The Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) is the primary certification used to verify organic cotton as it moves from the farm through the gin and into textile markets. While USDA organic certification covers production, GOTS governs how that cotton is handled, processed, and sold as organic in the textile supply chain.
GOTS released Version 8.0 this spring (effective March 1, 2027), and while most of the discussion centers around global textile supply chains, there are several changes that matter directly to organic cotton producers and gins here in Texas. From my perspective, this update is less about changing how we grow cotton and more about tightening how the system verifies and documents what we are already doing. I hate more rules but we do operate in a global market!
One of the clearest shifts in Version 8.0 is the increased focus on the gin as the first control point in the organic textile chain. GOTS continues to define the gin as the “first processor,” but now places more emphasis on what happens at that stage—especially around segregation, documentation, and traceability. In practical terms, this means the gin is no longer just moving cotton through the system; it is playing a key role in protecting and verifying organic integrity.
Another area that will get attention is GMO testing at the gin level. GOTS 8.0 reinforces the requirement for testing, but it is important to understand what did not change. There is still no numeric GMO threshold written into the standard. Instead, certification decisions continue to be based on whether the farmer followed approved organic practices and whether the certifier can verify compliance. In other words, a test result by itself does not determine the outcome—the system and the documentation behind it still matter most.
The biggest structural change in GOTS 8.0 is the introduction of a more formal due diligence approach. That is a technical way of saying that every part of the supply chain—from farm to gin to buyer—is now expected to identify risks, document them, and show how they are being managed. For organic cotton, this puts more focus on real-world issues we already deal with, such as neighboring GMO crops, harvest handling, and maintaining clean separation through the gin.
Traceability also continues to tighten. GOTS has always relied on Scope Certificates and Transaction Certificates, but Version 8.0 reinforces that every step in the chain must be documented clearly and consistently. Clean paperwork and clear records are becoming just as important as clean cotton.
Finally, GOTS 8.0 continues to reinforce a rule that is especially important in Texas: no blending of conventional cotton into organic textile streams. With organic and conventional production often side by side, this keeps pressure on gins to maintain strict separation and handling practices.
What This Means on the Ground
From a practical standpoint, most organic farmers will not need to change what they are doing in the field. The fundamentals remain the same—approved seed, buffers, and a solid organic system plan. Where things are changing is in how well that system must be documented and verified after harvest.
For gins, the role is becoming more critical. There will be increased expectations around segregation, documentation, and participation in the verification process. The gin is now clearly a key link in maintaining organic integrity.
Bottom Line
GOTS 8.0 is not about rewriting organic production—it is about proving that the system worked all the way through the supply chain. That means more attention to testing, documentation, and traceability, but the foundation remains the same: organic certification is based on process and compliance, not just a single test result.
One of the biggest limitations I continue to see in organic grain and dairy systems—especially here in Texas and across the southern region—is not just fertility or weed control. It is genetics. We simply do not have corn hybrids that are truly adapted to our heat, drought, and water-limited environments.
A new on-farm project as part of a Southern SARE grant is being led by Seth Fortenberry (New Deal Grain) is working directly on that problem. This work is supported through the Southern SARE program, which is designed to fund practical, on-farm research that can be quickly adopted by other farmers—making it a strong fit for advancing organic systems in our region.
What This Project Is About
This on-farm project is focused on building local hybrid corn seed production for organic systems. Instead of relying on seed developed and produced in the Midwest, the goal is to produce non-GMO hybrid seed right here in the South, under the same conditions farmers actually face.
A key part of this project—and one I think is worth highlighting—is the direct connection to public plant breeding. The hybrids being used in this work, including TAMZ106 and TAMZ107, were developed by Dr. Wenwei Xu, Texas A&M AgriLife Research corn breeder in Lubbock. His program has focused heavily on stress tolerance—heat, drought, and disease—which is exactly what our organic systems require in this region.
Why This Matters to Organic Farmers
From my perspective, this is where things get interesting.
Better adaptation – Hybrids developed by Dr. Xu are bred under Texas High Plains conditions, not Midwest environments
Improved water use – Critical for anyone pulling from the Ogallala
Stronger performance under stress – Organic systems don’t have “rescue tools,” so genetics matter more
Public breeding impact – This project creates a direct pathway for AgriLife-developed genetics to reach organic farmers
Local seed supply – Keeps value in our region and reduces dependence on outside companies
In simple terms, this project is trying to align genetics (G) with management (M) and environment (E)—something we know makes a big difference in organic systems.
