[X] CLOSEMAIN MENU

[X] CLOSEIN THIS SECTION

photo

Learn About the Issues at the Spring 2016 NOSB Meeting

Keeping Organic Strong: Changes in organic regulations and farming practices
National Organic Standards Board

Spring 2016 NOSB Meeting
Comment by April 14, 2016!

On our Public Comment Alerts page, we have provided our positions on top priority issues, which you may use as the basis for your comments.

When: Monday, April 25, 2016 - 8:30am to Wednesday, April 27, 2016 - 5:00pm
Where: Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert Street, NW, Washington, DC 20008

The spring 2016 meeting dates have been announced and public comments are due by April 14, 2016. Your comments and participation are critical to the integrity of the organic label.

The proposals of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), as a part of its ongoing review of practices and materials, were published for public comment. The public comment period will end April 14, 2016. On this page in the next few days, Beyond Pesticides will be providing the public with a listing and analysis of the issues under consideration of the Board when it meets in Washington, D.C. on April 25-27, 2016. You can view USDA's announcement of the NOSB recommendation here. Please check back to see Beyond Pesticides' analysis.

To truly make an impact in the future of organic, Beyond Pesticides encourages you to:

**On certain browsers, it may be necessary to download a PDF version of Beyond Pesticides' comments in order to view the navigation pane**

About the Board

The 15 member board, consisting of 4 farmers, 3 environmentalists, 3 consumers, 2 food processors, and one retailer, scientist and certifying agent, votes to allow or prohibit substances and practices in certified organic food and farming. The NOSB acts as a life-line from government to the organic community as it considers input from you, the public - the concerned citizens upon whom organic integrity depends. That is why your participation is vital to the development of organic standards. Rest assured, if you submit a public comment either in person or online, your concerns will be considered by the Board. Remember that the NOSB can't take serious action to protect organic integrity without your input!

Issues Before the NOSB for Spring 2016

Materials in the list below are either the subject of petitions or the subject of sunset review. Petitioned materials must have evidence summarized in the proposals that they meet the OFPA requirements of essentiality, no adverse effects on humans and the environment, and compatibility with organic practices. Sunset items are already on the National List, and being considered for delisting. They are subject to the same criteria, but are being considered under NOP's new rules.

The NOSB will receive and consider public comments on materials subject to "2018 Sunset Review" at this Spring 2016 meeting. All substantive comments must be submitted during the comment period or at the NOSB meeting. Comments received on 2018 sunset materials after that (i.e. at the Fall 2016 meeting) will be considered "untimely."

 

 

Crops Subcommittee

Handling Subcommittee

Livestock Subcommittee

Materials Subcommittee

Policy Development Subcommittee
   

 

 

See Full Meeting Agenda

 

Take Action at Regulations.gov!
(Comments Due April 14, 2016!)

 

See All
Comments So Far

 

See Beyond Pesticides' Commenting Guidelines

 

See All Meeting Materials and Issues

 

The Organic Foods Production Act

 

Proposals

  • Ash from Manure Burning - petitioned
    • See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: Burning a material that is central to maintaining soil fertility and tilth in organic soils would be incompatible with organic production systems. There is nothing in the petition that refutes the judgment that ash from manure –including that produced by the petitioner’s process—is incompatible with organic production. Organic practices incorporate carbon in the soil. The petitioner’s process, like open burning, destroys high-energy carbon molecules that are essential for feeding the soil microbiology. The petitioner does not consider carbon a nutrient, and therefore devalues its presence in manure. While carbon may not be a plant nutrient, its presence as food for microbes and as humus is essential to organic soils. Therefore, Beyond Pesticides supports the CS recommendation to deny the petition.
  • Squid and Squid Byproducts - petitioned
  • Hypochlorous Acid - petitioned
    • See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: The petition for hypochlorous acid claims that because sodium and calcium hypochlorite, which are currently on the National List in all three sections, exist in solution as hypochlorous acid, it is essentially allowed. In September 2015, NOP issued a memorandum accepting the argument of the petitioner, and at the same time, asked NOSB to review hypochlorous acid and the process used to make it. This process does not respect the role of the NOSB as gatekeeper of the National List, and therefore we ask that the NOP rescind their memorandum until the NOSB takes action on hypochlorous acid. The NOSB should delay recommending the addition of more sanitizers until it performs a thorough review of all sanitizers/disinfectants and their uses. In considering the inclusion of hypochlorous acid, the NOSB should evaluate the impacts of disposal of the sodium hydroxide that is co-generated with hypochlorous acid.
  • Soy Wax - petitioned
    • See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: Beyond Pesticides submitted the petition to list soy wax. Soy wax is synthetic because it is made by hydrogenating soy oil –the same process used to make margarine. We petitioned for it to give those who grow mushrooms on logs a non-petroleum alternative for sealing inoculation sites on logs. We agree with the CS annotation proposal to include the annotation, must be made from non-GMO soybeans. We found soy wax that is certified to be non-GMO, but thatdoes not guarantee that all soy wax is non-GMO.

Back to the table of contents

Crops 2018 Sunset Summaries 205.601 (Synthetic Materials Allowed in Organic Crop Production):

See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here

  • Copper Sulfate
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: 205.601(a)(3) Copper sulfate—for use as an algicide 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.

      205.601(e)(4) 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 levels which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.

      Rice paddies replace natural wetlands and provide alternative habitat for animals threatened by the loss of wetlands. Unfortunately, many of these animals are sensitive to copper. In addition, copper sulfate is toxic to aquatic animals that could provide some biological control for the algae the copper is used to kill. The particular impacts on amphibians found in rice fields not only have a negative impact on biodiversity, but they also reduce possibilities for biological control of algae and tadpole shrimp. Thus, the use of copper sulfate in an aquatic environment like a rice field is inconsistent with a system of organic and sustainable agriculture.

  • Ozone Gas
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background:

      Ozone has high acute toxicity. Concentrations above 0.1 mg/L by volume average over an 8 hour period may cause nausea, chest pain, reduced visual acuity and pulmonary edema. Inhalation of >20 ppm for at least an hour may be fatal. In terms of chronic effects, ozone may have deleterious effects on the lungs and cause respiratory disease. The use of ozone may be seriously detrimental to the health of humans who work with it, and those exposed indirectly, downwind of exposure. The use of a known and problematic air pollutant could make its consideration as a tool in organic farming questionable. In view of the dangers associated with the use of ozone, the Crops Subcommittee should ask:

      1. Does the use of ozone in organic crop production pose a hazard for workers?
      2. Would restrictions on the use of ozone help protect workers?
  • Peracetic Acid
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: 

      205.601(a)(6) Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed in §205.601(a) at concentration of no more than 6% as indicated on the pesticide product label. 205.601(i)(8) Peracetic acid—for use to control fire blight bacteria. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed in §205.601(i) at concentration of no more than 6% as indicated on the pesticide product label.

      Questions regarding peracetic acid:

      1. Is there new information about occupational hazards that should be taken into account in the sunset decision and/or in formulating an additional annotation?
      2. Can peracetic acid be used for fireblight without harm to soil and workers?
      3. Is peracetic acid effective for all uses of chlorine? If peracetic acid remains on the National List, can chlorine be eliminated from use in organic production?
  • EPA List 3 - Inerts of Unknown Toxicity 
    • See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: The NOSB must take the sunset review of List 3 “inerts” seriously. Although List 3 “inerts” are included in the annotation change approved at the fall 2015 NOSB meeting, it may be several years before that annotation takes effect. Meanwhile, in 2012, the NOSB recommended an expiration date for List 3 that has now passed. The NOSB has identified the three List 3 “inerts” in use in organic production, and should review them according to OFPA criteria as required by law.

