United States Department Of Agriculture

Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS)

National Organic Program (NOP)

Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

December 2, 2011

Hilton Savannah DeSoto

15 East Liberty Street Savannah

Georgia 31401

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

presiding.

Members Present

Tracy Miedema, Chairperson

Colehour Bondera

Steve DeMuri

Joseph Dickson

Kristine “Tina” Ellor

Barry Flamm

John Foster

Wendy Fulwider

Katrina Heinze

Nicholas Maravell

Robert “Mac” Stone

Jennifer Taylor

C. Reuben Walker

**Please note that this transcript may contain errors or omissions and does not represent an official 

record of all proceedings that took place on December 2. Please refer to the live webcast for a more 

accurate representation of the meeting.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

NOSB Consideration and Vote on Committee Action Items

Crops Committee....................................................................................................... 3

Break............................................................................................................................. 21

Livestock Committee..................................................................................................... 21

Handling Committee...................................................................................................... 31

Lunch ............................................................................................................................ 61

NOSB Consideration and Vote on Committee Action Items, Handling Committee 

(continued)............................................................................................................... 62

Break............................................................................................................................. 92

Compliance, Accreditation, and Certification Committee............................................... 92

Policy Development Committee .................................................................................... 98

NOSB Officer Elections ............................................................................................... 105

Committee Workplans................................................................................................. 108

Other Business and Closing Remarks......................................................................... 117

Adjourn........................................................................................................................ 120
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

3

Tracy Miedema: Good morning everyone. Today is day 4 of the meeting of the

National Organic Standards Board, Fall 2011. We are now back in 

session. Today is dedicated to final committee deliberations and voting. 

All of our voting must be completed. We are set to end at 5:00 p.m. today. 

And we also have, um, some other matters we need to take care of before 

the day is out. So, um, while we do have time for deliberations, we don't 

have time for any one issue to dominate a big segment of the day. This 

morning we'll begin with the Crops Committee. And then go into 

Livestock. Try to get through both crops committee and the livestock 

before we go to lunch today. A few reminders. One thing I'd like to go 

over and put on the record is a, uh, ratio of the votes needed for, um, a 

vote to be considered decisive.

So I'll read that now. There are 14 members of the NOSB seated at the 

Fall 2011 meeting. If 14 votes are cast and there are Zero recusals or 

abstentions a two-thirds majority is 10. So 10 votes for a decisive vote on 

anything we're voting today. If it's 13, 13 votes cast in other words we 

have 1 recusal or abstention it's 9. 12 votes cast we need 8. 11 we still 

need 8. 10 we need 7. 9 we need 6. 8 we need 6. And 7 we need 5. 

And if there were anymore, uh, recusals and abstentions than that in a 

very unlikely, uh, situation we would not have enough members voting to 

have a decisive vote. Any questions from NOSB members before we 

proceed this morning? Okay. The next thing I'll mention is that the order 

of voting. We start at one end of the table and we'll be starting with Barry

Flamm and we rotate. So Barry will be casting the first vote on the first 

motion.

And on the second vote, the second position at the table and that's Jay

Feldman and will cast the first vote. And then Steve on the third, the third 

position the first vote and so on. Any questions about the sequencing and 

the rotation of who votes first? The chair may opt to vote last on any vote. 

Alright, then without further ado I will turn the meeting over to Crops

Committee Chair John Foster.

John Foster: Thank you. Uh, we are moving -- we're going to move in order of the 

voting sheep, I assume. We will move in the order of the voting sheep. 

Uh, first, uh, we have a recommendation for Ammonium Nonanoate. 

There we go. This is a petition to, um, add Ammonium Nonanoate as a 

synthetic substance for use in organic crop production as an herbicide on 

205.601. And consistent with our, our practice of, um, putting forward 

recommendations in the affirmative, um, we, we so recommend.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

4

Tracy Miedema: John, are you making a motion right now?

John Foster: Sorry, I so move. Uh, move to add Ammonium Nonanoate as a synthetic 

substance, uh, for use in organic crop. Point of order.

Jennifer Taylor: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Point of order. Uh, John, do please, um, in stating your motion, if 

you wouldn't mind the position on the National List. And the full, uh, 

motion that the committee recommended. Thank you.

John Foster: I move that Ammonium Nonanoate be listed as a synthetic substance for 

use in organic crop production as an herbicide on the National List. I'm 

looking at the section number. On, one moment please. 

My apologies. We recommend that Ammonium Nonanoate be listed as a 

synthetic substance on 205.601 (b) 1. Is there a second?

Jennifer Taylor: I'll second again.

John Foster: Any discussion? Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: I was hoping that we could just have a brief description, um, if it's 

appropriate Tina from you to just explain the, uh, the majority position on 

this, the committee's position.

John Foster: Tina.

Kristine Ellor:I would be, I would be happy to. Um, the committee voted, um, 1 yes, 4 

no, it says zero absent but that would make us missing a committee 

member. So I'm thinking that were some absence there. And we 

probably should correct that. Um, to not allow this to be listed. Um, and, 

and that's all I'll say. And I'll have something to say during discussion. 

But the committee, the majority of the committee recommended against 

listing this on the National List. Um, and as far as a description goes, this 

would be, um, the material was, the material was rejected because of the 

questions of necessity because there are alternatives as pointed out in the 

CR. Because of issues of consistency and compatibility and because of 

concerns about toxicity to aquatic invertebrates. And we did have, um, 

quite a few comments on this from farmers who would love to use it.

And we comments against from, um, organizations and individuals who 

feel that this is not consistent and compatible with organic agriculture.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

5

John Foster: Jay, is there, is there, I'm sorry. Is there more discussion? Uh, we have a 

motion and -- oh I'm sorry Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: I, um, I just thought I should get, get this on the record before the 

vote. I'm struggling a little bit with this material. You know, it's an 

interesting philosophical debate. Where you have a synthetic, um, with a 

technical report that says that, in some cases it's impact on the 

environment is less than the natural alternatives that folks are using. And 

so I understand and I appreciate the education that we haven't previously 

listed a broad based herbicide for this particular use. 'Cause this material

is already on the list. So how do we weigh when a synthetic is a better 

alternative in some cases on our criteria than natural alternatives. And so 

I'm struggling about kind of the outcomes we're trying to drive versus 

ideology about synthetic versus non-synthetic. So I guess I kind of want 

to get that out there, for us to think about.

Tracy Miedema: And just a process check here guys. Um, I turned the meeting over 

to John. But, um, I should be the one, um, calling for votes, etc. I just lost 

track of that for a moment. So, um, again the process here will be I'll ask 

the committee chair to state the name of the material, where it falls on the 

National List. What the committee vote was so that we're oriented on 

what the matter is that's before us. And then I will be calling, uh, for a 

motion and a second and any discussion. Asking whether there are any 

conflicts for recusals. And then calling for the vote. So thanks for bearing 

with us, as we reorient ourselves this morning. So any further discussion 

on Ammonium Nonanoate? We have a motion and a second. And we will 

begin the voting.

Kristine Ellor:Point of order. Did you want to call for a conflict?

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any conflicts? Hearing none, we will proceed. Starting 

with Barry Flamm.

Barry Flamm: No.

Jay Feldman: No.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: No.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider : Yes.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

6

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: No.

Robert Stone: No, ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: No.

Kristine Ellor : No.

Colehour Bondera: No.

Tracy Miedema: The chair votes yes. That's 8 no, 6 yes. Motion fails. Crops

Committee Chair John Foster. Please read the next material up for voting 

this morning.

John Foster: The next material is, uh, petition items Indole-3-butyric acid. Or IBA. The, 

um, the motion is to do add, um, Indole-3-butyric acid as a plant growth 

regulator to the National List. I'm sorry, as a synthetic substance to the 

National List Section 205.601 (k).

Tracy Miedema: And what was the committee vote?

John Foster: The committee vote was 1 yes, 4 no and 3 absent.

Tracy Miedema: Okay. Do I have, do I have a motion to list? Indole-3-butyric acid 

to the National List. 

Tracy Miedema: Barry.

Barry Flamm: I just realized we should be voting on synthetic, non-synthetic 

before we take the vote. And we didn't do that on the first one. Um, I 

should have called it to the attention of the chair previously.

Tracy Miedema: Mr. Deputy Administrator.

Miles McEvoy: Yeah, on the first vote you're, um, the Nonanoate, it was already 

classified as a synthetic. But this one you have not classified. So that 

would be appropriate to have that as your first vote.

Tracy Miedema: Perfect. Do I have a motion on the classification of Indole-3-butyric 

acid?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

7

John Foster: Yes, the crop, we, I move that Indole-3-butyric acid be classified as a 

synthetic substance.

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

Nick Maravell: Well, I second.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion about this material's status as being synthetic or 

non-synthetic? Hearing none, any recusal for conflict? We're ready to 

vote. Jay.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes, ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor : Yes.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes. That's 14 - Yes, Zero - No. Motion carries Indol-3-butyric acid 

as classified as synthetic. We'll get clipping along here folks any minute 

now. Okay. Now onto the listing of the material. Indol-3-butyric acid 

we've designated that as a synthetic. Do I have a motion for the listing of 

the material?

John Foster: Yes, I move that Indol-3-butyric acid be listed a plant growth 

regulator on the National List, Section 205.601 (k).

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

8

Kristine Ellor: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion? Hearing none. Any, Katrina Heinze.

Katrina Heinze: I have a, a question. I just wanted to make sure I heard correctly 

that this material is already used, but in cuttings it then have a one year 

transition into organic? That, that was my not crops understanding of it. 

But did I hear that correctly?

John Foster: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Any conflicts? Alright, we'll proceed with 

the voting then. And we'll start with Steve.

Steve DeMuri: No.

C. Reuben Walker: Uh... 

C. Reuben Walker: I would like to wait. I would like to defer the vote.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina, go ahead.

Katrina Heinze: He just asked that we defer the vote? I don't think... Um, 

procedural check. I don't think we defer our votes. I think we defer the 

vote.

Tracy Miedema: This came up in the last meeting. This idea of skipping around out 

of order. Um, up here, it's at the discretion of the chair. And I'm, uh, 

saying, I'm granting it, uh, be okay that Calvin wait until everyone else 

votes and he catches up on, uh, what he's studying over there.

Katrina Heinze: Okay. Uh, no.

Wendy Fulwider : No.

Joseph Dickson: No.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: No.

Robert Stone: No, ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: No.

Kristine Ellor: No.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

9

Colehour Bondera: No.

Jay Feldman: No.

Barry Flamm: No.

Tracy Miedema: Calvin, please vote.

C. Reuben Walker: Sorry. No.

Tracy Miedema: Chair votes yes. That's 2 – yes and 12 – no, motion fails. The next 

material is Odorized Propane.

John Foster: I move that Odorized Propane be added to the National List. Oh, sorry. I, 

I move that, uh, Odorized Propane be classified as a synthetic substance.

Tracy Miedema: Tina.

Kristine Ellor: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion and, uh, I would ask Crops Committee Chair John 

Foster to please, uh, state the committee vote.

John Foster: My apologies. The committee vote was 3 yes and 4 no.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Steve.

Steve DeMuri: Well, this vote is for a synthetic, non-synthetic classification?

Tracy Miedema: That's what it needs to be. So let me just state this again. Here's 

how it's going to go. I'm going say the name of the material. The chair of 

the committee needs to say what the committee vote was. And on what 

portion of the list. I will call for a motion. The first motion unless the 

material is already classified needs to be on the synthetic, non-synthetic. I 

will call for a second, discussion, recusals. So we're, let's just start this 

one from scratch. Odorized Propane. Committee Chair John Foster.

John Foster: The committee voted 7 - Yes and Zero - No. That Odorized 

Propane was a synthetic substance.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a motion?

C. Reuben Walker: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: We better make that motion first.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

10

John Foster: I move that Odorized Propane be classified as a synthetic 

substance.

C. Reuben Walker: Now I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: We are rolling now. Any discussion about the synthetic, nonsynthetic nature of Odorized Propane? Hearing none. Any recusal for 

conflict? We'll proceed with voting on this material status as a synthetic, 

non-synthetic. Calvin.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider : Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes, ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor : Yes.

Colehour Bondera Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman : Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes. Motion carries. Crops Committee. John Foster. What was 

the committee's vote and on what portion of the list?

John Foster: The committee voted for, on the motion of adding Odorized Propane as a 

synthetic substance to 205.601 (g3) Rodenticides. The committee voted 3 

yes and 4 no.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a motion?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

11

John Foster: I move that Odorized Propane be added as a synthetic substance 

allowed for use in our organic crop production to 205.601 (g) 3 

Rodenticides.

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

Katrina Heinze: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion about Odorized Propane? Mac and then Tina.

Robert Stone: We heard a little conversation that should this be a substance on 

the list or is it a practice? And I think the program said that it was a 

substance. But it behaves as a practice because of the deep nature of the 

injection of the propane. So, just make sure that is in fact the case that it 

needs to be a substance.

Tracy Miedema: Tina.

Kristine Ellor: Um, I actually have changed my position on this material after 

hearing public comment. And, um, you know, looking over the TR and the 

petition once again. So, um, I will be voting in favor of this. I voted 

against it in committee but I'm, I'm going to vote in favor of it. As, as a 

board member.

Tracy Miedema: Any other discussion? Any conflicts for recusal? Oh, Deputy 

Administrator.

Miles McEvoy: Yeah, this has been a very interesting discussion about the material 

and, uh, uh, the other thing that I think that the program is going to do is 

take a look at, um, how this came about, um, in a training session that a 

policy was set. So we're going to take another look at that of how, um, in

terms of making sure that it doesn't happen again. That when, um, policy 

is set on any kind of material or substance or interpretation we'll be doing 

that through, uh, notifications of the whole community at the same time. 

Rather than in just a, uh, uh, a notification in oral, um, training session. 

So, it's been a good discussion. We've learned from this and we're going 

to take another look at it.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any conflicts on this material? Okay. We'll proceed 

with voting. And we'll start with Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

12

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: No.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: No.

Kristine Ellor : Yes.

Colehour Bondera: No.

Barry Flamm: No.

Jay Feldman: No.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: And the chair votes yes. Are you sure? Is that 10? 

All the no's please raise your hand. That's 10 yes. 4 no. Is there 5? I 

missed a hand. Thank you very much. That's why we're doing this. That 

is 9 yes, 5 no. Motion fails. Thanks guys. Next up are the Sunset

materials under review by the Crops Committee. For 205.601, beginning 

with Copper Sulfate. For this material do we first need to designate 

synthetic, non-synthetic? Or is that determination made?

John Foster: Determination has already been made.

Tracy Miedema: Okay. So, do I have a motion for the listing of Copper Sulfate?

John Foster: Not yet. This requires a little explanation.

Tracy Miedema: Please explain.

John Foster: The Crops Committee met last night after consideration of, uh, lots 

of public comment, very good public comment. Um, and we voted to, uh, 

7 to Zero to withdraw the second recommendation that we made. I 

provided a, an update to that to Lorraine this morning. And sorry, I can't 

see the screen clearly. Um, so I can't read off that. But, um, we will be -- I 

wanted to explain this, 'cause we will be making it a slightly different, um 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

13

recommendation than the one that has been presented. And I wanted to 

put that out ahead of time.

Tracy Miedema: Please state the revised Crops Committee recommendation.

John Foster: The Crops Committee recommends adding -- no, no, strike that. 

Thank you Lorraine, please remove that.

Tracy Miedema: You need not make a motion, uh, that states that committee is 

withdrawing something. If the committee withdraws something it doesn't 

come before the board.

John Foster: Then I so move. Uh, that, I'm sorry. The committee voted... 

Tracy Miedema: We need to know what the Crops Committee motion was on this 

material.

John Foster: The Crops Committee voted to relist this material Copper Sulfate as 

a synthetic substance allowed for use in organic crop production on 601, 

205601A. 3 and E. And we voted 7 to Zero accordingly.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a motion?

John Foster: The motion is to, is to relist Copper Sulfate on 205.601(a)(3). 

Copper Sulfate for use as an algaecide in aquatic rice systems is limited to 

one application per field during any 24 month period. Application rates are 

limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper 

over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying 

agent. And on 605, I'm sorry, 205.601(e) as insecticide including 

acaricides or mite control for Copper Sulfate for use as tadpole shrimp 

control in aquatic rice production is limited to one application per field 

during any 24 month period. Application rates are limited to, to levels 

which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a 

timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a second? Any discussion? Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: Thank you. And I appreciate the committee's work on this. Um, 

and the board's attention to this issue. I think we had a pretty good 

discussion on this, um, during the statements from the public. Um, it was, 

I just took, put on the record that the committee I think, um, tried to, to the 

best of its ability identify, uh, an effort to curtail to the extent possible, uh, 

the use of this material. Uh, obviously the original annotation that we 

proposed to limit this use to a type of cultural practice was viewed by the 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

14

community of growers as detrimental and non, and, um, impossible to 

implement effectively. Without causing severe harm to the ability to grow, 

uh, in an organic system. Um, be that as it may, uh, I think we as a board 

must struggle with these types of materials because they raise some very 

serious questions as we look holistically at protection of health in the 

environment.

And look at, um, how we integrate various materials, synthetic materials 

into those organic systems. We realize in this context we rely very heavily 

on, on, um, the, the certification system to work with growers. And you've 

said this a lot John. To work with growers, uh, to identify the use of these 

substances, so, uh, as a last resort. Uh, in a, in a system that does not 

rely on them. But seeks to utilize other methods that, uh, don't force or 

rely and don't end up depending on these materials. Having said that, I 

appreciate all the energy and effort that the rice producers brought to this 

discussion. Uh, it really helped educate me and I know others on the 

committee feel it was a, an important process. I apologize for the expense 

that they, you know growers have to go to. Both in terms of time and 

resources. It's, I, I, I wish there was another way to get the kind of 

information that is necessary to make these difficult decisions.

Um, but having said that I, I also hope that this discussion can be taken, 

uh, by the program as an indication that we really do need research in this 

area. The growers have endorsed research. The committee feels that 

research is, is needed. This, this is a hazardous chemical and we should 

seek to figure out ways where we can reduce and to the extent possible 

eliminate its use. Having said that, I, I will vote for relisting. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina Heinze.

Katrina Heinze: Um, thank you for your comments Jay. Since I won't be on the 

Materials Committee next year, um, I did make a note, um, and started our 

list, since the research document got support from the community. Um, so 

that's clearly something that needs to be on the list.

Tracy Miedema: Jennifer.

Jennifer Taylor: Can you tell me if you think that the Crop Committee was able to 

address the concerns that were brought, uh, by our stakeholders in regard 

to the impact on the ecology the biodiversity issues. Were they addressed 

in the, in the changes that were made?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

15

Jay Feldman: The recommendation that we're putting forward doesn't change the 

annotation from what it has been. But, um, that that topic of biodiversity 

and the importance of that relative to, to all considerations was, was 

definitely a topic that probably the most, the most, uh, frequently 

discussed topic within, within this. And I, correct me if I'm wrong 

committee but we, we did spend a fair amount of time actually on, on that 

specifically independent of other concerns. Um, so yes I would say, I

would say yes.

Jennifer Taylor: Do you think that the recommendation -- do you feel that the 

recommendation as is stated now also includes that concern, or maybe 

where the, where we are talking about that integration or collaboration and 

with the certifier and the farmer, maybe that, is it possible that impact 

could be considered there? Or do you think that's necessary?

Tracy Miedema: John. Oh, actually let me call first on Deputy Administrator Miles

McEvoy.

Miles McEvoy: Yeah, I just wanted to, uh, clarify that it's a very, it's, it's part of the 

certification process. Uh, the organic system plan is the central tenet of 

how the certification process works. And it's a requirement under the 

regulations that producers must use a preventive pest control plan that 

must include certain elements. And that's done on every single operation, 

no matter what kinds of potential input materials, uh, a, a grower or a 

producer is going to use, they have to establish a preventive pest control 

program. And that is reviewed by the certifier to see that it's adequate. 

Um, and the only time that they can utilize an input that's on 601 would be 

if that preventive pest control program, um, is not adequate. So that's, 

that's done, um, by the certifier when they review the organic system plan.

It's part of the inspection process. It's just one of those fundamental 

tenets of the whole process that, uh, that approach to pest management 

by organic producers and that review by certifiers, uh, for all materials that 

are used, uh, from 601. So I just want to reiterate that so people really 

understand that that happens with all 601 materials.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you for that clarification. We certainly don't want to start 

creating redundancies in the regulation. Um, Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: Thanks for your question Jennifer. There are a lot of ways to 

answer that question. Um, I think part of what we struggle with, or I 

struggle with and others, uh, struggle with is the question of continuous 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

16

improvement in organic production. And, um, if you were to take a 

snapshot in time, uh, of current practices I think you'd have to come to the 

conclusion that there is adverse impact on biodiversity, uh, when you 

introduce, uh, copper sulfate into the aquatic environment. That's my 

opinion. Um, when you put that in the context of, you know, is it an 

acceptable rate of bio, you know, biodiversity decline or insult to the 

environment, um, given where we're headed as a community, uh, to 

reduce reliance to the extent possible on these things, I hope we're 

making progress. There's no assurance of that. Um, you know, we heard 

from growers who certainly seem inclined in that direction.

They believe in what they're doing. They want to protect the environment. 

They have gotten into this to do that. Uh, this is a challenge, this is a huge 

challenge. And I, I think that if, if can follow it through, um, Katrina just put 

on the list in the Materials Committee as a research, uh, opportunity to 

make that discussion document work and somehow and give priority to 

stuff like this, that we will be really in the business of continuous 

improvement. And we'll, we'll move away from this. So it's a tough, it is a 

tough situation and I, I'm optimistic given the input we heard from growers 

that the community wants to move in this direction. Uh, that is away, you 

know, and as Miles just, away from, uh, the use of this type of material 

and Miles indicated I think correctly that, you know, we have a system in 

place where we're trying through the certification system to adopt 

programs, organic systems plans that identify, uh, the range of practices, 

cultural practices and methods that, um, stay away from hazardous 

materials to the extent possible.

Tracy Miedema: Tina.

Kristine Ellor:And not, not forgetting also that, um, a few of the commenters who were 

rice producers said that they could not continue growing rice organically 

without this tool right now. That is those acres were then converted back 

to conventional, we would, we would be taking a giant step backwards as 

well.

Tracy Miedema: Any last discussion? Okay. Any conflicts on this one? Alright, we'll 

begin the voting on this motion to relist Copper Sulfate. And we'll start 

with Wendy.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

17

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes. That's 14 - Yes, Zero - No. Motion carries. Next material up 

for Sunset relisting is Ozone. Crops Committee Chair John Foster. What 

was the committee recommendation on this one? And we need not, uh, 

designate the non-synthetic, synthetic that part is done.

John Foster: The committee voted in favor of relisting. 4 - Yes, Zero - No and 3 

- Absent.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a motion?

John Foster: Yes. The motion is I move that we relist, uh, Ozone as a synthetic 

substance allowed for use in organic crop production on 205.601(a) as 

algaecide disinfectant and sanitizer including irrigation system, uh, 

irrigation cleaning systems, 5. Ozone gas for use as irrigation system 

cleaner only.

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

Kristine Ellor: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion? Any conflicts? Alright, we'll proceed with the 

voting and start with Joe Dickson.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

18

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: No.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes. That's 13 yes, 1 no. Motion carries. Next material up for 

relisting in the Crops Committee under Sunset is Peracetic acid. Crops 

Committee Chair John Foster. What was the committee position on this 

material?

John Foster: The committee voted 7 - Yes, Zero No's, 2 - Relist as currently 

listed.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a motion?

John Foster: I move that Peracetic acid be relisted on the National List 205.601. 

Synthetic substances allowed for organic, for use in organic crop 

production. A - as an algaecide disinfectant and sanitizer including 

irrigation system, cleaning systems. 6 - Peracetic acid for use in 

disinfecting equipment, seed and asexually propagated plant material. 

And I - as plant disease control. 7- Peracetic acid for use to control 

fireblight bacteria.

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

Barry Flamm: Second.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

19

Tracy Miedema: A process reminder too that it is not incumbent upon any chair of 

the committee to make the motion. Any member of the NOSB can 

make a motion on the materials and topics under discussion today. Any, 

any discussion? Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: Thank you. I hate to do this to you Barry but I, I think we should get 

something on the record on this. It's been a little confusing. Um, there 

was an action by the board that wasn't followed up by action by the 

department. And so we're relying on previous discussion of the board 

which I think would be good to just get on the record so everybody knows 

where we're, where we've been on this. So if I could ask Barry or Tina to 

help with this, that would be great. Thanks.

Tracy Miedema: Barry.

Barry Flamm: As a refresher, um, and the Crops Committee and the, and the 

board, um, voted in 2009, uh, to reject the petition to expand the use of 

Peracetic acid. But at the same time the, the committee developed 

another recommendation which, uh, included, um, continuation of the to 

use of Peracetic acid but also with a, with an annotation involving, um, a 

limitation of 5 percent. Uh, during public comment and discussion and 

that there, there is some, uh, concerns about just the wording of that and 

the effect. The bottom line is, uh, we received a recommendation from 

the, from the program that, uh, that the, we could allow the 2009 

recommendation to stand and, and knows that recommendation and 

annotation will be considered and work with, uh, with the committee and 

that, that all we, uh, really need to do now was to, uh, vote on the Sunset

and, and therefore the, the committee recommendation was, uh, slightly 

modified to, to just recommend that the Peracetic acid to uses be, um, 

kept on the list.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Hearing none, any conflicts? Alright. It's 

been moved and seconded. And we'll begin the voting with John Foster.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: No.

Kristine Ellor : Yes.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

20

Colehour Bindera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes. That's 13 yes, 1 no. Motion carries. Last item that the Crops

Committee is making a recommendation on is for the Sunset 2012 

205.602 the position on the National List for Calcium Chloride. Crops 

Committee Chair John Foster, does this material need a vote on its 

synthetic, non-synthetic designation?

John Foster: No.

Tracy Miedema: What was the committee vote?

John Foster: The committee voted to retain Calcium Chloride on 205.602 (c) by 

a vote of, uh, 6 yes and 1 absent.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a motion?

John Foster: Yes, the motion -- I move that we retain Calcium Chloride on 

205.602 (c) non-synthetic substance prohibited for use in organic crop 

production with (c) - Calcium Chloride brine processes is natural and 

prohibited for use except as fully or sprayed to treat a physiological 

disorder associated with Calcium uptake.

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

Colehour Bondera: Second.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion? Hearing none, any conflicts? We're ready to 

begin the voting. And this time we'll start with Nick Maravell.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

21

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: The chair votes yes. That's 14 - Yes, Zero - No. Motion carries. 

And well, that concludes the Crops Committee. We're 45 minutes ahead. 

(applause) Despite the fact that we're ahead and it's only a little 9:00 this 

morning we are going to take a break. The Livestock Committee needs to 

quickly convene before we being the Livestock Committee voting. So we'll 

take just 10 minutes. And that gets us back in here -- it that enough time 

Livestock Committee? 10 is or do you need 15? Okay. Let's make it 

9:20. 

Tracy Miedema: Based on the work of the Livestock Committee we need about 5 

more minutes. Thanks. 

[BREAK]

Tracy Miedema: We have 11 NOSB members seated. Mac Stone and Nick

Maravell. We're going to go ahead and get started. Back in session. And 

ready to proceed with the recommendations of the Livestock Committee. 

Final deliberations and voting. An agenda change. The Livestock 

Committee is only bringing forward two recommendations today. And that 

will be the Animal Welfare Stocking Regulatory. And the Handling Transit

and Slaughter Regulatory. The other four documents have been 

withdrawn by the committee and no further information will be presented 

on those materials by the Livestock Committee today. Nor will those
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

22

topics be included in our deliberations. Chair Wendy Fulwider. Please 

present Animal Welfare Stocking Regulatory.

Wendy Fulwider: Thank you. We had lengthy deliberations. And, and, uh, edits 

through the night but we did come to consensus. We had, uh, vote 6 yes 

in favor and 1 absent. Um, so if, uh, I guess we have it up here on the 

screen, we can go through this. I have all the ads in red and the things 

that we have deleted have a double strike through. So. Yeah, I got that, 

it's okay. Yeah, there should be... (inaudible) Tracy.

Tracy Miedema: This is one of the, uh, tricky aspects of presenting 

recommendations. We ask the public's forbearance. So when we receive 

your public comment, it's very important that we're responsive. And what 

that means is that, that we sometimes go through the tedious process of 

presenting committee edits on screen. We try to do that as much in 

advance so we're not editing in real time on the screen. Uh, but do 

please, you know, if you need to get up close to see this. We'll the font 

sizes big as we can, and we'll try to go through the quick, the changes as 

quickly as possible.

