NOC Asks National Organic Program to Move NOSB Recommendations Forward
We are deeply concerned about USDA’s failure to implement dozens of critically important NOSB recommendations over the past two decades. The process is fundamentally broken, and significant reforms are urgently needed to get the organic program on track so it can serve the needs of the organic community going forward!
In recent comments to the National Organic Program, NOC shares our analysis for the ways in which the process is not working and 12 recommendations to bring greater accountability and transparency to the process.
Recommendations for Reform
1. The AMS and NOP should adopt a process for communicating to the public its plans for implementing new NOSB recommendations within 60 days, including its timeline for implementation.
2. The AMS and NOP should provide a written explanation, with a clear justification to the NOSB and public stakeholders within 60 days of any obstacles to implementing an NOSB recommendation. Recommendations regarding the National List must not be closed unilaterally by NOP.
3. The NOSB should have increased opportunities to consult with NOP staff in the proposal development stage to ensure that NOSB recommendations are actionable. Without directing the work of the NOSB, the NOP should increase consultation and dialogue with the NOSB in the proposal development phase.
4. If the status of a recommendation’s implementation changes due to a change in Administration or due to another reason, the AMS and NOP should communicate that change in status and justification orally at public NOSB meetings and in writing to the NOSB and public stakeholders.
5. All comments submitted to the NOSB, a transcript of NOSB deliberations, and the NOSB narrative accompanying the NOSB recommendation should automatically be included as part of the Federal Register docket for rulemaking on National List materials and practice standards and should be considered as part of the rulemaking process.
6. In recognition of the intended close relationship between NOSB recommendations and NOP action, we urge that all AMS/NOP proposed and final rulemakings, guidance documents, and instructions to certifiers include an explanation of how the rule or document’s provisions relate to past NOSB recommendations and the actions taken by USDA to consult with the Board regarding the rule or document.
7. It is critically important that the NOP continue to maintain the “NOSB Recommendations Library” with the status for each NOSB recommendation. However, the NOP should more clearly define in that document the terms “complete,” “closed,” “on hold,” and “in process.” For those recommendations that are “on hold,” the NOP should clearly indicate what action is being taken by USDA or another agency that the NOP is awaiting in order to move the NOSB recommendation forward.
8. To ensure forward movement on the NOSB recommendations that are part of the backlog from the past twenty years and require regulatory action, the NOP should group recommendations to move issues forward in a more efficient way. A similar approach was taken in the SOE rulemaking process.
9. USDA must commit to moving organic rules forward in a timely way – the regulatory process requires a commitment at all levels of USDA. USDA should also educate the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) about the need for ongoing regulatory updates to the organic standards as part of the nature of the ‘continuous improvement’ mandate that is built into the organic program.
10. The NOSB should have autonomy in setting their work agenda. The NOSB should have the opportunity to identify and prioritize topics for inclusion in the work agenda that are brought forward by organic stakeholders.
11. The NOP should devote the necessary resources to update the NOP Handbook so it reflects current regulations and policies, including the forthcoming Strengthening Organic Enforcement rule. The NOP should also identify which parts of the handbook need to be codified in the regulations to ensure consistency and adequate enforcement.
12. USDA should reverse the 2013 policy change, made without required public notice and comment, to the sunset process for synthetic materials on the National List.