fish which 

are harvested exclusively for fertilizer 

production.

In support of this work agenda item, 

a limited-scope technical report was written and 

published to the NOP website in September of 2019 

and a discussion document presented at the spring 

2020 meeting.

I will now hand it over to Emily Oakley 

to continue discussion on this proposal.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

And now, I just had a snafu with my 

computer. Sorry. Just a second. All right.

Although we did originally receive 

testimony several years ago that some liquid fish 

products are made with fish that are harvested 

exclusively for that use, the TR provided more 

nuanced information on that.
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And sorry if anyone just heard that 

feedback. I don't know what that came from.

So, the TR kind of gave us a breakdown 

of the wet reduction process and the production 

of fish for meal, oil, and solubles. I went over 

that at the spring meeting. So, I don't want to 

kind of take the time to do that now.

But what we determined after the spring 

meeting and after public comments was that we would 

explore the option, creating an annotation that 

specified that fish used for LFPs, or liquid fish 

products, must come as a byproduct from human use; 

and that, since there weren't necessarily fish 

being harvested exclusively just for fertilizer, 

that it was a fine line between that use, because 

the other uses are for livestock, oil, and meal; 

that the Board determined that we would try to see 

what possibility might exist for creating this 

annotation. So, that's how we kind of got to this 

point after the spring meeting.

So, I was going to go through the public 

comments briefly. But, to begin with, LFPs, or 

liquid fish products, are widely used by producers. 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The majority of comments that we received this 

time were in support of the proposal, but not all 

certainly were. And even some that were in support 

felt that there was a caveat that it could be 

stronger, particularly with regards to 

verification and enforcement. There were also 

concerns about the environmental impact of 

fisheries on marine ecosystems and concerns that 

this proposal didn't go far enough.

One commenter opposed the proposal 

because they felt it does not do enough to protect 

marine ecosystems. For example, they said, 

specifically, that any proposal that allows the 

commercialization of bycatch disincentivizes the 

use of fishing methods that minimize it.

Additionally, although fish harvested 

for human consumption has ecological impacts as 

well, the parts used in fertilizer are considered 

waste products that would not otherwise have use. 

The fact that this waste does not have a human 

use does not mean that it does not serve an 

ecological purpose and begs the question of 

ecological impact associated with the demand.
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And then, finally, given the importance 

of removing fish biomass is not well-understood, 

either from the perspective of energetic balance 

or from the perspective of food web dynamics, the 

organic industry should take a precautionary 

approach to protect the marine ecosystem.

So, they concluded by requesting that 

we explored annotation limiting fish products to 

those sourced from post-consumer waste only.

Then, there were some commenters who 

were opposed and suggested it should be sent back 

to the Subcommittee, one, for more time to review, 

and, also, in particular, because they noted that 

the language would exclude livestock use. So, 

they wanted to see language in the annotation for 

fish waste from livestock feed. But, actually, 

the primary use of the wet reduction process for 

meals and oils is livestock feed. So, that is 

actually part of the intention of this proposal, 

to exclude that use. It's the solubles from that 

process that are, then, used after the meal and 

oil have been extracted in the liquid fish 

products.
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Other commenters did not necessarily 

take a position, but did express concern about the 

impacts this could have on the supply chain. We 

did hear from the company in India producing 

solubles from the wet reduction process who thought 

they may not be able to meet the annotation.

We also had a somewhat odd argument 

presented to us by those in favor of ammonia extract 

saying that sourcing liquid fish products from the 

wet reduction process is environmentally damaging 

and even amounts to modern-day slavery in some 

places, and may support the proposal as a means 

to limit organics impact on those issues. But they 

also, then, claimed that, while perhaps 40 percent 

of the liquid fish products listed by OMRI would 

be affected by this proposal, that 40 percent 

represents a significant portion of the total 

volume of supply. So, they argue we should support 

this proposal, and then, support ammonia extract. 

And I would just suggest that both those issues 

are unique and separate, and our vote on this 

proposal shouldn't have any bearing on the Board's 

future deliberations on ammonia extract.
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

A U.S. manufacturer of liquid fish 

products wrote to say that the annotation as 

written does reflect the materials used in their 

products.

Another manufacturer said there's 

enough fish waste from human consumption to meet 

the demand. They did suggest we add pet food 

manufacturing waste as the definition or into the 

definition and fish culled for quality problems, 

though they admit that the latter is likely already 

covered in the existing definition, which I think 

it is.

Several certifiers said that, if the 

proposal were adopted, the Board should request 

a two-year implementation period which was similar 

to that for the organic certification of kelp for 

livestock feed. I think that's a very good 

suggestion.

There were some questions as to what 

form of verification is considered adequate. And 

some of those commenters asked the NOP to clarify 

if any other documentation would be required beyond 

attestation.
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

An inspector shared that he felt that, 

quote, "A good many, I would venture to say greater 

than 40 percent, of the liquid fish manufacturers 

marketing products to organic growers are already 

inspected by an MRO because their product has an 

analysis of greater than 3 percent nitrogen. For 

this reason alone, I think verification of this 

supply chain will be easy."

One certifier exclaimed that they have 

reason to believe that some producers were under 

the impression that fish fertilizers were already 

produced exclusively from fish waste.

And then, there were some suggested 

edits to the definitions made by OMRI, as we 

discussed during oral comments, and a very minor 

one suggested by NOC. So, the CS sent those 

suggestions to the NOP and the program confirmed 

that they do not amount to substantive changes, 

but, rather, clarifying changes.

So, the proposed motion with the 

updated suggested language can be seen now on this 

slide. And if you see what is before you, the 

motion is for -- it's a listing at 205.601(j), and 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

what's in bold, "sourced only from fish waste, 

bycatch, or invasive species" is what would be 

added. And that's not being changed. But the 

suggestion for changes by OMRI and NOC are in the 

definition, the motion to add the following 

definitions to Action 2052, "Terms Defined," and 

they're highlighted in bold.

So, market food fish was a suggestion.

And then, under "for human 

consumption," explaining or elaborating examples, 

such as skins, frames, and viscera.

And then, under "bycatch," this was a 

good comment from NOC, "incidental or discarded 

catch that have low economic value," rather than 

"no economic value". And then, OMRI also 

suggested that we describe "or fish that are 

unintentionally killed by fishing gear 

(mortality)," to help elaborate that further.

So, those were the suggestions for 

clarifying the definitions, and I think they are 

good.

In terms of the pet food suggestion, 

that really was not a huge area that was discussed 
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in the TR and might be something that either the 

program or the Board could look into further. 

Whether that is material, coming from aftermarket 

food fish or not, was not really clear to me. If 

it's using things like skin, frames, and viscera, 

then I would assume it would follow under that, 

the current definition, and would be included. 

So, I guess we would just have to get more 

information to determine whether or not that 

falling under these existing definitions.

So, with that, I would like to open it 

up for Board discussion. Thank you.

Steve, would you like me to call, or 

Jesse? We can probably both see the hands.

Jesse, do you want to call on a hand?

MR. BUIE: Well, I can't see the hands.

MS. OAKLEY: You can't see the hands? 

Okay. I can see that Wood, Dave -- you guys want 

to call on them? I can just see those hands are 

up.

MR. TURNER: Do you want me to jump in?

MS. OAKLEY: Sure.

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Emily. This is 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

great and I'm still largely supportive.

I did find it was very educational and 

very important for me to spend a lot of time reading 

through the comments. It was just a lot of good 

perspective, I think, from the community.

And I think I agree with you; I feel 

very confused about the pet food comments, to be 

honest. And I love my dog. I just don't think 

the oceans should be fished for my dog's food. 

So, I would have some challenges with that. I 

mean, I would love to spend more time on that.

But the bigger question I have is, I 

find it really compelling to hear the comment or 

read the comment about species, or maybe I could 

hear the comment about species-specific, being 

more specific about what bycatch can be included. 

And I find that very compelling, that there is 

going to be bycatch that are going to be threatened 

species that really, you know, there should be 

other protections for those species. And again, 

I know there's a lot of complications in what 

happens to those species in a fishing context, but 

I was wondering if you found that compelling and 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

thought that adding species -- and I don't know 

exactly what would be involved in doing this, but 

somehow adding some kind of species definition or 

species information in the definition would be even 

remotely enforceable?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, I mean, I think 

that's an excellent point. I mean, special status 

species like threatened and endangered species, 

like by law are not supposed to be bycatch. Now 

whether or not that happens unintentionally is, 

obviously, a more complicated situation. But they 

do have federal protection.

In terms of identifying species for 

bycatch, I think, you know, with the marine 

macroalgae proposal, there was a lot of 

species-specific research that was done. And when 

the CS was exploring this issue -- and you'll note 

that there is not a listing here for 602, as there 

was with marine macroalgae, because it would have 

required just a tremendous amount of research to 

try to determine exactly which fish are used, the 

impact, et cetera. And I would be concerned that 

to elaborate specific species under the bycatch 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

definition would require a similar amount of 

research that might be difficult to obtain or easy 

to contest.

So, while I philosophically 

wholeheartedly agree with that, pragmatically I'm 

not sure that it would be something we could easily 

do. That's not to say we shouldn't try it. Those 

are just my sort of thoughts on it. But I don't 

have a feeling, a position about what the Board 

should do one way or the other with regard to that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. I think I'm 

unmuted finally. Oh, it just disappeared. I 

can't remember who just had their hand up. It just 

dropped --

MR. MORTENSEN: Sorry, Steve. I was 

the second half of that discussion. What Wood had 

spearheaded was what I was going to ask about. 

So, thank you, Wood and Emily.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Other comments?

Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: I just wanted to say a 

couple of things. One, just how important I think 

this is, and I think it's really great that, as 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a Board, we're dealing with issues about moving 

nutrients from one environment to another.

I also just want to say, Emily, I'm in 

awe at the work that you've done, both with the 

marine materials and macroalgae and this 

evaluation. This reflects your in-depth 

evaluation, and I just really appreciate that. 

I just wanted to put that out there.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily, go ahead. And 

then, we'll go to Scott.

MS. OAKLEY: Just a quick one. I do 

have to say, like the TR authors did a ton of work, 

and they were also incredibly helpful and 

available. It's really they who deserve the 

recognition. So, I just want to throw that out 

there.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes, I echo the thanks on 

all the work, Emily.

Just a couple of comments. I think you 

mentioned, as far as the animal side of things, 

referencing the market food fish, but I think that, 

in terms of the definitions, that's where the human 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

shows up. So, I think there is still that concern 

that that was being left out. Maybe that's 

something that can be addressed during rulemaking. 

I'm not sure.

But I think there's another good point 

that was brought up on this issue. Just it kind 

of carried over to some other issues, and even with 

our discussion on EPA List 4s. It's just looking, 

as we move forward as a Board, how to work on similar 

or same issues across subcommittees. I think that 

was a really great point that folks made in public 

comment, again, on this issue and EPA List 4s.

Admittedly, Asa and I didn't connect 

earlier in our process used in our respective 

subcommittees on that List 4, but, in terms of this 

one, kind of looking at what those impacts are for 

listings that appear in livestock and potentially 

in handling, you know, looking at kelp, and 

whatnot.

So, just something for all of you to 

think about as we move forward into other issues 

and remembering that there's a lot of carryover 

between the subcommittees. And I think that's one 
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

area of improvement for this Board that could be 

based in a little bit better. Just we're all 

fingers on the same hand.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. Hopefully, we 

have two hands, but the fingers cooperate.

Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, I want to respond to 

both those points. Because I actually felt like 

the point you raised, Scott, in essence, like the 

supply chain issue is definitely something that 

deserves consideration. And the one person 

who -- or not the one person -- but the like primary 

comment around this came from folks in support of 

the ammonia extract, which makes it a little bit 

more complicated. And it was anecdotal 

information. It wasn't necessarily backed by any 

data.

But I know that, obviously, if this gets 

passed, and it went through rulemaking, economic 

impact is a part of the USDA's process in 

rulemaking. So, I know that would be considered 

there.

In terms of the livestock feed aspect, 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you know, actually, that is kind of what this is 

restricting, just because the wet reduction 

process for the meal and oil is primarily used for 

livestock feed. So, it is something that could 

be, I think, addressed further in the rulemaking 

process or by the NOP, if there are other sources 

that are not being used from just the wet reduction 

process. But if we put in livestock feed, it would 

kind of defeat the other purpose of the annotation, 

or it would open it up so broadly as to almost negate 

the point of the annotation, if that makes sense.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Other comments?

(No response.)

I have one. Maybe you can comment on 

it or maybe it's just a comment from my part, and 

maybe I'm just confused, which is easy enough. 

But I'm kind of struck, when we first brought this 

work agenda item up, we were very concerned about 

the use of fish just being harvested for use on 

organic farms and not solely as waste products. 

And then, we almost dropped this based on 

testimony and the TR, that this wasn't really a 

problem, and that was the take of comments and 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

stakeholders, you know, why are we even dealing 

with this; it's not an issue.

And now, we get to this point where we 

go to pass this motion, and suddenly, there's all 

this economic impact. I'm confused. It seems 

like our stakeholders told us there wasn't a 

problem, and now, suddenly, there is a big problem. 

I feel a little jolted along the way, that we 

weren't getting full information from the parties. 

And it kind of bothers me that suddenly it's this 

big deal, when it wasn't a big deal at all, 

presumably.

And you don't have to respond, but it's 

just an observation that confuses me and worries 

me about the process we have.

MS. OAKLEY: Well, I won't fully 

respond to that, but I didn't bring up this point 

that was raised by several public commenters that 

felt like that the wording to say that fish aren't 

harvested exclusively for fertilizers -- like one 

commenter last round said that they felt that that 

was misleading. And that was also in the proposal.

And I don't want to get like in the 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

middle of that aspect necessarily, but it 

definitely gets complicated. And your 

interpretation of why they're being harvested and 

what the purpose is, it gets a little tricky.

But, yes, there were differing views 

on the TR results because, basically, fish 

harvested for the wet reduction process, both the 

meal, oil, and solubles can be used in the 

fertilizers. So, it's conceivable that all three 

products would be used, but they are not being 

harvested just for fish meal, oil, solubles, and 

fertilizers. They're also being harvested for 

meal and oil and livestock feed, and solubles are 

like a byproduct, if you want to call it that, 

although I don't think -- it's just another; it's 

a third product, a third tier of that process.

But I know, this gets like really 

complicated in that regard, but I probably didn't 

fully address what you were mentioning, but yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I just feel like we were 

actually really investigating this out of true 

concern for marine ecosystems. And I think if we 

hadn't gone back -- well, I'm just going to say 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we had one commenter who is a certifier a couple 

of rounds ago that said, "Wait." I mean, we were 

about ready to drop it, and he commented and said, 

"Wait. No, I do know of specific companies that 

are harvesting only for this use," and kind of put 

it back on our plate. And now, suddenly, it's a 

big deal.

I think that it shows that we do need 

to be careful about -- as a whole, dig a little 

deeper on some of these topics and ask maybe more. 

And I agree that the TR was complicated, but it 

strikes me as, suddenly, the outcry kind of 

surprised me, and then, the economic impact.

It looks like Sue has a comment to make.

MS. BAIRD: Yes, I do. Again, Emily, 

you've done an incredible job.

I don't think, though, that we need or 

should discount livestock feed. I, in my previous 

100-year-old life, worked for a feed company, and 

we formulated feeds. And many times, the fish meal 

was used. And, in fact, if you are formulating 

for fish, then you have to use fish oil and fish 

meal. So, that's just part of the process. 
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Because of their biological makeup, they have to 

have that. So, let's don't discount livestock 

feed.

You know, again, we're hearing 

comments, "Give us time to comment on this. Let's 

don't rush this thing." I'm a little concerned, 

and perhaps it's too paranoid of me, but I'm a 

little concerned that we're going to pass some of 

these things and say, "Oh, we'll let NOP take care 

of it in rulemaking." It's not totally NOP's job 

to take care of things that we passed in a hurry, 

that perhaps we haven't quite defined for them. 

That's just my comment.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily? And then, we 

will probably move on.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes. No, I mean, I think 

that's a really excellent point, Sue, and I really 

appreciate you bringing that up.

In terms of the livestock feed, I 

think -- and my Subcommittee members can correct 

me if I am misstating our intention in writing this 

proposal -- but I think our intention was to 

actually source only from fish, waste, bycatch, 
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and then, basis species, and defining fish as fish 

waste or byproduct left over after market food for 

human consumption.

Just as an effort to reduce our impact 

on the broader fishery ecosystem -- and now, 

whether or not there is enough from fish processed 

from human waste, as we heard one person say, or 

there isn't, as we heard another person say, I mean, 

that is, unfortunately, not something that I think 

even we can take back and ultimately determine 

because the supply chains for that are very 

complicated.

But I imagine, as I was saying earlier, 

that if stakeholders -- if there were to go through 

rulemaking, stakeholders would be active at that 

point. And that would probably be when we would 

really find out the most information. 

Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's another better 

way to do it or get it, at least in my knowledge, 

which is for sure limited.

Okay, I am done. Sorry.

CHAIRMAN ELA: You don't have to 

apologize.
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I think we will go ahead and move to 

the vote.

We have a couple of votes on this. The 

first is a motion to amend Section 205.601(j)(8) 

as follows:

"Liquid fish products sourced only from 

fish, bycatch, or invasive species can be 

pH-adjusted with sulfuric, citric, or phosphoric 

acid. The amount of acid used shall not exceed 

the minimum needed to lower the pH to 3.5."

The motion was made by Emily. It was 

seconded by Dave.

And we are going to start with Mindee.

MS. JEFFERY: I'm sorry, I think I have 

a process question before I'm ready to vote. Can 

I do that?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sure.

MS. JEFFERY: Because don't we need to 

consider the discomfort and whether or not we want 

to go back to the Subcommittee before we vote, 

because I think I'm stuck right there?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Since this is a little 

bit of a confusing process, it's a little out of 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

order to consider that, but I did not hear any 

motions to that effect.

MS. JEFFERY: So, the correct process 

would have been, before you called the vote, for 

us to say, "I want to go on going back to 

Subcommittee before you call the vote."?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. I'll ask -- well, 

it is, I mean, according to Robert's Rules, we 

should have done that before. I understand the 

difficulties with process. So, I'm kind of in a 

quandary here. Maybe somebody who is more 

familiar -- I think at this point, yes, it should 

have been brought up before we went to the vote. 

And I think the motion has already been called. 

And so, as much as I sympathize with you, Mindee, 

I think the motion has already been called and we've 

started the vote.

MR. BUIE: Steve?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Steve, yes, I think many of 

those questions were answered because we have two 

motions, which kind of dealt with, I think, the 

concern that people have.
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes.

MR. BUIE: And I don't know if people 

realize that.

MS. BAIRD: No, I don't understand.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate, one quick 

comment.

MR. BUIE: Yes, okay.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Mindee beat me to it, 

and I ended up putting it down. Sorry about that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Okay. So, 

we're going to move ahead.

Mindee, your vote?

MS. JEFFERY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae? A-dae, are you 

there?
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes. But I'll also echo 

Mindee's concern. I think we did not follow 

process.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

(No response.)

Jerry, are you there?

Did we lose Jerry, Michelle?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes. Yes. Thank you. 

Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Thank you, 

Jerry.

Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

MR. BUIE: Fifteen, yes; zero, no. 

The motion passed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Emily, you have 

a comment?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, I just wanted to say 

that I sincerely apologize. I did not want someone 

who would have wanted to send this back to 

Subcommittee not to have been able to make that 

comment. And if I did not create the room for that, 

I want to apologize for that.

MS. BAIRD: Too late. It's done.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I'm just trying to think 

through this. I'm trying to follow correct 

Robert's Rules of Order. I do apologize that that 

space wasn't made.

I think you could at this point, before 

we go to the second motion, somebody could vote 

to send this back to the Subcommittee, and we could 

work on that. I think there could also be in 

Subcommittee a motion to amend the previous vote, 
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

if need be.

MS. OAKLEY: Well, if folks feel like 

it -- you know, I just don't want people's voices 

to be stifled, I guess is what I'm trying to say. 

And I don't want to be like -- it is not at all 

my goal to push something, yes, without giving the 

space for that. So, anyway.

CHAIRMAN ELA: So, on the motion that 

we just made that past, we could put on the cover 

letter that we expect to amend it. And we could 

it back, move the next motion back to the 

Subcommittee. So, this is the chance before I call 

the vote.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Nate would motion to 

move this back to Subcommittee.

MS. BAIRD: I'd second that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Okay. A motion 

was made by Nate, it was seconded by Sue, to move 

this back to Subcommittee.

We will start with Dave.

MR. BRADMAN: Sorry, this is Asa. I 

just want to clarify. The second motion is the 

motion to "add the following definitions"?
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Correct. And I should 

ask if there's any discussion on this, on the move 

to go back to Subcommittee.

MR. TURNER: But, Steve, that's not the 

second motion. You're adding a motion now between 

the motions that have been published.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Correct.

MS. OAKLEY: Maybe we need the program 

to help us.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I think it's proper 

order. We have two motions. It is okay to have 

a motion in between. If somebody knows Robert's 

Rules, and it is incorrect on that, please let me 

know.

MS. OAKLEY: I don't know.

MS. JEFFERY: I'm sorry, can you 

clarify for me? With the motion to go back to 

Subcommittee on the second motion, does that send 

the whole proposal and invalidate the last vote, 

or does it just send this part of the proposal back 

to Subcommittee?

CHAIRMAN ELA: It sends this part back. 

It does not invalidate the last vote. But I think 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on the last vote, we can put in the cover letter 

that the Subcommittee plans to amend it. It would 

have to come out of Subcommittee as an amendment 

to the first motion that we just made that was 

passed.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Now, Steve?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes?

MR. BUIE: If we are talking about the 

second motion, if we are going, if there is a motion 

to send it back, we're going to have to vote on 

whether we want to send it back.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Correct.

MR. BUIE: Vote it up or down, right?

CHAIRMAN ELA: There's the vote to go 

to Subcommittee is --

MR. BUIE: You've got to vote that up 

or down.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Correct, yes. And 

that's what I was asking for: any discussion on 

that subcommittee vote before we go to the vote 

on whether to send it back to Subcommittee?

MS. JEFFERY: I'm sorry, can you say 

that again, please, Jesse?
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BUIE: Okay. If we have a motion 

to send the second motion back, we're going to have 

to vote on it, vote it up or down to send it back. 

And if we decide, if the vote is not to send it 

back, then you go ahead on and vote on it.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Correct.

DR. TUCKER: A note from the program.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, Jenny, uh-hum.

DR. TUCKER: So, Steve's process is 

correct. You can now do a motion to send it back 

to the Subcommittee, should you choose to do that. 

So, that is your -- but Steve is correct on 

process.

From a program perspective, we 

understand that you've just passed this proposal. 

It would be helpful to know if you want to keep 

on working on it, right? Because we don't want 

to move something forward to rulemaking if you guys 

want to keep still working on it. So, it would 

be kind of nice just process-wise where this went, 

whether you're going to take this -- whether you 

want to work on it more or whether you want to 

advance the proposal. I don't think we want you 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

working on it at the same time we're trying to do 

rulemaking on it, would be my general impression.

CHAIRMAN ELA: That is correct, Jenny. 

So, given that we already made the vote on the 

motion, which I think we had to do, given it was 

already moved, what's the best way to signal you 

that the group would like to continue to work on 

that motion?

DR. TUCKER: So, if you want to take 

a vote to see how many people want to send it back 

to Subcommittee, that would show the Board's 

preference to keep working on this.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes.

DR. TUCKER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And there is a motion 

and a second on the floor to send it back to 

Subcommittee.

DR. TUCKER: Right. But I was 

reaffirming, right, I was just reaffirming that 

process --

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes.

DR. TUCKER: -- since there seemed to 

be some question as to whether that was allowed. 
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And the answer is yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you very much, 

Jenny. I appreciate that.

So, we still have a motion and a second 

on the floor to send it back to Subcommittee.

Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Right. Okay, great. 

So, I'm glad that we're getting to talk about this. 

I'm glad that it's not getting stalled.

So, I guess my question would be, what 

would folks like the Subcommittee to work on, if 

they sent it back? And I actually that it would 

be the definitions. I don't think, actually, 

anything would necessarily change in what we just 

voted on because it would be whether or not fish 

waste would include livestock.

But I just do want to say that, as I 

think I tried to explain earlier, that we were 

actually trying to exclude livestock in this 

original motion. Now whether or not the Board 

wants to change its mind on that is a whole other 

matter. But I did just want to clarify that that 

wasn't like an oversight. That was actually the 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

intention of the proposal as it was written and 

the definitions as they were written, just to make 

that point clear in case there was any confusion.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Any other discussion 

before we go to the vote of whether to send it back 

to Subcommittee?

Mindee? Mindee, do you have a comment?

MS. JEFFERY: Yes, I'm sorry. How 

does that work process-wise? Because if we're 

asking the program to hold on one piece while we 

work on the definitions, will, then, we be able 

to dovetail the work together when it goes to 

rulemaking?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, I don't see any 

problem with that.

DR. TUCKER: I think the program wants 

to -- sorry -- the program is going to wait and 

see how this plays out. Whatever you all decide, 

make it very clear in your cover letter what you're 

asking the program to do and what you want to do 

as a Board.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes.

Dave, one last comment?
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. Since I'm 

starting out with the vote, yes, I just want to 

get clear that we're effectively questioning the 

vote we just took by doing this, right? I mean, 

that's what we're doing.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Well, we --

MR. MORTENSEN: I'm not criticizing 

that. I'm just trying to be clear on what we're 

actually doing here.

CHAIRMAN ELA: That is one 

possibility, yes. I mean, we could leave, you 

know, the Subcommittee could just work on the next 

motion, but they could also work on the vote we 

just took and ask for an amendment.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. Okay.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay.

MS. OAKLEY: May I just -- I don't think 

necessarily that we're questioning the vote we just 

did, because you could argue that we would keep 

the vote we just did and just change the 

definitions. Or you could argue that it is to 

question the first one, yes --

CHAIRMAN ELA: It could go either --
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: -- air it out.

CHAIRMAN ELA: It could go either way, 

but we are certainly questioning the next vote.

MS. OAKLEY: Right.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, the Subcommittee, 

when it goes back to the Subcommittee, the vote 

we just took could be let stand or the Subcommittee 

could offer an amendment to that vote, and a future 

Board would vote on that amendment to the motion 

we just made.

MR. MORTENSEN: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: So, right now, we have 

a motion and a second on the floor to send this 

back to Subcommittee.

Dave, you are voting first on whether 

to send it back to Subcommittee or not.

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes.
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: I'm here and struggling.

MR. TURNER: It doesn't make any 

difference.

(Laughter.)
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Well, we can't say that. 

Sorry. That is a point of order.

MS. JEFFERY: No, I mean, it's a simple 

majority, and I'm going to vote yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. The Chair votes 

no.

And this is a vote taken as a simple 

majority because it is a vote of process.

So, Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Okay. It's 10 noes, and it 

must be -- and 5 yeses. So, the motion, let's see, 

the motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Correct. So, we will 

continue.

MR. BUIE: Correct.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse, I'm sorry, I 

should have asked Scott. I know, Scott, since 

you're Chair of the subcommittee, Scott's going 

to do the vote. So, I apologize to put you on the 

spot there.

We will move on to the next motion.

Motion to add the following definitions 

to Section 2052, "Terms Defined." "Fish waste or 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

product left over after market food fish are 

processed for human consumption, such as skins, 

frames, and viscera. Bycatch, incidental or 

discarded catch that has low economic value; fish 

that must be discarded because of management 

regulations, or fish that are unintentionally 

killed by fishing gear (mortality)."

The motion was made by Emily. It was 

seconded by Steve.

We will start the vote with Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate? Nate, are you 

there?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Can you hear me? 

Hello?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. Go ahead.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: That was no?

MR. POWELL-PALM: It was a yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A yes. Okay. Just to 

clarify --

MR. RICE: Can I get a clarification?

(Laughter.)
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. This is a vote on 

the motion to add the definition of fish waste.

So, Nate, I want to make sure I heard 

your vote --

MS. OAKLEY: And bycatch.

MR. POWELL-PALM: And bycatch. Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And bycatch, yes.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate, which way did you 

vote?

MR. BUIE: He voted yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. It wasn't clear 

to me.

So, okay. Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: I'm confused. 

So, I'm abstaining.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

Scott?

MR. MORTENSEN: I don't think I voted, 

Steve.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. I thought you 

were the first vote. Sorry.

Dave? Excuse me.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. I apologize.

Okay. Oh, yes, I did get that wrong.
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Okay. Scott, could you give the vote 

totals, please?

MR. RICE: I have 13 yes, 1 no, 1 

abstention. The motion passes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Emily.

Back to you, Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Do we want to go back 

now to you, Steve?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, please.

MR. BUIE: Okay. So, we're going to 

turn it over now to Steve for paper-based plant 

aids. Okay?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes.

Jared, I know you have an introduction 

for this.

MR. CLARK: I do. I'm having trouble 

unmuting today, too.

CHAIRMAN ELA: You're just trying to 

make me feel better.

(Laughter.)

MR. CLARK: So, paper pots has been 

petitioned for addition to 205.601 for use a crop 
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

production aid. This petition was submitted by 

Small Farm Works in August 2018.

In support of the NOSB's review of this 

petition, a technical report was written and 

published on the NOP website in August 2019. The 

Board posted a discussion document for the fall 

2019 meeting and considered a proposal at the 

spring 2020 meeting.

I will now pass this back to the lead, 

Steve Ela, for discussion.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. And I want 

everybody to notice I'm wearing my fruit shirt 

today in honor of crops. I don't know that it 

applies to paper pots, since we don't use paper 

pots to plant fruit trees out, but at least I want 

to honor the crops theme here.

Paper pots, of course, there's been a 

hot discussion. We've received a lot of testimony 

in the past about the necessity of paper pots for 

small growers, and that if we don't allow them in 

some form, that those growers will likely switch 

from organic to something else.

I guess, with all the other comments 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in this fall Board meeting, maybe it took the 

pressure off paper planting aids, and we didn't 

receive as many comments today, but we certainly 

honor the comments we've made in the past.

The main number of comments received 

this time were I thought very thoughtful and 

continued to try and refine the listing for paper 

pots. In some cases, things that were asked for 

in the spring, that we included, now are being asked 

to be excluded. So, that's a little bit awkward 

as we get on the pendulum of back-and-forth.

But, just quickly going over paper 

planting aids. And as I noted, we did expand it 

to paper planting needs from paper pots, and for

the most part, that is accepted by our 

stakeholders, with a few concerns on that.

So, one of the things is that, on the 

cover sheet, it was asked that the Board 

acknowledge that this listing is known to have 

deficiencies that need to be looked at during Board 

reviews. These include moving towards 100 percent 

biobased, biodegradable fiber content, as well as 

examining the adhesives to address 
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

biodegradability.