Wendy Fulwider: Thank you Lorraine, the highlighting helps. Um, here's the first 

change we made. Beak trimming performed by 10 days of age. And we 

deleted the, the or. So beak trimming performed by 10 days of age and 

toe trimming performed at the hatchery. So next. Okay. Pain relief 

options for dairy and other species continues to be the subject of research 

since practical methods for on farm use are not yet available for some 

species such as swine. Okay. Okay, right there, that's good. Here we 

made a change with pullets. Pullets must be raised with perches or roots 

and have outdoor access by 16 weeks of age. We deleted the 12, for 12 

weeks of age. Um, it is well documented that birds instinctively use 

perches when they are young. Here in the recommendation we added, 

uh, a few sentences. The language shown in the following pages is 

recommended for rulemaking and will be tied to the outcome base 

standards in development.

The organic system plan must include detail on the continuous 

improvement for meaningful outdoor access. This should include how 

birds will be encouraged to go outdoors and environmental enrichment 

plans for their benefit. Beak trimming unless performed within 10 days of 

age falls in the prohibitions. So we changed that from being required to be 

performed at the hatchery. We made an addition to shelter for, uh, to be 

designed, shelter design to allow for five would be individual grain feeding 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

23

stalls are encouraged for the swine breeding herd. Swine must be held, 

must be fed on entry and released when the last animal has finished 

eating. And here at number 6 we added: mature swine must be 

maintained on pasture with the minimum 25 percent vegetative cover 

during the grazing season.

Vegetation may include, but is not limited to wood laden area, shrubs and 

pasture. Deep bedded straw or rooting materials must be provided for all 

swine. To allow them to forge, explore and otherwise prevent behavior 

problems associated with the lack of natural conditions during temporary 

confinement. And here that last sentence we, we added all swine and 

deleted pigs. So it's more inclusive. In the avian section under access to 

the outdoors we added: uh, to access to the outdoors. I'll read from here 

the whole thing. Laying hens must be provided with no less than 2 square 

feet of outdoor access per bird. This space is dependent upon the 

producers ability to manage vegetation and provide cover, shelter and 

blinds. Manage erosion and bird boredom or aggression. Minimize

mortality, lameness, and disease. Maintain good feather cover, hygiene, 

body condition, and low levels of mortality.

Okay. Outdoor areas must have 50 percent vegetative cover which may 

include, but is not limited to pastures, bushes, shrubs and trees. Shelter

may be provided by trees or other objects in the environment. All housing 

systems must outline in the organic system plan how ventilation will be 

managed and how birds will be encouraged to access the outdoors. 

Indoor space allowance: we cut will not be less than 1.5. Changed it to 

read: indoor space allowance of 2 square feet per laying hen is 

dependent on the ability of birds to access feed, perch, roost, nest box, 

scratch area, open area and ability to self isolate. The density may be 

adjusted during winter months and climates where freezing weather is an 

issue. All birds must have access to scratch areas in the house. Okay. 

At the front of the avian minimum space requirements chart we added a 

sentence. For some species minimum densities are expressed as a range 

of values.

Reflective of the diversity of practices among producers and beliefs within 

the committee. The indoor space for laying hens and breeders is at 2 

square feet per bird. The outdoor runs and pens is at 2 to 5 square feet 

per bird. Pullets indoor space would be at 2 to 3 pounds per square foot. 

The outdoor runs and pens would be the same at 2 to 3 pounds per 

square foot. For broilers the indoor space 1 to 5 pounds per square foot. 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

24

Outdoor runs and pens 2 to 5 pounds per square foot. The other poultry 

numbers we pulled and we will come back with that at the Spring meeting.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a motion?

John Foster: I move to accept the Animal Welfare Regulatory recommendation 

as updated.

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

Kristine Ellor: Second.

Tracy Miedema: I think Tina got the second there. Alright, any discussion on the 

document just presented? Tina and then Nick.

Kristine Ellor: Um, this was a difficult and, and, um, long learning process. And 

although I'm not entirely happy with all the changes we made, um, I 

recognize that as this goes forward through the program that, you know, 

there'll be further opportunity for input and, and comment and 

adjustments. So, um, I'm, I'm willing to back this document.

Tracy Miedema: Nick.

Nick Maravell: Yes, I want to thank the Livestock Committee for taking us through 

this process. And, uh, bringing the board together on this. Um, as we 

move this forward into the program I'm going to give a uniquely farmer 

perspective on this. Um, I would, um, caution you to be sensitive to some 

of the comments we've already received about the pasture rule in terms of 

the burden on family farms and the paperwork. I think these all very 

legitimate standards. And, uh, I believe, uh, organic producers can meet 

them. Uh, I think we have to be judicious in how much documentation you 

have to provide to show what you're not doing or what you are doing. It 

has to be sort of appropriate. I'm thinking of many of the farmers that I 

know who have relatively small flocks. And are now going to be coming to 

saying, we don't do any of this stuff. Now we got to prove we don't do any 

of this stuff.

And yes you do. That's part of the program. But I would, I would, I would, 

uh, caution you to try to make this at least burdensome as possible, um, 

on smaller operators.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Katrina.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

25

Katrina Heinze: I have, um, three questions. Maybe you could help me with. Um, 

one is we heard some public comment about aviaries. Could you, um, 

maybe summarize what those public comments were and how they 

interact with the changes you made, just so I understand that.

Wendy Fulwider: The aviaries do not have any more problem from an animal welfare 

perspective than any other house. The issue that people tend to discuss 

is, you know, how are these birds going to get outdoors? You know, 

because they feel that birds in aviaries are not inclined to encourage due 

to the ventilation system or structure of the building, um, to get those birds 

out there. So, we tried to address that, that all housing systems, you 

know, must have a plan to get the birds outdoors. And you know, they 

have to work on the continuous improvement. It needs to be in the 

organic system plan.

Katrina Heinze: Thank you. Um, then my second question is we heard, uh, quite a 

bit of public comment about the numbers. Um, and I don’t have a good 

sense of all of that. Could you, um, maybe help me walk through how the 

public comment led you to these changes and how that all matches? It, it, 

a layman's explanation. It doesn't need to be a more detailed than that.

Wendy Fulwider: Okay, well there, you know, we have public comments on both 

sides of this issue as, you know, we, we always do. Um, it does give the 

producers an option to be on a level playing field. Um, it was, uh, 

something that we could agree to in committee. You know, and it's 

certainly more space than many farmers are providing at this point.

Katrina Heinze: Thank you. Okay. My last question. Um, we heard some public 

comment yesterday about the FDA egg safety rule. Um, and so this 

question is more so we have it on the record. I know that there were 

some farm visits this summer. Um, and you know, separate conversations 

have indicated that the committee feels very comfortable that with these 

rules farmers will be able to meet those egg safety rules. I just wanted a 

couple comments on the record on that.

Wendy Fulwider: Salmonella problems can happen to anybody, you know, in spite of 

best management practices. You know, and we feel that with good 

management on a farm birds can go outdoors and food safety, uh, I mean 

you're always at risk. It doesn't matter. You know, but we feel that it's fine 

for the birds to go outdoors in a well managed system.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina, you had a follow-up question.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

26

Katrina Heinze: Um, more specifically from the farm visits. Did you have learnings 

that supported that?

Wendy Fulwider: Yes. As a result of the farm visits and were many, many of us from 

the board and, and the, of course, others from the program as well. And 

yes, we all learned a lot. Because I mean, we, we all know that farmers 

are all very different. You don't find two farms that are the same. You 

don't find two farmers that are going to agree on everything down through 

the, you know, whatever list you go through.

Tracy Miedema: Any other discussion? Okay. Uh, we'll start with Deputy 

Administrator and then go to Jay Feldman and Mac Stone and Jennifer.

Miles McEvoy: Uh, yeah, I just wanted to, uh, make a comment on the, the food 

safety, the egg safety. Um, a question we have them working with FDA. 

Um, as they implement the salmonella, the SE rule, uh, for operations 

with, um, more than 3,000 birds which goes into effect in July of 2012. 

Uh, we've been working with them very closely to, um, ensure that, uh, 

that organic producers can meet the requirements under the egg safety 

rule. Um, and they must also meet the requirements of the new egg 

safety rule as well. It's not our responsibility to, um, to take care of the 

egg safety rule. That's FDA's responsibility. And, um, they are in the 

process of implementing that, that rule for operations with, well they're 

already doing it for operations with more than 50,000 birds. And then the 

operations between 3 and 50,000 goes into effect next Summer.

Um, we have confidence. And we have confidence from FDA that, um, 

there will be the ability for, uh, organic operators to comply with both 

requirements. The organic requirements that require outdoor access and 

the, um, the FDA requirements that require a number of things to protect 

the safety of the eggs. Uh, there's still work for us to do, um, collaborating 

with FDA. We're going to be providing more information to organic 

producers of, of how they can meet those requirements of the egg safety 

rule. Uh, but we're confident that, uh, we can get there to make sure that 

organic products, uh, meet the expectation that they're, the birds are 

outside. And, uh, meet consumers' expectations, um, that the product is 

safe. That has to be done and we'll continue to work with FDA to make 

sure that happens.

Tracy Miedema: Jay Feldman.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

27

Jay Feldman: Thank you. Could I ask that, uh, somebody from the minority 

opinion, um, address the, the question of, of how we have or will through 

this recommendation revise balance the metrics and the outcomes, uh, 

based on some of the, you know, statements that we heard from the 

public or any other issues you want to raise in terms of, uh, meeting this, 

uh, joint proposal.

Tracy Miedema: A point of clarification here too. While a minority opinion was 

published to the Federal Register, there is no minority opinion that was put 

forth on the table, um, as part of the motion. So I may need a little help 

here. Is it appropriate to be discussing, um, something that is not part of 

the motion? Tina, you may have some insight there.

Kristine Ellor: Yes, as part of our compromise there now is no minority opinion.

Tracy Miedema: We're going to go to Mac and then Jennifer.

Robert Stone: I guess I just wanted to point out first, um, I'm a poultry producer. I 

don't think anything here I have to change anything in my operation with 

this proposal. But I don't know if I need to declare a conflict or not? But, 

um, the, the discussion Jay was with it's not just square footage anymore, 

it's, it incorporates the diversity of design similar to the process within the 

OSP for an orchardist might do, so that it gives these producers, uh, lots 

of cause to, to evaluate air quality, the birds ability to isolate themselves, 

birds ability to act normal, um, not matter what the environment is. So 

that, that sort of took a lot of this off the table because we looked at it 

more holistically like, it is tough that we don't have a broad spectrum. 

Weed control, but we do have lots of other tools. So we're trying to 

incorporate these various tools in the logic of these larger producers, if 

you will.

There will be to me, the capitalization of these facilities if they have to 

have more facility for the same number of birds. But that's a smaller 

percentage of their cost of doing business than feed and labor and other 

aspects. And frankly if their cost goes up a little bit, um, my personal 

opinion again is we, I don't like to let retailers dictate farm policy. And if 

the price has to go up a little bit, then we're the farm, this is from the farm 

policies that I think. So.

Tracy Miedema: Jennifer. And then Jay, did you have your hand up again? Okay.

Jennifer Taylor: Okay. Thank you. Um, I just wanted to encourage the committee 

as you have such a wonderful opportunity to actually develop a, uh, a new 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

28

perspective, a new organic sustainable perspective on livestock, um, 

development on livestock farming. And, um, I would like to have you 

consider issues of sustainability. Um, the issues that would be expressed 

through the consumer what the consumer expects is actually happening 

on the farms that they also come into play and the development of your 

strategies. And I appreciate your work. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Colehour.

Colehour Bondera: Yes, thank you. Um, I do as a Livestock Committee member just 

want to point out that in my opinion, uh, some of the issues that, uh, in 

discussion we were able to address that had been commented on and had 

been raised as topics. Uh, including outdoor access, including, uh, how to 

consider vegetation, um, notably as well, uh, regarding swine. I think that, 

um, this revised document which we have all, the committee is all in 

support of, um, if, if you followed through with what, uh, Wendy presented 

does show some minimums, some basic standards, uh, in both, uh, 

sentence description and even number form, even metric form. That I 

think, uh, have addressed and, uh, dealt with some of the, the variety of 

issues including in, in the chart where there's now a range of numbers, uh, 

presented.

And so I think that, um, I just, I will thank, uh, the Chair Wendy and the 

whole committee for working together to come up with something that we 

can, uh, we can move forward with. I think that that’s, that's where I am at 

with that and I don't know if, uh, if Calvin has anything to add or...

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Steve DeMuri.

Steve DeMuri: I was having a little trouble seeing, seeing the screen behind me. I, 

my mother had eyes in the back of her head, but I don't. Um, how did 

your, your, uh, proposals, or new proposals line up with the Canadian

regulations?

Wendy Fulwider: Well, we didn't adopt the Canadian, um, numbers. I believe for the, 

for the house it's 1.8 and 2.7 for outdoors. So we did not adopt that for 

poultry. But, you know, we felt that that's not our job to, to make our 

farmers adopt the Canadian standard. You know, that's a choice they 

have if they're going to sell product to Canada.

Steve DeMuri: Okay, fair enough. I just wanted it as one sticking point. But for 

those of us that use, um, poultry products, um, that have manufacturing 

plants in Canada and in the United States it's a bit of a hassle for us to, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

29

uh, to try to, uh, manage that. But that, that's okay. We'll, we'll deal with 

it.

Tracy Miedema: Mac.

Robert Stone: I guess I'm still not sure if I should declare a conflict of interest as a 

poultry producer, um, or not?

Tracy Miedema: The, um, hurdle here is a direct financial gain. And I would say the 

hurdle is pretty high. We count on expertise of the people sitting at this 

table. You've got a lot of experience in livestock. As Chair I would 

encourage you to vote on this, unless I hear differently that an affirmative 

vote is going to put money in your pocket.

Robert Stone: I would suggest it's going to take the money out of my pocket. Uh, 

depending on the severity of the documentation that comes out of this.

Tracy Miedema: Nick.

Nick Maravell: As a poultry and beef producer who exceeds the standards being 

proposed here, uh, I raise the same, um, I plan to vote for this. Um, but as 

Mac points out, that would not be a financial gain for me, quite to the 

contrary. I do feel I should recuse myself.

Tracy Miedema: Nope. Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Um, even if these standards were less than you were doing, and 

they would reduce your costs, I do not think that is a direct financial gain. 

Because the rule is going to be applied uniformly across the industry. And 

I would encourage you to vote anyway. So I absolutely do not think you 

have a conflict of interest.

Tracy Miedema: Agreed. Any further discussion before I officially call for conflicts? 

Okay. It's moved and seconded that the NOSB accept the revised 

recommendation of the Livestock Committee on Animal Welfare Stocking 

Regulatory. Any conflicts? Seeing none, we will begin the voting. 

Secretary Wendy Fulwider where do we start our voting?

Wendy Fulwider: Mac.

Tracy Miedema: Mac, please proceed.

Robert Stone: Yes.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

30

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes. That's 14 - Yes, Zero - No. Motion carries. (applause) A 

reminder that Ben our audio tech gave me is, for members to make sure 

that we speak our votes very clearly into the microphone so that they are 

accurately recorded. Thanks everyone. Next recommendation up for 

deliberation and voting is the Livestock Committee recommendation on 

Handling Transit and Slaughter Regulatory. Dr. Wendy Fulwider, please 

present the committee recommendation.

Wendy Fulwider: Thank you. And we have it up on the screen. Same as the last 

document. Adds are in red and things we have deleted have a double 

strike through. There are very few edits so we should be able to go 

through this very quickly. The vote on this was 6 yes, 1 absent. We 

changed the title to Animal Handling and Transport To Slaughter. Rather 

than Animal Handling Transport And Slaughter. So that clarifies that 

everything in here is about animals on their way to slaughter. Okay, see 

the highlighted, uh, highlights here are adds. And I'll just read through the 

whole thing as it reads now. USDA Organic Regulations do not currently 

specifically cover animal handling and transport to slaughter. Therefore, 

the Livestock Committee is recommending the addition of the new section

titled 205.241. Animal Handling And Transport To Slaughter.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

31

And again here we just changed the title of the document Animal Handling 

And Transport To Slaughter, general conditions of animal welfare in 

handling and slaughter. That is all of the changes.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a motion?

Joseph Dickson: I'll move to accept this document.

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

Kristine Ellor: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Discussion on the document the recommendation entitled Animal

Handling And Transport To Slaughter. Joe Dickson.

Joseph Dickson: Just the tiniest housekeeping, hopefully friendly amendment is that 

Lorraine in the header and footer of the document. The title should also 

be changed.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Call for conflict. Hearing none. Oh, Tina.

Kristine Ellor:I'm sorry. Did we get a committee vote tally on this one?

Wendy Fulwider: Six in favor, 1 absent.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any further discussion? Then I'll call for the vote. And 

we'll begin with Jennifer.

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

32

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Tracy Miedema: Yes. That's 14 - Yes, Zero - No. Motion carries. That completes 

the work of the Livestock Committee for the Fall 2011 meeting. We'll 

proceed with the recommendations of the Handling Committee. Chair

Steve DeMuri, are you prepared to proceed?

Steve DeMuri: Yes, the, uh, the committee is prepared. My only concern is that if 

there's anybody that we need to call on from the audience that is expected 

to do this after lunch, um, they may not be here. As far as the witnesses. 

So I'll throw out to you as the Chairperson to make a determination on 

that. But other than that we're ready.

Tracy Miedema: In recognition of, uh, Steve is mentioning we did call for, uh, certain 

members of the audience to be available on the specific materials DHA, 

from algal oil And ARA single-cell oil. And, uh, we can move the vote on 

those materials down in the list of materials under consideration. So we'll 

go ahead with, uh, those two materials second to last with the, uh, sorry. 

Sulfur Dioxide will be the last material still. We'll move ARA and DHA to 

the second to last position in the list of materials under consideration. 

Annatto is, Annatto extract is the first material. Steve, what was the 

committee recommendation?

Steve DeMuri: Um, this was a, uh, a petition to remove Annatto extract color 

pigment, um, from the National List. And the, the, uh, committee vote, um, 

first there was a, um, um, there was two votes actually. There was a 

recommendation for change in the annotation of Annatto extract color from 

water and oil soluble to liquid and powder forms. Um, carried by a vote of 

6 - Yes, Zero - No, 1 - Absent. And then there was a vote recommending 

removing Annatto color with all annotations from the National List 205.606. 

And that carried by a vote of 6 - Yes, Zero - 1, 1 - Absent. So the, uh, the, 

uh, the vote before us then is to, uh, um, remove Annatto extract color 

pigment from the National List. And I so move.

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

Robert Stone: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion? Katrina.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

33

Katrina Heinze: Um, we didn't discuss in committee whether we were going to pull 

the annotation change recommendation. I, um, think we should still do 

that, so it's on the record. But I could be swayed. So I don't know, do we 

have to vote on both, since the committee recommended both?

Tracy Miedema: We only bring forward from committee the voted on 

recommendation of the committee. If there were, uh, prior deliberations 

and votes, those aren't part of our deliberations right now. Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: We voted on both.

Tracy Miedema: Then the committee would be bringing forward two motions.

Steve DeMuri: Okay. Good point. So the first motion then would be and to make 

this clean. This is probably the best way to do it, because this is the 

recommendation packet that was posted on the, uh, on the website. And 

we had not made any changes to that. So the first motion then would be 

that to change the annotation of Annatto extract color from water and oil 

soluble to liquid and powder forms.

Tracy Miedema: Uh, point of order here. Let's, um, first withdraw the original motion. 

We need to make sure that's okay with, uh, the maker of the motion. And 

the second.

Steve DeMuri: Withdraw the second. I'll withdraw the, the first motion I made.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. The second motion made stands. Do we have a 

second?

Katrina Heinze: I second.

Tracy Miedema: Alright. And we're, let's have, uh, discussion and just for the 

purpose of clarity, Steve, would you mind please restating that second 

motion. And then we'll go into discussion.

Steve DeMuri: Okay. The second motion was to change the annotation of Annatto

extract color from water and oil soluble as it currently reads to liquid and 

powder forms, 205.606.

Tracy Miedema: Tina.

Kristine Ellor:I just want to be very clear. What, what I'm doing here. Um, a yes vote on 

both would change the annotation and then delist it, correct? And a yes 

vote on the first one and a no vote would mean that the annotation change 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

34

and it would remain on the list, correct? So what the committee is 

recommending is that we change the annotation and then we take it off 

the list.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Um, yes. And so given, we had originally did that because we 

didn't know what kind of public comment we're going to get. So I get, I'm 

being a little stickler for process on this one. But this has been such a 

confusing material with the original annotation, that I just think it's 

important to get on the public record. And an annotation that we think is 

more workable, so that ten years from now when someone's looking back 

and trying to figure out what happened, it's very clean.

Tracy Miedema: I don't, I'm not sure we're making it cleaner by doing both of these. 

Uh, because the sequence then it's implied that the sequence is 

absolutely important. Um, and I think Miles needs to weigh in on this.

Miles McEvoy: Well, what we are just discussing is that, um, when you have two 

motions on the table at once, you should only have one motion on the 

table at a time.

Tracy Miedema: We, we did withdraw one of our motions. We do have only one 

motion on the table right now. My question though is that if we make two 

recommendations to the National Organic Program one of them is to 

change the annotation of a material, we do that affirmatively. We make a 

second motion that carries to delist something whether you're in a 

quandary of which recommendation to accept.

Miles McEvoy: Yeah, it seems very confusing. I would agree. Um, if you're going 

to delist then delist. If you're going to change the annotation, change the 

annotation. They don't seem to fit together very well.

Steve DeMuri: Maybe, uh, the committee should, uh, meet on this one briefly in a 

bit. And get it squared away. And then, uh, we can come back.

Tracy Miedema: Continuing our discussion, Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: I'm the only one who thinks we should vote on the first one. So I 

totally withdraw that. We can cover it in the document.

Tracy Miedema: Is there consensus among the Handling Committee to only bring 

forward the recommendation to delist this material? If yes, please raise 

your hand. Okay. We have consensus. And since that first motion made 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

35

was about the annotation change. Am I right? We do need to go ahead 

and withdraw that motion as well.

Steve DeMuri: So I withdraw the motion to change the annotation for Annatto

extract.

Katrina Heinze: I accept.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. We're starting from scratch on Annatto extract. 

Handling Committee, please present your recommendation on Annatto 

extract.

Steve DeMuri: I hope I can. Um, so the motion is to delist Annatto extract from the 

National List 205.606.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a second?

Joseph Dickson: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion? Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: I just wanted to go on the record and say this is a great example of 

where commercial availability works. 'Cause during my short five years 

we've listed it, and gone from none being available to some being 

available. So I would like to commend industry for really getting on board 

with this one.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. And it does argue for the National List being able to 

spur the development of an organic alternative as opposed to spurning the 

development. Any further discussion? Any conflicts on Annatto extract? 

Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: My company does, um, I believe make a product that uses Annatto. 

Um, and it is organic.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you for disclosing that. I don't believe that would be a 

conflict. Any other disclosures or conflicts? Alright, we'll... Wendy.

Wendy Fulwider: I work with Organic Valley. I have no idea if they use this. I would 

imagine so.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. I'm not seeing any conflict there results in direct 

financial gain. Uh, it looks like we're ready to vote. And we'll start with 

Tina.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

36

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: That's 14 - Yes, Zero - No. Motion carries. Next material on the 

Handling Committee docket is Beta-carotene. Chair Steve DeMuri what 

was the committee recommendation on this material?

Steve DeMuri: Thank you. Uh, this is one is a little simpler. This was a, uh, 

petition for an annotation change from Beta-carotene extract color derived 

from carrots to a Beta-carotene extract color derived from carrots or algae. 

So the recommendation of the committee was to accept the sanitation 

change. Uh, the vote was 4 - Yes, Zero - No, 3 - Absent. Um, it is the 

same as the one that was posted. We have made no changes to this, um, 

since this meeting started.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a motion?

Steve DeMuri: I move for, uh, um, an annotation change from Beta-carotene color 

derived from carrots to Beta-carotene extract color derived from carrots or 

algae on the National List 205.606.

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

Katrina Heinze: I second.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

37

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion? Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: Thank you. Can you just for the record explain the process you all 

went through to look at the extract process.

Katrina Heinze: Sure. Um, we got the TR. How much detail do you want? We, uh, 

technically I should have waited for you. I'm sorry. Um, we got the TR. 

We went through the evaluation checklist. Um, it documented on that 

checklist. Um, the, kind of the key highlights were that, um, production of 

Beta-carotene from algae is, um, growing because it is, uh, much more 

sustainable than some of the other options. Um, so that was a key 

consideration. The, um, other kind of key thing that we talked about is that 

with the recommended, um, annotation for color that's on 606 extract with 

synthetic solvents is, uh, prohibited for this material.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Any conflicts? Then we'll start the voting 

with Colehour.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: That's 14 - Yes, Zero - No. Motion carries. Tina.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

38

Kristine Ellor: You have not officially cast your vote in the last two. You did, you 

sure?

Tracy Miedema: I opted to vote in order as opposed to last. Yeah, on those ones. 

Next up is Potassium hydroxide. Chair Steve DeMuri, please present the 

committee recommendation.

Steve DeMuri: Yeah, this was a petition for an annotation, annotation change from 

Potassium hydroxide prohibited for use in lye peeling of fruits and 

vegetables except when used for peeling peaches during individually 

quick frozen or IQF production process. That's how it's currently listed. 

To Potassium hydroxide prohibited for use in lye peeling of fruits and 

vegetables except for, except when used for peeling peaches. On 

National List 205.605 (b). The, uh, committee vote was, uh, um, 

unanimous - 6 - Yes, Zero - No, with 1 - Absent. To, uh, to, uh, vote for 

the sanitation change. So I make a motion for, uh, change of annotation 

from Potassium hydroxide prohibited for use in lye peeling of fruits and 

vegetables except when used for peeling peaches during the IQF process 

to Potassium hydroxide prohibited for use in lye peeling of fruits and 

vegetables except when used for peeling peaches. On the National List 

205.605 (b).

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a second?

Robert Stone: I'll second that.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion? Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: Again, for the record, um, this appears to be a limitation of use, 

correct?

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

Jay Feldman: And again, in this.

Steve DeMuri: Well, the overall, um, it's, it's always been a limitation of use. This 

does expand it a bit. Um, in that it will include canned peaches in addition 

to the IQF peaches. Individual quick frozen, two separate processes. But 

it's not going to have the effect of, of increasing the amount of peaches 

that are peeled by this method. Because what the, the IQF guys or the, 

um, um, canned folks are doing now is they're buying IQF peaches, uh, 

that have been peeled by this method and putting them in a can. So this 

gives them the opportunity to actually peel the peaches by this method, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

39

method in own production facility without having to buy the, uh, peaches 

already frozen.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you for that clarification Steve. Any further discussion? 

Hearing none, uh, oh Barry Flamm.

Barry Flamm: I just wish to, uh, comment. Because that is an important 

distinction. 'Cause we could not, uh, do an annotation if we were 

expanding the use. And I think, uh, Steve is, has, uh, clarified that we're 

not.

Tracy Miedema: This was a petition to change the annotation, so we can. This is 

not Sunset.

Barry Flamm: Thank you, I stand corrected.

Tracy Miedema: No problem. Any further discussion? Any conflict? Alright. We'll 

start the voting then with Barry Flamm.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: No.

Colehour Bondera: Abstain.

Tracy Miedema: Chair votes yes. So that is 12 - Yes, 1 - No, 1 - Abstention. Motion

carries. Next material up for discussion recommendation by the Handling 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

40

Committee. Is Silicon dioxide. Chair Steve DeMuri please present the 

committee recommendation.

Steve DeMuri: Thank you. Um, this was a, uh, petition for removal of Silicon

dioxide from the National List on 205.605 (b). Um, the committee met a 

couple times on this since we've started the meeting here in Savannah. 

I'm going to ask John Foster as the Team Lead for this material to take us 

through the changes. John.

John Foster: Lorraine, could you pull up the changes for Silicon dioxide. Thank 

you.

Tracy Miedema: Please state the committee recommendation.

John Foster: The committee voted 6 - Yes and Zero - No. To amend the 

annotation for Silicon dioxide to read, uh, 205.605 (b) synthetics allowed. 

Silicon dioxide providing sufficient evidence showing non-synthetic 

alternatives are not commercially available for a specific product process 

is presented.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a motion?

John Foster: I move that we amend 205.605 non-agricultural, non-organic 

substances allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as 

organic or made with organic specified ingredients or food groups. (b) 

Synthetics allowed. Silicon dioxide providing sufficient evidence showing 

non-synthetic alternatives are not commercially available for a specific 

product process is presented.

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

Steve DeMuri: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Discussion. Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: Thanks. Can you explain for the record how you see this process 

working practically, the annotation.

