Blog Posts

USDA Steps Up Enforcement of Organic Imports at U.S. Ports

In my previous post, “New Organic HTS Codes for U.S. Imports and Exports,” I discussed how new organic-specific Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes can improve our ability to identify and track organic products moving through international trade. Better identification gives USDA, the organic industry and researchers a clearer picture of what organic commodities are entering and leaving the United States.

But collecting better information is only useful if we actually use it.

A new USDA National Organic Program (NOP) Oversight and Enforcement Update, released August 26, provides a good example of how USDA is doing just that—combining electronic NOP Import Certificate data, Customs information, document reviews, targeted sampling and enforcement to identify questionable organic imports before they enter the U.S. organic marketplace.

Strengthening Organic Enforcement Changed Import Oversight

The USDA Strengthening Organic Enforcement (SOE) rule was fully implemented on March 19, 2024. Among its major changes, the rule greatly expanded organic certification requirements throughout the supply chain and made electronic NOP Import Certificates mandatory for nearly all certified organic agricultural products imported into the United States.

The NOP Import Certificate is much more than another piece of import paperwork. The NOP Import Certificate creates an electronic record that helps trace the organic product through the certified exporter and importer and identifies the commodity using the applicable HTS code.

USDA describes this as creating a certification “handshake across the border”—a certified exporter sending the product and a certified importer responsible for receiving it into U.S. commerce.

These records also give NOP a much greater volume of standardized import data that can be analyzed for unusual or potentially fraudulent trade activity.

According to USDA, NOP is now reviewing Import Certificate data to proactively identify suspicious shipments and combining that information with cooperation from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), documentation reviews, sampling and laboratory testing.

Return to Top ↑

A 21-Ton Example at the Port of Long Beach

Photo: Fraudulent organic pea protein denied entry at the Port of Long Beach. USDA

USDA’s latest enforcement update provides a particularly interesting example involving organic-labeled pea protein for human consumption arriving at the Port of Long Beach.

NOP and CBP identified pea protein as a higher-risk commodity because of concerns about fraud within global supply chains and conducted targeted sampling and document reviews.

They found problems with two shipments.

One shipment displayed the USDA Organic seal but did not have a certified NOP importer or a valid NOP Import Certificate.

That is now a serious barrier to entry: effective October 1, 2025, USDA no longer allows certified organic shipments arriving without a valid NOP Import Certificate to be reconditioned after arrival so they can enter the organic market. Instead, USDA identifies reexport, destruction or, under specified conditions, donation as the available options.

A second shipment was sampled and tested positive for a prohibited substance, making the product ineligible for sale as organic.

USDA authorized CBP to detain and deny entry to both shipments. Altogether, more than 21 tons of pea protein were prevented from entering the U.S. organic marketplace.

But the enforcement did not stop at the port.

NOP subsequently oversaw suspension of the exporter’s organic certification. USDA reports that certifiers also increased oversight within the associated supply chain through additional sampling, supplier verification and monitoring of implicated handlers.

That last step may be just as important as stopping the individual shipments. Effective organic enforcement means following a problem backward through the supply chain to determine whether it represents an isolated shipment or evidence of a larger integrity problem.

Return to Top ↑

HTS Codes and Import Certificates Work Together

This is where the connection to the new organic HTS codes becomes especially important.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection uses HTS codes to identify commodities entering the country through its Automated Commercial Environment, or ACE. The NOP Import Certificate also requires the appropriate 10-digit HTS code for the organic commodity being imported.

Not every organic commodity currently has its own organic-specific HTS code. When an organic HTS code does not exist, the corresponding conventional commodity code is used on the NOP Import Certificate.

That is why creating additional organic-specific HTS codes matters. The more precisely organic commodities can be identified within trade data, the easier it becomes to understand trade patterns and potentially identify unusual activity.

USDA is also now publishing annual organic import information derived from NOP Import Certificates, providing another source of data on organic products entering the United States.

In simple terms:

HTS codes identify the commodity and, where an organic-specific code exists, allow that organic product to be identified separately in U.S. trade data.

NOP Import Certificates establish the certified organic identity and traceability of imported products—even for commodities that do not yet have their own organic HTS code.

Customs information, certification records, document reviews, sampling and enforcement give USDA tools to determine whether those organic claims are legitimate.

Return to Top ↑

Enforcement Goes Beyond Imports

The August enforcement update also provides some perspective on the broader work of the National Organic Program.