What to Expect Moving Forward
This project is just getting started, but over the next two years we will be:
Producing parent lines and hybrid seed under organic conditions
Testing hybrids on working organic farms
Hosting field days and sharing results
Building toward a reliable regional seed supply
I will be involved on the Extension side—helping get information out, organizing field days, and making sure growers can see and evaluate this work in real conditions.
Final Thought
If we are serious about growing organic production in Texas and the southern region, we have to address seed. This project is a practical step in that direction—connecting public breeding with real-world organic production.
And I would add this—projects like this only work because of long-term investment in breeding programs like Dr. Xu’s. Without that foundation, we would not have the genetics to even begin this conversation.
More to come as we get into the field this season.
Sorghum’s natural characteristics and compatibility with organic farming principles indeed make it an excellent crop for organic cultivation. While some traits like drought tolerance and non-GMO status are shared with conventional sorghum, these characteristics synergize particularly well with the goals and methods of organic agriculture, offering distinct advantages.
Drought Tolerance: Sorghum’s inherent drought tolerance makes it an ideal crop for organic systems, which prioritize water conservation and efficient use.
Low Fertilizer Needs: Sorghum’s ability to thrive in less fertile soils matches well with organic farming, which relies on natural fertility management rather than synthetic fertilizers.
Natural Resistance to Pests and Diseases: Sorghum’s inherent resistance to many pests and diseases minimizes the need for synthetic pesticides, making it easier for organic farmers to manage their crops.
Versatility in Use: Sorghum can be utilized in a variety of ways (grain, syrup, fodder) which allows organic producers to cater to diverse markets (food, feed, sweeteners) under organic labels.
Contribution to Soil Health: Sorghum’s deep rooting system can improve soil structure and increase water infiltration, beneficial effects that are particularly valued in organic systems focused on long-term soil health.
Crop Rotation and Diversity: Sorghum fits well into crop rotations, a cornerstone of organic farming, helping break pest and disease cycles and improving soil health without relying on chemical inputs.
Consumer Preference for Non-GMO: Even though there is no GMO sorghum on the market, the strong consumer preference for non-GMO products benefits organic sorghum producers, as their products are guaranteed to meet this demand.
Growing Demand for Organic Grains: The increasing consumer demand for organic products extends to grains, including sorghum, for both human consumption and organic animal feed.
Carbon Sequestration: Sorghum’s growth habit and biomass production can contribute to carbon sequestration, aligning with the environmental sustainability goals of organic farming.
While many of sorghum’s traits benefit both conventional and organic systems, its natural resilience, low input requirements, and versatility make it particularly well-suited for organic agriculture. These characteristics help organic sorghum producers minimize reliance on external inputs, align with organic principles, and tap into a growing market demand for organic products.
Buying seed?
The number of seeds per pound in sorghum varieties can vary significantly depending on the specific variety and the size of the seeds. Generally, this range can be broad, reflecting differences in genetics, breeding objectives, and end use (grain, forage, or specialty types). Here’s a general overview:
Small-Seeded Varieties: Can have as many as 16,000 to 18,000 seeds per pound.
Large-Seeded Varieties: May have fewer seeds per pound, typically ranging from 12,000 to 15,000 seeds per pound.
Forage sorghums and sorghum-sudangrass hybrid types tend to have larger seeds compared to grain sorghum varieties. The seeds per pound can range from 10,000 to 14,000 for forage types, with sorghum-sudangrass hybrids often on the lower end of this scale due to their larger seed size.
Sorghum Varieties
The varieties listed below are some planted by current organic growers. We are in the process of getting a better list together and will post them here!
These varieties are listed along with their respective websites for more detailed information. Company listings are down below and your source for qualified salespeople. Check with your certifier before buying any sorghum seed especially if the variety is not sold as organically produced. Since we do not have many organic, locally adapted sorghum varieties producers typically buy conventionally produced varieties without seed treatments.
Every year, I am usually out checking small grain fields across Texas this time of year—from the High Plains down to South Texas—and one thing is always clear:
We are not all at the same stage, but we are usually at some sort of decision point.