John Foster: The, the discussion among the committee was that we, we felt that 

there was enough, uh, kind of demonstration that there were some 

alternatives out there available and, and useful in some applications. So 

we were hoping to push the, the industry toward, um, a, uh, a thorough 

evaluation, a practical evaluation by, by virtue of, um, uh, the commercial 

availability clause. That we're hoping they will, um, industry will find ways 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

41

to overcome the technical challenges that they haven't overcome yet. And 

that non-synthetic substances even better, organic substances would be 

found to, to take the place of these, this, in this case a synthetic.

Tracy Miedema: Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: I congratulate the committee for moving in this direction. I, I think 

it's a creative, uh, attempt to try to create the incentives. When I first 

looked at it I thought, well you couldn't you identify specific uses that could 

be eliminated, given the availability of the alternative. And it was 

explained to me that it wasn't specific uses that were hard to identify, it 

was the percentage of uses. So that there was possibly a percentage of 

cases in a particular use pattern that couldn't be replaced with the rice 

alternative. And my understanding is that's why you went in this direction.

John Foster: Yeah, that, that was one of the reasons. You know, you speak 

about specific uses or applications. Um, there, there was conflicting public 

comment that, that seemed valid on both sides, uh, as to the, the range of 

applicability. Um, among other, um, uh, proposed annotations that we 

talked about and weighed. There were a couple others. Uh, one was to 

zero in on a particular specific use. For example, silicon dioxide only for 

use as a defoaming agent. Because of the consistency of the public 

comment relative to the alternatives utility as a defoamer. So that that 

was one possibility. Another would be to, uh, to instead of what we're 

proposing here to put in a, uh, a timeline change. This is due I believe to 

Sunset in 2015. So, another alternative would be to provide that, that 

same motivation with a timeline accelerator, if you will. Like has been 

tried with other materials on the National List. So, that's, those were other 

options.

But and in each of them would have I think, you know, helped move the 

needle, um, in it just a different way. The, the reason we settled on this 

and I'd be interested in others, you know, board members' perspective on 

it is, is because of the, the apparently very strong evidence that said, yes 

you can. And an equally evidence that said, no you can't. Use this 

alternative and in these applications. And we kind of didn't know what to 

do with that. Um, I have very limited experience with this personally as in 

the industry. So and I didn't want to force that on the whole industry. So, 

so this was the, what, you know, the best option we could come up with. 

And still be very dedicated to moving that needle forward.

Tracy Miedema: Mac Stone. And then Steve DeMuri.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

42

Robert Stone: On behalf of my certifier brethren I'm going to officially moan and 

groan and whine and cry and kick and scream a little about the burden 

that this is going to place on them.

Tracy Miedema: Duly noted. Steve DeMuri.

Steve DeMuri: Good segue Mac. Admittedly this is going to, uh, cause a little bit 

of heartburn for the certifiers. And also for manufacturers that, that want 

to use Silicon dioxide. Because I know if we used it I would, uh, do 

everything I could to use the organic alternative. So that I didn't have to 

prove to my certifier that I needed to use Silicon dioxide. So we believe 

this is going to push manufacturers to look at very hard at the, uh, organic 

alternative. And we would hope that the board in 2015, um, would take 

another hard look at this material when it comes up for Sunset again. And 

if it looks like there's other alternatives out there, that they would, uh, be 

listed.

Tracy Miedema: Deputy Administrator.

Miles McEvoy: Yeah, um, we've gone on record before of it being very 

uncomfortable with putting commercial availability clauses into, uh, 605. 

Um, it does put a, a burden on certifiers, on manufacturers, uh, you, you're 

using language that is, uh, different from other language that you have 

already recommended for 605 in terms of commercial availability. There's 

one clause that's in the existing regulations for Tocopherols derived from 

vegetable oil when rosemary extracts are not a suitable alternative. So 

that's one way of talking about it. Here you're proposing another way to 

talk about it. Um, so I, I would urge the, uh, the board that if you're going 

to go down this road of some kind of way of, um, of wanting this kind of 

commercial availability clause to be in 605, that you look at doing it in a 

consistent basis. Uh, and give enough guidance to the program and to 

certifiers so that it is done on a consistent basis.

'Cause my fear is that you start going down this road and people are going 

to interpret it different ways. We'll, we'll provide that clear I guess 

interpretation to certifiers so it's done consistently. But it's, um, I think you 

really need to be cautious about this so that, uh, it doesn't create a record, 

recordkeeping burden on certifiers and manufacturers. Um, you know, 

what, what's your end game here to make sure it's consistent with your 

other recommendations?

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

43

Steve DeMuri: Sorry. Um, is that something you feel like we can, uh, handle in the 

recommendation to the NOP when we write this up after the meeting?

Miles McEvoy: No, I think once you have a, you have to vote on what -- this is 

meeting where you make a recommendation. You can't change it after the 

meeting.

Steve DeMuri: No, I don't mean change the recommendation, I mean in the, in the 

discussion in the recommendation document that we handle the program, 

can we approach that subject that you just brought up? We give you a 

little bit of guidance on what we're, what our intention is.

Miles McEvoy: You would need to do that through, uh, the committee process to 

bring that in front of the board at the Spring meeting. So you could have 

further development on this particular topic to bring back to the public at 

the Spring meeting.

Tracy Miedema: John Foster, then Katrina Heinze.

John Foster: Um, here's a question for the program. I'm just following up on your 

last comment. Is, is the concern the model that you're talking about for 

Tocopherols the difference being that the alternative is quite specific. 

Rosemary extract as opposed to the more generic non-synthetic 

alternatives in this one? Is it the level of specificity that is the primary 

challenge or the, the obstacle in your mind?

Miles McEvoy: No there's two concerns. One is putting commercial availability, uh, 

clauses into 605. The program does not think that's a good idea. 

Secondly, the burden on, uh, certifiers and manufacturers. And third, the 

consistency, um, if you are going to go down that road between the 

various recommendations that you're starting to look at for commercial 

availability in 605, make sure if you're going to do that that it's consistent.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Um, to your third concern. Um, while we've been talking I looked at 

the, um, recommendation from I think April 2010 maybe on yeast. Uh, 

where did add commercial, uh, commercial availability clause. Just to 

compare it to the language. Um, so my belief is this is what we're 

recommended for Silicon dioxide is consistent from a language 

perspective. But maybe my question for you would be maybe you're 

seeing it differently. What we said for yeast was, um, when used as food 

or a fermentation agent yeast must be organic if its end use is for human 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

44

consumption. So that's not relevant to this situation. Um, and then we 

said, non-organic yeast may be used where equivalent organic yeast is 

not commercially available. So we're saying that as well here that Silicon 

dioxide, we might have to clean up the language. Silicon dioxide may be 

used when, um, and a non-synthetic alternative is not commercially 

available. And would that help with that concern if we matched the yeast 

a little bit more closely?

Miles McEvoy: Yeah, I think that might be, uh, something to look at to make sure 

that they're more aligned than they currently are.

Tracy Miedema: Chairman Steve DeMuri, uh, what's your opinion on this?

Steve DeMuri: I might be open to accepting a friendly amendment if somebody 

wanted to, uh, propose one.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Um, rather than that perhaps we could, uh, defer. I'm not sure what 

the right word is. Um, and work on it on our break real quick. It's probably 

just 5 or 10 minute cleanup.

Steve DeMuri: Yeah, that's fine. And we could do that.

Tracy Miedema: Vice Chair, Joe Dickson. Um, please remind me of the process 

and we've got a motion and a second on the table. Uh, can we -- what's 

the procedure please for temporary, temporarily tabling a motion? We'll 

get that pulled up so we do this right. We need to motion to postpone.

Joseph Dickson: Yeah, I believe the person who made the motion can move to 

postpone consideration of the motion to a later time.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you very much. Steve will you, uh, please then proceed with 

making a motion to postpone consideration to a further time.

Steve DeMuri: Wow. Okay. I move to postpone further discussion on this material 

until after our next break.

Tracy Miedema: I second. We do need to vote on this as well. So we will, uh, vote 

on the postponement. Beginning with Barry. Oh, I'm sorry, we start on 

this vote with Jay.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

45

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: That's 14 - Yes, Zero - No. The motion to postpone carries. And 

when we are ready to take this matter back up, we will need to take up, 

uh, a matter previously tabled. And we need a motion on that as well. 

Handling Committee. Next material up for consideration and voting is 

Animal enzymes. Chairman Steve DeMuri, what was the committee 

recommendation?

Steve DeMuri: Actually it should be Sulfur dioxide I believe.

Tracy Miedema: We opted to, um, have that item be the very last one after DHA, 

ARA.

Steve DeMuri: Thank you. Okay. Um, this is for a, um, a Sunset, um, 

consideration for Animal enzymes. The, uh, the recommendation by the 

committee has not changed since I presented it a couple of days ago. 

The, uh, the vote was 5 - Yes, Zero - No, and 2 - Absent for relisting 

Animal enzymes on 205.605 (a). So I move for the relisting of Animal 

enzymes on the National List 205.605 (a). Um, let me read the, uh, the 

full, full notation. It's Animal Enzymes when, animals, animals derived 

catalase, bovine liver, animal lipase, pancreatin, pepsin and trypsin. 

That's the annotation and we've made no changes to it.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

46

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a motion?

Steve DeMuri: That was the motion.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a second.

Joseph Dickson: I second.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion? Alright. Any conflict on this material Animal

Enzymes? Seeing none, we will proceed with the voting and start with 

Steve DeMuri.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes. That's 14 - Yes, Zero - No. Motion carries. Chairman Steve

DeMuri you're absolutely right about the order of these materials. I didn't 

see that they ran onto the second page. Um, out of additional deference 

to the number of attendees on this material as well though, on Sulfur

Dioxide. I would like to have that be the very, um, last item that the 

Handling Committee votes on because of the fact that we are, um, hours 

ahead of schedule at this point. And people may have not planned on 

being at the meeting until the afternoon on that topic. So, we will forge 

ahead. The next material up for consideration then will be the Tartaric 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

47

Acid on 205.605 (a). After that will Tartaric Acid on 605 (b). Then we will 

be considering DHA. Then ARA. NOSB members I do not see, uh, the 

Chlorine annotation on our voting sheet. So that will, um, need to voted 

on. We'll vote on that one, um, Steve a recommendation there. Should 

we do that at the very, very last among the items?

Steve DeMuri: Um, my recommendation might be to, um, do that one after we do 

Tartaric Acid. And then come back and do the last three after the break.

Tracy Miedema: That sounds good. We'll see how, um, how we do here. The time 

right now is about 11:00. We're about 10 to 11. Okay. Thanks everyone 

for bearing with us while we start that out. Next material then 205.605 (a) 

Tartaric Acid. Steve, what was the committee recommendation?

Steve DeMuri: Okay. Um, let me, a little bit explanation first. Um, the 

recommendation that was posted on the website we have not changed. 

Um, and we kind of combined the two 605 (a) and 605 (b) 

recommendations into one document. We'll vote on 'em separately right 

now but they are kind of combined in the document, uh, that everybody, 

um, saw on the website. So just a point of clarification. So for the first 

one, um, the Handling Committee recommends renewal of Tartaric Acid

made from grape wine on the National List Section 205.605 (a). Um, the 

committee voted 6 - Yes, Zero - No, 1 - Absent. Um, in favor of that, uh, 

renewal. So I make a motion that Tartaric Acid made from grape wine be 

relisted to the National List Section 205.605 (a).

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

Kristine Ellor: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion? Jay Feldman, then Steve DeMuri.

Jay Feldman: Did the committee give any consideration, uh, to the intersection of 

this issue with the, uh, sulfites issue?

Steve DeMuri: If I remember correctly we had some, uh, brief discussion on it. But 

it wasn't something we went into a great depth on. I'm going to let, uh, 

Katrina answer that as well. And then also Katrina, if you could, um, kind 

of take us through what our, what our thought processes was on this 

combined listing.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

48

Katrina Heinze: Um, I'm going to do the second first. 'Cause I'm drawing a big 

blank right now on the sulfites. I'm sorry. Um, not blank, we didn't look at 

it, but just blank. Um...

John Foster: A Rick Perry kind of a blank.

Katrina Heinze: Yes, a Rick Perry kind of blank. (laugh) Um, on Tartaric Acid just a 

reminder for everyone on the board, it's listed both as a non-synthetic and 

a synthetic, um, originally, uh, on the list in both of those locations without 

annotation. Although when the board originally voted, um, there were 

annotations. So, um, the last time these two materials went through 

Sunset we asked the program to make a technical correction and put 

those annotations back on. Um, there's very little historical record on why, 

um, this material is in both locations. Um, so this time through Sunset we, 

um, opted to more clearly ask industry to provide us evidence of why the 

synthetic was required and to get a TR. Uh, when this went through 

Sunset the first time they were no, um, resources available for TR's. So 

we were a little bit more hamstrung. Um, the, um, TR that came back, um, 

showed that both Tartaric Acids can be used in the same, um, 

applications.

Um, and in fact other organic regulatory, um, frameworks, um, allow the, 

allow the synthetic only when the non-synthetic is not available. Or only 

allow the non-synthetic. Um, so based on that information, um, we felt 

that or our combined recommendation was to relist the non-synthetic but 

to recommend that the synthetic Sunset off the list.

Tracy Miedema: Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: So I guess, I guess I'm getting at and then it may, this is just 

coincidental that these two issues, uh, coincide at the same meeting. But 

is this an opportunity to consider whether we stipulate that, um, when 

there is a with clause, with something else that we stipulate that it be 

certified organic? Is that an opportunity we have?

Tracy Miedema: We, you know, as a point of clarification 605 (a) and (b) materials 

are not certified organic. They're in the 5 percent. So, um, I think you are, 

would you like to revise what it was you were asking for?

Jay Feldman: No, I, I understand that. But this is an annotation. There's an 

annotation on here, um, and I'm just curious whether the committee, uh, 

discussed or has -- you said there's not much record on this. But has 

discussed in the past, uh, a requirement that -- 'cause I imagine there are 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

49

other components to this. The wine is one component and it's specified, 

it's annotated. So, I suspect we can -- maybe we can ask program, 

stipulate certified organic, given that we know it's out there.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Um, as the person who, um, had the lead on this topic, you know, 

we had perhaps some very brief discussion on that topic. But, um, it has 

been that a historical practice of the board, um, on 605 items, because 

they are not organic ingredients for which, um, a, an NOSB has done a 

review, uh, found that they met our criteria and then made an exception to 

the rule to put them on the National List. That we have, um, not put 

restrictions on those ingredients. So you'll hear me say that again when 

we talk about some other materials later this afternoon. But that has very 

much been the historical practice of the board to limit annotations as much 

as possible on 605.

Tracy Miedema: I'd like to weigh in here too. Uh, I really like the idea of making this, 

uh, from organic wine if and only if we were to make that recommendation 

on the Federal Register. That's something we would definitely want the

public to weigh in on. Because it would involve, uh, analyzing supply 

chains. And we don't have that here today. John Foster.

John Foster: That was a little bit of what I was going to mention. Was that 

there's a difference between having an organic ingredient out there as an 

agricultural item and the ability to process it in such a -- and the, not the 

ability but the, um, the actuality of having it. That conventional supply 

chains are generally not as, um, as, uh, researchable. And that's a lot of 

the problem we have with, with finding the, uh, adequate documentation 

for the, uh, allowability or the suitability in, in, uh, for, for non-organic 

ingredients in organic products. So it's, yeah there's organic wine out 

there in this case. But with respect to Marty and the, the IQF okra that it's 

a little bit of that again. Is that, um, the, the proximity or the actual, the 

actuality of the processing to take an agricultural product creates 

something non-agricultural is, is related but I think a, an addition criteria 

that we need to ponder there.

Tracy Miedema: And in Marty's case that was a petition asking for IQF's. So we 

were able to analyze the supply chain during the, uh, NOSB meeting 

process. And this one we're not. Um, Jay did you have the follow-up 

first? Okay, Steve.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

50

Steve DeMuri: Yeah, John kind of stole my thunder there. But that was going to 

be my point as well. We don't know that there is enough organic wine out 

there to make the Tartaric Acid as necessary for, uh, for the industry. 

From, uh, organic grape wine for instance. But this is one of those 

continuous improvement type items. You know, you'll see that we're, uh, 

um, delisting. You'll see at the next recommendation that we're delisting 

the synthetic version of Tartaric Acid and only allowing the non-synthetic 

now. So, this is definitely a step in the right direction. And, uh, open for 

further improvement down the road.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Jay.

Jay Feldman: Yeah, I, John I appreciate your comment. And I hope that we, we 

can integrate this question into our discussion, uh, if it's appropriate and it 

sounds like you think it is and in the context of 605. Um, and I look 

forward to that happening down the road. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Alrightie. Any further discussion on this one? How about conflicts? 

Okay. Then we'll, oh Tina.

Kristine Ellor: Could I just ask that you, um, repeat the motion.

Tracy Miedema: Sure. Steve.

Steve DeMuri: The motion before us is to, uh, uh, for the renewal of Tartaric Acid

made from, from wine, from grape wine on the National List Section

205.605 (a). And again the committee vote was 6 in favor, Zero against, 

and 1 absent.

Tracy Miedema: We'll proceed with voting. Madame Secretary who votes first?

Wendy Fulwider: Calvin Walker.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

51

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes. That's 14 - Yes, Zero - No. Motion carries. Chairman Steve, 

next material please.

Steve DeMuri: The, uh, the next material is, uh, related. It's a, again it's Tartaric 

Acid. This is the, uh, the version that's currently listed on 205.605 (b). 

Um, so the Handling Committee is recommending -- I'm going to state it in 

the affirmative. Um, the Handling Committee recommends renewal of 

Tartaric Acid made from malic acid on the National List Section 205.605 

(b), which is the synthetic, um, side of the list. Um, the committee vote 

was 1 - Yes, 5 - No, Zero - Absent. So I move again in the affirmative for 

the renewal of Tartaric Acid made from malic acid on the National List 

Section 205.605 (b).

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

Jay Feldman: I second.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion? Any conflict? Then we will proceed with the 

voting. Starting with Katrina Heinze.

Katrina Heinze: No.

Wendy Fulwider: No.

Joseph Dickson: No.

John Foster: No.

Nick Maravell: No.

Robert Stone: No ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: No.

Kristine Ellor: No.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

52

Colehour Bondera: No.

Barry Flamm: No.

Jay Feldman: No.

Steve DeMuri: No.

C. Reuben Walker: No.

Tracy Miedema: No. That's 14 - No, Zero - Yes. Motion fails. Chairman Steve

DeMuri, the next material on the Handling Committee docket.

Steve DeMuri: Okay. We'll bypass the, uh, the ARA, DHA and Sulfur Dioxide. 

And move to Chlorine materials annotation recommendation. Uh, John

went through that in great detail on Tuesday. Um, the, the committee is 

recommending for the adoption of this recommendation for, um, Chlorine 

materials, um, annotation. And John, I'm going to hand it over to you. 

And I think we made, uh, did we make changes on this one? I think we 

did make a few minor changes. So John, I'll let you, uh, explain those.

John Foster: Alright, up on the, up on the screen, uh, highlighted there is, uh, 

what we, what we voted on and we did this in committee last, uh, 

yesterday. Um, was to remove the last clause highlighted there. Um, 

after hearing, uh, public comment and, uh, after discussing it with the 

program. Uh, that was the only change that we've made is to remove the 

clause or followed by other effective intervention or testing steps that 

would reduce and verify the residual chlorine levels to be 4 milligrams per 

liter or less on the product.

Tracy Miedema: May I have a motion?

Steve DeMuri: John, go ahead and make the motion please.

John Foster: The, uh, I move that the annotation for Chlorine on 205.605, uh, be 

changed accordingly. Uh, 205.605 (b) synthetics allowed. Chlorine 

materials. Chlorine materials (Calcium Hypochlorite Chlorine Dioxide and 

Sodium Hypochlorite). For disinfecting and sanitizing food contact 

surfaces, equipment and facilities may be used up to maximum labeled 

rates. Chlorine materials in water used in direct crop or food contact is 

permitted at levels approved by the FDA or EPA for such purpose. 

Provided the use is followed by a rinse with potable water at or below the 

maximum residual disinfectant limit for the chlorine material under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act. Chlorine in water used as an ingredient in 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

53

organic food handling must not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant 

limit for the chlorine material under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

Steve DeMuri: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion and I would like to hear the vote too if we could.

John Foster: The vote was, uh, 7 - Yes, and Zero - No.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any further discussion? Katrina Heinze.

Katrina Heinze: Um, I apologize for this. But, um, I'm having another blank. I don't 

remember pulling out that sentence. And I believe we public comments 

saying that intervention is necessary. But aren't, aren't there applications 

where when we use chlorine in water it's not followed by a potable rinse? 

I need some help. You guys are looking at me like I'm crazy. So 

obviously I don't know what I'm talking about.

John Foster: The highlighted text on the screen is what's staying in. Okay. Um, I, 

thought there was vegetable where we had three or connected clauses.

Tracy Miedema: Let's hear from the program.

Miles McEvoy: Okay. Um, so we put out draft guidance on chlorine and then final 

guidance which, um, seemed to get broad support from the comments that 

we received. And we haven't heard any complaints about it and it does 

that include that last clause. Um, and so what we brought up, um, to the 

committee or to the board earlier this week was that that last clause to us 

was confusing and not necessary since the current, uh, guidance is 

working for the industry as far as we can tell. We haven't heard any 

complaints or any operations that can't, um, meet the guidance that is 

currently out there. So this would align with, if you remove that clause it 

would realign with that. The last clause, um, our questions were what was 

the meaning of that? What kind of intervention are you referring to? What 

kind of testing steps are you referring to? What would be tested? Um, so 

that, that was our questions and then we met with the committee and they, 

uh, are now proposing to remove that last clause.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Um, okay, I just want to walk through this to make sure I 

understand with that clause gone. So the first paragraph addresses 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

54

situations where the materials are used to sanitize equipment. So I am 

aware of situations there where a rinse does not happen. And that 

paragraph does not say a rinse is required. So we're fine for that. The 

second paragraph is when, um, you have chlorine in water that's used in 

direct crop or food contact, so presumably that's during operation where 

you might be, um, I'm less familiar with this. But maybe in vegetable 

processing where you have some water that's pushing some vegetables 

along. So that's during processing. So what we're saying is, the 

vegetables get pushed along and then they have to be rinsed with potable 

water period. And then the third one is, and then do it again. So I get the 

third paragraph. Am I understanding that second paragraph?

And do we have any public comment that says that's a problem. This is a 

food safety issue in my mind and I do not want to put industry in a first, in 

a situation where they can't meet their food safety needs.

Tracy Miedema: Discussion. John Foster.

John Foster: The, the recognition here was that in the context of direct contact 

since, um, you, you'll when you have that direct food contact with the 

water that has the chlorine in it, there's always water to test. And so that 

last, uh, that last clause implied that there was some other way the 

chlorine would get there. But since this is in water, chlorine materials in 

water used, it's specific to water and there's always water to test. So, um, 

that, that was thinking of it.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: That part I understand. It's the elimination of the other effective 

intervention for, that I'm concerned with.

Tracy Miedema: Discussion. Any, I see Emily's hand raised. Mr. Deputy 

Administrator.

Miles McEvoy: Yeah, um, it's very common, uh, in post-harvest handling for there 

to be, uh, a rinse with or a, uh, a step where there's higher levels of 

chlorine in the, in the wash water, or the flume water as a food safety step, 

um, so that's where you have the higher than the safe drinking water 

levels in the water, um, in the dump tank or the flume. And then after that 

there'd be some kind of spray bar that would then have a potable water 

rinse. So you, so this is a situations where the organic food product, 

agricultural product is in contact with water -- we're saying that, um, under 

the final guidance that you have higher than the Safe Drinking Water Act
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

55

levels of chlorine in that water as long as at the end of that process you 

rinse it with potable water that's under the 4 parts per million for sodium 

hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite in under .8 parts per million for, uh, 

chlorine dioxide.

Uh, standard industry practice certifiers understand this. And there has 

been a little bit of confusion for the certifiers but this is, this is only in the 

case where there's water in direct contact with the food. The first 

paragraph, as you said, is about, um, sanitizing equipment and the last 

paragraph is water as an ingredient. So those three separate uses of 

water in, um, in handling.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. I see Joe Dickson's hand.

Joseph Dickson: Um, I'm clearly more confused on this issue than I thought I was 20 

minutes ago. In, so in a handling context, say you're sanitizing a surface 

and I know that's not what that paragraph, paragraph is about. Air drying 

can be an effective intervention in certain situations. Is there a food 

processing equivalent situation where an intervention other than potable 

water where you'd, you know, let the food itself air dry as an intervention? 

I don't want to inadvertently exclude some common practice we're not 

thinking about.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Any answer to that question? Uh, Steve.

Steve DeMuri: Um, off the top of my head I can't think of anything right now. 

Normally you would, uh, for it's for, if you're going to sanitize a belt or a 

piece of equipment with that high of a concentration you would rinse it 

before there was any food contact. And I can't think of any applications 

where that wouldn't be the case. Not that there isn't any, but I, I don't 

know of any.

Tracy Miedema: Uh, Tina and the Deputy Administrator. And I'm hearing a lot of 

murmuring in the galley, wondering if this, uh, if we're ignoring something 

that is a known fact. I'd like to first call, uh, first I'll call on Tina.

Kristine Ellor: Um, if it's, if I could, um, ask the permission of the board to, to have 

Gwendolyn come up and talk about this. 'Cause this is sort of, this is her 

thing and she's an expert in this. If that would be possible?

Tracy Miedema: Before I do so, let, let's, um, be very clear on what our question is. 

Um, I understand it to be is air drying of a chlorine sanitized product 

currently used in organic food processing?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

56

Kristine Ellor: That, that would be my question. And also, you know, I'd like to 

know if there are other, as, as Joe said, if there are other alternative 

interventions than, than rinse water?

Tracy Miedema: Gwendolyn Wyard, will you approach the podium.

Gwendolyn Wyard: Thanks. Gwendolyn Wyard. So, when the proposed guidance was 

put out there were comments, uh, received from OTA as well as a couple 

other certifiers. Um, at that time I had contacted our poultry operations. I 

was looking to see if there was a situation where, um, a water rinse 

wouldn't be appropriate. Um, I knew I had heard that in some cases a 

rinse with peracetic acid would be done. Or as was suggested here, um, 

air drying would be appropriate. Um, the comments and I'll just, I'll read 

what I received back from, um, two of our poultry operations. They said, 

in some cases the rinse with the potable, uh, water may negate the 

sanitation efforts. And/or conflict with other industry requirements. For 

example, in poultry operations the USDA requirement for moisture pickup 

on air chill birds is zero. Passing the product through the water rinse after 

the air chill process may violate that requirement.

Um, free available chlorines quickly reduce, due to contact, uh, with the 

organic material present on the surface of the chicken. Testing for 

residual chlorine on dressed raw chicken should approach zero, but 

currently most operations do not have a final rinse step as described in the 

NOP guidance. Um, other intervention methods typically time or rinse with 

another allowed anti-microbial such as peroxyacetic acid are used to 

reduce the chlorine to 4 parts per million or less. Um, I believe that the 

program addressed these comments as well, um, when the final rule came 

out. So I don't know, Emily if you want to speak to that, um, but I did 

follow-up with our poultry operations and for air chill situations they felt 

that, um, a different intervention step was required, um, per those USDA 

requirements on the moisture pick-up. So I can offer that much. Thank 

you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you very much. Would the program like to weigh in on this?

Emily Brown-Rosen: Uh, yeah, we did receive those comments in response to our 

draft guidance on chlorine and so if you read our response to the 

comments that we issued a memo as the final guidance. We, you will 

know that we checked with Food Safety and Inspection Service and 

reviewed their protocols, uh, 7120.1 for ingredients used in production of 

meat and poultry and also checked with them and we were assured by 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

57

them that there are other substances approved for chill water and also that 

they did not have an objection to rinsing of carcasses. Um, so we decided 

that since this was a new proposal that the NOSB had not previously 

recommended we would not include that in our final guidance. Um, we 

are also checked with the poultry division and there is no prohibition 

against rinsing eggs either. So, um, we went ahead with the, as the 

NOSB had recommended in 2003.

Tracy Miedema: Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: I'm interested, excuse me, I'm interested in the, uh, committee's 

discussion about the residual levels resulting. I mean I'm obviously 

concerned about what goes in as well as what comes out of this process. 

But for the moment on the residual chlorine levels which you've 

established here and is tied to these other intervention methods. Um, do 

we not need a residual level at the end of the day here, even it's subject to 

a, uh, a potable rinse. Given that we're coming out a, a system where 

exposure, product exposure or what have you was at an elevated level 

and then what we're trying to do is dilute that level with a potable rinse. 

But the question for me is yes, what is meeting the Safe Drinking Water 

Act standard is good for the potable rinse, but does it achieve the 

objective, what is the outcome?