NOP reported receiving 755 complaints during 2025 involving potential violations of the organic regulations. Complaints included certified operations that may not have corrected noncompliances, operations suspected of selling more organic product than they could reasonably produce, and uncertified businesses making organic claims through labels, websites, social media or third-party online marketplaces.

Depending on the circumstances, USDA enforcement actions can include warning notices, civil penalties, suspension or revocation of certification, negotiated surrender of certification, publication of fraudulent organic certificates and referral to other state or federal law-enforcement agencies.

USDA also maintains an Organic Enforcement Activity webpage where the public can review settlement agreements, administrative decisions and fraudulent organic certificates.

Return to Top ↑

Why This Matters to Organic Farmers and Handlers

Organic agriculture is unusual because organic is both a production system and a legally defined market claim.

Farmers and handlers invest considerable time and money complying with organic standards, maintaining records, undergoing inspections, protecting organic integrity and documenting the movement of products through the supply chain.

Fraudulent organic products do more than violate a regulation. They compete directly with legitimate organic farms and businesses that bear the cost of complying with those regulations.

That is why enforcement matters.

The Long Beach pea protein case does not mean that fraud has disappeared from organic supply chains, nor does it mean that every organic import is physically inspected or tested. Organic trade is far too large for that type of system.

What it does demonstrate is that USDA now has considerably better tools for risk-based enforcement—using Import Certificate data, certification records, Customs information, document reviews and targeted sampling to identify shipments or supply chains that deserve closer scrutiny.

There is also an important responsibility for organic handlers. Under Strengthening Organic Enforcement, businesses importing organic products into the United States generally must be certified, and certified operations must evaluate vulnerabilities in their supply chains and maintain appropriate fraud-prevention practices. The Import Certificate is therefore not simply a government enforcement tool; it is also part of the traceability system organic businesses use to verify the integrity of the products they buy and sell.

For farmers and handlers who have repeatedly asked whether USDA is actually checking imported organic products, the Long Beach case provides a useful example of the system working as intended.

The goal should not be to slow legitimate organic trade. The goal is to make it increasingly difficult for a product that does not meet USDA organic requirements to compete in the marketplace as organic.

And that protects everyone who has worked to earn the USDA Organic label.

Return to Top ↑

More Resources

USDA Organic Insider – Oversight and Enforcement Update
Read the August 26, 2026 USDA enforcement update

USDA Strengthening Organic Enforcement
Strengthening Organic Enforcement rule and resources

Strengthening Organic Enforcement Frequently Asked Questions
Includes detailed information for organic importers, exporters and customs brokers.
USDA SOE Frequently Asked Questions

Electronic NOP Import Certificates
USDA information on electronic organic import certificates

Data on Imports of Organic Products
NOP now publishes import data derived from NOP Import Certificates in addition to organic trade data available through organic HTS codes.
USDA data on imports of organic products

Return to Top ↑

New Organic Import Codes: Why Better Trade Data Matters to Organic Farmers

The U.S. International Trade Commission has added 29 new organic-specific Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes for products imported into the United States. While HTS codes may sound like a technical customs issue, this change is important for organic importers, handlers and anyone trying to better understand organic markets.

HTS codes are the numbers used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to classify products entering the United States. When an organic-specific HTS code exists for a product, that organic code must be used for the import filing. Exporters also use the appropriate organic HTS code when requesting the USDA National Organic Program Import Certificate associated with the shipment. (CCOF)

What Changed July 1, 2026?

Beginning July 1, 2026, USDA changed the filing status for 29 organic HTS codes from optional filing to required filing in the Customs and Border Protection Automated Commercial Environment, commonly called ACE. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection)

The new organic classifications cover a surprisingly broad group of products, including:

  • Brussels sprouts and frozen vegetable mixtures
  • Hemp seed and other oilseeds
  • Plant materials and vegetable extracts
  • Avocado oil and other vegetable oils
  • Sugars
  • Cocoa powder, chocolate and other cocoa products
  • Pasta and cereal products
  • Biscuits and other baked products
  • Orange, berry and mixed fruit juices
  • Soups and broths
  • Other prepared foods
  • Vodka, tequila and vinegar

The number of processed foods on the list is noteworthy. Organic trade tracking is increasingly moving beyond basic agricultural commodities and into the ingredients and finished products that make up today’s organic food supply chain.

Why Does This Matter?

One of the continuing challenges in understanding organic markets is determining how much organic product is actually entering the United States.

When an organic product has no organic-specific HTS classification, it can be difficult to separate organic trade from conventional trade using traditional customs statistics. Creating additional organic-specific codes allows imports to be identified more precisely by commodity.

