No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Variation in organic standards prior to the National Organic Program
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 October 2009
Abstract
Interest in establishing nationally uniform certification, labeling, and management standards for organic products grew out of concern that the existence of multiple standards led to consumer and supply chain confusion about, and lack of confidence in, these products. The National Organic Program Final Rule, issued in December 2000, is the result of this interest. We analyze the certification system that was in place prior to the new national rule to evaluate the extent of differences between certification standards and how the national rule is likely to impact the market for organic products. Our analysis suggests that most differences among US certification standards were minor. Also, the most important impacts of the national standard may be in facilitating trade in ingredients and products certified by different certifiers, increasing buyer confidence, and facilitating exports. However, the national rule may decrease the ability of organic certifiers and consumers to place differing emphasis on the multiple goals of organic production and may decrease the flexibility of organic standards to respond to changing market conditions, including new technologies.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002
References
1.AMS. 2000a. ISO Guide 65 assessments of organic certifying agencies: Official status listing of agencies currently under assessment by USDA. Agricultural Marketing Service, National Organic Program, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/mgc/iso65.htm (viewed 6 09 2000).Google Scholar
2.AMS. 2000b. National Organic Program: Final Rule with request for comments (7 CFR Part 205). Agricultural Marketing Service, National Organic Program, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/nop2000/Final%20Rule/nopfinal.pdf (viewed 2 01 2001).Google Scholar
3.Dimitri, C., and Richman, N.. 2000. Organic Food Markets in Transition. Henry A. Wallace Center for Agricultural and Environmental Policy, Greenbelt, MD.Google Scholar
4.Food Marketing Institute. 2000. Backgrounder: antibiotics in livestock and poultry feed. Food Marketing Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.fmi.org/media/bg/antibiotics-2000.htm (viewed 7 06 2001; updated 03, 2000).Google Scholar
5.FSIS. 1999. Using the claim ‘certified organic by …’ on meat and poultry product labeling. Food Safety and Inspection Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. http://www.fsis.us-da.gov/oa/background/organic.htm (viewed 11 10 2000).Google Scholar
6.Hall, B. 1997. Organic Certification Business Management Guide. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA), Fayetteville, Arkansas.Google Scholar
7.IFOAM. 2000. IFOAM accredited certification bodies and applicant certification bodies. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Tholey-Theley, Germany, http://www.ifoam.org/accredit/acb_form_neu.html (viewed 6 09 2000).Google Scholar
8.IOIA. 1998. Strengthening the organic certification system: Observations and suggested remedial action. Dated September 1998, unpublished. Independent Organic Inspectors Association, Broadus, Montana.Google Scholar
9.Kindberg, E. 1997. The organic turning point. Natural Foods Merchandiser, 05 1997. http://www.nfm-online.com/nfm_backs/nfm_backs/May_97/news_soundoff.html (viewed 21 04 1999).Google Scholar
10.Lavender, R.S. 1998. Whose organic production standards? A comparative study of the proposed National Organic Programme rule from the United States of America with current international standards and laws for organic production. Bachelor of Science Honors thesis. University of Wales, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
11.Macey, A. (ed.). 2000. Organic Livestock Handbook. A Project of the Canada Organic Growers Association. Mothersill Printing, Ottawa, Ontario.Google Scholar
12.Mergentime, K. 1997. Organic fraud case deepens; possible link causes OCIA turmoil. