[X] CLOSEMAIN MENU

[X] CLOSEIN THIS SECTION

photo

Fall 2021 NOSB Meeting

National Organic Standards Board

Fall 2021 NOSB Meeting
Comment by September 30th, 2021!

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meets October 19-21 online to debate issues concerning what goes into your organic food.

From the very beginning, with the passage of the Organic Foods Production Act in 1990, “organic” has meant “continuous improvement.” The primary mechanism for continuous improvement in organic production is the high level of public involvement that comes from twice-annual meetings of the stakeholder board.

The second mechanism is the sunset process, which helps move synthetic substances out of organic production as the market invests in growing organic inputs and ingredients. Despite USDA’s efforts to weaken the sunset process, the 5-year cycle of review of every synthetic substance currently used in organic production and processing, offers us an opportunity to keep organic strong and strengthen any weaknesses.

Items on the NOSB agenda in April include materials allowed in organic production, as well as discussion of policies and materials (petitions and sunsets) on which the NOSB will vote in the Fall. We have identified some priority issues of both kinds. The only voting issue on the NOSB agenda for this meeting is a petition that would allow the use of paper pots made of virgin paper as a planting aid. Discussion topics provide a good opportunity for the public to have input into framing the issues.


Priority Issues.

For more detailed analysis, scroll down to the description and links. For quick copy and paste, use the text below to comment at Regulations.gov. Add a personal message about why this is important to you at the top, if possible.

Beyond Pesticides will be populating this page over the next several weeks with draft comments on all the other issues.

 

Kasugamycin: Antibiotics should not be used in organic production. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is considering a petition to allow the antibiotic Kasugamycin to be used in organic apple and pear production. Earlier NOSB members struggled long and hard to erase the stigma of antibiotic use in organic fruit production—something that was left over from the transition of so many chemical-intensive fruit orchards after the Alar “scare” in which apple and apple products were contaminated with the cancer-causing plant growth regulator daminozide. Do we now want to step on that treadmill again? The reasons for rejecting the kasugamycin petition are the same as the reasons for eliminating the antibiotics streptomycin and tetracycline in crop production.


Now that we have learned what a pandemic looks and feels like, with the astounding levels of infection, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, we must take serious steps to prevent another pandemic on the horizon—this one tied to bacterial resistance to antibiotics. An important article in The Lancet points to a “looming potential pandemic” resulting from a “rise in multidrug-resistant bacterial infections that are undetected, underdiagnosed, and increasingly untreatable, [which] threatens the health of people in the USA and globally.”


When streptomycin and tetracycline were presented for their final votes by the Crops Subcommittee, the committee was unanimous that the antibiotics needed to go—the question was how fast. How fast could growers of these crops get over their dependence on these antibiotics that pose threats to human health and the environment and are unpopular with organic consumers? Streptomycin and tetracycline are gone, and we do not need another antibiotic.

 

Copper Sulfate: Copper sulfate should be sunsetted from organic production. The annotation—which recognizes the toxicity of copper in the soil—is one indicator that copper sulfate should not remain on the National List forever. Even more important are the data on ecotoxicity. The toxic effects on the aquatic and semi-aquatic organisms who inhabit rice paddies as a substitute for natural wetlands make copper sulfate incompatible with organic production and unacceptable to organic consumers. It is time to phase out this toxic chemical from organic production.

 