That improves our ability to answer some important market questions:

How much organic product is being imported? Where is it coming from? Is import volume increasing or decreasing? What products are competing with U.S.-produced organic products?

For producers, handlers, researchers and policymakers, better trade data means a better picture of what is actually happening in the organic marketplace.

Organic HTS Codes and the NOP Import Certificate

The HTS codes also work together with another major change in organic import oversight: the electronic NOP Import Certificate.

Since March 19, 2024, each shipment of certified organic agricultural products imported into the United States must be associated with an NOP Import Certificate issued by an accredited certifying agent through USDA’s Organic INTEGRITY Database. USDA states that one NOP Import Certificate is issued per commodity/product or HTS code. (USDA Agricultural Marketing Service)

That creates an important connection between organic certification and customs information:

NOP Import Certificate → verifies the organic shipment

Organic HTS Code → identifies the organic product entering the country

Together, these systems provide USDA and Customs and Border Protection with better tools for traceability, enforcement and market information.

An Important Point for Organic Handlers and Importers

U.S. Customs and Border Protection warns that organic shipments arriving without a valid NOP Import Certificate number can be subject to re-export, restricted donation or destruction. Shipments with incorrect or nonconforming certificate information may also receive additional scrutiny or be rejected. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection)

For handlers importing organic products, this makes correct product classification increasingly important. Importers should make certain that their customs broker is using the correct organic HTS code when one exists and that the HTS information agrees with the NOP Import Certificate.

Better Information for the Organic Marketplace

Twenty-nine additional organic trade classifications will not answer every question about organic imports, but they are another important step toward making the organic supply chain more transparent.

For those of us trying to understand organic markets, that is particularly valuable. Instead of simply hearing that “imports are increasing,” better organic-specific trade data can help us determine which products are entering the United States, how much is entering and where those products originate.

That is information both organic farmers and organic handlers can use.

More Resources

2026 Organic Cotton Market Summary

Production Holds Steady, but the Market Is Shifting

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service has released its 2026 Organic Cotton Market Summary for the 2025 marketing year, and this year’s report tells a somewhat different story than the one we saw a year ago.

Last year’s report showed a substantial rebound in U.S. organic cotton production, with the 2024 crop reaching 56,717 bales, an increase of more than 17,000 bales from 2023.

For 2025, production increased again—but only slightly.

Organic Cotton Production

U.S. production of organic Upland and American Pima cotton totaled 57,802 bales in 2025, an increase of just 1,085 bales, or about 1.9%, from 2024.

An additional 1,015 bales of transitional cotton were reported, down from 1,201 bales the previous year.

Texas continues to lead the nation in organic cotton planting and production, with additional organic acreage in Arizona, California and New Mexico.

The production numbers are important because they suggest that the large rebound we saw in 2024 did not continue at the same pace. Organic cotton production essentially leveled off in 2025.

Organic Cottonseed Remains Valuable

Organic cottonseed continues to be an important part of the value of the crop.

USDA reported organic cottonseed prices ranging from $385 to $660 per ton, compared with only $215 to $350 per ton for conventional cottonseed. Cottonseed yields ranged from 500 to 897 pounds of seed per bale of lint.

Most organic cottonseed continues to move into the organic dairy industry, with smaller amounts retained for oil production and livestock feed.

That relationship between Texas organic cotton and organic dairy remains important. Cotton is not simply producing lint for the textile market; the seed is also supplying a valuable certified organic livestock feed ingredient.

The 2026 Crop May Be Telling Us More About the Market

For me, the most interesting part of this year’s report may actually be USDA’s comments about the 2026 crop outlook.

Timely August rainfall helped relieve heat stress, although some fields were lost to hail and excessive heat. USDA also reports that overall organic cotton acreage was lower, in part because of crop rotations.

But one sentence especially stands out:

“Organic Upland acreage declined as growers shifted toward stronger organic Pima contract opportunities.”

USDA also reports that organic cotton demand remains “light amid strong global competition.”

Those two statements probably tell us more about the current organic cotton market than the modest increase in 2025 production.

Growers respond to markets. If contracts and premiums are stronger for organic Pima cotton than for organic Upland cotton, acreage will naturally begin moving in that direction where production conditions allow it.

At the same time, continued global competition is putting pressure on the U.S. organic cotton market.

My Take

A year ago, the big story was the recovery in organic cotton production. This year, I think the story is stability combined with change underneath the numbers.