And it seems like we're trying to get at outcomes. Am I incorrect about 

that when you put the, when you put the standard in here of residual 

levels?

Tracy Miedema: Do we have anyone on the board who can speak to, um, limitations 

on the input level? I think that is directly related to what you're asking Jay. 

Because there's no, there are limitations on what the concentration is for 

the wash water. Steve, do you, can you speak to that.

Steve DeMuri: Yeah, I'm not familiar with all industries like poultry for instance. 

But I know in the industries that I'm familiar with you could just about use 

whatever you want on the, on a piece of equipment for instance. Um, as 

long as you, um, are rinsing and verifying that you're not above the Safe 

Drinking Water Act on the residual after that rinse. If that's your question.

Tracy Miedema: That would speak to the chlorine materials used in sanitization. 

Um, I think Jay what you were asking about was the chlorine materials 

used on direct food contact. And there are, uh, regulatory limits. So we've 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

58

got to, a buffer at the beginning and then we've got a metric at the end. 

What else, uh, might you suggest?

Jay Feldman: Well, I was just asking what the committee discussion was. 

Because you put, you know, the committee put this suggestion in here. 

So I imagine it was based on some thinking that we under the organic 

program needed to stipulate a level, you know, a level of residual. I'm not, 

this is a residual on the product, not in the water. Okay, that, that's what 

the committee originally proposed. I just for the record I just, if we before 

we drop this, as the program is suggesting, it would be nice to know what 

the thinking was on that by the committee.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina, then John.

Katrina Heinze: Um, this committee didn't put that in. That's the current listing that 

this recommendation has, is really to clean-up the current listing because 

it was confusing. It, to answer that, yeah, we're. Alright, I kind of leaned 

over to Wendy and said, wow, cleaning this up to match what USDA has 

done, has been a lot harder than we thought it would be. This is really just 

trying to clean-up what's currently existing and that's in the current.

Tracy Miedema: John. 

John Foster: Yeah, I just wanted to, uh, add or clarify, uh, something that Steve

DeMuri said. Um, that the chlorine would have to be used as per label 

directions, as per regulated by EPA and FDA, uh, whether it was used as 

a food contact substance or to clean equipment, there are specific, uh, 

requirements in terms of the use of these materials that need to be met. 

And I just want to make sure that that's in the record.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Joe Dickson.

Joseph Dickson: Yeah, I want to go back a few steps to what Emily was saying 

about other USDA regulations on poultry not precluding a water rinse. 

There are organic poultry producers in the marketplace making an air, air 

chilled label claim. And treating the meat with water would result in that 

claim being deceptive because of the moisture pick-up issues. And I think 

that's what some of the issues were that Gwendolyn was getting at from 

her producers.

Tracy Miedema: Mac.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

59

Robert Stone: Well, and to follow on, on Joe's comment. It's not just deceptive, 

you have to document the bird's pick-up water and water weight being 

added to the product and that's, that's the issue there.

Tracy Miedema: Nick.

Nick Maravell: Um, this just shows my level of ignorance. But, um, does 

somebody, if, if there were testing steps, uh, uh, after an effect of 

intervention which was not a rinse with potable water, does anybody have 

an example of that technology or that testing protocol. I, I'm not just not 

aware of it. And I'd, I'd like to know, you know, what's out there.

Tracy Miedema: You know, um, that is not up for consideration right now. Um, just 

to be, be clear. But if anybody would like to mention that. I don't want to 

get off on a tangent about something we're not voting on now. Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Um, I would throw out that this is, um, perhaps a bit of a mute point. 

'Cause chlorine is an amazingly good scavenger of organic material. So if 

you put chlorine on a piece of meat the chlorine will be gone really, really 

fast. So that from a technical perspective there's really probably no 

residual on a piece of meat.

Tracy Miedema: Steve.

Steve DeMuri: Nick, to answer your question. As far as testing methods go, 

there's a multitude of different types of tests you can do to check for a 

chlorine residual. Titration, there's a little kit you can use like you would 

use for a swimming pool that go down to that kind of a level of accuracy. 

So the, the technology is there and a lot of processers use it.

Nick Maravell: Steve, just to clarify that for me. Do all of those involve a wet 

process, and that as you use water and then you test, uh, the residual with 

water or is, is there something here that's a dry process? That's what, 

that's what I, I don't understand.

Steve DeMuri: I know there are some swabbing techniques you can use for a dry 

surfaces. Um, I'm not ultimately familiar with those because we don't use 

those. But I know there's techniques for them.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Mr. McEvoy.

Miles McEvoy: Yeah, the, and that second paragraph what it's addressing is, uh, 

situations where whatever product is there is in contact with water. It says 

chlorine materials in water that, that's used. So the idea that you couldn't 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

60

have a potable water rinse because of some other factor. It's already in 

contact with water. So, uh, and again I would reiterate that we haven't had 

any trouble, uh, or complaints about this once the final guidance, uh, has 

been issued. Uh, the other thing I would, um, offer if, uh, the board would 

like is maybe we need to come back with some more, um, technical 

information about the use of chlorine in food processing for the next 

meeting. So that, uh, there's, there's more information on this particular 

issue. How it's used in most harvest handling and then processing 

facilities and what happens to the chlorine. I, I think it's that background 

information might be very useful for the, for the board.

Tracy Miedema: So implicit in that is we're not holding up anything you're doing. If 

we were to defer this item to a future meeting?

Miles McEvoy: Right. That's, that's correct.

Tracy Miedema: Okay. Any further discussion?

Steve DeMuri: So are you proposing we defer this then? I don't know why we 

would do that. If this works for the program the way it is, we should just go 

ahead and get it done.

Tracy Miedema: No, I'm not proposing we defer. I did want to check in with the 

program in case that came up where we know where they stood. Any 

further discussion? Seeing none, any conflict? Okay. John Foster.

John Foster: I don't think it's a conflict. But the company I work for uses chlorine as a 

food contact sanitizer.

Tracy Miedema: That is not a conflict. Thanks for disclosing. Um, any conflict? 

Then we will move to voting. Madame Secretary, please remind me again 

who we start the voting with?

Wendy Fulwider: Myself.

Tracy Miedema: Please proceed.

Wendy Fulwider: Could we restate it, please?

Tracy Miedema: John.

John Foster: Yes. Uh, I move that we revise the annotation for Chlorine on 

205.605 (b) to read: chlorine materials (Calcium Hypochlorite, chorine 

dioxide and sodium hypochlorite) for disinfecting and sanitizing food 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

61

contact surfaces, equipment and facilities may be used up to maximum 

labeled rates. Chlorine materials in water used in direct crop or food 

contact is permitted at levels approved by the FDA or EPA for such 

purpose. Provided the use is followed by a rinse with potable water at or 

below the maximum residual disinfectant limit for the chlorine material 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Chlorine in water used as an 

ingredient in organic food handling must not exceed the maximum residual 

disinfectant limit for the chlorine material under the Safe Drinking Water 

Act.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: No.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes, ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes. That's 13 - Yes, 1 - No. Motion carries. It's been about two 

hours since our last recess. So I am going to propose a very brief recess 

before we take on our last three Handling Committee materials and also 

before we go to lunch. So, like I said it's 11:34 right now. Please no more 

than 10 minutes. As soon as 10, uh, board members are seated in 

quorum in 10 minutes the meeting will proceed.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

62

Steve DeMuri: Tracy, uh, the committee does need to meet to, uh, discuss this, 

uh, Silicon Dioxide recommendation. So we might need a little more time 

than that.

Tracy Miedema: Good point. Okay. 11:35 right now. At 11:50 the meeting will 

resume.

Katrina Heinze: Um, given how far ahead we are and the fact that Handling wasn't 

supposed to start 'till after lunch, why would not just take lunch, given it's 

11:30?

Tracy Miedema: I see a lot of bobbing heads. 11:30. Okay. So we will go ahead 

and break for lunch. 11:35 please be back at 12:30. 

[LUNCH]

Wendy Fulwider: Madame Secretary Wendy Fulwider. 

Tracy Miedema: The meeting is back in session. Steve DeMuri, Chair of the 

Handling Committee. What is the next material for consideration?

Steve DeMuri: Uh, welcome back from lunch everybody. So you have a full 

bellies. Um, we're going to revisit the Silicon Dioxide, um, 

recommendation. The Handling Committee met at the break and we 

came up with a, uh, a new proposal was voted on. So I'm going to ask 

Katrina to take us through that. I can't get an e-mail right now. So she's 

got it on her computer so she'll, uh, take us through it. Lorraine, I think 

you probably have it.

Tracy Miedema: If there is no objection then we need not vote to take this motion 

back up. And if there's no objection we will take up the motion that was 

postponed and, and proceed with that now. Any objection? Okay. 

Thanks guys, we'll proceed.

Katrina Heinze: I apologize. I did have a chance to check with Lorraine to see if 

she got my e-mail with the change. Do you have it? Or do we need to 

use a memory stick to carry it over real quick? Okay. Um, Madame 

Chairman, if you could indulge us for one minute. 

Tracy Miedema: Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Okay. While Lorraine, uh, gets that out. Um, over lunch the 

Handling, uh, Committee met to rework the, um, recommend, 

recommended, um, annotation for Silicon Dioxide. Um, we considered 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

63

two things, um, during that. Uh, primarily aligning our language with past, 

uh, recommendations by the board which applied commercial availability 

to 605. We recognize that, uh, the program is not fond of us doing that. 

Um, but during classification, um, they had told us that while commercial 

availability could not apply holistically to 605, it could in unique situations 

be applied to individual materials. And so we wanted to make sure that 

our language was consistent with yeast, which is, um, the other time in 

recent, um, times that the board has done that. You can just scroll down 

to the bottom line.

Um, while we did that, there had been quite a bit of public comment and 

some discussion in committee that the one application, or the one use of 

Silicon Dioxide where we know that, um, an alternative rarely works, is 

defoaming. So to address the concerns that the certifiers had that this 

was quite a bit of work to verify, um, the commercial availability we chose 

over lunch to address that so that the commercial availability requirement 

did not apply to defoamers. Uh, move down. Keep going, that number 

two, right there. Okay. So, um, we, um, changed the annotation. It 

passed with a 5 - Yes votes, 1 - No vote and 1 - Absent. Um, I'll 

summarize the not vote but we can talk about that in more detail. That 

was, um, a no because of the concerns that certifiers had raised. That 

verifying commercial, commercial availability for a 605 item is, um, 

challenging.

Okay. So the new annotation that the Handling Committee is 

recommending reads: But 205.605 non-agricultural substances be 

synthetics allowed Silicon Dioxide, for use as a defoamer. May be used in 

other applications when non-synthetic alternatives are not commercially 

available. So that annotation allows use of Silicon Dioxide in all cases as 

a defoamer. And then limits the use of Silicon Dioxide in other 

applications to situations where the handler could demonstrate that nonsynthetic alternatives are not commercially available. Is that what you 

needed me to do Steve?

Steve DeMuri: So would you care to go ahead and make the motion.

Katrina Heinze: Sure. I move to change the annotation of Silicon Dioxide on 

205.605 non-agricultural substances be synthetics allowed to for use as a 

defoamer. May be used in other applications when non-synthetic 

alternatives are not commercially available.

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

64

Steve DeMuri: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Discussion. Mac and then Tina.

Robert Stone: I guess I have two thoughts. Uh, one thought and a comment 

actually. The, the thought being is we evolve towards bringing organic 

alternatives in place of synthetics because that system is seem to be 

working. We're going to be wrestling with this again, so this language 

helps us to evolve bring other new things in and it's a consistency I'm 

seeing is just thinking ahead. The other is I am in support of an 

agricultural alternative even organic alternative to synthetics but I will vote 

no just on the workload for certifiers, just so know why it's a no.

Tracy Miedema: Tina.

Kristine Ellor: Um, I feel like you've, you've really changed the sense of the 

annotation from, um, all natural certified organic alternatives available, 

where is it? Not commercially available for a specific product process. 

And you've, you've taken that out. So my concern here and there were 

some comments on this, is that there are other applications besides as a 

defoamer that, um, that this may be -- the alternatives may not work for it. 

So that's, that's my concern. And you know, maybe you can answer my 

concern.

Katrina Heinze: We addressed it, um, in the, in the other applications. So that the 

sense is still there. It's captured in those, in other applications. It's in the, 

uh, may be used in other applications. So when not used as a defoamer. 

That matches, um, it mirrors exactly how the yeast language is written.

Tracy Miedema: Further discussion? Seeing none, any conflicts on this material? 

Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Um, my company I believe uses the, um, organic alternative in 

conventional products.

Tracy Miedema: Any other disclosures, etc.? Okay. Katrina, was that, uh, did you 

intend to recuse yourself or were you simply disclosing something?

Katrina Heinze: Simply disclosing.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Madame Secretary where, where we will begin the 

voting?

Wendy Fulwider: Joe Dickson.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

65

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: No, ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: No.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: No.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes. 2 - No's, 12 - Yes. I'm sorry, let me restate for the record. 11 

- Yes, 3 - No. Motion carries. Steve DeMuri, Chair of the Handling 

Committee the next material will be recommending and voting.

Steve DeMuri: Yeah, I'd recommend that we move on to, uh, um, the first of the 

three that we, uh, deferred, 'till we had everybody here that we needed 

possibly. And that would be DHA. So I'd like to recommend we do that 

one next.

Tracy Miedema: Okay. On this material the Handling Committee met last evening 

and is bringing to the full board a changed proposal for voting today. So 

based on, uh, information that we heard the recommendation is for the 

material DHA from algal oil, not Hexane-extracted; other ingredients that 

are agricultural must be organic. To 605.(a). We did not reconsider from 

our original vote whether or not this material was synthetic or nonsynthetic or our original vote stands that this is a non-synthetic and when 

we voted, uh, that the vote on that by the way was 7 - Zero. And the vote, 

uh, last evening on this material was also 7 to Zero. 7 - Yes, Zero - No. 

May I have a motion? Or do I have a motion?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

66

Steve DeMuri: I'd like to ask, uh, John or somebody on that end of the table that 

can read that from where you're sitting to make the motion please.

Tracy Miedema: I'll turn the gavel over to, uh, Joe Dickson and make the motion. 

The first vote we'll need to take is on classification. So, in, uh, committee 

again our vote was 7 - voting in favor of the material as a, uh, nonsynthetic. So that was the motion, 7 - Yes, Zero - No. I will make a 

motion right now to the full board to classify DHA from algal oil not 

Hexane-extracted other ingredients that are agricultural must be organic. 

That that material be classified as a non-synthetic.

Katrina Heinze: Good. I second.

Joseph Dickson: Any discussion? Jay.

Jay Feldman: For the record maybe Katrina you can do this just for the record 

explain the process the committee went through in making its 

determination on synthetic, non-synthetic.

Katrina Heinze: Okay. Um, we, um, relied heavily on the TR for the technical 

background but then we went through and applied the 2009, um, 

recommendation. So the two key points and very helpfully the TR went 

through this for the material as well. Um, as we've discussed ad nauseam, 

the, uh, the material is Hexane-extracted. The 2009 recommendation, 

um, states that extraction with a synthetic solvent does not, um, 

necessitate that a product be classified as synthetic. The material is nonsynthetic if the, um, synthetic solvent, um, I'm having to paraphrase, is, uh, 

removed to a significant level. Um, and there is chemical change. And so 

the TR went through and, um, said in fact that that was the case, uh, given 

the process we were reviewing. Um, the second thing is the formulated 

ingredients. What that recommendation says is if they are, um, present, 

um, below a significant level the product, the material is classified as nonsynthetic.

The TR went through and did that evaluation and said, that, um, given the 

levels of these other ingredients, um, their recommendation was that it 

was non-synthetic. And so after our review and a dive into the technical 

that was our assessment.

Joseph Dickson: Jay.

Jay Feldman: Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, and I should , I think the, the 

committee has the authority and ability to determine a synthetic, non-
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

67

synthetic and as does this board. Um, I was hoping to maybe and maybe 

you discussed this, uh, have more detail on how the committee came to its 

determination of insignificance. 'Cause as you know, uh, this board at its 

last board meeting, uh, on a motion to adopt an insignificant residue policy 

for synthetics in, in the extraction process and other processes. Uh, on a 

motion to accept, uh, EP tolerances and other federal standards failed to 

adopt that motion. I interpreted that as a lack of agreement on the board 

at this point in time on how we as a board come to a determination as to 

what level of residue of a, a synthetic material used in the processing 

remaining in the residue, as a residue in that, um, material be classified at 

the end of the day.

I think and I hope that we will come to some resolution on that. I, I know 

it's difficult. We will, but in this specific case if you did have any discussion 

on how you came to a comfort level with that level of insignificant, uh, 

residue it'd be good to get that on the record. Thank you.

Joseph Dickson: Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Um, I will have to paraphrase again. Um, there is, um, a discussion 

of the significant, insignificant topic in the 2009 recommendation. Um, 

that, um, recommendation as you know, was based on a significant 

amount of work by the material working group which represented a broad 

spectrum of our stakeholders. That recommendation, their 

recommendation and the subsequent NOSB recommendation, um, uh, 

said that significant, recommended that significant be based on, um, these 

tolerances but recognized that more clarity was needed. Which was why 

we led to the definition. Um, so recognizing that this is a gray area, um, 

we had some discussion around, um, other materials on the list. Was this 

different than other materials? How those were classified. Um, and tried 

to rely on past board precedent with regard to other materials -- are they 

on the list, that had possibly similar processes.

And where they were classified. Um, as again as you know, the 

classification document that this board passed attempted as much as 

possible to, uh, formalize past board practice. It was not intended to 

change, um, as much as possible classification decisions. It was more to 

bring clarity to past decisions. So, um, given that this is a gray area, we 

tried to look back and compare processes. So that's how we got to it.

Joseph Dickson: Jay.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

68

Jay Feldman: One last point on this. I read in the petition a, uh, .3PPM limit of 

detection. A process for, uh, looking through registers. I was hoping to 

get some discussion of that if, you know, and whether the committee 

looked at that level and if that's true, I'm working off memory here. Uh, but 

there was some limit of detection or identified in the, in the document and 

what I was wondering is was that the, um, the limit of detection that, uh, is 

technologically feasible. And typical or are, are they coming in at a higher 

level than we would like to see perhaps in organic. Again, I'm just trying to 

get this on the record so that as we move forward as a board and struggle 

with these issues down the road, we have some clarity on what we're 

looking at when we make these synthetic, non-synthetic decisions. Thank 

you.

Joseph Dickson: Katrina then Tracy.

Katrina Heinze: Um, we were aware of it. I'm not sure it totally weighed in. 

Because this is that gray area, and so we more had to look at comparable 

processes of things already classified non-synthetic on the list.

Joseph Dickson: Any further comment or discussion? Alright. Hearing none. Does 

anyone have any conflicts to declare? Alright. Well, we'll move forward 

with voting. Um, alright, there's a motion on the table to classify DHA from 

algal oil as non-synthetic. Um, Wendy, where we'll begin the voting?

Wendy Fulwider: John Foster.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes, sir.

Jennifer Taylor: No.

Joseph Dickson: Pardon me Jennifer? Tina.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: No.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

69

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: And I vote yes. The voting is 12 - Yes, 2 - No. The motion passes.

Tracy Miedema: Okay. Chair, Handling Committee Steve DeMuri. The next 

recommendation before us.

Steve DeMuri: Yeah, the next recommendation, uh, would be for a listing of DHA. 

Now that we've determined it to be a non-synthetic we, the next step is to, 

uh, determine whether or not we should list it. So I'm going to turn back 

over to Tracy as the lead reviewer of this, uh, material.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you Steve. Do I have a motion? Lorraine, can you please 

increase the font size significantly for the substance.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Thanks. Yes, the motion is to... 

Is to add DHA from algal oil not Hexane-extracted. Other ingredients that 

are agricultural must be organic to the National List Section 205.605 (a).

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a second.

Steve DeMuri: I count.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion? Any conflict? Alright. Oh, Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: Any discussion on the motion, is that what you asked? Okay. I 

have some things to ask. Well, thank, thank you committee for all your 

work on this. Um, it's raising I think new areas of concern that I'm glad 

we're taking seriously. And I'm glad that you all have wrestled with the 

chemicals that are associated with the production of this, uh, substance. I 

am uncomfortable with what we're doing here as a board as a of matter 

process. And that is that, um, there are a number of issues that are I 

believe in conflict with both the intent and the letter of the law. That were 

clear in the petition. You've resolved, you've attempted resolve some of 

them. And I think your intent is, is right. However, I think the specifics are 

lacking. And this area, this is a new area for us. This is a new area of 

chemical I believe, the type of chemical. Um, or type of substance I 

should say. Sorry.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

70

Um, and so we need to have a clear process here. Because this is going 

to be as used a precedent for others that come along. They'll be others 

beating on the door to get similar ingredients listed and products that are 

making claims about impacts on our health and our consumers that rely 

on us and the label for a determination that these things are in the 

marketplace, because they've been with that seal, because they've been 

reviewed by a board thoroughly that has looked at all the details and 

brought all those details to bear in it's review. The difference between 

what we're looking now in terms of this particular proposal 

recommendation and what was submitted by Martek is extreme.

And it's extreme in the right direction, but it is nevertheless extreme. And 

it has addressed one key area of concern. Which is the use of Hexane in 

the manufacturing process too. And the use of two areas of concern, and 

the use of other ingredients that may be in there, um, as well. However, I 

believe that we're not doing our full diligence. We have not done our 

adequate enough review based on statements I've heard and side 

discussions that I've been involved with that enables me to make a 

determination on whether we have reviewed all the ingredients that, uh, 

maybe down the road used in the production of this material or substance. 

And what I'm focusing on here is the extraction process. Um, Martek has 

listed a number of ingredients in there, in the process of the petition as 

you know. They've got powder, liquid, Hexane, non-Hexane, 

microencapsulated, non-microencapsulated citations in there.

They basically are saying that they've got two manufacturing processes. 

One with Hexane and one without. The one without is an enzymatic 

process, um, that it uses alcohol. Um, and the other is that the Hexane 

process. As we look at this thing I, I think beyond Hexane we have to look 

at whether we're opening the door to other extractants, other solvents, 

other aromatic chemicals that we don't know about. This is a whole new 

area for us I believe. Um, that requires us to be much more circumspect 

and I think much more directive in how we stipulate or delineate what we 

know and don't know about a product. So in this case what I'm most 

uncomfortable about and maybe Nick or somebody else can help me out 

with this. Is the fact that we don't know down the road if we prohibit a 

specific chemical in the extraction process whether that specific chemical 

will be replaced by another chemical of equal harm, uh, down the road.

And nothing in the language that you've provided us or asking us to 

support, uh, prohibits that. Once we approve, uh, this language we will 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

71

have approved an open ended process with the exception of the use of 

Hexane. And I'm, I'm personally uncomfortable with that given what I hear 

every day from the people that call me, what is in the organic product that 

I'm buying and spending money on and digging deeper into my pocket for. 

So, I would suggest if we go down this road and we stipulate in a

proposal, stipulate exactly what we're approving. Rather than open the 

door to unknown materials that might be used down the road. So for 

instance, if Martek in its petition, uh, has identified enzymes, alcohol, 

sunflower oil, you know the ingredients better than I do. That we stipulate 

that this DHA is restricted to manufacturing processes that include the 

following.

Then we will not have opened the door to a whole new area. Um, and we 

would at least, well first of all, I'll be able to sleep tonight. But we'll, we'll 

be, we will at least know that we will have more time to evaluate future 

processes of these types of substances, uh, down the road. And I think in 

fact this opens the larger question which obviously we're not dealing with 

now. But you guys have struggled with. Uh, on the question of ingredient 

policy on this type of a thing. So, that's my question. Or my statement.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Okay, it looks like Tina and then Nick.

Kristine Ellor: My, my concern with being that specific would be then that would 

limit only that one company from filling this category. That would be my 

concern with that approach. But I do understand your concern. But I, I 

have concerns with that, that approach as well.

Tracy Miedema: Nick.

Nick Maravell: Thanks Jay for those comments. And I do appreciate your concern 

and I understand it. Um, I'll make the following points which may not fully 

satisfy your concern. Um, one is I, I feel a little uncomfortable along 

Tina's, uh, remarks, uh, for getting that specific. Um, you know, in the 

sense that are we in effect approving a brand or a proprietary process. 

Um, number two, we are talking about unknown possible future 

substances. And generally speaking the board tries to react to what is 

known and, and, and before it rather than try and second guess what 

might come before it. But more importantly, um, and this is where, um, 

you know, I hope I have the proper understanding from the program is that 

we're, as a board, going to be moving forward with policies to try to sort 

through some of these issues. So the certifiers will have clear guidance 

on how to go forward on other ingredients.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

72

Uh, we're going to be coming forward with the policy with regard to 

nutrients, uh, I'm sorry. With regard to vitamins and minerals as well. And 

which also crosses into this same area. Yes, uh, it would be nice to have 

this all tied up, uh, so that there was 100 percent certainty as to what was 

going forward. But there's a public process for establishing, um, future 

policy that hopefully if DHA were to come up two years from now, we 

would have much clearer guidance on how to proceed. There are issues 

that you have raised, there are additional issues which we're all aware of. 

And I think we want to engage the public in deciding those processes, 

those policies. I'm sorry, those policies. And, um, we have a 

responsibility to respond to the petition before us and to make the best 

possible judgment we can make at the moment based on prior board 

decisions.

And what policy we do have in place. I don't think we're trying and, and 

well, let me rephrase that. We are not trying to create policy with this 

decision that is going to open the door. And I have surveyed the other 

members of the board. I've consulted with the program. Um, we're not 

doing that. And if there's any, we're putting that in our committee 

recommendation that we are not, uh, creating policy here, uh, that is 

opening the door to other, uh, decisions. We are making the best policy 

decision we can at the moment given the tools that we have.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. One comment and then, uh, a clarification. Lorraine, 

will you please open the committee addendum. This addendum attaches 

to both the ARA and the DHA, uh, committee recommendations. Nick had 

an excellent suggestion last night to make it abundantly clear in case it 

was not already clear through the NOP memo and through our own writing 

to, to make a clarifying statement at the very end of the document which 

states -- you can shrink it. Not to brag. This document is not intended to 

set precedent, but merely to show the work that the committee completed 

on these two materials. A reminder that the NOP asked us after we had 

already published our recommendation to produce the criteria used to 

analyze the other ingredients. We didn't make up new rules, we went 

back to the criteria that had already been used and made them explicit 

and in list form.

Uh, we were also, um, we made clear at the very beginning of the meeting 

that we did not intend those to be, to set policy and the program went on 

record saying that we need not consider our work today to be precedent 

setting. And that policy, there would be plenty of time to do it, um, in a 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

73

measured sort of way. So that's just building on, uh, really what Nick was 

saying. Colehour.

Colehour Bondera: Thank you. Um, I mean I, I hesitate to even start trying to ask for 

clarification because from my perspective, and yes I am not on the 

Handling Committee I, I admit that. But from my perspective this is 

extraordinarily confusing. And there's so many flags that are raising 

questions that it's getting more confusing not less for me. And I apologize, 

but I'm going to state that. And so I don't know Nick, if you're the person, 

but you know, one of the questions that Jay brought up, uh, that I thought 

in my opinion hasn't been addressed directly. And I don't think is, is 

answered. When you look at the current proposal now that it's not up 

there I won't read it. But it says, not Hexane-extracted. And Jay

mentioned, you know, why can't whoever it is and we can, uh, say that it's 

not a specific company, but in any case, why can't they just substitute 

some other, uh, something instead of that that's even worse than Hexane.

That's unclear to me. And excluding and specifying that detail is a little bit 

brand specific and bizarre because that's what their currently using. And 

then we say not that. But then how about everything else. If someone 

could address that particular question I would appreciate it.

Tracy Miedema: I'll defer to the NOP on this. Because is really an enforcement 

question. Would certifiers look into, uh, manufacturing processes when 

they approve a material?

Miles McEvoy: Well, they would do their due, due diligence to ensure that the 

substances that were being used complied with the regulations. So if the 

regulations say that the 605 material that, um, a company wants to use in 

their product cannot be Hexane-extracted, then they would verify that 

that's in fact the case. And if it was the case then they could allow it. If it 

was, if it was Hexane-extracted then it wouldn't be allowed in the products. 

So it's the certifiers doing their due, due diligence to ensure that, um, the 

handler is in compliance with the, with the regulations.

Tracy Miedema: I have one follow-up comment and one follow-up question. Um, do 

you expect because of our addendum that certifiers will also use the nine 

criteria that we spelled out in the addendum when they're looking at other 

ingredients? This is off the topic of Hexane and I want to save that one.

Miles McEvoy: Um, they would be able to use that for clarity around these 

particular materials. Because, uh, it's clear in the record that the, what the 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

74

board's intention was regarding other ingredients in these two compounds. 