Back to the table of contents

Crops 2018 Sunset Summaries 205.602 (Non-Synthetic Materials Prohibited in Organic Crop Production):

  • Calcium Chloride
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: This petition appears to be essentially the same as the petition denied in 2006. It is also one in a series of a number of petitions that seeks to use organic agriculture as waste disposal. Others include calcium sulfate from flue gas desulfurization, ash from manure burning, sulfuric acid, and vinasse. While the use of organic waste products for fertility is a hallmark of organic production, organic agriculture should not be seen as a dumping ground for synthetic industrial waste products. The arguments in favor of denying the petition have already been stated by the NOSB. Therefore, Beyond Pesticides urges the NOSB to follow the reasoning of past Boards and deny the petition to use calcium chloride as a soil amendment.

Back to the table of contents

Discussion Document

Proposals

  • Sodium Lactate and Potassium Lactate - petitioned
    • See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: Beyond Pesticides agrees that sodium lactate and potassium lactate must be on the National List in order to be used in organic food. However, we oppose their listing because they are synthetic preservatives, and are thus not allowed in organic processing and are thus not appropriate for use in organic food.
  • Oat beta-glucan - petitioned
    • See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: Beyond Pesticides opposes the listing of oat beta-glucan because it is grown using chemical-intensive methods, is not essential for organic production and handling, and is incompatible with organic production and handling. Oat beta-glucan is a soluble fiber extracted from oats that is claimed to deliver same fiber-related benefits as whole oats. Two other petitions –for barley beta-fiber (barley beta-glucan) and sugar beet fiber—that made similar claims were resoundingly denied (by votes of 12-3 and 15-0) in April 2013. The concerns that were raised at that time were lack of essentiality and incompatibility.
  • Hypochlorous acid - petitioned 
    • See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: The petition for hypochlorous acid claims that because sodium and calcium hypochlorite, which are currently on the National List in all three sections, exist in solution as hypochlorous acid, it is essentially allowed. In September 2015, NOP issued a memorandum accepting the argument of the petitioner, and at the same time, asked NOSB to review hypochlorous acid and the process used to make it. This process does not respect the role of the NOSB as gatekeeper of the National List, and therefore we ask that the NOP rescind their memorandum until the NOSB takes action on hypochlorous acid. The NOSB should delay recommending the addition of more sanitizers until it performs a thorough review of all sanitizers/disinfectants and their uses. In considering the inclusion of hypochlorous acid, the NOSB should evaluate the impacts of disposal of the sodium hydroxide that is co-generated with hypochlorous acid.
  • Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (SDBS) - petitioned
    • See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate is used –along with lactic acid—as one of the active ingredients in a formulated antimicrobial product for use in produce wash waters. The intended function of the product is to reduce the number of microorganisms in fruit and vegetable process water and on the surface of the fruit or vegetable. The proposed use is on raw and processed fruits and vegetables and involves a minimum ninety (90) second immersion in the antimicrobial wash water, followed by a draining process prior to further processing and/or serving. It may also be used on food contact surfaces.  The product causes substantial but temporary eye injury, and is harmful if absorbed through the skin. Prolonged or frequently repeated skin contact with the concentrate may cause allergic reactions. Beyond Pesticides opposes the listing of SDBS at this time. SDBS has advantages over other antimicrobials, particularly chlorine-based materials, including acidified sodium chlorite. However, we believe that the NOSB needs to base any decisions on petitions for antimicrobial products on a thorough review of the need for antimicrobials and the available products. Please see our comments on hypochlorous acid for more discussion of that issue.
  • Ancillary Substances
    • See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: Ancillary substances are added to ingredients found in organic foods to achieve some effect in those ingredients --preservative, adjusting moisture, even pest control. The NOSB adopted a policy in 2013 that all ancillary substances would be reviewed according to OFPA criteria, but the Handling Subcommittee has simply been listing those ancillary substances known to be in use. Now the Handling Subcommittee is proposing to modify the policy.
      • Definitions are needed. In order to be meaningful and useful, the ancillary substances policy must define terms it uses: technical or functional effect, direct food additive, incidental food additive, food contact substance, functional class, and significant amount.
      • Each ancillary substance must be approved for each particular use. Whether the approval of ancillary substances is communicated by means of listing on the National List –which we believe to be required by OFPA—or by other means, each ancillary substance must be reviewed according to OFPA criteria. The NOSB must not categorically allow substances in a functional class that have not been specifically reviewed and it must not rubber stamp ancillary substance just because they are currently in use.