Carrageenan:  Carrageenan should be removed from the National List. The evidence summarized by the 2015 Technical Review came up with a verdict of mixed results on virtually every issue regarding food grade (high molecular weight) carrageenan. However, there is widespread agreement that poligeenan, which contaminates food grade carrageenan at unknown and uncontrollable levels, does cause adverse effects, including cancer. The production causes adverse environmental impacts. And it is not necessary –organic processors have been moving away from the use of carrageen because of consumer pressure since it was last considered for sunset. This is made more urgent by the fact that the National Organic Program ignored the recommendation of the NOSB in spring of 2012 to remove carrageenan from infant foods. Background: One of the most egregious failures of NOP has been its repeated lack of action on so-called “inert” ingredients. Because of that failure, every sunset brings a new NOSB a listing that has not been changed in response to over a decade of NOSB recommendations. EPA has long since (2006) stopped updating the “inerts” lists. The NOSB, which has been demanding since 2007 to review individual “inert” ingredients, has instead been given the option of relisting the outdated lists. List 3 “inerts” should not be relisted again. The identities of the former list 3 “inerts” used in organic production are known, and they should be examined in accordance with OFPA criteria. The NOSB has already recommended an expiration date for these chemicals. In the spring of 2012, the NOSB passed a motion to change the listing to: Inert ingredients exempt from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1122 that were formerly on EPA List 3 in passive polymeric dispenser products may be used until December 31, 2015, after which point they are subject to individual review under 205.601, unless already covered by a policy adopted by the NOP for all other inert ingredients. NOP refused to codify this recommendation. In doing so, NOP has violated OFPA §6517(d) (2) “No additions. The Secretary may not include exemptions for the use of specific synthetic substances in the National List other than those exemptions contained in the Proposed National List or Proposed Amendments to the National List.”

 

EPA List 3 - Inerts of Unknown Toxicity:  All substances in organic production must be evaluated. One of the most egregious failures of NOP has been its repeated lack of action on so-called “inert” ingredients. Because of that failure, every sunset brings a new NOSB a listing that has not been changed in response to over a decade of NOSB recommendations. EPA has long since (2006) stopped updating the “inerts” lists. The NOSB, which has been demanding since 2007 to review individual “inert” ingredients, has instead been given the option of relisting the outdated lists. List 3 “inerts” should not be relisted again. The identities of the former list 3 “inerts” used in organic production are known, and they should be examined in accordance with OFPA criteria. The NOSB has already recommended an expiration date for these chemicals. In the spring of 2012, the NOSB passed a motion to change the listing to: Inert ingredients exempt from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1122 that were formerly on EPA List 3 in passive polymeric dispenser products may be used until December 31, 2015, after which point they are subject to individual review under 205.601, unless already covered by a policy adopted by the NOP for all other inert ingredients. NOP refused to codify this recommendation. In doing so, NOP has violated OFPA §6517(d) (2) “No additions. The Secretary may not include exemptions for the use of specific synthetic substances in the National List other than those exemptions contained in the Proposed National List or Proposed Amendments to the National List.”

 

 

Not sure how to use our suggested language to comment? Follow these simple steps:

  1. Select the text in our comments (place your cursor before the first word in the text, then press and hold down the left mouse button and, without releasing the button, move the cursor to the end of the comments).
  2. Copy the selected text by selecting the Ctrl and C keys simultaneously.
  3. Click on this link to to open a new tab and in that tab, place your cursor in the "Comment" box.
  4. Paste the comments you copied by selecting the Ctrl and V keys simultaneously.
  5. Personalize your comments before entering your contact information and selecting "Continue".


Watch video tutorial on using this analysis for commenting at Regulations.gov.

See regulations.gov's official "Tips for Submitting Effective Comments."

 

Fall 2021 NOSB Meeting

The Fall 2021 NOSB meeting dates have been announced and public comments are due by September 30, 2021. Your comments and participation are critical to the integrity of the organic label.

When: Tuesday October 19, Wednesday October 20, and Thursday October 21st, 2021.

Where: The meeting will be held online on and meeting access information is available here.

Webinars: Comments may be submitted at Webinars on April 20th and 2nnd, 2021. More information about accessing the webinars is available on the NOSB website.

Written comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov until 11:59 pm ET September 30th, 2021. Reservations for oral webinar comments close at the same time.

The proposals of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), as a part of its ongoing review of practices and materials, are published for public comment. The public comment period will end April 3, 2020. On this page, Beyond Pesticides will be providing the public with a listing and analysis of the issues under consideration of the Board on our website pages. You can view USDA's announcement of the NOSB's meeting and proposals here. Please see Beyond Pesticides' analysis below (and more coming soon).