We originally on this did have a 

biodegradable standard, and we had a lot of 

comments about how that was going to be enforced 

and how it was going to be looked at. So, we did 

remove it, although I tend to agree that 

biodegradation is an issue, it's just not in the 

annotation at this point.

There were also comments that it is 

cumbersome to spell which specific additives will 

be allowed, but we remind the Board that failing 

to do at the beginning can lead to being overwhelmed 

later on, as with inert ingredients and ancillary 

substances. So, this commenter is in favor of 

specifically specifying which adhesives would be 

allowed.

The ACA also submitted some very 

specific comments that were echoed by a number of 

other stakeholders.

The first was that, based on 

stakeholder input in the spring, we had included 

references that only nutrients and pesticides 

allowed on the National List could be incorporated 
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

into paper planting aids. ACA pointed out that 

the reference to pesticidal ingredients really was 

probably incorrect, since if there were pesticides 

incorporated in the paper planting aids, they, 

themselves, would become a pesticide, and that is 

subject to a completely different rule.

So, they're advocating for that 

reference to pesticides to be removed. And I agree 

with that. I think that probably is one of those 

technical details that is correct. I'm not sure 

but what we could put that in the cover sheet to 

the program, that they remove that, and it would 

probably be removed anyhow because of the way 

pesticides work and the way they have to be dealt 

with.

Another concern was that, with the 60 

percent cellulose-based fiber and the 80 percent 

biobased, that somehow somebody that was creative 

might be able to put biodegradable mulch film under 

this. I think it's a long shot, but I understand 

the concern, since, with our knowledge base, the 

highest biobased content of biodegradable mulches 

at this point is around 30 percent. And Asa can 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

correct me later if I'm wrong in that. So, they 

would not fall into this category at this time, 

but, presumably, if plastic mulches get better, 

maybe they could somehow work themselves into this 

listing. So, I'm not opposed to adding that in 

where we take the existing listing, but exclude 

biodegradable biobased mulch film specifically.

Moving on, there were also some 

technical corrections at the top of the list that 

would include paper planting aids that we would 

need to specifically allow these types of things 

to be used, and that was just that we would have 

to -- well, I'm stumbling here -- that that would 

be a technical correction at the top of the list. 

And certainly, I think that's a valid point, but 

I feel like that one easily could go to the program 

because it really is them changing the list 

verbiage to make sure that what we put on the list 

is included at the top section.

The other issues that came up are 

inclusion of using the ASTM D6866 test. In the 

previous spring, we did have comments that, when 

we used that only, that people were worried. And 
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

so, they encouraged us to put in verbiage by a 

qualified third-party assessment. When we did 

include that this time, now we have a number of 

comments questioning what that is and whether that 

that should be included, several people advocating 

for just using the ASTM standard and not including 

anything else.

MOSA and OMRI both said, we considered 

our various options for determining a product's 

acceptability. Qualified third parties could 

include certifiers, material review 

organizations, or other organizations that verify 

products. And they were kind of questioning what 

that was. OMRI put in even more substantial 

questions about third-party verification, and 

really, their preference is just to use the ASTM 

standard.

There was concern about synthetic 

fungicides in the materials, just similar to what 

was with the nutrients and pesticides. And they 

wanted to make sure that we are prohibiting the 

use of synthetic fungicides in the cellulose 

fibers.
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And then, moving on down, there 

was -- I'm just trying to find the comment -- the 

issue, in addition to the biobased plastic mulch, 

that we really specify what else in that 40 

percent -- so, we say 60 percent cellulose-based 

fibers -- in that other 40 percent, what could be 

included. I'm not finding the exact language 

right now in a hurry. Oh, here it is. That that 

other 40 percent be more spelled out and that those 

permitted synthetic ingredients in that 40 percent 

could only be strengtheners, reinforcement fibers, 

adhesives, and binders.

So, I don't object to that language, 

although I do think in public comment, when they 

asked and they said, "Well, what about coatings?", 

and I think coatings could probably be -- somebody 

could lump that under as a strengthener or 

reinforcement fiber, saying that the coating helps 

keep the integrity of the pot. But I'm not against 

including that.

So, I think the real question is, 

everybody is in favor -- well, not everybody, but 

a majority of the people, a significant majority, 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

are in favor of including paper planting aids on 

the National List. We're getting down to the 

details. And the question today is whether we want 

to take it back to Subcommittee and make these other 

tweaks in terms of describing that 40 percent, in 

terms of removing the pesticides, in terms of being 

specific that biobased mulch films can't be used, 

or whether we just want to put that in a cover letter 

and ask the program to make those changes as they 

go forward to rulemaking.

I should say there was one other 

question brought up by a stakeholder questioning 

the ASTM test due to -- it doesn't work well on 

wood products due to radioactive testing back in 

the sixties. With that, you confound the carbon 

content. They make a somewhat compelling 

argument, but I haven't heard of anyone coming up 

with a standard that we could test to that is 

different.

And I also would suggest that probably 

a majority of the wood products being used at this 

point in 2020 are going to be from trees that are 

probably less than 30 years old. That's a 
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

speculation on my part and I don't have data, but 

I know it's much rarer to have old-growth stands 

at this point.

So, I will open it up to comment from 

the Board and be willing to try to answer questions. 

And I also would like to hear people's thoughts 

of whether we should send it back to Subcommittee 

or go ahead and pass it and put in the cover sheet 

these comments that I think do have validity.

I guess I truly sit on the fence myself. 

I like to send things to the program that are very 

spelled-out. On the other hand, I would like to 

give people in planting aids some feeling that, 

yes, we are moving forward on this. And I know 

they think we are, but it's also been several years 

since we received this petition. And, you know, 

I think it's valuable to also move it on down the 

road.

Dave, you have a comment?

MR. MORTENSEN: Steve, the last 

phrase, "I think we could put it in a cover letter 

and move it on down the road," is my strong 

leanings. I think that it's quite clear that the 
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

intent is not to have pesticides incorporated in 

the paper pot, and I think we can spell that out 

in the letter.

I think the uncertainty around the use 

of this in the grand scheme of things, like tiny 

introduction of a little paper into the soil, in 

my way of seeing it, the use of it is enabling for 

small farmers in a way that we heard testimony after 

testimony that, without it, they wouldn't be able 

to actually transplant vegetables on a small scale 

at cost. So, I would love to see us move this 

forward now with a cover letter.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Wood?

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Steve. I 

appreciate the summary.

I am so enthusiastic about the use of 

this product as a planting aid for small farmers. 

I just couldn't be more enthusiastic. But I 

raised this issue in Subcommittee, and I'll raise 

it again, and it kind of goes to one of your 

comments. I would love to hear you speak to it.

I am still deeply concerned that 

there's language in what we're voting on to allow 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for virgin paper in these products. I think the 

absence of any certification or any kind of drive 

toward some kind of post-consumer content or any 

kind of recycle, I think it's disincentivizing 

innovation. I think because there's a reference 

to virgin paper in the language, it's going to be 

a virgin paper product.

And I understand all the issues 

functionally. I totally get it. And at the same 

time, I feel like it's just something that I'm 

stumbling on, and I brought it up in Subcommittee 

and it= still bothers me.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sure. I guess I should 

give credit to a number of our stakeholders. 

Certainly not a majority did bring that similar 

point up, Wood. So, you're not alone in your 

thoughts by any means.

I think part of the problem with this 

listing, and one of the reasons the NOP flagged 

it back and said, well, it's not going to be 

allowed, one of them was the use of virgin paper, 

which was not allowed under the newspaper listing, 

and the other was adhesives in part. So, your 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

comment I think certainly has validity. 

The feedback from manufacturers at this 

point is that these products cannot be made without 

at least a portion of virgin paper. Just the 

integrity of the fibers and the ability to make 

certain fiber lengths that are very difficult to 

source from post-consumer content is, it really 

is the viability of the pot.

We've certainly had one manufacturer 

do the analysis. They're only sourcing paper from 

sustainably-farmed trees and they're very proud 

of that. That's certainly not a requirement in 

this annotation. So, in the way they're proud of 

that, somebody else could potentially do something 

very different.

I know there's a strong move towards 

using hemp, but at this point, even where hemp is 

used, there's still tree-based cellulose fibers. 

But, you know, I think manufacturers are hoping 

for other sources. But, at this point, for a 

viable product to be used, it does have to include 

some virgin paper. And I know that manufacturers 

have really in their testimony have said how little 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

paper they are harvesting for that use. But I do 

have sensitivity to your comment. But I think to 

not include that would, essentially, kick any 

product on the market out right now. So, I agree 

with you, but, also, I think that's something 

that's necessary.

Scott? Then, Mindee. Then, Rick. 

Then, Asa.

MR. RICE: Yes. Thank you.

A couple of things on this. I think 

I share your sitting on the fence process-wise, 

Steve. I would caution the Board in moving items 

to the program with sort of direction of, okay, 

close enough; you figure it out. And I think it's 

really important in our deliberative process to 

really get it right or at least as close to right 

as we can, but be mindful of not letting perfect 

be our enemy.

And I think that certain things of 

listing clarification there's, I guess you could 

say, precedent for doing that in the past, but I 

guess that's just a general term or general caution 

for all, as we move forward, as you move forward. 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

It's good to take our time and get it right.

And I guess, specific to this, we do 

have an allowance from the program for operations 

to use this, and I think we do have the latitude 

to correct things, should we care to do so. So, 

it's something to consider.

My other question I think was answered 

by Wood's comment, and that was why somebody voted 

no. So, I think I just heard that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: Yes, I'm echoing some of, 

a lot of what Scott was just referring to. I think 

it behooves the NOSB to own the language of our 

recommendations as much as we can. I like that 

we are making space for producers to use this while 

we're getting it right, so we can produce 

consistency.

I think that the consideration of 

consumer perception around local and organic is 

really important in this context. I think that 

we need this. Small local producers need to be 

able to use the planting aids, and I think that 

we need to figure out in some ways how organic can 
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

be a great cause for gaining traction in smaller 

producers. Because I think consumers tend to 

equate local and organic equally, and I think that 

some way in which we can make things easier for 

local producers to become organic, like 

paper-based planting aids, is a really good idea.

But I'm not comfortable with lab 

testing as a reference in the regulations because 

I think we also have to continue to educate the 

consumer around the notion that organic is a 

process-based evaluation system, because I don't 

think we can afford the perception that testing 

is going to help us. I see it a lot in consumer 

demands for (audio interference) comfortable with 

those kinds of tests. And I think I'd way rather 

refer to composition review than rely on a test.

And I think the virgin paper issue is 

uncomfortable for me, but I think I could be okay 

with virgin paper in the short term and amend that 

as the technology comes online.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. I'll respond to 

one thing on yours, but I'm going to let Rick and 

Asa go first.
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, Rick, go ahead.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. Yes, I was 

thinking back to Dave's comments. I think this 

is necessary for small organic farmers, and my 

concern is that, when we fell into the paper world, 

I don't think any of us knew how complicated it 

was. And I just don't know where we will go if 

we don't -- you know, we can debate it forever, 

and I think it gets more complicated. I don't like 

the virgin paper, obviously, but I don't know in 

the mass balance of paper that's used for other 

items if it's really a major obstacle.

So, I like it. I think it should go 

forward.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Rick.

Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: I just want to comment 

on a few things related to the biobased content 

and the remaining 20 percent that does not have 

to be biobased. And I just want to remind everyone 

that we're, essentially, allowing the purposeful 

introduction of plastics into soil here. And I 

think we were all surprised at the high proportion 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of synthetic fibers in some earlier versions of 

the paper pots. I know personally, from what we've 

heard and seen from small farmers, this seems like 

really an essential tool and a way to support people 

who are working hard and working on a smaller scale, 

which reflects some of the core values of the 

organic community.

At the same time, I think we should all 

just take note of that. You know, we're allowing 

plastic to be introduced into the environment very 

heavily with polyethylene in films and other 

settings. We also allow the intentional addition 

of petroleum-derived products into soil with the 

use of horticultural oils as a pest control tool. 

But this is kind of another step forward.

And I know that the philosophy here, 

well, the goal down the road would be 100 percent 

biobased, but that 20 percent is all something we 

should ponder. I know, for me, it wouldn't make 

me vote against it, but I think it's important that 

we recognize that. And in some ways, as it stands 

here, we are, by default, setting a standard for 

biodegradable mulch films, plastic mulch films. 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And if we don't want to do that, we should make 

that explicit, although I think this does inform 

that discussion which we'll be having later this 

morning.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Asa. Those 

are good thoughts. Those are thoughts for 

thinking, I will say that.

(Laughter.)

Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes. Does the third motion 

deal with the -- it doesn't satisfactorily deal 

with the virgin paper issue or attempt to deal with 

that?

CHAIRMAN ELA: It doesn't. It doesn't 

specifically deal with virgin paper.

And I do want to respond to the comment 

on testing. I guess I agree with the process-based 

mantra of organic. I think that is a very 

important thing to remember. However, we already 

allow testing on a number of products in terms of 

their purity. So, I think this is just one way 

of making sure that the product is actually what 

it says it is and confirming that. So, I don't 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

know that it conflicts with the process-based per 

se.

We did have a number of people last time 

that did comment on wanting to have something 

besides the testing. So, I will say that I'm going 

to have to ponder if we don't pass this a little 

bit, because we're getting hit on both sides of 

this question.

OMRI submitted fairly lengthy 

comments, along with several other stakeholders, 

about being worried about having qualified third 

parties and how that would actually work. And I 

guess, when I hear OMRI say, "How can we evaluate 

this and move forward?", I think it does 

provide -- it makes me worry that a third-party 

assessment may be more difficult than it seems on 

the surface. And OMRI really kind of fell down 

on the side of just use testing.

I guess I need, if we do send it back 

to Subcommittee, I need to look at that, and I'd 

like to reach out to some of these groups and really 

see if we can find a middle ground on it or be able 

to define qualified third parties better. But 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that's one where stakeholders now are splitting, 

and we're doing a little bit of a pendulum effect 

of one way or the other. And whichever way we say 

it, some people are going to disagree, I'm afraid.

Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

Definitely hear and understand the 

paper concerns. And I don't think it's all a 

question that the Board should look at the 

newspaper and the recycled harvesting when it comes 

up for a sunset in a few years and just give that 

additional thought.

I will say that paper mulch that is 

allowed is also made from virgin. I think what 

we've heard is that the fibers break down so much 

in the recycling process as to make them more 

difficult to use and construct in the products.

But I did just want to put out there 

that, if I had my druthers, I would love for the 

listing to say 100 percent biobased content, since 

we've heard that that is now possible, as we've 

gone through this process.

And I also, if I had my druthers, would 
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

love to see that the added pesticides or nutrients 

be stricken, but you already know that. I will 

defer to your leadership on this, Steve, and the 

program's leadership on this. I know we did ask 

the program, but I will defer to your leadership 

on this.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, I think the 

nutrients, we just had a number of stakeholders 

that wanted to make sure there wasn't -- to be 

explicit and not have a loophole in that. I tend 

to think that it would be covered regardless, but 

I don't mind being explicit, as we found out.

I think one of the difficulties -- well, 

first of all, on the biobased content, part of the 

problem of biobased content is cellulose or 

biobased materials can be made to make 

non-biodegradable plastics. And so, just saying 

cellulose-based or biobased does not limit it to 

being biodegradable, and that's one of the really 

hard issues on this. And when we tried to put the 

biodegradable standard in it, we got clobbered,

rightly so. I'm not against that. But it's a very 

difficult issue. And who would have thought?
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I think these are the things that we 

all deal with in organics as we go further into 

things. We probably really don't want to know how 

the sausage is made sometimes. But, yet, if we 

want to be true to our beliefs, we do have to know 

how the sausage is made.

The other factor we have is that there 

aren't natural fibers. The process of separating 

fibers from wood or hemp, or anything else, is 

inherently a synthetic process due to that process. 

So, even if we're using wood fibers or paper fibers 

or hemp fibers, it's a synthetic process to extract 

them. And so, they are, then, synthetic.

So, just saying natural fibers is a 

no-go because there aren't natural fibers that can 

be used in these materials. They're inherently 

synthetic. So, that makes it much more difficult 

to define. You know, if we could just say natural 

cellulose-based fibers, bingo, we'd be down the 

road.

Emily, to your point, with John 

Hendrickson's testimony that those paper products 

are moving to hemp, maybe that's a good reason to 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

delay a little bit longer and keep talking about 

this. Maybe in a year two these manufacturers will 

be using these hemp fibers and we can specify that, 

and not have to worry about trying to come back 

to it in sunset. It's been really difficult to 

define how we might look at this in the future and 

narrow down the parameters because that wording 

alone is problematic.

So, I think, in terms of time, we

probably need to move on. I'm not seeing any other 

hands raised.

So, taking a note of thoughts from the 

last vote, I will leave time to see if anybody wants 

to make the motion to go back to Subcommittee.

Nate? And then, Mindee. Very short 

because we're getting behind in time.

MR. POWELL-PALM: All right. I was 

just going to make a motion that we move it back 

to Subcommittee.

MS. JEFFERY: So was I. So, I'll 

second.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. So, we have a 

motion and a second to move this back to 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Subcommittee. Is there any further discussion on 

that?

(No response.)

All right. We will move on that, 

starting with -- I believe we start with Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue? Sue, are you 

there?

MS. BAIRD: I am. I'm sorry. Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I do want to note you've 

gotten much better.

MS. BAIRD: Well, thank you for that. 

I am.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Abstain.

CHAIRMAN ELA: The Chair is going to 

vote yes, even though it makes more work for the 

Chair.

Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes, bear with me. I copied 

cells without formula.

MR. BUIE: Okay. It's 9 yes, I'd say, 

9 yes and 4 noes.
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: I got 10.

MR. BUIE: Ten? Let's see.

MR. RICE: There's one abstention and 

we're all here. So, it has to add up to 14.

MR. BUIE: You're correct. It's 

10 -- that's right, it's 10 yeses, right?

MR. RICE: Yes.

MS. JEFFERY: I have 10 yes, 1 no --

MR. RICE: Four --

MR. BUIE: And 4 noes. And 4 noes and 

1 abstention, right?

MR. RICE: One abstention.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

MR. RICE: Yes, I think we're square 

on that.

MR. BUIE: So, that will do it.

MR. RICE: Okay.

MR. BUIE: 10 yes; 4 noes, 1 

abstention.

CHAIRMAN ELA: So, the motion to send 

this back to Subcommittee passes.

MR. BUIE: It passes. It passed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. So, we will move 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

on to -- I'll send it back to you, Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Okay. Our next 

proposal is sodium carbonate lignin.

Rick, you ready?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, I am.

MR. BUIE: Okay.

MR. GREENWOOD: Is Jared going to read 

that or do you want me to just go ahead?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, yes, yes. Jared 

does have an introduction.

MR. CLARK: This is the last one. So, 

you're on your own after this.

(Laughter.)

Sodium carbonate lignin has been 

petitioned for addition to 205.601 for use as a 

dust suppressant and chelating agent in crop 

production. This petition was submitted by 

LegnoChem in June 2019.

In support of the NOSB's review of this 

petition, a technical report was written and 

published on the NOP in June 2020.

I will now pass it to the lead on this 

proposal, Rick Greenwood, for the discussion.
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. Thank you very 

much.

So, this is a chelating agent and dust 

suppressant. It's a byproduct of paper and the 

process. There is another lignin already on the 

National List that's also up for sunset, which is 

lignin sulfonate.

The process, when we first came out, 

there hadn't been any public comment on it. There 

were comments for this from the written comments. 

There have been a handful in favor and a couple 

against it.

It is, obviously, a synthetic product. 

The sodium carbonate, or lignin sulfonate is, as 

I mentioned, on the list, a very similar compound 

and had a lot of support, which I'll talk about 

in the sunset part of it.

One of the issues from the technical 

review is, basically, they're non-toxic compounds. 

So, it's a safe compound, and it's used, also, 

for fertilizer to join together, so it doesn't 

create dust. So, it can help workers' exposure 

to dust.
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The issue that the Subcommittee came 

up with that was troubling was that there's already 

an item on the National List, another lignin, and 

the question is, do we add one more synthetic 

substance to the National List, where there's 

already something there?

In the verbal comments, the individual 

who wrote the petition mentioned that there's a 

lack of production and this would add more material 

for use, and would bring in a couple more processing 

plants. Interesting to note that, for the lignin 

sulfonate, there were no public comments about lack 

of material. So, I don't know if that's really 

an issue or not. So, the question is, do we add 

another synthetic to the National List, when we 

already have one that's there?

So, I think I'll stop there and see if 

we can get some questions.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Are there questions?

(No response.)

Okay. I had one. Rick, would you 

recommend adding this?

MR. GREENWOOD: Well, I think, as a 
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Subcommittee, we all voted against adding it, and 

I was one of those people who voted against it. 

It doesn't seem, based on what we've seen and 

really no public comments saying we need another 

lignin, so I wouldn't.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Are there any other 

questions?

MR. RICE: Yes, I have one.

MR. GREENWOOD: I was going to say, how 

come paper pots gets all the questions and I don't?

(Laughter.)

MR. RICE: Rick, can you speak to the 

comment from the Organic Product Wholesalers 

Coalition about just feeling that there was a 

misunderstanding of a petition versus a 

clarification of use? And apologies if I missed 

that in your summary there.

MR. GREENWOOD: So, can you clarify 

your question? I mean, basically, if I 

understand, I mean, there are two lignin compounds. 

One's already on the National List that's slightly 

different and has a lot of support for relisting. 

This is just a new petition to add a slightly 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

different one, which is apparently to get more 

material into the market.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Do you have a follow up, 

Scott?

MR. RICE: Maybe I just misunderstood 

the comment. That's okay. I'll take a look 

again.

MR. GREENWOOD: Oh, okay.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there any other 

comments/questions from the Board?

(No response.)

Rick, I will just say that, if you want 

paper pots, so you get lots of comments, it's all 

yours. I don't have a problem with hanging it up.

(Laughter.)

MR. GREENWOOD: No, I like stealth 

compounds.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: I will just make the 

comment that I tend to agree with your assessment, 

Rick. I don't worry about the safety or use of 

this, but I also tend to side with our stakeholders 

on the side, if there is no reason to add a material 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to the list, then why do it? There are plenty of 

alternatives already on the list or that are 

natural. So, I tend to fall on the side of, you 

know, unless there's compelling evidence that it's 

something we really need, why add it?

If there are no comments, we will move 

to the vote.

The motion is to classify sodium 

carbonate lignin as synthetic. So, this is a 

classification motion. It was made by Rick. It 

was seconded by Dave.

We will start the voting with Scott.

MR. RICE: No. Excuse me. Yes.

(Laughter.)

I'll get it together here.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. So, this is a 

classification motion to classify it as synthetic.

So, Scott voted yes.

A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. TURNER: Yes. I'm about to show 

this hand.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes. It's 15 yes, zero no. 

The motion passes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. We will move on 

to the motion to add sodium carbonate lignin at 

205.601(j)(4).

The motion was made by Rick. It was 

seconded by Steve.

We will start the voting with A-dae.

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's 15 -- zero yes; 15 

no, and the motion failed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Back to 

you, Jesse, for sunsets.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Thank you for that, 

Rick.

And we're going to move into the 

sunsets, starting off with soap-based algicide.
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Rick, it's your ball game.

Soap-based algicide, reference 

205.601, algicide disinfectant/sanitizer, 

including irrigation system cleaning.

Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, thank you. And 

I'm glad you mentioned it's my ball game because 

of the Dodgers. So, thank you.

First of all, in terms of the written 

comments, they're overwhelmingly positive on 

relisting. There was one that didn't want it 

relisted, but, overall, there's a lot of support 

for it.

It's a soap-based salt that's used 

around greenhouses, walkways, and other surfaces 

to kill algae, very nontoxic, approved, a lot of 

international acceptance to it. And essentially, 

no environmental or human health issues if it's 

used properly.

So, comments?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there comments?

(No response.)

I do not see any. So, we will move to 
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the motion.

The motion is to remove soap-based 

algicide/demossers from 205.601(a)(7) of the 

National List. The motion was made by Rick and 

it was seconded by Steve.

We are going to start with Dan.

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no.

Scott, do you want to give us the total?

MR. RICE: Yes. At zero yes, 15 no, 

the motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Back to you, Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Our next substance 

is ammonium carbonate, reference 205.601(e), 

insecticide -- I pronounced that -- and mite 

control, ammonium carbonate for use in bait and 

insect traps only.

That's you, Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Jesse.

So, ammonium carbonate is used in baits 
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for insect management, flies, and a variety of 

kinds, predominantly, but not exclusively, in 

livestock, poultry, as well as nut and fruit 

orchards. It's used in a very targeted way since 

it's in a bait. It is something that's an integral 

part, its use is an integral part of organic 

integrated pest management programs for pest 

management.

Because it's in a bait, it addresses 

concerns about introducing ammonium into the 

environment. That might otherwise be a bigger 

concern in the sense that it's a caustic material, 

but that it's in a bait.

This, as was the case with the one Rick 

just reviewed, received very strong support for 

relisting, overwhelmingly strong support for 

relisting.

There were some comments made that 

systems/plans would enhance parasitoid 

populations and really careful manure management 

could help keep the pests that the bait targets 

down, but the truth is I think there's compelling 

evidence that these insect pests are there, even 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in the best systems planned, and that they're an 

integral part of management.

And so, this received very strong 

support, and I don't see any issues that were raised 

we would be particularly concerned about, I would 

say.

When we took a vote on this in the 

Subcommittee, it was a vote of 8 not to relist. 

And so, the support was to relist, unanimous.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Are there 

comments/thoughts from the Board?

(No response.)

I am not seeing any. So, we will move 

to the vote.

The motion is to remove ammonium 

carbonate from 205.601 of the National List based 

on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act. The motion was made by Dave and 

seconded by Emily.

We will start the voting with Wood.

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no.

Scott?

MR. RICE: Zero yes; 15 no. The motion 

failed.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Scott. We just 

want to make sure we keep you on your toes before 

you go off the Board here.

MR. RICE: Well, you know, you'd think 

I should be after two years of doing this.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. Well, we've been 

keeping Jesse on his toes. So, it's your turn to 

be in the hot seat.

But, Jesse, back to you.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Thank you, Dave.

Okay. The next one is soaps, 

insecticidal. It's going to be Rick. 205.601. 

Okay.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. Thanks, Jesse.

Again, insecticidal soaps, very 

popular, no negative comments and a number of 

positive ones that say it's important for insect 
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

control.

It's basically a fatty acid that's, 

through either sodium or potassium hydroxide, gets 

turned into a soap, which is useful for insect 

control.

Interesting thing, we did a 2010 TR for 

this because it had been quite a while. And 

there's little, as they say, little to suggest that 

they pose a threat to the environment when used 

as approved. The turnover, the half-life is less 

than a day. So, it really is not -- there's no 

residual. And again, there's been overwhelming 

support every time it comes up.

Also, which is interesting, too, it 

doesn't seem to have any effect on the beneficial 

insects, which I think is pretty positive, such 

as lady bugs.

So, the Subcommittee voted unanimously 

to relist it.

Comments?

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Other 

questions or comments?

(No response.)
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I am not seeing. So, we will move to 

the vote.

The motion is to remove insecticidal 

soaps from 205.601(e)(8) of the National List. 

It was made by Rick. It was seconded by Dave.

And we will start the voting back at 

Sue.

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's zero yes, 15 no. The 

motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Back to you, Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Thank you for that, 

Rick.

We've moving on to vitamin D3, 

reference 205.601(g).

Wood?

MR. TURNER: Thanks, Jesse.

This is a material that we often 

commonly think of an addition to food, but it is 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

also used as aid, used in (audio interference) and 

pellet baits for rodents, particularly used in and 

around facilities and in fruit and nut orchards.

It had some strong support from most 

of the community, I think for organizations that 

represent multiple growers. All say that the 

growers can use it.

There has been some comment over time 

about its lack of effectiveness, but the strong 

support from the community is that it continues 

to provide kind of an important almost last resort 

for rodent control.

There were some comments that suggested 

some of the issues related to safety in dairy 

production and in orchards. In particular, it 

could be significant if this material were not 

available to control rodents. It's also really 

compelling to see comments from the community to 

show examples of what happens when this material 

is not available and not used in certain contexts, 

the damage that can be done to crops.

So, again, in the past we talked about 

concern about that it sort of cruelly affects, 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

cruelly kills rodents, but I did not see any of 

those comments in this particular cycle, and 

recommend that we keep it on the list.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Are there 

questions or comments?

(No response.)

I am not seeing any. So, we will go 

on to the vote.

The motion is to remove vitamin D3 from 

205.601 of the National List.

MR. TURNER: I think Dave has a 

question.

Oh, thank you. Go ahead, Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. Sorry. I just 

was curious about one point that I missed before 

now. There's a line in there on environmental 

issues, Wood, that says it has to do with non-target 

effects. Since its use is restricted by the EPA 

to bait stations, the risk of accidental poisonings 

of non-target species has been addressed. I just 

was curious what species they were referring to 

do. Is it --

MR. TURNER: I think there have been 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

some comments in the past about impacts to small 

mammals, but it's typically not of a concern to 

birds, in particular. So, I don't have any 

specificity beyond some concern about small 

mammals.

MR. MORTENSEN: Okay. Okay. Thanks.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Any further comments?

(No response.)

All right. Thanks, Wood, for pointing 

that out. I have to close my screen to look at 

raised hands in order to read the Subcommittee 

vote. So, it's good to have another set of eyes.

MR. TURNER: I'm here for you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. I like 

that.

The motion is to remove vitamin D3 from 

205.601 of the National List. The motion is made 

by Wood and seconded by Jerry.

And we will start with Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's zero yes, 15 no. The 

motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Jesse, back 

to you.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Thank you for that, 

Wood.

And now, we go on to aquatic plant 

extracts, reference 205.601.

Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you.

Synthetic substances allowed for use 

in organic crop production. So, farmers and 

farmer groups support the relisting of this as they 

are used extensively by growers for foliar and 

solar applications. Trade organizations also 

support aquatic plant extracts as important 

materials. An organic fertilizer manufacturer 

also raised support, and a number of certifiers 

wrote in to report significant numbers of growers 

using aquatic plant extracts.

One commenter repeated a concern they 

raised during the spring meeting stating, "Some 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

certifying agencies allow only the hydroxides for 

extraction while others assume the hydrolized 

extracts are non-synthetic, making them included 

as well. Interpreting the parenthetical clause 

`other than hydrolized' is confusing, making it 

unclear as to what is allowed and what is not. 

We request that the NOP National List manager 

clarify what is meant by `other than hydrolized' 

to clarify this issue."

And I know this has been raised to the 

NOP and hope and assume the conversation has 

continued from there.

So, to explain the vote in the 

Subcommittee, one member voted no, based on 

environmental concerns; two abstained, and waiting 

to see what transpired with the marine 

materials -- sorry -- the Materials Subcommittee's 

marine macroalgae proposal.

Are there any other questions about it 

or any questions?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there any comments 

or questions?