Back to the table of contents

Handling 2018 Sunset Summaries 205.605(a) (Synthetic Nonorganic Nonagricultural Materials Allowed in Organic Processing and Handling)

See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here

  • Agar-agar
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: Agar (or agar-agar) may be nonsynthetic or synthetic. Nonsynthetic agar is made from Gellidium species of seaweed. It may be pretreated with an acid (vinegar or a mineral acid) to improve penetration. Synthetic agar is made from Graciliara species, which is subject to alkaline pretreatment to bring about a chemical change in the polysaccharides (L-galactose-6-sulfate groups are converted to 3,6-anhydro-L-galactose), producing agar with increased gel strength. We support the continued listing of agar-agar on §205.605(a) Nonsynthetics allowed, with the annotation, from Gellidium species, processed without alkaline pretreatment. We oppose the proposed listing of agar-agar on §205.605(b) Synthetics allowed.
  • Animal enzymes
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: The use of enzymes from animals produced by chemical-intensive agriculture carries with it impacts of that form of production. With regard to animal enzymes, it appears that animal rennet from non-organic sources is probably not essential, since according to the 2011 Technical Review (TR), non-animal sources account for 95% of the rennet used in the U.S. Animal-based rennet could also be made from organic livestock.
  • Calcium sulfate - mined
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: Calcium sulfate derived from natural sources impacts the environment in that mining operations are needed to obtain it. This involves quarrying or blasting, and the use of heavy equipment. In addition to the direct impact of the mining operations on the Earth, there is a negative impact caused by the generation of gypsum dust in the process. This dust can affect air quality, and can be a potential exposure hazard to humans and other animals. Calcium sulfate has been used as a coagulant for tofu for over 2000 years in China. Although there are other coagulants that may be used, calcium sulfate is essential for traditional Chinese tofu. We have not seen sufficient evidence to support the use of calcium sulfate for all food uses. Therefore we support renewing the listing of calcium sulfate with the annotation, “For use only as a coagulant in bean curd (tofu and similar products).”
  • Carrageenan 
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: We oppose the relisting of carrageenan on §205.605(a) and believe that the substance should be removed from the National List. Carrageenan should be reclassified as a synthetic. This use does not meet the requirements of the Organic Food Production Act —carrageenan may have adverse effects on the health of consumers, its production results in adverse ecological impacts, there are alternatives to its use, and its use is inconsistent with a system of organic and sustainable production. Independent scientists have presented evidence to the NOSB demonstrating inflammatory impacts of carrageenan. Due to consumer concerns about the use of carrageenan in organic products, it has been removed from many, and every product containing carrageenan is available without it –demonstrating the lack of essentiality.
  • Glucano delta-lactone
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: The 2016 technical review (TR) suggests that the current annotation is not sufficient to ensure that the glucono delta-lactone (GDL) in use is nonsynthetic. It also states that some enzymes used in the production of GDL may be genetically engineered. If it decides to relist GDL, the NOSB should consider an annotation change to correct these issues.
  • Tartaric acid
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: The HS should investigate whether tartaric acid from organic grape wine is available or would be available if this listing did not discourage its use. Since tartaric acid is a waste product from winemaking, its sale could provide additional revenue to organic vintners.

