IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ORGANIIC

This past January, I attended a training in Louisville, Kentucky, with other members of the USDA/NOP, ACA and NASOP.

Oops, sorry for the alphabet soup! The United States Department of Agriculture administers the National Organic Program (NOP) which makes the rules for organic certification in the U.S. The USDA is, by the way, administered by the AMS, the Agriculture Marketing Service. It seems a trifle strange that agricultural policy for a country of more than 300,000,000 is lumped in as part of a marketing program,
but that’s a topic for another time. ACA is the Accredited Certifiers Association who, through a consensus building process (slow and painful though it may be!), works

toward “developing uniform criteria for implementation” of the NOP rules. NASOP is the National Association of State Organic Programs, self described as “a forum for discussing the promotion and regulation of the organic food industry.” They also share the consensus- building goals. The NOP rule, which at a cursory reading appears verbose and bureaucraticaly dry, is actually quite short given that it prescribes agricultural methods that encompass practices based in ecology, sustainability, health and, for lack of better word, Faith with a capital F. What I mean by Faith is not as it’s customarily regarded (a religion) but Faith in the laws of nature, Faith that science doesn’t necessarily have all the answers (or for that matter, asks the right questions). The NOP itself, however, will, backed by law, claim that the national organic standards do not make or support claims of health, purity
or nutrition, but merely provide a guarantee to the consumer that they get what they are paying for, which is assurance that products labeled “organic” have been produced according to NOP rule. ACA and NASOP are associations of certifying agencies (private and government agencies that are accredited by the NOP to perform that job), banding together to share our strengths and fortify our weaknesses. It’s a balancing act for all of us: If we don’t or can’t comply with the rules of our accreditation, it can be revoked, which would leave our clients (the certified organic producers) scurrying to find another accredited certifier so

IN THE BEST INTERESTSOF ORGANIIC ITCHY GREEN THUMB

by Brett Bakker
the NOP rule honestly, fairly and equitably but above (or underneath?) all, in the best interest of the Organic (with a capital O) Community, from the farmer to the final consumer. So ACA and NASOP put together training sessions on such exciting topics as Developing a Materials Review Process and Tracking Decisions, Food Processing Materials — Food Contact Substances & Sanitizers, Evaluating Compliance With Current & Prospective NOP Pasture Standards. Believe it or not, any of these discussions could have gone on for hours if not a full day each. In the world of organic regulation, it’s not as black and white as you might think.
The NOP for their part sponsored less of a training, per se, but brought an entire day’s worth of questions we certifiers had lobbed at all for the past year, which
they attempted to answer. Most of the time, they had the answer but, to their credit, admitted when they didn’t, adding the query to the ever-growing list of clarifications that we certifiers need to do our job. As much as you or I would like it not to be, rules for Organic Certification can be vague, contradictory and enforced differently by different agencies and states, but overall, I returned from the training
(besides feeling overwhelmed at the complexity of my job!) with the outlook that my colleagues in this strange profession are facing it all head-on. And that,
despite the sometimes slow and cumbersome NOP, it’s in their best interest to clear up the confusion and get all of us on the same page. Now if you’ll excuse
me, I have a stack of papers and documents to get back to, probably a big enough stack to mulch most of the farmland in the state.