Dave has one.
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: So, Emily, in light of 

our vote last night, could you walk us through the 

logic model here, as our vote last night informs 

our thinking about this?

MS. OAKLEY: Well, I can only, I guess, 

answer for myself, but I see that our vote last 

night would certainly make me vote for this listing 

because I hope that our vote last night will go 

through rulemaking. But I don't know if you are 

wanting to ask, in particular, about the 

environmental concerns raised. I don't want to 

put anybody on the spot, but if there's anybody 

that wants to answer that from their point of view, 

they'd be welcome to. But I will be voting to 

relist it myself.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Hi. I think I was the 

one who voted against relisting in Subcommittee. 

And again, this was part of this general concern 

I have about mining or extracting nutrients and 

resources from one environment and moving them to 

another, and just overall, a sense that we need 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to think of the full cycle and that it's important 

to scrutinize the materials where they originate.

And I feel like the macroalgae proposal 

addresses some of those concerns and begins to 

point us in the direction that will keep us thinking 

about and, hopefully, have rules that address, in 

this case particularly, seaweeds, both 

domestically and internationally.

So, I think I'm going to reverse my vote 

here, but that was my original concern.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. We have Emily, 

and then, Dave.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, I just wanted to echo 

Asa's comments. I think that the concerns are 

real, and I hope that we will, as a Board, continue 

to realize that. Especially when we're taking a 

wild, native species out of a wild, native 

ecosystem, there are just particular 

responsibilities, I think, incumbent upon us to

assess that they are meeting all of the criteria 

of not harmful to the environment.

So, thanks.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, and thank you. 

This thread is helpful.

I mean, we're assuming that, since 

we're voting to relist or not, we're assuming if 

we vote to relist, that the vote that we took last 

night would, hopefully, kick in sometime soon, 

since part of the logic by some of our Board members 

that was made last night is the urgency of us doing 

this right, harvesting seaweed right. Because if 

we relist this and we don't do it right, then we 

are kicking the can down the road five years. Is 

that right?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes. Sorry.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I would agree with you. 

Dave.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes. I mean, it will take 

a long time for what we passed yesterday to finally 

come into effect. But, yes, I mean I think you're 

right that those of us who are voting, some of us 

at least who are voting to relist it now are doing 

so with the full understanding that the NOP would, 

hopefully, take up what we passed yesterday for 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the marine macroalgae proposal.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse has a comment.

MR. BUIE: And our stakeholders have 

expressed the need for this, is that correct?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, it is one of the most 

widely used products, along with liquid fish.

MR. BUIE: Okay.

MS. OAKLEY: It is a very commonly used 

material.

MR. BUIE: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Other comments?

(No response.)

I just want to throw in that I will vote 

for relisting on this because I think it is a very 

important product. But I am concerned that we 

preface our votes on the vote last night on marine 

algae because, I mean, rulemaking is a very lengthy 

process, as we have seen on several other topics 

that are priorities at this point. And so, I 

guess, personally, I don't want to be pessimistic, 

except that it's going to take a while.

I mean, I think, by our vote last night, 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

we certainly signaled that we are concerned about 

marine environments and want to follow up on that, 

but I think it will be a significant amount of time 

before that, in terms of rulemaking, comes to pass. 

So, that is one of my concerns. Like I say, I'll 

vote to relist, but I want to be cautious about 

saying that we have solved the problem.

Wood?

MR. TURNER: I think I've been clear 

in other comments that I feel like part of our job 

is to regenerate ecosystems broadly. And I 

appreciate what Asa said. It's very helpful for 

me to hear Asa's thinking on his reversing his vote 

from the Subcommittee.

I just want to point out I find Dave's 

comments to be very compelling, and the comments 

you just added, Steve, very compelling. And I am 

concerned that the process here is going to leave 

some ecosystems exposed for a period of time 

without the benefit of some stronger rules. So, 

I'm really struggling. I fully understand the 

need the community has for the material. I just 

want to be on the record as saying this is a really 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

tough one in terms of timing for me.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, I mean, I just hope 

that the program is listening, because I think that 

the angst that some of us may feel about this just 

drives more need for the program to take this, or 

take yesterday's vote on marine macroalgae to 

rulemaking. And it just underscores, I think, the 

Board's hope that that happens soon, rather than 

later.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. I am not 

seeing further comments. So, we will go to the 

vote.

The vote is to remove aquatic plant 

extracts from 205.601(j), based on the following 

criteria.

Motion was made by Emily. It was 

seconded by Wood.

We will start with Jesse.

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry? Are you there, 

Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: My answer is no.
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Abstain.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Abstain.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: I'm going to abstain on 

this one.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That's zero yes, 12 no, 3 

abstentions. The motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Jesse, back to 

you.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Thank you, Emily.

Lignin sulfonate.

Rick, are you ready to go?

205.601(j).

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. So, we've 

already discussed the other lignin compound that 

was a proposal. Lignin sulfonate has been on the 

National list.

Tremendous support from the 

stakeholders. Saw 25 positive written comments, 

one negative.

Again, it's used as a chelating 

agent/dust suppressant. It's a byproduct of the 

paper manufacturing process. It has low toxicity 

and has been approved by others, such as the 

Canadian General Standards and IFOAM have used 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

lignins on their list.

So, a lot of support. The Subcommittee 

voted -- there were only seven members at the time 

of the vote, and it was all positive for relisting.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there other 

comments?

Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes, this was the one I was 

not able to think through it clearly earlier, and 

it related to our petition material. We did have 

a comment sort of getting a little more at how 

lignin sulfonate is listed on the National List, 

and looking to get some clarity on that listing 

and just questioning whether an annotation could 

be revisited to help out in that clarification. 

And that's kind of where I was looking at, if 

there's any discussion about that in relation to 

that comment or if anybody has any thoughts on it.

MR. GREENWOOD: Unless I missed it, I 

really didn't see anything in terms of all the broad 

support for annotations. What would you think 

would be an appropriate annotation?

MR. RICE: I don't think I'm in a 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

position to offer that, but I would just say -- and 

obviously, we can't change this at sunset -- but 

perhaps in Crops take a look at that and see if 

there's a need for addressing a second look at the 

annotation; that's all.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. Fair enough.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Other thoughts, 

comments, questions?

(No response.)

Okay. We will move on to the vote.

The motion is to remove lignin 

sulfonate at 205.601(j). That's plant or soil 

amendments for lignin sulfonate, a chelating agent 

that's present on the National List.

Motion was made by Rick. It was 

seconded by Emily.

And we will start with Jerry.

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: The Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: That is zero yes, 15 noes. 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Back to you, Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Thank you, Rick.

Our next one is sodium silicate, 

205.601, and that is you, Steve.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. So, I just want 

to address sodium silicate is primarily used to 

help pack pears. Pears are heavier than water. 

So, if you add the sodium silicate to the water, 

it changes the density of the water and the pears 

will float, making them much easier to move onto 

a packing line.

There's also a reference for fiber 

processing. I will say that we received, 

essentially, no comments on fiber processing, and 

there's a question whether the annotation should 

be changed to exclude fiber processing, but, of 

course, that is not our step right now.

Basically, I heard from the Pacific 

Northwest Fruit Council, and several others up in 

that neck of the woods, that this is still essential 

for small processors who do not have the economic 

wherewithal to put in different types of packing 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

lines that are able to extricate pears from those 

dump tanks.

We did hear a couple of negative 

comments saying that this is essentially a glass 

product, that another name for it is water glass, 

and that that in itself provides potentially a 

health problem.

But I guess this is a product that's 

not widely used at all. This has a very specific 

use, but that specific use does benefit smaller 

growers and small packing operations. So, given 

that, I'm in favor of relisting.

Others have questions or comments?

(No response.)

All right. I am not seeing any.

See, Rick, I hand these things to you 

that people don't respond to. So, don't feel bad.

We are going to start with Rick, 

speaking of Rick.

(No response.)

Are you there, Rick? Rick, are you out 

there?

MR. RICE: We can see him.
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ARSENAULT: Looks like he's muted.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick, we're not hearing 

you.

(No response.)

Okay. We will move on and count Rick 

as an abstention, or as an absent. Excuse me.

All right. Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae?

MR. GREENWOOD: Steve?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Hey, Rick.

MR. BUIE: There Rick is.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. No.
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Go ahead, Rick. What's 

your vote?

MR. BUIE: Okay. We got you.

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, I'm having 

trouble unmuting.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Yes, we noticed. 

So, that's fine.

A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry? Jerry, are you 

out there?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes, I'm here. No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: The Chair votes no.
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: That's zero yes, 15 no. The 

motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Jesse, back 

to you.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Thank you, Steve, 

for that.

Okay. EPA List 4. And be reminded 

we're going to have two votes on -- well, we're 

supposed to have two votes on this. We'll have 

the livestock after this one, based on how things 

progress.

So, Asa, your ball game.

MR. BRADMAN: Okay. Thank you.

And this is going to be one of the more 

challenging votes this morning.

Can everyone hear me okay?

CHAIRMAN ELA: You're good, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Thanks.

Just to provide a little context here, 

and without repeating too much of what we talked 

about earlier in the week.

We have a system for pesticide 

formulations that permits, quote-unquote, "inert 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ingredients" that are on the current EPA List 4. 

Just a reminder that I'm going to be using the 

word "inert," and we've heard in many places, and 

I've expressed that really "inert" is the 

inappropriate term for these substances. They're 

not necessarily chemically or biologically inert. 

And I'd like to change that.

But we have a situation here where the 

National List references EPA List 4, and the EPA 

List 4 was produced as part of the evaluation of, 

quote-unquote, "inert ingredients" resulting from 

a view initiated by the Food Quality Protection 

Act of 1996. And that list became incorporated 

into the National List, but was later -- I'm not 

sure the word is "abandoned" -- but no longer 

maintained or evaluated by EPA after their FQPA 

review was over. And that occurred back around 

2006-2009, around there.

There are some concerns about the 

material we have. You know, we have a 4A and a 

4B. Just a reminder that we have a number of 

food-grade 25(b) materials that are on the list, 

and those are kind of excluded. Really, the 
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

discussion we have and the issues we have are over 

the synthetics on List 4, and that's really where 

we have, I think, the biggest gnashing of teeth 

about how to deal with that.

There are concerns that these materials 

from the Synthetic List 4 were incorporated into 

the National List without thorough review, and 

that, over time, understanding of these materials 

has changed and there may be some materials that 

would no longer meet OFPA or other criteria, or 

whether they ever met them; and that there's also 

a need for room for more other materials that could 

be used for new pesticide formulations.

And I'm going to reiterate some of my 

comments earlier in the week. I think the need 

for softer and less toxic materials is important, 

both in the context of organic agriculture, but 

also materials that bridge and find markets in 

conventional production as well. Any movement 

towards less toxic materials that are more specific 

and less disruptive is important. So, I think, 

in general, this is an industry that is important 

and that we want to support.
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I also want to note that written into 

OFPA is the requirement that substances, synthetic 

substances, quote, "are not classified by the 

Administrator of EPA as inerts of toxicological 

concern". So, that is written into OFPA separate 

from the List 4 reference in the National List.

So, I just want to make sure we keep 

that in mind as background for this discussion.

MS. JEFFERY: I'm sorry, Asa, could you 

say that one more time for me? Just that last 

sentence.

MR. BRADMAN: So, in OFPA, Section 

2118, it's in the write up that non-synthetics used 

in production and containing synthetic inert 

ingredients are not classed by the administration 

of the Environmental Protection Agency as inerts 

of toxicological concern. In other words, to put 

the flip side of this, we're saying that we can 

only use materials that are not of toxicological 

concern.

So, in a way, this is written a little 

backwards, but it still makes the point that EPA 

is intrinsically involved in the review that would 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

go into these materials, and that is separate from 

our reference to List 4 in the National List.

So, as we've heard, there's been a lot 

of concern about the reference to the EPA List 4, 

which is explicitly not supported by EPA anymore. 

And in general, this reflects a feeling that we 

have a broken system, not a feeling, a reality that 

we have a broken system and that there hasn't been 

a way for there to be continuous review, and the 

potential for improvement, in the materials used 

for pest control in the Organic Center.

And I guess I want to reiterate, in 

conversations I've had with folks and comments, 

the idea of OFPA and the organic program is one 

of continuous improvement. And that means ongoing 

and continuing review of materials we allow, and 

this review of List 4 is -- you know, we're on a 

five-year schedule, and it's really part of the 

process. And I don't think it's something that 

should be seen as a threat to the organic community 

or different sectors of the organic community.

This has been going on for 10 years or 

more. Back in 2015, there were recommendations 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

made to the NOP by the NOSB at that time, and those 

are kind of referenced in the write up. The basic 

summary there was, one, the minimal risk compounds, 

like food-graded materials, those are good. And 

then, there's a reference to the EPA safer Design 

for the Environment at that time, Safer Choice 

Program, and that we should work with the EPA and 

this program to develop an organic-specific list 

of inerts.

And there's been proposals to evaluate 

the current List 4 materials and any new materials 

in that context. And again, that I think reflects 

the foundational law which states collaboration 

with EPA is really a basis for developing inert 

lists. And again, we have this expired list and 

even suggestions by EPA that USDA no longer use 

these as a reference material.

So, the idea that's been laid out in 

previous recommendations does provide a roadmap 

for dealing with this challenge working with EPA. 

One session, the Design for the Environment, and 

now the Safer Choice Program, are natural partners 

in that system. And I think that we have a 
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

situation where we have a path to make sure that 

all sectors of the community can review these 

materials and review the process, and come up with 

a system that addresses concerns raised by OFPA 

and concerns about the environment; and also, needs 

of the pesticide industry.

I've said, both last year at the spring 

meeting and this year, that I think there's been 

some incredible comments by stakeholders in the 

public comments. And in particular, I've called 

out the recommendations by the National Organic 

Coalition last spring, and repeated this year. 

They've really outlined some specific steps in 

terms of taking concrete and ordered steps to 

request for public comment, develop an MOU with 

EPA, and then, again, to create an organic-specific 

list with the EPA and the Safer Choice Program to 

address the needs of the organic sector.

This is not, I want to reiterate, not 

the idea that we're just going to use the existing 

Safer Chemical Ingredient List as a replacement 

for the current inerts. That was never the intent. 

And we're not talking about products that were 
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

being evaluated for detergents or cleaning or skin 

products. Rather, we're talking about a program 

that would include the Design for the Environment 

or Safer Choice Program, and to the extent 

necessary, the Office of Pesticide Programs 

pesticides, EPA, to really refine the materials 

that are available.

You know, I've heard loud and clear, 

and we've heard loud and clear, that this is a 

controversial issue, that there's a lot of concern. 

Well, one extreme would be if the lists weren't 

allowed, materials weren't allowed. The pest 

control products would not be available, and then, 

that would lead to chaos and the lack of materials 

to actually produce food organically. We've heard 

numbers like 60 percent, 90 percent.

And the intent is not to create that 

kind of uncertainty if we delisted. Rather, it's 

to set up an orderly process to review what we have 

and come up with a system that reflects input from 

all of the community, and I guess reiterate the 

feeling that we do have a broken system. We refer 

to a list of materials that EPA has explicitly said 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

they are no longer supported.

So, I guess I also want to step back 

a little bit from a philosophical point of view. 

One thing that's clear in this discussion is that 

pesticides are extremely important for organic 

production. And we have developed a system to 

identify materials that meet the standards of 

organic and are less toxic than many conventional 

pesticides. Of course, some materials like 

sulphur are used in all different settings, but, 

in general, the materials used in the organic 

setting are less toxic from a both human health 

and environmental basis.

As we've heard earlier, one of the 

really foundational concerns that led to the origin 

of organic just is the use of pesticides. Given 

how important pesticides are to organic, I think, 

as a community, we have to really think carefully 

about what's going into those materials. And this 

is an attempt to continue our process or move ahead 

our process of continuous improvement and come up 

with a system that unbreaks the system we have and 

ensures that all sectors of the environment, of 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the organic community, are represented, and also, 

to preserve the integrity of organic.

I think we have to be really careful 

when we talk about pesticides and organic. We need 

a transparent and thoughtful process of how we 

maintain our system of continuous improvement.

And I acknowledge for me this is a hard 

vote, one way or the other. I have doubts in both 

directions, and I am concerned about creating a 

view, make a decision that would be perceived as 

undermining the logic of our regulatory oversight 

and recommendation process. And these are all 

challenges I think we need to think about and talk 

about and individually make that decision as we 

vote on these two sunset reviews.

So, I guess that leaves it open for 

discussion.

CHAIRMAN ELA: It does. Thank you, 

Asa, for very thorough laying out of the points. 

I appreciate your thoughtfulness on this.

We will open it up for discussion. And 

I know this is a complicated topic. I have some 

comments of my own, but I will let other Board 
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

members go first, if they so choose.

Go ahead, anybody. Okay. Scott, go 

ahead.

MR. RICE: Thanks. And thanks, Asa, 

for covering those points, and I appreciate your 

deep knowledge on that.

I think we, through what we heard during 

Livestock and what we've heard through today, and 

certainly a few discussions we're going to have, 

I think we are very much in agreement, and the 

community is very much in agreement, that there 

needs to be a change and we need to get beyond this 

sticky EPA List 4 issue. It really does get down 

to just, what is that approach?

I appreciate Dr. Tucker's mentioning 

that a deadline is what gets things done and a 

deadline also strikes fear. But I think, in terms 

of our process, I really have a hard time with using 

this vote as sending a message, especially when 

we know that the road of regulation and making it 

is a long one. And we heard from Jenny, if in two 

years there isn't anything to replace this, this 

will just go back onto the list.
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I realize you could argue that both 

ways. We could vote either way and it will just 

be there. But I would say we hear strong voicing 

from the community that we still need these 

materials, with all due recognition that we need 

to shift away from some of them and find a different 

way to review.

I think much of our work is nuanced and 

detailed, and we can see that from this discussion. 

But politics doesn't see that, and the outside 

folks that don't hold our industry in such high 

regard aren't going to take that nuance. They're 

going to take this message that we're talking about 

sending and potentially point to it as our crazy 

Board and an unwise decision, and they're just kind 

of not in touch with what is needed.

And I just really want to caution how 

we take this approach. I personally can't 

support -- as much as I really would love this issue 

to progress, I think we can get this to progress 

with other ways of pressure, through other ways 

of lobbying, through other ways of moving forward 

with NOP, with a vote to keep this for now and move 
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the issue forward as well.

So, thanks for listening.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes, and thank you. I 

totally appreciate what you're saying. In fact, 

I hold both of those, your argument and perhaps 

the other side, to act quickly through the sunset 

review. I hold both of those places in my thinking 

and heart about this. And I appreciate the 

comments.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate has a comment.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you so much for 

that introduction, Asa, and, Scott, for your 

comment just now.

Just a quick comment. When I first got 

into the world of NOSB, it was starting in about 

2016, but I started really kind of understanding 

the process in 2017. And I remember having to go 

into constituent meetings and defend the National 

Organic Standards Board, that we shouldn't be 

putting language into the 2018 farm bill. It was, 

I think, Senator Roberts who was proposing some 

pretty strong language that could have compromised 

and changed the NOSB a lot.
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And so, in that lobbying effort when 

we were storming the Hill as farmers to say, "Leave 

the NOSB the way it is," at that time -- I was trying 

to remember -- I don't even think that there was 

really are reason that they were coming after the 

NOSB.

And my worry would be that, given such 

strong and consistent messaging from our 

constituents, especially farmers, that we need to 

relist List 4 and not let it go away without a proper 

replacement in place, I think given that, there 

would be an easy argument to make that the NOSB 

doesn't pay attention to our constituents and that 

we're not reflecting the input that we're getting.

And I think that this is the most 

fantastic democratic institution, and I really 

want us to move forward, as everyone is in agreement 

on. But I think there's, like Scott said, other 

paths to do that without risking destabilizing so 

much of the industry.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes, and again, I echo 

everyone's thanks to Asa for all this work.
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I've probably said this several 

times now, and I guess I'll say it again: farmers 

are going to panic. As far as they can see, NOSB 

for some reason has taken the very tools that they 

need to survive away from them. And just because 

we have assurances from Jenny, and I believe Jenny 

with all of her heart believes that this is the 

way to go, doesn't mean that some of the other 

legislators and things would not see this as an 

opportunity to perhaps even destroy organics.

We've heard from so many of our 

stakeholders that say, "Please don't do this," 

including from Zea Sonnabend and Emily Brown Rosen. 

We revere those as leaders in the world, and 

they're saying, "Don't go this route."

I'm just going to have to say I won't 

support this.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood, and then, I'll 

make my comments.

MR. TURNER: I just want to ask a 

question of maybe others, maybe not Asa, maybe 

Nate. Look, I said yesterday, or the last time 

we discussed this, that I am still inclined to 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

strongly support the process that Asa has laid out 

for us here, and getting this moving in a different 

direction.

I find it unbelievably uncomfortable 

to think that we're still existing in a world where 

this outdated list is somehow in reference in 

what's guiding organic. It seems I cannot believe 

there's not more of a sense of urgency from the 

community as a whole to just get this done, to just 

move this along, to move this forward. To have 

an outdated list on the record like this just makes

no sense to me.

At the same time, I hear everything that 

Scott is saying, everything that Sue is saying, 

everything that Asa is saying, and it's sitting 

very hard for me. So, I guess I would ask maybe 

Nate, because of Nate's eloquent words on this, 

if we don't do something here, do you really 

believe -- like show me what, tell me what's going 

to happen next. Tell me how we're going to move 

this forward. Tell me how this is really going 

to change. I just don't see another proposal that 

really has convinced me that we're going to 
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

actually get this moving in the direction that I 

think it needs to be moving.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you for that, 

Wood.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes, can I respond 

or should we keep going?

CHAIRMAN ELA: I'm going to take the 

unusual step and say, yes, you may respond. Then, 

I jump in. Then, Mindee has a comment.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I'll try to be quick, 

yes.

First, the 2015 recommendation I think 

was hard work that the Board has already done in 

trying to guide the program. And there is a lot 

of work that we can be doing. The work is not 

predicated on us delisting List 4. It can happen 

while List 4 is still up.

And so, I'd say -- and it's not my 

analogy -- but it's similar to getting and 

repealing Obamacare without a replacement. 

There's no reason you can't draft the replacement 

and have it ready. And the same for the program, 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

there's no reason that we can't -- I realize it's 

an incentive to get moving, but I think that, on 

one hand, it is the opportunity do good work and 

get moving along. On the other hand, I don't think 

the risk is worth it; that if it goes poorly, we 

risk panicking farmers when the country's nerves 

are just raw right now. We risk signaling that 

we don't listen to our farmers; we don't listen 

to our stakeholders. And I think that is much more 

concerning because the trust that the Board has 

right now is something special and something not 

seen in other federal advisory boards.

And so, I'd say I would work and I would 

take smarter people than me opinions on the best 

way to incentivize the program, to make a 

transition from List 4, but I don't think leaving 

us with no clear alternative, while taking away, 

technically, delisting and taking away the tools, 

is the right path forward. I think there are other 

ways to do it without that risk.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Nate.

Okay. I'll jump in, and then, Mindee, 

we'll come to you.
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I so appreciate the comments from 

everybody in this discussion. It is obviously not 

an easy discussion for anybody. And I have heard 

people saying, well, why is Steve pushing this 

through so hard? You know, if you had asked me 

a year ago would I really be involved deeply in 

this issue, I would have said no. And I sincerely 

sympathize with the concerns for a missed step 

helping cause the demise of the organic program. 

That touched very deeply to me, and I worry about 

that as well.

On the other hand, and as I said, I am 

a pesticide user and a user of these materials, 

and it would take me out of business if they were 

delisted as well. So, there's a very visceral 

response there as well as a farmer and in the 

farmer's seat. And I respect all the comments we 

got from farmers.

I have a couple of things, and I guess 

one is, I know you all, as Board members, have 

gotten lots of emails and calls, especially since 

the Livestock discussion. I'm going to say to the 

stakeholders, I got a few of those, but not many. 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I would really appreciate, people, if you have 

issues with my thoughts and my comments, that you 

reach out to me directly. I am willing to engage 

in constructive debate, and I take other people's 

thoughts in mind. I do not believe that my 

thoughts are perfect. And so, I would encourage 

in the future stakeholders not work behind, but 

contact me directly as well. I'm very willing to 

engage.

In fact, a few people have contacted 

me, and they have said very different things than 

what they have told other Board members. So, that 

really disappoints me and frustrates me in terms 

of due process and being able to make educated 

choices.

What I have heard a lot is this really 

comes -- and Sue mentioned Zea and others -- this 

comes down to a basic distrust of the National 

Organic Program. And I apologize, Jenny and Devon 

and Jared and Michelle, our stakeholders are deeply 

skeptical of the intent and process here. And I 

recognize that in the past there have been issues 

with that. And I will say that that will probably 
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

be an issue in the future at some point. So, I 

don't disregard those comments as valid.

On the other hand, we have had since 

2015 to put this into place, as the NOSB and the 

NOP, and nothing has happened. And in that time, 

we have had comments every Board meeting asking 

us to do something to fix this broken system, and 

that has not happened.

So, I truly believe that in the future, 

if we relist this, that nothing will happen by the 

time this comes up by the next sunset. I don't 

believe the NOSB has the power to tackle this issue. 

We certainly don't have the power to reach out 

to EPA and form collaborative agreements. I don't 

think we have the time to work on this as a Board 

without putting everything else to the side.

And also, in all the stakeholder 

comments that we've heard about delisting and the 

worry about that, I did not hear anything that says 

what kind of system we should use to replace this. 

And I think, as a group, we need to come up with 

these constructive ways to replace List 4s, and 

that has not happened in the five years that we 
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

have worked on this. So, that really bothers me.

I accept criticism. I accept the worry 

about delisting. I am one of those people. But 

I also haven't seen constructive thoughts of how 

do we replace this system, even when we had all 

those choices. And I have heard from stakeholders 

on the other side consistently that this is a broken 

system and they are very worried about it.

So, I would caution the Board in this 

last flurry of emails and calls that there is 

another side to this that did not engage in this 

attempted lobbying effort. And in a sense of 

fairness -- my dad was a judge -- I really believe 

in the democratic process and giving equal access 

to all sides to Board members. I know that doesn't 

always happen, but I know one former Board member 

accused us of backroom deals, and I really take 

affront at that because I think we have tried to 

be as transparent as possible on this topic.

I always said that I felt like we did 

fail in the write up to adequately address where 

our movement was and how we wanted to move forward. 

I apologize to our stakeholders who are really 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

deeply concerned about their livelihoods and 

removing these materials. I will admit failure 

to trying to address that in the write up, but that 

doesn't mean there's failure to actually 

adequately think about these things.

I agree, is this a process where we 

should vote to delist without adequate program in 

place? But I guess I truly believe, also, that 

there will not be an adequate program in place in 

five years if we do not move on this now.

Jenny has said this will be a program 

priority. She selects her program priorities very 

judiciously. I did not serve under Miles, so I 

do not know how he progressed with those things. 

But I accept Jenny's integrity to say this is a 

priority and it will be worked on.

If that was the only thing, you know, 

trusting her word, that would move this forward, 

I would hesitate. I like Jenny a lot and I trust 

her word, but if that was the only thing, I probably 

wouldn't recommend that we delist.

However, I do feel that there are 

failsafes in this system. The first is, in two 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

years, if nothing happens, this is automatically 

relisted. And I think that's a really strong 

failsafe.

If this is moved to delisting, the 

industry is going to derail that delisting based 

on economic impact. And if there's some nefarious 

hand at work, OFPA in itself says that we can't 

use, that our industry can't use synthetics unless 

they are on the National List. So, if there's some 

way to suddenly delist these and go to like the 

European model, where inerts are not looked at, 

OFPA itself says that that won't work.

I worry about nefarious things, and I 

worry about the National Organic Program and I 

worry about organic growers. Whichever way this 

vote goes, it's fine, but I really believe we have 

a window here to move this broken system forward. 

And I think this window will only be open for a 

little bit.

If we vote to relist this, I'll go with 

that. I'll do my best, just as Chair, to make that 

work, but I really don't think we're going to be 

any different than we are in five years, and I just 
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

hate to see this broken system propagate.

So, those are my thoughts. I hate to 

be the person going against stakeholder thoughts 

and comments, but I have heard these stakeholder 

comments in other years as well on the opposite 

side, and I think we need to find a way to move 

forward. And so, it puts me in the awkward 

position of pushing something that many people 

don't agree with and are scared about.

And with that, if the vote goes the 

other way, I'm all behind it, but I just don't 

see -- this is the way I see forward at this moment 

in time, that there's a window, and I don't think 

that will exist in the future. So, those are my 

two cents.

Mindee, and then, Emily. Then, Nate.

MS. JEFFERY: That's a rough follow up, 

Steve.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sorry.

MS. JEFFERY: I wouldn't want to play 

after you.

(Laughter.)

So, thank you, Steve. The combination 
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of great leadership and great partnerships, 

they're rare in business and in governance. And 

it's thus far been my experience as a Board member 

that we're in that bubble. And I'd like to express 

my gratitude for the work and the partnership and 

the willingness to tackle this difficult issue. 

I have a lot of faith in the program, and I really 

see the great choices and awesome staff people that 

we're working with. And I think this is a really 

great time for us to work on this issue.

I want organic to be understood as a 

leading example of democracy, of functional 

compromise in a partnership with a willing federal 

agency. It's my experience that we, as an organic 

community, are succeeding at this radical notion 

in these radical times.

Given the political climate and the 

uncertainty in Washington, I'm uncomfortable with 

going against our constituency in a process that 

isn't as transparent as they want it to be. And 

I am really comfortable with your leadership, 

Steve, and I am really grateful that we have 

expertise on this Board right now. And I think 
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that, in the sense of consensus, we have to come 

along this path together, and if that means that 

we have to take a steady and metered approach to 

something to make consensus, I think it's wise for 

us to do that.

And I'm more comfortable with Steve and 

the program spending a year outlining a transparent 

process. And whether that's a Memorandum of 

Understanding or the formation of a working group, 

I'm okay with taking more time on this issue because 

I think we have to be together. I don't think 2020 

is a year to risk destabilizing our producers, and 

I hear loud and clear that our community wants the 

NOSB to be involved in transparent processes. And 

I think that's a radical notion at the federal 

level. I think that's a radical notion for the 

way that the next generation is calling for 

transparent democracy, and that we can presence 

ourselves as leading that movement, as a successful 

example. I don't think the path forward is for 

us to delist inerts. I think the path forward is 

for us to take this issue seriously and work on 

it in a transparent process.
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Mindee.

Emily, and then, Nate.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, thank you. This is 

just a really great dialog that everyone is having. 

And I always appreciate collegial and frank 

conversations that this Board has.

I just wanted to point out that, 

although we did hear from a lot of folks in 

opposition to delisting, we did hear from folks 

supportive of this move this time around as well. 

So, it's not as if there wasn't support from some 

stakeholders for this move. So, I just wanted to 

point that out.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Nate again, and 

then, Dan.

MR. POWELL-PALM: All right. I'll try 

to be brief.

I do want to reiterate that I feel 

really lucky to have landed on the Board at this 

time for the pure reason that I get to see Steve's 

leadership, and I trust Steve immensely with this 

topic. I trust Steve immensely with everything. 

I think it's incredible leadership.
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I think that I'm coming from a position 

very, very close to the farmer right now. 2020 

was a havoc-wreaking year, and farms and the system 

are very fragile right now.

And it is something to see rural 

communities, and especially rural communities 

based on the economic possibilities that organic 

provides -- seeing them challenged further by the 

potential destabilizing nature of this action is 

something I can't support and I really hope that 

we understand that we all want to move forward 

together, but I think, as Mindee said, can't we 

spend -- I mean, I think it's worthy of my entire 

tenure on the Board to figure this out over years 

and put a lot of work into it, not that that's not 

already been done. But I think it's something 

that, from the farmers' perspective, 

destabilizing, the potential for destabilizing is 

too great in this instance.

And I guess I would just, if it's 

possible to pose a question to Jenny, why can't 

we move forward with the 2015 recommendation and 

not delist and not put ourselves in this position 
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

where we're left without a safety net? Well, left 

with basically giving up what we currently have 

in place of something that we have no idea what 

it's going to be. We don't have any path forward 

right now. Is that possible for Jenny to speak 

to that, or inappropriate timing?

CHAIRMAN ELA: That is up to her.

DR. TUCKER: I was going to say that's 

up to Steve. If it's okay with Steve, I'm happy 

to comment.

(Laughter.)

Steve, do you want me to say something 

or do you want me hold off?

CHAIRMAN ELA: No, go ahead.

DR. TUCKER: Okay. I will say the same 

thing I said when I opened this topic. There's 

nothing as inspiring as a deadline. There's 

nothing as scary as a deadline. And that's true 

inside the building, too, right?

A vote to delist would certainly be a 

very, very strong signal to the program. I think 

I said towards the end of the last discussion that, 

based upon the public comments that have come in, 
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and based upon sort of the discussion that has been 

had here, we do have the 2015 recommendation.

We have a couple of legal problems with 

that the Safer Choice was just a framework and not 

an actual list. And we have a little bit of a 

problem in sort of how this referring to 

non-codified lists -- again, we would move forward 

with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

So, I think another way to ask the 

question is, can I sell an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in the building without a vote 

to delist? And my answer to that would be I will 

try my darndest.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you.

DR. TUCKER: I'm going to try to move 

this forward in any way I possibly can, regardless 

of how you vote.

MR. POWELL-PALM: Thank you, Jenny.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jenny.

Dan, then Asa, then Dave.

DR. SEITZ: So, from my perspective as 

a consumer representative, I think there are 

probably two issues that are uppermost in the 
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

minds, at least from my experience, in the minds 

of consumers. And that would be pesticide 

residue, pesticide use, especially in organic and, 

also, genetically-modified organisms, genetic 

engineering.

Having listened to this conversation, 

I have gone back and forth already several times. 

It's partly because, on the one hand, I do believe 

that consumers would want to see movement here, 

and I appreciate the political concerns that have 

been raised here, this being a particularly 

difficult year.

So, I just want to say that I think both 

are very real issues. I probably will not make 

up my mind until I actually vote, but I appreciate 

the difficult and detailed conversation.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, Dan.

Asa? Then Dave.

MR. BRADMAN: Just very briefly to 

follow up on one of Nate's comments, I mean, I had 

expected, when I joined the Board, that this was 

going to be my issue for the five years here, and 
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

four years are gone now.

But I'm definitely interested in 

working on these issues. We have a pretty full 

agenda, but, still, I think this is important. 

And I would volunteer to help work on these issues, 

and I'll even volunteer -- and this is getting 

recorded right now -- that, after I'm off the Board, 

I would be happy to participate in some role that 

could help move this forward.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Here, here.

Dave.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, I just wanted to 

thank Nate and Mindee. Those perspectives were 

ones I hadn't been thinking about.

When I came onto the Board, I think the 

very first meeting four years ago we talked about 

this at length, actually. In fact, I think it's 

probably the time that Asa's referring to, at least 

in the first year. And it's gone largely 

unaddressed.

There's no question there has been, and 

there continues to be, difficulty with -- and this 

is from past experience; I've seen it play 
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

out -- USDA and EPA working together to solve 

problems where you have to sit down together and 

work through the problem. But I also did see where 

the Secretary of Agriculture, basically, mandated 

that they sit down and work through a problem 

together having to do with genetically-modified 

crops and pesticide use.

So, I believe that it can happen. I 

believe that it's something that a board needs some 

clout to make that happen. That will not happen 

by members of a board saying that we need to have

EPA and USDA sit down together. But I agree that 

that is exactly what I think everyone is saying 

needs to happen. It's just a matter of in what 

order and how do you bring that about.

But the anxiety and the unsettled 

nature of things, and how that's affecting folks 

on the ground across the country, that perspective 

was helpful for me to hear. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Thanks.

Dave actually just reminded me, and Asa 

as well, that when you guys first got on the Board, 
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and Zea Sonnabend had just rotated off, we set up 

a meeting with the program and number of members 

of the Crops Subcommittee and Asa, to try to figure 

out how we could continue to push this issue forward 

and what would that roadmap be.

And, I mean, I can tell you exactly at 

the time what we were told is that the program would 

need to get in touch with folks at the EPA, and 

it wasn't exactly clear who that would be. And, 

I mean, we were basically told that it was probably 

just like kind of on the back burner. And other 

subsequent meetings were held.

So, I do just want to give that 

historical context, that even when the Board has 

tried to work on this issue with the program, it 

has been very difficult. So, while I fully 

appreciate all the comments that are being made, 

I don't think, you know, a vote to delist this is 

based on any assurances from the program. It's 

more a question I think we each have to ask, is 

this still an appropriate listing and does it 

reflect, you know, the values of organics? And 

does it meet the criteria that we are supposed to 
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

be following? So, I think that's, as much as 

anything else, what we're looking when we place 

our votes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. I am just 

going to make one final comment, as I have had 

several people wonder why I'm pushing this. If 

I had really wanted to push it, we could have called 

for a vote at the end of Livestock. And I suspect 

that I can guess which way the vote would have come 

and gone.

And in deference to the Board, and 

trying to unite discussion on this in both 

Livestock and Crops, we have deferred it until 

today. And I suspect the vote will be different.

So, if anybody wants to accuse me of 

trying to manipulate the system, they can, but I 

would point out that we are really trying to do 

this in a transparent and open way, where everybody 

gets discussion time, and where both committees 

get their discussion time. And I do worry about 

backroom deals and lobbying, but I chose to not 

call the vote at that time, so that the Board could 

truly consider this.
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I still worry about fairness and the 

people that don't have access to the Board. It 

does really eat on me, but that is for each Board 

member to consider as to what last-minute 

information has affected them. Everybody has 

their right to talk to whoever they want, and they 

should, but I really want all stakeholders to have 

access to our ears. Again, like I said, my dad 

was a judge, and that's very important to my basic 

nature.

So, one last comment, Mindee, and then, 

I think we will go to the vote.

MS. JEFFERY: We have only ever 

experienced you to be exceedingly neutral in your 

leadership, and I really appreciate the tenor of 

how you conduct yourself, even inside of our 

disagreements or agreement.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Mindee.

Okay. We will move on to the vote.

The motion is to remove List 4 inerts 

of minimal concern from 205.601 of the National 

List. The motion was made by Asa. It was seconded 

by Wood.
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And we are going to start with Kim.

And again, I'm just going to say a vote 

of yes is to remove it; a vote of no is to keep 

it on the list.

So, Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: I'm the first one, huh? 

Gosh.

(Laughter.)

I've during this conversation gone 

back -- I didn't raise my hand earlier, so I get 

a moment, please.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sure.

MS. HUSEMAN: I went back and forth a 

hundred times on each person's comments and can 

relate and concur.

And my classmates on the Board are in 

the long haul for the next four years with me. 

And Asa made a compelling statement. So, I am 

going to vote no.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No, with a the same 

concern.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: The Chair votes yes.

Scott?

MR. RICE: That is 6 yes, 9 no. The 

motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. I think 

we're a little bit past -- quote-unquote, "little 

bit" -- we are past our lunch break. Or for those 

of you on the East Coast -- I don't know -- your 

soda or pop break.

So, we will take our -- I'm just looking 

at the clock here -- we have a few things after 

the break, but we have some extra time before we're 

supposed to adjourn, which we did work in. So, 

let's take 45 minutes and come back at, if I can 

do my math here, 10:30.

MR. BUIE: Steve?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes?

MR. BUIE: What about the livestock --

MR. RICE: We have a livestock EPA 

vote.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Oh, thank you.

MR. RICE: Did you want to do that --

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes.
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: -- within earshot of this 

one or after the break.

CHAIRMAN ELA: No, let's go ahead and 

do it. I'm sorry, I forgot about that. So, we'll 

do the livestock. Thank you for that reminder.

So, the motion is to remove EPA List 

4 inerts of minimal concern from 205.603 of the 

National List. And that was a motion by Scott, 

seconded by Sue.

We will start with Mindee.

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No, with the same 

concerns.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

MR. RICE: That is 6 yes, 9 no. The 

motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Thank you 

for that reminder.

So, we will go to a break and we will 

come back, so we can spend a little more time, we'll 

come back at 10 'til Eastern Time, 3:50, and we 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

will move on with a couple more sunsets and a couple 

of discussion documents, and then, the final 

wrap-up of the meeting.

All right. We'll see you all at 10 

'til.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 3:06 p.m. and resumed at 

3:52 p.m.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: We'll go ahead and get 

started.

I know we went a little over our break 

before lunch, but that was a great discussion. 

I appreciate everybody's thoughts.

I know the Board has talked about 

passing a resolution, which I would like to go ahead 

and bring up. So, I would like to make a motion 

to pass this resolution to the Board, and I'll read 

it here:

"In voting to relist EPA List 4 inerts 

of minimal concern, the NOSB recognizes the vital 

importance of the substances included in this 

listing to the organic industry.

"However, in referencing a list that 
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is no longer maintained, using a list on which no 

new substances can be added, and not allowing for 

a review of individual or groups of materials, the 

use of List 4 ingredients on the National List is 

problematic and outdated.

"The NOSB recognizes that a viable 

program allowing for the review and use of these 

substances must be create before this listing can 

be removed.

"Therefore, the NOSB asks that the 

National Organic Program do the following:

"Work with the NOSB to develop a viable 

alternative process that allows for the review of 

many of the substances presently on EPA List 4 and 

has minimal disruption to the organic industry;

"Two, for substances that do not meet 

OFPA criteria for listing, work to provide a 

sufficient period for industry to change 

formulation and receive regulatory approval for 

the new formulation;

"And three, coordinate regularly with 

the NOSB on progress to develop an alternative to 

the EPA List 4 inerts of minimal concern that allows 
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for stakeholder input and the removal of the 

reference to EPA List 4 inerts on the National 

List."

I would make that motion. Is there a 

second for this?

MR. D'AMORE: I second. Jerry.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jerry.

Is there any discussion?

(No response.)

All right. With that, I will just go 

through a vote of the Board about the resolution, 

and we will start with you, Dave, I believe.

MR. MORTENSEN: So here, we're saying, 

yes, we support the resolution, right?

CHAIRMAN ELA: That is correct, yes. 

Thanks.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: Yes.
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae?

And I think you said she wasn't on, 

Michelle?

MS. ARSENAULT: A-dae has joined us.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay.

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thanks, A-dae.

Dan?

DR. SEITZ: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Yes.
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes yes.

Scott, I think that's --

MR. RICE: Is that still on me?

It's 15 yes, zero no. The motion 

passes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. All right. So, 

we will pass that on to the program, encouraging 

work on this very important topic.

Okay. Jesse, I'm going to pass it back 

to you to continue on with the sunsets with arsenic.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Arsenic is next, and 

that's me. Reference 205.602.

Again, the public comment that -- well, 

arsenic has been on the National List since 1995. 

Public comments were overwhelmingly in support 

of arsenic remaining a prohibited substance.

The Crops Subcommittee sees no reason 

to recommend removing it from its prohibited status 

on the National List.

Are there any questions?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are there any comments 
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

from the Board?

(No response.)

Okay. I am not seeing any.

The motion is to remove arsenic from 

205.602 of the National List. It was made by Jesse 

and seconded by Emily.

And we will start the vote at Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Sorry, remind me? I had 

a brain fart.

CHAIRMAN ELA: That's fine. A yes 

vote is to delist; a no vote is to relist. And 

this is 602, so it is keeping arsenic on the 

prohibited list.

MS. OAKLEY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: I say no.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And the Chair votes no.

Scott, we'll throw it back to you to 

keep you on your toes.

MR. RICE: Okey-doke. That is zero 

yes, 15 noes. The motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Jesse, back 
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to you.

MR. MORTENSEN: Steve, I had a funny 

thought. If we have a moment of levity here?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sure.

MR. MORTENSEN: Imagine Emily Oakley's 

legacy being the only person to vote arsenic to 

the allowed list. There you go.

(Laughter.)

MS. OAKLEY: Well, and it was right in 

front of me, but I had actually just started to 

take a bite of lunch, and then, I look. Oh, no, 

I'm the first one up. And then, that made me (audio 

interference). And then, here we are.

MR. MORTENSEN: Come on, Oakley.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. We appreciate 

that levity. Thank you for that.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Our last sunset is 

strychnine. And again, it's been on the list since 

about 1995 again.

Public comments were overwhelmingly in 

support of strychnine remaining a prohibited 

substance.
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Again, the Crops Committee sees no 

reason to recommend removing it from its prohibited 

status on the National List.

Question? Comment?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, is there any 

discussion?

(No response.)

I am not seeing any. So, the motion 

to remove strychnine from 205.602 of the National 

List was made by Jesse. It was seconded by Rick.

And we get to start with Nate.

MR. POWELL-PALM: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: Well, as my last vote, this 

is a fairly easy one. No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: You know you still get 

a vote for (audio interference).

MR. RICE: Oh, that will be (audio 

interference).

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sorry.

A-dae?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan?
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. SEITZ: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Wood?

MR. TURNER: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sue?

MS. BAIRD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jesse?

MR. BUIE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Rick?

MR. GREENWOOD: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: No.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Okay, I have this one now. 

No.

(Laughter.)
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: The Chair votes no.

MR. RICE: It is Zero yes, 15 no. The 

motion fails.

CHAIRMAN ELA: There's nothing like 

throwing a resolution where the votes are the 

opposite in the middle to confuse us after lunch.

All right. Jesse, back to you for the 

discussion document.

MR. BUIE: Okay. All right. First up 

is Rick and it's ammonia extract.

MR. GREENWOOD: Okay. I don't think 

that's mine.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, I think that's 

mine, Jesse. I think that's a typo.

MR. BUIE: Oh, okay.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. No, that's how 

it's listed, but yes. Good.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Are you awake Rick? 

Did we do the same thing to you as Scott?

(Laughter.)

Go ahead, Dave.

MR. GREENWOOD: I can talk about it, 

but it probably would be gibberish.
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. So, a discussion 

document was drafted by the Crops Subcommittee. 

The intent of that discussion document was to pose 

questions to the community for which we sought 

feedback to inform our thinking about prohibiting, 

a petition to prohibit ammonia extract or -- yes, 

extract, yes, ammonia extract -- for use as a 

fertilizer in organic systems.

So, the petition was to prohibit such 

use and to inform the Subcommittee and the Board, 

certainly the Board as a whole, on this issue. 

We posed a series of questions to try to get at 

some uncertainties that we believed input on which 

would help clarify our path forward in considering 

this petition to prohibit the use of ammonia 

extracts.

There were four questions posed. And 

by the way, we had a lot of feedback on addressing 

the questions. Or, actually, a lot of the 

feedback, perhaps half of it, was that we should 

allow it, not addressing the questions 

specifically, or that we should disallow it. But 

we did also get some very thoughtful feedback on 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the questions that were posed as well.

One of the reasons why this would be 

considered in the first place, a prohibition, is 

that, way back when, the NOSB and the NOP, or the 

NOP -- now that I've been on the Board four years, 

I understand what goes into actually making a 

rule -- the NOP, in December of 2000, a final rule 

prohibited the use of substances of high 

solubility.

New materials of high solubility would 

be prohibited or restricted, for example, like 

sodium nitrate, where some upper limit of its use 

might be approved, or it would be prohibited, 

substances of high solubility. Certainly, 

ammonia extract is a substance of high solubility, 

and that kind of is the basis of the argument in 

the petition.

The other part of the argument in the 

petition is, the very important part of the 

argument in the petition is that -- and ammonia 

is used a lot in conventional ag. I started out 

my work as a young science person working on 

farmers' fields in Nebraska, where the principal 
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

form of nitrogen application for corn, which is 

the principal crop in the State, is anhydrous 

ammonia. So, that's where farmers are knifing in 

with a tillage implement gaseous forms of ammonia.

When you walk behind an anhydrous rig, 

the farmers would talk about watching that you 

don't get knocked down by the anhydrous gas that's 

sometimes leaking out of the knives when they're 

not fully inserted in the soil on uneven ground. 

And they also talk about the kill zone of the 

anhydrous injection, where the anhydrous ammonia 

kind of kills anything in a certain distance from 

the knifed-in anhydrous.

Ammonia is obviously a caustic 

fertility implement. And when I said earlier 

about the ammonium in the insect baits, I was quite 

specific when I said it's used as a bait, and 

therefore, not widely applied. It's contained in 

a very concentrated application.

So, on the first question that we posed, 

"Can ammonia extract" -- and ammonia extract, by 

the way, an important point, is ammonia that's 

derived from manure, and the ammonia is 
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

concentrated in the process of its extraction. 

And then, you apply the concentrated liquid form.

In the so-called carbonized form, as 

a number of the public commenters spoke last week, 

in a concentration, a carbon and nitrogen ratio 

concentration, that's something along the lines 

of three units of carbon to one unit of nitrogen.

I had asked a number of questions during 

the course of those presentations about how does

that compare to plant-based nitrogen 

supplementation in the soil through things like 

cover crops, a very common foundational practice 

in organic farming, and the concentration is very 

high, right? It's 3-to-1 for this kind of ammonia 

application versus something like 30- or 40-to-1 

in the form of cover crop dry mass. So, it's a 

high-concentration nitrogen application, and 

it's largely intended, from all that we can tell 

from reading through the application and its use, 

as a side dress application mid-season for a row 

crop, where it's placed over the soil or injected 

in the soil.

So, we asked the question, can you 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

discern the difference between a synthetic ammonia 

manufactured at a low cost that would be commonly 

used in conventional agriculture from this 

manure-derived, high-concentration ammonia 

extract, if it was to be used in organic production?

And we asked, could you discern those 

two forms of ammonia? One, could you chemically 

discern the difference in a laboratory? And we 

determined that you could do that. So, that's an 

answer that we were able to answer.

And the second part of the question was, 

could you easily determine whether or not 

non-manure-derived ammonia that was being blended 

in a fertilizer blending plant, could you discern 

that ammonia form from conventionally-produced 

ammonia? And the answer, from all that we can 

tell, is that it would be very difficult to do that 

in a working field setting, but that you would have 

to do some sort of a more elaborate laboratory 

practice.

The second question was addressing, 

what are the potential effects? And we were 

looking specifically at downside effects of 
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ammonia extract on soil, the life of the soil, the 

health of the soil. And we didn't get a lot of 

information there.

But I would say that what we did 

get -- and I did some reading on the side -- you 

would be pretty strongly, not pretty, strongly 

affecting the soil microbiome, so the 

microorganisms that are a key component to the life 

of the soil and the nutrient absorption and release 

dynamics of the soil.

It would have adverse effects on soil 

fungal diversity strongly, so where the ammonia 

would be placed, in the zone of effect of the 

ammonia application, and would result in an 

increased turnover rate of carbon in the soil, 

which is kind of antithetical to a number of the 

public comments we heard last week about trying 

to figure out ways to increase soil organic carbon 

storage as a climate-mitigating practice.

Is it the case that we could use more 

data on this? Definitely we could, but I would 

say, generally, this is not an application that's 

going to be favoring biodiversity or carbon 
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

accumulation.

Let's see, what else? Are there other 

things that we should aware of in organic 

production in using this? And I guess my take on 

it is that this is a problematic application for 

use in soil systems.

Early on, one of the certifiers that 

I got to know in Pennsylvania, Lyn Garling, 

explained to me in great detail how organic is not 

about input substitution, but, rather, about 

systems design and building a system through which 

much of the fertility for the crop is met by soil 

health, by crop rotation, cover cropping, et 

cetera.

And certainly, it has been a consistent 

practice of the Board to not allow compounds of 

high solubility being basically dripped onto or 

into the soil for direct uptake by the crop, but, 

rather, we would be enhancing the soil health to 

provide the nitrogen needs of the crop.

So, I would say that we have -- a lot 

of the questions, there's been great input. And 

I would say that the input is about split, although 
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I guess if you counted the number of responses, 

we had a lot of fertilizer dealers in Iowa, in 

California, in different places, Nebraska, that 

said that they would like to have more forms of 

fertilizer for use in organic farming and organic 

production. But, of course, at least to me, that's 

not surprising at all because that's what they 

sell, and that's what they work with their clients 

to use in a system.

We also had a number of very thoughtful, 

well-argued points pointing to the fact that this 

kind of use was inconsistent with OFPA, and this 

kind of use was of great concern with regard to 

soil health and biodiversity.

And I will end there for questions and 

comments.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Are there 

comments, questions, discussion, et cetera, from 

the Board?

Dave, I'm just going to -- oh, Wood's 

got a comment.

MR. TURNER: Just a comment. I just 

wanted to thank Dave for those comments and that 
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

summary. And I really want to just point out the 

value of having someone with Dave's background and 

Dave's expertise able to express that kind of 

well-rounded view of what we're looking at here. 

So, I just wanted to appreciate, actually, what 

Dave just did.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, Wood just said 

exactly what I was going to say. And your voice 

is such an important one, and thank you for diving 

through those many, many comments and presenting 

them in such a succinct and approachable manner.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Other Board members?

All right. Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: Thank you.

I think the California Department of 

Food and Agriculture has a state organic program, 

and they both function as a material review 

organization and as an enforcement and inspection 

body for organic. I know that they have been 

looking at how this is handled and whether and how 

fraud occurs. So, as we move through looking at 

this material, I can help us talk to them about 
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

their experience, if that is helpful to the Crops 

Subcommittee.

MR. MORTENSEN: I think that would be 

helpful, Mindee. Yes, I think that would be very 

helpful.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Other questions and 

comments from the Board?

(No response.)

All right. I don't see any.

Thank you, Dave. That was a great 

summary. I don't know if you took notes on that, 

but, for my own use, I would love to get your 

thoughts on that just to help organize my own 

thoughts. So, much appreciated.

Jesse, I'll turn it back over to you 

to go to biodegradable mulch.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Our final discussion 

document is biodegradable biobased mulch 

annotation, and that's Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

I'm envious, David, of your 

organization. I'll try to reproduce that as best 

I can.
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, the issue of biodegradable mulch 

has been an ongoing one among the Board. We had 

talked about a possible proposal document to vote 

on, which we decided to delay until the spring, 

in part because there seemed to be more information 

out there than we had yet, and we wanted to compile 

that and continue to think through what the 

implications are. And personally, I also wanted 

to see where the paper pot voting went.

So, just to summarize, plastic -- this 

is based mainly on the comments in our 

discussion -- but just the use of plastic in 

organic is, you know, my sense is that it's 

exploding. It's increasing dramatically. And 

some of the comments, written comments and others, 

are essentially saying that plastic is essential 

and that prices for organic produce would soar if 

plastic were taken out of organic.

In California, I tend to think of 

strawberries as a kind of a dominant use, but, based 

on comments, plastic mulch is used almost 

universally -- and this is one comment -- on 

tomatoes, peppers, egg plants, melons, sweet 
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

potatoes, winter squash, zucchini, some cucumbers, 

and on many farms the list doesn't stop there. 

There's also heavy use in livestock operations to 

protect feed or silage.

Here's one quote: "Take a walk on the 

majority of organic vegetable and fruit farms, and 

you will find small pieces of ripped plastic from 

years and years of plastic use."

We absolutely have a problem with 

residual plastics on organic farms. And livestock 

also uses plastic for wrapping and storing feed. 

The use of plastic in agriculture is omnipresent. 

The majority of farms will have residual plastic 

pieces in their fields or field edges.

So, here we're talking about existing 

permitted use of films, despite requirements to 

remove them each year. And just the overall I 

think concern, and I would even say almost 

revulsion among many in the organic community over 

this heavy use and the fact that so much of it is 

discarded in landfills and not recycled. So, 

we've also seen this addressed in the popular 

press.
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

In the discussion document, we provide 

some links to new information and, also, ask some 

questions, re-ask some older questions, and then, 

updated those with new information and some 

possible ideas for what an annotation or guideline 

would make.

And I'm still not sure where we are. 

I mean, there's really a sense that the current 

listing where we require 100 percent biobased 

material is not practical on two sides. One, if 

that's going to be the requirement, then we should 

delist it because it's not achievable right now. 

So, it's kind of a tease that doesn't reflect 

reality. Or the counterpart would be, if it's 

really biodegradable, we should consider reducing 

the 100 percent biobased content.

And the opinions are all over the map 

on it. Some of the larger certifying 

organizations, PCO, MOSES, others, really feel 

that there should be -- I shouldn't say this is 

organizations, but they report that many of their 

farmers are interested in a less than 100 percent 

biobased requirement, and that we should move 
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

forward on it. And this, in many cases, is an 

essential tool.

On the other side, there are many people 

very concerned about purposely introducing a 

petroleum-derived plastic material into soil. 

And there's lots of concerns about 

biodegradability in real environments outside of 

a laboratory, differences in climate and soil 

conditions, perhaps the inadvertent introduction 

of microplastics, if they don't fully biodegrade.

So, my sense here is that we're kind 

of talking in circles a little bit on this 

information and there's the sense that we're 

repeating things that we've been saying for the 

last couple of years. But I do get a sense that 

there's increasing interest, and given the use of 

plastic, there's a real desire to move somewhere 

on this.

Again, many groups are interested in 

changing the biobase requirement and, hopefully, 

allowing some materials to be developed that would 

be feasible and would at least take us in a 

direction where there was a viable product.
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And several comments noted that the 

votes around paper products kind of point us in 

that direction where we have an 80 percent biobased 

requirement, and maybe that could be a standard. 

Now we know, also, that you can have biobased 

products that are not biodegradable, you know, 

don't biodegrade and don't compost well, and that 

really compostability and biodegradability are 

still key concepts here, but perhaps we have a 

guideline there to follow.

Right now, we're looking at most of 

these materials have over 50 percent 

petroleum-derived plastics in them. There's some 

suggestion, though, it could get down to 20 to 50 

percent. There's also some recommendations or 

some suggestions that we be careful about 

coordinating with international rules. For 

example, I guess the EU is developing rules about 

this.

All of this kind of reflects, though, 

kind of circling back to when I started, this idea 

of risk-benefit of these materials when comparing 

them to other systems. We've had people assert, 
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

which I fully respect and agree with in some ways, 

the idea that, given the heavy use of plastic, 

that's one system, but we don't necessarily need 

to do a risk-benefit analysis or comparative risk 

assessment and argue one is better, the lesser of 

two evils in a way, and that we have to evaluate 

biodegradable mulch on its merits.

I respect that view, but, then, I also 

can't just not look at the vast volumes of plastic 

that are being used. I had hoped to set up some 

videos today just on some of the removal, the images 

of removing these acres and acres of plastic from 

fields. And we'll probably set that up maybe next 

spring, when we talk about this again and possibly 

vote.

Here's another quote from a farmer: 

"I'm a small farmer in Washington State who's 

certified organic. We have recently phased out 

using plastic mulch because of how much of it ends 

up in the dump or stuck in the ground forever."

So, again, underscoring that when we 

raise concerns about the microplastics and they 

derive from biodegradable products, we are already 
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

introducing microplastics from current use of 

polyethylene materials. It's not quantified and 

there's difficult scientific issues among these.

We had some very, I think, salient 

information submitted by scientists from 

Washington State University and the University of 

Tennessee, Brenda Madrid and her group, and led, 

also, by Lisa DeVetter. We've had a number of 

conversations. Emily Musgrave at Driscoll's has 

introduced me to them, and we've had a couple of 

conversations on that. And they have submitted 

a fairly detailed response to many of the questions 

that have been raised.

In the proposal, we had a thought 

experiment on a couple of options in terms of how 

they could be listed.

One would be to continue with the 

current annotation with no change, requiring a 100 

percent biobased product.

And we could also start allowing use 

of the films and allowing it to be plowed into the 

soil as used, and then, monitoring and assessing 

what happens over time.
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Possibly have some considerations for 

offsite movement or, for example, use near streams 

or water sources.

Requiring film to be gathered up and 

composted on farm or off farm. That has been 

mentioned in previous meetings.

And then, also, perhaps restricting 

used based on the environment.

I would say, in general, nobody was 

satisfied with any of these suggestions. Most 

people don't want the current annotation with no 

change. But those who are opposed to any tilling 

dry project going into the soil would like to keep 

that or, at least, again, perhaps even take it off, 

since there's no product that currently needs it.

And then, the other ones just seem too 

complicated and unfeasible to enforce. And the 

idea of gathering it up does not seem practical 

because these materials are too viable and will 

fall apart if they're handled.

So, I don't know where this leaves us 

right now. It seems to me that, when we start 

coming up with a proposal for next spring, it's 
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

probably going to be to leave it unchanged or allow 

less than 100 percent biobased, biodegradable 

mulch. And there's going to be some variation on 

that, but I think those are going to be our two 

primary choices.

I encourage everyone to read in detail 

and carefully the submission by the group from 

Washington State and the University of Tennessee. 

And then, of course, we have the prior reports 

we've had that were commissioned by the NOP.

So, I'd like to hear more discussion 

on this. And I think, as a community, we need to 

talk about this more over the next several months, 

as we develop a proposal for the spring meeting.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Thank you, 

Asa.

Are there comments?

It looks like Dave has one.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Asa. Your 

summaries are always longer, but they're also very 

detailed in a way that really helps me wrap my head 

around the problem. So, thank you for that --

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you.
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: -- and all the work 

that you do for the Board.

And I agree with you. I've been on a 

lot of farms in the Northeast where I've seen where 

it's the plastic waste pile; like people don't know 

what to do with it.

While I was at Penn State, there was 

a lot of work going on to make the former 

groundcover plastic into bricks and burning them 

in wood stoves, and things that. But, I mean, no 

matter what you do, it seems to me, is my 

conclusion, that's a bad -- the practice of putting 

plastic like that out over all these acres is 

something we really need to figure out how to move 

away from.

One thought that came to me while you 

were speaking, and in light of some other things 

that have been said during the last couple of days, 

is the idea of continuous improvement and policy 

that we could suggest that moves us down the road, 

recognizing that we're not going to get all the 

way there because the problem is too messy, right?

What I mean by that is, while 80 percent 
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

biobased isn't perfect, it seems to me at least 

a lot better than piles and piles of plastic off 

in the corner of a farmer's field, where they don't 

literally know what to do with it, but they need 

to keep using it.

So, I'm wondering if -- and maybe that's 

what you're proposing -- but I'm wondering if we 

could somehow frame this in a way that we see this 

as one in perhaps three steps of getting somewhere, 

where the interim step isn't going to be the final 

step, and it's not going to be exactly what we want, 

but it's a lot better than what we have. And then, 

continue to be looking for things that are more 

fully biobased and fully biodegradable in a way 

that meets the goals that we would set out with 

respect to the fate of those things.

I was compelled, as I think all of us 

were, when we heard the speakers and the panel last 

year showing us how much context -- i.e., soil, 

rainfall, irrigation, yadda yadda yadda -- and how 

much of an impact that has on the fate of these 

films. It seemed really strong to me.

And so, it's clear that's not a perfect 
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

solution. Even the best films seem to be 

persisting in dry soils, and then, fracturing up 

into little pieces when you go through and till 

the field.

So, anyway, that's my thought, that we 

come up with a proposed continuous improvement 

concept where the next step is some high level of 

biobased, and then, we move toward not using the 

other kind of plastic, the more persistent plastic.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes, I tend to agree with 

that. In a way, we kind of view that as an 

aspirational proposal. That might suggest steps 

and, also, additional review down the road.

I mean, of course, historically, 

mulches could have involved, you know, like I think 

of strawberries and I think of straw or other 

organic material, and not plastics. And I tend 

to think of organic as less reliant on synthetic 

materials.

But, at least in terms of plastic, we're 

essentially being told that it's essential and 

we're heavily reliant on a synthetic material. 

Because it's not viewed as contaminating the soil 
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

directly, it's kind of viewed as acceptable. But,

to me, it kind of goes against some of the basic 

principles of where organic agriculture came from. 

And yet, we're increasing use of it and dependent 

on it. And I think that is a challenge.

MR. MORTENSEN: And I would also say, 

if I could, Steve, just quickly, I think we should 

be clear that it's not essential really, when you 

think about it. Maybe, in practice at large scale, 

it's essential. There are farmers up in the New 

England states that would use cover crops, suppress 

the cover crop, and that's the mulch. So, it's 

not that it's everywhere, but to do that at scale 

would be challenging, I would say. I mean scale 

meaning large-scale.

MR. BRADMAN: Right, although a local 

farm in California that I've known for 35 years, 

they use plastics and they feel like it cuts back 

labor, reduces tractor runs, so it has an offset. 

But it's just surprising, again, how pervasive 

it is. But I agree, an organic mulch, cover crops, 

you know, I think those are all systems to support.

I think we have some other comments from 
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Sue and Emily.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, we do. And I'll 

be mindful of time as well, but I do want to give 

this some discussion.

So, Sue, and then, Emily.

Sue, you're still on mute.

MS. BAIRD: I did so well this morning.

Thank you, Asa, for that great summary 

and, Dave, for your thoughtful comments.

I really like your idea of doing a 

stepped, a graduation-type thing. I've 

inspected -- I don't know -- I wouldn't even guess 

how many farms I've inspected in 20 years of 

inspections. But plastic is ubiquitous. And 

they will tell you, farmers who are honest, 

including I tried it one time, and that was all 

I tried it, but they will tell you there's no way 

to get it all out at the end of season. They do 

their best, but there's always particles left in 

the ground. In my case, I put it down one time 

15 years ago, and we're still trying to pull little 

pieces of plastic out of the ground. So, it does 

not break down.
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

This has got to be a bit away. It may 

not be perfect, but sometimes -- you know, only 

Jesus was perfect, they say. So, I really like 

your idea of doing it step by step.

Just my comments, and thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Emily, go ahead.

MS. OAKLEY: Thanks.

I do recognize that plastic mulch is 

widely used, but I just have to go ahead and put 

a voice out there that there are many organic 

farmers, myself included, who do not use plastic, 

and it is not tool that is necessary for all organic 

production. I don't judge people's choice to use 

it, but it is certainly very possible to grow 

profitably without it. So, I just want to make 

that known. I'll put that out there.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Anybody else?

(No response.)

Great. Thank you, Asa, for that very 

thoughtful summary as well. I know this is another 

one of those that is kind of darned if you do, darned 

if you don't thing. And I know we'll keep working 

on it. And I think stakeholder involvement on this 
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

is incredibly important because there are, 

obviously different sides and different thoughts. 

So, thanks, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes, and I just want to 

end, too, by saying, you know, I welcome engagement 

from folks. My email is public on the UC Berkeley 

and UC Merced websites.

I think that some discussion, open 

discussion, is important, and we want people to 

also submit comments and perhaps use the open 

docket. There's real-time discussions going on 

before final public documents are published for 

review. But I think dialog on this is really 

important.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Agreed.

Okay. Jesse, I think you're off the 

hook.

MR. BUIE: Yes. That ends the Crops 

Subcommittee report.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Congratulations, 

Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Can I make one comment? Can 

I make one comment?
201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, certainly. Yes.

MR. BUIE: The cost-share, I didn't 

want you to forget that. I don't know at what point 

you want to bring it up.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Well, yes.

MR. BUIE: Okay. Good.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, I'll bring it up 

here in a little bit.

MR. BUIE: All right.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Jesse.

MR. BUIE: Okay.

CHAIRMAN ELA: But, Jesse, thank you 

so much for your leadership of the Crops 

Subcommittee and your being Secretary this year, 

trying to keep tally of an extraordinary number 

of votes. So, I'll say more later, but we sure 

appreciate your leadership.

MR. BUIE: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. We are 

going to move on to the summary of the NOSB work 

agendas for the coming year.

I'll let the staff put that work agenda 

up on the screen here. And we can probably go to 
202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the next. Yes.

So, just quickly going through it, 

we'll have the CACS Committee. The human capital 

document is still on. Certainly, as it showed up 

this meeting, that's going to continue to be a very 

thoughtful and important part of the CACS 

Committee.

Coming into Crops, paper-based crop 

planting aids. Well, we almost thought about 

getting it over the line, but that will be up for 

a vote again in the spring.

We're planning on chitosan, the various 

chitosan petitions coming up for a vote.

Biochar, we have a TR out, but we're 

thinking that will come to a vote as well as the 

ammonia extract, again, with a TR coming in.

Kasugamycin, another one that will go 

through a vote.

We just received hydronium. That will 

probably go to a discussion document or be deferred 

to the fall. We'll see.

Asa just covered the biodegradable 

bio-mulch change, which at this point looks like 
203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it will come to a proposal and a vote.

And then, we have a bunch of sunsets 

that, as always, we're required to look at. And 

that list is up there. I won't go through each 

one individually.

Then, coming into -- keep 

scrolling -- Handling, we have the whey protein 

concentrate petition. Can you go back down a 

little bit? We had a discussion document at this 

meeting. It says a vote on that, we could come 

to a vote, but I'm inclined, short of other reasons, 

to let the sunset removal process go through until 

we vote on that whey protein concentrate. It's 

not because we're not aware of the petition. It's 

more the goal, as the petition has, of delisting 

the whey protein concentrate. So, if, for some 

reason, it doesn't get delisted, we'll take up that 

petition again. And I need to communicate with 

the petitioner on that.

We have CPC, cetylpyridium chloride, 

which should come up for a vote, and we're looking 

forward to the sanitizer panel helping us inform 

that as well.
204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And then, phosphoric acid, amending 

that annotation coming up for a vote.

Zein, a petition coming up for a vote.

And then, we also have a fish oil 

annotation and L malic acid reclassification. So, 

those are going to be important ones that are going 

to involve some discussion as well.

We've got a bunch of sunsets again in 

Handling.

We'll keep going down until we get to 

the next one. Livestock. Another chitosan 

petition which we'll try and cover all the chitosan 

petitions, both in Crops and Livestock, in the same 

meeting.

And then, a bunch of sunsets again in 

Livestock, which will be discussion documents, as 

normal.

Then, in Materials, we're expecting to 

have excluded methods as a discussion document 

there again next spring. Looking forward to that.

We do have a petition for tall oil, 

which we have not really looked at yet. It came 

in just before this meeting. So, we were waiting 
205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to discuss that afterwards.

And then, of course, the NOSB research 

priorities which, as we saw this year, we'll have 

a discussion document on those in the spring, and 

then, a proposal in the fall. Because the spring 

kind of gives our stakeholders a chance to inform 

us about those research priorities and where they 

think we should go for the final document in the 

fall.

Are there any more after that? I think 

that is pretty much it. Yes. Okay. That is our 

work agenda for the next year, no small amount of 

work for sure.

And I just know the Board is ready for 

it, but it also is the challenge of our five Board 

members that just came on this year, they're going 

to be old hands. So, they're going to be adept 

at handling these things, but we will have five 

new Board members coming in as well. So, that is 

going to make it a challenge for us to both train 

and integrate them into the Board, but I have every 

confidence that that will happen and we'll get 

through this work agenda.
206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I do see that Dave and Asa have their 

hands up. So, I'll let you two comment.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, just quickly 

because it came up. There were a lot of comments 

about excluding methods. And Mindee just wanted 

to say a very brief word about excluded methods. 

Is that okay?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, for sure.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: So, Mindee, if you want 

to talk, and then, we'll go to Asa.

MS. JEFFERY: Thank you. Thanks, Dave 

and Steve.

In the sense of excluded methods, we're 

working on a discussion document for the spring 

meeting, the (audio interference) intentions of 

which are to document the history of this Board's 

work on the subject; understand the sprawl of 

biotechnology (audio interference) system; make 

progress on the remaining TBD list topics, and 

establish priorities for future work around this 

issue.

CHAIRMAN ELA: It sounds great, 
207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Mindee.

Asa?

MR. BRADMAN: I just want to note that 

I don't see a list for Maritz (phonetic) on the 

work agenda item. I look at our plate in Handling

and it's going to be very full, and in Crops as 

well. But just a reminder that that's a priority.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, that is going to 

be one that we will, before it hits our work agenda, 

we will have to ask for it and have it approved 

through the Executive Committee because it was on 

as a sunset, which has obviously been removed, and 

before it gets formally added as a work agenda item, 

we'll have to go through that normal NOSB process. 

I don't see any problems with that, but it just 

does take a little bit of -- there is a formal 

procedure for that on the Board. So, thanks, Asa, 

for that note.

Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Thanks.

Did it ever actually get taken off? 

Because it was on the work agenda when I got on 

the Board and was for at least a few years after 
208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Good question, Emily. 

I guess I'll have to look back at that. I guess 

I'll have to look back at that. I'm not sure. 

But good question. We'll double-check that. If 

it still on it, we will continue it, and if it is 

not, we will re-add, if possible. So, a good 

point.

Any other comments on the work agenda?

(No response.)

All right. We are going to move on to 

the most exciting part of this whole Board meeting, 

everything else before this notwithstanding, the 

final chance possibly for outgoing Board members 

to vote. So, I know you've all been on the edges 

of your seats waiting for this important part of 

the meeting, and that is the officer elections. 

I wish we had a Barnum & Bailey drum roll, or 

something, for the input into this circus of being 

officers.

So, I will open up the floor to 

nominations for the position of Chair.

MR. RICE: I would like to nominate 
209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Steve Ela for Chair.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I was afraid of that.

(Laughter.)

Emily?

MS. JEFFERY: I second.

MR. BUIE: Second. Second.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes, I was going to 

nominate you, too. So, there you have it.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Sorry if I 

didn't look at the raised hands. I was too worried 

about trying to figure out how to escape.

Scott, I should have done this at the 

start. Well, first, I'm going to ask, are there 

any other nominations?

MR. BRADMAN: Nominations for Chair?

CHAIRMAN ELA: Chair, yes.

I see, Rick, you have your hand up. 

Are you wishing to nominate somebody else?

MR. GREENWOOD: No, no. I wanted to 

nominate you, but for a three-year additional term.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: Sorry, we don't have 

policies and procedures that allow that. So, 
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

you're out of order, Rick.

MR. GREENWOOD: Thank you. I was 

hoping so.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Okay. Scott, do you 

want to explain the process for elections, just 

in case we have a contested one? I should have 

done that at the top here.

MR. RICE: Yes, with the caveat that 

I'm not reading from our Policies and Procedures 

Manual right now. So, this is the policies and 

procedures in a Zoom world. We kind of looked at 

ways to do that and maintain both the 

confidentiality of members' votes, as we have done 

in the past, as well as transparency with all of 

our stakeholders.

I worked with both and we came up with 

Survey Monkey that can anonymously be participated 

in for Board members. However, in a case like we 

have here where it's an uncontested position, there 

is no reason to take part in such a thing, just 

as we wouldn't have a vote in person. We would 

briefly move to accept by acclamation. So, with 

that --
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIRMAN ELA: Scott, why don't I let 

you run this? I'll let you run this part of the 

meeting because we talked about that, since you 

are a disinterested party at this point. So, why 

don't you just continue with the process?

MR. RICE: Okay. Sure. I guess that 

probably makes more sense than you moving to move 

to "acclamate" yourself.

(Laughter.)

But I would move to elect Steve Ela to 

the Chair of the NOSB by acclamation. And as far 

as Robert's Rules, I'm not sure if we need a second 

or if we all just need to applaud.

MR. BUIE: So moved.

MR. RICE: All right.

CHAIRMAN ELA: We'll count Jesse as a 

second.

And I think you should ask if there are 

any objections, but I'm sure hoping there are.

MR. RICE: Are there any objections 

before we fill the blank with his name?

(No response.)

Hearing none, I am happy to deliver our 
212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

new "old Chair," Steve Ela.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, everyone. 

I appreciate your vote of confidence.

MR. RICE: With that, congratulations, 

Steve, and gratitude to everyone watching us try 

to make our way through this in the digital world.

We will open the floor to nominations 

for Vice Chair.

MR. BRADMAN: I wanted to nominate Nate 

for Vice Chair.

MR. D'AMORE: If it requires a second, 

I'd like to do it.

MR. RICE: Very good. Do I hear any 

other nominations for Vice Chair at this time?

(No response.)

Hearing none, Nate, are you willing to 

stand for Vice Chair?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Yes, I needed to be 

assured that Steve was going to be Chair first, 

so that I can be his willing understudy. But, yes, 

I am willing.

MR. RICE: Excellent. Thank you.
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Do I hear any objections to that 

nomination?

(No response.)

Hearing none, I would move to accept 

Nate Powell-Palm as our NOSB Vice Chair for the 

upcoming term.

(Applause.)

All right. Congratulations, Nate.

And last, but not least, we have the 

role of Secretary. Both Jesse and I have served 

in this. It's also a great one to participate in.

And I would open the floor to 

nominations for Secretary.

MR. D'AMORE: This is Jerry. I'd like 

to nominate Mindee.

MR. POWELL-PALM: I'd like to second 

that, if necessary.

MR. RICE: Excellent. We have a 

motion and a --

MS. BAIRD: Well, do I get to vote, too? 

I mean I wanted to nominate Rick.

MR. RICE: All right. We have a 

nomination for Rick.
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. GREENWOOD: I would like to 

respectfully decline, but I appreciate the 

nomination.

MS. BAIRD: All right. Thank you.

MR. RICE: Thank you, Rick.

Do I hear any other nominations for 

Secretary?

And thank you, Sue.

(No response.)

Hearing none, any objections to Mindee 

as Secretary?

MR. D'AMORE: Have you heard her say 

she'd like to have the job?

MR. RICE: Oh, excuse me. That is a 

very fair point.

Mindee, are you willing to stand --

MS. JEFFERY: Good looking out, Jerry.

Yes, I am. Thank you.

(Laughter.)

MR. RICE: Then, I would move to accept 

Mindee Jeffery as our Secretary of the NOSB for

the coming term by acclamation.

(Applause.)
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. RICE: Excellent.

CHAIRMAN ELA: All right. Thank you, 

Scott. The main reason I handed it off to you is 

both for impartiality and because I didn't want 

to have to try and figure out all the wording on 

that. So, thanks. Thanks for doing that.

MR. RICE: As you can tell, I had a 

tight script.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes. Well, it's easier 

not to have to go to the vote, but that is always 

a way to do it as well. Although things were by 

acclamation, I just want to tell new Board members 

especially that there is certainly no problem with 

having a contested vote. That is not unusual in 

our history as well. So, never feel like it has 

to be a decision by acclamation.

But thank you all for your vote of 

confidence.

This is the sad part of the meeting, 

and it's really hard to do not in person because 

I have developed some really good friendships with 

people that are exiting the Board. And it's going 

to be really hard not to have your leadership and 
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

thoughts and insight on the Board. I know new 

Board members will step into that role very well, 

but I so respect all the time that you all have 

put into this. And they are going to be deep shoes 

to fill.

And I just want to recognize you, each 

individually, and also give you each a chance to 

give a little farewell speech as well. I know 

we'll go a little bit overtime, but we have 

experience with that already in this meeting. We 

had a lot to cover.

But, A-dae, I want to say I so respect 

your insights to the Board on Native issues and 

tribal lands, and just your own perspective. I 

know you've had to balance a lot of things with 

family and work, but your comments always bring 

a perspective to the Board that I think many of 

us don't have. So, I so appreciate that service.

Dan, we have interacted not a lot, but, 

again, as a consumer viewpoint, you've always 

stepped in and provided a very important side of 

the discussion that I think really adds richness 

and makes us double-think. And I know, with your 
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

background and holistic practices and things, that 

really gave you a wonderful perspective.

Jesse, I want to visit your farm 

someday, sooner than later. It's fascinating to 

me to hear about all the crops that I have no idea 

about how to grow and, also, to know you're 

balancing that with your clinic and the good work 

you do there. I know this has been an incredibly 

difficult spring and fall with your balancing act 

on that. But thank you for what you contribute, 

both as a farmer, but also what you contribute to 

the public through your health practices as well.

Scott, I certainly developed a deep 

friendship with you as well. As a certifier, oh, 

my gosh, I mean, I don't know how often we've turned 

to you in a pinch and put you on the spot and said, 

"What do the certifiers think on this?" And you've 

always come up with very good answers, and I know 

you've been a huge link through ACA and organic 

integrity, and all these things. Your insights 

into this on the Board I think have been truly 

invaluable in helping us make decisions. So, 

thank you so much for that input.
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And, Emily, oh, my gosh, farmer's seat, 

a location that many of us aren't familiar with. 

I know you've been very frustrated at times, but 

thank you for serving out your term and for, again, 

your integrity, your insight, your hard work.

I kind of have to laugh that you have 

ended up with all the marine materials, but either 

that's inappropriate for a landlocked person or 

it's totally appropriate because some of us 

landlocked people do rely on those marine materials 

for use on our farms. So, I know that probably 

wasn't what you intended to jump into when you 

joined the Board, but thank you for all that work, 

and thank you for the insights of small farmers

and for inspiring us to do things better.

There's another person that is actually 

going to resign after the sanitizer panel, and it 

makes me very sad as well. And that is Dave 

Mortensen will be leaving the Board. This is a 

hard one because, as we just saw on the ammonia 

extracts, Dave is a deep thinker and his scientific 

background really brings a lot as well. I think 

of the chelate petition a few years ago where Dave 
219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

was one of the few that could parse through that. 

So, I think the scientific expertise is 

invaluable.

And, Dave, I understand why you have 

to resign, with being head of your Department and 

all the COVID-related chaos, that that means trying 

to take care of students and run a university. 

I know that's a huge amount of work that is variable 

day by day.

But, again, your input on the Board ever 

since I've been on it, it's really nice to have 

that scientific background that you have brought 

to the Board. And I hope we can fill that with 

something that is even close to what you have 

brought.

So, with that almost tearful farewell, 

I am going to turn it over to any of the outgoing 

Board members that would like to say something.

And, A-dae, why don't we start with you?

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Thank you.

And I want to say, yes, the last five 

years have been transformational for me, not only 

personally. I had a baby in the middle of this. 
220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I lost my grandparents. You know, like COVID, 

so many things have happened in these five years, 

and I've taken a lot of solace not only in my fellow 

Board members who are kind enough to pull my weight 

when they needed to, but also in the organic 

community.

I think I have a lot of faith in the 

organic community. I do think at times indigenous 

communities and the organic community are often 

pitted against each one another, and often our 

interests are articulated as adversarial. But I 

think if there are ways to be more inclusive in 

the organic community of not only indigenous 

farmers, but other farmers of color, I think we 

would all be better off and all well off.

Because, through my day job, I do have 

to participate in the larger conversation around 

agriculture in this country and they're massive. 

When we have one week of organic community and 

meetings, the other 57 weeks or 55 weeks of the 

year the larger agricultural community is having 

their meetings.

So, I think all that to say, there's 
221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a lot of community that has to be built within the 

organic community with people who are not always 

included, and it would only create a stronger 

society and a stronger form of well-being, not only 

with people on our lands, if we could find ways 

to also focus efforts on inclusivity. And so, I 

look forward to participating in the NOSB not as 

a Board member, but as a participant.

And again, I thank the entire community 

for understanding and the kindness in the last five 

years. So, thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, A-dae. May 

you, yes, may you have safe travels and continue 

your hard work. I know you do so much good for 

the communities you live in and for your family 

as well.

Dan, shall we put you on the spot next?

DR. SEITZ: Okay. It's surreal, I 

have to say, to say farewell via Zoom, but here 

it goes.

First, I want to say what an honor and 

privilege it's been to serve on the NOSB. It's 

been, I must say, the steepest learning curve I've 
222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ever experienced. It started out like scaling a 

vertical cliff and over time progressed to a steady 

climb up an enormous mountain. I never quite 

reached level ground.

As a public member without a PhD in 

biochemistry and no farming or food production 

experience, I've been in awe of my colleagues who 

are not only so incredibly knowledgeable, but 

committed and outstanding to a degree I have never 

witnessed on a board.

I also want to thank the incredible NOP 

staff. You also bring outstanding dedication and 

expertise to your roles. I must mention Michelle 

by name, since from the day I arrived I have 

observed her tireless efforts on behalf of the NOSB 

and NOP, always with cheerfulness and goodwill.

We all on this Board understand that 

organic food could, if given half a chance, save 

the world. It could reverse climate change, feed 

the world, remediate environmental degradation, 

promote good human health, support the economic 

well-being of American farmers, and provide 

dignified and worthwhile work for millions, 
223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

perhaps even billions, of individuals worldwide.

However, I'm not sure that this 

profound understanding is necessarily shared by 

the rest of the USDA or other branches of 

government. So, Jenny, I appreciate your advocacy 

on behalf of the work and decisions of the NOSB, 

but I don't envy you your job.

A few words on the organic standards 

themselves. I do believe that the clear language

and intent of OFPA was to not allow for the organic 

certification of hydroponic operations. I hope 

that this practice can be reversed or, at a minimum, 

there should be a way to inform consumers whether 

an organic product has been hydroponically raised.

I hope that the organic standards can 

keep pace with the ever-developing practices of 

genetic engineering. Medical engineering has no 

place in organic agriculture. It has unleashed 

enormous environmental harm, whether through use 

of potent pesticides, destruction of beneficial 

insects, or other impacts.

Finally, I hope that we can, through 

the increasing attention to enforcement, fully 
224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

stem the tide of --

MS. ARSENAULT: Dan, you're muted.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Dan, you just muted 

after "Finally".

DR. SEITZ: Oh.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Start with, "Finally". 

You're still on mute.

DR. SEITZ: Thank you. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ELA: There we go.

DR. SEITZ: Finally, I hope that we 

can, through the increasing attention to 

enforcement, fully stem the tide of fraudulent 

organic products, whether produced in the U.S. or 

abroad, and also curtail the operations of factory 

farms posing as organic operations.

That said, I understand that all of life 

is a work in progress and perfection is never 

achieved.

Thank you again for this honor of 

service. I will miss you all.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Dan. Yes, 

my goodness, again, thank you for your thoughts 

and your service. I know at times it seems like 
225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a long five years, but you've borne it gracefully. 

Thank you again.

Jesse? We're kind of going randomly 

here.

MR. BUIE: Okay. I'm really honored 

to have had the privilege to serve on the NOSB 

because I believe, and in my first meeting on this 

Board I said that I believe, in protecting the 

integrity of our organic seal. And I said it on 

my first meeting and I want to say it on my last 

meeting.

And during another very contentious 

time in Jacksonville, I made this statement again. 

I said that one of the things that must happen 

is that the NOP must do its job. And I have 

confidence that Dr. Tucker is going to make that 

happen. Because, also, I believe that the best 

way to restore stakeholder confidence is that the 

NOP does its job.

And lastly, I want to say that I plan 

to use my additional time in working on trying to 

get minority farmers involved in organic farming. 

And I say this because I did it, and I'm 69 years 
226

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

old, so I know the history firsthand. And as an 

individual, well, I know that if a person is willing 

to work hard, I believe in this organic system and 

this system will give them an opportunity to 

succeed.

And finally, Michelle, I thank you for 

everything you did when I was trying to learn, and 

you just went on and did it. I appreciate that.

And Steve has just been a man that's 

just been tremendous, your leadership, because I 

have seen this organization -- you know, I served 

with several boards, but, without a doubt, I think 

the Board that we have now is going to really take 

us to the next level. So, I'm really confident 

that the NOP is going to do its job, which is why 

I voted the way I did, and that this Board will 

maximize what the NOP can do for the stakeholders.

So, I'm going to miss you. Thank you 

very much.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Well, the feeling is 

mutual, Jesse. And I should point out that you 

served as Secretary twice, I believe, or was it 

three times?
227

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. BUIE: Twice.

CHAIRMAN ELA: And I think sometimes 

Secretary is one of the most difficult jobs on the 

moment, having to do simple but complicated math. 

So, thank you, and for chairing the Crops 

Subcommittee as well. That, you certainly stepped 

up. So, thank you for your kind words.

I have said it before and I say it again, 

I really do believe we need more diverse 

representation on this Board. And so, if you will 

work to help get nominations in that will bring 

minority perspectives, diverse perspectives, 

anything we can do to support you in that, I am 

all in favor of it. So, thank you for making that 

note.

MR. BUIE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ELA: I think that is 

something that really we have to be conscious of.

Let's go next to Scott.

MR. RICE: Thanks, Steve.

You know, this has been an incredible 

opportunity, as others have noted, and honor to 

serve on this Board. I want to give heartfelt 
228

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

thanks and acknowledgment to all the support I've 

received on this Board from my personal family and 

from my work family at the WSDA Organic Program, 

with great thanks to our Program Manager and my 

friend Brenda Book.

I'd also like to give a huge thank you 

to and acknowledgment of the incredible organic 

community that supports this Board through its 

extraordinary engagement. It's impressive. And 

together, we're just a passionate lot.

To the certifiers, I hope that I've 

served you well, and I'm in awe of the work that 

you do, that we do, all day every day, day to day 

in the field, in the office reviewing all those 

system plans and materials, in here before the 

NOSB, so eloquently informing all of the nuances 

and details that you and we all do.

To Jenny Tucker, Michelle, and the 

fantastic team at NOP, thank you. Your commitment 

and dedication to the Board and organic integrity 

is clear.

Last, but not least, a big thanks to 

Steve for his calm and warm direction. It's been 
229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a pleasure to serve with you as Vice Chair, and 

I wish you the best with the new officers in the 

coming term.

The work we do on the Board, it's 

detailed, it's technical, and it's intellectually 

engaging, and I never cease to be impressed by the 

insights and expertise of my colleagues. The sum 

of this Board is so much more than its parts.

But, beyond the nuts and bolts of our 

phone calls and deliberations, I think what makes 

this Board work are the relationships that we 

build. I'm so fortunate to not only have built 

working relationships with all of you, but I'm 

departing with true friends.

I wish our new members all the best and 

know that you will find your experience as 

rewarding, and occasionally as overwhelming, as 

I have. And as we've heard from our discussions 

through these tough topics this week, watch each 

card you play and play it slow. But, as for me, 

I'm going to hang it up and see what tomorrow 

brings.

Thanks, everybody, and may we be 
230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

together again soon.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Scott. I'm 

trying to think -- Vice Chair, one or two times 

as Secretary? Help me out here.

MR. RICE: I think twice as well.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, I was thinking so.

MR. RICE: That's a lot of vote 

counting.

CHAIRMAN ELA: A lot of vote counting.

So, you certainly have stepped up beyond the 

normal duties and Chair of CACS, and I can't even 

think back now, my brain is mush, but other 

chairmanships. I know you were Livestock for a 

little bit.

So, thank you so much for your 

leadership and especially this year. I don't know 

how many times I was able to turn to you and say, 

"Scott, what do you think?" And your insights and 

editing of not necessarily the most 

well-thought-out documents that I wrote really 

makes us all look much better. So, thank you.

And with my daughter, hopefully, going 

to school up there, I hope to see you again. So, 
231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

thank you again.

Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Thanks, Steve.

So, I have to just say, in this election 

year, I live in a so-called red state, and I can 

tell you that organic consumers come from all ends 

of the political spectrum, as do organic farmers.

The organic label must remain above 

political pressure or changes in political 

agendas. Organics is organics, regardless of who 

is in office.

Likewise, organics is not about who has 

the most money or who can hire the most lobbyists. 

Might does not make right in the organic system. 

Compromise and open, honest, and transparent 

collaboration are what's needed for this organic 

democracy to work. Every voice must be heard with 

equal resonance, even those who may not have 

spoken.

Let us be guided by the principles that 

created and built the organic movement and which 

sustain us to this day. The goal is not to get 

big or get out, or about adopting the newest 
232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

technologies. The goal is to nurture farm 

businesses that can provide fairly for the people 

who steward them, not by looking for the cheapest 

or easiest, or even most efficient, way, but by 

making a commitment to place, forming a 

relationship to the land they farm, and developing 

a sense of responsibility to the ecosystem around 

them and the broader global environment upon which 

the farm and, ultimately, we all depend.

Thank you to the committed staff at the 

NOP, and most especially Michelle Arsenault. None 

of us could do what we do without you. You are 

a gift to this Board.

To the remarkable folks willing to 

serve the organic community and uphold organic 

integrity by serving on the NOSB, especially, 

Steve, for your leadership, this past year has been 

the most fruitful year on the Board and the most 

collegial, and I believe it has to do with this 

entire group of people making a concerted choice 

to work collaboratively together.

And to the stakeholders who engage 

tirelessly in this process, often as volunteers 
233

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

themselves, in hopes of safeguarding the values 

and practices of organics.

As another retiring Board member once 

said, I will miss the people, but not the work. 

It's been an honor to serve. Thanks for all you 

do, and I look forward to becoming just another 

organic farmer again.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Emily. I 

wish I could buy your produce. So, if you will 

make deliveries to Colorado, that would be much 

appreciated.