It would not be appropriate for them to use that for other substances in 

605. Because that's not what your, what the background information is 

about. You, you explicitly state that it's relevant to these two, uh, these 

two substances.

Tracy Miedema: Well, these materials are going to have a pretty bright light shined 

on 'em. I think, um, a company would, uh, go down the path of this sort of, 

uh, scenario that's being envisioned here of using something new and 

horrible at their peril. I mean there's never been a brighter light shined on 

how a material is being produced for organic. So we can kind of muddle 

or mole over I should say these scenarios, um, and we could do that with 

every single, um, we could do that we our materials. And a place to start, 

Colehour, if, um, if it's an area that you're taking an interest in and it 

sounds like you are, since I'm getting off the board, um, nutrient vitamins 

and minerals might be a really good place for you to start. Because, uh, 

while we know so much about these two materials that we're talking about, 

we know, um, relatively little about that nutrients vitamins and minerals in 

terms of other ingredients.

In terms of manufacturing processes, uh, extraction methods, etc. So that 

would be a very ripe area to look into. Um, where this is a very well 

understood area. Nick.

Nick Maravell: Um, Colehour in an attempt to address your concern in an 

additional manner. Um, I'm going to ask the program a question. Um, 

assuming we go ahead and, and develop clearer guidance that will be 

helpful to certifiers, um, on the use of other ingredients. Um, can we go 

back and look at decisions that have already been made by the board, 

whether they're in compliance with the new policy? And number two, if we 

were to write in there, um, a specific, uh, extraction, um, set of materials 

and process, and suppose that were to violate the new policy we come up 

with, then we have a board action specific to a particular extraction 

method and it violates our method. I mean that's, that's a possibility. The 

same thing would apply by the way for the Hexane prohibition. If that 

turns out to be, uh, the board decides in its policy that Hexane would 

qualify, then are we, when, when does it become incumbent upon us to 

review these decisions?

So I'm, in light of establishing policy. So I, I ask that of the program.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

75

Miles McEvoy: Okay. I think, uh, in terms of how I understand your question is that 

the, um, in terms of other ingredients what we're requesting is that the 

board develop an overarching, uh, policy on other ingredients in 605 

materials and that once, uh, you developed a final recommendation on 

that, then, uh, then the program would work through the, the rulemaking 

process through a proposed rule with public comment and a final rule to 

codify that in the regulations. Once it was codified in the regulation then 

certifiers and, and certified organic handlers would have to comply with 

the regulations for other ingredients as a comprehensive, um, way of 

looking at those other ingredients in 605 materials. The board in their, uh, 

statutory authority over National List substances has a responsibility to 

review petitions and review, um, do the Sunset review every five years.

And, um, depending upon where you are in that process when those 

regulations are, uh, finalized. I guess once the regulations are finalized 

then you would utilize those final regulations as part of your review 

process. Either for new petitions or for, um, through the Sunset process.

Nick Maravell: So Colehour, our process would be under a new policy we consider 

people petitioning to change the annotation or we could consider this at 

Sunset. So those, that would be the process by which we would review 

any decision that we had made, uh, concerning these two materials.

Tracy Miedema: Colehour.

Colehour Bondera: I apologize but for clarification, uh, just for my own sake, uh, what 

annotation? I'm unaware of an annotation.

Tracy Miedema: The, um, material as, uh, proposed today has an annotation. And 

the annotation is not Hexane-extracted; other ingredients that are 

agricultural must be organic. So those were some tall fence posts we put 

up around the material. Barry.

Barry Flamm: I appreciate the, uh, the effort of the committee to try to address 

these problems. And I think some of 'em are addressed. But, but I'm 

wondering, um, you know, what the, the reaction to the people who are, 

were in opposition to the petition, whether or not, uh, this satisfies at least 

some of the concerns. Um, therefore I'm, did the committee discuss or 

considered postponing this and, uh, and with the, um, so that the public 

could, could look at this with the, um, with these changes? And they are 

important changes, which I appreciate. So.

Tracy Miedema: Steve.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

76

Steve DeMuri: Yes, Barry we definitely did consider deferring it to, to the next 

meeting or even later. But this thing has been languishing for a quite a 

while. And there's some, uh, processors out there that are looking to us 

for an answer on this. So we felt like we owed it to them to give them an 

answer. So we did the best we could. You know, we've compromised on 

it. Um, like somebody has mentioned this will come up again for Sunset in 

five years. At that time you can ask for another TR that will specifically 

look at additional methods that might be, being used or could be used at 

that time. And take it from there. And exclude those if you don't think they 

should be, uh, uh, part of the process. Also, a caution that if you make the 

processing methods too prescriptive you could have the effect of going the 

other way.

Steve DeMuri: And if somebody comes up with a less, um, um, harmful should I 

say, um, process such as steam extraction, they might be excluded from 

using that as well. So, you have to be careful what you do.

Tracy Miedema: Tina.

Kristine Ellor: And I'm just going to throw this out there. Because I heard 

somebody talking about it in the hallway. That, you know, if ever do have 

a microbial organic standard this could be made possibly in the organic 

form. And that, of course, would be the, the best possible of all worlds.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Jay.

Jay Feldman: Nick, I appreciate your insights and your interpretation of the effect 

of this action. Um, this would be what you're describing as an, uh, an 

action that doesn't, uh, create precedent, is unprecedented. So I'm glad 

you're breaking new ground here. It's actually ground that I like to see 

broken. Because we are told that the actions of the previous board are 

actions we should honor as we move forward and only if we have new 

information should we choose to change up a previous action. It's a pretty 

high threshold. Because as you know, there are, there are new 

understandings that may be subtle. There are complicating factors as to 

what is actually defined as new information when we sit down and look at 

old information. Um, so the fact that, that statement is at the bottom of the 

page is very telling.

As opposed to being at the top of the page. That this is not to be taken as 

a precedent for any future action by board. Because that would be as I 

say a break, um, from the history of, of how we've, we've proceeded. 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

77

There's a term that's been thrown around on, on this petition that is 

something I don't quite understand. And this is why I'm, I'm, this proposal 

frightens me. And that is that we're dealing with a generic material. And 

that somehow is supposed to suggest to this board that we, you know, 

we're creating an allowance for a substance that anyone can create, that 

anyone can produce. And that anyone can, you know, try to introduce in 

some other form into the marketplace. And that may well be true. But in, 

in effect if you read the petition, um, Martek was very clear that they 

wanted to be sure that any alteration of the annotation and what it, that 

any alteration in Martek's manufacturing process in the annotation would 

be unacceptable to the petitioner.

And would result in a materially -- and this is, would result -- this is a 

quote. Would result in a materially different infant formula ingredient. 

Now I, I suspect that holds true for the other ingredients that they produce 

as well. Um, obviously when you take Hexane out I guess the question is 

do they any longer have an infant formula ingredient. I guess if you could 

answer that question as well. But the point is that the petitioner makes it 

very clear that it is expecting that this board adopt an allowance that would 

enable their manufacturing process to go forward. So the analogy holds 

that if we adopt a specific manufacturing or manufacturing ingredients, 

that anybody can utilize those ingredients and should somebody now 

having seen this product come to market, choose to introduce new 

ingredients, they could do that through the petition process.

My concern is that we not wait as you suggested for a Sunset and get 

behind the curve. I would think we have learned enough now in organic 

production and methods that we can get ahead of the curve. That's what 

I'm trying to get at here. That my biggest frustration in my two years so far 

on the board has been being behind the curve. And we have an 

opportunity here with the new material to get in front of the situation and 

not accept statements like, we can deal with it if somebody identifies a 

problem. We should be about preventing problems. That is exactly what 

people are expecting us to do when they see that seal. That want us to be 

in front of the problems, not in back of the problems. So well, what you 

describe is true that we have a good process to go through a reevaluation. 

We also have a good process to utilize our experience and our knowledge 

to get in front of this. Now I, I want to say that I'm not looking to vote 

against this material, that's not why I'm raising this.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

78

That's not my intent. My intent is to get something on the table that is 

clear limited, concise, creates incentives for new manufacturers to come 

on with safer ingredients. But doesn't leave the barn door open so that we 

cannot put the horse back in the barn or the cows, which I guess are 

harder to, to do. Um, so I, um, I hear everything you're saying and I 

appreciate it. And you know, you're describing the process that we have. 

But if you look back at a lot of the decisions that we're made years ago I 

think it's fair to say that we could have gotten ahead of the curve more at 

junctures just like this, junctures just like this, where we're presented with 

a so-called generic material or substance and are not using our due 

diligence to attribute specific as Martek itself described in its, in its petition. 

It was trying to, it was trying to develop a, it was saying to us that we need 

you to prove our specific process.

Now I'd like to say to them, well we have some guidelines and standards 

and issues that we have to address. So we would like to stipulate that you 

only use these materials, until we can learn more. So, again I appreciate 

what you guys have done. I think you've, you, you have limited it, in, in a 

way that's important. But you haven't yet gotten a handle on the full 

breath and depth of what we have a duty to do. And this is a bad 

precedent, no matter how you want to spin it Nick. This is a precedent. 

And it will be pointed to as the best we could do. I had to vote today for 

this being a non-synthetic because of precedent. Okay. Do I think it's a 

non-synthetic? I don't know. We don't have a policy yet on what the 

residual in an ingredient is of a synthetic in organic. We let the horse out 

of the barn before we, before we approved extraction processes.

And I, I'm not blaming anybody but that's the reality. So I'm trying to, I'm 

saying we need to prevent that now, so that when I vote on something I 

don't just have to rely on precedent. But I can, you know, start asking 

other questions. And so I, I think, I think it's a little, uh, unfortunate that 

you're characterizing this, uh, and I'm glad you added that statement. But 

the power of it I think is extremely limited.

Tracy Miedema: Board members, Jay I would ask your help in this. Just so that we 

promote a free and open dialogue that we don't sort of filibuster and hold 

the floor for such a long period of time. We really need the repartee many 

voices. We've had a lot of hands up for a long time. You've held the floor 

for about an hour on this topic. Nick, and then Tina.

Nick Maravell: Jay, thanks, um, for those comments. Um, I probably stand 

correctly here. This is not without creating precedence this is limiting the 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

79

precedents to this decision. And it, and it is true that we are encouraged 

to look at previous board decisions. But we are not bound by previous, 

uh, uh, board decisions. And so we're providing guidance here for future 

boards. I agree this does create precedence. We are trying to limit that to 

the least amount of precedence that it could establish. But your point is 

well taken and I understand it. Um, with regard to, uh, specifying, uh, in 

more detail the manufacturing process and chemicals used during 

extraction. I'm almost going to have to say that's above my pay grade. 

Because it starts to get into issues that truly you and I haven't really 

grappled with and get into proprietary issues and patents. Are we in effect 

approving a generic that really nobody else could produce except one 

particular company.

So I, I, I have not grappled with that and don't feel comfortable 

establishing precedence or policy on that here. Um, but I, I do appreciate

the, the dilemmas that we face. I will just point out one more thing. We 

don't have to wait until Sunset to review this. Um, anybody can come into 

petition, uh, a decision made by the board, uh, with regard to an 

annotation or a listing. Um, and, um, I'm not adverse to that. And then we 

do get the chance to look at it sooner than Sunset with additional technical 

input, with the public engagement. I might quote a little bit or a 

paraphrase 'cause I can't remember the quote. But I can paraphrase a 

little bit from Churchill, you know, democracy is the most inefficient form of 

government I know, but it beats all the alternatives. And I feel that we 

have an open and democratic process here.

It may not be the most efficient, but I haven't, within the tools that we have 

available to us, I have not figured out a more open and democratic way to 

proceed on this.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you Nick. And you asked what I have here back on this 

absolutely Nick is 100 percent accurate. That any member of, uh, the 

human population, maybe not just Americans, can create a, send a 

petition into NOP on this material or on the annotation. And, uh, we have 

a fantastic free and open process on that. Nick's absolutely right. Tina.

Kristine Ellor: And, um, respectfully both agreeing and disagreeing with, with Jay. 

Um, you know, for reasons out of our control we are already behind on 

this. This is out in the marketplace. So you know, we've already started 

out kind of, um, behind this. But I feel like we're pulling ahead actually. 

This is the part where I disagree with you. Um, by using an annotation like 

this. And because with other things, with other categories and with other 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

80

ingredients within this category we have not made those same restrictions. 

So I think that, you know, in that way we're pulling a little bit ahead on this. 

And to just, um, carry your barnyard analogy a little bit further. There's 

always opportunities to open the barn door and exchange the animals. 

And there's always an opportunity to get all those animals in and shut the 

door. Or to open the door and let all those animals out.

We have, not only do we have the petition process and Sunset, but we 

now have the ability to change annotations at Sunset. So I feel like we 

have, you know, plentiful tools for opening and closing that barn door, um, 

not only with this material but with everything we look at.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Barry Flam.

Barry Flamm: I appreciate, uh, this discussion and these efforts, but, uh, 

realistically I think, uh, once we give the green light on this and it's going to 

be really difficult to make any, uh, significant changes. I can't see in the 

short term of, of making annotation changes or, um, or, um, doing it at 

Sunset after going through these processes for the last four years. I, you 

know, with the kind of, um, questions that have been raised here and, and 

the lack of answers to 'em. And the concern by a large number of public I 

can't see that, um, something is going to happen in two years or three 

years that, uh, would get us to change this thing. And that's my opinion.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? We're going to use the three minute, uh, 

comment on this one.

Jay Feldman: Thank you. Just to use John Foster's analogy. I think we're at an 

intersection. But instead of there being four stop signs I think there are 

three. And that can create havoc, because while you think you have 

gotten things under control that, that person that doesn't have that one 

stop sign can cause a lot of havoc in that intersection. And so thank you 

John for the intersection analogy. Um, just to, I prefer not to vote against 

this, because I think there's some applications of this that may fit into 

organic system. But I'm forced to vote against, I prefer to delay as Barry, 

as Barry, uh, suggested. I think we don't have all our ducks in a row. I 

think we probably can get them all in a row. Um, but if we can't, um, if we 

can't do that then I'm, I must, I just wanted you all to know that I'm going to 

vote against it. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: And Chairman, I think it is time to call a question.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

81

Tracy Miedema: Alright. We will check our Robert's Rules real quick and see 

whether we immediately proceed with voting or whether we need to take 

an interim action on the call for the question. Alright. We're ready to vote. 

And we will start with Nick.

Nick Maravell: And could we restate the motion.

Tracy Miedema: Yes, let me restate the motion. The motion is to list DHA from algal 

oil not Hexane-extracted. Other ingredients that are agricultural must be 

organic. For inclusion on the National List 7 CFR 205.605 (a). Nick.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: No.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: No.

Barry Flamm: No.

Jay Feldman: No.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: And the Chair votes yes. That's 10 - Yes, 4 - No. Motion carries. 

Chairman Steve DeMuri of the Handling Committee, what's the next 

material up for voting today?

Steve DeMuri: Thank you everybody. Good discussion. Um, very helpful. Um, 

let's move into, uh, ARA next. And, um, again I'm going to turn it back 

over to Tracy as the lead on this material for us.

Tracy Miedema: The Handling Committee met last evening on both DHA and ARA. 

The edits that we produced, sorry the annotation that we produced for this 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

82

material and changes is very similar to that of DHA in terms of, uh, the 

restrictions. One, uh, correction that we wanted to make so that there was 

absolutely no confusion that we were listing the generic version. We didn't 

want the letters to even in the future ever add to an acronym. Um, we 

made sure to call the material by its generic. So that was the removal of 

single-cell oil and calling the, um, the material fungal oil. And we added 

the constraints, the annotation not hexane-extracted; other ingredients 

that are agricultural must be organic. The addendum is attached to both 

documents. And so the same statement, uh, change that we reviewed a 

moment ago on DHA applies here to ARA as well.

Which states that this document is not intended to set precedent but 

merely to show the work that the committee completed on these two 

materials. May I have a motion? Let me restate that. Is there a motion?

Steve DeMuri: Yes. I'd like to make a motion. The first one would be to list the 

material as a non-synthetic.

Katrina Heinze: I second.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion about the classification of this material as a nonsynthetic? Any conflict? Okay. We're ready to vote. Again, the motion is 

for the classification of Arachidonic acid fungal oil or ARA, not hexaneextracted, other ingredients that are agricultural must be organic as a nonsynthetic. Mac, you'll vote first.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: No.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: No.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

83

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes. That's 12 - Yes, 2 - No. Motion carries. The next portion of 

this material will be to look at its listing. The first vote is on the 

classification. The second vote is on the listing. Is there a motion? Font

size please.

Nick Maravell: Okay. I'll make the motion is to add Arachidonic acid fungal oil

(ARA) whoops. I can do it from memory but it won't come out right. Not 

hexane-extracted other ingredients that are agricultural must be organic 

and we are adding this to Section 205.605 (a).

Steve DeMuri: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion? Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: For the record can you describe the current extraction process in 

the chemicals used.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina, did you... Jay, would you like, um, someone to read from 

the, um, petition and/or technical review?

Jay Feldman: That would be helpful. I'd like to get that on the record.

Tracy Miedema: Go ahead and, um, I'll back you on citations from the petition and 

TR as needed.

Nick Maravell: Okay. I'm reading from the technical review starting on Line 212. 

Um, I'm, I'm the last list. There's some parts further up I'm going to have 

to read from 204. But the, um, there's a non-genetically modified soil 

fungus Mortierella alpina which, uh, serves as the basis, uh, for, uh, 

forming the, uh, ARA. Synthesis begins with the aerobic fermentation of 

the fungus in shake flask containing a growth medium. Um, yeah, I think 

can skip -- well okay, is the fermentation broth typically includes mixtures 

of nitrogen and carbon sources such as glucose, molasses, high fructose 

corn syrup, soy flour, hydrolyzed starch, and yeast extract among others. 

The fermentation broth can also include a number of bulk nutrients, trace 

minerals, starch and, um, saccharifying enzymes. I'm not sure I got the 

pronunciation on that right.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

84

The fermentation process is finished, uh, in, um, I think they mean stirring 

tanks, stirred tank fermenters in, uh, which temperature pH airflow, 

pressure, agitation, dextrose concentration and dissolved oxygen are 

monitored and controlled. The pH of the fermentation broth can be 

particularly effected, can particularly effect microbial growth in the amount 

and profile of the oils produced as a result pH profiling is conducted 

through the addition of food acids and basis to maintain a pH of, at a 

desired level. The microbial biomasses and harvested from the 

fermentation broths using filtration, uh, centrifugation or spray drying. Oil

can be extracted directly from the crumbled wet mycelial cake, the 

harvested biomass, using polar solvents such as ethanol or isopropyl 

alcohol in a reaction kettle.

Super critical fluid extraction can also be used on the wet cake by 

employing carbon dioxide or nitric oxide solvents in a manner similar to 

that used in decaffeination of coffee beans. Um, alternatively the mycelial 

cake be dried and harvested via vacuum drying, fluid drying, spray drying 

and, uh, lyophlization after which the oil is extracted using non-polar 

solvent and wet grinding, and wet grinding. Although the preferred solvent 

is hexane, other solvents can be used for this process -- that can be used 

for this process include ether, methanol, ethanol, chloroform, 

dichloromethane and petroleum ether. The extraction process results in 

an oil clouded with suspended fine solids that can be, that can interfere 

with the refinement of the crude oil. Clouded crude oil can be clarified 

through the addition of a move, in addition of a more, I'm sorry, um, polar 

solvent such as acetone.

The mixture is then, uh, desolventized through the treatment of heat and 

vacuum and the solvent is recovered and reused. Okay. I think that's the 

end of the process.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Jay Feldman and do, let's all be mindful of 

the repartee free and open everyone getting their turn. Okay.

Jay Feldman: Thank you Nick. I wish I had you around when I was reading my 

kids their bedtime stories. It would have been... (laugh) Um, did you 

know there were all those solvents in there? That did not include hexane?

Nick Maravell: Uh, yes I was aware of that. That's not the, the, the procedure that 

is said stated to be the, um, what should I say, the preferred, uh, 

procedure. Those other solvents are permitted, um, or permitted are 

available, uh, for making this, uh, product. Yes.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

85

Tracy Miedema: Jay.

Jay Feldman: I mean this was my point. This is my point. We're opening up the 

barn door. And we don't really know what we're opening up for. And it 

really is premature to be doing this. This is, people expect to us monitor 

and provide oversight and to review, and we make our best judgments. 

But when we have an open-ended list with acetone, chloroform and, and 

Steve says hundreds of others that could be used. We need to know what, 

what we're doing. That's all. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Nick. And then Steve.

Nick Maravell: The comments that we received, which is what the committee 

recommendation was in part responding to, uh, did not draw our attention 

to these other extractants as a potential cautionary area. So that's the 

only thing I could state on that.

Tracy Miedema: Steve DeMuri.

Steve DeMuri: Well, of course a TR or a petition is going to list every possibility 

known to man that they know of at the time. Um, but to do nothing, the

furthest to wait for more information when we think we've done the best 

we can at this point in time, is just going to let it languish even longer. So, 

you know, my, my recommendation would be to move on this with the 

restrictions that we've made. And, uh, uh, do something.

Tracy Miedema: Any other board members? Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: I mean one, one thing we could do in this context is substitute, uh, 

no, no, uh, solvents or no organic solvents in place of hexane. That would 

broaden the net obviously a little bit, a lot. And we wouldn't have to feel --

I mean one of the things we, we've tried to do in organic which makes it so 

different from the conventional side, is we've tried to understand our 

inputs. We've tried to know what they are. Our biggest criticism on the 

chemical side is that the degree of unknowns is unacceptable. So why 

are we going down that path. Let's, the only reason for delay Steve is to 

capture this and create a net that we feel comfortable with. So we're 

making an informed judgment. And yes, I agree with you, I don't want to 

delay either. But if it's a delay of six months, I don't, I would feel better 

about that delay and, and ability to answer these questions.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

86

Tracy Miedema: A reminder that this isn't one -- for everyone, that this isn't one of 

the other ingredients. This is an extraction material not present in the final 

product. Tina and then Katrina.

Kristine Ellor: Um, I, I would not be in favor of saying, no solvents because there 

are solvents that, of course, would be allowed like alcohol under, under 

the statute, correct. So, and just for the record, all of the comments I 

made on that last material for me also applied to this material.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: I want to be careful that we're not, um, applying requirement or 

thinking to this material on 605 that are different to other materials on 605. 

Just like the other ingredients that we've asked to look at, if there's a need 

to look at the solvents that are used in those materials, I would advocate 

for taking that up as an approach to 605 in its entirety, rather than holding 

one material to very different standards. Would be the approach. So I'd, I 

also would advocate for moving forward with this. But would recommend 

that a future, um, Handling and Materials Committee to work together on, 

on that solvent question. There are other materials that are have a very 

similar list than their TR that had very, very little concern from the public, 

including hexane-extraction. So it, it feels like an extra burden is being 

applied to this. Which doesn't say that in the future perhaps a more 

overarching policy could apply to all the materials.

Tracy Miedema: A process check in our agenda. It's 2:15 -- we've budgeted until 

2:45 for the Handling Committee and we have not yet taken up Sulfur

Dioxide. Which is a topic that may have some discussion. So, um, that's, 

those are our facts. Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: Tina, I don't know if, um, using not volatile synthetic solvents would 

make a difference. But I suspect not. In any, in any event, that's 

something to consider. But I wanted to just -- this will take one minute to 

read and the TR, the petitioner reports that, um, no detectable hexane 

residues remain in the oil mixture after dissolventation. A Swiss study that 

examined vegetable, 41 vegetable oils for hexane residues, however, did 

detect hexane residues in 12 percent of oils tested using a detection limit 

.01 milligrams per kilogram. This is in the TR. Indicating that residues, 

residual hexane from processing of 236 food grade oils can occur, all be it 

at levels below accepted tolerances. So again, we have a duty and I, 

Katrina I know, this is not on the table in a sense that we don't have a 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

87

policy yet on what level of detectable residue is acceptable to this board 

under the organic standards.

But we have a duty, uh, to understand this that in fact there, there are 

these residues in there and in, in effect we are, we can either seek to try to 

prevent them to extent possible. Or we can just accept it and say, there's 

not much we can do about it.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Jay, I'm glad you brought up that point. Um, we did look at that in 

our evaluation. Um, Martek stated where this says there's no, um, 

detectable residue is specific to the, um, ARA fungal oil. So it's specific to 

their process. The other data from the TR is vegetable oils available in the 

marketplace. It's not data that is, can be extrapolated to this process. So 

it, it's a fact but it's, um, apples and oranges in this case.

Tracy Miedema: Alright. Uh, we're getting down to it. Uh, Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: The last thing I want to say is I, I respect the public comment 

period. Or the public comments that we received during the comment 

period. And treat that very seriously and think it, it is incredibly 

enlightening and important to our process. But as many of us have 

discussed it, it is not the only part of our process. And should we not be 

alerted to issues by our constituents, our public, our community that does 

not release of the responsibility to dig deep as deep as we can into these 

issues and make the best judgment we can. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Well put. Okay. Any further discussion? Any conflict? Time to 

vote. I believe we're at Jennifer, Made Secretary? I will restate the 

motion. The motion is to list Arachidonic acid fungal oil or ARA not 

hexane-extracted. Other ingredients that are agricultural must be organic 

to the National List 7 CFR 205.605 (a).

Jennifer Taylor: Thank you. No, ma'am.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: No.

Barry Flamm: No.

Jay Feldman: No.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

88

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Tracy Miedema: The Chair votes Yes. That's 10 - Yes, 4 - No. Motion carries. 

Handling Committee Chair Steve DeMuri. The final material that we are 

considering today is...

Steve DeMuri: Well, last but certainly not least we're, uh, um, considering a 

petition for a change to Sulfur Dioxide. Um, it's an amendment to the 

annotation on the National List on 205.605 (b). The, uh, proposed 

annotation is 205.605 (b) non-agricultural, non-organic substances 

allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as organic or 

made with organic specified ingredients or food group. (b) synthetics 

allowed, sulfur dioxide for use only in wine provided that total sulfite 

concentration does not exceed 100 parts per million. The, uh, committee 

vote on this was, uh, 5 - Yes, Zero - No, 2 - Absent. So I'd like to, um, 

move that the board accept this annotation as I just read.

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

John Foster: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Discussion. Alright. I'm seeing none. Steve, uh, for perfect clarity 

since this is an annotation change -- a petition to change an annotation 

which expands the use of a material, would you mind, uh, just clarifying 

what the change is.

Steve DeMuri: John was the lead on this. So John, jump in if I, if I fumble here. 

But, um, what this annotation would do would, uh, would allow, um, for the 

use of sulfite in wine label as organic when currently it's allowed in wine 

that's, wine that's labeled in the made with category. So it opens it up to, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

89

uh, um, using sulfites in wines that can carry the USDA seal on it. 

Currently they're not allowed to do that.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: I only half raised my hand during the discussion. But I do think I 

have some discussion, if that's still allowed.

Tracy Miedema: Sure.

Katrina Heinze: Um, so I have struggled on my decision with this, and so following 

my own advice, I spent some time and went back and read the 1995, I 

think it's April 1995 transcripts and looked at the original TAP reviews. 

Um, and thought about this idea of consumer choice. So that's been one 

of my guiding lights on this board is that I want -- I respect the choices that 

consumers make. And I wanted them to be able to make this. So a 

couple thoughts, given all that. One, the biggest surprise I found was that 

when the, uh, board in '95 voted to classify Sulfur Dioxide, it was 8 for 

synthetic, 6 for non-synthetic. Which kind of surprised me. So, um, you 

know, we've talked about how this is a synthetic and wow, we're opening it 

up and allowing it. But it was interesting to me that two out of the three 

TAP reviewers classified it as non-synthetic and it wasn't slam dunk at the 

board.

So that was one thing I wanted to share. The other thing is we heard a lot 

of public comment yesterday that, um, leaving the annotation as is so 

keeping the use of Sulfur Dioxide limited to made with organic, um, 

optimized consumer choice. And so in the very, um, analytical way that 

sometimes that I approach things, I made myself a table last night. And 

that said, with today's annotation what wines can I buy in the 

marketplace? So I can buy conventional, um, added sulfites, conventional 

no added sulfites. I can buy made with organic added sulfites. I can also 

buy no added sulfites. But I don't think there's any on the market. Um, 

and I can buy organic no added sulfites. With this annotation change, um, 

all those still remain in the marketplace. What gets added is organic with 

added sulfites. That's an improvement in consumer choice.

Only in my opinion. But that gives consumers more choice. So that was 

something else I considered. I just wanted to share.

Barry Flamm: Question to Katrina. It seemed like the consumer has that choice 

now with made with, because it seems, if I understand a sense of the only, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

90

only difference between the made with and the organic seal is that the 

made with has, has the sulfites in it.