Issues Before the NOSB for Fall 2021

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 vote on materials subject to sunset review at the Fall 2020 meeting.

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**

Compliance, Accreditation, and Certification Subcommittee

Crops Subcommittee

Handling Subcommittee

Livestock Subcommittee

Materials Subcommittee

Public Discussion Subcommittee

 

Draft Meeting Agenda

 

 

Take Action at Regulations.gov!
(Comments Due September 30, 2021!)

 

See All Comments So Far

 

See Beyond Pesticides' Commenting Guidelines

 

See All Meeting Materials and Issues

 

The Organic Foods Production Act
Proposals

Discussion Documents

  • Oversight Improvements to Deter Fraud

    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Background: This discussion document aims to build on two related topics: Strengthening Organic Enforcement (SOE) (proposed rule) and Human Capital, by seeking input from the organic community on modernizing supply chain traceability to best match the size and scale of today’s industry and future needs. While the pending SOE rule pulls the industry forward in many ways, the Compliance, Accreditation & Certification Subcommittee (CACS) is suggesting additional tools such as an electronic organic link system (OLS), which could capture business-to-business sales providing continuity across the supply chain.

Back to the table of contents

Proposals

  • Chitosan

    • Beyond Pesticides’ comments
    • Submit your own comments here
    • Background: Chitosan has been petitioned for use in organic crop production for addition to the National List at  §205.601(j)(4) for plant disease control. The NOSB requested a technical review (TR) of chitosan since the last one was from 2004 when there was a petition for its use as an adhesive adjuvant. Much of the material in the current analysis comes from the TR received by the NOP in July 2020. Chitosan is a copolymer composed of two different chemical subunits that repeat in particular order: glucoseamine and N-acetyleglucosamine. It is derived from chitin which is structurally similar to cellulose. The petitioner stated that chitosan is an alternative to sulfur-based pesticides, which can be phytotoxic to plants. The petitioner bases the request on chitosan's antimicrobial properties as well as its role in plant defense signaling pathways.

  • Cow Manure Derived Biochar

    • Beyond Pesticides’ comments
    • Submit your own comments here
    • Background: A petitioner has requested an annotation to the listing at § 205.602(a) “Ash from manure burning” that would indicate that ash from manure burning does not include biochar derived from pyrolysis of cow manure. The petitioner contends that cow manure derived biochar, or CMDB, not only provides a solution to nutrient leaching and other adverse impacts to raw manure handling in large scale dairy operations but also has other benefits for organic crops that may exceed those of plant-based biochar.

  • Ammonia Extract

    • Beyond Pesticides’ comments
    • Submit your own comments here
    • Background: The petitioner seeks to prohibit non-synthetic ammonia extract for use in organic crop production. Specifically, the petition claims that both synthetic and naturally derived forms of ammonia can be synthesized or derived and applied to soils to meet the nitrogen demand of plants. Since non-synthetic sources of ammonia are not currently permitted by Certifiers or Material Review Organizations (but also not explicitly prohibited) in organic production and because such use of ammonia is claimed to be caustic, increases soil pH, is known to decrease soil biotic activity, and bypasses other soil based sources of nitrogen, the petitioner seeks to list ammonia extract at § 205.602 of the National List as a prohibited non-synthetic substance.

  • Kasugamycin

    • Beyond Pesticides’ comments
    • Submit your own comments here
    • Background: Kasugamycin is an antibiotic that inhibits bacterial protein synthesis and has been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for control of plant diseases, especially fire blight caused by Erwinia amylovora on apples and pears. The registered formulations are Kasumin 2L and Kasumin 4L containing the active ingredient kasugamycin hydrochloride hydrate. Kasugamycin is obtained by aerobic fermentation of the microorganism Streptomyces kasugaensis. The technical grade active ingredient, kasugamycin hydrochloride hydrate, was registered with the EPA in 2014 and a formulation Kasumin 2L containing two percent kasugamycin was registered in 2018. In 2020 Kasumin 4L containing four percent kasugamycin was registered with the EPA. Kasumin 2L and 4L were registered with a number of restrictions including those that prohibit application where animals are grazing or in areas where crops have been fertilized with animal or human waste. Users are also required to follow a resistance management plan. Applications are limited to four per year with California limiting applications to two per year.