I know you've shied away from 

leadership, top leadership on the Board, even 

though you would have been very well-qualified, 

but you have served as Chair of committees and, 

certainly, helped mentor a number of people in 

recent years, and certainly my cohort when we came 

on the Board. So, you've truly had an effect just 

with all your other Board members on the current 

Board, and I think you should give yourself a huge 

pat on the shoulder for that. So, thank you so 

much.

Dave, do you want to say anything?
234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes, I don't have 

anything prepared. I guess I would just say that, 

like others have said, it's been a real honor to 

be working with you guys. And when I started this 

new position, I don't think I ever would have 

imagined what has come in the last year. Having 

30 or 35 people here and trying to deal with COVID 

has really tapped me out. So, I'd rather not be 

stepping off, but I really can't manage more right 

now. So, that's what I decided to do.

I'll miss you all and I will certainly 

stay plugged in. I may not be staying plugged into 

NOSB/NOP things, but I certainly will stay plugged 

into continuing the good battle to argue for an 

ecologically-based organic agriculture. There 

have been a couple of times I wish I could have 

done more. Certainly, the Jacksonville vote 

really kind of threw me for a loop as a member. 

But I would agree with Emily, this past year has 

been incredibly collegial and respectful, and I 

think more than any other time I've been on the 

Board I've really been able to hear what people 

had to say, and had a better understanding of where 
235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

they're coming from.

So, yes, thanks.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Thank you, Dave. Yes, 

as well, I value your commitment to your students. 

That's very impressive. And thank you for trying 

to make it a safer place and still create education. 

I think education is about the best thing I can 

think of. And whoever said education -- and I 

think it was you, Dave -- should be a research 

priority, I think that probably would be a very 

good addition along with the human capital side 

of things.

So, thank you. Let's say you'll be 

sorely missed.

With that, there are just a couple of 

other things in closing remarks and business.

I do want to note that the Board, as 

a group, has created a sign-on letter, signed by 

individuals, not in our Board capacity, but as 

individuals of the Board, to send to the Secretary, 

encouraging the Cost Share Program be reinstated 

at its full cost, as stated in the farm bill.

We have all seen and we heard in the 
236

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Floor debate about the pressures on farmers this 

year, and I think that, even though it's only a 

difference of $250, it is a difference, and it 

really does make a difference to organic growers, 

and does support them in ways that they are not 

often supported, since they're often left out of 

other farm programs. So, the Board has individually 

signed onto those, and we will be forwarding that.

I know Jenny, Dr. Tucker, has 

intervened on our behalf as well with FSA, 

encouraged that. Thank you, Jenny, for stepping 

outside what your day job is and helping advocate 

for us. It does make a difference.

So, I just wanted to let everybody know 

in our community that the Board is very supportive 

of that Cost Share Program, and it's something that 

we'll do our best to continue to support.

The final thing is there is one more 

part of this Board meeting, and that is the 

sanitizer panel that will be coming up in November. 

Michelle is going to send out all the sign-in 

information.

I, personally, even though sanitizers 
237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

make my head spin, I'm really looking forward to 

the panel because we consistently have had notes 

from stakeholders that we need to review sanitizers 

as a group, not just in single materials, even 

though we will look at them as single materials,

and I am hoping that this panel will help us look 

at them, at least think about them in a larger 

perspective.

And I'm really pleased that we know who 

the five incoming Board members are in January, 

and I hope they will participate in this panel 

because I think it will, hopefully, if it all goes 

well, set the stage for some of their decisions 

over the next five years.

And, Dave, I know you're going to stay 

for the panel, and as outgoing Materials Chair, 

you've certainly had a hand in making that. I look 

forward to your comments as well.

Our current five Board members who are 

going off, you are not off the hook yet. You are 

still on the Board until January. Just to remind 

you, we still have our teeth in you just a little 

bit. And, of course, your input into the sanitizer 
238

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

panel as well will be very critical, since you've 

been through the throes of having to work on 

sanitizers and figure all this out. So, I'll 

remind everybody we'll have that sanitizer panel 

coming up.

With that, I think that concludes my 

remarks. I want to turn it back to the program 

before we close for today, just to see if they have 

any closing remarks.

Jenny, do you want to say anything?

DR. TUCKER: Just very, very quickly, 

I wanted to say a big thank you to all the Board 

members, including our departing ones. You have 

been an honor to work with, and I know we still 

have a couple of months left here, but I did want 

to add my thanks and praise.

And, Steve, again, a beautiful meeting 

facilitated. There was a lot more action in terms 

of voting and some real contentious issues this 

time. And so, you facilitated that as artfully 

and collaboratively as I have ever seen. So, I 

wanted to thank you for your leadership throughout 

this meeting. You are an amazing person and Board 
239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Chair, and I look forward to working with you again 

in the year ahead.

I will simply close by saying, as I did 

in the spring, that we are all continuing to 

experience this very, very unique time of COVID 

and this pandemic in our own very unique and very 

personal ways. And yet, we, again, came together 

for democracy and action. And that just means the 

world to me.

So, thank you. Be well and be safe to 

all of you. So, thanks for all you do.

CHAIRMAN ELA: Yes, my final comment 

to the Board members is I will apologize to -- let's 

see, I have to look -- to Scott, to Dave, Dan, and 

Wood because you didn't get to start an equal number 

of votes, as the rest of them did. We didn't get 

around for those extra four times. So, I hope you 

don't feel slighted.

But, 71 votes later, I am going to call 

this meeting closed until we meet for a sanitizer 

panel.

Take care, everybody, and thank you so 

much.
240

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 5:25 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

+ + + + +

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

+ + + + +

FALL 2020 MEETING

+ + + + +

PANEL DISCUSSION ON SANITIZERS

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

NOVEMBER 12, 2020

+ + + + +

The Board met telephonically at 3:00 

p.m., Steve Ela, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT

STEVE ELA, Chair

SCOTT RICE, Vice Chair

JESSE BUIE, Secretary

SUE BAIRD

ASA BRADMAN

JERRY D'AMORE

KIM HUSEMAN

MINDEE JEFFERY

DAVE MORTENSEN

EMILY OAKLEY

NATE POWELL-PALM

A-DAE ROMERO-BRIONES

WOOD TURNER
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

STAFF PRESENT

DR. JENNIFER TUCKER, Ph.D., Deputy 

Administrator, National Organic Program; 

Designated Federal Official

MICHELLE ARSENAULT, Advisory Committee 

Specialist, Standards Division

JARED CLARK, National List Manager, Standards 

Division

SHANNON NALLY YANESSA, Director, Standards 

Division

DEVON PATTILLO, Agricultural Marketing 

Specialist, Standards Division

ALSO PRESENT

ANGELA ANANDAPPA, Alliance for Advanced 

Sanitation

BOB DURST, Simple Organic Solutions

JOSEPH MORELLI, Ecolab 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

(3:00 p.m.)

MS. ARSENAULT: All right. I have the 

top of the hour. So, I'm going to hand it off to 

Jenny now to reconvene us.

DR. TUCKER: Okay. Good afternoon, 

everybody and thank you so much, Michelle. I'm 

Jennifer Tucker. I'm the Deputy Administrator of 

the National Organic Program.

And so, I would first like to welcome 

back all of our National Organic Standards Board 

Members. This is the final leg of our online 

meeting for fall 2020 and you've heard it from me 

a few times and I'm going to say it again.

Your continued dedication and 

flexibility has really made what has made this 

possible. We have more than 100 people joining 

together to talk about sanitizers.

It is a very important conversation for 

the community and for the Board. We're very, very 

grateful for our expert panel today. And so, we'll 

have the Board do those introductions in just a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

couple of minutes.

But I did want to again thank the Board, 

particularly our outgoing Board Members who are 

kind of on their last online journey with us this 

afternoon. So, big applause to them.

This is the final virtual webinar for 

the fall 2020 meeting. Transcripts for all 

meeting segments will be posted online.

This meeting, like all other meetings 

at the National Organic Standards Board, will be 

run based on the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

and the Board's policy and procedures manual. And 

I will continue to act as the Designated Federal 

Officer for all meeting segments.

I do want to thank the NOP team for being 

on here and facilitating this process. Michelle, 

in particular, does a lot of work to bring expert 

panels together. And so, I thank you, Michelle, 

for everything.

And of course Steve and Dave, who are 

leading this session as part of the Board's work, 

you are both wonderful partners to work with. And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

so, I think I'm handing the mic back to Steve. 

I'm sorry, I lost the email that tells me what to 

do next.

CHAIR ELA: You are.

DR. TUCKER: Okay. So, Steve, take it 

away.

CHAIR ELA: Thanks, Jenny. We 

appreciate you and the staff for making these 

virtual meetings possible and also, I guess when 

we're not meeting virtually.

But I want to welcome everybody to this 

final leg of our fall Board meeting. We did not 

include it as part of the Board meeting itself even 

though it is just because we wanted to make sure 

to give these panelists the time that they deserve 

and also to give the Board plenty of time to ask 

questions of them.

This has obviously been a very hot topic 

on our stakeholders and the Board. It's one that 

we certainly need to gain more experience on.

And so, I really want to thank the 

panelists for taking the time out of their day to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

help edify us. And I also really want to thank 

them, this was supposed to be part of the spring 

meeting and for being willing to kind of hang with 

us as we adapted virtually and agree to be here 

today.

So, thank you to those three and we're 

really looking forward to the discussion. I am 

going to do a quick roll call of the Board Members 

so our transcriptionist knows who is here.

So, I will read through the names if 

you would say if you're present. So, we'll start 

with Sue.

MS. BAIRD: Here.

CHAIR ELA: Asa? I know we've been 

waiting for Asa to join. I hope he signs on soon. 

So, he is not present yet. I will try and let 

you all know when he gets online. Jesse?

MR. BUIE: Present.

CHAIR ELA: Jerry?

MR. D'AMORE: Present.

CHAIR ELA: Rick? Michelle, is he one 

of the ones that hadn't joined yet?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ARSENAULT: Rick is not going to 

be with us today.

CHAIR ELA: That's right. You said 

that. Yes, I'm sorry. Bearer of short memory 

here. So, Rick is not present. Kim?

MS. HUSEMAN: Here.

CHAIR ELA: Mindee?

MS. JEFFERY: I'm here and I just saw 

a note from Asa in the chat.

CHAIR ELA: What did it say, I guess 

is the question?

MR. BRADMAN: I'm here.

CHAIR ELA: Great, Asa, welcome. So, 

Asa is present. Dave?

MR. MORTENSEN: Present.

CHAIR ELA: Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Present.

CHAIR ELA: Nate?

MR. POWELL-PALM: Present.

CHAIR ELA: Scott?

MR. RICE: Present.

CHAIR ELA: A-Dae?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. ROMERO-BRIONES: Present.

CHAIR ELA: Dan? And Dan was one that 

couldn't be here today as well. So, Wood?

MR. TURNER: Here.

CHAIR ELA: All right. Thank you very 

much, everybody, for attending this. So, I'm 

going to go ahead and turn it over to Dave Mortensen 

to introduce the panelists and to run the, kind 

of the time for each of them.

And then after the panelists give their 

presentations I'll take back over to run the Q&A. 

So, Dave, you want to take it away?

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Steve. And 

we want, the NOSB wants to thank the speakers, 

the three speakers, Bob Durst, Dr. Joe Morelli and 

Dr. Angela Anandappa for committing the time that 

it takes to prepare for this sort of discussion 

in anticipation of the questions that you'll be 

asked as well as the time you are taking out of 

your schedules this afternoon to be with us.

This subject is a subject of, the 

subject of sanitizers is one of those subjects 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

where the Board works hard to try to be consistent 

from one compound or one application to the next.

And it's one of the more vexing subjects 

that we encounter and we really appreciate your 

sharing your expertise on the logic underpinning 

where they're needed and what criteria we should 

be looking at very closely when we evaluate their 

fit for organic production.

So, we're delighted to have three 

experts in this area who spend all of their work 

time on this subject. So, they certainly have a 

lot to share with us.

Our first speaker is Bob Durst. For 

over 20 years Bob worked in and managed the Food 

Composition Lab at Oregon State University. He 

brings a deep technical knowledge of food chemistry 

and of the processing industry as well as a 

longstanding interest in organics.

He's written numerous technical 

reports for the Board and is intimately familiar 

with organic systems and handling. In addition 

to his past work at OSU, he is also Principal in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Simple Organic Solutions, a consulting group that 

assists organic food industry partners.

Dr. Joe Morelli is an organic chemist 

with 20 years of experience in formulations and 

new product development centered on food safety 

and quality. He's a private sector scientist in 

global research and development at Ecolab.

He's recently been working on a number 

of questions regarding cleaning and sanitation as 

well as on livestock handling in organic 

applications.

And our third speaker, Dr. Angela 

Anandappa, is the founding director of the Alliance 

for Advanced Sanitation as well as an instructor 

at Northeastern University. And before that, she 

was a research faculty member at the University 

of Nebraska.

Dr. Anandappa is an expert in food 

safety and associated materials and technologies 

and interested in food safety and sanitation 

challenges and innovations that could be useful 

in the organic industry.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, the way that we structured the 

afternoon session is that the speakers will share 

their thoughts with the Board and with the group 

on the webinar. And we were going to hold 

questions and open the question and answer up at 

the end of the three presentations.

So, Bob Durst, we look forward to your 

presentation in kicking off the Panel.

MR. DURST: Well, thank you, folks. 

And I give my thanks to both the NOP and the NOSB 

for convening a panel like this.

In my recollection, this may be the 

first time that something like this has gone on 

which I find I'm enthusiastic about because getting 

all these outside opinions and opportunity to 

discuss in more depth than is usually available 

at the NOSB meetings is something I look forward 

to.

So, thank you for the opportunity and 

the invitation to participate in this. Next 

slide.

So, the first thing I want to do is sort 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of set some background, at least from my 

perspective, about where things are at and what 

we should be looking at. And right at the very 

top has to be food safety.

It's got to be the top priority of 

everything that we do here. You know, a foodborne 

illness because of poor sanitation would be a 

really dark mark on the organic industry and we 

don't want that sort of thing to happen.

You know, there's been some hints of 

that sort of thing going on in the past and it's 

just not good for the industry.

And that being said, cleaning and 

sanitizing practices which are what prevent 

foodborne illness can be implemented that are 

compatible with organic principles and I hope that 

we can address a lot of the questions and things 

about that today.

Next slide. So, first I want to give 

just a little bit of background and some terms so 

that we're all kind of on the same page here. And 

some of this may be, you know, sort of grade school 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

stuff for people but we'll just go over it quickly 

anyway.

And I know processing and facilities. 

I don't know anything about the crops side or 

livestock side of things. So, this is going to 

be focused mostly on that.

So, good manufacturing practices are 

something that's implemented by the industry and 

are widely adopted. I'm going to talk about those 

in a little bit more depth here in a second.

Cleaning is the removal of unwanted 

materials from surfaces and areas that are being 

used in processing. And sanitizing is killing 

microbes.

And oftentimes they're conjoined. But 

they are distinctly different things. But we're 

going to talk about them kind of together.

And then the last brief mention is HACCP 

which is a set of policies, principles, practices 

that are becoming more widely adopted and they're 

certainly mandated in a few sections of the 

industry to ensure food safety.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Next slide. So GMPs, good 

manufacturing practices, are procedures that are 

in place to ensure effective cleaning and 

sanitizing of a facility.

As far as organics are concerned they 

are pretty standard practices with additional 

rinses to ensure that there is no carryover of these 

materials. Oftentimes there is additional 

testing involved to ensure that no residues are 

still present.

And that means that there is additional 

work that may be required than might be routinely 

done on conventional processing. And the object 

of this is to provide a safe, from a microbial 

standpoint, food supply.

And the conventional industry is not 

nearly as concerned as the organic industry is with 

the possibility of chemical contamination or 

chemical safety of things. Not to say that they 

aren't concerned about that also.

Next slide. So, cleaning is primarily 

there to prevent commingling of materials, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

conventional materials or waste materials. And 

an OSP should address all of this.

It's there to prevent, the other part 

of cleaning is to prevent contamination. And 

again, that's standard practices maybe with extra 

water rinses and testing to ensure that there 

aren't residues.

And as I tell the industry all the time 

when I'm dealing with any of them, don't scrimp 

on cleaning and sanitizing. Just because the 

organic folks don't like chemicals doesn't mean 

you've got, you know, you should quit using them 

or minimize their use.

And it's still possible to ensure good 

cleaning and sanitizing as well as continuing or 

maintaining organic integrity. Next slide.

So, as far as sanitizing goes which is 

going to be the focus of this panel, there is a 

number of national list items which are sanitizers, 

some of which have annotations associated with them 

that they're only to be applied on food contact 

surfaces as opposed to direct contact with the food 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

itself.

We'll talk about these undoubtedly 

later on. But here's a short list of them. I put 

the quaternary ammonium compounds on here because 

they're not specifically listed nor they are they 

restricted.

But they are somewhat problematic and 

I'm sure we'll talk about that more later. Next 

slide.

So, HACCP is, as I said before is a set 

of principles for ensuring food safety. And it 

may be incorporated into an OSP or vice versa.

It includes critical control points 

which are designed to ensure the maintenance of 

a safe food supply. And generally, these are 

unchanged for organic processing.

The other thing that could be added to 

a HACCP-like plan are organic control points which 

are mostly around preventing contamination or 

commingling of the organic product with the 

conventional because the same food safety things 

are going to apply for organics as they are for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

conventional.

Next slide. So, in the charge to this 

panel there were a number of materials that are 

potential sanitizers that were listed.

And I just threw this slide in here so 

that we could go back and refer to it possibly if 

necessary or just so that folks knew what we were 

looking at. So, there is a whole list of potential 

compounds and a couple of processes that we'll be 

looking at and talking about. Next slide.

So, in addition to the materials 

themselves are the questions that we've been posed 

with addressing such as things listed here. You 

know, are these toxic?

We'll, they're killing microbes so they 

ought to be toxic at least to something. But how 

far does that toxicity spread down through the rest 

of the environment, to human health, those sort 

of things?

So, these are all again the questions 

that we've been asked to address and I'm sure we'll 

be talking about them in the upcoming questions 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and answers. Next slide.

So, the OFPA criteria, in evaluating 

these materials, include things like detrimental 

interactions with the soil or the rest of the 

environment, their general toxicity, 

environmental issues, human health, biological 

effects, whether there are alternatives either 

physical processes or other natural materials, 

natural products?

And of course, how compatible are any 

of these with organics? Next slide.

And so, since almost all of these 

materials are going to be synthetics, one needs 

to look at how OFPA evaluates a synthetic material. 

First, are there natural alternatives? What's 

the environmental impact both in the manufacture 

and the ultimate disposal of those materials?

Do these things have any impact on the 

nutritional quality or health impacts, adverse 

impacts on the food themselves? Are they a 

preservative? Are they GRAS and are they 

essential?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, that's kind of the, a quick overview 

of what we expect the rest of this discussion to 

look like. So, that's all I had for my initial 

presentation, anyway.

MR. MORTENSEN: Very good. Thank you, 

Bob. That's a great, set the table for the 

following presentations and discussion. The next 

speaker is Dr. Joe Morelli. Joe?

DR. MORELLI: Thank you. Thank you, 

organizers, for inviting me to participate here. 

I'm looking forward to learning from the other 

panel members and throughout our discussion today.

I was looking to start this 

presentation by putting some opening thoughts on 

two of the pre-meeting questions. So, I'd like 

to share and go and review that. So, next slide, 

please.

With regards to Question 7, that was 

asking about a hierarchy in the active ingredients 

that would better meet the OFPA evaluation criteria 

better than others, I looked at this question to 

look more broadly at the different types of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

antimicrobials that may be used in food production.

And at a risk of saying something that 

may be appearing obvious, I think this is a 

difficult task because the evaluation criteria or 

some of the considerations are relevant and 

appropriate.

However, the relative weighting of 

those considerations are going to be different 

depending on the type of application we're talking 

about.

Whether we're referring to an 

environmental sanitizer, whether in a food plant 

or a livestock facility, a food contact surface, 

a skin or a teat antiseptic or even a water 

treatment, each of those relative important 

criteria are going to be balanced differently.

And so, it's a difficult task to say 

that the trade-offs between these different things 

leads you to be able to define that hierarchy. 

And I think that's somewhat relevant in presenting 

how we see the variety of antimicrobials being used 

in the market today. Next slide.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

To give some examples or illustrations 

to this point, I put a few here to point out or 

discuss like we can consider alcohols like 

isopropyl alcohol as an effective or useful 

antiseptic at low volumes.

Clearly, if you were looking to use this 

in a large volume whether large, you know, 

environmental sanitation or CIP sanitation, you 

would have some significant safety risks 

associated with that.

You can have antimicrobial active like 

hydrogen peroxide that has very favorable residue 

profiles and perhaps even very favorable 

environmental fate attributes. However, you 

would be required to use it under very specialized 

concentrations and temperatures that don't make 

it amenable for broader use across all 

applications.

You can look to something like chlorine 

dioxide, a very efficient antimicrobial for water 

treatment having the feature of notch generating 

trihalomethanes. However, it wouldn't be my first 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

choice if you were to do treatments of a broad and 

open surface area.

And we looked even to something like 

peracids or peroxyacides. Broad spectrum, able 

to work at very efficient levels at parts per 

million with favorable residue profiles because 

it will ultimately revert back to the parent 

organic acid.

However, there are questions about 

material compatibility. Whether you are looking 

at its use on stainless steel surfaces in a food 

processing facility where it will find important 

applications are going to be very different than 

the host of materials that you may find in a 

livestock barn where material compatibility could 

be an issue.

You can have benefits for peracids in, 

for example, use in flow management where the 

peracids are much more tolerant to soil loads and 

able to maintain in proper acid and critical 

control levels versus something like chlorine. 

But they come at a higher cost.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Balancing or understanding some of 

these different relevant considerations are going 

to be different depending on the application. 

Next slide.

It's not just the active ingredient. 

There are a host of ingredients that we formulate 

into a variety of antimicrobials and cleaning 

products in order to achieve the full functional 

capabilities whether we're talking antiseptics 

like a teat antiseptic, alkaline cleaners, acid 

cleaners, general cleaners and sanitizers.

I won't go into any particular detail 

at this point on some of those functional 

ingredients. But I did want to use it to introduce 

or discuss two additional points.

So, next slide, please. This is to 

point out for awareness some of the challenges that 

we face and the limitations of nomenclature and 

the use of CAS numbers.

This would be an example that we would 

consider for synthetics for a teat antiseptic that 

would be regulated as a drug product. If you look 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

through the various relevant references through 

the FDA and the EPA for food additives, you will 

find a plurality of different common names being 

used.

And even I as a chemist can often get 

confused in figuring out are these truly equivalent 

or not. CAS numbers are also not a perfect tool.

Many ingredients listed in the relevant 

CFRs do not list with a CAS number. And you can 

have multiple CAS numbers referencing to a specific 

material that, the same exact material.

So, it is cumbersome to work with it. 

It's important to have that awareness. And I 

think it's ultimately incumbent if there are any 

questions to ask the person supplying the 

information about the ingredients.

What is the precedence by which they 

think it conforms to the organic rules? Next 

slide.

The other question is about the 

opportunity for harmonization or at least 

understanding and explaining intent. And this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

relates to synthetics for use between producers 

and handlers.

It's not uncommon for food production 

to use common types of cleaners and sanitizers 

throughout the operation.

In my experience in dairy production 

we will use similar cleaning and sanitation 

chemistries for cleaning the milking equipment at 

the farm as a producer as we would milk processing 

equipment as the handler and we have different 

rules about the types of synthetics that can be 

used across that board.

Next slide. The last topic I wanted 

to discuss, and it's a difficult topic, was 

Question 5 asking about the susceptibility to the 

development of resistance and the potential 

benefit of rotation of different types of 

sanitizers.

I will be up front. I am not the 

microbiologist here. This is a complicated topic.

But I wanted to share some of my views 

or opinions in this space in that I think it's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

absolutely critical that we first make sure we 

understand what we mean by resistance. What is 

the magnitude of change that defines resistance 

and what are the methodologies that are used to 

make that determination?

And through that discussion we need to 

understand the differences between antibiotics and 

sanitizers. How they are used? The levels that 

they are, concentrations and levels that they are 

used at and the mechanisms by which they work.

Only then can we have the appropriate 

conversation about what is the appropriate metrics 

and what are we actually seeing whether it's 

resistance that's innate versus acquired versus 

simply adaptation.

The down side is that we often have a 

number of publications that talk about resistance 

as demonstrated for sanitizers by MIC and that's 

not the right tool.

As we look then to the question about 

rotation, for me we have many customers that have 

used the same sanitizer for many years still able
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

to effectively meet their food safety and food 

quality goal.

It wasn't necessarily a subject of 

resistance, in my opinion. And this is really, 

when rotation is relevant. It may be that you have 

a change in microflora in your environment that 

may favor one type of antimicrobial versus another 

one.

But it doesn't necessarily refer to 

resistance. Resistance or the ability to reduce 

the risk of resistance is, from my point of view, 

highly focused on making sure we are cleaning 

effectively and applying sanitizer in the right 

way to make sure that we knock down the population 

of microorganisms in that application.

That's the most important thing for me. 

So, these are some opening thoughts that I've had 

on at least two of the questions.

I know we'll have an opportunity to go 

deeper into these subjects as we go forward. So, 

thank you.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Dr. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Morelli. And our final speaker in the panel is 

Dr. Angela Anandappa.

And, Dr. Anandappa, would you like to 

go ahead and get started and we'll -- please be 

preparing your questions as we wind down the third 

of the three panelists. Thanks.

DR. ANANDAPPA: Perfect. Thank you, 

Dave. And I appreciate you inviting me, the whole 

Board inviting me to be on this panel.

And similar to Bob, I also am very happy 

to see that such a panel is being assembled for 

this kind of conversation. I am wondering if you 

can hear me, if the sound is coming out well because 

I hear a few glitches at this end.

Is it okay? All right, perfect. 

Thank you. So, I actually want to -- I have a 

couple of slides put together really kind of 

picking up off of what Bob and Joe had already 

presented to you so that there is hopefully less 

repetition.

But in general, I think there are 

several things that are really important for this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

conversation. I am personally very interested in 

this topic and I was really happy to see the two 

particular questions being asked here because they 

are kind of central to my world in many ways.

Next slide, please. Okay, so in the 

context of all of the materials that have been 

shared with you so far for this conversation, just 

thinking about why, what and how I think are very 

important for evaluating the need for any one of 

these materials at all.

Does it really provide a functional 

benefit? And I think both the previous speakers 

also said something to the same effect. Do we need 

it at all and also do we have an alternative to 

it?

The equivalence in terms of whether it 

is equivalently performing to others. And so, 

this is important information for us to consider 

with any kind of sanitizer.

The other thing that I think is relevant 

to this but you may have already thought about this 

is that do we really want to have a conversation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

about sanitizers only or is it about cleaning 

agents and other chemicals that we should also 

consider?

And to think of that in a holistic kind 

of view and also be able to evaluate that from a 

systems perspective. So, we can talk about that 

a little bit further.

Next slide, please. Okay. So, food 

safety is hurdles-based. And you heard, you know, 

Bob speak about HACCP.

And so, I like to think about this in 

terms of, you know, where do all these chemicals 

fit into our world of food safety because 

ultimately the goal is to ensure a safe product 

that does not lead to any kind of a recall or issue 

for the producer?

And so, reducing or eliminating that 

risk that we may have is really our goal. And so, 

if we are not doing that with the chemical, 

whichever that may be, it may not be the right 

approach.

So, it's one thing that it is important 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for any producer as they choose a chemical to use. 

And next slide, please.

Okay. And so, one of the most 

important things in the world of this whole, you 

know, use of sanitizers, use of disinfectants is 

really how do we use it and the consistency with 

which we are using this.

So, between chemical action, physical 

action, contact time, that combination is really 

what gives us the deliverable that we're looking 

for. And of course, water quality, consistency 

of those protocols in every single day what we do 

and the efficacy of the sanitizer itself.

And I think this is one thing that I 

put this group of people something that is an 

opportunity that does not involve really 

evaluating any more chemicals that I think can help 

tremendously.

And it's really the consistency with 

which you clean, we actually clean not necessarily 

applying the sanitizing itself because we know that 

sanitizers do not work on unclean surfaces.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And so, the cleaning efficacy itself 

in removing the soil, removing the target that 

you're going after before you need a sanitizer is 

really important. Next slide.

Okay. Here are some images. These 

are not mine but I have similar ones on studies 

that we were doing.

And it's important for any producers 

to recognize that biofilms are present at a very 

high rate in most places. You know, just most 

places on the planet.

But we know that food processing 

environments between the equipment itself as well 

as the entire environment there can be a pretty 

high prevalence of some kind of biofilms. And so, 

it's important for us when we are looking at 

chemical efficacy to consider biofilms rather than 

target organisms.

And so, I've been looking at this for 

a little bit of time now looking at, you know, what 

types of studies do we really, should we be 

considering because there are papers and papers 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

and papers that we can look through.

But frequently they do not consider the 

entire biofilm nor do they do a good job of looking 

at biofilms in real-world settings. Next slide, 

please.

Okay. I think there is a few enters 

that you might want to press here. And to consider 

that bacteria live in communities. Press enter 

a few times. I think the others need to show up.

Thank you. And so, a study that I 

published in collaboration with my USDA 

collaborators and Texas A&M, just within the last 

month, we did this study which lasted quite a bit 

of time.

And it was really interested because 

we decided to do the study because we know biofilms 

are, biofilm work that has been done so far does 

not really take into account some of the real-world 

biofilms.

So, we want to play with these 

real-world biofilms and see. You ask the question 

of what is resistance and what does that really 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

mean? How do we consider that when we think about 

sanitizers?

And so, when we think about that, one 

of the things that we realize and we learn through 

this process is, you know, we've known some of this 

before. But we've learned quite a bit more about 

the social situations, let's say of these biofilm 

communities.

They really are living communities. 

And thinking of any one of those microorganisms 

as a unique or individual type of microorganism 

is one of the mistakes we make.

So, we think about E. coli or we think 

about listeria or salmonella and there are so many 

studies that have just been one microorganism. 

And that is one of the things that we need to 

consider in how we evaluate the efficacy of those 

biocides.

Enter, enter and we move to the next 

slide, yeah. And of course the fact that the 

biofilms are ubiquitous so that they are different 

in these different environments.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And so, what we are looking at in terms 

of the next generation of the types of 

microbiological work here used to look not just 

at the one microbe but also at the whole community 

and look, these next-generation genomic tools to 

really analyze them.

Enter, thank you. Okay, next slide. 

Okay, the middle image is one that we got as part 

of a study that we published.

But, you know, another thing that we 

see in the studies that are published frequently 

in sanitizer efficacy studies it really shows us, 

you know, individual microorganisms.

