[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
BIOTECHNOLOGY, HORTICULTURE, AND RESEARCH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 17, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-17
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-195 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Ranking
JIM COSTA, California Minority Member
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
FILEMON VELA, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands Arkansas
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
Vice Chair VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia DOUG LaMALFA, California
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York TED S. YOHO, Florida
TJ COX, California RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MIKE BOST, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
JOSH HARDER, California TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
KIM SCHRIER, Washington JAMES COMER, Kentucky
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DON BACON, Nebraska
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa
______
Anne Simmons, Staff Director
Matthew S. Schertz, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands, Chair
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York NEAL P. DUNN, Florida Ranking
TJ COX, California Minority Member
JOSH HARDER, California GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey DOUG LaMALFA, California
KIM SCHRIER, Washington RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine TED S. YOHO, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MIKE BOST, Illinois
JIMMY PANETTA, California JAMES COMER, Kentucky
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida
Brandon Honeycutt, Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Cox, Hon. TJ, a Representative in Congress from California; on
behalf of Robert Hawk, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Munger Companies, submitted letter............................. 35
Dunn, Hon. Neal P., a Representative in Congress from Florida,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 15
Pingree, Hon. Chellie, a Representative in Congress from Maine,
submitted fact sheet........................................... 37
Plaskett, Hon. Stacey E., a Delegate in Congress from Virgin
Islands, opening statement..................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Schrier, Hon. Kim, a Representative in Congress from Washington,
submitted article.............................................. 35
Witness
Ibach, Hon. Greg, Under Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory
Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.;
accompanied by Jennifer Tucker, Ph.D., Deputy Administrator,
National Organic Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Submitted questions.......................................... 38
ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Stacey E.
Plaskett [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Plaskett, Delgado, Cox,
Harder, Brindisi, Schrier, Pingree, Carbajal, Panetta, Lawson,
Peterson (ex officio), Dunn, Thompson, Hartzler, LaMalfa,
Davis, Bost, and Baird.
Staff present: Kellie Adesina, Malikha Daniels, Brandon
Honeycutt, Bart Fischer, Patricia Straughn, Jeremy Witte, Dana
Sandman, and Jennifer Yezak.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STACEY E. PLASKETT, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM VIRGIN ISLANDS
The Chair. Good morning. This hearing of the Subcommittee
on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research entitled,
Assessing the Effectiveness of the National Organic Program,
will come to order.
Thank you for joining us today as we examine the
effectiveness of the USDA's National Organic Program. As our
nation's food manufacturers, a growing number of producers, and
millions of consumers know, the USDA organic seal is a well-
recognized and sought-after symbol in the grocery store.
Ensuring the integrity of this seal is critically important to
not only protect consumer confidence, but also protect the
premium that organic producers continue to enjoy.
This industry has experienced a tremendous amount of growth
over the last 2 decades, with annual sales now totaling over
$50 billion. It is no longer a niche market in coastal cities,
but a core component of grocery lists and food budgets in towns
large and small.
My constituents, as well as those in other rural districts,
are seeking out organic products, and producers in the Virgin
Islands are interested in organic farming to diversify their
operations and increase profits.
Just as the sector has undergone tremendous change, so has
its farmers. Organic farmers and ranchers can now be found in
rural and urban communities across the country. They vary in
size and geographic location, but their mission remains the
same: to produce high-quality food that meets consumer
expectations through compliance with National Organic Program
standards.
Today, we are going to look at that program, the growth
within the sector, and needs for oversight and enforcement that
may exist. Like other sectors that have seen explosive growth,
the organic industry's expansion has not been without
challenges. As the Subcommittee with jurisdiction over
organics, we have a responsibility to oversee this rapidly
evolving segment without stifling the innovation that makes it
so unique.
We also must balance the demands for organic products,
while protecting the integrity of the organic seal. That goal
can be achieved through thorough oversight and strong
enforcement of the organic standards. Leading that oversight
are today's witnesses.
Under Secretary Greg Ibach and Dr. Jennifer Tucker, thank
you both for being here. USDA serves an essential role in the
regulation and enforcement of organic standards, so your work
is vital to this sector.
The power of the organic seal is in its integrity, in the
trust that consumers place in it. It is our job here in
Washington, both here and at the USDA, to ensure we are
safeguarding the integrity of the National Organic Program.
Just in recent months, we have seen this integrity challenged
with reports of fraudulent organic products being imported
domestically.
With these reports came consumer confusion, and a risk to
the reputation of our domestic organic supply chains. Such
incidents only highlighted the need for expanded authorities
for enforcement, increased resources, more staffing, and
stronger data collection: actions needed to be taken to protect
the program's integrity and restore consumer trust.
I am proud that the 2018 Farm Bill provided NOP with new
authorities to address the most pressing concerns of the
organic industry. Our legislation invested in NOP, vastly
expanded the program's authority for data collection, and
focused on interagency collaboration to best leverage expertise
across USDA and the Federal Government.
With these new authorities and investments, NOP should now
have the tools necessary to better protect the program's
integrity. In a time when farm incomes continue to lag behind
the rest of the economy, emerging domestic markets are a much-
needed source of demand for what farmers and ranchers produce.
The organic sector offers an opportunity for our farmers
and ranchers to invest in their operations, seek a premium on
their products, and meet a growing consumer demand. I look
forward to hearing today's testimony on where the USDA is in
terms of implementing organic programs authorized in the 2018
Farm Bill, and to a healthy dialogue about the performance of
the National Organic Program.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Plaskett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett, a Delegate in Congress
from Virgin Islands
Good morning, and thank you for joining us today as we examine the
effectiveness of the USDA's National Organic Program (NOP).
As our nation's food manufacturers, a growing number of producers,
and millions of consumers know, the USDA Organic Seal is a well-
recognized and sought-after symbol in the grocery aisle. Ensuring the
integrity of this seal is critically important to not only protect
consumer confidence, but to also protect the premium that organic
producers continue to enjoy.
This industry has experienced a tremendous amount of growth over
the last 2 decades, with annual sales now totaling over $50 billion. It
is no longer a niche market in coastal cities, but a core component of
grocery lists and food budgets in towns large and small. My
constituents, as well as those in other rural districts, are seeking
out organic products, and producers on the Virgin Islands are
interested in organic farming to diversify their operations and
increase profits.
Just as the sector has undergone tremendous change, so has its
farmers. Organic farmers and ranchers can now be found in rural and
urban communities across the country. They vary in size and geographic
location, but their mission remains the same: to produce high-quality
food that meets consumer expectations through compliance with the
National Organic Program's standards. Today, we're going to look at
that program, the growth within this sector, and any needs for
oversight and enforcement that may exist.
Like other sectors that have seen explosive growth, the organic
industry's expansion has not been without challenges. As the
Subcommittee with jurisdiction over organics, we have a responsibility
to oversee this rapidly-evolving segment without stifling the
innovation that makes it so unique. We also must balance the demand for
organic products while protecting the integrity of organic seal. That
goal can be achieved through thorough oversight and strong enforcement
of the organic standards.
Leading that oversight are today's witnesses--Under Secretary Greg
Ibach and Dr. Jennifer Tucker. Thank you both for being here. USDA
serves an essential role in the regulation and enforcement of organic
standards, so your work is vital to the sector.
The power of the organic seal is in its integrity--in the trust
that consumers place in it. It's our job here in Washington, both here
and at USDA, to ensure we're safeguarding the integrity of the National
Organic Program.
Just in recent months, we've seen this integrity challenged, with
reports of fraudulent organic products being imported domestically.
With these reports came consumer confusion, and a risk to the
reputations of domestic organic supply-chains.
Such incidents only highlighted the need for expanded authorities
for enforcement, increased resources, more staffing, and stronger data
collection. Action needed to be taken to protect the program's
integrity and restore consumer trust.
I am proud that the 2018 Farm Bill provided NOP with new
authorities to address the most pressing concerns of the organic
industry. Our legislation invested in the NOP, vastly expanded the
program's authority to crack down on fraudulent organic imports,
provided resources for data collection, and focused on interagency
collaboration to best leverage expertise across USDA and the Federal
Government. With these new authorities and investments, NOP should now
have the tools necessary to better protect the program's integrity.
In a time when farm incomes continue to lag behind the rest of the
economy, emerging domestic markets are a much-needed source of demand
for what farmers and ranchers produce. The organic sector offers an
opportunity for our farmers and ranchers to invest in their operations,
seek a premium on their products, and meet a growing consumer demand.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony on where the USDA is in
terms of implementing organic programs authorized in the 2018 Farm
Bill, and to a healthy dialogue about the performance of the National
Organic Program.
Now I'd like to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr.
Dunn of Florida, for any opening remarks he would like to make.
The Chair. I would like to recognize the distinguished
Ranking Member, Mr. Dunn of Florida, for any opening remarks he
may like to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NEAL P. DUNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA
Mr. Dunn. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank
you for holding today's hearing to review the National Organic
Program.
Consumer demand for agriculture goods produced under the
organic seal continues to show double-digit growth, providing
market incentives for U.S. farmers across a large range of
products. According to USDA, organic sales account for over
four percent of U.S. food sales and U.S. farms and ranches, in
2016, sold $7.6 billion worth of organic commodities.
However, these successes have not come without challenges.
Increases in domestic production have not been able to keep up
with the increase in demand, which has created import
pressures. And as we know, over the last several years, we have
continued to hear reports of fraudulent imports of organic
products coming to the U.S. undercutting our domestic producers
and creating some distrust.
And the 2018 Farm Bill tackled the problem by providing the
NOP with additional authorities to secure the industry from
fraud, including robust import certification and access to
cross-border documentation systems administered by other
Federal agencies and oversight of certifying agents operating
in foreign countries. I know USDA has made good progress in
implementing these provisions. I look forward to hearing about
that progress from Under Secretary Ibach today.
Finally, I would like to highlight a few other challenges
that, in my view, threaten the legitimacy of the program, and
the organic industry as a whole. I think pushing overly
prescriptive regulations and disparaging non-organic production
practices, and inhibiting other organic producers' ability to
use innovative practices does not move the industry forward.
Selling products under the organic seal comes with a
responsibility, and it is my hope that the National Organic
Program, in addition to other USDA marketing programs, can
continue to serve as an effective value-added tool benefiting
the agriculture community as a whole.
And I thank you, Secretary Ibach, for being here today. And
I look forward to hearing your testimony.
And, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you.
I would like to welcome USDA Under Secretary for Marketing
and Regulatory Programs, Greg Ibach. In this role, Under
Secretary Ibach has oversight over the Agricultural Marketing
Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
APHIS. AMS includes the National Organic Program, which we will
discuss today. Thank you for being here.
Under Secretary Ibach is accompanied by Dr. Jennifer
Tucker, Deputy Administrator for the National Organic Program
at AMS. Dr. Tucker, thank you for helping in responding to our
questions today. I understand that the Under Secretary, will be
the one who will be given 5 minutes to make a statement. I
would also--and when the 1 minute is left--you have 5 minutes--
the light will turn yellow as a signal for you to start
wrapping up your testimony, which I am sure you know very well.
I also want to state, the chair would request that other
Members submit opening statements for the record if they so
wish, so the witness may begin with his testimony, to ensure
that there is ample time for questions.
Under Secretary, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF HON. GREG IBACH, UNDER SECRETARY,
MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.;
ACCOMPANIED BY JENNIFER TUCKER, Ph.D., DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM,
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, USDA
Mr. Ibach. Okay. Thank you very much, Chair Plaskett,
Ranking Member Dunn, and other Members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I look
forward to our discussion of organic agriculture and the
critical role the USDA's National Organic Program plays in
ensuring the integrity of the organic label.
I am Greg Ibach, Under Secretary for USDA's Marketing and
Regulatory Program's mission area. With me today, as has been
introduced, is Dr. Jennifer Tucker, the Deputy Administrator
who oversees the National Organic Program, or NOP.
Today, I would like to provide an update on both our
foreign and domestic enforcement activities. I will also update
you on the Department's implementation of the organic
provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill. Protecting the integrity of
the organic label is more important than ever as the industry
continues to grow.
Sales reached a record $52.5 billion in 2018, up over six
percent from the previous year. This includes 1,000 new farms
that were certified in the U.S. last year. This growth has been
supported by USDA's development of clear and enforceable
organic standards. These standards describe how farmers grow
crops and raise livestock, and which herbicides, pesticides,
and fertilizers they may use throughout the process.
Congress established the NOP as a public-private
partnership, so certifiers are key to enforcement. The NOP
ensures each certifier has the experience, training, and tools
they need to be effective. However, when compliance is not
achieved, certifiers are suspended. For example, in May, NOP
suspended a certifier's office in Turkey because they could not
demonstrate the ability to effectively oversee organic
operations in the Black Sea region.
This heightened oversight and enforcement, since 2016, has
resulted in at least 180 operations in that region losing their
organic certification. By weeding out these bad actors, USDA
helps create opportunities for expanded organic production here
in the U.S.
Another success story involves our collaboration with
APHIS. In March, APHIS notified NOP staff that a shipment of
organic bell peppers to Philadelphia had been fumigated, a
prohibited practice under the NOP regulations. They provided
evidence used to identify the importer and prevent the peppers
from being marketed as organic in the U.S.
In addition to enhanced oversight of imports, we are also
overseeing and protecting the domestic market. The NOP resolves
just under 500 inquiries and investigations every year. Eighty-
five percent of those involve U.S.-based businesses.
The NOP has increased its coordination with the USDA Office
of Inspector General for criminal violations, and a recent
investigation resulted in significant penalties for domestic
fraud. This case involved $140 million in sales of grain, which
was fraudulently marketed as organic.
Finally, I want to thank you for the enhanced enforcement
provisions provided in the 2018 Farm Bill, and I will provide
the following highlights on our implementation progress to
date. Provisions requiring import certificates and closing
certification loopholes will be included in the strengthening
organic enforcement rulemaking that AMS was working on prior to
passage of the 2018 Farm Bill. AMS expects to publish this
proposed rule this fall.
In May, AMS, Customs and Border Protection, and APHIS
formed an interagency working group for coordination,
reporting, and information sharing related to organic imports
and integrity. The first working group meeting was on June 27.
AMS recently entered into an interagency agreement with CBP to
automate NOP's import certificate to reduce paper processing
and improve traceability and accountability for organic
imports.
With these new farm bill tools and a renewed emphasis on
enforcement, USDA is committed to supporting organic farmers
and ranchers by developing clear standards and creating a level
playing field to support farmers and businesses producing
organic food. A level playing field across countries also
expands opportunities to open new markets for U.S. organic
businesses.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ibach follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Ibach, Under Secretary, Marketing and
Regulatory Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Chair Plaskett, Ranking Member Dunn, and other Members of the
Subcommittee and full Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss organic agriculture and the role of
USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) in ensuring the integrity of the
organic label. I am Greg Ibach, Under Secretary for USDA's Marketing
and Regulatory Programs. With me today is Dr. Jennifer Tucker, the
Deputy Administrator who oversees the NOP. The NOP facilitates market
access for organic agricultural products and conducts compliance and
enforcement activities that protect the integrity of the organic label.
Today I would like to provide you the latest information on our
enforcement activities, specifically as they relate to organic imports,
as well as update you on the status of the Agricultural Marketing
Service's (AMS) implementation of the organic provisions in the 2018
Farm Bill.
How the NOP Works
This May, the Organic Trade Association released the results of
their 2019 Organic Industry Survey which showed 2018 organic sales
reaching $52.5 billion, up 6.3 percent from the previous year. USDA-
approved certifiers issued just over 1,000 new certifications for
organic operations in the United States and 713 certifications for
international operations in 2018. USDA develops clear and enforceable
organic certification standards that describe how farmers grow crops
and raise livestock and which substances they may use throughout the
product's lifecycle, from farm to market.
Agricultural products that are sold, labeled, or represented as
organic must be produced and processed in accordance with the NOP
standards. All farms and processors with more than $5,000 in annual
organic sales must be certified organic. The certification process
verifies that a farm or handling facility complies with organic
regulations and allows products to be represented as organic.
Seventy-eight certifying agents are currently USDA-accredited and
authorized to certify to the USDA organic standards for more than
43,000 operations around the world. Each of these certifying agents is
authorized to issue an organic certificate to operations that comply
with the USDA organic regulations.
NOP accredits state Departments of Agriculture and private
certifying agents around the world who ensure producers and handlers
are in compliance with the National Organic Standards.
Oversight and Enforcement
Consumers choose to purchase organic products expecting that they
are grown, processed, and handled according to the USDA organic
regulations. A high-quality regulatory program benefits organic farmers
and processors by taking action against those who violate the law.
Every year, five percent of farms and businesses are selected for
an unannounced inspection, and five percent have their products tested
for residues of prohibited substances--such as synthetic pesticides,
antibiotics, or arsenic. Certifiers follow-up on any noncompliances
with operations to either bring them into compliance or to initiate
adverse actions, such as proposed suspensions.
In addition to unannounced inspections, the public--from consumers
to producers to other organic market participants--submits complaints
of suspected violations of the USDA organic regulations to the USDA.
These complaints allege that farms and businesses are using the USDA
organic seal incorrectly, selling products under the label without
certification, or using prohibited substances. Certifying agents and
the USDA collaborate to address each complaint, taking enforcement
action when appropriate. Punishments may include financial penalties up
to $11,000 per violation and/or suspension or revocation of an
operation's organic certificate.
Risk-Based Complaint and Appeals Management
Risk analysis makes it possible for NOP staff to focus resources
where they have the greatest impact. Between October 2018 and March
2019, NOP received about 260 complaints and inquiries.
Simple inquiries are now handled by intake staff, providing
customers with answers faster and saving analyst time for more
complex investigations. NOP resolved 113 inquiries using this
approach between October 2018 and March 2019.
Complaints about uncertified businesses selling products as
organic are handled by a team trained to reduce case processing
times and to compel compliance faster. These cases continue to
account for more than fifty percent of complaints received by
NOP. Many of these cases result in farms and businesses
successfully seeking organic certification--they were not aware
that certification was required, so they seek it in response to
our contact with them. Others come into compliance by no longer
falsely selling their products as organic.
Complex cases are assigned to experienced NOP investigators.
This specialization allows the team to initiate investigations
more quickly than in the past. NOP has also increased its work
with the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG), referring
cases that include potential criminal activity for
investigation by other Federal law enforcement partners. While
some cases are dismissed due to insufficient evidence, others
result in warning letters, cease and desist notices, civil
penalties, or suspensions of existing certifications. Last
year, approximately half our cases resulted in no findings,
because there was insufficient evidence, or no violation was
found. The other half led to some time of enforcement action,
leading either to compliance or the businesses exiting the
organic market.
NOP continues to meet its target of resolving 90 percent of appeals
within 180 days of receipt. Between October 2018 and March 2019, NOP
closed 22 appeal cases with an average processing time of 99 days. By
focusing resources on the most complicated cases with the highest risk
to the market, NOP closed 175 complaint investigations and inquiries
between October 2018 and March 2019. In addition, NOP launched the
COMPLIANCE Database in March 2019. This new tool allows the team to
better track case progress and more quickly identify patterns and
relationships across complaints.
Certifier Oversight
Congress established NOP as a public-private partnership. The 78
federally-accredited certifiers include private companies, nonprofits,
and state Departments of Agriculture, all of which have a critical role
in organic oversight and enforcement. In total, certifiers suspended
326 operations for noncompliance with organic standards. This number
has stayed consistent over time and reaffirms that most organic
operations are complying with the rules or come into compliance quickly
when problems are found.
The NOP accreditation team ensures certifier staff have the
experience, training and tools they need to be effective. NOP staff
conducted 14 audits of certifiers, including four satellite offices, in
the past 6 months. The findings continue to demonstrate 94 percent of
accreditation compliance criteria being met across certifiers last
year.
In cases where a certifier fails to meet accreditation compliance
criteria, NOP issues a ``notice of noncompliance,'' which the certifier
must address. When noncompliances are not adequately addressed, NOP may
propose the suspension of a certifier's accreditation. In these cases,
NOP may choose to enter into settlement agreements to quickly bring the
certifier into compliance. In other cases, the adverse action process
continues, and the certifier's accreditation may be suspended. To
comply with due process rights, enforcement actions may not be made
public until due process is completed.
When compliance is not achieved, certifiers are suspended. In
September 2018, a certification company based in Bolivia, accepted a
suspension of its organic accreditation under a Consent Order with an
Administrative Law Judge. The suspension was due to the fact that the
entity was unable to demonstrate an ability to comply with the USDA
organic regulations. In May 2019, NOP suspended a certifying
organization in Turkey, because they did not demonstrate the ability to
effectively ensure compliance and oversee organic operations in the
Black Sea region. Following a suspension, organic companies that want
to import into the U.S. must surrender their certifications or reapply
for certification with new certifiers.
Import Oversight
The size and complexity of organic trade has grown over time, and
many U.S. businesses rely on imports to create the organic products
that consumers want. As the organic market grows, many growers,
processors, and handlers are working within multi-business supply
chains, often across borders. Organic handlers play a vital role in
ensuring the integrity of organic products from farm to market.
The value of U.S. organic imports continued to increase in 2018,
reaching $2.2 billion, a nine percent increase from 2017 (Source: USDA
Foreign Agricultural Service). Given this growth, import oversight
continues to be an area of focus for NOP, with five key initiatives
that directly support enforcement.
(1) Farm-Level Yield Analysis
NOP is investing heavily to improve oversight of the complex supply
chains stretching from the Black Sea region to the United States. NOP
is also focusing on farm-level activities in high volume regions with
multiple risk factors. To support these investigations, NOP conducted a
review of all certified organic grain and oilseed producers in three
Black Sea region countries using farm-level records, region-level data
and international weather models. The analysis revealed a concerning
pattern of organic farms reporting yields that far exceed regional
averages. This analysis provided targeted information about specific
farms and certifiers that is directly supporting active enforcement
actions. Since the NOP began its investigative work on this region in
2016, more than 180 operations have surrendered their certification.
In the fall of 2018, NOP trained certifiers to use these new
analytical tools for researching regional data on yields, equipping
participants to evaluate farm-level records against a range of open-
source data as a part of organic certification. This training is also
available in the Organic Integrity Learning Center. In addition to
enforcement actions, NOP continues to develop training for certifiers
to make this kind of analysis part of regular producer oversight.
(2) Supply Chain Research
To support supply chain investigations, NOP has also completed a
project to illuminate the business relationships between high-impact
farms, consolidators, handlers and exporters in the Black Sea region.
This has involved the investigation of more than 450 shipping records
and a comprehensive review of the shipment handling process for organic
shipments of corn and soybeans entering the United States from the
region since 2016. This initiative directly supports the development of
risk-based oversight models and helps us effectively target our
resources. We will now deploy this approach to investigate different
specialty commodities in other regions.
(3) Ship-Specific Surveillance
Over the last year several organic industry organizations have
requested NOP investigate specific shipments from the Black Sea region
for fraud. NOP has used information both provided by importers and
accessed through Customs and Border Protection's Systems to engage in
ship-specific surveillance projects each time there has been credible
information and enough detail to identify the entities involved. This
has resulted in numerous vessel reviews and collaboration with U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) colleagues for additional support,
where appropriate. All these shipments have been traceable back to
certified organic farms and handlers.
These ship-specific research activities are important for market
surveillance and highlight the need for farm-level yield analyses.
Although they have not revealed specific fraudulent activity on their
own, in some cases, we found that the certifier involved had not
performed adequate oversight of farms or supply chains. As a result,
NOP has increased the focus on certifier competency to improve
oversight systems at all levels of the public-private partnership
designed by Congress.
Working collaboratively, actions and information sharing across
Customs and Border Protection, the Agricultural Marketing Service, and
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service have heightened
oversight and enforcement actions in the Black Sea region have impacted
the marketplace. At least 180 operations (60 percent) in the Black Sea
region have lost their organic certification. The remaining certified
operations are undergoing increased scrutiny. In 2016, imports from the
Black Sea region represented 49 percent of the dollar value of key
commodities; in 2018, imports from the region had dropped to 21 percent
of that total dollar value. NOP staff are watching for risk factors,
such as spikes in exports from other regions, that could trigger
increased scrutiny.
(4) Country-Commodity Studies
Because of the structure of organic certification and oversight, we
often are investigating specific certifiers, operations, or supply
chains. For effective risk-based surveillance, it is also important to
study country and commodity combinations, such as a specialty crop
coming from a specific country where organic imports have suddenly
jumped. To support this layer of investigation, NOP has initiated a
study with an international accreditation nonprofit to conduct two
country-commodity studies. The goal of this study is to develop
standard approaches for examining risks, or emerging risks, at the
commodity level across an entire country. For example, certain factors
may be more important than others in signaling there is an increased
risk for fraud with respect to a particular organic commodity or in a
region. Identifying the most important and common factors will drive
future risk-based oversight approaches.
(5) Fumigation Investigations
NOP continues to collaborate with APHIS to investigate the possible
fumigation of products labeled as organic. As an example, in March
2019, the APHIS team at Port of Philadelphia notified NOP staff that a
shipment of about 350 boxes of bell peppers labeled as organic had been
fumigated. They provided label photographs and supply chain documents,
including invoices. Label photographs are critical evidence but are not
included in the text-only automated fumigation reports currently
provided by the APHIS database. NOP used the evidence and available
trade data to identify the importer who promptly replaced the
individual stickers on each pepper and papered over the word
``organic'' on all bulk containers. In addition to providing evidence
of the relabeling, the importer voluntarily shared that a similar
shipment was on its way to Miami and would also be relabeled to remove
organic claims. NOP is working with APHIS to expand this type of
information sharing to other ports.
Domestic Oversight
We have made significant progress in protecting the integrity of
organic imports. We are also overseeing and protecting the market here
at home. The NOP resolves just under 500 inquiries and investigations
every year. Eighty-five percent of these complaints relate to U.S.-
based businesses. The NOP has also increased its coordination with the
USDA OIG for criminal violations. This increases the penalties against
the most serious violators who threaten to defraud legitimate organic
businesspeople.
Recently, an OIG-NOP investigation delivered significant penalties
for domestic fraud through the U.S. Attorney's office. Five individuals
pled guilty to conspiring to sell grain which was fraudulently marketed
as organic in a scheme totaling $140 million in sales. USDA is serious
about enforcing a fair market for organic farms and businesses.
In the U.S. organic dairy sector, in 2018, USDA initiated a Dairy
Compliance Project to better assess industry compliance with the USDA
organic regulations, particularly with respect to the pasture standard.
This initiative began with face-to-face training on pasture compliance
for certifiers in January of 2018. This was followed by unannounced,
on-the-ground visits by Federal auditors to assess both certifier and
operation compliance. The visits were conducted at dairies across the
United States.
The visits confirmed that all the dairies visited were grazing
their animals on pasture. Several correctable issues were identified,
requiring action from operations. This work also resulted in targeted
audits of certifiers based on their oversight of specific livestock
operations. We will also be publishing training materials this summer
to ensure that certifiers and operations have the same information
needed to ensure compliance. Based on the 2018 results, we are
expanding the Dairy Compliance Project in 2019 and visits are currently
underway.
2018 Farm Bill
Congress provided us with additional tools for enforcement in the
2018 Farm Bill, which we continue to make progress toward fully
implementing. Here are a few highlights of our implementation progress
to date:
Provisions requiring the Secretary to issue regulations to
limit the type of operations that are excluded from organic
certification, as well as requiring the use of import
certificates, will be included in the Strengthening Organic
Enforcement rulemaking that AMS was working on prior to passage
of the 2018 Farm Bill. AMS expects to publish the proposed rule
late this Fall.
In May, AMS, CBP, and APHIS formed the Organic Agricultural
Product Imports Interagency Working Group for coordination,
reporting and information sharing related to organic imports
and integrity. The first Working Group meeting was on June 27,
2019 and it will meet monthly.
AMS recently entered into an inter-agency agreement with CBP
and provided approximately $700,000 to fund the development of
an Organic Message Set in CBP's Automated Commercial
Environment. This message set will automate NOP's Import
Certificate to reduce paper processing and improve traceability
and accountability for organic imports. Government personnel
will be able to identify organic shipments that cannot be
flagged through organic-specific Harmonized Tariff Schedule
codes, of which there are only a few dozen. This will allow
personnel to respond to fraud investigation requests more
rapidly and perform preliminary analysis of risk with minimal
reporting burden for partners.
Conclusion
Organic agriculture continues to provide economic opportunities for
thousands of American farmers and ranchers. USDA is committed to
supporting these farmers and ranchers by developing clear standards for
organic operations and by promoting compliance through meaningful
enforcement action. In doing so, USDA continues to ensure the organic
seal maintains consumer confidence, so producers can benefit from
growing consumer demand in both domestic and international markets.
Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair. Thank you for that. Just note that the time is
not working up here. I am sorry?
Ms. Yezak. It is working here.
The Chair. Okay. How am I going to know when my colleagues
are out of time?
Ms. Yezak. With the red light.
The Chair. Oh, I have to look over there.
Ms. Yezak. For now. They are working on it.
The Chair. That means I will have to stay focused, okay. I
can't wander off in my head. Great. Okay. We are going to take
a second to unplug and plug back up and see if that works.
[Recess.]
The Chair. Okay. We will begin and I will make a point of
checking the light. Okay.
Under Secretary Ibach, thank you so much for being here,
and this is a burgeoning area. People are enormously interested
in this. Everyone wants to know what is happening in organics
in all of our districts. I think that is part of the reason why
we have the number of Members that are on this Subcommittee,
particularly because of the organic component to it.
And I am glad to hear--one of the things I wanted you all
to talk about is, if you could help me understand--just a
moment--you said that the--your testimony focused on
enforcement measures used to protect against fraudulent organic
imports. I think that is important to protect consumer
confidence, but it underscores the idea that our domestic
production cannot keep up with demand. What is NOP doing to
help grow domestic production?
Mr. Ibach. One of the most important things that we are
doing to help spur domestic production is taking action against
fraudulent imports. Domestic producers need to have a level
playing field to be able to compete on, and when imports don't
meet the same standards that are expected of our domestic
producers, that creates that unfair playing field that they
struggle with.
As we have seen the reduction in the number of certified
operations outside the United States, we have seen growth
within the United States as there are more opportunities
provided to fill that gap.
The Chair. But now, if you are suspending certification, in
some instances, of exporters, how will domestic supply chains
be impacted by that? What percentage of that is exports that
would cause a change to the supply chain?
Mr. Ibach. We are seeing a good response. Most of the
imports coming in were feedgrains that were used in animal
agriculture, organic animal agriculture. And we are seeing more
producers across the country, especially in the Midwest, where
some of them operate at scale that are embracing the
opportunity and the margins that they see in the organic
industry.
The Chair. Okay. I want to applaud the NOP's certification
cost-share program for assisting producers in offsetting
expenses related to organic certification. In my district, in
the Virgin Islands, unfortunately, we have a low number of
farmers that are certified as organic growers. In addition to
the efforts under the cost-share program, what steps has the
Department taken to increase technical assistance--outreach to
increase organic certifications among small- or medium-sized
farmers in areas that may not be as advanced in this?
Mr. Ibach. The cost-share program, as you know, in the last
Administration, was transferred from AMS to FSA, Farm Service
Agency, and producers now go into their local Farm Service
Agency office to apply for those cost-share dollars. And but we
are also working to be able to have materials available on the
website, as well as through other avenues to increase
producers' awareness of how to go about qualifying for
certification.
The Chair. Is there a means for them to get physical
assistance from a human being other than a pamphlet or website
to support them, helping them walk through that? What would be
the component of USDA that would assist them in doing that?
Mr. Ibach. Are you specifically asking about the cost-share
program?
The Chair. No, other ways of getting technical support. Dr.
Tucker is showing you something.
Mr. Ibach. Yes. The certifiers is their main responsibility
to do that, and so, by making sure our certifiers are educated
and they have access to understanding where to approach them,
they provide a lot of that educational opportunity.
The Chair. And how do we expand the number of certifiers
that are available for people to get that assistance?
Mr. Ibach. Certifiers are a third-party system, and that is
driven by market demand, and as we have more demand, we will
see more certifiers.
The Chair. Okay. And my last question is, what is the
status of the origin of livestock rule that was previously
proposed by your agency? When can we expect your agency to
issue a final rule on that one?
Mr. Ibach. We are also very interested in the origin of
livestock rule. We have heard from a number of clients across
the country that have their interest in that. We share the
interest in completing the rulemaking process, and we are
exploring the best options to get that done. We hope to have a
rule drafted for interagency review yet this year.
The Chair. Okay. Great. Just one last thought is that the
individuals who become certified are driven by the third-party
certifiers. And I am wondering if there may be ways to try and
incentivize them to go into areas where they haven't gone
before or in markets that they have thought about or not as
easy.
It is easy for a certifier to be in a place where there are
already a bunch of certified growers, or even in urban areas.
But to go to more remote places to expand that, I am wondering
if there are ways that we can, both here in the House as well
as your agency, support and create incentives for them to go in
places where we haven't seen them before.
Mr. Ibach. We would definitely be interested in exploring
that discussion and seeing what we could do to help enhance the
availability of certifiers in areas that are deficient.
The Chair. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Mr. Dunn, the Ranking Member.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me just say
parenthetically, it would be pretty easy to incentivize people
to go to the Virgin Islands for any reason.
Thank you also for being here, Under Secretary Ibach. I
mentioned in my opening statement, the 2018 Farm Bill did
provide the USDA with some additional authorities to assist
with fraudulent imports and encourage cooperation with the
Border Patrol. What are some of the new ways you are
cooperating with the Border Patrol, and how did we help you
with our farm bill?
Mr. Ibach. Yes. The farm bill very much provided some
opportunities to increase our level of cooperation, not only
with the Border Patrol, but we have also focused on increasing
our cooperation within USDA. APHIS, which is the other agency
in Marketing and Regulatory Program mission area, has access to
a lot of data on imports coming in as they seek to ensure and
protect U.S. agriculture from pest and disease.
We have paired not only APHIS with CBP, and have a working
group working together, but we also have been able to invest
some funds with CBP to be able to enhance their database and
their electronic ability to be able to enter our organic
certificates into that system.
Mr. Dunn. Excellent. I am happy to hear that.
Many farmers are faced with growing disease and
environmental pressures, and yet, all too often, they lack the
organic crop protection tools to meet the needs that these
present to them. And often, breeding disease resistant
cultivars will help, but in recent years, diseases like downy
mildew evolve faster than the breeders can keep up.
However, there are new tools, such as gene editing that can
enable plant breeders to quickly and precisely make edits to a
plant's own genome, changes that could easily happen naturally,
or through breeding processes, but require more time. This
could help with disease resistance, drought tolerance, among
other benefits.
Do you see certain sustainability minded applications such
as these to potentially be consistent with the organic plant
program?
Mr. Ibach. As the National Organic Standards Board set the
rules originally, right now GMO or transgenics are not eligible
to be in the organic program. But as you have mentioned, we
have seen new technology evolve that includes gene editing that
accomplishes things in shorter periods of time that can be done
through a natural breeding process.
And there is the opportunity to open the discussion to
consider whether it is appropriate for some of these new
technologies that include gene editing to be eligible to be
used to enhance organic production, and to have resistant
varieties, drought resistant, disease resistant varieties as
well as higher yielding varieties available.
Mr. Dunn. I appreciate your comments on that. Sometimes we
are more afraid of science than we should be.
In your testimony, you highlighted a recent investigation
in which five individuals pled guilty to conspiring to sell
grain that was fraudulently marketed as organic. What are some
of the ways that the National Organic Program exercises its
enforcement capabilities, domestically and internationally?
Mr. Ibach. Internationally, one of the things that we
utilize is data and statistics to analyze whether or not the
imports coming in are realistic compared to the acres under
production, and the yields that we should anticipate for those
regions to be able to produce. And when those numbers look like
they are not lining up, that gives us reason to pursue the
certifiers and the farmers that are supplying those supply
chains, and so, that is an important tool we use.
Domestically, we have opportunities, through auditing that
we do, to be able to look and see whether or not we see
weaknesses that we need to follow up on as we go through that.
Would you like to add anything to that, Dr. Tucker?
Dr. Tucker. We use a variety of tools to enforce both
domestically and internationally. Often, farmers that receive
any kind of cease and desist or notice of warning very quickly
come into compliance. We have also increased our collaboration
with the Office of Inspector General to pursue cases where
there is suspected criminal activity.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much. My time has expired. I want
to thank you both again for coming today, and thank you, again,
for having this hearing, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you.
At this time I recognize Mr. Delgado, of New York, for his
5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Delgado. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you, Under Secretary.
According to the latest Census of Agriculture data, in my
district, upstate New York, New York 19, there are nearly 5,000
farms. Of those, 96 percent are smaller family farms, but only
about five percent farm organically. As families in my district
and across the country struggle during this down farm economy,
what outreach is the USDA doing to small- and medium-scale
producers who could benefit from organic production to increase
margins?
And I know you spoke earlier about the ways in which
enforcing fraudulent imports has helped spur domestic
production, but I am more interested in hearing about what we
are doing within our borders to more target these areas and
help facilitate our farmers who are struggling?
Mr. Ibach. I think that what we do to be able to ensure
that consumers continue to have confidence in organic
production when they go to the grocery store is important. I
think that there are some rules and the procedures to be able
to be certified. The 3 year conversion period is a hurdle to
smaller farmers as they consider whether or not to transition
to organic production.
I don't necessarily know that we want to change that. But I
think that as they see market opportunities, they weigh the
cost of conversion with the bonuses available to them, or the
higher prices available to them, and they make individual
decisions that we don't necessarily drive or control at USDA.
But, as long as we have a strong program, we will provide
opportunities for additional producers to enter the organic
production cycle.
Mr. Delgado. You mentioned weighing the cost of
transitioning, and the burden that might go along with that
process. Actually, not long ago, I was at a farm, a dairy farm
in Hoosick Falls up in my district, the Sheffer's Grassland
Dairy Farm.
And the gentleman decided around 2014, right before the
dairy market really took a hit, he had a good year that year
and said he was going to transition to organic. And he walked
me through the numbers and the economics around that. We are
talking hundreds of thousands of dollars to make that
transition.
Has any thought been given, particularly now, post 2014,
when the economy is even more difficult to think through how we
can make it easier, transition wise, cost wise for our small-
family, medium-size farms to make that transition, particularly
if they see that on the other side of that transition, there
could be real economic benefit?
Mr. Ibach. I think that that is part of the discussion area
that the National Organic Standards Board considers as to what
the rules for transition are and how any easing or changing of
that rule affects the integrity of the overall program and the
access to the marketplace, and whether or not there are ways to
make that less time requirement or easier.
And at this point in time, we haven't seen a lot of support
to lessen those standards that would provide a--less cost
involved. But we do see more and more producers entering into
organics each year, six percent increase in production, 1,000
new farms. There are opportunities for producers that do want
to make the transition to do that.
Mr. Delgado. Just one more follow-up. You said there is not
a lot of support for lessening the standards for transitioning.
Can you just unpack that a little bit for me?
Mr. Ibach. Jennifer, would you like to be a little bit more
specific there for me?
Dr. Tucker. I think the organic standards need to be
strong, which means there are a number of very specific steps
that organic farms need to go through in order to transition.
And there has not been interest in lessening the strictness of
those transition standards. The U.S. has the high gold standard
for organic standards and we want to uphold that.
Mr. Delgado. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you.
We are honored to have with us in the Subcommittee the
Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Collin Peterson. I will
recognize him at this time if he has any questions, or anything
he would like to state at this time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just have one question, or issue. Sorry I wasn't here
earlier, you touched on that you are trying to crack down on
these issues that are coming out of Turkey and Black Sea region
and so forth, and I am glad to hear that.
Can you tell me, how did your staff handle these complaints
when you have a suspected violation, and how do they ensure
that the organic standards in those countries are actually
being upheld when you have a specific situation like this?
Mr. Ibach. We are very much, part of our responsibility is
to follow up on complaints or concerns that we are made aware
of. We have auditors that go into the marketplace, whether it
be a domestic or a foreign marketplace, to take a look at the
certifiers, and, if we need to, into some of the farms that
have been certified to be able to ensure that the rules of the
National Organic Program are being followed. And so, it is
through that process of audit and investigation that we are
able to identify avenues and specific certifiers that aren't
following our rules.
Mr. Peterson. Well, for example, some of the dairies in my
area are concerned that this feed coming in from Turkey is not
organic. Do you actually go to a farm? Do you actually go to
the producers and check it out, or do you just take somebody's
word for it, how does that work?
Mr. Ibach. Our first avenue is through the certifiers to
make sure that we audit them to know that their procedures that
they are using to certify individual farmers are in compliance
with our standards. But we also, if needed, will go to
individual farms to do audits to verify what the certifiers are
doing.
And as a result, we have seen 180 different farms that have
dropped their certification in the Baltic region, or in the
Black Sea region. And we have seen imports drop from that
region from where they were about \1/2\ of all the imports of
those commodities coming in a few years ago to where they are
now only about 21 percent of the imports coming in. We have
seen our enforcement result in a change in where commodities
are coming from.
Mr. Peterson. I take it that you have enough folks to be
able to do what you need to do at this point. Do you think you
are going have enough people, going forward, as we have an
increased demand for organic, and an increase in the industry,
are you going to have enough people to keep on top of this to
make sure that this has integrity?
Mr. Ibach. Yes, that is a great question. And so, the
monies that were provided to USDA organic program through the
last farm bill gave us a lot of opportunities to try to gain
some efficiencies. The cooperative relationship we have entered
into with CBP is going to allow us to move away from a paper
system to an electronic system.
And when we do that, we will be able to shift resources
around. And at this time, we feel like we would have sufficient
resources to be able to meet the current demands as well as
what we expect demand for our resources and certifiers and
auditors, auditors of the certifiers and farmers to be.
Mr. Peterson. Well, thank you. I am glad, I hope that that
is the case. And I would just say that my area, right now,
other than the large-scale farms, the only folks that are
actually making any money in dairy are the organic people.
And one of the reasons is it is a somewhat limited market,
because it does cost a lot of money to get into it. We have to
be careful that we don't want to make this so easy that it
oversupplies and collapses that market like we have
oversupplied the overall milk market.
I have some sympathy for people trying to get into this,
but you would be better off to try to figure out how to give
them resources to comply with the regulations than it would be
to try to lower the regulations, in my opinion.
But anyway, thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
We now call on Mr. Davis of Illinois, my very, very good
friend, Rodney.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I have not had the
opportunity in this hearing room to congratulate you on
ascending to the chair. It is a tremendous step up from the
last guy who chaired this Subcommittee.
The Chair. Good things do happen in Congress.
Mr. Davis. Absolutely. Well, congratulations to you, Madam
Chair, and to the Ranking Member, Mr. Dunn. This is a great
Subcommittee to be a part of. And as somebody coming from the
flatland of America, central Illinois, when I got here, I
didn't expect to focus a lot of our efforts and my efforts on
organic issues.
While my district is certainly not the salad bowl of
America like my colleague, Mr. Panetta's, where organics seem
to outnumber the small number of organic acreage I have in my
district, the demand for organic products ironically is going
to be driven by areas of this country that don't grow any food.
And more and more producers are going to look at organic
demand and want to make that transition. My goal on this
Committee, over the last 6\1/2\ years, has been to make sure
that the organic certification label meets certain standards,
because there is one thing that my organic producers, even
though there aren't too many of them in central Illinois, they
want to know that when they certify as organic, they are going
to be able to ensure that the competition they have is going
through that same strenuous, rigorous process.
Now, in the past 10 years, the organic industry and private
stakeholders have advanced 20 consensus recommendations for
improvements to the organic standards via the National Organic
Standards Board. And these recommendations actually demonstrate
some broad agreement across a diverse coalition that doesn't
necessarily, as both of you know, they don't always agree with
each other.
The USDA has not completed rulemaking on a single consensus
recommendation. Recommendations that include proposals to
strengthen organic seed usage, ensure consistency in
transitioning dairy livestock, and set clear standards for
greenhouse production.
Under Secretary Ibach, how will the USDA make proper
changes to ensure that the industry-backed standards are going
to be implemented and, as we have heard from my colleagues,
enforced?
Mr. Ibach. That is a great question. I appreciate that
question. As I previously mentioned, we are moving forward with
the origin of livestock rulemaking process. We hope to be able
to have a rule submitted for interagency input by the end of
this year.
Mr. Davis. All right. What about the other 19?
Mr. Ibach. The other 19, so I agree that the--not only is
it important for people that are producing through certified
organic production means to know that there is a level playing
field, but it is equally important for consumers to trust that
when they go to the grocery store, they are buying a product
that meets our standards as well.
And the National Organic Standards Board plays an important
role in advising and making recommendations to USDA. We think
it is an important role. We are looking forward to making some
new appointments as terms expire this coming year, and we have
over 60 applicants. And so, we are looking forward to be able
to create a more diverse and organic standards board to be able
to provide us input across the board.
Once they make the recommendation, we do take that
recommendation seriously. We look at ways to address those
concerns through avenues other than regulation, as well as
consider whether or not that regulation is appropriate.
Mr. Davis. Under Secretary, I appreciate that. I appreciate
more diversity within the organic standards board. I appreciate
the USDA moving forward, but are there any specific dates or
timelines that you might be able to share with us today about
the implementation of any of the other issues?
I mean, you mentioned the dairy and livestock provisions,
but like I said, we have 19 more that are consensus numbers.
When are we going to move forward on the rest of them to ensure
that we have the certification process?
Dr. Tucker, have you got any other information?
Dr. Tucker. Sorry.
Mr. Davis. Our timers aren't working up here, which means I
don't have to shut up either.
The Chair. Oh, no. I will shut you up.
Dr. Tucker. One of the big steps the National Organic
Program has done is move very quickly on national list rules,
which are very important Board recommendations. The recent
launch of the Organic Integrity Learning Center, which now has
more than 1,000 users, that is a direct result of several
recommendations from the Board that has been implemented and is
already in wide use. The strengthening organic enforcement rule
that was mentioned earlier will also implement several NOSB
recommendations.
Mr. Davis. As my time has expired, just know that there is
broad bipartisan consensus in making sure that we protect the
organic certification process and the label for our farmers who
have taken the risk to provide the food that is going to be in
much more demand over the next decade.
Thank you, and I yield nothing back because I have no time.
The Chair. Thank you.
At this time, I would call on my colleague, Mr. Cox.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Secretary Ibach and Dr. Tucker, I represent California's
21st Congressional District, which is ostensibly the top
agricultural district in the top agricultural state. And some
of the things we grow there are blueberries, and particularly,
organic blueberries.
And I understand the National Organic Program, the NOP,
released a clarification memo regarding the legal requirements
related to the 3 year transition period to be applied to
container systems.
And there has been significant concern by organic growers
in my district regarding the ambiguity of that memo, and so, it
is imperative that the organic container growing industry be
provided the proper guidance in order to maintain its long,
sought-after organic certification.
And so, the NOP has consistently allowed for the
certification of these organic systems as long as the certifier
determines the system complies with the Organic Foods
Production Act, the OFPA, and the USDA organic regulations.
The question is, does the NOP plan on releasing any
additional material to help growers understand what is and what
is not allowed? And second, how can growers be best informed
about requirements for the site-specific conditions when
creating their organic plans?
Mr. Ibach. As you know, when Congress passed the statutes
that provided for the creation of the National Organic Program
and the organic seal, the standards that we are implementing
provide for a method of production, and how different
herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers are--which ones are
eligible for use in those production.
It does provide the opportunity for container growing, for
aquaponics growing, for hydroponics growing, for even soil-less
growing, if they follow those standards as the rules have
evolved at this point in time. And so, we are happy to look at
all the different types of production that--and to try to help
producers understand how to comply with the national organic
standards.
People that have concerns about whether, and need, for
clarification as to whether their production system meets those
standards, we are happy to work with individually, if possible,
or through their industry to help them understand where any
compliance concerns might fall.
Mr. Cox. Okay. That sounds good. We will follow up with you
with respect to that.
And the second thing, on a different subject is that I have
heard from a number of the California poultry growers about the
challenges of being made whole after a disease outbreak. And in
your role, you certainly oversee APHIS, which handles outbreaks
of animal disease.
And these indemnity payments, which are key incentives to
encourage the reporting of possible animal diseases, outbreaks,
but the payment rates are derived from conventional livestock
values. And are there any efforts underway to compensate
organic producers in a, I would say, more equitable way?
Mr. Ibach. First of all, in the exotic Newcastle outbreak,
we are on our fifth week now with no new detections. We are
hoping that we have been effective in being able to stop that
disease and to be able to work our way out of having to worry
about indemnification as we move forward.
But, no, at this time we have not looked at ways to change
those indemnification rules to include organic--a different
valuation for animals that are produced organically. And we
have the same problems when we come up against purebred
livestock operations. We are hampered to be able to indemnify
them at the levels that many of them feel that the value of
their livestock is as well.
Mr. Cox. How much time do we have?
The Chair. You have 1 minute.
Mr. Cox. Yes. Naturally the cost of production is so much
higher than a conventional system, and so, once again, the
focus would be on a more equitable indemnity payment, and so
whatever we can do to follow up to work on that would be most
appreciated.
Mr. Ibach. Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Cox. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you.
Mr. LaMalfa, another California Member.
Mr. LaMalfa. Lots of us, huh? All right. Thank you, Madam
Chair. I appreciate it. And working with my colleagues in
California as well.
Anyway, welcome, Under Secretary Ibach and Dr. Tucker,
today to the panel.
The issue of organics obviously is huge in our home state,
Mr. Panetta has a salad bowl, as was deemed by Mr. Davis, who
should know. I have the rice bowl up in my part of the state. I
am a rice grower in my real life, and we have actually taken a
shot at growing organic rice. And I will tell you it is, as you
know, our Chairman mentioned, it is tough to get and achieve
the organic certification. I certainly appreciate how that
process is to go about.
And we need to protect that, not protectionism, but, at
least, protect the integrity of that. One of the things I am
curious about as with implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill,
additional funding for research was put in place, but I also
want to ask you to touch on the import oversight, you kind of
mentioned in your comments, too, and how important that is with
maintaining what is coming into the country, and how that
protects the people that are actually reaching that level. We
have had a lot of difficulty with that.
But please touch first on the implementing of the
additional funding in the 2018 Farm Bill for organic research
and strengthening that market in this country. How has that
gone so far with what you have been able to do with that
funding?
Mr. Ibach. We are working hard through, not only rulemaking
that we had in process prior to the passage of the farm bill to
be able to incorporate some expectations that were in the farm
bill into those rules, to be able to have some of those moving
forward yet this fall.
But we also have been able to invest the resources that
were provided in the farm bill to greater cooperation between
USDA and Homeland Security, through Customs and Border
Protection, to be able to invest money in an electronic system
to be able to track imports better. We also have brought to the
table APHIS, which can complement that and provide additional
insight as they oversee imports coming into the country.
And then we also have----
Mr. LaMalfa. Let me back up, please, on the research a
little bit more. Are the effects of these new dollars being
felt in any 2019 research, the crops that they are growing
there, or is it a little more 2020?
Mr. Ibach. Because of the timeframe with which the farm
bill was passed, we probably don't have research projects in
place this year in 2019 growing season. But we do have is, we
have been able to enhance research into market prices and price
reporting. And we have expanded the number of organic crops
that we are tracking, so producers can have an idea of what the
value of their crops are. We are currently conducting market
research on about 220 different organic products.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. Thank you. And you were--I am sorry, you
were in the middle also on the imports, the electronic import
certificates having been implemented and the tracking system
for those. How well is that working? What is the feedback you
are getting from domestic producers on how that is--the
fairness on that? How is that looking?
Mr. Ibach. Actually, I think that this will take a very
much paper-driven system and turn it into more of an electronic
system. And for a lot of producers, the responsibilities of
moving paper around is a challenge. It is also a challenge
sometimes to interact with an electronic system as well, but it
will actually bring more coordination between the organic
program, auditors, the certifiers for domestic enforcement as
well as for international enforcement.
Mr. LaMalfa. How reliable is that system so far as where
timing is always important, you are pushing paper, and the
electronic method should be much more helpful in marketing,
which when you are talking perishables in a lot of cases is
extremely important?
Mr. Ibach. I will invite Dr. Tucker to answer that
question.
Dr. Tucker. We have provided funding to Customs and Border
Protection to construct the import certificate. That
development work will be done this fall, and then into the
spring, so we will be piloting a new system in the spring. But
it takes time to program that organic import certificate into
the system.
Mr. LaMalfa. Okay. All right. Thank you. My time has
expired. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you.
Now for Ms. Schrier of Washington.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, I would like to echo some of the comments
from my colleague, Mr. Davis, about the livestock rules. And I
have an article to submit for the record from Ryan Mensonides,
an organic dairy farmer from my district, discussing the
importance of finalizing the USDA's origin of livestock rule.
The Chair. So ordered. Without objection.
[The article referred to is located on p. 35.]
Ms. Schrier. Thank you.
So the absence of this final rule, as expressed by Mr.
Davis, has allowed other interpretations and an unfair playing
field for organic dairy farmers, particularly smaller farmers.
In the face of this disadvantage, Washington producers face
economic hardship to the degree that failure to promptly move
forward on rulemaking will mean the failure of these
businesses.
In fact, I have been told by more than one organic dairy
farmer that their family farm may not be around in 2 years if
this rule isn't finalized. I want to thank you, first of all,
for expressing that this rule should be finalized then by the
end of this year. Am I understanding that correctly?
Mr. Ibach. It won't be finalized. We will be having a rule
for public comment moving forward, as well as for interagency
comment.
Ms. Schrier. And how long are those comment periods?
Mr. Ibach. Since this rule was, I might have Dr. Tucker be
more specific on that, but since it was moving forward, the
comment periods will be less than if we were just starting the
rulemaking process.
But Dr. Tucker, would you be more specific?
Dr. Tucker. Yes. We are exploring the best way that this
rule could be done correctly and as expeditiously as possible.
There was a lot of support for the 2015 proposed rule that was
published. Clearly, that is a strong starting point for the
rule.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you very much. I wanted to just
reiterate that there is a lot of concern in Washington State
about that.
I have another question, or comment, that the Washington
State Department of Agriculture administers the cost-share
program for all organic operations in Washington State,
including those certified by other agencies. And cost-share
removes a barrier to entry for certification. We have already
been hearing how important that is and how difficult it is to
get that certification, particularly for small operations by
lowering the cost of certification.
While the farm bill authorized increased and continued
funding for this program, the agency now responsible for its
distribution, the FSA, the Farm Service Agency, has not issued
formal authorization to allow our state and other agencies to
move forward on the distribution of funds. And this delay puts
our state on a very tight timeline to respond to over 1,000
applications from businesses that have applied for the program
before the end of the first cycle.
Gains will be lost if we can't start disbursing these funds
to the businesses that depend on them. Because these are
critical to small- and medium-size organic growers in our
state, I wondered if you could provide an update on the timing
for this authorization.
Mr. Ibach. I probably am not able to provide an update to
you today on this. I will take your concerns about this back to
Under Secretary Northey, as that is his mission area, and we
will work to be able to get a response back to you to your
question.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you.
I wanted to also reiterate our Chairman's comments about
not relaxing organic standards, but doing whatever we can to
support, especially small- and medium-size farmers to adopt
healthy soil practices, organic practices, because the intent
is there, but if they can't practically do it because of the
cost, I consider that the job of the USDA.
And I would say the same for just--I don't think that the
free markets should be the only thing that drives organic
farmers to pursue organic farming. I think that we all have a
vested interest in this for the health of ourselves, our kids,
our planet. And so, I would love to see more of a push than
just a free hand there.
And then last, I have no idea how much time I have left
here, so I will just keep going until I am told to stop.
The Chair. You have 1 minute left.
Ms. Schrier. Great. The organic farmers in my district--
and, frankly, we have 300 crops in the State of Washington,
lots of specialty crops, and they are hurting because of the
lack of research right now, and this includes organic and non-
organic farmers. We are faced with a changing climate.
And I am hearing on a regular basis about how frustrating
it is to be smart and science-oriented, and yet, not have the
support of USDA ARS researchers there to collaborate with
researchers at Washington State University.
And so, I just wanted to light a fire here to say we really
need people in Washington State, and there is no way we are
unique here, that we need to be doubling down on science and
not gutting science in the USDA. Do you have a comment on that?
Mr. Ibach. I appreciate those comments, and we do value
science and research and being able to equip farmers with the
ability to have the latest and greatest in technology as well
as production practices. I will take your interest in research,
and especially research that helps Washington farmers back and
share that with Deputy Under Secretary Hutchins.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you. Your time has expired.
Mrs. Hartzler from Missouri. Thank you.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
being here today.
I wanted to follow up on your testimony, Mr. Ibach, and
about the farm bill. And in there, you mentioned that the
organic agriculture product imports interagency working group--
that is a mouthful.
Mr. Ibach. Yes.
Mrs. Hartzler. But anyway, they had a meeting on June 27,
and that they will continue to meet monthly. I was wondering if
you could elaborate on that a little bit, and what do you
expect to be the most important outcomes of these monthly
meetings, and why are they important?
Mr. Ibach. This is going to be a great task force that will
be able to identify lots of opportunities to work together, to
move forward and bring efficiencies to our system. I would
invite Dr. Tucker, again, to maybe expand on what she expects
some of the main outcomes to be from that working group.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you.
Dr. Tucker. The working group has convened, and we are
looking forward to meeting monthly. We are coordinating on a
number of projects already underway, such as the import
certificate project. We have also been talking about how to
integrate both NOP, but also the broader AMS staff into the
commercial targeting center. This is a risk-based program that
CBP oversees that we think that could be an important area of
synergy.
Organic represents an interesting case study for a lot of
trade-related questions, and so we hope to help the Office of
Trade in exploring their projects as they modernize the Office
of Trade procedures, and we talked about ways of doing that. I
am looking forward to pursuing joint risk-based approaches that
will benefit both agencies.
Mrs. Hartzler. Very good. Well, I think that will be very
important to collaborate, and I am glad that you are underway
and working on that.
The last question deals with the issue that we highlighted,
that the Chairman talked about, as well as the decrease in the
amount of imports for organics because of better enforcement,
which I applaud. It is very important for the integrity of our
system as things, American farms that are buying ag imports,
that they think are organic, that they really are.
But that shortfall, and you mentioned a 60 percent decrease
from the Black Sea area, does cause some concerns. Some
producers are struggling to meet their demands for perhaps
raising organic livestock, organic dairy products, or whatever,
if they do not have the organic grain that they had purchased
in the past from other countries. What is being done to try to
address the shortfall that perhaps some of our livestock
procedures are facing?
Mr. Ibach. There are several things that we have seen
happening in the marketplace because of the decrease in imports
from the Black Sea area. One of those things is we have seen
other production areas around the world that have sought to
fill that opportunity that has been created. And so that, of
course, though, creates challenges for us to make sure that
organic standards are being upheld in other countries around
the world. And South America is one of those areas that have
seen the opportunity and looked to take advantage of that
opportunity.
But, we also have seen, especially in the Midwest, more
interest in farmers of scale that are entering organic corn and
soybean production industry that also have the ability to
produce and provide a lot of feedstuffs into the organic
livestock industry. And that is encouraging, too; because, one
of the things that organic buyers not only like besides the
fact that it is organic, they like it when it is grown in their
neighborhood or locally.
Mrs. Hartzler. Sure.
Mr. Ibach. They like it when the feedstuffs are produced
locally as well, so it makes for a better product.
Mrs. Hartzler. I have a minute left. Can you just remind
all of us, again, and kind of review what it takes to be--say
if you are going to switch and start growing organic corn, or
soybeans? Isn't it a 3 year process with the land or rice?
Mr. Ibach. There is a 3 year transition process where you
have to produce just like you were producing during--and once
you are certified. And so those 3 years, you have the impact of
organic production, which might include decreased yields, but
you don't have the ability to take advantage of the increased
prices. And so, it is a transition that is a challenge for
producers, and maybe is one of the reasons why we don't see
more producers entering the organic marketplace.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you very much. I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you for those questions, and definitely
for the last one to really explain and talk about what some of
the impediments and rice. You wanted to thank her for throwing
rice in there as well? Okay.
And now, someone who has been a real champion of the
organic space for quite a number of years, Ms. Pingree of
Maine.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much. Thank you to the Chair
and Ranking Member for holding this hearing, and to so many of
the Members for turning out. It shows the increased interest
in, and our Members understanding that there are real
opportunities in their districts for organic farmers.
I come from Maine, and I am a certified organic farmer
myself, have been for many years, and we have seen organic
sales in Maine really grow tremendously from 2012 to 2017. It
is gone from $36 million to $60 million in our products. It has
just been a huge opportunity for farmers. It is a challenging
transition, but all of them find it well worth it.
And as the Chairman said earlier, the only farmers making
money in his district right now are the organic farmers because
the price point is so driven. Everything that the USDA can do
to support that transition has been, and is, critically
important. It has been something I have suggested to the
Department year after year after year for the 10 years I have
been here, and now it is even more striking.
And having this crackdown on organic imports is very
helpful to American farmers, because it really does make sure
that there is more fairness in the marketplace. And I can't
emphasize enough, and I know everyone has been talking about
that too, that that is really critically important, so thank
you for moving forward on that and recognizing the importance
of that area.
But I can't emphasize enough that organic research, cost-
share, all the support things, technical assistance, it is part
of what has made a big difference in Maine. We are a real focus
of organic agriculture, and part of that is because we have the
oldest organic farming organization in the country. And they
have been a real vehicle for apprenticeship programs,
journeyperson programs, support systems, technical assistance
for farmers. And it has made a lot of difference because it is
expensive, but you also need assistance along the way.
I need to speak to the organic livestock rules. Several
other colleagues have brought it up, and I am just going to be
clear. It is completely unacceptable that you are going to
suggest that we are going to have a proposed rule this year. We
had a proposed rule in 2015, and Dr. Tucker said there was a
lot of support for it. I discussed this with Secretary Perdue
at an appropriations hearing earlier this year, and he said to
me, ``Well, there are some opinions on either side.''
No, there are not a lot of opinions on either side. This is
a real consensus item. And as you have heard some of my
colleagues talk about, organic dairy farmers are really
challenged by not having this rule, and by people basically
breaking what should be a rule.
I would just like to suggest there should be a final rule
this year. There shouldn't be a proposed rule, and I do not
understand why you are suggesting that there would be. I don't
know that we can resolve that today, but I would ask the Chair
and the Ranking Member of this Committee to lend their support
as a Committee to getting a final rule out as soon as possible.
It is just, I don't know what to say. It is unacceptable. It
needs to happen, and you have put a lot of farmers at a severe
disadvantage. There isn't a lot of difference of agreement.
Just to be completely clear to people, this is the
difference between raising a calf with non-organic standards,
and then being allowed to put them into your herd where under
the rule, and what organic farmers do, is they raise them
organically until they are milking, and they bear those costs.
They see that as cheating the dairy system and a real financial
advantage to the people who don't play by what should be the
rules.
It is not that complicated, and there is a lot of consensus
about it. In the comments that have come in, they were
virtually all in favor of the proposed rule of 2015. This is
2019. I just don't see any gray area here. I just can't say
enough about that.
I want to follow up also on what Mr. Davis talked about,
and that is the sort of the consensus rules that come before
you. He mentioned that there are 20 of them. And just to be
clear again, the organic label is a voluntary standard. When
you have farmers coming to you and saying we want rulemaking on
this system to make sure that there is integrity in the system
and we can make money, why does it take so long for you to come
to an agreement? Can you give me a little bit of the detail?
I only have a minute left, but what happens in the
Department's process? The NOSB comes to you with a
recommendation. Does the Department act to issue guidance or
rulemaking within a specific time period? Do you have any
standards? And how long is your standard for something to
become a final rule?
Mr. Ibach. First, maybe to address the final rule issue at
the dairy program. We are looking to be able to move that
forward as quickly as possible. There is some issue because it
was from 2015 whether or not we do have to take a few comments
to be able to move that forward and get through the process and
meet the expectations legally that we have to do. But we are
looking to move that forward as quickly and as legally as we
can. We appreciate those comments, and I hope you appreciate
the fact that I am sincere in that.
As far as recommendations from the National Organic
Standards Board, as I shared before, we take those
recommendations seriously at USDA. We take a look at them to
see whether or not there are ways that we can implement them
into other rulemakings that are in process, other standards
that we set, and there are a number of different ways other
than just going through rulemaking to be able to implement
those recommendations, and we do that on a number of levels.
Ms. Pingree. I am out of time, but thank you very much for
saying that you are going to shorten this process. And I am
going to follow up with you, and I am anxious to know what you
legally have to comply with, and how quickly you can get this
final rule out the door. It is just critically important, and I
hope the Committee will support the importance of that.
Mr. Ibach. We will be happy to give you that information.
The Chair. Under Secretary, when you were talking about the
2015 rules and my colleague stating that the comments were
almost uniformly in one way, do you know what the percentage of
breakdowns of those who were for the proposed rule and the
percentage of those in comments who opposed it, or had
difficulty with it?
Mr. Ibach. Since that dates back to 2015, I will be happy
to let Dr. Tucker try to see if she has an answer for that.
The Chair. Do you have an answer, or do you need to get
that information to me?
Dr. Tucker. The comments were supportive of the rule. Many
of them had comments on minor provisions or consider that or
consider this, but the vast majority were supportive of the
rule.
The Chair. Okay. When you say consider that or consider
this, were those a large number of people who were saying can
you consider that or consider this or----
Dr. Tucker. I believe it was about a little over 1,000
comments. We can get the specifics for you.
The Chair. I would appreciate that. Thank you very much.
And waiting very patiently, my good colleague, Mr.
Thompson, of Pennsylvania. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson. Thanks, Madam Chair, Ranking Member, for this
hearing.
Under Secretary Ibach, Dr. Tucker, good to see you. Thanks
for your leadership and your service as always. My first
question really has, I have talked with some folks in
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the second largest for organics
when you adjust it for population, California being number one.
Considering there is three to four times the population in
California, we are actually number one per capita. It is what
you eat that makes all the difference, Doug. This is an
extremely important hearing for the Keystone State, and for the
agriculture industry as a whole.
I have heard from some of my folks from Bell and Evans and
others who are involved in the poultry industry have a great
organic line. But I have heard from poultry producers that
provide those birds the difficulty of getting organic soybeans
as feed. Can you give me some idea what the status is? Where
are we at right now in terms on that issue?
Mr. Ibach. I don't know that I can answer the specific
questions about quantities and anticipated quantities of
organic soybeans. I think part of this is a result of our
enforcement activities in the Black Sea region that reduced our
opportunities to import those, but I would be happy to do a
little bit of research.