Tracy Miedema: Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Except we've been telling our consumers that, um, if you want at 

least 95 percent you need to buy stuff with the seal. So we heard public 

comment that said, some consumers really understand it now, and it's 

clear. I believe that to be true. I believe there's probably other consumers 

who, for whom it's maybe not clear. And, and that's, to be honest, I don't 

have an opinion on that. On my personal opinion I think that's for each of 

us to sort out.

Tracy Miedema: And it is a fact that for every other food category the made with is 

inferior in terms of its percentage organic. But in the case of wine, um, it 

may not be an inferior percentage of organic content. It may 100 percent, 

if it's all in varietal. Or it may be 70 if there's more than one varietal. So I 

believe it would add another choice. I've grappled with this too. Um, 

because of this, uh, aspect of organic becoming synonymous with what's 

essentially an allergy free, an allergen claim. And, um, I think there's 

some very strong parallels between something like the gluten-free 

movement where there's a strong labeling regime that's emerging. And 

it's in even stronger labeling regime with no sulfites added, because it's 

regulated and no, no gluten is not regulated yet. Um, still there, uh, has 

grown up this notion that they are synonymous. So what we do when, um, 

organic isn't normally an allergen free zone.

But in the case of wine we started to make it -- we started to make it into 

one. I think organic should be, uh, about agriculture first and foremost, 

always first. And in the case of wine I don't see, um, I didn't hear nearly 

as much talk about the Tour of the Grapes. It was mentioned a couple of 

times, but again and again it was this marker that organic meant no 

sulfites. Uh, I wish that organic wine, what it was known for was it's 

amazing fruit. But that just, um, doesn't seem to be the case. Jennifer

and then John.

Jennifer Taylor: Thank you. I actually did hear, uh, comments on the taste and the 

flavor of organic wines and their preference in that area. As well as I 

believe some of the concern also had to do with not the label and the 

allergens, that does take place, that's true. But the label and the additives. 

I think that's the concern.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

91

Tracy Miedema: John Foster.

John Foster: Um, so I'm, I'm mindful of the other, some of the comments that 

we've talked about. But one that we didn't talk about so much but it kind 

of came back to me in the last couple days. Has been the, um, the, the 

competition with other eco-labels relative to organic. And I know it's not 

true in all parts of the country. But in the, in the Pacific Northwest and the 

outstanding Pinot Noir coming out of the Willamette Valley, um, there is a,

there is a, a significant amount of, uh, other eco-labels that I think, um, got 

to be careful here. There are, they're great at what they do and they 

speak to very important priorities, but in my opinion they're not as good as 

organic. And in that region I see many other eco-labels coming in and I 

think that happens more in, in wine than it does in other sectors of the 

food industry.

And, um, I wanted to mention it because that was part of my, my thinking 

we didn't talk a lot about that. But I, I think organic is the eco-label out 

there. And, um, and I want to be mindful of, of maintaining its, its, its, um, 

its prominence in the larger marketplace.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: We also have to look at the essentiality. We heard a lot of 

testimony on that from those who produce wine that is certified organic. 

And you know, that, that is a key element, as you know, of the criteria that 

we're looking at. You know, I think the market has spoken on this. 

Whether you have a personal opinion or not based on your favorite wine 

and your tastes, the market has spoken. If you look at the overall 

increase in sales of wine, uh, 2010 to 2011 it's 8 percent. If you look at, 

uh, wine like Fry it's 39 percent. And if you look at other organic wines it 

beats the national average. Which means that the people have spoken. 

And we've heard from, um, sales folks that that people are drawn to this

label. And they have an understanding of what it is.

And we have to protect that I think. There is no good essentiality reason 

to remove that benefit, that premium, uh, and take away that growth by 

undermining one of the basic principles of the organic standards.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Any conflict? Madame Secretary, who 

was is voting first?

Wendy Fulwider: Tina Ellor.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

92

Tracy Miedema: Go ahead Tina.

Kristine Ellor: No.

Colehour Bondera: No.

Barry Flamm: No.

Jay Feldman: No.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: No.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: No.

Robert Stone: No, ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: No.

Tracy Miedema: No. That's 5 - Yes, 9 - No. Motion fails. That concludes the 

proceedings of the Handling Committee. I see, uh, a note coming in from 

the NOP. Lisa.

Lisa Ahramjian: We have had several requests, um, for us to post the Livestock

Committee's recommendations that they voted on. So if you want to take 

out a pen and paper, um, their posted to regulations.gov now. So if you 

search for AMS-NOP-11-0081-1016. So I'll repeat that one more time 

AMS-NOP-11-0081-1016. Thanks.

Tracy Miedema: We also had a request for, um, what we normally do, take a board 

picture. But to do so during this break right behind the curtain here. So 

board members, um, any members of the program that want to participate 

to please take the first few minutes of our break to do so. Let's look at the 

time and decide when we're coming back. And also go over what we'll be 

doing for the rest of the afternoon. When we return from the break we'll go 

into the documents and voting for the Compliance, Accreditation and 

Certification Committee. And then go into Policy Development 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

93

Committee. We may not be taking, uh, that afternoon break. It's 2:30 

right now. Let's, uh, be back at 2:50. 

[BREAK]

Tracy Miedema: We are back in session. Our agenda says that we should be 

starting the CACC deliberation at 3:00 p.m. It's 3:05 so we're tracking our 

agenda pretty well. At this time I would like to ask CACC Chair Joe

Dickson for a description of the first item that the board is considering.

Joseph Dickson: Thank you Tracy. The item the CACC is considering is the 

recommendation on the Evaluation of Materials Review Organizations. 

Lorraine, would you bring out the, um, version with modifications that the 

committee approved yesterday. It's on the little thumb drive. Lisa's white 

one. Thank you. Um, and if you'd just scroll down, um, to the first set of 

changes, which I think are in the text of the recommendation itself. Thank 

you. 

So the changes that we made were pretty simple and straight forward. 

Um, based on public comment, some committee deliberation and just 

some clarifying and grammar correction type modifications that we made. 

Um, in the section on the Materials Review Organization Qualification we, 

um, accepted a few suggestions from commenters to clarify the intent 

there. Um, especially as far as how the, the recommendation would effect 

existing accredited certifying agents who perform materials review 

activities. Clarifying that it simply add the materials review scope to their 

existing accreditation and not have to apply for a new type of 

accreditation. Um, we also clarified in that section that while we 

acknowledge that this is, is a complicated long-term process, we do 

clearly ask the NOP to issue guidance immediately to give the Materials 

Review community a clear criteria on the specific protocols, procedures 

and criteria they should be using to review specific materials now.

Um, and to that end we are adding an additional recommendation 

regarding very specific material, review criteria and procedures that we will 

add to our work plan for the Spring 2012 meeting. Um, to develop those 

criteria we've already received a lot of feedback from materials review 

organizations and certifiers and we'll also work directly with those 

organizations to solicit more detailed feedback on that process. We 

inserted a definition of materials review organization that was suggested 

by two commenters. Um, which is just a, a good part of any 

recommendation to define what it's about. Um, to read that into the record 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

94

the definition of materials review organization is: any entity accredited or 

authorized by the secretary to review and approve materials as compliant 

with the National Organic Program for use in producing or handling 

certified organic products.

We added a section on, if you'll go down to the next page. We added a 

section on equivalency among accredited MRO's, which highlights and 

underscores the importance of sort of mutual respect between decisions 

made by materials review organizations. Um, and, and highlighting 

program's role in creating a system that would facilitate such an 

equivalency. Finally, that was it. Those were, that's, those were changes 

that we made to the recommendation. The committee discussed those 

last night. And voted, um, to accept those changes. The vote was 6 -

Yes, and No - No.

Tracy Miedema: Is there a motion?

Joseph Dickson: I move to accept this recommendation as amended.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a second?

Barry Flamm: Second.

Tracy Miedema: Discussion. John Foster.

John Foster: This is a question for kind of Mac and a certification perspective 

how, tell me how you're feeling about the whole thing. And how you see it 

working with respect to ACAs versus non-ACA, um, folks. Has there, how 

much discussion has gone around with, uh, ACA, the organization? 

Relative to relationships with non-ACAs who might be doing this work. 

So, certifiers and OMRI -- how is that relationship in the context of these, 

of this recommendation. Or, or has been discussion about that?

Robert Stone: Um, I'm sure been lots more than I've been involved in. But 

certifiers, there's a lot of frustration. There's a lot of list sharing. There's a 

lot of unknowns of a trusting but personally OMRI is, is the gold standard 

and certifiers don't have the time and resources that an OMRI does. But 

still the concern is for the small to allow products that can't afford or go 

through. The big scare to me is, is that we, we don't over regulate that 

limits the use of some good products. And how do we accomplish that is 

still, how do we review those? What are the criteria we review against it 

allows ACAs to do this. And it doesn't become just a large, only the large 

very capable organizations that can.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

95

Tracy Miedema: Any other discussion? Seeing none, any conflict? Tina.

Kristine Ellor: I just have to disclose that I am on the OMRI board now. I don't 

think that's, I, I make no money from OMRI. But I am sitting on their board 

right now.

Tracy Miedema: Thanks for disclosing that. Any other conflict or disclosures? 

Alright. Then we will proceed to voting. Madame Secretary, a reminder 

on who votes first.

Wendy Fulwider: Colehour Bondera.

Tracy Miedema: That was Colehour. Please proceed.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes. That's 14 - Yes, Zero - No. Motion carries. Chairman Joe 

Dickson, next item up for a vote.

Joseph Dickson: The next item up for a vote is the recommendation on Inspector 

Qualifications. Um, I will ask John Foster to just walk us through the minor 

update that was made to that recommendation.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

96

John Foster: You bet. Um, uh, I think pretty relatively minor, uh, change here we 

made as a function of a, a fair number of comments to the, um, organic, 

initial organic inspector criteria. Baseline prerequisite knowledge and 

expertise for initial, uh, initial organic inspector status. The, a lot of folks 

had said, we had in there under, um, the first point, A. That a minimum of 

two years of combined work experience, education and training in organic 

production. Um, uh, applicable to the scope of inspections to be initially 

preformed and, and after, um, fair, you know, a short discussion it made 

sense to change that to not being so specific to organic production. Since 

the value of agricultural is, is pretty broad and sweeping. Um, to get folks 

in the door it made sense to, um, not specify that. So we changed it to, to 

the, uh, uh, A1A. to be a minimum two years of combined work 

experience, education and training in agricultural production.

Um, that was the only change that we, we ended up making. Um, we did 

in, uh, the next section B, continuing Organic Inspector criteria. We did 

discuss the, the opportunity to change under continuing education B. the 

minimum of 8 hours continuing education. Uh, we had some comment 

about changing that to 5 hours I think was the comment, um, it could be 3, 

it could be 3-ive. Um, somewhere in the middle there. Um, but we felt like 

we wanted to keep it at 8 hours. And if, uh, if this is going to be guidance 

so, um, there's a fair amount of flexibility there. I'm sure the program will 

weigh in on, on what they feel is appropriate, um, as they digest this 

recommendation. So we left it at 8 hours. That, that was only, that was 

only change. Um, and when we voted on this it was, uh, uh, unanimous 6 

- Yes, and Zero - No. Or Zero, Abstain Zero, Recuse.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a motion? 

Joseph Dickson: I move to accept this document.

John Foster: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Discussion. Mac.

Robert Stone: I'll just comment. That in training some inspectors in Kentucky that 

were good agriculturists but didn't have the organic -- didn't come into it 

with an organic eye, they're some of most critical inspectors. Because 

they, they want to make sure there's a difference and make sure that the 

letter of the law is being followed, just because they didn't come in with 

wanting it to be organic. They wanted to make sure that it was organic.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

97

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Alright. Any conflicts? We're ready to 

vote. And we'll start with Barry.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: Abstain.

Colehour Bondera: Yes. 

Tracy Miedema: Yes. That's 13 - Yes, 1 - Abstention. Motion carries. Chairman

Joe Dickson, the next item up for voting.

Joseph Dickson: The next item up for voting is the recommendation on 

Unannounced Inspections. Um, we have not made any changes to this 

recommendation since it was presented on Wednesday. John, do you 

have anything to add to that? Alright, I would move that we accept the 

recommendation on Unannounced Inspections.

John Foster: I'll second.

Tracy Miedema: Discussion. Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: I want to thank the CACC for, um, working on this document. I was 

very heartened by the public comment, um, that we received at this 

meeting the first time we talked about it. We heard a lot of public 

comment from certifiers that they were really nervous about doing it. And 

this time when we heard public comment we had great examples of how 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

98

they are doing it. So I think just having the topic on your work plan has 

moved the dial. I'm very excited about this. I think this is a good move 

towards even more integrity. So thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Further discussion? John.

John Foster: This, um, this was one where I, I feel really good about the process. 

And was very appreciative of the program, like getting, getting us engaged 

on a topic that's far enough ahead of the, of where they're wanting to be 

headed. So that we could, we could start engaging in the topic and, and 

contribute to the, to the work flow. In a, I think a really productive way. 

And this is true for the, the previous one also. But, um, it's a real model in 

my opinion for that kind of collaboration. So, it's, I think it's, it's a good 

model, produced a good product. It was a good process and I, I'm just 

really happy about it. So I hope we can move along on that kind of, on 

that kind of model in the future more. That was really good. A great 

experience.

Tracy Miedema: Any further discussion? Any conflicts? Then we'll begin voting with 

Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

99

Tracy Miedema: Yes. That's 14 - Yes, Zero - No. Motion carries. That concludes 

the business of the CACC. And we will move along now to the Policy

Development Committee Chairman Barry Flamm. Chairman Barry, please 

present the first item for voting.

Barry Flamm: The first item for voting is, um, a proposal on the Administrative 

Team. If, uh, Joe if you'd present that please quickly.

Joseph Dickson: Sure. Um, that was the very straight forward recommendation that 

just defines the term Administrative Team. Um, we, it remains as it was 

when we presented it on Wednesday. Um, we've made no changes.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a motion?

Barry Flamm: I move that we accept this addition to the Policy and Procedure

Manual.

Joseph Dickson: I second that.

Tracy Miedema: Discussion? Alright. And I'm not going to call for conflict on any of 

the Policy and Procedure Manual changes or Policy Development 

Committee items. And we will proceed with voting. Starting with Steve.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

100

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes. That's 14 - Yes, Zero - No. Motion carries. The next item up 

for voting Chairman Barry Flamm.

Barry Flamm: The committee met last night to discuss these recommendations. 

And the, uh, the, um, proposal on, on Committee Transparency, uh, we 

made some changes based on comments from the board. And, and 

comments we heard here. And Jennifer, if you would please explain 

those, uh, changes that we made.

Jennifer Taylor: Thank you. Um, Lorraine. Okay, thank you so much. I appreciate 

all of the comments that came in from the board as well as from our, um, 

public. Written comments and, uh, comments that we heard here, uh, on 

the floor as well. Um, we submitted two, uh, recommendations before our 

committee. Um, and, uh, after hearing the comments that were 

presented, we made changes in the first recommendation.

Tracy Miedema: May I have a motion? Sorry about that Jennifer, please proceed 

with presenting the edits.

Jennifer Taylor: And the, the change is that, um, the recommendation would read. 

Uh, Section 3, Page 12, Roll of the Executive Director is amended to 

include the following language. A range facilitate and record the NOSB 

committee conference calls necessary to achieve the most efficient 

workings of the board. Minutes are distributed to committees for 

confirmation of accuracy and approval. Committee minutes must fully 

capture the discussion and reflect the diversity of opinions expressed 

during meetings. Uh, oh I'm sorry, during meetings in order that 

transparency exists and content remain useful for committee members, 

board members, and our stakeholder public. Um, we in essence 

removed, um, the recognition of the role, um, within, uh, NOSB or using 

our name. Uh, the second recommendation is, it remained the same. So 

we have two recommendations before the board.

Tracy Miedema: Is that the totality of the changes? Do I have a motion?

Barry Flamm: I move that we, uh, adopt the, these changes and, um, to be 

incorporated in the Policy and Procedure Manual.

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

Jay Feldman: I second.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

101

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion? Tina.

Kristine Ellor:Would you mind scrolling back to the first changes. Uh, thank you. Um, 

I'm assuming that when you say range facilitate and record. I'm thinking 

that means keep minutes, right. Not make an actual audit, or not make an

actual recording of the minutes, or of the meeting, correct.

Barry Flamm: Uh, yes, just the writing down, as we do now or...

Tracy Miedema: Does that answer your questions? Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Could you scroll to the second recommendation. And I apologize I 

didn't catch this when you guys reviewed it the first time, or when I read it. 

These, um, when you talk about maintaining, um, these records. I need 

some help understanding kind of the totality of this. Working papers, 

drafts and other documents. Are you really envisioning that every version 

of every document, that feels a little bit unwieldy I'm not sure how the 

program feels about that. Just given the -- I mean you guys know, 

sometimes right we have 20 different documents going. I was just 

wondering if you guys could talk a little bit more about what you're really 

envisioning here. I think that the concept is good. I just want to make 

sure we're coming up with something practical.

Tracy Miedema: Jay Feldman.

Jay Feldman: I, I didn't make to take this away from Jennifer. If you want to talk 

about it. No, the point is to accompany the minutes. So if we're at a stage 

in our discussion and, and we have a draft we're working on, that would be 

available, uh, you know, at that time. So you're not waiting 'till the end of 

the process to disclose what we're working, you know, working on. So 

that's a draft. Draft, document that would accompany the minutes 

essentially.

Tracy Miedema: Jennifer, did you want to add anything to that?

Jennifer Taylor: Um, my understanding is that these already, um, uh, documents 

that can be requested. And so what we're doing is adding this information 

updating the policy to where, um, to the state of the condition of where this 

kind of information can already be shared and made public.

Tracy Miedema: Any other discussion? Oh, from Deputy Administrator Miles

McEvoy.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

102

Miles McEvoy: Yeah, we're already responsible for maintaining this under the 

FACA rules of maintaining as, as per in the, uh, this, uh, recommendation. 

It specifies that, uh, FACA, um, require that the records, reports, 

transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda 

and other documents, um, are made available and so we're already 

responsible for doing that. And they are, uh, foible, uh, documents. And 

so we are, you know, it takes us a lot of time and, uh, resources to 

maintain those. Um, and to, uh, but I guess the, the main thing that we'd 

be doing is changing that from maintaining those just internally to 

maintaining them and making them more publically available. So there's 

going to be some additional work for us to do that. But it just, instead of 

just keeping it within the committee and between committee members it 

then gets posted for, um, the public to see.

Miles McEvoy: That's my understanding of what you're recommending here.

Tracy Miedema: I have a suggestion for potential future work for the Policy

Development Committee. If in fact we're going to have drafts, um, posted 

online and it sounds like the program is already having to save them. That 

we have some document control protocols and the way we tie it all and 

date documents, um, since they can kind of take a life of their own, take 

on a life of their own. If a document says Recommendation up at the top, 

and is publically available and starts to, um, go viral, it should probably 

say draft and be dated. So it's very clear what it is. Joe.

Joseph Dickson: Yeah, I thought something that I hadn't thought of to this point. But 

I think it's a potentially really good idea. And also potentially including

some sort of boiler plate language explaining that it is a working document 

and not final would good for the committee to consider for future 

deliberation.

Tracy Miedema: John Foster.

John Foster: Sometimes that the program said a second ago just made me 

realize that, um, maybe document is a more accurate word than record. 

And I'm wondering if you thought about that and rejected it for a reason. 

Or if just didn't come up.

Jennifer Taylor: Are you talking about within the first recommendation? The first 

recommendation. I'm sorry.

Tracy Miedema: Does someone on the Policy Development Committee, um, have a 

response to why the word record was used? I think that was the initial 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

103

confusion here that there was a recording device as opposed to, um, a 

document which implies that it's written word.

Barry Flamm: I don't think we spent any real time, uh, you know, discussing which 

was a, I guess there was an assumption that or record was clear. That 

it's, you know, you record minutes. You, you know, write minutes. I don't 

know, I don't think we really, um, belabored. So if there's a better, better 

word, I think we'd, uh, certainly would, uh, entertain that.

Tracy Miedema: I would, uh, recognize Joe Dickson.

Joseph Dickson: I just, for the record do want to clarify that yeah, it was never my 

understanding as a member of that committee that we were advocating for 

there being a recording device involved in the process. Um, I wonder, I'd 

like to ask the, the maker of the motion if you would entertain an 

amendment to change the word record to document?

Jennifer Taylor: Do we need to vote on that? Or how does that work? Is it a 

committee meeting?

Kristine Ellor: No.

Jennifer Taylor: No.

Tracy Miedema: I clarify that. On a friendly amendment, uh, if you, um, as the 

maker of the motion and the second agree and there are no objections 

then we can proceed with the friendly amendment without a vote. Jay

Feldman.

Jay Feldman: Would it help to say document in the form of minutes, so it's clear 

what we're talking about? I don't know.

Tracy Miedema: You wish to, um, would you like to withdraw your friendly 

amendment and word it differently?

Joseph Dickson: Yes I would. I would like to withdraw my friendly amendment and 

propose that we change the word record to the phrase document in the 

form of written minutes.

Jennifer Taylor: Okay. Um, I think that does add some clarity other than it does 

says, in the most efficient means to do, to do the work. But to say 

document, um, would be fine. Okay.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

104

Tracy Miedema: I, I believe, um, so you're accepting document in the form of 

committee minutes? Alright, Lorraine, would you mind, um, making that 

change. Okay. We have an amended motion and is there any further 

discussion? Then we will proceed with the voting and I believe we start 

with Calvin.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: Yes. That's 14 - Yes. Zero - No. Motion carries. Chairman Barry

Flamm, the final item for voting.

Barry Flamm: The next item on the agenda is Conflict Of Interest, a proposal. Uh, 

during our meeting last night we, um, uh, discussed, uh, the comments 

we'd received, uh, from the board and from the public. And decided that 

we probably shouldn't rush, uh, making changes in a document which we 

had decided was necessary. So we proposed pulling this from the agenda 

and, and put it in, um, revise it and put on the Spring agenda. Therefore, 

the, um, the next proposal, um, for voting is the, um, NOSB Member and 

Leadership Transition Document. Uh, what, what's been posted is a, is, 

and what you've seen is, um, is still the same. No changes, um. I'll let 

Jay just, uh, quickly, briefly summarize that.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

105

Jay Feldman: Thank you. We are suggesting, um, a couple of amendments. I, I 

would be happy to read them all. But they're found on Page, on the start 

of the bottom of Page 3 of the document. Uh, and this amends the policy, 

uh, Program Policy Manual. We're proposing to amend Section 5 with a 

series of changes that establish a protocol for transitional periods as I 

described yesterday. Would you like me to read all of this or how would 

you like me to proceed? No, there are no changes made to the document 

from yesterday. The other amendment amends Section 2, Election Of 

Officers On Nomination Process. So thanks for that question Katrina. 

There are no changes from the proposal as presented yesterday. Thank 

you.

Tracy Miedema: Do I have a motion?

Barry Flamm: I move that we adopt these, uh, proposed changes on Transition In 

the Policy And Procedure Manual.

Tracy Miedema: Do I hear a second?

Colehour Bondera: I second that.

Tracy Miedema: Any discussion? I believe if this passes you are stuck with me as 

Chair until January 24th. That's just a warning. Nick.

Nick Maravell: Uh, should you provide any conflict of interest statement on that?

Tracy Miedema: Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Okay. So that's useful, 'cause I think I had absorbed that, but they 

may not. Does that mean I'm also Chair of the Materials Committee 'till 

January 23rd?

Tracy Miedema: It surely does. Any discussion? Okay. We'll start the voting with 

Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Yes.

Wendy Fulwider: Yes.

Joseph Dickson: Yes.

John Foster: Yes.

Nick Maravell: Yes.

Robert Stone: Yes ma'am.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

106

Jennifer Taylor: Yes.

Kristine Ellor: Yes.

Colehour Bondera: Yes.

Barry Flamm: Yes.

Jay Feldman: Yes.

Steve DeMuri: Yes.

C. Reuben Walker: Yes.

Tracy Miedema: And I vote Yes. That's 14 - Yes, Zero - No. Motion carries. That 

concludes the voting of the National Organic Standards Board for Fall 

2011. Next up on our agenda is the NOSB Officer Elections. NOSB 

Officer Elections take place one time per year. And I will read some 

information from our Policy and Procedures Manual about the process for 

electing new officers. All interested NOSB members are eligible for 

consideration for any office or position. The three officers are Chair, Vice 

Chair and Secretary. Candidates may be self nominated or nominated by 

another member of the board. Should the Vice Chair or Secretary resign 

or fail to serve the full term the Executive Committee shall appoint an 

interim officer. The interim officer shall in the capacity until next regularly 

scheduled meeting of the board during which an Election will be held to fill 

the remainder of the term. Members interested in serving more than one 

consecutive term in an officer position can if the board is in favor.

However, it is recommended that at officer not serve for more than two 

consecutive terms. This is just straight out of the Policy and Procedures

Manual. Okay. In terms of eligibility we're all here. Um, only those of us 

present are eligible to vote. So Jay, wherever you went, don't go too far. 

You'll lose your eligibility to vote. Board members shall be entitled to cast 

one vote per nomination. Okay. And then let's get into the counting. 

We'll get some help here with that part. Voting will be by ballot 

immediately following nominations for each office. Ballots for officers will 

be cast in the following order. So let's start with Chair. And then Vice 

Chair and then Secretary. The ballots will be counted for one office and 

the Acting Chair will announce the tally before the next office is opened for 

nominations.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

107

The Acting Secretary will prepare and distribute the ballots and will gather 

votes by secret ballot. The Acting Chair and that's going to be me will tally 

the votes after each officer nomination and the Acting Secretary will verify 

the vote results. The candidate receiving the largest number of votes will 

be elected. In other words, it's a simple majority as opposed to the 

decisive two-thirds majority that was needed all along through 

proceedings so far. There are 14 of us here. So that means a simple 

majority would be 8. In the event of a tie, there will be a revote until a 

nominee obtains majority. All nominees will be included in the revote or 

may be given the opportunity to withdraw all their discretion, withdraw at 

their discretion. 

Member votes will remain confidential. So no, uh, rifling through the 

wastebasket looking at little scraps of paper. Other NOSB members will 

not be allowed to determine how the members voted. Votes will be 

disposed of by the Chair or Secretary and the Acting Secretary will record 

newly elected officers into the NOSB Meeting Summary of Minutes. 

Alright. So at this point I would like to call for nominations for the position 

of Chair. Tina.

Kristine Ellor: I nominate Barry Flamm.

Tracy Miedema: Joe Dickson.

Joseph Dickson: I nominate John Foster.

Tracy Miedema: Any other nominations for Chair? Okay. Seeing none, um, we 

need to prepare the ballot. Wendy, that... 

Okay. So, what you have in front of you is all three of your ballots. So 

please tear into thirds. And the, um, process here is simply to write the 

name of the person that you wish to vote for, for Chair on one-third of the 

piece of paper and fold it in half. So the two nominees for Chair are Barry

and John. So do, go ahead and vote. And Wendy and I will come around 

and collect your items. Does anybody have a hat? We'll, find, of there we 

go. Wow. 

The next Chair of the National Organic Standards Board is Barry Flamm. 

The next office that is being nominated for is Vice Chair. Nominations. 

Wendy.

Wendy Fulwider: I would like to nominate Joe Dickson.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

108

Tracy Miedema: Any other nominations? Colehour. Mac, okay, so far we have Joe

Dickson and Mac Stone. Any other nominations for Vice Chair? And I 

guess I should rest this on the Chair. Do you both of you accept the 

nominations? I didn't ask Barry. We good over there? Okay. So, the 

nominations are closed now. Mac and Joe are the two candidates so take 

another third of piece of paper. 

The next Vice Chair of the National Organic Standards Board is Mac

Stone. (applause) The next office opened for nominations is Secretary. 

Nominations please. Tina.

Kristine Ellor: I wondered if Wendy would be willing to do it again?

Wendy Fulwider: Yes, thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Other nominations? Jennifer.

Jennifer Taylor: Thank you. I'd like to nominate, uh, Calvin.

Tracy Miedema: Other nominations?

C. Reuben Walker: I would, uh, respectfully, uh, decline.

Tracy Miedema: Okay. So far we have candidate for the position of Secretary and 

that's Wendy. Any other nominations? In the event that we only have one 

candidate do we vote? What is our Policy and Procedures Manual say? 

Do we...

Joseph Dickson: It doesn't specifically address that. I think you should...

Tracy Miedema: It doesn't say we don't. Okay. And Joe saying that precedent is he 

was the only candidate and we cast votes. So we will carry on as we in 

the past. Tina.

Kristine Ellor: I'd like to do some campaigning here and suggest that everybody 

write in Wendy as Secretary.