In the Upper Panhandle, small grains may just be reaching Feekes 5–6 (green-up to jointing). In Central Texas, crops are often at Feekes 10 or boot to heading. And in South Texas, many fields are already at pollination (Feekes 10.5 or even moving toward grain fill (Feekes 11).
Even with those differences, the key question remains the same:
What is the best use of this crop from here forward?
Why Growth Stage Still Matters—Even Across Regions
The decisions you make now are still tied closely to crop development, but the options available to you depend on where your crop sits today.
Here is how I think about it across Texas:
Feekes 4–6 (Panhandle / later-planted wheat)
Full flexibility: grazing, silage, grain, or cover crop
Nitrogen decisions still influence yield potential
Boot to Heading (Central Texas)
Strong window for silage or grazing
Grain is still viable, but management decisions are mostly set
Pollination to Grain Fill (South Texas)
Primary option becomes grain harvest
Some late silage possible, but quality declines quickly and silage may not be possible after soft dough!
This variation is not a problem—it’s actually an opportunity. It means across Texas, producers can match their crop stage to the best economic use for their situation.
A More Useful Way to Think About It
Instead of asking:
“What stage is my wheat at?”
You should ask:
“Given where my crop is today, what are my realistic options—and what gives me the best return?”
Option 1: Keep It as a Cover Crop
In organic systems, soil is the driver of fertility. A small grain cover crop is one of the best tools we have to build or amend soil, add fertility and support microbe life.
What You Gain
Soil protection from wind and rain
Improved water infiltration through root channels
Increased soil biology and organic matter
Reduced weed pressure
Even moderate biomass (3,000 lb/acre) delivers measurable benefits:
Cover Crop Biomass
Moderate Growth
Heavy Growth
Dry Matter Produced
3,000 lb/acre
Return/Acre
6,000 lb/acre
Return/Acre
Nitrogen Returned
45–75 lb N
$28.80 – $48.00
90–150 lb N
$57.60 – $96.00
Phosphorus Returned
9–15 lb P₂O₅
$8.37 – $13.95
18–30 lb P₂O₅
$16.74 – $27.90
Potassium Returned
45–75 lb K₂O
$21.15 – $35.25
90–150 lb K₂O
$42.30 – $70.50
Total Nutrient Value
$58 – $97
$117 – $194
Heavy biomass can double that value to $117–$194 per acre.
Why This Matters
Think of this like putting money into a soil “savings account.” You may not cash it out immediately, but:
Your next crop establishes better
Water is used more efficiently
Nutrient cycling improves
Over time, that compounds into more stable yields and lower input needs.
Option 2: Cut It for Silage
I see this becoming more important, especially with organic dairies looking for feed alternatives.
Timing Is Everything
Boot to early head: ~15% crude protein
Soft dough: higher yield, lower quality
But here’s the tradeoff:
You give up 1/3 to 1/2 of total grain yield potential
Yield and Value
Boot stage: 1.7–2.7 tons DM/acre
Soft dough: 4.2–5.9 tons DM/acre
Price: $40–$65/ton (32% DM basis)
Why It Can Work
Generates cash flow earlier
Saves soil moisture compared to full-season grain
Opens the door for a second crop
I often think of silage as a “system decision” rather than a crop decision—it’s about fitting into a rotation.
Option 3: Graze It
In many cases, grazing is the most profitable use of small grains.
Typical Returns
40¢–70¢ per lb of gain
$18–$25 per head per month
Why It Works
You are converting forage directly into animal weight without:
Harvest costs
Hauling
Storage losses
Key Considerations
Stocking rate and timing
Moisture and regrowth potential
Whether you still want grain afterward
If you have livestock or access to them, this option deserves serious consideration. It often produces steady income with lower risk than grain.