And so, we're looking for equal 157:H7 

here. And really what we are seeing is that over 

time that microbial community changes.

And so, our evaluation of whether that 

microbial community is responding a certain way 

to the presence or to our cleaning protocol seems 

to be dependent upon what's going on in the 

facility, what type of product is being produced, 

the type of surfaces being cleaned, the cleaning 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

protocol and of course, you know, the introduction 

of certain types of pathogens.

And so, it's very complex. The biofilm 

itself is complex. The surface is complex. And 

so, to both your questions, to 8 and 9, you know, 

these are not easy things for us to tackle, but 

they do require a lot more work.

So, next slide. Okay. And so, as I 

think about what are the main characteristics that 

we need to consider here, there are a few that 

really are important.

One is the word resistance and 

persistence. Resistance, when it comes to 

bacteria, the entire world of biocides we think 

about it as resistance that will lead to antibiotic 

resistance which is really one of the most 

important things that we're concerned with.

But is it really the same as saying its 

resistance to a sanitizer? And they really aren't 

the same thing.

There is what we call resistance that 

can lead to the horizontal gene transfer and then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the kind of between organisms and are they actually 

picking that up and do we reevaluate it that way 

or is it that the organism is developing some 

learning mechanism by which it can then say no, 

I don't want this sanitizer?

And so, these are the kinds of 

biological systems that we have in play right now. 

And so, there are several things that are 

important here.

But I think the big one that I want to 

suggest here is that for organic foods one of the 

biggest opportunities is to drive the fact that 

cleaning versus the use of a sanitizer alone, it 

can make a big difference in whether or not you 

need a new chemical.

So, there are many things that we can 

discuss. I think I want to stop right here so that 

we can ask questions. 

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you very much for 

that presentation, Dr. Anandappa, and for the three 

presentations. Steve Ela is going to be 

facilitating the question and answer. So, Steve, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

do you want to --

CHAIR ELA: I'll take over. Thank 

you, Dave, and thank you to the three panelists. 

I know we're -- you threw out some -- I'm just 

going to say food for thought. I don't know how 

appropriate that is.

But I know that's just the -- you 

scratched the surface of the whole topic. And so,

I'm going to look forward to the discussion and 

questions.

And we have plenty of time for this. 

So, I will encourage the Board Members to dive 

into this and let them -- our panelists edify us 

and tell us where we're misthinking and where we're 

thinking correctly. So, Emily, go ahead.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. And I 

apologize, there is some background noise. I hope 

you guys don't hear it. 

Thank you guys so much for taking the 

time to be with us and to share this expertise. 

And just as a little bit of background, as the 

Board receives petitions for new materials, as Dr. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Anandappa referred to, it can be very difficult 

to determine the necessity.

And I'm wondering if you could 

elaborate a little bit more on some of how the Board 

can look at these petitions, each one sort of based 

on its own needs and merits and use potential and 

give it a fair evaluation given that we already 

have materials and aren't always totally clear 

about the necessity of a new one, although of course 

we understand, you know, evolving needs, different 

uses, et cetera.

So, I just -- I know that's a very broad, 

broad, broad topic, but overall I think what we're 

looking for as well as starting that conversation 

on how we can assess new petitions fairly and 

effectively.

DR. MORELLI: Which question is that 

directed to?

MS. OAKLEY: Any of you that might want 

to answer.

DR. MORELLI: You know, I think that 

you really, you have some of the building blocks 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for making that assessment now. It's how do you 

weigh the different factors?

You know, what does it offer from an 

efficacy? What does it deal with, with regards 

to safety, residues, environmental fate? You 

really are touching on a number of the things that 

are right.

I think that where I would also include 

is what can it do to enable user compliance? 

That's another important point to consider with 

that.

So, as you look at that what is it 

offering above and beyond what you have and are 

you weighing that correctly? As I mentioned 

before, I think this is a difficult task.

I could see certain ingredients that 

I would not favor in one application but another 

one it would be my top choice. And so, that's why.

And I also think that what Bob said in 

the beginning is still essential. What does it 

do to offer us and ensure we have safe food? I 

mean, at the end of the day if it helps us achieve 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

safe food better that's, it should be considered.

MR. DURST: Let me add something here. 

And that is that the protocol that is in place 

in the current rules and regs along pest management 

where you have a hierarchy of treatments and 

materials available to you is something that might 

be appropriate here with cleaners and sanitizers 

that we have a list of things that are approved 

and are widely used.

And if a facility or an operation finds 

that those are not effective in some way, shape 

or form, you know, there is nothing at present for 

them to do. But maybe we need to say okay, in this 

circumstance you've got an acute outbreak of some 

kind you need to do something, possibly hopefully 

for a short length of time.

Here is what you can do. Here are some 

materials that are the next level up that you may 

be -- may be available to you.

CHAIR ELA: So, could I -- I know Asa 

has a question. But can I interject there?

So basically, I mean I think that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

actually a great approach that you start with 

cleaning and then -- and like a certifier could 

actually look at what have you done first that would 

be natural such as cleaning and then you, what 

you're suggesting is then you move up, you know, 

from cleaning, IPM approach and then to hard core 

-- or harder core chemical.

Is that, am I hearing that right? Bob, 

you're on mute if you're responding.

MR. DURST: Yes. That's basically 

what I was suggesting.

The problem there once again though is 

what are those materials and most -- and in an event 

like that would not be something that you could 

-- you know, it's something that would need an 

immediate response is part of the problem.

You know, a plant that has an outbreak 

or suddenly discover high counts or something like 

that isn't going to want to wait a week to hear 

a response. They're not going to want to wait an 

hour.

They're going to want to do something 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

about it now. So, that -- again, as all of this, 

difficult situation too.

DR. MORELLI: I would add that, you 

know, in my experience if you would look to some 

of the antimicrobials that were listed or even 

those that you might say are more natural based 

whether essential oils or certain organics, they 

will typically require fairly high concentrations 

to be effective in the type of application 

conditions we're speaking about or they will not 

have the breadth of kill to deal with the variety 

of food safety and quality issues that food 

processors are worried about.

So, it's not only that question. 

You're going to say what is the relative -- let's 

say what is the relative environmental fate impact 

if you're having to use tens of percent in 

concentration and large volume, you know, CIP 

sanitation or environmental sanitation versus 

something that may be effective at part per million 

levels?

That's again why this is not an easy 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

thing. But I assure you that many of the first 

steps in saying natural will not necessarily have 

the full spectrum of kill and capabilities and 

efficiencies to fit a number of these applications.

CHAIR ELA: Asa, why don't you go 

ahead.

MR. BRADMAN: I have a couple of 

questions and one is theoretical and one is perhaps 

a little bit, a little -- kind of a case study.

One, in terms of resistance it's been 

suggested to me -- like I understand the idea of 

sanitizers, particularly oxidant mechanism 

sanitizers if we're talking about resistance there 

that's different when we're talking about in terms 

of antibiotic resistance.

But one microbiologist that I know 

suggested that particularly for quaternary 

ammonium compounds, that there is a mechanism where 

mobile DNA elements, specifically Class 1 

integrons can be impacted by quats and there can 

be induction of antibiotic resistance.

So, distinguishing antibiotics and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sanitizers here. But there could be cross over. 

So, I'm just curious if that makes sense to anyone 

on the Panel.

And then my second question is, you 

know, we have a petition right now for CPC, let 

me get my pronunciation right here. I just lost 

it.

DR. MORELLI: Cetylpyridinium 

chloride.

MR. BRADMAN: Yes, exactly. So, 

that's a quat. And this is the first time this 

class of material would be on the national list 

if it was approved.

And, you know, I'm thinking when I look 

at this, you know, it's another chlorine compound. 

You know, what benefit would it have relative to 

existing chlorine compounds?

And then it's also in the category of 

a food contact material which, you know, raises 

other concerns about, I think, the consumer. So, 

I'm just curious, question one and question two, 

you know, what your take on that is.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. MORELLI: And question three. Let 

me first say the term chlorine compound in 

referring to the salt of the chloride as a chlorine 

compound is probably not the most accurate.

I think it's better to be represented 

as a quaternary compound. You know, there are many 

different elemental forms of chlorine. Only a 

number of them are often used as antimicrobials 

for their oxidative properties.

Chloride is not going to be one of those 

types of components. I will jump in and say that 

the cross-resistance is a tougher topic.

You've got -- there is a lot of 

literature. It's very complex literature. There 

is a number of panels that have reviewed on this 

topic.

And, yes, in laboratory settings they 

have been able to demonstrate the ability for 

cross-resistance to happen. But they do not have 

that proof in the real world circumstances.

And part of the challenge is, I think 

that Angela was suggesting is you need to have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a pool of microorganisms available that have the 

genes that can be horizontally transferred to the 

subsequent ones so you get an acquired resistance.

And the magnitude of what that change 

needs to be is something that can be discussed. 

When you create that in an artificial environment 

in a laboratory you can demonstrate that.

Proving that out in the real world where 

the population level of microorganisms is much 

lower is the complicated piece. So, 

cross-resistance gets to be a much tougher topic.

And the reality is today we have 

evidence that suggests in the lab one way, yes, 

it's possible and in other cases, no. And that's 

why this is a difficult subject.

And we can talk a little bit more about 

what resistance means in this case. But I will 

pass it over and see if Bob and Angela wanted to 

jump in and comment too.

DR. ANANDAPPA: Yes. I think it's 

important for us to determine or to understand that 

there is a difference between resistance and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

persistence.

And this is what's happening in food 

environments. And as much as we want to test this 

and we want to see if this is actually true, the 

real world situation versus the lab is truly --

it really is difficult to prove.

And it's really --- you know, it changes 

dramatically. But I would stick with the word 

persistence. There is a way that microorganisms 

like to persist and they like to build niches and 

a certain amount of rotation is necessary.

But we have still not found kind of a 

good recommended protocol to say you must change 

at this time. And we're looking for methods by 

which we can tell, you know, an operator when they 

should do that, right.

I think intuitively people do that and 

I think to Joe's point he said, you know, you can 

see a plant using the same chemical for many, many 

years and there may not be a change.

But we haven't necessarily done a lot 

of evaluations on those types of facilities for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

us to genuinely be able to say there is no genetic 

change, right, because we don't monitor plants for 

as long as we would like to.

So, there is an opportunity for some 

kind of resistance, which I don't think it's proven 

yet for us to be worried about in that way. But 

there is a necessity to be able to say, yes, there 

is a possibility here that we need to monitor and 

because of that there need to be options.

And so, I think this is a previous 

question. But one of the things that we need to 

provide operators is, you know, some way by which 

they can choose chemical a, b or c.

If you don't pick one of these you must 

do this and in this circumstance when you have an 

outbreak or when you have to do an intense cleaning 

activity -- the non-daily cleaning activity -- then 

you must, you have the option of using a different 

material.

Those are the kinds of things that I 

think in our thought process and logic we should 

be able to provide people for that, you know, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

monthly clean for instance, right, or preventive 

kind of approaches that they need to take.

I also want to touch on a couple of 

things that you had on the list which is, you know, 

not our typical chemicals that we've been using 

so far.

But things like, you know, the 

nanotechnology and other approaches that we need 

to have some options in our toolbox and those are 

really worth talking about.

DR. MORELLI: I would add a little bit 

more on this subject on resistance and 

cross-resistance in that there is -- we need to 

understand that, as I said in the beginning we need 

to make sure we are talking in common language of 

what we mean by resistance because you can have 

innate resistance.

That is the organism already has some 

of the genetics that allows it to be expressed 

phenotypically that promotes a resistance to 

particular antimicrobials. You could say like a 

spore-former or a different type of microorganism, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

it may have a much thicker, more complex outer cell 

membrane. Those are innate. That does not mean 

resistance.

It just means it is less -- it has a 

higher tolerance for a particular antimicrobial. 

Then you have acquired resistance in which the 

genetic information is exchanged to the 

microorganism.

It has to be expressed as well. So, 

it can't be simply a genotypical proof that the 

gene is now incorporated into the microorganism 

so therefore it must mean resistance.

No, it must also be expressed that it 

can lead to a change in tolerance that is relevant. 

And then you can have adaptation. And that is 

that the environment in which the microorganism 

is being exposed to can often influence its 

susceptibility to it.

So, that gets to the question about what 

really defines resistance. Well, at the most 

basic level if you talk about antibiotics it should 

be a change in clinical efficacy.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Now, given that antibiotics are used 

internally at very low levels they often use MIC, 

a minimum inhibitory concentrations in order to 

look at this change in tolerance to the antibiotic.

And that probably is relevant given the 

way it works within the body. It's not relevant 

when you're talking about using and looking at a 

sanitizer because it's going to be used at a much 

higher concentration with a lot less soil and it 

could be, in essence the way I think about it or 

it can give an image, is just let's say that 

resistance is developed by enabling a greater heat 

flux to remove the antibiotic out of the cell.

And you've gotten genes that increases 

are up, regulates the use of heat flux. So, now 

you can imagine heat flux is like a man with a bucket 

in a boat and he's bailing out the water.

Well, now you simply put five men in 

there with pails bailing out the water. But if 

they get hit with a tsunami at a high concentration, 

it's not going to stop. You're still going to 

knock it down.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, when you talk about what represents 

a meaningful change in resistance for a sanitizer, 

it may be well, do I no longer meet the standards 

that are required to be -- meet the registration 

test standards at the appropriate concentrations?

That could be one way. So, we really

don't even have that basis to say what defines what 

resistance is. A change in susceptibility may be 

temporal and an adaptation.

So, the evidence of looking at 

sub-lethal cycles and then saying I see a change 

in MIC is not an appropriate measure. So, 

anchoring on these things and making sure we know 

what they represent is, I think important to 

advance the science.

MR. BRADMAN: I could ask more 

questions but I'll let other people.

CHAIR ELA: We'll definitely come back 

to you, Asa. Dave, you're up next.

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. I -- over the 

years that we've been working together on the Board 

the issue of having the tools in the toolbox is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

a word phrase that comes up a lot like we need to 

expand the insect management toolbox.

In this case the sanitizer toolbox. 

And I have a concern when I think about that word 

phrase expand the toolbox that it's a potentially 

slippery slope.

Like, where do you stop expanding the 

toolbox before the list of materials that are used 

in organic becomes so long, you know, that, you 

know, that we're not perhaps being discerning about 

who passes through the gate to get on the list?

And so, I've wondered -- so with that 

little bit as a backdrop, can you imagine a way 

that compounds like these, the sanitizer compound 

group where we actually start from saying no, what 

does no look like and if you pass no, in other words 

if you're above the criteria that put you in a must 

not proceed to the toolbox category, that that 

might be the strategy of defining no as a rule of 

thumb or a process step for the Board would help 

us to have a clear set, a logical set that says, 

you know, we really can't have these compounds 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

used.

But if they pass, no for these criteria 

then we should be considering other factors. And 

question one, does this make any sense?

And two, if it does make sense, what 

are some of the rules of thumb that would lead one 

to conclude that a compound is a no compound, it 

doesn't go for further consideration to the 

toolbox? If anyone is willing to take a shot at 

that long-winded question and statement.

MR. DURST: I'll jump in with something 

and it may divert slightly from what you're asking 

and your statement.

But the use of cleaning compounds --

moving away from sanitizers for a moment -- is 

virtually unrestricted as far as what those 

materials are because those have some kind of 

intervening step in them, typically rinses and 

purges, et cetera to allow them to be used.

And so, procedurally you don't have to 

evaluate all those cleaning compounds because 

they're not making contact with the food or -- and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the food surfaces -- contact surfaces has been 

cleaned up. Sanitizers are a little different 

than that.

But maybe in some cases where there is 

a situation where there is a big outbreak or 

something and somebody needs to do something --

and of course this applies way more for a processing 

plant where you've got food contact surfaces, not 

direct food contact. That's a different question.

But, you know, one could use virtually 

any material to knock down that outbreak, clean 

the place up, sanitize the place but then have to 

go through again some kind of predetermined 

procedure to clean and make sure that any of the 

residues from those materials that were used that 

aren't on any list are no longer present and you 

can start back up again because you've knocked down 

the outbreak that you had.

And that's kind of how quats right now 

are used in the industry. There are some pieces 

of equipment and some situations where quats are 

the most appropriate sanitizer to use.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But because of the fact that they leave 

residues that's what's always kicked them out of 

being used, you go through extensive cleaning 

operations afterwards and then re-sanitize with 

something else and move forward and continue the 

process.

Now, I'm not sure how applicable that 

kind of procedure is in direct food contact or 

livestock, that sort of thing, where you've got 

direct food contact.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Bob.

DR. MORELLI: The producer or 

processor obviously will want to optimize their 

production time too. And so, additional steps 

will always be difficult for them to consider.

The question posed is a difficult one. 

I don't know if I have the perfect answer. I think 

there would be a hierarchy of choices depending 

on whether that application was, you know, in 

direct food contact or not, in my opinion.

There would be different decisions I 

would make.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Joe.

DR. ANANDAPPA: Something to add to 

that is that I think people rush to sanitize and 

they don't consider the quality of their water nor 

do they consider, you know, the frequency at which 

they need to test or in some areas of the country 

I think we have, we're lagging in our ability to 

be compliant with some of the water requirements.

And I think in particular when it comes 

to fresh produce and products that, you know, are 

consumed fresh or minimally processed, this is an 

area in which I think, you know, Dave, your question 

of, you know, do you move forward or not, this is 

a special area that we need to consider does a 

chemical need to be used?

Does a disinfectant need to be used? 

I mean, what category of material are we using 

it? And also, are there other additional 

considerations that probably need to come first 

before you add an additional material?

And water certainly is one of the big 

ones here where we've seen, you know, plenty of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

examples in which water can be an issue.

You know, an example that I work with 

personally is that, you know, you see counts and 

it's even after the sanitizer is applied and 

sometimes it has to do with the fact that the water 

source may not be treating -- may not have been 

treated properly. And so, that does happen.

MR. MORTENSEN: Thank you, Angela.

CHAIR ELA: Yes, those are great 

points. We've got questions from Jesse and Wood. 

But I just want to throw one in.

You know, in one sense it's like 

shouldn't we approve everything because, you know, 

they all have purposes.

And then I guess the other question 

becomes, you know, do we try and evaluate, I guess, 

downstream environmental damage is a better way 

of saying it versus, you know, what -- versus the 

fact that these are all biocides and, you know, 

may have specific purposes?

So, I guess what I'm trying to really 

ask is, it kind of follows on Dave's of how do we, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I mean in one sense it seems like there would be 

very few materials that we shouldn't approve 

because they all have different uses.

But in the case of one that might, you 

know, really cause some, you know, some level --

I'm going to say extreme but maybe it's not that 

high -- you know, biological damage after it's 

used, you know, in waste water or wherever else, 

you know, is that the only one we wouldn't approve?

DR. MORELLI: You know, you still are 

asking some of the right questions. I think again, 

if you have a new candidate what is it offering 

above and beyond the other ones either in outcome, 

microbial control outcome from a food safety, from 

an environmental fate? You know, I don't think 

it opens the entire door. But there can be sort 

of a rational assessment to say are you, if there 

are trade-offs is the trade-off in a positive 

direction for consideration of a new material?

I don't think you can just look at one 

factor in that. But I think that you could do an 

assessment. It might be more application 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

specific, in my point of view. So, if it's a water 

treatment than how does it compare to the other 

water treatment capabilities? What's its pros and 

cons and does it have a place that has merit? To 

try to go generically across the whole family, I 

think that's where you're going to fall short and 

it's going to be disruptive and weaken your 

capabilities and make our food less safe.

CHAIR ELA: Yes, thanks. I mean, I 

think that really, you know, it comes down to that 

question that we all struggle with of what you just 

said. Is it different enough from what we already 

have to approve it but yet, you know, also what 

you're saying is even small differences can make 

big differences depending on how they're used. 

We might circle back around. But I want to give 

Jesse and Wood a chance to ask their questions. 

So, Jesse, why don't you go first.

MR. BUIE: Yes. Continuing on that 

line of questioning with the cleaners and the 

sanitizers, where do we consider the functional 

groups that are attached to these molecules because 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

normally -- what I'm saying if you look at what 

we have on the list basically, you know, you've 

got the hydroxyl groups and the carbonyl groups. 

Is that something that should be considered when 

we look at a new compound to see what is the 

difference between that and what we already have 

and --

DR. MORELLI: I think at an organic 

functional level I don't see that making sense to 

me. I think that there are functional classes of 

materials and what they do. It's not going to be 

down to a hydroxyl or an amine or something like 

that. I think you're, I look at cleaners from my 

point of view if I understand it that we would have 

an appropriate invention rinse step and are often 

only considered for questions of whether they 

conform to the organic rules or not is if they have 

prohibitive substances in it like irradiation or 

sludge or genetically modified materials. The, 

but to break it down to that organic functional 

group, I don't think that you're going to be able 

to make rational decisions through that process. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Did I misunderstand your question?

MR. BUIE: No, no. And also, I have 

noticed that it looks like there may be interaction 

between maybe a cleaner and a sanitizer based on 

the function of groups that are on it. That's the 

other part of my question. And is that something 

that's being, should be considered when we are 

adding something to the list?

DR. MORELLI: Can you give me an 

example because in my mind the process of cleaning 

means you have to remove all the soil and all the 

cleaner away through the rinse process before you 

seek to do the sanitation step? You're not, you 

shouldn't be putting sanitizer on top of residual 

cleaner.

MR. BUIE: Right, I see the point 

you're making. Completely, complete that first 

process before you go to the second process there 

shouldn't be any interaction between the --

DR. MORELLI: There shouldn't be. And 

then again, if this speaks to this question of 

resistance and cross-resistance as well. Make 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sure you do cleaning effectively and then apply 

the sanitizer to its label instruction basis and 

contact time and concentration to make sure it does 

the job right. And as Angela was saying and Bob, 

you do not sanitize right if you haven't cleaned 

the environment or the surface or the equipment 

appropriately.

MR. BUIE: Right.

MR. DURST: But having said that, there 

certainly are situations where you've got an 

environment or a circumstance where the efficacy 

of sanitizer depends on the pH that something is 

at. And if for some reason you have a really 

alkaline water system your sanitizer may not be 

as effective as if it is acidified in some way, 

shape or form. And that kind of brings up another 

area that we probably ought to be discussing.

And that is that just, you know, 

approving a compound like peroxyacetic acid which 

is on the list, that is never applied or any of 

the commercial formulated products that are 

peroxyacetic acid based, for instance aren't pure 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

peroxyacetic acid. They've got stabilizers. 

They've got some other compounds in them and 

discussion had come up in the past as to whether, 

gosh, we didn't look at, you know, Compound A, B, 

C that happens to be in all of these formulations 

and it's not on the list. So, does that mean that 

all these peroxyacetic sanitizers really don't, 

can't be used because they're formulated with this 

stuff?

And I think I'm correct in saying that 

the ruling kind of was -- or the take on that was

that because the TRs were looking at formulated 

products that typically had these stabilizers in 

them, for lack of a better term that the whole range 

of compounds that were used there were going to 

be acceptable even though there is stuff in there 

that's never been approved and that's not on the 

list for sure.

DR. MORELLI: That's correct. But 

there are often a number of advantages. You're 

right. For most of the peroxyacetic acid formulas 

you are really talking water, hydrogen peroxide,
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

acetic acid and the peracid. You do have a 

stabilizer that's essential for it and it's at a 

very low level and it gets vetted through the 

different applications whether it's through the 

FDA or the EPA in assessment of the risk reward 

and saying that's appropriate if there was a way 

to stabilize it.

I think part of the reason why it's been 

accepted is there isn't an alternative. You look 

at the peracid and it does offer a lot of benefit 

against some of the evaluation criteria, the 

criteria that I take in consideration. Broad 

spectrum, efficiently used at low levels, most will 

revert back to the parent thing. The hydrogen 

peroxide will ultimately break down to oxygen and 

water.

The peracid will move back to acetic 

acid that's naturally prevalent. You're really 

going to have a very low level of stabilizer. I 

look at those advantages over, for example, using 

chlorine. And I would say that there are, if I 

looked at the risk reward balance between the two 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

I would say peracids have a number of very viable 

attributes.

To your point before about water and 

water quality and pH for sanitizer, that's just 

as important for the cleaning, to be able to 

effectively clean. A big part of what we do with 

our customers is making sure we understand their 

water and what that means to maximize that they 

can clean effectively. And that's also why we have 

many different functional elements into the 

detergent to make sure we have robust cleaning 

given the diversity of water conditions that our 

customers face.

CHAIR ELA: Okay, Wood, on to you. 

Wood, you're on mute.

MR. TURNER: Can you hear me now?

CHAIR ELA: There you go.

MR. TURNER: Sorry. This is obviously 

incredibly technical and complex and I'm, I feel 

way out of my league here. But I want to pivot 

a little bit and ask kind of a similar question 

but probably a more simplistic question. And I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

just wondering if there is any meaningful or 

intellectually honest way to kind of consider the 

people that I consider to be sort of the front line 

workers, if you will of the organic industry. And 

that's people who are handling materials. And is 

there any way to kind of limit the list in any 

meaningful way as a starting point to say, you know, 

these are the most safe or these are the only safe 

for handlers or is that also equally complex?

DR. MORELLI: Hard to answer. Very 

application specific if you're talking about 

safety for the handler.

CHAIR ELA: Yes. That does come 

around to, and I know Asa has been very concerned 

about this, safety for the handler versus efficacy 

in terms of sanitizing.

MR. TURNER: I understand that it's 

complicated when we're talking about food safety 

and environmental safety. But I just, you know, 

it's hard not to think about that as a piece, as 

being equally important. We're talking about 

consumers obviously. We're talking about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

ecosystems obviously. But I think those people 

are absolutely critical to this whole process. 

So, I just -- I appreciate the complexity and I 

appreciate the nuances around application. But 

the question still holds for me.

MR. DURST: I wonder if that can't be, 

since all of these materials have to be approved 

for use anyway outside of organics if we can't, 

you know, turn to OSHA or somebody like that as 

the regulator of those kinds of things even though 

those regulations may not be ideal in our minds. 

At least there is something that one can turn to 

there.

CHAIR ELA: Emily has got a question.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. I know that 

this is a very broad and general question. But 

the Board is challenged when we receive these 

petitions for new materials which is really what 

prompted us to go down this road of trying to elicit 

more information about sanitizers. In reviewing 

these new material petitions for determining what 

is the specific need or what is the specific use 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for which each sanitizer or disinfectant is being 

petitioned? And is there a need there that is not 

already being met by existing either materials or 

practices?

Obviously, when a petition material 

comes before us the petitioner feels that there 

is a unique need. But how we weigh that out with 

the, with what's already available has been very, 

very difficult for us. So, I understand that what 

I'm asking is very broad and probably difficult 

for each of you to answer. But I was wondering 

if each of you, Angela, Bob, and Joe, had thoughts 

if you were sitting in our shoes in essence, if 

you were on the Board how you would approach these 

petitioned materials and how you would fairly and 

accurately evaluate them.

DR. ANANDAPPA: It's a good question, 

Emily. And really a flow chart comes to mind, 

right and we sort of need one of those for this 

at which point you say yes, yes, no. There has 

to be that end point. And it seems like, and I 

don't know, you probably have something like that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for your decision tree so far. But that seems to 

make sense and it's something that perhaps I would 

want to communicate to people before they develop 

their petition and send it to you.

That said though I think there are some 

opportunities where, you know, currently approved 

materials can be approved for a different use case. 

I think there are many of those that if you do 

have those, those are probably the easier ones to 

approve. But other than that, you know, my 

experience has shown that pretty much any one of 

these materials you've got to have a backup 

material and a backup to that material because if 

you do not have that you should have that.

So, I would want to have that. That's 

risk management for your list irrespective of, you 

know, the petitioner themselves. We do need to 

have different applications. Also their 

efficacy. They have options for using them. 

Simply, and I say that because there are certain 

applications such as meat and poultry or poultry 

which may be very different from, you know, fresh 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

produce or whichever but they may be trying to use 

the same chemical and I know that there are 

instances where they do that.

So, in that situation you've got to 

have, you know, two to three options in the same 

class for the same purpose. If you don't have 

that, that may be an easier one to approve. But 

I think other than that there has to be that stop 

and it has to check off all those boxes that you 

say no, we do have something that addresses that 

and a scientific basis that goes with that.

MS. OAKLEY: Can I follow up with that, 

Steve?

CHAIR ELA: Go ahead.

MS. OAKLEY: So, I think that what 

you're saying makes a tremendous amount of sense. 

How do we as a Board develop that? I mean, we 

had looked at trying to get a technical report sort 

of based on much of what you're describing. But 

that actually met with some resistance within the 

stakeholder community.

And it seems to me that a technical 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

report might be able to flesh out some of what 

you're discussing, although of course it would 

simply be suggestions for us as Board Members 

rather than, you know, providing us with a 

framework. But do you have suggestions for how 

we might develop something like that, not just as 

Board Members but I know you're not maybe super, 

super familiar with all these different, you know, 

processes by which we receive information. But 

any suggestions you have would be greatly 

appreciated.

DR. ANANDAPPA: Yes. I think taking 

some of the presentations that we've done for today 

and then having a little bit of a tete-a-tete with 

some of, as a follow up with it that this alone 

could develop, you know, a very, very basic stick 

figure framework that we could probably flesh out 

a little bit. But I think that necessity, efficacy 

and alternatives kind of approach come first to 

me. You know, what is the -- is it a distinct 

situation from what has existed in the past?

And I think that is very different from 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

the perspectives of petitioners because they are 

coming from, you know, their space and their 

viewpoint. And as much as I would have respect 

for where they're coming from there are points at 

which, you know, as a Board you have evaluated it 

before and you've been able to have different 

decisions made and that history does matter in that 

decision making process. And I would say that's 

probably where you start off and add to that.

DR. MORELLI: I think I would add to 

that, that we're always learning. We're a steward 

of our products. Our customers are a steward of 

their products as well. Requirements are 

changing. Requirements are changing in this 

industry that may change the landscape of what 

cleaners or sanitizers can be used. And so, you 

have to be able to think and adapt to offer so that 

you have a market for those organic products 

through the process and meeting their 

requirements.

You know, to your point before about 

what would you do as selection and this is a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

difficult one, I don't know if I would have the 

perfect answer right now. There would have to be 

either one, in my mind you have an emerging change 

in requirements for safety or microbial control 

that is not being effectively met with the 

solutions today. Then I would be much more open 

to accepting something of any type of chemistry 

that meets certain thresholds. If that 

information is not provided and they are saying 

we think it's needed then I would be asking does 

it hit on one or more other of the evaluation 

criteria that gives it an advantage over the 

existing to accept it in?

You know, I guess and I would be less 

concerned, for example, if you think about a topic 

like environmental fate. I would be much more 

amenable to taking an antimicrobial that may break 

down to components that are already naturally known 

to be in the environment or obviously in foods as 

a preference over something that may not. That 

to me would make much more sense. So, I think you 

could think through some criteria that says okay, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

if you can't substantiate the efficacy or the 

market need requirement technically to prove it 

what about the other features?