Production increased from 56,717 to 57,802 bales, but that is essentially a flat year compared with the dramatic increase we saw in 2024. Meanwhile, transitional production declined, organic Upland acreage is reportedly falling, growers are responding to better Pima opportunities, and USDA continues to describe demand as light.

For Texas organic cotton growers, that makes contracts and market signals increasingly important. Producing organic cotton is expensive, especially when we consider weed control, rotations, fertility, seed availability and the additional management required under organic production. Acreage is unlikely to expand simply because organic cotton can be grown. There has to be a market willing to pay for it.

Texas remains the center of U.S. organic cotton production, but where that production goes—Upland versus Pima and perhaps even cotton versus other rotational crops—will increasingly depend on those market opportunities.

More Information

USDA AMS – 2026 Organic Cotton Market Summary
View the August 2026 USDA Organic Cotton Market Summary

Last Year’s Texas A&M AgriLife Organic Summary
2025 Organic Cotton Market Summary

↑ Return to Top

Texas Organic Experience Comes to the National Organic Standards Board

USDA has announced five new appointments to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), and one of those appointments is especially important for Texas organic agriculture: Jed Murray of Texas.

For many people outside Texas, Jed may be known today as Director of Government Relations for the Texas International Produce Association. But for those of us who have worked in Texas organic agriculture, there is much more to the story.

Jed has actually been part of Texas organic agriculture. He has grown organic vegetables, packed and marketed them, worked with retailers, advocated for growers, and helped us explore how Texas-grown organic products could reach larger markets.

I have known Jed for many years, and he has consistently supported Texas organic growers and efforts to expand opportunities for organic agriculture. He brings to the NOSB practical experience with what it takes to make organic agriculture work from the field all the way to the consumer.

Why the National Organic Standards Board Matters

The NOSB is not simply another USDA advisory committee.

Congress established the 15-member board under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on organic standards and, particularly, on substances used in organic production and handling. USDA appointed Jed to one of the board’s Public Interest/Consumer Interest Group seats for a five-year term through January 2031.

The NOSB deals with issues that eventually become very practical decisions on organic farms and in organic businesses.

The board reviews substances petitioned for addition to or removal from the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, conducts the five-year sunset review of materials already on that list, and develops recommendations concerning organic production, handling and policy. Since its establishment, the NOSB has made more than 600 recommendations to USDA.

For an organic farmer or handler, these decisions can determine whether a fertilizer, pesticide, livestock health product, sanitizer, processing aid or other material can be used—and sometimes the specific restrictions placed on its use. Changes to the National List ultimately occur through USDA rulemaking following NOSB recommendations.

In other words, discussions at the NOSB can eventually affect what happens in a Texas organic field, greenhouse, packing shed, dairy, feed mill or processing facility.

Jed Brings More Than an Interest in Organic Agriculture

USDA’s announcement notes that Jed has 20 years of agricultural experience, including 13 years in the vegetable industry. He currently serves as Director of Government Relations for the Texas International Produce Association and Managing Partner of 9 Kids Compost LLC. His involvement also includes the Texas Department of State Health Services Food Safety and Defense Task Force, Texas Vegetable Association and the Texas A&M Vegetable & Fruit Program.

Those credentials are impressive, but they don’t fully explain why his appointment should matter to Texas organic growers.

Jed was an owner and partner in Tenaza Organics in South Texas, where he was directly involved in commercial certified-organic vegetable production. Tenaza produced crops such as parsley, broccoli, beets, spinach, Swiss chard, kale and cabbage and supplied large retailers and restaurants throughout Texas, with some production moving into export markets.

That means Jed understands organic agriculture from the production side—not simply from meetings, policy discussions or reports.

He knows what it means to plant an organic crop, deal with weather and production risk, manage a highly perishable product, meet buyer expectations, maintain organic integrity and then find a market willing to pay for what was produced.

Organic Farming in the Real World

South Texas agriculture can also provide some hard lessons.

Jed and Tenaza experienced firsthand the devastating February 2021 freeze. A year later, he described how the farm had been doing well before suddenly losing essentially its crop during the freeze. I was there in the summer of 2021 and Jed’s crew was working overtime to plant more crops to make up the losses.

Experiences like that give a person a different understanding of agricultural policy.

Organic standards have to protect the integrity of the organic label, but they also have to function on real farms facing drought, freezes, hurricanes, insects, diseases, labor challenges, market changes and the thousand other things agriculture can throw at a producer.

I believe that practical agricultural perspective is particularly valuable on the NOSB.