Mr. Thompson. And they shared your concerns, actually. They
very much identified things, not necessarily from the Black
Sea, but maybe somebody that comes into this country and lives
on the East Coast, goes around to the West Coast. West Coast,
East Coast, and all of a sudden it is organic, so it shows up
in a labeling prospect, and so, that seems to be a challenge.
And regarding our number one industry, obviously,
agriculture is our number one industry in Pennsylvania. Our
number one commodity is dairy. And regarding the dairy
compliance project, can you describe some of the correctable
issues that were found and what actions were taken by producers
in the Department? Do you expect these farm visits to continue
beyond 2019?
Mr. Ibach. Yes. Over the past year, we have conducted a
number of unannounced visits to dairies across the country to
assess both the certifier compliance and the operational
compliance of these dairies. We focused closely on the pasture
standard to make sure that they are adhering to those
expectations within the organic standard.
We were encouraged by the visits in those inspections that
we made. While there is some opportunity for additional
certifier training, most of the operations were, for the most
part, in compliance with the expectations. I think that shows
that producers do try to adhere to the rules. We are continuing
to move forward with unannounced inspections this year. And so
I think that is an important tool, not only to help ensure
compliance, but dispel concerns about compliance across the
nation.
Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you for that. Industry
collaborates with stakeholders to develop recommendations to
the organic standards for deliberation at the National Organics
Standards Board, obviously. Having clear standards in the
transition of dairy livestock is certainly both important and a
pretty high hurdle to reach. Can you walk us through the
Department's process after the NOSB provides the National
Organic Program with a recommendation?
Mr. Ibach. Since this question keeps coming up, I will have
Dr. Tucker address that in detail.
Dr. Tucker. Good morning. We take the Board's
recommendations very seriously, and it is important to say a
large majority of recommendations provided by the Board have
been acted on by the USDA. And as stated earlier, it is not
always through rulemaking. There are many different ways to
implement different recommendations.
A recent example is on inspector training and
qualifications that the Board has spent significant effort on
and that has translated into the learning center, as well as
other materials that we use to communicate with certifiers
about staff qualifications and training.
The Board's input is very valuable in advising the USDA,
and we look for many different ways to implement those
recommendations. Once we get a recommendation, we evaluate the
best way to move forward with it, be it rulemaking or guidance
or training or some other mechanism. For anything related to
guidance or rulemaking, it also goes through public comment.
The national list rulemaking is our most common way of
implementing Board recommendations through rulemaking, and so
there is public comment that happens. We strive to have
national list rules published within 18 months of a board
recommendation. That is much faster than previous rules.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you. Thank you for that.
Mr. Lawson from Florida, your 5 minutes.
Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member
Dunn, and I would like to welcome Mr. Ibach and Dr. Tucker to
this Committee. It is a very important Committee.
Under Secretary, enforcement, you talk about enforcement
and inspection are critical for maintaining the livelihood of
organic farmers, such as organic dairy farmers in my district.
Can you provide an update on the April 2015 proposed rule to
clarify dairy animals can only be transitioned into dairy
production once?
Mr. Ibach. That is the rule that Congressman Pingree was
also questioning about, and that is the rule that we are
looking for the opportunity to be able to move that rule
forward as quickly as possible through this late summer and
fall.
Mr. Lawson. Okay. Now, since there is over $50 billion, as
you said, Madam Chair, in domestic organic sales in 2018, I am
impressed by the growth of the national organic market. This
question is for both of you, Under Secretary, and Deputy
Administrator Tucker: what opportunities or program exists to
assist minority farmers, ranchers, and agribusiness to
establish a footing in the growing organic market?
Mr. Ibach. Not only do our programs to assist transition
apply to and are available to all producers, but we do have an
office in USDA that works to target minority farmers and
provide them special assistance. And so, if you have farmers
that you are interested in having access to that, we would be
happy to help you connect them.
Mr. Lawson. Okay. And Dr. Tucker?
Dr. Tucker. Yes. I would highlight the materials that we
have. We have farmers talking to farmers about organic
certification. Those are resources that are used by our
partners as well as USDA directly. Farmers who are interested
in transitioning to organic will learn the most by talking to
other farmers. We focused on providing tools that enable that
conversation.
Mr. Lawson. Okay. Thank you. My district is no stranger to
adverse farming conditions, and I think that Mr. Dunn over
there can attest to it for the need of crop insurance. How is
the National Organic Program ensuring that information about
organic standards and organic practices get into the hands of
risk management agencies, crop insurance agencies, and
adjusters and farmers?
Mr. Ibach. I will let Dr. Tucker answer that a little bit
more in detail, but I will just say that one of the focuses
that Secretary Perdue has had since becoming Secretary and the
instruction to us as Under Secretaries is to increase our
coordination wherever possible, to work with each other, to
communicate across our mission area lines, to be able to have
an approach, a one USDA approach.
As a farmer myself, I always expected when I asked the USDA
office a question in my county, the FSA office, I always
expected to be able to get an answer from the person I was
asking, rather than be told I have to go three doors down or
call this number somewhere else. And so, we are really working
hard to be able to coordinate and be able to provide answers
across our mission areas and to have information flow across
our mission areas.
Mr. Lawson. Dr. Tucker?
Dr. Tucker. I would say that data is absolutely critical
for that form of cross collaboration and decision-making. One
of the actions we have been focusing on is more and better data
into the organic integrity database, which provides a much
better picture of what is happening among organic producers
that can inform decision making across different agencies.
Mr. Lawson. Okay. With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
And Mr. Baird of Indiana, thank you for being here, and you
have 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member Dunn.
In Indiana, in my Fourth Congressional District, we have over
100 certified organic operations, and these run the gamut from
smaller operations like Coonrod Family Farms to Frito-Lay. Mr.
Ibach, the question I have, does the NOP work with the
stakeholders to develop standards for organic farming?
Mr. Ibach. Actually, the National Organic Standards Board,
as well as the statutes that Congress has passed are both
informative to USDA's National Organic Program as they
establish standards and modify those standards and evaluate new
tools and new production methods as to how they would fit into
an organic production and certification program.
There are many ways that we work together, and definitely
producer input is always a valuable part of that as well.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. One more question for you. The
organic field crop acreage in Indiana has increased by 30
percent between 2016 and 2018. And to help keep pace, Purdue
extension has begun hosting an organic ag series to help
farmers with planting and marketing organic crops. Mr. Ibach,
as a public-private partnership, does the NOP work with
extension programs such as Purdue University, and if so, to
what extent does this collaboration take place?
Mr. Ibach. Definitely, the USDA has arms, especially within
research, education, and extension to be able to extend
knowledge through extension to farmers and ranchers about USDA
programs. In the farm bill, there was mandatory money included
in that for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension
Initiative that we are implementing at this time that will
provide even more opportunities for Deputy Under Secretary
Hutchins and his mission area to be able to work through
extension with farmers.
Mr. Baird. Thank you.
Dr. Tucker, do you have anything you would like to add to
either one of those questions?
Dr. Tucker. We are closely connected with NRCS. They have
wonderful outreach programs to farmers. We stay tightly
connected with what they are communicating about organic, and
we communicate on a staff level frequently.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. I yield back my time.
The Chair. Thank you.
Bringing up the rear now will be Mr. Panetta who will, of
course, tell us that his district in California is the number
one organic grower, but we always remind him that it is number
two per capita, so we try and bring him back down to size.
Five minutes. It is all yours, sir.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is nice that your
reputation precedes you up here on the dais. But thank you very
much, Madam Chair, for this opportunity, and obviously, thank
you to Under Secretary Ibach and Dr. Tucker for being here, as
well as your preparation for being here today.
It is nice that people know exactly where I come from----
The Chair. Here we go. Here we go.
Mr. Panetta.--in regards to being the Salad Bowl of the
world, which is the fifth in the nation for organic production
with 471 certified organic operations. We do have a lot of
organics. We have a lot of conventional. We have a lot of
salad. We have a lot of berries. You name it----
The Chair. You guys just have a lot.
Mr. Panetta.--we grow it. Exactly. Exactly. But obviously,
these types of hearings are very important, not just to me, but
obviously to my constituency, conventional and organic. And so
today, obviously we have talked about a number of things
focusing on organic, and we are fortunate enough, and I was
fortunate enough to be part of this Committee last term in
which we, actually on a bipartisan basis, there were a couple
of bumps in the road, but eventually got a farm bill that was
fairly bipartisan.
And one of the important aspects of that farm bill was $5
million in mandatory funding for the Organic Production and
Market Data Initiatives. Obviously, it facilitates the
collection and distribution of organic market information,
including data on production handling, distribution, retail,
consumer, and consumer purchasing patterns.
My question to you, Under Secretary, is how do you plan to
ensure that the funds that are utilized can best assist organic
producers that need that type of robust data on farm gate price
reports and other key data to help them with the planning?
Mr. Ibach. You are correct, and thank you very much for the
investment in the organic program in USDA of the $5 million. Of
that, AMS received $3.5 million. The rest of that went to ERS
and NASS to be able to enhance their activities as well. This
is going to allow AMS Market News to expand our organic market
price reporting services. We are also boosting outreach to
reporters and industry contacts to increase the products and
the markets covered, as well as a number of other key contacts
in the organic sector.
This has allowed us to do market research and price
reporting on nearly 220 organic products now. And you know,
whether you are an organic farmer or a cow-calf producer in
central Nebraska, USDA AMS Market News plays an important role
in helping you understand what the value of your production is
worth and help you be able to make sure you are seeking a fair
price for the products you produce on your farm.
It is one of the programs that is within my mission area
that I am probably the most proud of, the tool that gives to
every kind of a farmer across our nation.
Mr. Panetta. Outstanding. Thank you. Thank you.
Now, there are some gaps, and we know that, especially when
it comes to organic acreage and transnational acreage in the
both the organic integrity database as well as the National
Agricultural Statistics Service organic survey data. You know
the impact that these gaps can have on the organic community
and the NOP's ability to detect and deter fraud domestically
and internationally. How can the NOP ensure that accurate
acreage data is collected and reported by organic certifiers?
Mr. Ibach. I think that we definitely have enough
certifiers to be able to help us in that, and working together
with them and building strong relationships to help them,
encourage them to provide us accurate information is important.
But there is also back channels, or cross channels, that we can
use to verify that the data coming in looks like it is correct
and accurate, and if we see discrepancies between production
and what the statistics show us, we can follow up on that.
The Black Sea region was a great example of that where we
looked at the acreage that was being reported, is in production
organically, we looked at the number of bushels that were being
offered to the markets organically, and we saw that the organic
production was going to have to meet or exceed conventional
crop production yields in that area.
We knew there was a problem to go back and check on, and
that gave us an indication to go to our certifiers and to go to
the farms that they were certifying to identify where the
problems were.
As I have said in the past, that has resulted in about 180
producers giving up their certification and no longer being
part of the U.S. organic standards program. It also has seen
imports from that region decrease significantly.
Mr. Panetta. Great. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you. You just talked about that. I know
that your website says that there are 80 certifying agents that
are currently part of the USDA, 48 based in the U.S., 32 are
based in foreign countries. My district, the Virgin Islands'
producers want to enter the market, but we need to make sure
that the small-scale producers have an opportunity to play in
an equal playing field. Given the differences in size and
geographic locations, how do we maintain the consistency
between certifiers? How do you insure that that doesn't happen?
How does USDA work to ensure that certifiers are interpreting
organic standards uniformly by giving fair and consistent rules
across the industry?
Mr. Ibach. Education and enforcement are two tools that are
key there. One is to be able to communicate with certifiers,
make sure that there are materials out there for them to have
access to, to make sure that they are doing the best they can
to enforce--to do what we expect them to do as certifiers. It
is also our job, through the audit process, to then follow up,
and as we audit those certifiers, to make sure that they are
following our rules and meeting our expectations and applying
them in a consistent and fair manner as well. And so, those two
go together to help us ensure success.
The Chair. As in the case of the Black Sea, the producers
were decertified, but was there fraud or activity going on with
the certifiers?
Mr. Ibach. We also decertified a certifier in that area.
The Chair. Okay.
Mr. Ibach. And there has been other places, not only in the
Black Sea, but in other parts of the world, that we decertified
certifiers when we found that they didn't meet our
expectations, just like we take the same actions against
domestic certifiers if we don't think that they have--are
consistently and correctly applying our standards.
The Chair. Thank you.
And another Californian, Mr. Carbajal, for your 5 minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chair. And usually,
Representative Panetta and I have a little bit of banter as to
who on the Central Coast is better, but today, I will tell you,
we are united, united in our message from California.
Under Secretary Ibach and Dr. Tucker, thank you both for
your time before our Committee and your leadership to support
the National Organic Program.
My district, located on the Central Coast of California, is
home to almost 300 organic operations, ranking it as one of the
top five districts in California and one of the top 25
districts within the United States. The organic industry has
proven to be an economic driver in my district and in the
United States.
Organic oversight and enforcement measures that are used to
protect against fraudulent organic imports are important to the
Central Coast farmers and businesses who consistently meet the
highest standards for organic products and for consumers who
deserve to know that all products on grocery store shelves
labeled USDA organic adhere consistently to those high
standards.
USDA research has been vital to the growth and the
development of this multi-billion-dollar organic sector. How
will the relocation of NIFA and ERS to Kansas City impact the
ability of these agencies to provide NOP with information and
input on organic priorities?
