Organic program steps up testing

11/13/2012
Coral Beach

(UPDATED COVERAGE, Nov. 15) Organizations that certify organic producers must conduct periodic residue tests each year on at least 5% of those farms beginning in 2013.

Additional costs — estimated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program to be about $500 per test — are supposed to be paid by the certifiers, not their clients. If certifiers pass along costs by increasing fees for all clients, the increase should be about $25 per client, according to a rule published Nov. 9 in the Federal Register.

The NOP imposed the 5% minimum because a 2010 audit by the Office of Inspector General revealed some certifiers never conducted residue testing, according to the Federal Register.

There was also confusion about whether certifiers are required to conduct periodic residue testing, according to the NOP’s comments.

“The (Office of the Inspector General) indicated that certifying agents noted that they considered residue testing to be required by the regulations only under certain circumstances,” NOP officials wrote.

California adopted residue analysis requirements in November 2010 under the State Organic Program (SOP), and state officials are pleased to see the NOP strengthen its rule.

“The SOP implemented regulations ... to facilitate the sale of organic products within California while maintaining sufficient regulatory control by means of spot inspections, investigations, and residue analysis,” said Rick Jensen, director of inspection services for the california Department of Food and Agriculture.

“The SOP looks forward to the implementation of the NOP’s periodic residue testing requirement ... to ensure that organic consumers purchase products that are in compliance with state and federal organic mandates.”

Daniels Organic growers are also applauding the new rule. Will Daniels, senior vice president of operations and organic integrity at Earthbound Farm, San Juan Batista, Calif., said increased testing will help the industry overall.

“At Earthbound Farm we believe in testing as a verification tool and the results should provide certifiers and those tested with useful information, in addition to bolstering organic integrity,” Daniels said. “Consumers want a strong organic seal and so do we.”

The Organic Foods Production Act requires certifiers to conduct periodic pre- and post-harvest residue testing, according to the notice, even if there is no apparent problem.

Comments (1) Leave a comment 

In order to prevent cheating, all testing in the organic industry must occur prior to harvest. There’s little point wasting time or money testing post-harvest.

The reason is that with the exception of genetically-modified organisms, almost everything else that's prohibited in organic production dissipates and eventually becomes undetectable over time. Whether it’s herbicides, pesticides, hormones, improperly-composted manure, or the big-money-maker: synthetic nitrogen, only an unannounced inspection and field test will deter fraud and gross negligence. After all, Olympic athletes are tested before and during the games, not after.

As for the cost being $500 per test, I must strenuously disagree. I performed broad-spectrum field tests on organic crops when I was an active IOIA organic inspector for as little as $125. Surely a certifier recognized by the USDA to audit organic farmers and processors will be able to get as good or better a price.

On that note, instead of ADDING organic field testing to the existing system of record-keeping and record-checking - which costs upwards of $2,000 up-front per-farm - field testing should REPLACE record-keeping and record-checking, and thereby bring down the cost of organic certification.

Lastly, there is still the outstanding issue of "royalties" being collected by USDA-accredited certifiers. How can we expect companies that oversee the USDA National Organic Program to be objective if they stand to collect 1-3% of a farmer's GROSS revenue from each transaction they certify? Organic field testing must be carried out by independent inspectors, not by certifiers which have a vested interest in pushing more product to market.