Option 4: Take It to Grain
There is renewed interest in:
Organic wheat
Ancient grains
Barley, rye, and specialty markets
High-nutrient or functional grains (like high anthocyanin lines)
What Buyers Are Looking For
High protein
Strong gluten (for baking)
Low DON (vomitoxin)
Consistent quality
There is also growing consumer interest in:
Whole grain products
Local milling
Health-driven foods
Why This Matters
Grain gives you:
The highest potential gross return
Access to premium markets
But also:
The highest risk
The longest time to cash flow
The greatest dependence on weather
Putting It All Together: How I Think Through the Decision
When I am in a producer field at any stage of growth, I usually think through these questions:
1. What is my moisture situation?
Limited moisture → lean toward grazing or silage
Good moisture → grain becomes more attractive
2. What markets do I have access to?
Dairy nearby → silage
Livestock → grazing
Strong organic grain buyer → grain
3. What does my next crop need?
Need soil improvement → cover crop
Need time for planting → silage
Need moisture conservation → cover crop or grazing
4. What have I already invested?
High fertility investment → grain may justify it
Low input system → cover crop or grazing may be better
This publication was recently published by both FiBL which is The Research Institute of Organic Agriculture and IFOAM Organics International which is the 100-country membership organization for organic agriculture. These two organizations came together to publish this look at statistics for world agriculture but also to give us all some insights into some of the trends.
Just click the picture to be able to download your copy!
I was particularly interested in the special section on Peanuts. This is a “special” section because there is so little production in the world but there is an increasing demand. I am hopeful we can maybe find a way into this market!
Here are the lead paragraphs by Nicolas Lefebvre with FiBL.
Despite their visible presence in European retail – from organic peanut butter to snack products – organic peanuts remain one of the rarest crops in global organic agriculture. Based on available data, organic peanuts account for around 0.1 percent of global peanut area. Even allowing for data gaps in some producing countries, the conclusion is clear: organic peanut production is exceptionally limited.
Biological and agronomic constraints
Peanuts are a legume crop grown in warm climates. The primary organic production regions include Asia (mainly China), Latin America, the United States (particularly the Southeast and Texas), and several African countries, with Egypt being a major producer that relies heavily on intensive irrigation. Peanut cultivation is best suited to sandy soils and is characterized by relatively high-water requirements. While some organic pilot initiatives exist in Europe (notably in Austria and France), climatic constraints remain significant: temperatures are often limited, and wet conditions during autumn harvest can critically compromise crop quality.
The peanut pods develop underground, making the crop highly sensitive to fungal diseases, especially under humid conditions. In conventional systems, these risks are managed with repeated applications of fungicides (mainly systemic), starting with seed treatment at planting time. In organic farming, no comparable solutions are available, resulting in significantly higher yield variability and crop failure risk.
A further major constraint is the risk of aflatoxin contamination. Peanuts are among the crops most exposed to aflatoxins, toxic substances produced by fungi of the Aspergillus genus. These toxins are strictly regulated in the European Union and in the United States, and exceeding the legal limits makes entire lots unmarketable.
Aflatoxin contamination usually occurs at the end of the growing cycle, but it can also develop very rapidly after harvest if storage conditions are poor. For organic producers and traders, the risk is higher, as organic lots cannot be blended or downgraded into conventional markets. One unfavorable season or inadequate post-harvest handling can therefore wipe out the entire economic return. A less visible consequence is that heavily contaminated lots (mainly in less developed countries) may be sold at lower prices on local markets, creating food safety.
This intro to worldwide organic peanut production makes it plain that we have very little competition, but the next section makes it clear that we are the world’s primary producer, and I think the world’s best and cleanest producer!
Economic disincentives and weak infrastructure
From an economic perspective, organic peanuts combine high production risk with limited market incentives. Organic yields are generally lower, labor and monitoring costs are higher, and crop losses can be total. In addition, compared with other open field arable crops, peanut production requires highly specific harvesting equipment, as well as dedicated sorting and shelling infrastructure that is not compatible with other crops. These technical constraints imply substantial fixed investments, making entry into organic peanut production particularly costly for large-scale organic arable farms. At the same time, consumer willingness to pay organic premiums is more limited than for other nuts such as almonds or cashews. As a result, many farmers prefer alternative organic crops with more predictable returns. In addition, many major peanut-producing regions lack well-developed organic infrastructure. Advisory services, organic breeding programs, and segregated post-harvest facilities are often missing. Consequently, only a small number of highly specialized projects are able to supply organic peanuts reliably for export markets.