Mr. Ibach. I think that USDA has a long history of having
offices spread across the United States that communicate with
each other. Within my mission area, I have hubs in Raleigh as
well as in Fort Collins and major employee concentrations in
towns and cities in a number of states, and we are able to work
together and share information and run effective programs by
being in diverse locations. I feel like we will be able to
continue to do that as we have offices located in new places
across the United States as well.
I also appreciate the fact that your producers appreciate
what we do to ensure compliance and equivalency around the
world. And that has been another one of the areas that we have
been focused on in the last couple of years is trying to not
only seek organic equivalence in marketplaces like Great
Britain and Europe for U.S. organic production, but also set an
expectation on Mexico to seek equivalence with us so that those
products that move across the border in southern California are
meeting the same standards that the California producers are
held to.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. In terms of this
geographic location issue, do you have some metrics that you
are going to be able to evaluate to ensure that effectiveness
is not compromised in any way? I mean, it is good to say that
geography is not going to affect how we operate and how
effective we are, but unless there is some metrics to assess
that, I am not sure that that will be the case.
Mr. Ibach. Well, I can assure you that the Secretary is a
big fan of metrics and tracking our progress and how we
evaluate our programs. I have no doubt in my mind that he will
have a way to hold us as Under Secretaries accountable for the
actions of our mission area.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. And again, for the record, the
Central Coast is alive and present today.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you. I don't know if my Ranking Member has
any closing remarks that he would like to make.
Mr. Dunn. Just to say thank you very much to the Assistant
Secretary, or Under Secretary, I am sorry, and Dr. Tucker for
your time today. You have been very illuminating and
cooperative. We appreciate you.
The Chair. Thank you. First, some housekeeping. Let's see
where it is here. Under the Rules of the Committee, the record
of today's hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to
receive additional material and supplementary written responses
from the witness to any of the questions posed by a Member.
Just some closing thoughts that I had. As you can see,
there is a strong bipartisan support for protecting the
integrity of the organic seal. And I am so glad to hear about
the progress that NOP has made on enforcement with new
authorities, and I look forward to future updates, specifically
on your rulemaking.
As expressed by my colleagues here, we have great concern
as to this being prolonged. We would love for the process to be
sped up some so that there can be more certainty in what the
rules are. Collaboration between Congress and USDA is critical
to ensure consumer confidence and for farmers to be successful.
And I am appreciative of your willingness to work in
finding ways to allow new entrants and those who may have had
difficulty in coming into the organic space, whether that be
because of the size, the distance, or even farmers that we have
not--Mr. Lawson talked about African American farmers which at
one time, were such a large part of the farming community and
have diminished tremendously over time. The impediments that
keep people out of the organics are something that we would
love to be able to work on.
And, just because I am the Chair and I can do this, I want
to invite you. The Virgin Islands is my district and will be
having a farm tour in late August, where we will be going
around to different farms in the Virgin Islands, both on St.
Croix as well as St. Thomas, and we are inviting a large
collaboration of people to see our farmers and then to have
meals with them in the evening to really talk with them and
assist them in breaking some of those impediments that they
have had. And the Committee is also going to be coming to the
Virgin Islands in February, which is probably the time that
most people want to come for our agricultural fair.
Thank you, again, to you, Under Secretary, and, of course,
to Dr. Tucker, for the work that you are doing and your
continued support of this area, and know that the Members of
this Subcommittee really do want to work with you and provide
as much support as possible.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Biotechnology,
Horticulture, and Research is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letter by Hon. TJ Cox, a Representative in Congress from
California; on Behalf of Robert Hawk, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Munger Companies
July 17, 2019
On behalf of Munger Farms, I submit the following comment for the
record.
Munger Farms
Munger Farms is a family-owned farming operation based in Delano,
California, with additional operations across California, Oregon and
Washington. Munger is the largest independent North American producer
of fresh blueberries and also produces pistachios, almonds, olives,
hazelnuts and wine grapes. Munger employees about 300 permanent
employees year-round and in excess of 4,000 temporary employees during
harvest season.
Organic Container Growing
The National Organic Program (NOP) has consistently allowed for the
organic certification of container systems as long as the certifier
determines that the container system is in compliance with the
requirements of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522), and USDA organic regulations (7 CFR
205.1-205.699).
In recent years, in accordance with NOP's guidance, Munger has
begun transitioning from conventional growing methods to organic
container growing operations. This transition has allowed Munger to
maintain its commitment to cultivate with care by minimizing its
environmental impact and using sustainable agricultural practices in
support of the local communities they operate within and the organic
consumers they service.
Container growing is consistent with the objectives of organic
farms. Container growing requires less water use, uses organic
fertilizers and reduces pesticide use due to the controlled environment
production system. The reduction of water usage is significant in light
of California's recurring droughts which stem from a complex
combination factors including of weather conditions, inefficient
distribution systems and farming conditions. Any amount of water that
can be saved through container growing operations aids in alleviating
the West Coast's ongoing water crisis.
National Organic Program
NOP's participation in organic growing operations is vital for both
maintaining the interests and intended goals of organic growing but
also for modernizing what it means to grow organic. If not for NOP's
diligent oversight and continued communications with the grower
community, the progression of organic growing would be stalled.
NOP has maintained the integrity of organic growers while also
permitting a new means of responsible agriculture. Moreover, NOP has
continued to issue guidance on operational requirements and standards
as new growing issues and concerns arise. Most recently, NOP issued a
guidance memorandum related to the certification of organic crop
container systems and the legal requirements related to the 3 year
transition period to be applied to all container systems built and
maintained on previously farmed agricultural land. This guidance
provided both clarity to looming unknowns related to this matter while
maintaining the high standards of organic agriculture.
Organic growing methods will continue to evolve over time and NOP's
expertise and guidance is required to maintain a stable and respected
organic standard.
Sincerely,
Robert Hawk,
President and CEO.
______
Submitted Article by Hon. Kim Schrier, a Representative in Congress
from Washington
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Organic Dairy Rules Need Repair--Now
https://www.pccmarkets.com/sound-consumer/2019-07/organic-dairy-rules-
need-repair-now/
Sound Consumer July 2019 D By Aimee Simpson
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dairy farmers Ryan and Haylee Mensonides/photo by Molly
Goren, courtesy of PCC Farmland Trust.
Normally, organic dairy farmers have other things to do with their
time than discuss the rules that support the organic label--things like
making sure their cows are brought in from the pasture and milked. This
year, however, organic dairy farmers and many advocacy groups and
affiliates made the trip to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)
meeting in Seattle to testify about a problem that may take away their
ability to focus on the farm, even stay on the farm. What is the
problem? To put it simply: how an organic cow becomes and stays
organic.
You see, in 1990, when the national law was passed that created the
National Organic Program (NOP) and a little later when the organic
regulations were finalized, there weren't a lot of organically raised
cows. To encourage the transition of conventional dairy cows to
becoming organically raised, the regulations allowed farmers to take a
non-organic cow and transition it to organic through a 1 year process.
After this one-time transition, the regulations were pretty clear (or
at least most of us thought they were clear) that to keep your organic
certification and label your milk as organic, all cows going forward
had to be raised according to organic standards from the last third of
gestation.
Enter the success of the organic program over the past 3 decades.
For most organic farmers, especially dairy, there were financial
benefits to making the transition to organic that supported the
increased costs and effort of raising organic livestock and producing
organic milk. But a few years back an issue arose--there was too much
organic milk and it was being sold at a cost that did not add up. It
came to light that not all organic dairy farmers were operating under
the same set of rules. Instead of the one-time transition and then
continued organic management, some certifiers were allowing farmers to
continually transition non-organic cows into organic, a cheaper process
that allowed them to avoid the costs of raising a calf as fully
organic.
The organic community came together and realized this issue
threatened not only the farmers, but also the integrity of the organic
label. The fix seemed simple--tell the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) to enforce the one-time transition. But according to USDA, the
fix was more complicated because the rules that spelled out how farmers
could transition organic cows and what certifiers could enforce had,
for lack of a better analogy, a gap in the fence. This meant that to
fix the problem the gap had to be mended and a new rule needed to be
put through ``rulemaking''--a long and tedious process that requires
many levels of administrative review and public comment, often taking 2
years or more.
Despite this bureaucratic hurdle, USDA did get to work and in 2015
issued a proposed rule that was shaped and agreed upon by the organic
community through the rulemaking process. The rule wasn't perfect, but
it did mend the hole in the fence--curbing potential fraudulent
behavior and oversupply in the organic dairy market; and, more
importantly, guaranteeing that consumers would get what they have been
promised. It had at the time--and still has--almost unanimous support
throughout the organic dairy community.
For organic farmers there was hope that beyond better prices and
support of the family farm, there was a model of the bureaucratic
system and organic system working to support the needs and expectations
of organic farmers and consumers alike.
Unfortunately, nearly 4 years later for many organic dairy farmers
this hope has been dashed and the gaping hole in the regulatory fence
remains because the ``Origin of Livestock'' rule sits idle.
``This lack of movement and enforcement by the USDA has opened the
door for a few to tarnish the reputation of the whole and put many
organic farmers in the dire situation of potentially losing our
farms,'' Ryan Mensonides, an organic dairy and PCC Farmland Trust
farmer, commented.
And this was precisely why several organic dairy farmers living in
Washington took time away from their farms and made the trek to Seattle
to let the NOSB, NOP and organic community know that they did not have
time to wait. The Origin of Livestock Rule needs to be finalized. Now.
``It is paramount to understand that there is no stronger advocate
for the integrity of the organic market than the organic farmers
themselves. We believe in this way of life and want only the best for
our consumer,'' emphasizes Mensonides. ``This is why we continually
advocate for stronger rules and enforcement from the NOP.''
Unfortunately, the experience of organic farmers making the trek to
Seattle and other organic advocates seemed to fall on stubborn ears
with the NOP offering no reassurance that the needed action of
finalizing the existing proposed rule would be taking place. But the
voice of the organic community is strong and there is still time. PCC
and the National Organic Coalition have raised this issue in their work
in D.C. and before the NOSB. We are also working to evaluate our dairy
suppliers and develop internal assessments on organic dairy livestock
sourcing and transitioning practices.
Consumers can help too by reaching out to their elected officials
and putting pressure on the USDA and the rest of the Administration to
stop stalling, pick up their tools--today--and fix the fence.
Aimee Simpson, J.D., is PCC's director of product
sustainability.
______
Submitted Fact Sheet by Hon. Chellie Pingree, a Representative in
Congress from Maine
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Repair the Public Private Partnership in Organic
Continuous Improvement in Standards
A healthy market for organic products requires a clear market
distinction backed by a level playing field and a trusted, verified,
and enforced claim. This burgeoning industry requires critical support
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Organic
Program (NOP) for uniform and robust standards.
USDA Is Not Advancing Organic Standards
The failure of government to keep pace with consumers and the
industry is harming and fragmenting the market. Inconsistent standards
are becoming the status quo. Accountability in advancing the voluntary
organic standards is essential to a healthy market and opportunity for
farmers in the future.
In the past 10 years, industry has advanced 20 consensus
recommendations for improvements to the organic standards. USDA
has not completed rulemaking on a single one of them.
Accountability in Developing Voluntary Organic Standards
A new framework must be set for advancing Federal organic standards
to keep up with the marketplace and ensure the credibil[i]ty of the
USDA Organic seal.
Industry and private stakeholders own the voluntary standards and
reach consensus on developments to those standards through deliberation
at the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). USDA should rely on
NOSB consensus recommendations as the will of the industry developed in
collaboration with environmental, scientific, and public stakeholders.
The voluntary, opt-in organic program is unique, and standards
should advance in a way that is different than mandatory regulations.
3 NOSB consensus recommendations should be included on the Unified
Regulatory Agenda with a published timeline for action.
3 Removal from the Unified Agenda must require public and
Congressional notification with the rationale as to why the
agency is not moving forward on widely supported standards
questions.
3 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review must consider the
costs when standards are inconsistent or not robust enough to
meet the market demand.
3 Economically insignificant rulemaking, based on a consensus NOSB
recommendation, should not be designated a ``novel policy''
that requires OMB review since it is agreed to by industry--
this would shorten the timeline to develop final standards
significantly.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Continuous Improvement Is a Bedrock of Organic
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ask: Support from Congress for continuous improvement and
accountability in organic standards.
______
Submitted Questions
Response from Hon. Greg Ibach, Under Secretary, Marketing and
Regulatory Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Question Submitted by Hon. Stacey E. Plaskett, a Delegate in Congress
from Virgin Islands
Question. In the hearing, we spoke about the 2015 Origin of
Livestock proposed rule from USDA. Concerning public comments, Dr.
Tucker stated that ``the vast majority were supportive of the rule.''
Specifically, how many public comments were received for this proposed
rule? How many comments were generally supportive of the proposed rule?
Answer. AMS received 1,371 comments in response to the 2015
proposed rule. Of these, more than 900 comments expressed general
support for the proposed rule. Other commenters shared feedback about
specific provisions in the rule, such as definitions, the regulatory
unit, transition requirements, and the implementation period.
Approximately 100 comments voiced some form of opposition to the rule.
Of these, most did not express critiques of specific elements of the
proposed rule, but rather, expressed general disapproval because they
opposed the certification of large dairies, opposed any transition
allowance, or did not feel like the rule would substantively improve
consumer trust in the organic label overall.
At the time of the 2015 proposed rule, AMS estimated the U.S.
organic dairy industry was comprised of 1,850 organic farms milking
about 200,000 cows. Updated USDA data indicates there are now more than
2,500 organic dairy farms milking 267,500 cows, or a 38% and 34%
increase, respectively. These data highlight the significant growth of
the organic dairy industry since 2015. USDA has concerns about
proceeding with a final rule without providing an additional
opportunity for new entrants to provide public comment on a rule that
would impact their businesses.