He Has Already Helped Shape Texas Organic Agriculture

Jed’s involvement with Texas organics has extended well beyond his own farm.

When Texas A&M AgriLife began a project in 2022 to examine opportunities for expanding markets for Texas-grown organic produce, Jed was an important industry collaborator.

At the time, I described him as an avid organic grower, a member of the Texas Department of Agriculture Organic Advisory Board, and an exemplary cooperator with AgriLife Extension. He also provided ideas about opportunities for exporting Texas organic produce.

The TDA Organic Agricultural Industry Advisory Board has an important mission of its own: helping the Commissioner of Agriculture assess, develop, promote and expand the Texas organic agricultural products industry.

So Jed’s new national role follows years of engagement with many of the same questions here in Texas: How do we protect organic integrity while also helping organic agriculture grow? How do we connect farmers with markets? How do regulations affect producers? And how do we maintain consumer confidence in the organic label?

Recognized for Leadership in the Produce Industry

Jed’s work has also been recognized beyond Texas organic circles.

In 2022, American Vegetable Grower selected Tenaza Organics as its Central Region Grower Achievement Award winner. The recognition highlighted not only the farm’s production but Jed’s advocacy for fresh produce, growers, agricultural education and Texas-grown products.

His produce-industry experience also gives him an understanding of the entire organic supply chain—from the farmer to the consumer.

Organic agriculture begins with production practices, but USDA Organic is ultimately a consumer-facing label operating within a federal regulatory system. Maintaining that label requires understanding farmers and handlers while never losing sight of the consumer trust on which the entire organic market depends.

Jed’s experience in production, marketing and public policy gives him insight into each part of that chain.

USDA is getting someone with national produce-industry experience. Those of us in Texas organic agriculture know it is also getting someone who has been in the organic field, worked with organic growers, helped market organic crops and supported the growth of our organic industry for many years.

I am very pleased to see Jed Murray take that experience to the National Organic Standards Board!

More Resources

USDA Announces Five New Members to the National Organic Standards Board
USDA’s announcement and biography of Jed Murray.
Read the USDA announcement

National Organic Standards Board
Background on NOSB membership, responsibilities, meetings and activities.
USDA National Organic Standards Board

NOSB Recommendations
More than 600 recommendations involving organic production practices and materials are available through USDA.
View NOSB recommendations

National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances
Learn how substances are evaluated and regulated for organic crop, livestock and handling operations.
USDA National List information

Helping Expand the Market for Texas-Grown Organic Produce
Texas A&M AgriLife’s 2022 look at expanding domestic and international opportunities for Texas organic produce, including Jed’s involvement.
Read the AgriLife Today article

Tenaza Organics – Grower Achievement Award Regional Winner
A look at Tenaza Organics, its crops, markets and Jed’s work promoting produce and Texas growers.
Read the Growing Produce article

Organic Variety Production Tour – Thursday, September 3rd

New Deal, Texas | Registration begins at 9:30 a.m. | No registration fee

One of the continuing challenges for organic crop producers is finding seed varieties developed for the conditions in which we actually farm. This is especially true in the Texas High Plains, where crops must perform under heat, limited rainfall, declining irrigation capacity, organic fertility programs, and significant insect and disease pressure.

On Thursday, September 3, we will hold an Organic Variety Production Tour in the New Deal–Lubbock area to look at efforts underway to address that problem. This tour is built around a Southern SARE Producer Grant led by Seth Fortenberry of New Deal Grain that is helping develop local capacity to produce and supply non-GMO hybrid corn seed for organic and water-limited cropping systems.

Seth farms organic crops in the Texas High Plains and operates New Deal Grain, an organic grain and seed business. One of the problems he and other organic growers continue to face is the limited availability of non-GMO corn hybrids adapted to the hot, dry conditions of our region. Most corn seed production and much of the breeding work supplying non-GMO hybrids has historically been centered in the Midwest. The goal of this project is to begin closing that gap by taking regionally adapted genetics, producing the seed locally, and ultimately making those hybrids available to organic farmers.

New Deal Grain has licensed TAMZ106B and TAMZ107, two non-GMO corn hybrids developed through the Texas A&M AgriLife corn breeding program. The SARE project is helping Seth build the specialized knowledge and infrastructure needed to increase parent seed, produce hybrid seed, maintain genetic purity, process and condition the harvested seed, and move that seed into commercial production. The project also includes testing these hybrids on certified organic farms and comparing their performance under actual production conditions.