Tracy Miedema: It will be close shave. Please go ahead and cast your vote for 

Secretary. 

Tracy Miedema: Wendy Fulwider will continue as next Secretary of the NOSB. 

(applause)
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

109

Tracy Miedema: Alright. At this point in the meeting we have scheduled for 

Committee Work Plans. And it looks Mile McEvoy has something he 

wants to say.

Miles McEvoy: Uh, we do have the business of, um, the plaques and the fare well 

to the, um, the retiring members. So we need to fit that into the agenda at 

some point. So at your pleasure I'd like to present, uh, uh, plagues and 

letters from the Secretary to, uh, outgoing members.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Let's, um, let's do that, uh, right now.

Miles McEvoy: I'm sorry but it's been a long few days. Long, many years. I've 

been doing this for a couple of years now. But, uh, the, the retiring four 

members have been doing this for five years. And, uh, it's an amazing 

public service that they have done, uh, Tracy, Tina, Katrina and Steve. 

Uh, the countless hours that you have contributed to the furthering of the 

Organic community, um, it just, uh, so much respect and gratitude that, 

um, the whole community feels for the work that you've done. It's really 

hard work to be sitting up here listening to all that public comment. Uh, 

listening and really considering all that public comment. It's really a very, 

very important process. And, uh, I'm honored to have known you in this, 

in this role and, and look forward to working with you all in the future.

So for Steve DeMuri, thank you so much for your five years of service. 

(applause) Katrina. (applause) And Tracy, Chairman. (applause)

Tracy Miedema: Thank you very much, Miles. Next up on our agenda is Committee

Work Plans. And a reminder to both the board and to attendees these are 

not, um, hard and fast agenda items that become our Work Plan for our 

next meeting. It's a way to round up what we, um, are cogitating on today. 

Um, it very much can and most likely will change as the committee sets 

priorities, uh, with the leadership of the Committee Chair. So, uh, we 

typically go around and our Executive Director or Acting Director will note 

the items that each of the Committee Chair lists that are still, um, that are 

pending topics. A lot of times, you know, the, the basis for the list 

becomes items that we have deferred or are still working on. Those are 

kind of gimmies on the list. And often times items will emerge during the 

meeting that were brought as potential work items.

And then further -- the committees sometimes have backburner items that 

they've been working on that aren't ready to have brought to the meeting 

that they go ahead and let the public know are in progress. We'll take, uh, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

110

this list in the same order as our agenda spells out. And start with John

Foster.

John Foster: Thanks. And, uh, Barry mental note, Crops doesn't always have to 

be first. Nothing in the, in the manual about that. So. Um, are we waiting 

to get it up there, right. Oh, okay. You're waiting to write it up there. 

Sorry. 

Tracy Miedema: We have a round-up of all of the materials that are either in petition, 

uh, or our sun setting and we can, you know, definitely draw from that list. 

Do you have that handy? 

John Foster: Alright. I've got, um, we have, uh, we'll, uh, be considering 

Oxidized Lignite. Uh, there's a few, um, inert materials that we've decided 

to kind of hold firm on until we get, uh, clarity on some Inert's policies. So 

those are going to stay in a holding pattern. We have, oh sorry. We've 

got, uh, Manganese Sulfate, Monohydrate. Uh, we've got Propylene 

Glycol Monolaurate. We have, oh shoot I'm sorry. I think actually that, is 

that Lisa, correct me if I'm wrong. That's the only list I've got from, uh, 

November of...

Lisa Ahramjian: Uh, in addition the petition to remove Ferric Phosphate from the list. 

I don't know if you mentioned that.

John Foster: Up, up the petition to remove Ferric Phosphate in the Spring. Lisa, is 

there anything on the last, I'm pulling from the November minutes, uh, for 

the Materials Committee. Is there anything I omitted?

Lisa Ahramjian: Uh, no, I believe that's, uh, all. The Manganese Sulfate

Monohydrate petition is for an inert ingredient. So I don't know if that will 

be on the Spring agenda. The Sunset recommendation for, uh, 2013, the 

EPA lists three Inert's listing. Um, needs to be voted on the Spring as 

well.

Kristine Ellor: We probably want to keep, uh, relook at the Peracetic Acid also. 

We have some new information from the EPA on that.

John Foster: And we'll add Peracetic Acid. Ask and ye shall receive.

Tracy Miedema: Any other current, um, known items for Crops Committee that we 

can put down as a potential Work Plan? Anything else to add John?

John Foster: We had discussed, um, off and on revisiting commercial availability 

clauses. That's kind of floating around. We know the program is working 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

111

on past recommendations. So I just want to keep that, that topic alive. 

Uh, I know organic seed is a matter, you know, kind of rising interest in the 

community. And, um, just want to maintain communication with the 

program about where that's going. So that's nothing official on that. But it, 

it has not fallen from our radar.

Tracy Miedema: Alright. Then we'll move on. Oh, Miles.

Miles McEvoy: Yeah, the other thing that potentially consider is that, uh, we're 

working on draft guidance for post-harvest, um, post-harvest handling. 

And yeah, there's post-harvest materials that are both under 601 and 605. 

So there might be some, uh, some input that the program might ask the 

board concerning that.

John Foster: Lorraine, if you add that just so it stays visible for us, that would be 

great. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Okay. Next up is Livestock.

Wendy Fulwider: Thank you. Uh, we have, uh, a very long Work Plan again. Um, 

we'll be working on the outcome score documents for all the species, as 

well as species specific guidance for each of the species. And I know 

many of the public comments were, uh, that they would like more time to, 

um, look those over. And so we would certainly appreciate working with 

anyone of the stakeholders that would like to, to, um, assist us with that. 

We'll doing guidance for the Animal Welfare document and the Animal 

Handling, uh, And Transport To Slaughter document. Uh, we will also 

have the Methionine petition to address at the Spring meeting. And we 

have talked about having a discussion document to go along with that. 

So, uh, we will be busy again this semester.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you Wendy. Next up is Handling Committee Steve DeMuri.

Steve DeMuri: Okay. Well, the hits just keep coming from the Handling 

Committee. So we have, uh, fourteen 605 petition items we'll be looking 

at. And I'll send this Lorraine later, but, um, sodium gluconate gibberellic 

acid, sulfuric acid. We have two petitions for taurine, different uses. Uh, 

one for pet food. dextran. Two petitions for choline. Uh, beta-carotene 

synthetic and inositol. ascorbyl palmitate, lycopene, nucleotides, and a 

handling, um, um, application for methionine. Those are the 605 items. 

Um, we have 206.606 items. caramunch malt, barley beta fiber, sugar 

beet fiber, Bergamo bitter orange powder, kaffir lime leaves and fruit, and 

curry leaf. And then we have, uh, some 2013 Sunset items. There's, uh, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

112

five of those. There all 605 items: agar-agar, calcium sulfate, 

carrageenan and glucono delta-lactone. Those all, uh, 605 (a) items. And 

then one for 605 (b) that's cellulose.

Steve DeMuri: And then we have a couple of, uh, other recommendations we'll be 

working on. Probably, uh, uh, top of the priority would be a policy 

recommendation for additives and ingredients and listed materials per the, 

per the program's request. And then we'll continue our involvement with 

the Industry Flavor Task Force. Um, they're in the process of trying to 

develop a recommendation at some point in time. So, uh, we'll continue, 

uh, to, uh, sit in on those committee meetings as well.

Tracy Miedema: Thanks Steve. Miles.

Miles McEvoy: Uh, yeah, in terms of the Livestock Committee. Um, there's also 

the vaccines from GMOs that you did not mention. Uh, you do have the 

technical report on that at this point. So I don't know if you want to put on 

your Work Plan or not. That's still an unresolved issue. And then, um, 

Crops you probably have a Tetracycline Report an update on that I would 

imagine from the Fire Blight, um, Committee.

Tracy Miedema: Good adds. Okay. So the next committee then Mac, you have a 

question.

Robert Stone: I just have a comment. Remembering some of the, the farmers that 

were here the other day commenting yesterday afternoon. One, the lady 

right before Marty and then the lady that had some auto immune disorders 

that took time to present to us. I think they could vote on this list pretty 

quick. They don't look very organic to those people.

Tracy Miedema: Alright, that comment is recorded. So we're onto the Materials

Committee. And, uh, Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Thank you. Um, we have a couple items on the Work Plan. And a 

couple items that are our wish we had time to work on the list. So we will, 

uh, continue, um, work on the research framework with the goal of having 

a first list at the Spring meeting. Uh, we will continue our march on 

Aquaculture materials. Uh, first working with, uh, providing feeding to the 

Aquaculture Working Group so that we can enable getting some petitions, 

uh, that we deem sufficient. So that's for the two trial balloons. Um, and 

then next we would move onto the TR part of that process. Um, we are 

ready in the wings to assist the program with your guidance document on 

Classification. Um, should you need us. Um, and then our final Work 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

113

Plan item which we did spend some time working on since the Spring 

meeting. We had wanted to, um, take a look at what we could do with the, 

uh, Evaluation Criteria Checklist to make that, um, easier for board 

members to use.

And had quite a bit of round and round on it. And two calls ago had a 

major breakthrough that seemed like the simplest solution to the hardest 

problem. Which was that maybe we need a spot on the checklist for a 

narrative so that the committees could better articulate all the great 

discussion that we have in committee and maybe that help a ton. Um, so 

we'll take that back to committee, discuss whether that really simple 

solution is as great an idea as it seemed on the committee call, um, and 

then we would work the Policy Committee to do that. Um, and then the 

items that we have wanted to work on, but haven't had capacity. As you'll 

remember about a year ago we started work on how we could, um, 

improve the, um, Material Review process. Um, we had a lot of talk about 

whether we could, um, put together a more robust and formal request for 

TRs.

Um, put together a better definition of what a good TR looks like. Um, 

some hallway chatter with one of the new board members who has a 

particular passion for Materials. I think she had some passion for that 

topic. So I hope that the Material Committee will take that up. Um, and 

then we have, and I bring these up every meeting just so folks know we 

haven't forgotten them, 'cause they were forgotten when I started. Um, we 

have a take from the table petition, um, from with a whole bunch of 

materials from 2008. And they're, um, CCOF has provided public 

comment at a number of meetings that there's some materials, um, that 

have been presented to the board way back lost in history that never got 

put on the table. And so we just at some point, uh, need to figure out how 

to clean those up. But it's never been a priority. And it's for Materials.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you Katrina. Next up is CACC. Joe.

Joseph Dickson: Thank you. Um, on the CACC Work Plan for the Springtime. Um, 

the first item is processing aids in 100 percent organic products. That's an 

oldie, but unresolved-ie that, um, has been on the table a couple of times, 

but we do need to bring it back and figure it out. Um, calculating 

percentage organic, um, this is another one that dates back to a few 

Chairs of the CACC ago and it's still on the Work Plan. And we've never 

made a final recommendation on that one. And, and would like to 

continue to plug away at that and possibly bring it forward. Monitoring 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

114

Practices and Procedure for 205.201 (a). That's the part of the regulation 

that covers the construction and composition of the organic system plan. 

And then finally the one that was born at this meeting, um, Review Criteria

and Procedures for Material Review Organizations. That's the companion 

recommendation to the one that we voted today. And that is the Work 

Plan for the CACC.

Tracy Miedema: Super. Last Work Plan. Barry Flamm.

Barry Flamm: The Policy Committee, uh, will have to complete the, um, Conflict

Of Interest, um, recommendation that, that was reviewed here. And that, 

that should be finalized. And then the, um, Public, um, Comment 

Procedures that you all saw that was a discussion document. That should 

be finalized. Um, during the, um, discussion it came up that there was a 

need for document controls for committee draft documents. And we'll, uh, 

we should add that to the Work Plan. And, um, in a, in addition during the, 

um, the Ethics Training, um, the program had, um, raised some, um, 

questions, uh, that we need to discuss with them. Whether or not our, 

whether the, some ethic issues should be looked at including the Policy 

Development Manual. So, um, we'll, the committee will follow-up on that. 

Um, another area of that needs some attention we think is the, um, sort of 

direction on, uh, contacts from the public to the, uh, board members in 

between meetings.

And, um, 'cause there's been some direction that's come out that, uh, that 

maybe, uh, has confused some members. So we, we wanted to look at 

that. And then I think there's some material things that we had some 

discussion on, but not very, very far along. And we would work with the 

Materials Committee, of course on that. So those are the things that are 

kind on the burner. The only two items that are pretty certain are the, uh, 

are the two that are, that we need to finish up from this meeting.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you Barry. Alright. Back to our agenda. Last item is Other 

Business and Closing Remarks. Any other business? Colehour.

Colehour Bondera: Yeah, I would, would like to address the topic of, um, genetically 

engineered, GMOs.

Tracy Miedema: Pretty tall order. Um, do you have something prepared? Or are 

you opening up the topic of GMOs, uh, broadly and generally?
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

115

Colehour Bondera: Yes, so specifically, uh, I would, uh, you know, want to say 

it's fine like to discuss the sense of the board's statement to the Secretary

Of Agriculture on Genetically Engineered Crops.

Tracy Miedema: I believe Colehour is referring a document that was circulated to 

NOSB members only, um, at some point in the last 24 hours. Please 

proceed.

Colehour Bondera: Very good. Um, I have, uh, in my possession and I will start, 

I will pass it around. Uh, a copy of the document which actually has been, 

uh, reviewed by all members of the board and received. Um, in the past 

we actually discussed the document, uh, that we received. And, and 

talked briefly about the document in, uh, at the meeting in Seattle. Um, 

however, it is very slightly altered and I will spend the time it will take to 

read it, because it's a third of a page. Um, so as you're receiving it I'll read 

it. The significant number of unsolicited public comments at the April 2011 

NOSB meeting have illustrated the extreme concern that the impact that 

continued approvals by USDA of new genetically engineered crops has 

had on our community of organic farmers, consumers and handlers.

Joseph Dickson: The NOSB speaking for the organic community believe that the 

USDA's actions on genetically engineered crops have been insufficient to 

protect the organic industry. Organic agriculture continues to be at risk of 

contamination by genetically engineered crops. This threat is a critical 

issue for organic agriculture, producers and consumers of their products. 

We urge the Secretary Of Agriculture to take immediate and aggressive 

action to prevent GE contamination of organics. Uh, that statement, uh, 

has been, uh, received by and, uh, honestly since I am not on the CACC, 

uh, nor the Executive Committee I can't say, I can't quote from the 

Minutes. I apologize, all the extent of discussion and review, but it has 

been looked at, at both of those of levels I aware.

And, uh, in addition it's actually, uh, Jennifer who has taken the lead on 

this. And she has at the request of the people involved, uh, subsequently, 

um, added some other level of detail to a document which she did send 

around to NOSB members, which I now have in printed form as well. Um, 

which, which is exactly that text that I just read with several additional 

paragraphs of, uh, more detail. And I would like to request that the, that 

we take a, uh, poll of the board members or a, uh, a vote of the board 

members on sending this to the Secretary Of Agriculture at this point in 

time. And I'm happy to entertain questions or if Jennifer would like to do 

so as well, I'm happy with that.
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

116

Tracy Miedema: Miles McEvoy.

Miles McEvoy: Uh, yeah it appears that this would be out of order. It's not on the 

agenda as an agenda item. It hasn't been available to the public, uh, for 

review and comment. And it would appear that it would violate your 

procedures by moving this forward without making it available to the public 

for review and comment.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you Miles. Uh, Jennifer was alerted to the fact that, um, of 

bringing a letter to this meeting that wasn't on the agenda would be out of 

order and would not be able to be voted on. Um, I think it's, uh, it's swell 

and fine that it's here. And also to update everyone that, uh, this item was 

taken right to CACC, even though it was introduced in a very 

unconventional way, sort of, with a dramatic flourish at the end of the 

Seattle meeting. It was taken up by the CACC and as Colehour noted has 

been progressing very nicely. There's been, um, some tonal changes, 

some data brought to it. Um, and a very, a measured approach on the 

topic that's, that's big and important. And so we did, we did have a status 

update. And Joe if you want elaborate any further beyond that, it's one of 

those items that if we didn't, did we just now note it that it was continuing 

on in the CACC Work Plan?

Joseph Dickson: Um, it is not now on the CACC. This is not currently on the CACC 

Work Plan. And it was briefly considered by the CACC and we, basically 

decided to return it to the Executive Committee for further and deeper 

consideration by the overall leadership of the board, because it's not an 

issue that has a very clear pigeonhole within in a given committee. Um, 

and so that's, that's where we ended up with it. I do want to clarify that 

this document on the table is not the work of the CACC.

Tracy Miedema: Okay. Thank you. So the work that was completed happened in 

CACC. We have had one discussion at the Executive Committee level. 

We have five meetings that happen in between, uh, meetings. So one of 

those five, uh, the topic was raised on the Executive, uh, Committee call. 

Anything else related to this, uh, sense of the board document? Jay

Feldman.

Jay Feldman: Thank you. Since we're all stakeholders here I, I just wanted to say 

to my stakeholders that Jennifer and Colehour and others have tried, um, 

to the best of their ability to move what they heard at the Seattle board 

member, uh, meeting with a lot of passion and concern about the state of 

protection that organic may or may not enjoy as a result of the expanded, 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

117

expanding, quickly expanding use of genetically engineered organisms. 

And, um, to the Chair I would, I would say and to my stakeholders. Um, I 

think there's been a deficient process here on the board to address, uh, 

Jennifer brought this to the CACC as requested. It, the CACC, uh, you'll 

find in the Minutes voted to move this on and brought it to the Executive

Committee. The Executive Committee if you review the Minutes, um, did 

not even vote on whether to put this on the agenda.

So the process that, um, Miles you've spoken of was thwarted. Uh, and 

Jennifer to the best of her ability tried to use that process to move this to 

the agenda of this meeting. Um, this was not a last minute effort on her 

part. Um, all I can say to the people who we hear from during these 

meetings and who I hear from on a daily basis for this board not make a 

statement on, on a matter of this important, importance. And this is not a 

very strong statement, it's just a statement of concern that we thought the 

Secretary should be aware of on behalf of the people that we are here to 

help voice. Um, it has been a real, there's been real serious roadblocks 

Miles to using the process. Now that's not your problem, that's ours.

But nevertheless, I just want the folks out there to know that we tried the 

best of our ability and we will try with the new Chair and the new 

leadership that presumably will be seated, um, to move this along and I 

believe we will bring to the next meeting a statement that, that will be 

presented to the public, maybe even stronger than this statement. Uh, 

that there is a serious concern that we want to work together with all 

effected parties to try to solve on behalf of organic, uh, and the people that 

are trying to protect their health and the environment. Thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you Jay. One last comment and then we'll move onto any 

other, other business. Nick.

Nick Maravell: With all due respect to the Deputy Administrator, I'd like to go on 

record as saying, I do not feel this is out of order. I'd like to read from the 

statute on the, uh, the function and purpose of the, uh, National Organic 

Standards Board. Uh, the Secretary shall establish National Organic

Standards Board. Then I'll get to the relevant section. Uh, to assist in the 

development of standards for substances to be used in organic production 

and to advise the Secretary on any other aspects of the implementation of 

this title. This sense of the board letter does not carry the full force and 

authority of law or regulation and I do not believe it needs to go through, 

um, extensive procedures in order to have, uh, the board consider this 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

118

matter. Uh, if this continues to be an issue, then perhaps we should seek 

the advice of counsel.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Any other, other business before Closing Remarks? 

Alright. Hearing none. Katrina.

Katrina Heinze: Is Closing Remarks when we get to say how much we've enjoyed 

being on the board or is that now?

Tracy Miedema: Now is fine. Go ahead.

Katrina Heinze: I do have something to say. You know, you only get the, this is the 

last time on the microphone so you do have something to say. Um, when 

I came on the board I had, I knew no one in this room. And was 

welcomed with open arms, despite some perhaps initial trepidation about 

me. Um, and I want to say what, it has just been an amazing experience. 

So I tried to encapsulate that. The biggest thrills for me have been at 

meeting the farmers who actually grow the food that I buy for my family. 

So I don't mean in concept, I mean there's probably 10 different farmers 

I've met in this experience who have come up to the podium to talk to me, 

to us, who actually grew the food that I bought at the grocery store the 

week before and that is thrilling. And it's cool to go home and tell your 

family that.

Um, as I said, it has been an honor to be welcomed, especially by those 

who didn't agree with me. Um, and folks have been welcoming and have 

helped me get educated it's, it's been really nice. Most importantly, I 

would say this has been the best intellectual stretch that I have had. 

When I think of the breadth of topics that I've learned about in 15 years. 

We all, each of us on the board have the unique privilege of, and luxury of 

getting Ph.D. education in organic agriculture. It's breadth and spread, 

um, and not everyone has that, but we do. I can say as someone who 

came to this because I had a passion as an organic consumer and had 

been for a long time, that I am even more committed to organic and the 

integrity that this board protects. Um, and remember that, despite all of 

the debates we have these tough topics, this process and you know, and 

it's a little bit ugly and our consumers, there's probably a lot of things that 

consumers don't know about.

But this board protects that and you guys do a good job. Um, so my 

parting thoughts for you guys as you go on. Um, get to know each other 

really well. Um, have dinners, call each other, don't just work on your 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

119

committees. When you're working on something that you know other 

board members might have concerns about, reach out across your 

committee. Model respect and I have actually in my reading of old board 

minutes, in 1995. So one of the first boards, uh, Bob Anderson spoke. 

And I'm going to read, 'cause it just tickled my fancy. He was referring to 

a railroad analogy. With the need for the crew to work together and act 

responsibly in consideration of its many passengers. He identified the 

responsibilities that each of us have. And acting together as conductors of 

the train. And hope that differences will be put aside as we work side by 

side to deliver our payload.

Courtesy, honesty and fresh starts are the concepts to keep in mind as we 

continue down the track. Uh, it is, um, very nice to see that early boards 

struggled with this, just like we do. Um, we had an incident earlier this 

week where we kind of bumped off the track a little bit and there was a 

little bit of angst. And I'm very pleased to have seen the fresh start that 

this board pulled together on that. The last two days has been very nice. 

Um, and keep doing that. Um, finally, as Materials Chair I would be 

remiss if I didn't remind you, that Materials require an incredibly deep 

technical dive. Um, so please do that. I will be here to be remind to do 

so. And finally, remember it will be over much more quickly than you 

think. It has been a pleasure to work with the other three leaving. And a 

pleasure to get to know the rest of you.

Tracy Miedema: Tina.

Kristine Ellor: Darn that's a hard act to follow. Um, I, I, I know there's at least one 

new board member here, or there was. And, um, and I'd like to address 

the, the current and, and outgoing board members. Um, what, what I've 

learned number one, is how important it is to, as Katrina said, to talk to 

each other. And talk to the people you disagree with the most, the most. 

It's the hardest thing to do. Calvin, I think you're especially good at that. I 

mean really, um, not being afraid to ask the hard questions and you know, 

do the, do the right thing. Um, don't make assumptions about other board 

members. We all know what assume means, right. Uh, compromise is 

not failure. I truly believe that. Um, these are the, at least in my 

experience, all along ever since I've been on the board, are the finest 13 

and/or 14 depending, um, people it's ever been my pleasure to spend a lot 

of time with.

And, um, if I had one wish for going forward, you know, for the program 

and for the board, it would be to have more face time, especially in 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

120

committee work. And to have all committee meetings in bars. That really 

does help things along. Uh, and just because you don't agree with the 

outcome, doesn't mean good work wasn't done. And that that good work 

won't go forward. Um, I've seen genuine and profound progress since I've 

been sitting in these meetings, not only on the board but, but in the 

audience. Um, in conclusion and finally, exit stage left, pursued by bears.

Tracy Miedema: Steve.

Steve DeMuri: And I have to follow you. Um, I just want to thank everybody. 

Yeah, thanks. Um, thank everybody for the camaraderie. I've been in the 

business for over 30 years but I've learned more in the last five than I did 

in the first 25. Um, and that's been, uh, very, very encouraging and a 

challenge to me. And for those of you that are left out in the gallery, um, 

the most important and, and the funest part for me was to hear your 

comments, um, during the meetings, even though sometimes we're here 

'till 9:00 or 10:00 at night. Um, we've got a little groggy, it's still the most 

important part of the process in my mind. So thank you very much for all 

that. And to, uh, those of you who are still on the board and new board 

members, uh, best wishes. And we'll be here to help you if you need us.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you. Well, great work everyone. It's been a big four days. 

We made it through our agenda. I believe we really accomplished what 

we set out to do this week. Um, Miles would like to jump in before I get 

the last word here?

Miles McEvoy: Um, yeah, I just wanted to, um, say a few closing remarks as well. 

Uh, on GMO issue we, the Secretary and the program understand it's a 

really, really important issue. Uh, we're not here to thwart your process it's 

just that the process is important and it's really important that you follow 

that process. And if you're going to put out something for, uh, to the 

Secretary, um, it's important that you get that public input in terms of what, 

what it is that you want to say. I think that's really important. Um, and the 

other thing I would suggest on the GMO thing is to look at the, uh, NOP 

GMO policy as a, a possible thing to take on as a committee review. Um, 

you know, that is the policy for the program. And the board has never 

really taken a hard look at it. It might be something to spark some deeper 

consideration and, and discussion, um, around where to move forward on, 

on GMOs.

Um, Animal Welfare, uh, uh, I was very skeptical coming in here this week 

that that would, uh, get, that there was a final recommendation on that. 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

121

So congratulations, amazing work. Thank you so much for that. I just 

want to tell you a little bit about what we're thinking in terms of what are 

the next steps. Um, so, uh, we need to do analysis. Uh, take a look at it, 

uh, in particular the economic impact, uh, component of that. Um, and 

then we'll determine how to proceed. It's a National List recommendation 

it's a Practice Standard recommendation. It's going to take us some time 

to, to take a look at that and we'll respond, um, as we, as we do in writing 

back to the board on what is our plan to, to proceed. What are our next 

steps, uh, on that particular recommendation.

Um, again, appreciate all the work of all the board, um, really like the work 

that has been done to, uh, reach consensus on so many proposals. Uh, 

we will review all those, uh, recommendations that our final 

recommendations. And provide that official response back to the board. 

And, uh, look forward to continuing to work with the board and the new 

members. And get ready for Albuquerque. And really, um, I think we 

should really embrace the idea of continual improvement with these 

meetings of, of really trying to think what's the best way to, uh, gather that 

public input and, uh, have those really rich discussions to make the best 

decisions. And really look forward to working with everybody on that in 

the future. So thank you.