  • Hydronium

    • Beyond Pesticides’ comments
    • Submit your own comments here
    • Background: Hydronium is being petitioned for use as a processing aid for pH adjustment not below 5.0 and as a stabilizer in the production of animal manures. It would be used to reduce malodorous properties of manures. A survey of regulations for organic production from a number of countries and international organizations indicates that hydronium is not included within the Canadian Organic Standards as an allowed material. CODEX Alimentarius does not include a listing for hydronium nor is there a listing in the Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production. Based on data submitted by the manufacturer, hydronium acts as a biocide but has not been approved by the EPA for that use.

  • Carbon Dioxcide

    • Beyond Pesticides’ comments
    • Submit your own comments here
    • Background: Carbon dioxide is currently allowed for use as an ingredient in organic labeled processed food products: §205.605 Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).” (b) Synthetic allowed: - Carbon dioxide. This petition requests the allowance of carbon dioxide in organic crop production.

  • Lithothamnion

    • Beyond Pesticides’ comments
    • Submit your own comments here
    • Background: Lithothamnion is a genus of coralline marine red algae containing 103 species, some of which have calcareous deposits within their cell walls. It is sometimes considered a plant in the botanical classification Rhodophyta within Archaeplastida, but other times is not included in the stricter definition of “plant”, Viridiplantae [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant]. In common usage, seaweeds such as lithothamnion, kelp, etc. are called plants. In March 2021, the NOP sent a memo to the NOSB requesting that the NOSB address the classification of collected lithothamnion as “agricultural” or “nonagricultural” and if it may be certified as a “wild crop” under the USDA organic regulations.

  • Biodegradable biobased mulch annotation change

    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comments here
    • Background: Biodegradable Biobased Mulch Film (BBMF) was approved by the NOSB for use in organic production in October 2012, and the listing was finalized September 30, 2014 as “Biodegradable biobased mulch film as defined in §205.2. must be produced without organisms or feedstock derived from excluded methods.” The definition required that BBMF meet specific requirements for compostability, biodegradation, and biobased content. Subsequently, the Organic Material Research Institute (OMRI) found that there are no products meeting all of the requirements set by the board. The NOSB is now considering a proposal to change the definition to allow BBMF that is not 100% biobased. BBMF is not removed from the field by the grower, but is tilled into the soil. The tillage process purposefully creates microplastics, with the intention that the action of soil organisms will degrade these small particles. However, many growers report that fragments persist in the soil. Research shows that the BBMFs do not completely degrade and may degrade more  slowly when tilled under the surface, that they contain components that may be hazardous, and particles may adsorb persistent toxins.  Microplastics may be incorporated into plant and animal tissues.

  • Sodium Nitrate

    • Beyond Pesticides’ comments
    • Submit your own comments here
    • Background: The NOSB seeks to make a technical correction to the listing for sodium nitrate. While sodium nitrate still appears on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National List) with an annotation limiting its use (7 CFR 205.602(g) – prohibited nonsynthetic), the sunset review of sodium nitrate has been suspended. The current listing reads: Sodium nitrate – unless use is restricted to no more than 20 percent of the crop’s total nitrogen requirement; use in spirulina production is unrestricted until October 21, 2005. According to the sunset provision in OFPA, sodium nitrate was supposed to sunset from the National List on October 21, 2012. At that time, the sunset process required the NOSB to vote to relist a substance for it to remain on the National List. If the NOSB voted to not renew a substance, it would be referred to the NOP for rulemaking to remove it from the List. The current process differs in that the NOSB must vote to remove a substance from the list, otherwise the substance remains on the List.