Back to the table of contents

Handling 2018 Sunset Summaries 205.605(b) (Synthetic Nonorganic Nonagricultural Materials Allowed in Organic Processing and Handling)

  • Cellulose
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: At the spring 2012 meeting, the NOSB recommended relisting with the following annotation, in order to ensure that microcrystalline cellulose is not used in food, for use in regenerative casings, powdered cellulose as an anti-caking agent (non-chlorine bleached) and filtering aid. The NOP refused to make the annotation change and renewed the listing as originally written. It appears that cellulose can be removed from the National List as unnecessary. As an alternative, the recommendation for an annotation change passed by the board in 2012 should be revisited.
  • Potassium hydroxide
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: Potassium hydroxide is a hazardous material, possibly (with sodium hydroxide) one of the most hazardous and toxic on the National List. The 2016 TR does not seem to have resolved the issue of the essentiality for potassium hydroxide in processing peaches, but the essentiality of other allowed uses also needs to be examined. We suggest that the HS address the following questions: 1. For what purposes is potassium hydroxide used in organic processing? 2. What are the alternatives for those uses? 3. Is further annotation necessary?
  • Silicon dioxide
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: In 2011, the NOSB voted to annotate the listing to recognize and encourage the use of organic rice hulls as an alternative for most uses of silicon dioxide. The NOSB recommended the following annotation: “Allowed for use as a defoamer. May be used in other applications when non-synthetic alternatives are not commercially available.” The NOP proposed and put into regulation instead this annotation: “Permitted as a defoamer. Allowed for other uses when organic rice hulls are not commercially available.” NOP justified this change as follows, “AMS understands that the intent of the NOSBs recommendation is to allow the continued use of silicon dioxide as a defoamer and to require the use of a nonsynthetic substance instead of silicon dioxide when possible. To ensure clarity and consistency within the USDA organic regulations, AMS is proposing a modification to the NOSBs recommendation.” The annotation in the final rule is less restrictive than the NOSB recommendation, and therefore allows the use of the synthetic silicon dioxide in cases where there is a nonsynthetic alternative other than organic rice hulls, which is contrary to OFPA §6517(d)(2). According to the 2010 Technical Review (TR), other plant materials may be the basis for biogenic silica products. Therefore, the NOSB should revisit the annotation to determine whether it should be changed to the language as originally passed by the NOSB or to a slightly less restrictive version (but still more restrictive than the version adopted into the regulations), “Permitted as a defoamer. Allowed for other uses when an organic substitute is not commercially available.”

Back to the table of contents

Handling 2018 Sunset Summaries 205.606 (Nonorganic Agricultural Materials Allowed in Organic Processing and Handling)

  • Beta-carotene extract color
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: Organic consumers do not expect their food to be artificially colored, whether or not the color is synthetic according to the NOP classification of materials, so a color additive is not necessary. In addition, the 2012 Supplemental Technical Review identifies organic annatto coloring as an alternative. The HS should determine whether organic annatto does indeed perform the function of beta carotene extract. As mentioned above, organic consumers do not expect their food to be artificially colored. Beta carotene may be extracted using volatile synthetic solvents, vegetable extracted using volatile organic solvents, or solvents derived from genetically engineered plants, all of which are incompatible with organic production and handling. The NOSB must take into account all of the impacts of beta carotene extract. The HS should investigate the availability and suitability of organic substitutes, as well as why a synthetic color is needed.

 Back to the table of contents

Discussion Document

 Back to the table of contents

 

Proposals

  • Hypochlorous Acid - petitioned
    • See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: The petition for hypochlorous acid claims that because sodium and calcium hypochlorite, which are currently on the National List in all three sections, exist in solution as hypochlorous acid, it is essentially allowed. In September 2015, NOP issued a memorandum accepting the argument of the petitioner, and at the same time, asked NOSB to review hypochlorous acid and the process used to make it. This process does not respect the role of the NOSB as gatekeeper of the National List, and therefore we ask that the NOP rescind their memorandum until the NOSB takes action on hypochlorous acid. The NOSB should delay recommending the addition of more sanitizers until it performs a thorough review of all sanitizers/disinfectants and their uses. In considering the inclusion of hypochlorous acid, the NOSB should evaluate the impacts of disposal of the sodium hydroxide that is co-generated with hypochlorous acid.
  • Annotation Change for Lidocaine and Procaine Use
    • See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background:

      §205.603(b) As topical treatment, external parasiticide or local anesthetic as applicable
      (4) Lidocaine—as a local anesthetic. Use requires a withdrawal period of 90 daysafter administering to livestock intended for slaughter and 7 daysafter administering to dairy animals.
      (7) Procaine—as a local anesthetic, use requires a withdrawal period of 90 days after administering to livestock intended for slaughter and 7 days after administering to dairy animals.

      We recommend that the LS reconsider its recommendations in light of this new evidence. We support the animal welfare motivations to reduce the withdrawal period for a local anesthetic, but we believe that the assessment of the CVMP needs to be taken into account.

  • Parasiticides 
    • See Beyond Pesticides' draft comments here
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: In reviewing all three parasiticides together, livestock subcommittee failed to bring forward motions to remove ivermectin and moxidectin due to adverse ecological effects. This would have allowed the NOSB to consider the full range of actions that have been supported by public comment. As noted in comments from former NOSB member Dr. Karreman, the intention of the NOSB in approving fenbendazole was to allow for the removal of ivermectin and possibly moxidectin. Since such an action at this meeting would be prohibited as a substantive action not proposed for public comment, these proposals should be referred back to the subcommittee, to return with proposals that address the full range of actions supported by the available evidence.

Back to the table of contents

Proposals

See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here

  • Excluded Methods Terminology
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: We support the approach of separating out technologies, terms, and issues on which the subcommittee does not yet agree, while moving ahead with those where there is consensus. As the subcommittee notes, this is a rapidly changing field. Therefore, any guidance document must be a work in progress. This also highlights the importance of keeping in place regulations that have broad support, but are relatively simple, while addressing complications and new technologies in guidance. We request that the NOP post proposed guidance for public comment.

Discussion Documents

  • Excluded Methods Terminology
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: We support the approach of separating out technologies, terms, and issues on which the subcommittee does not yet agree, while moving ahead with those where there is consensus. As the subcommittee notes, this is a rapidly changing field. Therefore, any guidance document must be a work in progress. This also highlights the importance of keeping in place regulations that have broad support, but are relatively simple, while addressing complications and new technologies in guidance. We request that the NOP post proposed guidance for public comment.
  • Seed Purity
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: We agree with the Materials Subcommittee (MS) that there are a number of good reasons to require a seed purity declaration for non-organic seed, including:

      • It provides an incentive for growers to use organic seed.

      • It shifts the burden of routine GMO testing from organic seed producers to suppliers of non-organic seed.

      • It reduces the inadvertent introduction of GMOs into organic crops through seed.

      • It fits in with the organic regulations to prohibit excluded methods by providing ACAs with a tangible method of verification.

Back to the table of contents

Policy and Procedures Manual

  • Policy and Procedures Manual Revisions
    • See Beyond Pesticides' final comments here
    • Submit your comment here
    • Background: We appreciate the response to fall comments regarding the difficulty of reviewing proposed changes to the Policy and Procedures Manual (PPM). We appreciate,in particular, the clarification that the NOSB will vote on the proposed changes and the publication of a redlined version and an annotated table of contents. We do not think it is appropriate, however, for the NOSB to consider such a complicated proposal without an explanation and justification of each change. OFPA created the NOSB as a means of ensuring that the organic community retained control over the organic program, despite its bureaucratic location within USDA, a hostile agency. The PPM is the instrument through which the NOSB maintains its ability to set the course for organic production in the United States. The NOSB must not relinquish that control by weakening the PPM.

Discussion Documents

Back to the table of contents