October 8, 2015
Ms. Michelle Arsenault, Advisory Committee Specialist
National Organic Standards Board
USDA-AMS-NOP
1400 Independence Ave., SW
Room 2648-So., Mail Stop 0268
Washington, DC 20250-0268
RE: Docket AMS-NOP-15-0037 - NOP–15–11 Handling Subcommittee
Proposal: Ancillary Substances Permitted in Microorganisms and
Dairy Cultures, in Pectin, and in Yeast
Dear NOSB Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOSB Handling Subcommittee
Proposals on ancillary substances in microorganisms and dairy cultures, in pectin, and in yeast.
MOSA (Midwest Organic Services Association) certifies approximately 1600 organic operations throughout the United States. Many MOSA-certified operations use microorganisms and cultures, pectin, and /or yeast. Over the years, we’ve reviewed many specification sheets for these ingredients.
We appreciate the ongoing consideration of ancillary substances in
National List materials. This new part of the sunset review process represents due diligence and will provide needed clarification regarding any substances that might be of concern. However, we still have concerns regarding the practicality of requiring more compliance verification as we review new materials on a daily basis.
When the NOSB has done its due diligence and not found issues of concern, we want to avoid an overly burdensome process of verifying materials’ compliance with that NOSB framework.
As a certifier, we make decisions on many materials each day. It’s our role to measure these decisions against a framework laid out in the standards, including
National List annotations, and in NOP Instructions and Guidance documents.
However, we feel it’s up to the NOSB and NOP to establish the framework. We’re glad for ongoing ancillary substance reviews as a means of providing more clarity on that framework. It’s incumbent upon NOSB to make a sensible primary material review decision against which we certifiers compare individual cases.

For years, certifiers have struggled with the relative lack of clarity on what ancillary substances should be subject to our review. We’ve had many discussions regarding where we should draw lines. For instance, we often see a National List material that has no apparent restrictions, but then we become aware of ancillary substances which raise questions. Examples might include nonorganic, possibly
GMO-sourced, agricultural carriers, or preservatives that otherwise would not be allowed in organic foods. Sometimes, when we find questionable ancillary substances, we’ve pushed operators to seek alternatives, only to learn that there are no alternatives without the same kinds of ancillary substances. Due to these experiences, and in recognition that enforcement may be uneven among certifiers, we’ve taken a route which assumes that any problematic ancillary substances should be flagged via a National List annotation coming out of an
NOSB recommendation. So, we’ve not questioned common ancillary substances.
At the spring NOSB meeting in La Jolla, we expressed concerns about the practicality of using a closed list of allowed ancillary substances. We also expressed concerns about implementing organic preference requirements for ancillary substances, as opposed to the materials as they appear on the National
List. These new ancillary substances proposals for this fall meeting ease some of our concerns, but we’re still looking for ways to make this less burdensome, and more practical.
We generally like the approach of identifying functional classes for allowed ancillary substances, and stating that additional ancillaries that fall within these classes do not need further review. That’s better than a more prescriptive, closed list, but it will require certifiers to ascertain ancillary substances’ functional classes. That means we’d need to obtain more information than is currently supplied on many spec sheets.
It has been suggested that a standardized affidavit would help consistency in review of ancillary substances. We agree that an affidavit of some sort could be helpful, especially when there are known ancillary substances of concern. A well written affidavit can provide good information so the person completing the document understands the framework and concerns, including legal responsibilities to provide truthful information. A well written affidavit can also reduce potential review challenges by only addressing identified concerns, not asking for impertinent additional information. Sometimes a valid affidavit can state what something isn’t, rather than making a determination about what something IS, and whether that fits the compliant framework. We question if this level of ongoing certifier review of ancillary substances is necessary if the NOSB review has NOT identified concerns. In addition to review, any use of an affidavit would still require that it be distributed, completed, returned, and kept up to date. That can be overly burdensome.
The NOP asked the NOSB to review materials ancillary substances to identify any issues of concern. For some materials, this may be a sort of “catching up” on due diligence. However, the NOP request does not imply that NOSB or certifier

review work to this point has failed. The February 3, 2014 memo from NOP to
NOSB is not very prescriptive regarding how ancillary substance concerns must be identified. If you review ancillaries and find no concerns, maybe the bulk of the work is done, and then your review considerations can be documented.
For all three ancillary substances proposals offered for this meeting, the NOSB review identified no ancillary substances or categories of ancillary substances that are of concern. Assuming that you’ve done your due diligence in identifying potential concerns, and found none, we wonder if our ongoing reviews of microorganisms, cultures, pectin, and yeast products are necessary. Is there a more sensible approach that honors the soundness of your petitioned substance or sunset review work? Can we avoid increasing the workload of certifiers?
Sound and sensible certification aims to reduce unnecessary recordkeeping and verification burdens. We should avoid routinely collecting additional materials documentation except when concerns are identified. We see the value in guidance summarizing various ancillary substance considerations.. Certifiers and processors need a solid understanding of the parameters considered by the
NOSB. Guidance can and should discuss considerations such organic preference, use of excluded methods, or potential risk of new ancillaries that may not fit the framework known at the time of NOSB review.
Thank you for your work on these proposals and for your continued consideration of keeping certification sound and sensible.
Respectfully submitted,
The MOSA Certification Team