UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE 

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

) 

In re: ) 

Pilot S.A. – Hacienda Pilot ) Administrator’s Decision

 )

 ) 

Colimes, Ecuador ) APL-055-21

 ) 

This Decision responds to an Appeal (APL-055-21) of a Notice of Noncompliance and 

Proposed Revocation of Certification to the National Organic Program (NOP) issued to Pilot 

S.A. – Hacienda Pilot (Pilot Farm) of Colimes, Ecuador by USDA-accredited certifying agent, 

Certification of Environmental Standards GmbH (CERES). The operation has been deemed not 

in compliance with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (Act)1

 and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) organic regulations.2 

BACKGROUND 

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

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

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

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

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

1

 7 U.S.C. 6501-6522 

2

 7 C.F.R. Part 205 

Page 1 of 11 
such decision to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) pursuant to §205.680 

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

regulations. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. On March 19, 2021, CERES issued a Notice of Noncompliance. 

2. On August 20, 2021, CERES issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed 

Revocation for Pilot Farm’s entire operation. 

3. On August 23, 2021, Pilot Farm filed an Appeal. 

DISCUSSION 

The USDA organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.102, Use of the term, “organic” state 

that, “Any agricultural product that is sold, labeled, or represented as “100 percent organic,” 

“organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))” must be: (a) Produced 

in accordance with the requirements specified in §205.101 or §§205.202 through 205.207 or 

§§205.236 through 205.240 and all other applicable requirements of part 205 ...” 

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

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

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

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

except as provided in §205.601 or §205.603 ...” 

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

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

Page 2 of 11 
must: ... (b) Have had no prohibited substances, as listed in §205 .105, applied to it for a period 

of 3 years immediately preceding harvest ofthe crop ..." 

The organic regulations at §205.300, Use ofthe tenn, "organic," state that, "(a) The te1m, 

"organic," may only be used on labels and in labeling of raw or processed agricultural products 

... that have been produced and handled in accordance with the regulations in this pa1t ..." 

The organic regulations at §205.400, General requirements for ce1tification, state that, "A 

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

(a) Comply with the Act and applicable organic production and handling regulations ofthis pait; 

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

that is submitted to an accredited ce1tifying agent as provided for in §205.200; (c) Pennit on-site 

inspections with complete access to the production or handling operation, including nonce1tified 

production and handling areas, structures, and offices by the ce1tifying agent as provided for in 

§205.403; ... (f) Immediately notify the ce1tifying agent concerning any: (1) Application, 

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

product that is pait of an operation ..." 

CERES stated that an inspection of Pilot Fann, and testing ofsamples, revealed the 

presence ofseveral prohibited substances. In its response to an initial Noncompliance and in its 

Appeal, Pilot Faim denies that it applied prohibited substances and stated in its Appeal it has 

taken co1Tective action to ensure future samples will not contain prohibited substances. 

The evidence substantiates that Pilot Faim has been ce1tified by CERES for crops, 

specifically mango, since August 29, 2005. The Pilot Faim has 4 Lots totaling -hectai·es. Pilot 

Faim's certification initially included the scope of handling; however, this scope was 

subsequently sepai·ated and ce1tified separately; it is not pa1t ofthis appeal. The Pilot S.A. 

Page 3 of 11 
handling certification applies to frnit produced at the Pilot Faim and 3 other fa1ms. CERES also 

issued certification to Pilot S.A. for crops, with the 4 faims together under 1 ce1iificate - Pilot 

Faim which is the Appellant in this case,_ ,_ , and on August 29, 

2005. Therefore, the mangoes produced by Pilot Faim ai·e certified under the Pilot S.A. -

Hacienda Pilot ce1iificate as well as the ' overai·ching' Pilot S.A. crop ce1iificate. This case 

specifically addresses the Pilot S.A. - Hacienda Pilot ce1iification. 

On November 25-26, 2020, CERES conducted an inspection of Pilot Faim and found 

numerous noncompliances. CERES issued a Notice ofNoncompliance on Mai·ch 19, 2021, 

which was sent to Pilot Faim along with a spreadsheet detailing each noncompliance and noting 

if the noncompliance had been conected/resolved. Pilot Fa1m was given until July 7, 2021 to 

con ect each remaining noncompliance. Specific to the cmTent adverse action, CERES found 

that Pilot Faim used pesticides with unknown or unallowed ine1is; and that Pilot Faim's land had 

been subject to pesticide drift. The spreadsheet noted that a conective action plan had been 

submitted for the first noncompliance, and the second was paiiially resolved. Other 

noncompliances cited include bmning crop residues; product flow figmes that didn't match; an 

insufficient organic fe1iilization plan; possibly polluted inigation water; missing or incomplete 

records; and an incomplete Organic Management Plan and Plot List. 

On July 19, 2021, CERES conducted an unannounced inspection of Pilot Fa1m's 

operation, at which time samples were taken of the mango crop, including frnit, leaves, and soil 

from Lots 1 and 2. The Inspection Repo1i describes the sampling, and CERES also presented 

numerous Sample Labels for the samples from various paiis of the Lots. The inspector had been 

instrncted to take these samples because a bag of Atta Kill, the commercial brand of sulflmamid, 

Page 4 of 11 
a prohibited substance, had previously been seen by CERES on Lot 2. Analysis/testing of the 

samples revealed the presence of several prohibited substances, not including sulfluramid. 

CERES presented the laboratory reports of Eurofins, all dated August 12, 2021. The 

report for the leaves sample from the Centro 1 plot shows a finding of Dimethoate at 0.47 mg/kg; 

Diethyltoluamide at 0.31 mg/kg; and Omethoate at 0.041 mg/kg. The report for the soil sample 

from the Centro 2 Lot 2 shows a finding of Cypermethrin at 0.26 mg/kg; Dimethoate at 0.39 

mg/kg; Diethyltoluamide at 0.69 mg/kg; and Omethoate at 0.063 mg/kg. The report for the fruit 

sample from Lindero Norte Lot 1 shows a finding of Dimethoate at 0.46 mg/kg; Propiconazole at 

0.60 mg/kg; Diethyltoluamide at 0.041 mg/kg; and Omethoate at 0.021 mg/kg. The report for the 

leaves sample from Lindero Sur Lot 1 shows a finding of Dimethoate at 0.066 mg/kg; 

Diethyltoluamide at 0.057 mg/kg; and Omethoate at 0.015 mg/kg. Diethyltoluamide is a 

synthetic chemical commonly known as DEET and is a personal insect repellent. It is not 

allowed for use in organic crop production. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tolerance level for Cypermethrin is 0.70 

mg/kg, putting the 5% allowed in organic production at 0.035 mg/kg. As such, the level found in 

the soil sample exceeds the allowed limit. There is no EPA tolerance level for Dimethoate, 

Propiconazole, or Omethoate. Therefore, they are prohibited in organic production at any level. 

As a result of the finding of prohibited substances not being correctable, and also 

believing that Pilot Farm applied prohibited substances to the crops, and hence willingly violated 

the organic regulations, CERES issued a combined Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed 

Revocation of Pilot Farm’s certification in its entirety. 

The organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.662(c) state that, “...When correction of a 

noncompliance is not possible, the notification of noncompliance and the proposed suspension or 

Page 5 of 11 
revocation of certification may be combined in one notification.” Additionally, section (d) of 7 

C.F.R. §205.662, provides that a certifier which has reason to believe that a certified operation 

has willfully violated the Act or regulation, shall send the certified operation a notification of 

proposed suspension or revocation, applicable to the noncompliance. 

CERES had issued a Notice of Noncompliance regarding the use of prohibited or 

unknown inputs, without a satisfactory response from Pilot Farms. CERES also confirmed the 

usage of prohibited substances through the lab reports. As such, CERES characterized Pilot 

Farm’s actions as willful. This is supported by CERES’ spreadsheet of noncompliances on 

August 20, 2021, from the July 2021 inspection, citing to Pilot Farm’s use of chemical pesticides 

as shown by the laboratory analysis of samples taken. At the time, CERES noted that the fruit 

from the affected Lots 1 and 2, could only be sold as conventional mangoes. CERES also noted 

that Pilot Farm’s mangoes came into contact with pollutants, specifically DEET, in the postharvest process, though this was not addressed in the Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed 

Revocation. 

After issuance of the March 19, 2021 Notice of Noncompliance, Pilot Farm wrote 

CERES on June 3, 2021, and again on June 26, 2021, stating it has never used the prohibited 

input Atta Kill, as alleged by the inspector, and blaming a neighboring farm for leaving the 

opened bag in Lot 2. In its Appeal, Pilot Farm reiterates its denial regarding the use of 

prohibited substances and disputes the above cited findings of the Eurofins laboratory. Pilot 

Farm noted that the inspector who took the samples may have had the Diethyltoluamide/DEET 

substance on his/her skin or clothes since it’s an insect repellant. Further, the Pilot Farm 

representative keeps chemicals in his vehicle and had warned the inspector not to get close to 

them, suggesting that the inspector contaminated the samples when in the vehicle. However, if 

Page 6 of 11 
the inspector contaminated the samples by coming into contact with chemicals in Pilot Farm’s 

representative’s car, the representative could have also caused such contamination in the course 

of daily operations. Pilot Farm also disputes the finding of Cypermethrin in samples, stating that 

if it had applied the substance to crops, it would have been found in all samples. However, 

Cypermethrin wouldn’t necessarily be used on all crops as alleged by Pilot Farm. 

The Inspection Report of July 19, 2021 and supporting photograph from CERES also 

substantiated that an opened bag of Atta Kill had previously been seen in Lot 2. Atta Kill is a 

brand of sulfluramid, which is a synthetic substance not approved for use in organic production. 

As stated above, Pilot Farm specifically stated in letters to CERES, that it has never used the 

prohibited input Atta Kill, as alleged by the inspector, and blamed a neighboring farm for leaving 

the opened bag in Lot 2. A translated portion of the Inspection Report notes that Pilot Farm’s 

staff denied the use of prohibited substances and stated that the bag of Atta Kill was in an area of 

Lot 2 which is transitioning to organic production. PFOS didn’t appear in the lab results for the 

samples, however, the fact that a bag of the product was found on Pilot Farm’s Lot 2 is troubling. 

Pilot Farm acknowledges that it was warned about the possible application 

of/contamination by prohibited substances in September 2019, almost 2 years prior to the July 

2021 inspection at which samples showed prohibited substance residues. Pilot Farm states it 

immediately revised its procedures so that future samples wouldn’t contain any trace of 

prohibited substances. However, AMS notes that if appropriate effective corrective actions had 

been taken, the July 2021 samples wouldn’t have shown residues. Pilot Farm submitted invoices 

for additional inputs, which are allegedly OMRI listed and/or confirmed by CERES or other 

certifiers as being allowed in organic production. However, even if Pilot Farm used these 

allowed inputs, it doesn’t mean they didn’t also use prohibited substances. 

Page 7 of 11 
Pilot Farm also submitted its internal Field Investigation Report of September 13, 2021, 

stating that a possible reason for the contamination of its crops could be the use of prohibited 

substances by neighboring farms. Pilot Farm stated it spoke with its neighbors and requested 

that they spray their inputs in the opposite direction from Pilot Farm’s land. Pilot Farm also 

states it has added extra buffers to its land and submitted a revised map showing neighboring 

land and the buffers. However, these actions don’t negate the findings of prohibited substances. 

Pilot Farm stated that it took samples on September 6, 2021, of mango fruit from Centro 

Lot 1 and Norte Lindero Lot 1, and of leaves from Centro Lot 1 and Centro Lot 2. Pilot Farm 

submitted the AgroLab reports showing that no prohibited substances were detected in any of the 

samples. However, this doesn’t negate CERES’ findings, as the samples were collected by the 

operation itself. 

Pilot Farm also submitted laboratory reports for the testing of samples taken on 

September 30, 2019, almost 2 years prior to the inspection of July 2021. Instead of supporting 

Pilot Farm’s case, however, these reports show the presence of Propiconazole at 1.6 mg/kg; 2.1 

mg/kg; 0.57 mg/kg; 9.9 mg/kg; and 1.4 mg/kg in the samples taken from various plots. 