One or more. Set your threshold to say 

we want to see you improve on attributes if I 

compare it against the existing in that application 

that would benefit those areas. I think then 

you're in essence trying to improve the tools in 

the toolbox.

MR. DURST: I'll add to that just a 

little bit. You know, CPC was mentioned earlier. 

I will admit that I know nothing about it. But 

as a general class being a quat that has some unique 

and different characteristics than any of the 

sanitizers that are currently on the list. And 

so, they're -- and again not knowing anything about 

it specifically there may be a necessity, as Joe 

said that, where the, it's efficacy profile is 

appropriate for some need emerging pathogen or 

something like that, that maybe it's appropriate 

to have something in that class in the toolbox, 

as Angela has mentioned, to fall back on if the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

current practices are becoming ineffective.

CHAIR ELA: I think we'll go to Asa but 

I have some follow ups on that after Asa asks his 

question. So, go ahead, Asa.

MR. BRADMAN: You know what, Steve, I 

think this discussion has been really interesting 

and why don't we hold off on my question. So, go 

ahead if you're asking about this issue of 

evaluation.

CHAIR ELA: Sure. I mean, I guess so 

it brings to mind two questions. One, I mean, you 

know, in talking about quats versus chlorine 

materials versus peroxides, do you think -- I mean 

would we be better to have at least one material 

from each of those classes in our toolbox? I know 

Angela mentioned, you know, really that we may need 

two to three options in the same class.

I mean are there, yes, is it better to 

go across classes so we can bounce around given 

the comments on resistance versus persistence or 

is it and then within those, I mean even though 

we have alternatives taking Angela's comments of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

two to three options within that, I guess I would 

be kind of interested in your, each of your 

perspectives on that. I'll choose one of you, 

Angela.

MR. DURST: Real quickly.

CHAIR ELA: Go ahead.

MR. DURST: It's often not that you 

need things, multiple things in the same class. 

It's often that you do need something in a 

different class because it has a different kill 

spectrum associated with it.

And so, you know, you might have an 

organism that is very sensitive to chlorine. So, 

you haven't got a problem using chlorine based 

materials but you get something that's resistant 

to this, somewhat more resistant to that and you 

need to knock it down with a peroxy or quat or 

something like that. So, yes, I'll leave it at 

that.

DR. ANANDAPPA: And just to clarify, 

Steve, I think I agree with you that you might want 

one from, one or two from the different classes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not necessarily, and just to clarify, from not to 

have three of the same type of compound, let's say.

And I'm sure Joe can tell us a lot more 

about, you know, with his chemistry background. 

But I feel that that is, you know, giving people 

options isn't necessarily about, you know, being 

able to necessarily even think about the same 

microorganism.

But the idea that having a certain 

amount of rotation is recommended all, you know, 

throughout, right. This is a good practice.

But we don't do it with a real rationale 

unless there is a real, you know, a crisis. And 

for the crisis situation if you have, a certain, 

you know, number of tools available what might 

sometimes happen which is, watch out, is that you 

have the crisis used too frequently, crisis package 

used too frequently which isn't effective either.

So, you do have to classify them in such 

a way where people have a sense of, you know, what 

should be used. So, a certain amount of 

recommendations of best practices are necessary, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

not only tools in the toolbox.

DR. MORELLI: I would just add, the 

question, we use the term chlorine let's make sure 

we understand what we mean by that term chlorine. 

There are many different antimicrobials that are 

chlorine based that have different attributes and 

profiles.

At the same times we know, for example, 

in the dairy industry there is growing pressure 

with regards to chlorine residues that may 

influence the ability to using traditional 

hypochlorite and chlorine as a food contact 

sanitizer step.

So, again I mentioned before that there 

will be evolving regulations. There will be 

evolving and improving expectations and standards 

in the food industry that's going to affect what 

that toolbox is going to look like.

CHAIR ELA: Asa, why don't you go 

ahead?

MR. BRADMAN: So, I had a couple of 

questions and a comment. One, I just want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

reiterate some other comments around the 

importance of occupational impacts, that's a big 

dimension of these things.

And it's not quite the focus of the 

discussion today. But, for example, I've worked 

with farm workers for many years and also working 

in processing facilities and they complain just 

bitterly about exposure to bleach and related 

compounds.

And I've looked at other environments 

with seafood processing and things like that and 

again, just really high exposures related to bleach 

and similar compounds.

And also, when I've tried to look for 

OSHA and other, you know, like other environmental 

and occupational monitoring I really didn't see 

much literature out there on exposure assessment, 

monitoring in food processing facilities.

And I think, that I think should be just 

inherent to the use of any material that have, you 

know, potentially severe respiratory or other 

effects.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

So, again it's been in the chats and 

comments today. And again, I think that's more 

of a, maybe a Board issue than what we're hitting 

on today.

But, you know, I'll give an example 

though where we have been challenged. Last year 

or two years ago we voted down silver dihydrogen 

citrate.

And part of it was that the mixture of 

uses didn't seem appropriate. And we were also 

concerned about environmental impact.

At the same time I think that material 

actually probably had a better occupational 

profile than some other materials. So, I heard 

the mention of nanomaterials.

And there is, I think concern in the 

organic community about these materials. But it 

sounded like they were being suggested as something 

we should adopt.

So, that's kind of a combination of 

comment and question number one. Number two is 

I also heard mention of an IPM approach.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And it sounds like that's being talked 

about more in terms of rotating materials and maybe 

prevention to some extent, but not necessarily 

managing populations.

And I just, you know, the question I 

have out there if we apply disinfectant sanitizer 

that wipes out, you know, every living thing or 

maybe even we use heat or flame the ultimate 

oxidizer, do we then open up niches for pathogenic 

bacteria that wouldn't exist?

And is there an IPM approach to food 

safety that considers, you know, managing 

populations rather than just trying to kill what 

we don't like?

DR. ANANDAPPA: Asa, this is a very 

complicated area I think you are bringing up and 

there is probably three fold, three or four fold 

answers to what you're going after.

The nanomaterials part if we could park 

it for a little bit. I think one of the important 

things that you're asking about is can we take kind 

of a holistic view to the food processing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

environment instead of thinking of it as, you know, 

a target that, where we're trying to use the 

sanitizer to eliminate or completely eliminate the 

microflora or the pathogens, right.

And I think this is the connection point 

again of how we look at the frequency of sanitation 

and the run time. So, I'm assuming this is inside 

a facility where you are actually run time, where 

run time actually matters, right.

But outside of that setting as well 

there is cleaning that's necessary from the farm 

to transportation to getting it into the facility. 

All of those steps require an appropriate cleaning 

step and the cleaning step if done correctly the 

sanitizer is not the biggest issue that you should 

be facing.

And I think that is the big opportunity 

that you have if you're trying to see it as, you 

know, do you look at it as IPM? So, IPM which is 

for pest management is really about exclusion.

And you're really trying to do 

everything possible to avoid having to use any kind 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of, you know, trapping or chemical mechanism or 

something like that. But you're really trying to 

use a holistic understanding of the target 

organism.

Similarly, for bacteria and for 

pathogens of interest that a sanitizer would be 

used for, that is the same approach that you're 

looking for as sanitizer is your last resort for 

completing eliminating it on the surface of 

interest.

So, you're not trying to sanitize your 

entire facility. You're not, that is not the 

intent.

And so, if you do have to think of that 

as the intent you're really talking about worst 

case scenario, right. And so, you do have these 

risk-based approach that you will have to use when 

you are thinking about that.

So, I think an IPM approach is really 

what you're talking about. It's really not IPM 

for sanitizer. But you might want to call it, you 

know, a risk-based approach for applying the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

sanitizers or applying a disinfectant.

The other part of it you asked about, 

you know, using silver and things like that. There 

are some really interesting studies that are 

showing efficacy.

The bigger issue that we are seeing is 

the environmental cost of that which may not be 

a good match and it's really not suitable for 

certain applications that, you know, are organic.

So, evaluating it may be worth doing. 

You may not find that you're approving it. But 

it still is an area to look at and to look at science 

and kind of drive the science and it's need to 

back-up and substantiate what's being proposed.

DR. MORELLI: And I think there was a 

middle question there and I don't know if, Angela, 

you're the more appropriate person to speak to 

that. And you were talking about in essence biomes 

and the influences of sanitizers on the biomes and 

what that means.

And I thought I saw that that was an 

element of your presentation, Angela. My 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

perspective it is an emerging field. We are having 

the technology now to better map biomes.

And we will learn more as we go along 

as we leverage that tool that we really didn't have 

before. So, I don't know, Angela, if you probably 

have more experience on this topic to discuss.

DR. ANANDAPPA: I love the idea of 

using biomes and the fact that we can look at this 

because it's a technology we didn't have years ago. 

I have seen it being used in places.

I know some facilities that actively 

are trying to investigate the efficacy of it. 

There is a lot of caution to be taken in place with 

that.

It is, you know, you are really talking 

about manipulating the biological environment that 

you're working with, right. So, unless you have 

the budget to frequently monitor what's going on 

this is a really costly affair right now.

It is worth pursuing for someone who 

has the ability to do so and a couple of big 

companies are trying to do that. Not necessarily 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

organic.

But I think it is an area to look into. 

I have not seen, let's say I'm not enthusiastic 

about adopting it across the board. But I do think 

it's an area to monitor for the future as the 

technology gets a little bit cheaper for us to be 

able to monitor.

And also, you know, I would like to see, 

you know, more people capable of doing the kind 

of analysis so that you can determine how things 

are going within the plant.

MR. BRADMAN: Thank you.

CHAIR ELA: I have a question for, Joe, 

did you want to say something more?

DR. MORELLI: No.

CHAIR ELA: I have a question for the 

program. And I think I should know this answer 

but I often can work myself around confusion.

So, I think Bob mentioned that, you 

know, as long as there is proper like water rinse 

between using a cleanser, a cleaner or a sanitizer, 

a processor can pretty well use what they want.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But I wasn't, I guess I'm not entirely 

clear if that's completely true. I mean, do we, 

you know, as processors do we have the option to 

use any cleaner and then rinse?

Can the program answer that or I was 

thinking we might still have to be somewhat what's 

approved, but I think I may be wrong? So, can 

somebody answer that for me?

DR. MORELLI: Yes, maybe, Bob, you're 

better to answer this. But let me weigh in that 

I think that a part of your GMPs should be asking 

and addressing that question of whether you are 

validating a cleaning process where you will expect 

to remove any of the residual of the cleaner and 

the chemistry.

There are organizations that have tried 

to set up sort of guidance documents, the Global 

Food Safety Initiative to give folks questions 

about how do you go through and ask is your cleaning 

step effectively removed?

Have you validated it? And if you 

can't characterize it maybe you look to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

chemical properties to make some assessment about 

the risk of whether it needs to be measured or not 

and then find out what your true chemical residue 

risks are and make sure that you're able to monitor 

for that measure and monitor for that.

So, it's not just -- it shouldn't be 

a part of the GMP and the HACCP approach to make 

sure that they can answer that question. Is that 

reasonable, Bob? Do you agree with that?

MR. DURST: Yes the, you know, all of 

that should have been addressed between -- in the 

OSP and approved by the certifier. And I see in 

the chat, I don't know who the certifier is, but 

basically they said, yes, anything goes as long 

as you can get rid of it.

CHAIR ELA: And I guess, Devon or Jared 

or Jenny, do you have a comment on that?

MR. CLARK: Yes. I mean we, as was 

kind of alluded to here, you know, we do look to 

the certifiers to make sure that it's documented 

in the OSP that, you know, that prevention of 

contact with prohibited substances is being upheld 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

in some way.

And then I think both Bob and Joe, I 

think you both touched on that, that we really do 

look to the certifiers to have that evaluated and 

approved in the OSP.

CHAIR ELA: So, what you're saying is 

really when we get a petition for something what 

we're really looking at is, I mean, anybody could 

use anything as long as there is a cleaning step.

So, what we're really approving in a 

petition is either food contact or that material 

not removed with a rinse after its applied. Am 

I, you know, otherwise anybody can use anything. 

Am I interpreting that right?

MR. DURST: Yes, you're interpreting 

that right. But the key here is that there is a 

real difference between cleaning, here is where 

the differentiation is between cleaners and 

sanitizers.

Cleaners one does want to completely 

remove them so there are a lot of rinse steps 

afterwards. After a sanitizer you don't want to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

touch it or rinse it or do something like that 

because you're at high risk of recontaminating an 

already clean surface and that's not good. 

Processors don't want to do that.

CHAIR ELA: Sure, yes. I guess I also 

had another question. And it kind of comes back 

to the biofilms that you talked about, Angela.

And I have heard about biofilms. I'm 

not as familiar with them as I should be, I'm sure. 

But part of my understanding is that they are 

incredibly difficult to remove through cleaning 

and they're also incredibly difficult to reach with 

sanitizers.

So, what kind of approach are you, I'm 

going to say recommending for lack of a better word. 

I know it's a difficult topic. But how do we 

approach this?

DR. ANANDAPPA: Yes. It's an 

interesting topic to say the least. But biofilm 

removal is really, you need to understand that 

biofilms are multi-layered organisms.

Imagine a hotel. I think this has been 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

described a few times for people not here of course. 

But imagine a high rise hotel and your biofilm 

is what you might see or be able to detect is right, 

it's the penthouse.

But all those layers, you know, all the 

floors underneath there is microbes that live 

there, right. Somewhere in between you have, you 

know, layers that are not living cells that at which 

point you might say, you know, you are cleaning 

from the top.

You can detect that. You are cleaning. 

And you say okay, well that's not alive.

You know, and it's really difficult to 

be able to detect if you use ATP and, you know, 

certain testing methodologies that we have to be 

able to say it's gone which is a reason, you know, 

we advocate for using the contact time, using an 

adequate amount of scrubbing, scrubbing and 

cleaning versus relying on a sanitizer.

And again, I think, you know, we've said 

this about, you know, using instruction, the 

manufacturer's instructions to apply a sanitizer. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But prior to doing any of that if you don't do 

an appropriate amount of scrubbing and cleaning, 

like actual cleaning is removing those layers, 

removing all of the floors that the biofilm is on.

So, identifying the potential areas in 

which you might have biofilm development is what 

you need to first figure out and that's a lot of 

areas in a plant, right. Imagine your shower, 

right.

There is biofilms all over that shower. 

But there are certain areas in which you might 

visibly see it and you might be able to say I need 

to clean that a little bit more.

That's the same approach that you have 

to take in the food processing environment where 

you need to identify those niches and be able to 

really use a lot of physical force. And then it's 

only after that, that you can even go with the 

sanitizer.

But, you know, it's one of the biggest 

mistakes we tend to make when we don't see 

something. We don't have, you know, an indicator 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that says it's gone.

So, people tend to, you know, forget 

or they move on and they say that looks good, it 

looks shiny. But the shiny surface may still have 

a biofilm.

So, it's really a matter of tricking 

our own minds to say the cleaning is necessary 

before we sanitize.

DR. MORELLI: And I would agree with 

that. And sometimes hygienic design is also 

important.

A lot of equipment in food facilities 

are not designed to be effectively cleaned. There 

are dead ends. There are places.

We do have technologies and ways of 

improving cleaning. I'll give an example. In the 

dairy industry spore count is a concern and lab 

pasteurized counts are quality metrics for milk 

that farmers are incentivized to penalize based 

on how they can deliver against those.

We tend to believe, for example, lab 

pasteurized counts are associated with some of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

these biofilms and we have the means to be able 

to knock those down. Same way with spores to be 

able to clean up and knock down that biofilm to 

low enough levels in order for them to do it.

Now, these are not your typical 

cleaning procedures. They take a little bit more 

steps and processes to do it. So, they're not 

something we do as an ongoing cleaning process.

Obviously, we think that's important. 

I think that Angela is right. It is hard 

sometimes to know about the biofilms and be able 

to check to make sure you've eliminated them all.

But there are some cases where 

microbial metrics that we believe associated with 

that are a good metric and we are able to 

demonstrate that we can help promote and remove 

the biofilms.

CHAIR ELA: So, is there a way to help 

prevent the formation of them to start with, kind 

of coming back to the IPM model? And then is there, 

I mean, you know, I understand the complexity of 

scrubbing.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

But at some point, you know, we all 

worry if you scrub enough then you've created, you 

know, microscratches and things on the equipment 

that in themselves want to harbor those 

microorganisms.

So, I guess I'm curious, you know, how 

we approach this without creating more trouble.

DR. ANANDAPPA: Steve, I think you're 

getting into an area in which the solutions aren't 

yet compatible with organic production. But good 

hygienic design really is the solution.

But good hygienic design even in the 

best circumstances doesn't mean that you're going 

to avoid complete biofilm formation mostly 

because, you know, with every single new thing that 

comes into the environment you have an opportunity 

for a biofilm to take root and become happy there.

So, you know, proper cleaning is really 

what it comes down to in any circumstances.

CHAIR ELA: Fair enough. You're not 

making me any more comfortable as a processor. 

But I guess the next, the other question I would 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

have is should we be, I mean really should we be 

annotating the substances.

We talked mostly about non-food contact 

surfaces. But, you know, we haven't touched much 

on food contact.

I guess I would like to, I know those 

are, Bob said even with food contact surfaces, you 

know, we don't want to rinse them afterwards 

because it kind of defeats the purpose or 

potentially could.

But with, where we have actual food 

contact and, you know, this is certainly the case 

in the animal processing world, what do we need 

to think about in those situations?

MR. DURST: Yes, that's a real good 

question and it is something that may be part of 

the evaluation criteria as you're looking at them.

You know, is this going to be -- this 

material if it's coming up for petition going to 

be used strictly as a food contact surface 

sanitizer in which case there is different criteria 

that one may want to apply to it versus a direct 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

food contact material.

CHAIR ELA: And so, with direct food 

contact what would you three say? I mean, 

obviously there is going to be a lot more questions 

of absorbance and, you know, surface contact or 

not.

How would we look at those direct food 

contact materials versus, I'm going to say food 

surface contact for lack of a better word?

DR. MORELLI: I want to make sure, Bob, 

I want to make sure we're clear. For me I think 

a food contact sanitizer in part is a little bit 

different than say a food tissue treatment.

I want to make sure we're on the same 

thing. In those cases we need to get approval 

through the appropriate government authority.

If it's a food contact sanitizer it goes 

through the EPA and they will be reviewing and have 

the capabilities and knowledge base in order to 

do assessments on the safety of those products to 

make that decision that it's approved as a no rinse 

food contact.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

The same thing with food treatment. 

It depends on the nature of that treatment. But 

that will be under FDA and they will also do the 

appropriate risk assessment for the chemistries 

that are approved for food contact.

CHAIR ELA: Agreed that we still often 

are more restricted in organic. I mean, if you 

said we just rely on FDA then any of the materials 

could be used and organics would tend to put a 

little deeper in that.

I mean obviously it has to be FDA 

approved. But would we go any further in organics? 

And if we would go further, how would we do that?

DR. MORELLI: Those are the principles 

which you want to, you know, make -- guide the 

decisions. It comes to first principles.

MR. DURST: Well, not just first 

principles. But it goes back to the OFPA criteria.

You know, what's the toxicity? Does 

it affect the, you know, are these residues that 

may have adverse health effects, those sorts of 

things.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CHAIR ELA: You're not making it any 

easier for us. Go ahead, Angela.

DR. ANANDAPPA: And of course is it 

GRAS, right? So, that's one of the things that 

we always seem to look for.

If it does at any point come into 

contact with the food we're going to look for, you 

know, residue limits, limits on that and toxicity 

levels and of course, you know, do we actually 

recognize this as a safe product versus a sanitizer 

alone? So, all of that.

CHAIR ELA: Emily.

MS. OAKLEY: Thank you. So, I'm 

trying to kind of summarize up in my own little 

notes what we're talking about here, particularly 

because what always concerns me because I'm an anal 

person, is what are the Board's next steps with 

this topic?

And I don't want this sanitizer panel 

to be the last that we address it. So, how can 

we as a Materials Subcommittee in particular who 

is charged with this work agenda item broadly but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

as a Board in general move forward with some of 

this information?

So, it seems to me and forgive me for 

sort of brushing through some of the points that 

we've discussed. But it seems to me some of what 

the Board needs to be looking at is, first is this 

base process of adequate cleaning and rinsing 

happening first and how does this material fit into 

an adequate system of cleaning and rinsing, 

assuming that's already taking place as Angela has 

stressed.

I really appreciate, Angela, the extent 

to which you've stressed the need for cleansing 

and rinsing first before sanitation especially for 

the efficacy of sanitation.

Then sort of asking ourselves the new 

need that a petition material might be meeting, 

the need that's not currently being met by the 

allowed materials. And is that being adequately 

demonstrated?

Efficacy, how well does the material 

work for the specific need identified? And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

alternatives, what are existing alternatives that 

we have and are they adequate?

Are there any materials already 

approved that could be employed in a new use rather 

than adding a new material? And then rotation. 

How does this material fit into rotation and/or 

the need for backup materials?

So, forgive my long reading of my notes. 

Am I adequately capturing the genesis of this 

conversation and what we as a Subcommittee might 

need to look at because I mean, one thing I'll note 

is that as Board Members we don't typically expect 

ourselves to get on this Board and think about we're 

going to be evaluating sanitizers and 

disinfectants.

We think more in terms of just broader 

steps. But obviously we understand that 

sanitizers and disinfectants are needed.

But we don't necessarily have the same 

criteria for evaluating them as we do perhaps for 

other materials given that there is a need that 

is different than, for example, a fertility need 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for producing or growing a material.

So, long-winded to just put the 

question back out there. Am I capturing 

adequately what we've discussed?

Are there things that I should be 

putting into this evaluation list or not, 

evaluation list is not the right term, but overall 

approach list that we as a Board can start 

exploring?

DR. MORELLI: I think from my point of 

view you've captured it well. I would actually, 

would ask the question. What can you learn from 

the FDA and EPA that makes some of these assessments 

for the food contacts?

How do they balance these decisions on 

these and how could you bring some of their thinking 

in the way they approach that risk balance into 

your processes and then with your first principles 

use that to guide how you make your decisions?

I think they are the ones who are 

dealing with these challenging questions the most 

often.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

DR. ANANDAPPA: I agree with Joe and 

I agree with Emily. Emily, you did a good job of 

summarizing that process of how we might go about 

that.

But I agree with the fact that we do 

have agencies who are doing a lot of work in this 

area and that it really may be very appropriate 

to look to them and how they go through the risk 

thinking of that as well.

MR. DURST: Yes. And I agree that you 

captured most of this.

The one thing that one would expect is 

that if you've got a TR for a particular or if you 

had a particular material petition and there was 

a TR generated that the information and assessment 

from EPA or FDA, the appropriate agencies there 

would be captured in that TR.

But the problem is that they're 

certainly looking at different criteria than the 

organic world is. And, you know, adding 

additional OFPA criteria to that assessment of what 

comes down from EPA, USDA or FDA has to be captured 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

somehow.

And I think goes back to some of the 

earlier discussions about, you know, some kind of 

decision tree or additional questions that may be 

appropriate to ask about these materials.

MS. OAKLEY: Steve, would it be okay 

to follow up?

CHAIR ELA: You have a follow up, 

Emily?

MS. OAKLEY: Yes.

CHAIR ELA: Go for it.

MS. OAKLEY: Yes. So, I think 

actually, Bob, you just captured in a nutshell the 

Board's conundrum that, you know, while these 

materials may be necessary and while they may be 

approved through other regulatory processes and 

deemed safe and adequate we also have these 

additional evaluation criteria within the organic 

system that we are trying to evaluate materials 

on.

And I think, you know, if there is 

anything to the stakeholder community that the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

Board can communicate it is just the challenge of 

trying to weigh those different needs, both the 

organic needs and then the food safety needs.

And trying to find that balance has for 

me been very challenging over the past, you know, 

almost five years now.

MR. DURST: And you've got a situation 

where when you get a TR or you're looking at a 

material you're looking at it as a single material 

and out of the context of the whole system that's 

going on.

And it's been pointed out a number of 

times during our conversation today, one really 

needs to take a bigger look at it and maybe, you 

know, something like a TR-like thing addressing 

sanitizers as a generic rather than this particular 

compound or that particular compound somehow needs 

to be added to the mix of things so that you have, 

and maybe that's part of the decision tree kind 

of thing.

CHAIR ELA: Sue has a question. Sue, 

we're not hearing you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

MS. BAIRD: Why would that not surprise 

all of us? It's my mode of operation. This has 

been a great conversation and I know the one that 

the materials have struggled with.

I think I understood, Dr. Joe, you to 

say that we are getting improvements in materials 

and that you're working on those all the time. 

And my concern would be that those of us who do 

the evaluations to the OFPA would say well that's 

got the same base chemical as the other one.

So, we might not need to add it because 

we've already got another, we've got something 

that's got that base. And by making that decision 

I think I'm hearing you say that we may be losing 

some new technology that we, as the organic 

manufacturing facilities would really perhaps 

need.

And maybe I'm oversimplifying. Can 

you clarify that?

DR. MORELLI: I think you're 

absolutely right. You know, as new technologies 

become available and perhaps that are meeting first 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

principles and meeting other attributes for 

improvement it's not just chemistry.

In some cases it may be about 

compliance, making sure they're doing things right 

at the right levels.

And so, there are the potential for 

innovations that, yes, if you look at categorical 

from a chemistry standpoint and you did not 

consider it from what it does holistically to 

improve food safety or the other relevant 

attributes, yes, you could be missing out on 

slowing down the opportunity for innovation to be 

integrated to the organic area. So, I agree with 

you 100 percent.

MS. BAIRD: Thank you.

DR. MORELLI: And let's be honest. 

There is a lot of different antimicrobials on the 

market today.

You're wrestling with how do you make 

this decision? Well, it is a complicated topic 

and I think that's quite relevant when you look 

at the diversity of antimicrobials in use today.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

These are tough topics to work through. 

We often have to provide a variety of different 

antimicrobials to meet our customer's needs in food 

safety, food quality, how it's going to be applied, 

and cost.

And so, that often represents a variety 

of things that are all this balancing act. So, 

it's not -- don't be surprised that this isn't --

this is a hard decision because it's a hard 

decision.

MS. BAIRD: Right. One follow up, 

Steve?

CHAIR ELA: Yes, go ahead. Yes, of 

course.

MS. BAIRD: As we're seeing microbes 

in teeniest little critters as they are who do a 

lot of transformation, I'm really -- we do need 

an arsenal. One type is just not enough.

Just a comment. I've worked in the 

turkey processing business as a QA manager for 

quite a while as some of you know my past before 

I ever became an organic inspector.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

And I think, Joe, and Doctor Joe, Bob 

and Doctor Joe may have taught that class back in 

what 2000 when we took those classes back then 

struggling about these same issues. So, it's not 

something new.

But I would be -- I just would caution 

us as NOSB to be cognizant that microbes are 

changing. They are transforming and we need to 

the tools to be able to change along with them.

DR. MORELLI: And as you know, Sue, so 

are the standards, for example, of managing and 

microbial control for salmonella and 

campylobacter. Those conditions are changing.

Customers are going to need new 

solutions. And that's through the whole food 

supply chain.

MS. BAIRD: Right, absolutely. Thank 

you.

MR. DURST: And there are other 

challenges too with just new processing technology 

that comes along.

The one that comes to mind right up
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

front is hydro-coolers and the possibility of 

contaminating huge batches of stuff but the -- if 

treated properly and with the right materials has 

the opportunity to greatly improve the food safety 

of fresh greens.

MS. BAIRD: Right.

MR. DURST: Yes, challenging.

MS. BAIRD: It is. Thank you.

CHAIR ELA: I know, you know, this has 

been great. We often get comments back from our 

stakeholders that they're very concerned that 

we're going to take away sanitizers. 

We also get comments that, you know, 

we should have a comprehensive review of 

sanitizers. You know, I think this certainly 

brings out and, you know, I don't think it was 

really ever the intention of the Board to take away 

sanitizers at all because we recognize the need 

for food safety in organics, just as you said, Bob.

But I think, you know, this is -- as 

a comprehensive review this is a good start and 

it shows the complexity which I think we already 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

realized. But it adds to it.

But I think your comments on cleaning 

and such are, in some ways we already knew that. 

In some ways it's always good to reiterate the 

obvious because sometimes those get forgotten and 

we all want magic bullets.

So, are there any last questions from 

the Board? I'm not seeing any. I think you've 

given us a lot of food for thought. Dave, do you 

want to say anything?

MR. MORTENSEN: Yes. I just wanted to 

thank the panelists for the time they took with 

us.

I also found Emily's summary -- I was 

sitting here thinking of Angela's decision tree 

suggestion and a number of other comments that were 

made throughout the course of the afternoon. I 

think all of it was really helpful.

It would be really nice for the Board 

and for our work, the work of the Board on behalf 

of the organic community to somehow forge a more 

dynamic relationship with EPA is I think something 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

that's come up here and on the discussion of inerts 

a couple of weeks ago.

But this has been enormously helpful. 

I think a path forward is clearer than it was 

before the panel and that's a testament to the 

quality of the presentations and the quality of 

the question and answer. So, we thank you very 

much for the time you've taken.

I am sure that the Board will be seeking 

input as we try to refine a decision framework that 

helps with our process. So, we'll be reaching back 

out to you all and we do really thank you for the 

expertise you shared with us.

CHAIR ELA: Yes, I would very much echo 

that. It was, you know, say like the silver 

petition that we received which we ultimately did 

turn down and a lot of it was based on downstream 

effects.

I mean, what you said made me feel like 

our process at least on that was good. We 

certainly struggled with it a lot and the 

downstream effects were one of our main concerns 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

for ultimately turning it down.

But we did see that, you know, that was 

a different class and that, you know, some of those 

things could be very valuable.

I just, yes, I personally want to thank 

you three for taking the time. I know it is no 

small amount of work to prepare for one of these 

and it's not just the three hours of panel 

discussion but it's the background and pulling 

together slides and putting your slides together.

So, thank you very much for that. I 

think you've given us, like the decision tree 

thought of how do we approach these IPM thoughts, 

those are all great ideas. Jenny, do you want to 

say anything?

DR. TUCKER: I wanted to add my thanks 

to the panelists and also to Dave and you, Steve, 

for facilitating. This was very, very 

interesting.

And so, I encourage folks if you show 

camera we can give a Zoom thank you if you're out 

there still watching we wave two hands in front 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

of the camera to say thank you. And we genuinely 

appreciate your being here.

And so, Steve, I think our last thing 

is for you to adjourn the fall meeting. Do you 

have your gavel?

CHAIR ELA: No gavel. I will go out 

and get a tree limb or something from one of our 

trees. But, yes, after public comments and three 

days of Board meetings and a day of sanitizers we 

will officially adjourn and call this fall meeting 

closed.

So, thank you, everybody. We will 

regather in the spring. Take care.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

went off the record at 5:08 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com