The September tour will use that corn seed project as a starting point, but the discussion will be broader. We will look at corn, sorghum, cowpea and guar plots and talk about what characteristics we need when selecting and developing varieties for organic agriculture. That may include yield, drought and heat tolerance, disease and insect resistance, weed competitiveness, forage quality, food quality, seed production characteristics, and opportunities for alternative markets.

At the Texas Tech corn plots, we will discuss corn breeding, promising crosses, commercial possibilities, and high-anthocyanin or High-A corn being developed for specialty food and health-oriented markets. We will then move to cowpea and guar plots to discuss their potential as cover crops, forage crops, protein crops, and alternative cash crops. The final field discussion will focus on organic sorghum, including variety needs, seed availability, and where we see opportunities for the organic sorghum industry.

This is really a tour about connecting plant breeding, seed production, and farmer needs. Developing a good variety is only the first step. Farmers also need enough high-quality seed, produced and conditioned correctly, at a price and quantity that allows them to actually plant it. Building that connection from the breeder’s plot to the farmer’s planter is one of the important long-term goals of this work.

Tentative Tour Agenda

9:30–10:00 a.m. – Registration, Introductions and Tour Overview at
New Deal Grain – Bob Whitney, Extension Organic Specialist and Seth Fortenberry, New Deal Grain

10:00 a.m. – Depart for Texas Tech Farm – Corn Plots

10:15 a.m. – Corn Breeding and Variety Development
Overview of the corn breeding program, varieties and crosses, potential industry uses, and High-A corn. Andrew Sellers, Texas A&M AgriLife Research Corn Breeding Technician and Bob Whitney

10:45 a.m. – Depart for Sorghum, Cowpea and Guar Plots

10:55 a.m. – Field Overview – Seth Fortenberry

11:00 a.m. – Organic Cowpea and Guar
Discussion of the plots and their potential as cover crops, protein crops, forage crops, and alternative crops for organic production – Dr. Waltram Ravelombola, Assistant Professor, Organic & Specialty Crop Breeding

11:25 a.m. – Organic Sorghum
Sorghum plot discussion, organic sorghum production and variety development, seed needs, and the future of organic sorghum – Dr. Bill Rooney, Professor, Sorghum Crop Breeder and Nick Porter, Senior Research Associate, Sorghum Breeding

12:00 noon – Depart for Lunch at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Lubbock
Lunch provided by Orlando’s

12:45 p.m. – Wrap-Up

Registration

There is no cost to attend the tour or lunch, but we need an accurate meal count.

Please contact Bob Whitney at 979-571-2086 to register.

Registration begins at 9:30 a.m. at New Deal Grain in New Deal, Texas, and we will leave for the field tour promptly at 10:00 a.m.

One Common Organic System Plan for Everyone – Maybe?

The introduction of a Common Organic System Plan, or Common OSP, is an important step toward greater consistency within the National Organic Program. Certified organic operations are all working under the same federal organic regulations, but they have often been required to describe their farms, handling systems, materials, and recordkeeping practices on forms that differ substantially from one certifier to another.

Right now, a person new to organic has to pick a certifier first and get their version of an OSP before I or other educators can even talk about how to use an OSP. A common format can reduce that unnecessary variation by creating a standard way to organize the information every certifier needs. It may also improve portability by allowing an operation to maintain one working OSP that can be updated over time and, when necessary, more easily submitted to another certifier without rebuilding the entire plan in a different format. A common complaint I hear is, “I would change certifiers but relearning and reworking all the forms is a mountain I don’t want to climb!”

A Common OSP can also make education and technical assistance much more effective. Extension educators, mentors, consultants, and farmer organizations can teach producers how an OSP works using one nationally recognized structure rather than trying to explain several certifier-specific systems. Certified operations interested in using the Common OSP should begin by asking their certifier whether it is accepted for new applications, annual updates, or transfers, and whether any supplemental forms are required. Producers should also ask whether the certifier will accept the Common OSP as the primary plan or require the same information to be entered again into a separate portal. I know that CCOF is not planning to use the new forms or recognize them for their clients since they say their forms save time. Many other certifiers will provide an option to their clients.

This new OSP is simply labeled as Version No. 1 and being the first it will probably be changed or updated over time.

Fortunately, No. 1 has started a conversation that will help determine whether a Common OSP truly reduces paperwork and gives the producer greater ownership of the document that describes how the organic operation maintains compliance.

I encourage you to take a look at the new No. 1 Common OSP. Below is the link to the USDA Website where you can download everything you need.

USDA Common OSP Forms