Propiconazole is prohibited at any level in agricultural production. These lab reports, submitted 

by Pilot Farm, also show other prohibited substances at unallowed levels in areas of Pilot Farm’s 

certified land approximately 1 1⁄2 years prior to the July 2021 inspection, and in areas adjacent to 

organic production plots as seen on a map of Pilot Farm’s land. As stated above, Pilot Farm 

acknowledged that it was told in September 2019 of the possible application of/contamination by 

prohibited substances and these lab results support CERES’ findings and conclusions. 

Page 8 of 11 
 

CONCLUSION 

The USDA organic regulations assure consumers that products with the USDA organic 

seal meet consistent, uniform standards. Key to these standards is that products with the USDA 

organic seal are produced and handled in accordance with the organic regulations. The evidence 

substantiates that Pilot Farm violated the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.102, Use of the 

term, “organic;” 7 C.F.R. §205.105, Allowed and prohibited substances, methods, and 

ingredients in organic production and handling; 7 C.F.R. §205.202, Land requirements; 7 C.F.R. 

§205.300, Use of the term, “organic;” and 7 C.F.R. §205.400, General requirements for 

certification. 

Several samples of soil and mango leaves taken from certified Lots 1 and 2 at the July 19, 

2021 inspection revealed the presence of numerous prohibited substances in levels exceeding the 

EPA tolerance levels for organic products. Additionally, an opened bag of Atta Kill, the 

commercial brand of a prohibited substance was found in Lot 2 of Pilot Farm’s land. Pilot Farm 

acknowledged that it had already been told by CERES in September 2019 of the possible 

application of/contamination by prohibited substances on its mango crops. The testing of mango 

shells and leaves, in September 2019, revealed the presence of prohibited substances in samples 

from certified land. CERES had also found at the November 2020 inspection that Pilot Farm had 

used pesticides with unknown or unallowed inerts, and that Pilot Farm’s land had been subjected 

to pesticide drift. Further, the explanations offered by Pilot Farm for the presence of prohibited 

substances on sampled mango leaves and soil are implausible. Pilot Farm has not demonstrated 

an ability to comply with the regulations. The finding of prohibited substances, despite the 

certifier’s previous warning, demonstrates that Pilot Farm has willingly violated the organic 

regulations. Pilot Farm may not remain certified. 

Page 9 of 11 
 

 

DECISION 

Pilot Farm’s August 23, 2021 Appeal is denied, and the August 20, 2021 Notice of 

Noncompliance and Proposed Revocation of certification is affirmed. Pilot Farm’s organic 

certification is to be revoked for a period of 5 years. Although the samples which revealed the 

presence of prohibited substances were only taken from Lots 1 and 2, and the Pilot Farm has 4 

Lots, the crop certification of Pilot S.A. – Hacienda Pilot is to be revoked in its entirety due to 

the seriousness and repeated nature of the noncompliances. Further, while the separate crop 

certification of Pilot S.A. covering the Pilot Farm and 3 other farms wasn’t identified in the 

adverse action, the certification for mangoes from the Pilot Farm included in the Pilot S.A. crop 

certificate is to be excised out and also revoked for 5 years. Failure to do so would make a 

revocation of the Pilot Farm certificate ineffective and moot. Additionally, while the handling 

certification of Pilot S.A. which covers the handling of fruit from the 4 farms wasn’t identified in 

the adverse action, no fruit from the Pilot Farm is to be handled under the Pilot S.A. handling 

certificate while the certification of Pilot Farm is revoked. Pilot Farm is ineligible for 

certification until 5 years after the revocation date 

Attached to this formal Administrator’s Decision denying Pilot Farm’s Appeal is a 

Request for Hearing form. Pilot Farm has thirty (30) days to request an administrative hearing 

Page 10 of 11 
 y _______________ _________________ 

before an Administrative Law Judge. If Pilot Farm waives the hearing, this 

Administrator’s Decision revoking Pilot Farm’s organic certification will become final. 

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

 day of ________________, 2022. 

Digitally signed by BRUCE BRUCE SUMMERS 

Date: 2022.03.01 20:57:19 SUMMERS -05'00'

Bruce Summers 

Administrator 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Page 11 of 11