Sunset

    • Sunset Review - Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop prodction:

      Copper Sulfate

      • Beyond Pesticides’ comments
      • Submit your own comments here
      • Background: Copper sulfate is used as an algicide for rice crops, as the growth of algal matting in flooded fields can dislodge young seedlings. It is broadcast aerially into the flooded rice fields by plane. Rice farmers also spray copper sulfate to control a freshwater invertebrate, Triops longicaudatus, otherwise known as tadpole shrimp. Tadpole shrimp are only detrimental to very young seedlings, as their burrowing activities can disrupt the seedling roots and the first emerging leaves.Copper sulfate is a difficult substance to evaluate, as there appears to be broad consensus throughout the US, EU, and Canada that it is hazardous to both human health and the environment. Despite this, its use has repeatedly been extended in all three jurisdictions, as there isn’t yet a viable organic alternative for copper in certain applications. The EU, Canada, and Japan all exclude copper sulfate for organic rice production but allow it as a fungicidal spray in organic orchards and vineyards.

Ozone gas

      • Beyond Pesticides' comments
      • Submit your own comment here
      • Background: Ozone gas is a strong oxidant and works by oxidizing plant tissue and bacterial membranes. It is used as an antimicrobial agent to clean irrigation lines. It has been used in Europe for more than 100 years to treat drinking water and it has been used in the United States to disinfect water and to oxidize color and taste contaminants in water. Ozone is found in the atmosphere at levels of 0.05 ppm but at levels of 0.5 ppm in cities with smog.  Ozone has high acute toxicity. The use of ozone may be seriously detrimental to the health of humans who work with it, and those exposed indirectly, downwind of exposure.

Peracetic acid

      • Beyond Pesticides' comments
      • Submit your own comment here
      • Background: In organic crop production, peracetic acid, or PAA, is used to disinfect equipment. It can also be used as adisinfectant to treat seeds or asexually propagated planting material. It can be used to disinfect pruning equipment to help prevent the spread of the fire blight bacterium and is also used in one of the hydrogenperoxide formulations for control on the tree canopy of this same disease. PAA is also used in formulationsof hydrogen peroxide, allowed at a concentration of no more that 6%, for use in organic crop production. Peracetic acid was relisted during the 2016 sunset review for Handling and the 2017 sunset review for Livestock.According to EPA, “High concentrations of peroxy compounds [including peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide] are … corrosive and can be acutely toxic and/or extremely irritating to the lungs and skin.”

 

EPA List 3 - Inerts of unknown toxicity

      • Beyond Pesticides’ comments
      • Submit your own comments here
      • Background: The annotation for EPA List 3 inerts limits their use in organic crop production to passive pheromone dispensers. The dispensers are generally manufactured as either tubes that contain pheromones or as an impregnated substance containing the pheromone. Passive pheromone dispensers may be used to trap and monitor insect populations, or they may be used for control of a pest through pheromone mating disruption. For trapping, the pheromone-impregnated dispenser is placed in a trap and the insect catch is monitored to determine when an economic threshold is reached, and the particular insect needs to be controlled. For pheromone mating disruption, the dispensers are tied to branches of trees or placed in such
        a manner that they are distributed throughout an area being covered by the pheromones. Throughout the season, the design of the pheromone dispensers regulates the volatilization of pheromones into the air. Once in the air of the production area, the pheromones act to disrupt mating by interfering with the insect communication systems. A wide variety of insects, mostly Lepidoptera, can be managed with pheromones including codling moth, peach twig borer, peach crown borer, leafrollers, pink bollworm, boll weevil, gypsy moth, and others.         While pheromones are very specific to individual insect species, other insecticides may be broader spectrum and affect more species than those requiring control and may have more detrimental environmental impacts.Other potential environmental issues relate to the number of pheromone dispensers containing List 3 inerts used per acre.

 

Chlorine materials

      • Beyond Pesticides’ comments
      • Submit your own comment here
      • Background: Calcium hypochlorite is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered pesticide (PC Code 014701).Calcium hypochlorite is an antimicrobial disinfectant and pesticide used to control harmful microorganisms including bacteria, viruses, and fungi on inanimate objects and surfaces primarily in indoor environments. It is allowed for disinfecting and sanitizing food contact surfaces. Residual chlorine levels for wash water in direct crop or food contact and in flush water from cleaning irrigation systems that is applied to crops or fields cannot exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (currently 4mg/L expressed as Cl2). Calcium hypochlorite is an "indirect" food additive approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Calcium hypochlorite may be used as a final sanitizing rinse on food-processing equipment (21 CFR 178.1010). Calcium hypochlorite also can be used in postharvest, seed, or soil treatment on various fruit and vegetable crops (EPA, 1991).