Question Submitted by Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Question. In recent years, seed treatments, used in very low
concentrations, have become an important, and standard, agronomic tool
for conventional farmers worldwide. Seed treatments typically include a
mixture of pesticides, fertilizers, biostimulants, inoculants and a dye
applied directly to seeds, either on-farm by a farmer or at a seed
processing facility by a seed producer prior to bagging seed for sale.
In most cases, these agricultural inputs are applied to seeds at rates
that are more than 100X lower than if those same agricultural inputs
were applied to crops while growing in the field. Today, the majority
of all conventional row crop acres in the United States are planted
with treated seeds.
While the use of seed treatments has largely been confined to
conventional growers, several new NOP-compliant inputs for use in
organic farming have recently been approved by Federal and/or state
regulators and by USDA NOP recognized third party certifiers. These new
``bio-stacked, seed treatments'' include a mix of NOP compliant and NOP
certified pesticides, fertilizers, biostimulants, seed inoculants and
dyes.
Seed treatment suppliers report significant interest in these bio-
stacked seed treatments by organic growers, by growers wishing to
transition to organic acres and by the vast majority of NOP certifiers
advising organic growers. However, organic input providers have
indicated that a minority (less than 20%) of organic certifiers has
raised concerns that the use of seed treatments prior to the actual
failure of cultural practices to control pests could be interpreted as
being inconsistent with organic practices (citing section 205.206 of
the organic rule). Clarity around USDA's interpretation of the use of
NOP-compliant seed treatments in organic farming would effectively
address the concerns raised by a some farm certifiers who wish to use
the product, but are unsure of how the organic compliance of these new
tools would be viewed by USDA.
In reviewing 205.206 of the rule, the Committee interprets current
NOP regulations to allow the use of Federal (e.g., FIFRA) or state
(e.g., fertilizers or biostimulants) and USDA NOP certified (e.g.,
OMRI, WASDA) seed treatments as part of their organic production
practices. Particularly in instances where: (1) the grower is actively
undertaking organic compliant cultural, soil and plant health and
sanitation measures in their crop production and (2) documenting the
conditions for use of the seed treatment (e.g., that the products were
applied per approved label rates, that a history of pest pressure
exists on the farm or in the region) in their organic system plan.
Does the Secretary concur with this interpretation?
Answer. Yes, the Secretary concurs with this interpretation. That
said, NOP's responsibility is to approve these types of materials. Once
that work is complete, certifiers respond accordingly with no need to
object to organic producers using it. While NOP encourages
recordkeeping, in this area, the lack of this type of recordkeeping
should not preclude use of NOP approved seed treatments.
Question Submitted by Hon. Anthony Brindisi, a Representative in
Congress from New York
Question. Under Secretary Ibach, I have heard from small organic
dairy farmers in my district who are concerned that larger dairies
claim to be organic and are selling organic milk, but don't follow all
the NOP rules including the pasture rules. My farmers are concerned
that this is undermining the public's trust in organic labeling.
What is the USDA doing to enforce organic rules for dairy
operations?
How many dairies have lost their certification or had adverse
action taken, and can you share the size of those dairies?
What other actions are you taking?
Answer. The NOP 2018 Dairy Compliance Project significantly
increased the number of unannounced audits of organic dairies around
the country. This enforcement project continued in 2019, with
additional auditors and an increase in the number of unannounced
audits. NOP utilizes a risk-based approach to allocating enforcement
resources. The more complex the operation, the higher the likelihood it
will be subject to increased surveillance. Federal auditors have found
that most dairies currently meet organic requirements. The 2019 Dairy
Compliance Project is still in progress.
When supported by evidence, NOP has issued adverse actions to both
certifiers and dairies. When non-compliances are found to be
unintentional or minor, the goal is to bring the certifier or operation
back into full compliance as quickly as possible. More serious matters,
intentional violations or fraud may be escalated to other law
enforcement agencies and may result in significant financial penalties
and/or imprisonment. Generally, until all appeals are exhausted, or an
entity voluntarily surrenders its certification, NOP is not legally
able to comment on whether or not an investigation is underway.
To date, three certifiers have received notices of non-compliance
and one dairy has received an adverse action. These numbers may
increase as fall-season audits and certifier investigation requests are
completed this Fall. The NOP will continue to take direct action
whenever supported by the evidence. Many certifiers also issue notices
of noncompliance or take adverse actions against dairies based on their
independent findings. In the public-private partner model, not all
notices issued by certifiers and resolved by operations are reported to
NOP unless there is need for further adverse action.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Chellie Pingree, a Representative in
Congress from Maine
Question 1. How has the Priebus memo and President Trump's
Executive Order--which froze regulatory actions and required that for
every new regulation, two must be withdrawn--affected the ability of
organic standards to move forward? Are voluntary regulations such as
the National Organic Program constrained by this Executive Order, or
are they being treated distinctly from mandatory regulations?
Answer. Executive Order 13771, signed on January 30, 2017, directs
agencies to repeal two existing regulations for every new regulation,
and to do so in such a way that the total cost of regulations does not
increase, unless doing so is prohibited by law. EO 13771 does not make
a distinction between voluntary and mandatory regulations, but only
between regulatory and deregulatory regulations. Nevertheless, EO 13771
has not affected the ability of organic standards to move forward.
USDA's Spring 2019 Regulatory agenda included a total of 44
deregulatory items and only 16 regulatory items under the EO 13771
designation. The savings associated with these 44 deregulatory items
more than offset the costs associated with the 16 regulatory items,
including the National Organic Program rules. Because compliance with
EO 13771 is assessed on an agency-wide basis, rather than on a rule-by-
rule basis, that alone is sufficient to promulgate the National Organic
Program rules currently planned by USDA. Specifically, the National
Organic Program had three regulations on the Spring 2019 agenda. The
Strengthening Organic Enforcement proposed rule, which will include
multiple provisions to strengthen organic certification and
accreditation in response to a clear need for stronger compliance and
enforcement practices in the marketplace, was designated regulatory,
while two rules amending the National List of Allowed and Prohibited
Substances were both designated deregulatory. Clarifying these rules
will have a positive impact for farmers who choose the organic option.
USDA's focus on organic compliance over the past 2 years has shown
that enforcing the existing standards is having a significant impact.
Fairness and consistency have been significantly improved by enforcing
the strong rules we have. This is evident by the significant
enforcement actions taken by the organic program over the past 2 years.
We are committed to protecting the investment that organic farmers
across the country have made in the organic market.
Question 2. How is the National Organic Program (NOP) ensuring that
certifiers are consistently and uniformly applying the organic
standards? Particularly, how is NOP specifically evaluating uniform
compliance to regulations, guidance, and instructions by certifiers?
Answer. There are currently 78 certifying agents accredited under
the National Organic Program (NOP). Both foreign and domestic
certifiers are held to the same standard around the world. USDA has
conducted onsite evaluations of all 78 accredited certifying agents;
these are repeated at least every 2.5 years, at the midpoint and at the
renewal point of the 5 year accreditation term. USDA also conducts
additional onsite audits of satellite offices for certifiers who
operate offices in countries other than where their headquarters office
is located.
Additionally, USDA monitors certifiers on an ongoing basis by
reviewing their investigations of complaints about their certified
operations, conducting special focused reviews of organic system plans
and inspection reports for specific countries and commodities,
reviewing certifier annual reports and training records, and
communicating with them about operation-specific questions.
Question 3. Has the Department pursued any investigatory action
related to the allegations that certifiers, including the Texas State
Department of Agriculture and Idaho State Department of Agriculture,
have not enforced the origin of livestock standard?
Answer. Origin of livestock for dairy animals has been a topic of
interest within the organic community since the USDA organic
regulations were implemented. To address inconsistent interpretations
of this provision, the Department has reopened the comment period on
the Origin of Livestock proposed rule to clarify these provisions
related to the transition of animals into organic production. This 60
day comment period recognizes that the dairy industry has changed
significantly since the original comment period in 2015. All 1,580
public comments from the original comment period will also be
considered by the Department when completing the final rule, expected
early in 2020.
In addition to this rulemaking on Origin of Livestock, USDA has
taken a number of actions to enhance the oversight of the organic
livestock industry. In 2018, the National Organic Program launched a
dairy oversight program, focused on assessing compliance with the
established organic pasture standards. This has led to investigations
and corrective actions by both certifiers and operations.
Question 4. Please provide the specific legal requirements that the
Department has cited as a rationale for not issuing a final rule or an
interim final rule on Origin of Livestock.
Answer. The USDA is currently considering adding the ``Origin of
Livestock'' final rule to the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions. At the time of the 2015 proposed rule, AMS
estimated the U.S. organic dairy industry was comprised of 1,850
organic farms milking 200,000 cows. Updated USDA data indicates there
are now more than 2,500 organic dairy farms milking 267,500 cows, or a
38% and 34% increase, respectively. These data highlight the
significant growth of the organic dairy industry since 2015. USDA has
concerns about proceeding with a final rule without providing an
additional opportunity for these new entrants to provide public comment
on a rule that would impact their businesses.
Question 5. In the last decade, the National Organic Standards
Board (NOSB) has come to a consensus 20 times to provide
recommendations and the National Organic Program (NOP) has not issued a
final rule for a single one of them. These were not recommendations
related to the National List or recommendations for guidance or
instructions; they were recommendations to clarify and advance the
organic standards that would require a rulemaking. In your testimony
during the hearing you cited that there are many ways the NOP can
implement NOSB recommendations without issuing new regulations or
guidance. Can you describe how that is legally enforceable from a
compliance perspective?
Answer. Since being established in 1992, the National Organic
Standards Board (NOSB) has made more than 600 recommendations to USDA
related to organic production/handling and materials. The NOSB provides
two types of recommendations: National List and Practice Standards.
USDA has reviewed and implemented approximately 90 percent of the
Board's recommendations. The National Organic Program has implemented
practice standards recommendations using many approaches.
USDA published final rules and guidance on access to pasture and
pesticide residue testing in organic production. Several of the
referenced NOSB recommendations are included in the Strengthening
Organic Standards proposed rule now in development. Upon review, it was
determined that some recommendations do not require rulemaking and a
few of the recommendations were so broad as to be impractical or beyond
the capacity of the program to implement at this time.
USDA has also published documents on topics of broad interest, such
as classification of materials; calculating the percentages of
ingredients in organic processing; the NOP peer review process;
certificates for organic operations; post-harvest handling; and other
certification/accreditation topics. These documents have significantly
improved consistency across certifiers and have responded to many
certifier questions without the need for rulemaking.
USDA actions in response to NOSB recommendations have also resulted
in an expansion of the public comment period before NOSB meetings to
allow for more public feedback between meetings. Recommendations also
directly led to the launch of the Organic Integrity Learning Center,
which now has more than 1,200 users. These actions directly support
compliance and fair and consistent certification across the industry.
Question Submitted by Hon. K. Michael Conaway, a Representative in
Congress from Texas
Question. On August 11, 2017 the National Organic Program
implemented additional control measures for organic imports originating
in Kazakhstan, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine. These
measures required that all affected shipments undergo individual
document review and testing. Did these additional control measures
identify any fraudulent imports?
Answer. The 2017 National Organic Program (NOP) directive to
certifiers had a direct impact on the market. After the directive, NOP
worked with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to share information on
imported organic corn. This led to CBP turning away two vessels at the
border in 1 year due to phytosanitary requirements. The NOP also
required certifiers to test overseas farms for pesticide use. Several
tests came back positive, and those farms dropped out of the organic
supply chain. The lessons learned from the Directive helped the NOP
identify certifiers that needed to improve their capabilities to
oversee complex farms and led to more and faster farm-level
investigations. Alongside the work of the NOP, industry participants
have also taken specific actions to protect the integrity of their
supply chains, further advancing global organic integrity.
Question Submitted by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Question. I have heard from poultry producers about the difficulty
of finding organic feedgrain, such as organic soybeans. Is this an
issue that you are following and what is the status of your
involvement?
Answer. The integrity of organic feedgrains is one of the NOP's
highest priorities. U.S. demand for organic feedstuffs outpaces
American organic production, so the organic livestock sector depends on
imports. Investigations of organic feed imports from the Black Sea have
identified serious compliance concerns, and those supplies have dropped
by 60 percent. USDA offers a number of support programs to help
domestic producers transition to organic feed production, including
conservation technical assistance, financing, and research at land
grant universities.
Question Submitted by Hon. Mike Bost, a Representative in Congress from
Illinois
Question. Under Secretary Ibach, you have mentioned the strides
made in the 2018 Farm Bill for organic import enforcement.
One of the points that I think is most critical is the increased
oversight provided of foreign certifying agents.
As your testimony states, just 2 months ago, USDA suspended a
certifying organization in Turkey for failing to oversee organic
operations in the Black Sea region.
Can you explain how the National Organic Program works to ensure
certifiers, both foreign and domestic, are held accountable so that
consumers are confident that an organic product really is organic?
Answer. There are currently 78 certifying agents accredited under
the National Organic Program (NOP). Both foreign and domestic
certifiers are held to the same standard around the world. USDA has
conducted onsite evaluations of all 78 accredited certifying agents;
these are repeated at least every 2.5 years, at the midpoint and at the
renewal point of the 5 year accreditation term. USDA also conducts
additional onsite audits of satellite offices for certifiers who
operate offices in countries other than where their headquarters office
is located.
[all]