The article concluded with this paragraph below and it highlights our lack of US Organic Peanut penetration into the European Market
Conclusion
Organic peanuts illustrate the limits of organic expansion in crops with high biological and food safety risks. Their extremely low share of global organic area reflects fundamental agronomic and economic constraints rather than a lack of consumer interest. The EU import collapse of 2022–2023 was driven by a combination of climatic shocks, aflatoxin risk, regulatory transition and market conditions, followed by a partial normalization in 2024. Organic peanuts are therefore likely to remain a small but strategically important niche within global organic supply chains.
Lastly they provide some numbers of organic peanut production.
Statistics on world-wide organic peanuts Organic peanuts remain a niche crop globally (estimated 0.1 percent of total peanut area), but the recorded global organic peanut area increased from 11,101 hectares (2016) to 41,972 hectares (103,717 acres) in 2024 according to the FiBL survey on organic agriculture worldwide. The strong jump in 2024 should be interpreted with care, because it was driven largely by a new data source for the United States, which reported a much larger organic peanut area than the source used previously. In 2024, the top three countries by organic peanut area were the United States (18,990 hectares (46,925 acres); almost half of the reported global organic peanut area), China (12,238 hectares; ~30 percent), and Mexico (4,116 hectares; ~10 percent).
More Good Market News!
Wintertime is the time for meetings, and both Organic organizations and Organic companies are hosting meetings all over the world to discuss and plan for market programs over the 2026 market year and beyond. This article appeared in the February edition of The Organic and Non-GMO Report which I subscribe to. This is one of my favorite magazines with great articles and good market information. I have seen some similar information from other sources but for sure numbers 1, 2 and 4 fit Texas Organic and fit us well. A big thanks to The Organic & Non-GMO Report for calling our attention to this huge market!
Published in the OMRI Materials Review quarterly newsletter and reprinted with permission. omri.org/ I thought this was a great article and I learned some things about early organic organization I had not heard before. A big thanks to OMRI and Dr. Baker for allowing me to share this article. Bob Whitney
Organic standards in the United States differ from those in other parts of the world in many ways. One significant difference between the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) standard and other international standards is the way that inputs are evaluated and approved for use in organic production and handling. In general, the United States’ Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 ( OFPA) legally defined an agricultural production system based on sustainable production methods that rely primarily on natural materials. The OFPA authorizes the USDA to establish organic standards. These standards allow only synthetic materials that appear on the National List. The OFPA also gives the USDA the authority to prohibit non-synthetic substances deemed to be harmful to human health and the environment. Anyone can submit a petition to the NOP to add a substance to the National List. The USDA cannot add any synthetic substance to the National List without a National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) recommendation from a supermajority vote, after considering criteria in the OFPA related to the substance’s necessity and impact on health, the environment, and sustainability. All substances on the National List are required to be re-reviewed every five years and reaffirmed through a legislative sunset process. This unique process was established 35 years ago and has been in effect since 2002.
Why did the U.S. adopt an approach that was so heavily oriented toward the source, origin, and manufacturing process of inputs?
Private and State Standards
The roots of the natural/synthetic framework for agricultural inputs trace back to the first organic certification program in the U.S., conducted by the Rodale Press’ Organic Gardening and Farming magazine in the early 1970s, which defined organically grown food as: “Food grown without pesticides; grown without artificial fertilizers; grown in soil whose humus content is increased by the additions of organic matter; grown in soil whose mineral content is increased with applications of natural mineral fertilizers; and has not been treated with preservatives, hormones, antibiotics, etc.”
Rodale ceased their certification program and spun it off to various organic farmers’ organizations, including California Certified Organic Farmers, the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), and Northwest Tilth, later to become Oregon Tilth and Washington Tilth. These grassroots organizations based their standards and procedures on Rodale’s model but modified them to meet local conditions.
The original certification standards were brief and subject to interpretation. Prior to federal regulation, the USDA’s Report and Recommendation on Organic Farming found that the organic farming movement covered a broad spectrum. Some organic farmers took a purist approach and used no synthetic inputs. Other organic farmers applied various synthetic fertilizers and/or pesticides selectively and sparingly. Many of the organic farmers that belonged to the organizations that set standards and conducted certification recognized the need to use some synthetic inputs to be economically viable and to grow high quality crops, but only a few that they considered necessary. These exceptions varied by region.