Tracy Miedema: Thank you Miles. So I had started to say, great work. And I mean 

it, we, you know, it's the culmination of the six months and usually a ton of 

time and effort leading up to those, those six months. And great work to 

all of you who are still here and to all of the folks who have already left for 

home. There was one, um, item that came up during our meeting that I 

hope the program will pay special attention to, which was an allegation 

that a federal witness was threatened or intimidated. And, um, just so that 

there is no chilling effect on future, um, people with wishing to give 

testimony. I hope the program does look into that. Lastly I will say, thank 

you so much for the opportunity to lead this board for the last year. These 

five years I know will be a tremendously memorable era in my life. I just 

know that already. So thanks again and with that, this meeting is 

adjourned. (applause)
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

122

A

Absent, 17, 32, 36, 37, 45, 

46, 50, 62, 87

Abstain, 39, 95, 96

Abstention, 39, 96

Accreditation, 91

Acting, 105, 106, 108

Acting Chair, 105

See Also

Chair, 105

Acting Secretary, 105, 

106

See Also

Se, 105, 106

Secretary, 105, 

106

Adds, 30

Administrative Team, 98

See Also

Team, 98

Admittedly, 41

Agriculture, 113, 114

Air, 54

Albuquerque, 120

Alrightie, 49

Americans, 78

Ammonium Nonanoate, 

3, 4, 5

See Also

Nonanoate, 3, 4, 

5

Anderson, 117

Animal, 21, 23, 29, 30, 45, 

110, 119

Animal Enzymes, 45

Animal Welfare, 21, 23, 

29, 110, 119

Animal Welfare 

Regulatory, 23

Animal Welfare Stocking 

Regulatory, 21, 29

Annatto, 32, 33, 34, 35

Application, 13

April, 43, 88, 114

Aquaculture, 111

Arachidonic, 81, 82, 86

B

Ballots, 105

Barry, 3, 5, 6, 18, 19, 38, 

44, 74, 75, 79, 96, 106, 

107, 108, 112, 113

See Also

Chairman Barry, 

3, 5, 6, 18, 19, 38, 

44, 74, 75, 79, 96, 

106, 107, 108, 

112, 113

Chairman Barry 

Flamm, 3, 5, 6, 

18, 19, 38, 44, 74, 

75, 79, 96, 106, 

107, 108, 112, 113

Policy 

Development 

Committee 

Chairman Barry 

Flamm, 3, 5, 6, 

18, 19, 38, 44, 74, 

75, 79, 96, 106, 

107, 108, 112, 113

Barry Flam, 3, 5, 38, 79, 

106, 112

See Also

Chairman Barry 

Flamm, 3, 5, 38, 

79, 106, 112

Policy 

Development 

Committee 

Chairman Barry 

Flamm, 3, 5, 38, 

79, 106, 112

Barry Flamm, 3, 5, 38, 

106, 112

See Also

Chairman Barry 

Flamm, 3, 5, 38, 

106, 112

Policy 

Development 

Committee 

Chairman Barry 

Flamm, 3, 5, 38, 

106, 112

BARRY FLAMM

Speaking, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 

11, 16, 18, 19, 20, 29, 

31, 35, 37, 38, 44, 45, 

50, 51, 60, 64, 67, 74, 

79, 80, 81, 87, 89, 91, 

93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 

100, 102, 103, 104, 

105, 113

Baseline, 95

Beak, 22

Ben, 30

Bergamo, 110

Beta, 36

Board, 77, 105, 116

See Also

National Organic 

Standards Board, 

77, 105, 116

Business, 113

C

Calcium, 20, 52, 60

Calcium Chloride, 20

Calcium Hypochlorite, 52, 

60

Calcium Hypochlorite 

Chlorine Dioxide, 52

See Also

Chlorine, 52

Calvin, 8, 9, 10, 28, 49, 

103, 107, 118

Calvin Walker, 49

CALVIN WALKER

Speaking, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 

12, 17, 20, 29, 31, 35, 

37, 39, 44, 45, 49, 51, 

60, 64, 67, 80, 87, 94, 

96, 97, 98, 103, 104, 

107

Canada, 28

Canadian, 28

Candidates, 105

Certification Committee, 

92

See Also

Committee, 92

Chair, 9, 21, 28, 31, 36, 37, 

39, 61, 64, 68, 81, 87, 

92, 104, 105, 106, 108, 

115, 116

See Also

Acting Chair, 9, 

21, 28, 31, 36, 37, 

39, 61, 64, 68, 81, 

87, 92, 104, 105, 

106, 108, 115, 116

Cacc Chair Joe 

Dickson, 9, 21, 

28, 31, 36, 37, 39, 

61, 64, 68, 81, 87, 

92, 104, 105, 106, 

108, 115, 116

Committee 

Chair, 9, 21, 28, 

31, 36, 37, 39, 61, 

64, 68, 81, 87, 92, 

104, 105, 106, 

108, 115, 116

Committee Chair 

John Foster, 9, 

21, 28, 31, 36, 37, 

39, 61, 64, 68, 81, 

87, 92, 104, 105, 

106, 108, 115, 116

Committee Chair 

Steve Demuri, 9, 

21, 28, 31, 36, 37, 

39, 61, 64, 68, 81, 

87, 92, 104, 105, 

106, 108, 115, 116

Crops 

Committee Chair 

John Foster, 9, 

21, 28, 31, 36, 37, 

39, 61, 64, 68, 81, 

87, 92, 104, 105, 

106, 108, 115, 116

Madame 

Chairman, 9, 21, 

28, 31, 36, 37, 39, 

61, 64, 68, 81, 87, 

92, 104, 105, 106, 

108, 115, 116

Materials Chair, 

9, 21, 28, 31, 36, 

37, 39, 61, 64, 68, 

81, 87, 92, 104, 

105, 106, 108, 

115, 116

Policy 

Development 

Committee 

Chairman Barry 

Flamm, 9, 21, 28, 

31, 36, 37, 39, 61, 

64, 68, 81, 87, 92, 

104, 105, 106, 

108, 115, 116

Vice Chair, 9, 21, 

28, 31, 36, 37, 39, 

61, 64, 68, 81, 87, 

92, 104, 105, 106, 

108, 115, 116

Chair Wendy, 21, 28

See Also

Wendy, 21, 28

Chair Wendy Fulwider, 

21

See Also

Wendy, 21

Wendy Fulwider, 

21

Chairman, 43, 45, 46, 50, 

51, 80, 81, 94, 96, 98, 

99, 103, 108

See Also

Madame 

Chairman, 43, 

45, 46, 50, 51, 80, 

81, 94, 96, 98, 99, 

103, 108

Policy 

Development 

Committee 

Chairman Barry 

Flamm, 43, 45, 

46, 50, 51, 80, 81, 

94, 96, 98, 99, 

103, 108

Chairman Barry, 98, 99, 

103

See Also

Barry, 98, 99, 103

Policy 

Development 
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

123

Committee 

Chairman Barry 

Flamm, 98, 99, 

103

Chairman Barry Flamm, 

99, 103

See Also

Barry, 99, 103

Barry Flam, 99, 

103

Barry Flamm, 99, 

103

Policy 

Development 

Committee 

Chairman Barry 

Flamm, 99, 103

Chairman Joe Dickson, 

94, 96

See Also

Joe, 94, 96

Joe Dickson, 94, 

96

Chairman Steve, 43, 45, 

46, 50, 51, 81

See Also

Steve, 43, 45, 46, 

50, 51, 81

Chairperson, 31

Chairs, 112

Chlorine, 46, 51, 52, 60

See Also

Calcium 

Hypochlorite 

Chlorine Dioxide, 

46, 51, 52, 60

Churchill, 78

Clarifying, 92

Classification, 111

Closing Remarks, 113, 

116

Clouded, 83

Colehour, 27, 36, 72, 73, 

74, 94, 106, 113, 115

Colehour Bondera, 94

COLEHOUR BONDERA

Speaking, 27, 36, 39, 

44, 72, 74, 82, 94, 

113

Comment Procedures, 

113

See Also

Procedure, 113

Procedures, 113

Committee, 9, 21, 31, 34, 

36, 39, 44, 46, 50, 51, 

60, 61, 62, 64, 68, 72, 

81, 85, 87, 91, 99, 107, 

108, 110, 111, 112, 115

See Also

Certification 

Committee, 9, 

21, 31, 34, 36, 39, 

44, 46, 50, 51, 60, 

61, 62, 64, 68, 72, 

81, 85, 87, 91, 99, 

107, 108, 110, 

111, 112, 115

Crop Committee, 

9, 21, 31, 34, 36, 

39, 44, 46, 50, 51, 

60, 61, 62, 64, 68, 

72, 81, 85, 87, 91, 

99, 107, 108, 110, 

111, 112, 115

Crops 

Committee, 9, 

21, 31, 34, 36, 39, 

44, 46, 50, 51, 60, 

61, 62, 64, 68, 72, 

81, 85, 87, 91, 99, 

107, 108, 110, 

111, 112, 115

Crops 

Committee Chair 

John Foster, 9, 

21, 31, 34, 36, 39, 

44, 46, 50, 51, 60, 

61, 62, 64, 68, 72, 

81, 85, 87, 91, 99, 

107, 108, 110, 

111, 112, 115

Crops 

Committee John 

Foster, 9, 21, 31, 

34, 36, 39, 44, 46, 

50, 51, 60, 61, 62, 

64, 68, 72, 81, 85, 

87, 91, 99, 107, 

108, 110, 111, 

112, 115

Executive 

Committee, 9, 

21, 31, 34, 36, 39, 

44, 46, 50, 51, 60, 

61, 62, 64, 68, 72, 

81, 85, 87, 91, 99, 

107, 108, 110, 

111, 112, 115

Livestock 

Committee, 9, 

21, 31, 34, 36, 39, 

44, 46, 50, 51, 60, 

61, 62, 64, 68, 72, 

81, 85, 87, 91, 99, 

107, 108, 110, 

111, 112, 115

Materials 

Committee, 9, 

21, 31, 34, 36, 39, 

44, 46, 50, 51, 60, 

61, 62, 64, 68, 72, 

81, 85, 87, 91, 99, 

107, 108, 110, 

111, 112, 115

Policy 

Committee, 9, 

21, 31, 34, 36, 39, 

44, 46, 50, 51, 60, 

61, 62, 64, 68, 72, 

81, 85, 87, 91, 99, 

107, 108, 110,

111, 112, 115

Policy 

Development 

Committee, 9, 

21, 31, 34, 36, 39, 

44, 46, 50, 51, 60, 

61, 62, 64, 68, 72, 

81, 85, 87, 91, 99, 

107, 108, 110, 

111, 112, 115

Policy 

Development 

Committee 

Chairman Barry 

Flamm, 9, 21, 31, 

34, 36, 39, 44, 46, 

50, 51, 60, 61, 62, 

64, 68, 72, 81, 85, 

87, 91, 99, 107, 

108, 110, 111, 

112, 115

Committee Chair, 9, 87, 

108

See Also

Chair, 9, 87, 108

Crops Committee 

Chair John Foster, 

9, 87, 108

Policy 

Development 

Committee 

Chairman Barry 

Flamm, 9, 87, 108

Committee Chair John 

Foster, 9

See Also

Chair, 9

Crops Committee 

Chair John Foster, 

9

John, 9

John Foster, 9

Committee 

Transparency, 99

See Also

Tr, 99

Compliance, 91

Conflict, 103, 113

Cooper Sulfate, 12, 13, 16

Courtesy, 118

Cr, 14

See Also

Evaluation Criteria 

Checklist, 14

Genetically 

Engineered Crops, 

14

Review Criteria, 

14

Crop Committee, 14

See Also

Committee, 14

Crops, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 

17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 108, 

109, 111

See Also

Genetically 

Engineered 

Crops, 3, 6, 9, 10, 

12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 

20, 21, 108, 109, 

111

Crops Committee, 3, 6, 9, 

10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 

20, 21, 109

See Also

Committee, 3, 6, 

9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 109

Crops Committee Chair 

John Foster, 3, 6, 9, 

17, 18, 20

See Also

Chair, 3, 6, 9, 17, 

18, 20

Committee, 3, 6, 

9, 17, 18, 20

Committee 

Chair, 3, 6, 9, 17, 

18, 20

Committee Chair 

John Foster, 3, 6, 

9, 17, 18, 20

John, 3, 6, 9, 17, 

18, 20

John Foster, 3, 6, 

9, 17, 18, 20

Crops Committee John 

Foster, 10

See Also

Committee, 10

John, 10

John Foster, 10

D

Deep, 22

Deputy Administrator, 6, 

11, 15, 25, 41, 53, 55, 

101, 116

Determination, 12

Dr, 30

See Also

Safe Drinking 

Water Act, 30
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

124

Draft, 100

Duly, 41

E

Election, 104, 105

See Also

Nosb Officer 

Elections, 104, 

105

Emily, 53, 55, 57

EMILY

Speaking, 56

Ethics Training, 113

See Also

Tr, 113

Evaluation, 92, 111

Evaluation Criteria 

Checklist, 111

See Also

Cr, 111

Executive, 99, 105, 108, 

114, 115

Executive Committee, 

105, 114, 115

See Also

Committee, 105, 

114, 115

F

Federal Register, 26, 48

Ferric Phosphate, 109

Final, 21

Fire Blight, 111

Font, 82

Food Safety, 56

Fry, 90

G

Genetically Engineered 

Crops, 113

See Also

Cr, 113

Crops, 113

Grapes, 89

Group, 111

Gwendolyn, 55, 58

Gwendolyn Wyard, 55

GWENDOLYN WYARD

Speaking, 55

H

Hexane, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 

72, 73, 74, 76, 80

I

Indicating, 86

Individual, 38

Indol, 7

Indole, 6, 7

Indoor, 23

Industry Flavor Task 

Force, 111

Inert, 109

Inspection Service, 56

See Also

Se, 56

Inspector Qualifications, 

95

Interest, 103, 113

J

January, 104

Jay, 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 15, 

18, 25, 26, 27, 36, 38, 

40, 44, 47, 49, 56, 57, 

65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 

75, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 

84, 85, 86, 90, 97, 100, 

102, 103, 105, 115, 116

Jay Feldman, 3, 4, 13, 15, 

18, 25, 26, 36, 38, 40, 

47, 56, 68, 82, 83, 84, 

85, 86, 90, 97, 100, 102, 

115

JAY FELDMAN

Speaking, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 

11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 26, 29, 31, 

35, 36, 38, 40, 44, 45, 

47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 56, 

57, 60, 64, 65, 66, 67, 

68, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 

84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 

96, 97, 98, 100, 102, 

103, 104, 115

Jennifer, 14, 15, 25, 27, 

31, 67, 68, 86, 89, 99, 

100, 107, 114, 115

JENNIFER TAYLOR

Speaking, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 

20, 27, 29, 31, 35, 37, 

39, 44, 45, 50, 51, 60, 

64, 68, 80, 82, 86, 89, 

91, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 

100, 101, 102, 103, 

105, 107

Joe, 17, 30, 43, 54, 55, 57, 

58, 64, 65, 92, 98, 101, 

102, 106, 107, 112, 115

See Also

Cacc Chair Joe 

Dickson, 17, 30, 

43, 54, 55, 57, 58, 

64, 65, 92, 98, 

101, 102, 106, 

107, 112, 115

Chairman Joe 

Dickson, 17, 30, 

43, 54, 55, 57, 58, 

64, 65, 92, 98, 

101, 102, 106, 

107, 112, 115

Joe Dickson, 17, 30, 43, 

54, 57, 64, 65, 92, 102, 

106

See Also

Cacc Chair Joe 

Dickson, 17, 30, 

43, 54, 57, 64, 65, 

92, 102, 106

Chairman Joe 

Dickson, 17, 30, 

43, 54, 57, 64, 65, 

92, 102, 106

JOE DICKSON

Speaking, 6, 7, 8, 10, 

11, 17, 19, 21, 29, 30, 

31, 34, 35, 44, 45, 50, 

51, 54, 57, 60, 64, 65,

66, 67, 68, 80, 82, 87, 

91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 

97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 

103, 105, 106, 107, 

112, 114, 115

John, 4, 5, 14, 15, 19, 39, 

42, 48, 49, 51, 53, 57, 

59, 60, 65, 67, 79, 87, 

89, 90, 93, 95, 96, 97, 

101, 106, 108, 109

See Also

Committee Chair 

John Foster, 4, 5, 

14, 15, 19, 39, 42, 

48, 49, 51, 53, 57, 

59, 60, 65, 67, 79, 

87, 89, 90, 93, 95, 

96, 97, 101, 106, 

108, 109

Crops 

Committee Chair 

John Foster, 4, 5, 

14, 15, 19, 39, 42, 

48, 49, 51, 53, 57, 

59, 60, 65, 67, 79, 

87, 89, 90, 93, 95, 

96, 97, 101, 106, 

108, 109

Crops 

Committee John 

Foster, 4, 5, 14, 

15, 19, 39, 42, 48, 

49, 51, 53, 57, 59, 

60, 65, 67, 79, 87, 

89, 90, 93, 95, 96, 

97, 101, 106, 108, 

109

John Foster, 19, 39, 42, 

48, 53, 59, 67, 79, 90, 

93, 95, 101, 106, 108

See Also

Committee Chair 

John Foster, 19, 

39, 42, 48, 53, 59, 

67, 79, 90, 93, 95, 

101, 106, 108

Crops 

Committee Chair 

John Foster, 19, 

39, 42, 48, 53, 59, 

67, 79, 90, 93, 95, 

101, 106, 108

Crops 

Committee John 

Foster, 19, 39, 

42, 48, 53, 59, 67, 

79, 90, 93, 95, 

101, 106, 108

JOHN FOSTER

Speaking, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 

9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 29, 

31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 

42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 

50, 51, 52, 53, 59, 60, 

64, 67, 80, 82, 87, 90, 

91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 

98, 101, 103, 104, 

108, 109, 110

July, 26

K

Katrina, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 

24, 25, 29, 32, 33, 34, 

35, 42, 43, 47, 48, 50, 

52, 53, 57, 58, 61, 63, 

65, 66, 67, 80, 82, 85, 

86, 88, 89, 96, 100, 104, 

108, 111, 112, 116, 118

Katrina Heinze, 8, 14, 42, 

50, 52

KATRINA HEINZE

Speaking, 5, 7, 8, 10, 

11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 

24, 25, 29, 31, 32, 33, 

34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 43, 

44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 

53, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 

80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 

88, 89, 91, 94, 96, 97, 

98, 100, 103, 104, 

111, 116, 117

Kentucky, 95

L

Lastly, 120

Leadership Transition 

Document, 103

See Also

Tr, 103

Transit, 103

Transition, 103

Lisa, 91, 92, 109

LISA AHRAMJIAN

Speaking, 91, 109
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

125

Livestock, 3, 21, 24, 27, 

29, 30, 31, 91, 110, 111

Livestock Committee, 21, 

24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 91, 

111

See Also

Committee, 21, 

24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 

91, 111

Lorraine, 12, 22, 30, 39, 

61, 62, 68, 71, 92, 99, 

103, 110

M

Mac, 11, 21, 25, 27, 28, 29, 

41, 58, 63, 81, 93, 95, 

106, 107, 111

Mac Stone, 21, 25, 41, 

106, 107

MAC STONE

Speaking, 6, 7, 8, 10, 

11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 27, 

28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 37, 

38, 39, 41, 44, 45, 50, 

51, 58, 60, 63, 64, 67, 

80, 81, 87, 91, 93, 94, 

95, 96, 97, 98, 103, 

104, 111

Madame Chairman, 61

See Also

Chair, 61

Chairman, 61

Madame Secretary, 49, 

59, 61, 64, 90, 94

See Also

Se, 49, 59, 61, 64, 

90, 94

Secretary, 49, 59, 

61, 64, 90, 94

Madame Secretary 

Wendy Fulwider, 61

See Also

Se, 61

Secretary, 61

Secretary Wendy 

Fulwider, 61

Wendy, 61

Wendy Fulwider, 

61

Maintain, 23

Manage, 23

Manganese Sulfate, 109

Manganese Sulfate 

Monohydrate, 109

See Also

Monohydrate, 

109

Martek, 69, 70, 76, 77, 86

Marty, 49, 111

Materials, 14, 16, 85, 92, 

104, 109, 111, 112, 113, 

118

Materials Chair, 118

See Also

Chair, 118

Materials Committee, 14, 

16, 85, 104, 109, 111, 

113

See Also

Committee, 14, 

16, 85, 104, 109, 

111, 113

Materials Review, 92

See Also

Review, 92

Materials Review 

Organization 

Qualification, 92

See Also

Review, 92

Materials Review 

Organizations, 92

See Also

Review, 92

Review 

Organizations, 92

Member, 103, 106

See Also

Nosb Member, 

103, 106

Members, 105

Methionine, 110

Miles, 15, 16, 33, 101, 108,

109, 111, 114, 115, 119, 

120

See Also

Deputy 

Administrator 

Miles Mcevoy, 

15, 16, 33, 101, 

108, 109, 111, 

114, 115, 119, 120

MILES MCEVOY

Speaking, 6, 7, 8, 10, 

11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 

20, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 

35, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 

44, 46, 50, 51, 52, 54,

57, 59, 60, 64, 68, 72, 

73, 74, 80, 82, 86, 91, 

94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 

101, 103, 104, 105, 

107, 108, 109, 110, 

111, 114, 119

Minimize, 23

Minutes, 99, 106, 114, 115

Model, 117

Monitoring Practices, 112

Monohydrate, 109

See Also

Manganese 

Sulfate 

Monohydrate,

109

Mortierella, 82

Motion, 6, 7, 10, 12, 17, 

18, 20, 21, 30, 31, 36, 

37, 39, 46, 50, 51, 60, 

64, 81, 82, 87, 91, 94, 

96, 98, 99, 103, 105

N

National List, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 

18, 20, 32, 34, 35, 36, 

37, 39, 41, 45, 46, 48, 

49, 50, 68, 74, 80, 86, 

87, 119

National List Section, 6, 

46, 49, 50, 68

See Also

Se, 6, 46, 49, 50, 

68

Section, 6, 46, 

49, 50, 68

National Organic 

Program, 34, 93

See Also

Organic, 34, 93

National Organic 

Standards Board, 3, 

105, 106, 107, 116

See Also

Board, 3, 105, 

106, 107, 116

Organic, 3, 105, 

106, 107, 116

Nick, 20, 21, 24, 29, 58, 69, 

70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77, 

78, 80, 84, 104, 116

Nick Maravell, 20, 21

NICK MARAVELL

Speaking, 6, 7, 8, 10, 

12, 17, 18, 20, 24, 29, 

30, 31, 35, 37, 39, 44, 

50, 51, 58, 60, 64, 67, 

70, 73, 74, 78, 80, 82, 

84, 87, 91, 94, 96, 97, 

99, 103, 104, 105, 

116

Nomination Process, 104

Nominations, 106, 107

Nonanoate, 3, 6

See Also

Ammonium 

Nonanoate, 3, 6

November, 109

O

Odorized Propane, 9, 10, 

11

Officers, 104

Oil, 83

oral, 11

Organic, 30, 35, 95, 108, 

114, 116

See Also

National Organic 

Program, 30, 35, 

95, 108, 114, 116

National Organic 

Standards Board, 

30, 35, 95, 108, 

114, 116

Usda Organic 

Regulations, 30, 

35, 95, 108, 114, 

116

Organic Inspector, 95

Organic Valley, 35

Outdoor, 23

Oxidized Lignite, 109

Ozone, 17

P

Pacific Northwest, 90

Pain, 22

Passing, 55

Peracetic, 18, 19, 109

Peracetic Acid, 109

Perfect, 6

Pinot Noir, 90

Policy, 92, 98, 99, 101, 

102, 104, 105, 107, 112, 

113

See Also

Program Policy 

Manual, 92, 98, 

99, 101, 102, 104, 

105, 107, 112, 113

Policy Committee, 112, 

113

See Also

Committee, 112, 

113

Policy Development 

Committee, 92, 98, 

101, 102

See Also

Committee, 92, 

98, 101, 102

Policy Development 

Committee Chairman 

Barry Flamm, 98

See Also

Barry, 98

Barry Flam, 98

Barry Flamm, 98

Chair, 98

Chairman, 98

Chairman Barry, 

98

Chairman Barry 

Flamm, 98

Committee, 98
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

126

Committee Chair, 

98

Policy Development 

Manual, 113

Potassium, 37

Practice Standard, 119

Procedure, 98, 99, 104, 

112

See Also

Comment 

Procedures, 98, 

99, 104, 112

Procedure Manual, 98, 

99, 104

Procedures, 105, 107, 112

See Also

Comment 

Procedures, 105, 

107, 112

Procedures Manual, 105, 

107

Program Policy Manual, 

104

See Also

Policy, 104

Propylene Glycol 

Monolaurate, 109

Provided, 52, 60

Pullets, 22, 23

R

Recommendation, 101

Recuse, 95

Reflective, 23

Relative, 93

Relist, 18

Review, 92, 112

See Also

Materials Review, 

92, 112

Materials Review 

Organization 

Qualification, 92, 

112

Materials Review 

Organizations, 92, 

112

Review Criteria, 112

See Also

Cr, 112

Review Organizations, 

112

See Also

Materials Review 

Organizations, 

112

Rick Perry, 47

Rodenticides, 10

Rosemary, 42

S

Safe Drinking Water Act, 

52, 54, 56, 57, 60

See Also

Dr, 52, 54, 56, 57, 

60

Salmonella, 25

Savannah, 39

Seattle, 114, 115

Secretary, 29, 86, 105, 

106, 107, 108, 113, 114, 

116, 119

See Also

Acting 

Secretary, 29, 86, 

105, 106, 107, 

108, 113, 114, 

116, 119

Madame 

Secretary, 29, 86, 

105, 106, 107, 

108, 113, 114, 

116, 119

Madame 

Secretary 

Wendy Fulwider, 

29, 86, 105, 106, 

107, 108, 113, 

114, 116, 119

Secretary Wendy 

Fulwider, 29

See Also

Madame 

Secretary Wendy 

Fulwider, 29

Wendy, 29

Wendy Fulwider, 

29

Section, 7, 46, 50, 82, 99, 

104

See Also

National List 

Section, 7, 46, 

50, 82, 99, 104

Shelter, 23

Silicon, 39, 41, 43, 61, 62

Silicon Dioxide, 61, 62

Slaughter, 21, 30, 110

Slaughter Regulatory, 21, 

30

Sodium Hypochlorite, 52

Spring, 23, 42, 92, 103, 

109, 110, 111

Springtime, 112

Steve, 3, 8, 9, 28, 31, 33, 

36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 44, 

45, 46, 47, 49, 54, 56, 

57, 58, 61, 62, 64, 68, 

75, 84, 85, 87, 98, 108, 

110, 111, 118

See Also

Chair Steve 

Demuri, 3, 8, 9, 

28, 31, 33, 36, 37, 

38, 39, 41, 44, 45, 

46, 47, 49, 54, 56, 

57, 58, 61, 62, 64, 

68, 75, 84, 85, 87, 

98, 108, 110, 111, 

118

Chairman Steve, 

3, 8, 9, 28, 31, 33, 

36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 

44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 

54, 56, 57, 58, 61, 

62, 64, 68, 75, 84, 

85, 87, 98, 108, 

110, 111, 118

Chairman Steve 

Demuri, 3, 8, 9, 

28, 31, 33, 36, 37, 

38, 39, 41, 44, 45, 

46, 47, 49, 54, 56, 

57, 58, 61, 62, 64, 

68, 75, 84, 85, 87, 

98, 108, 110, 111, 

118

Committee Chair 

Steve Demuri, 3, 

8, 9, 28, 31, 33, 

36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 

44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 

54, 56, 57, 58, 61, 

62, 64, 68, 75, 84, 

85, 87, 98, 108, 

110, 111, 118

Committee 

Steve Demuri, 3, 

8, 9, 28, 31, 33, 

36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 

44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 

54, 56, 57, 58, 61, 

62, 64, 68, 75, 84, 

85, 87, 98, 108, 

110, 111, 118

STEVE DEMURI

Speaking, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 21, 

28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 

35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 

41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 

47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 

57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 

63, 64, 65, 68, 75, 80, 

81, 82, 84, 87, 91, 94, 

96, 98, 103, 105, 110, 

118

Sulfur, 32, 45, 46, 51, 85, 

87, 88

Sulfur Dioxide, 32, 46, 51, 

85, 87, 88

Summary, 106

Sunset, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 

38, 40, 41, 45, 47, 74, 

75, 76, 78, 79, 109, 110

Sunsetting, 109

Swine, 22

Swiss, 85

Synthesis, 82

Synthetic, 18

Synthetics, 39

T

Tartaric Acid, 46, 47, 49, 

50

Tartaric Acids, 47

Team, 39

See Also

Administrative 

Team, 39

Tetracycline Report, 111

Tina, 4, 9, 11, 16, 19, 24, 

26, 30, 33, 35, 37, 49, 

55, 63, 67, 70, 75, 78, 

85, 91, 94, 100, 106, 

107, 108, 118

Tina Ellor, 91

TINA ELLOR

Speaking, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 

10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 

23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 

33, 35, 37, 39, 44, 45, 

47, 49, 50, 55, 59, 60, 

63, 64, 67, 70, 75, 79, 

80, 81, 85, 87, 91, 94, 

96, 97, 98, 100, 102, 

103, 104, 106, 107, 

109, 118

Titration, 58

Tocopherols, 41, 42

Tour, 89

Trace, 61

Tracy, 21, 67, 68, 81, 92, 

108

Transit, 21, 30

See Also

Leadership 

Transition 

Document, 21, 30

Transition, 104

See Also

Leadership 

Transition 

Document, 104

Transport, 30, 110

Tuesday, 51

U

Unannounced 

Inspections, 96

United States, 28

V

Vegetation, 22
Meeting Of The National Organic Standards Board

December 2, 2011

127

Vice Chair, 43, 105, 106, 

107

See Also

Chair, 43, 105, 

106, 107

Votes, 106

Voting, 105

W

Weed, 27

Wendy, 16, 28, 30, 35, 57, 

67, 106, 107, 110

See Also

Chair Wendy, 16, 

28, 30, 35, 57, 67, 

106, 107, 110

Chair Wendy 

Fulwider, 16, 28, 

30, 35, 57, 67, 

106, 107, 110

Madame 

Secretary 

Wendy Fulwider, 

16, 28, 30, 35, 57, 

67, 106, 107, 110

Secretary 

Wendy Fulwider, 

16, 28, 30, 35, 57, 

67, 106, 107, 110

Wendy Fulwider, 30, 107

See Also

Chair Wendy 

Fulwider, 30, 107

Madame 

Secretary Wendy 

Fulwider, 30, 107

Secretary Wendy 

Fulwider, 30, 107

WENDY FULWIDER

Speaking, 6, 7, 8, 10, 

12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 

24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 

35, 37, 39, 44, 46, 49, 

50, 51, 60, 61, 64, 67, 

68, 80, 81, 86, 91, 94, 

96, 97, 98, 103, 105, 

106, 107, 110

Willamette Valley, 90

Withdraw, 33

Written, 99