 

Magnesium oxide

      • Beyond Pesticides’ comments
      • Submit your own comment here
      • Background: Magnesium oxide is a relatively benign substance that has a wide range of uses. In this use, a small addition of magnesium oxide to a clay suspension agent prevents the settling of finely ground humates in liquid. The approval of magnesium oxide permits the use of natural humates in a liquid formulation, 

 

Calcium chloride

      • Beyond Pesticides’ comments
      • Submit your own comment here
      • Background: Calcium chloride is used to manage almost three dozen physiological disorders on crops. These include a reduction of cork spot on pears, bitter pit in apples, fruit cracking on developing figs, rain cracking in cherries, blossom end rot on tomatoes, and tipburn on Chinese cabbage (TAP lines 156-175). “Application of foliar calcium sprays relieves calcium physiological disorders because these are local deficiencies due to calcium transport problems. Local availability of calcium in new shoots and fruits can help solve the problem” (lines 197-98). Application of nonsynthetic calcium chloride in organic crop production is limited to foliar sprays to treat a physiological disorder associated with calcium uptake.  This is a unique §205.602 material in that while not completely prohibited for use, the listing serves to annotate or the restrict use of this nonsynthetic. Since it is only allowed for a very specific use (foliar application to treat a calcium uptake disorder), Material Review Organizations list it with the restriction to
        reflect the very narrow permitted use. Certifiers are responsible for verifying that growers use it in a manner consistent with the restriction.

Rotenone

      • Beyond Pesticides’ comments
      • Submit your own comment here
      • Background: Rotenone is a potent non-synthetic botanical pesticide that is also used as a piscicide. Rotenone is commonly derived from the roots of various tropical plants native to Southeast Asia, South America, and East Africa. Historically, farmers have used this extract as a foliar spray to control pests on vegetables, berries, tree fruit, nuts, and forage crops. Rotenone was found to have adverse environmental and health impacts, a lack of essentiality, and an
        incompatibility with organic principles, and therefore, the NOSB unanimously passed a recommendation in October 2012 to add rotenone to the National List at §205.602 as a non-synthetic substance prohibited for use in organic crop production.

Back to the table of contents

 

Proposals

  • ZEIN

    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Background: This is the first time that zein has been petitioned for inclusion on the National List. It was first designated as GRAS (generally recognized as safe) by the FDA in 1984. The petitioner states that there is currently only one North American manufacturer of zein, the petitioner - Flo Corporation. Their stated manufacturing process is:
      “ Zein is derived from dent corn gluten meal. All of our zein production for the food industry comes from USA sourced, non-GMO corn. In addition, all of our production is certified OU Kosher.       Manufacturing: Flo Chemical Corporation manufactures (isolates) zein utilizing a proprietary process
      (Freeman Process), which was developed in 1976 by the company’s founders. Process starts with the
      following raw materials: non-GMO CGM, water and ethanol.”
      While it would be possible to manufacture organic zein with organic starting products, the manufacturer states that sourcing certified organic corn gluten meal for the production of organic zein is not currently possible. In addition, organic ethanol is reported by the petitioner to be prohibitively expensive.

  • Fish Oil

    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Background: During the sunset review of fish oil at the Spring 2019 NOSB meeting, the NOSB asked for comment on how to address environmental and conservation concerns raised about the
      manufacturing of fish oil. Public comment was received validating these concerns as well as
      suggesting annotative language to address this area of concern. These annotations were
      proposed by industry and trade associations as well as interest groups.                                                     The Handling Subcommittee would like to request a work agenda item to propose an annotation to fish oil to address environmental concerns. In August 2019, the National Organic Program (NOP) agreed to add this item to the NOSB work agenda. Specifically, the NOP stated: You have requested to review the current listing of fish oil and develop recommendations to address the environmental impact of harvesting of fish directly for their oil. Please limit your work to this topic; this work agenda item does not include the organic certification of fish (i.e. aquaculture or wild seafood standards). In your review, please consider how your recommendations would align with other Federal regulations addressing fish harvesting.