While most standards were set and enforced by the private sector, organic farmers were able to get some state legislatures to pass laws to protect the organic label. Oregon and Maine passed statutes to set organic standards in 1973. In 1979, California passed the California Organic Foods Act, which codified into law the paradigm that synthetic inputs are prohibited and nonsynthetic inputs are allowed, with a limited list of synthetic substances listed as exceptions in the statute. Because California was the state that both produced and purchased the most organic food, the California Organic Foods Act became the most recognized U.S. organic standard. However, it was not the only one. Private certifiers, particularly in the Midwest, were certifying organic products for export to Europe. These certifiers relied on the standards consistent with those set by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). The IFOAM standards were more practice oriented, with inputs less important than methods. IFOAM established a closed positive list of inputs permitted for use in organic production and handling that was less open-ended than the California law. It also allowed several synthetic sources of naturally occurring substances, like potassium sulfate, and omitted several nonsynthetic substances, most notably sodium nitrate. The IFOAM standards became the basis for the European Union regulation on organic food and farming that passed in 1991. Various state laws governing organic food production also used a positive list approach to regulating inputs.
Organic Becomes a Federal Matter
In 1989, the CBS television show 60 Minutes reported on a study conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency knowingly allowed residues of a cancer-causing chemical to be present on certain foods. The pesticide implicated was a plant growth regulator used in apple production called Alar (daminozide).
Organic sales skyrocketed immediately after the episode was aired. However, fraud in the organic market was already rampant. Growing demand outstripped the supply of legitimate organic food, which spurred greater fraud. Various states enacted new organic food legislation. Those with existing laws significantly strengthened their standards. By the 1990s, over 20 states had laws on the books that regulated organic food, and each one was different.
The use of pesticides in organic production was hotly debated. Environmental and consumer groups, along with some long-time organic farmers, called on Congress to categorically ban all pesticides in organic production – even natural ones like rotenone and pyrethrum. Most organic farmers’ organizations, processors, and input suppliers lobbied for a bill that allowed some synthetic inputs, including a few pesticides.
The organic community presented Congress with three alternative approaches to address pesticides and other inputs. In addition to the natural/synthetic approach taken by California, and the closed positive list approach taken by many states and domestic private organizations, as well as IFOAM and the EU, another alternative considered was “agronomic responsibility.” That approach proposed organic standards that would permit any input allowed in organic production under limited specific circumstances, with metrics for improving soil. However, the agronomic responsibility model was opposed by certification bodies, environmental groups, and consumer advocates. That narrowed the debate to either the IFOAM/EU model or the California model.
Meanwhile, USDA officials testified against OFPA before Congress. If Congress mandated a closed positive list, USDA officials indicated that they would allow all inputs that were legal to use in conventional production for organic production as well, regardless of origin and without any additional limitations beyond current regulations. Those who promoted a closed, positive list realized that they could not reconcile growing differences between the various state and private standards before the 1990 Farm Bill. The factions of the organic movement worked out a consensus with Senate Agriculture Committee staffer, Kathleen Merrigan, that drew from all three model standards and convinced Congress to pass a bill that took a procedural approach to guide rulemaking.
The Senate Report on the OFPA explained the rationale for this approach: “Most consumers believe that absolutely no synthetic substances are used in organic production. For the most part, they are correct and this is the basic tenet of this legislation. But there are a few limited exceptions to the no-synthetic rule, and the National List is designed to handle these exceptions.”
The OFPA set a high bar for the USDA to make exceptions to the synthetic/nonsynthetic rule. It required an open, transparent process involving stakeholders to review and recommend those exceptions. Congress also recognized that some natural substances pose environmental or human health hazards and should be prohibited for organic production and handling. The National List includes nonsynthetic substances prohibited for organic production to address this anomaly. Congress explicitly mentioned arsenic and botanical insecticides as specific concerns.
Where We Are Today
Today’s National List evolved from organic food standards established prior to OFPA. The synthetic/nonsynthetic foundation of the law comes from tradition and consumer expectations that still hold true today. Exceptions are rarely made. Those few exceptions require a rigorous technical evaluation and a broad consensus of the organic community. The National List process takes a precautionary approach that protects human health and the environment. That approach provides an incentive for innovation that benefits all agriculture.
— End of reprinted article —
Periodically USDA NOP approved inputs are reviewed and either allowed or prohibited to continue to be used in certified organic system plans.This Sunset Review process involves the NOSB and National Organic Program.
Texas A&M AgriLife Organic 