Sunset

  • Sunset 605(a) Non-agricultural Materials Used in Processing and Handling:

  • Agar-agar
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own 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. The technical review lists a number of substitutes. If the NOSB decides to relist agar, it should relist only nonsynthetic agar is made from Gellidium species.
  • Animal Enzymes
  • Calcium Sulfaate-mined
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Background: Sufficient evidence has not been presented to support the use of calcium sulfate for all food uses. Therefore, the NOSB should consider renewing the listing of calcium sulfate with the annotation, “For use only as a coagulant in bean curd (tofu and similar products),” and only after reevaluating the environmental impacts
  • Carrageenan
      • Beyond Pesticides' comments
      • Submit your own comment here
      • Background: Carrageenan should be removed from the National List. The evidence summarized by the 2015 Technical Review came up with a verdict of mixed results on virtually every issue regarding food grade (high molecular weight) carrageenan. However, there is widespread agreement that poligeenan, which contaminates food grade carrageenan at unknown and uncontrollable levels, does cause adverse effects, including cancer. The production causes adverse environmental impacts. And it is not necessary –organic processors have been moving away from the use of carrageen because of consumer pressure since it was last considered for sunset. This is made more urgent by the fact that the National Organic Program ignored the recommendation of the NOSB in spring of 2012 to remove carrageenan from infant foods.
  • Glucono delta-lactone
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Background: The current annotation— “production by the oxidation of D-glucose with bromine water is prohibited”—was added to ensure that glucono delta-lactone would be produced by microbial or enzymatic processes and hence be nonsynthetic. However, the 2016 technical review (TR) states, “There are many chemical methods of gluconic acid synthesis other than bromine water.” Hence, the current annotation is not sufficient to ensure that the glucono delta-lactone (GDL) in use in organic processing is nonsynthetic. It also states that some enzymes used in the production of GDL may be genetically engineered. The NOSB should not relist GDL without an annotation change to correct these issues.
  • Tartaric acid
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own 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
  • Chlorine materials
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Background: Organic production and handling should be, to the extent possible, chlorine-free. The NOSB should perform a comprehensive review of all sanitizers and disinfectants to determine the needs of organic production and handling and the safest materials.
  • Potassium hydroxide
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own 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. The NOSB must address the following questions: For what purposes is potassium hydroxide used in organic processing? What are the alternatives for those uses? Is further annotation necessary?
  • Potassium lactate and Sodium lactate
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Background: The use of sodium lactate and potassium lactate for the listed use is prohibited by organic regulations at §205.600(b)(4). Potassium lactate and sodium lactate are unnecessary. They are synthetic chemicals used for purposes not allowed in organic processing. Therefore, they should not be relisted.
  • Silicon dioxide
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Backgrouind: 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.” 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.

Back to the table of contents

Sunset

  • Sunset 603-604 Livestock Materials:

  • Activated Charcoal
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Background: Activated charcoal is used as the preferred therapeutic treatment as needed for treatment of suspected poisoning by plants or moldy silage. Activated charcoal removes toxic chemicals by adsorption. It is then excreted. In view of this action, activated charcoal should be  annotated to include proper handling of manure after treatment.
  • Calcium borgluconate
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Background: These calculations in the technical review suggest that a withdrawal period should be established. In addition, boron, boric acid, and borates have recently been classified as reproductive and  developmental toxicants.
  • Calcium propionate
  • Cholorine materials
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Background: While the uses of disinfectants vary so that no one method or material is likely to be effective in all cases, there are numerous alternative methods and materials that should allow organic producers and handlers to avoid the use of the most toxic materials—in particular, those containing chlorine. Regarding alternative materials for teat dips, the iodine technical review says, “The available information suggests that commercial antimicrobial products containing oxidizing chemicals (e.g., sodium chlorite, hypochlorite, iodophor), natural products composed of organic acids (e.g., lactic acid), and homemade products using vinegar (i.e., acetic acid) as the active ingredient may all be equally effective teat dip treatments.” The active ingredients identified by EPA’s Design for the Environment are safer and effective alternatives.
  • Kaolin pectin
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Background: Kaolin pectin is used as an adsorbent, antidiarrheal, and gut protectant in organic livestock production. There has been recent discussion of pectin by the NOSB as it is used in organic food processing, particularly relating to its classification. If pectin is non-amidated, then kaolin pectin is nonsynthetic and should not be listed. 
  • Mineral oil
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • There are issues to address before the relisting vote in the Fall. The FDA does not approve of this use, so how can it be allowed by NOP? Can the mineral oil listing be annotated to require a high degree of purity? Can vegetable oil be substituted?
  • Nutritive supplements
  • Propylene Glycol
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Propylene glycol is allowed for treating ketosis. A recent technical review is not available, but one respected organic veterinarian gives a number of suggestions for prevention (maintaining a high-energy diet before calving, including dry long-stemmed hay) and treatment (glucose IV, homeopathic lycopodium, molasses, and Wellness Tonic containing apple cider vinegar and aloe vera, with tinctures of rose hips, dandelion root and plantain).
  • Sodium chlorite
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Acidified sodium chlorite is used as a teat dip. According to the technical review, “The available information suggests that commercial antimicrobial products containing oxidizing chemicals (e.g., sodium chlorite, hypochlorite, iodophor), natural products composed of organic acids (e.g., lactic acid), and homemade products using vinegar (i.e., acetic acid) as the active ingredient may all be equally effective teat dip treatments.” Organic production should move away from hazardous  chlorine products.
  • Zinc sulfate
    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Zinc sulfate is used as a walk-through footbath, with spent liquid spread on fields with manure. If the NOSB decides to relist zinc sulfate, it should recommend an additional annotation comparable to the annotation for coppers in crops, requiring that zinc sulfate must be used and disposed of in a  manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil, as shown by routine soil testing.

Back to the table of contents

 

Discussion Documents

  • Research Priorities

    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Background: The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) presents an annual list of research priorities for organic food and agriculture. The NOSB’s Livestock, Crops, Handling, and Materials/GMO Subcommittees proposed an updated set of priorities at the Fall 2020 board meeting. That substantially updated list arose from public comments received by the NOSB and by concerns raised during the course of the Board’s work in the preceding year. The Board requests input from stakeholders on the 2021 research priorities and will review those comments for the Fall 2021 proposal.

  • Excluded Methods Determinations

    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Background: Cell fusion and protoplast fusion have a nuanced history in the context of the USDA’s National Organic Program and the work of the National Organic Standards Board. Cell fusion is included under terms defined at §205.2 as an excluded method. In 2013, the NOP clarified its position on both techniques in Policy Memo 13-1 allowing for both techniques to be used solely within taxonomic plant families. As work by the NOSB progressed in this area, cell fusion and protoplast fusion continue to be included as techniques to be evaluated on the excluded methods “TBD list” with notes indicating follow-up work by the NOSB.

Back to the table of contents

 

Discussion Documents

  • Oral and Written Comment Submissions

    • Beyond Pesticides' comments
    • Submit your own comment here
    • Background: The National Organic Standards Board is bound by regulation to conduct open meetings in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) along with the provisions of the Policy and Procedures Manual (PPM). Stakeholder submissions of written and oral comments are the backbone of community engagement, providing invaluable perspectives on the many issues that arise in organic systems. In the interest of maintaining fair and equal access to the Board by the stakeholder community, the Policy Development Subcommittee (PDS) is reviewing procedures on written and oral comments. PDS seeks to review the framework for written and oral comment submissions through engaging the organic community in a dialogue on best practices.

Back to the table of contents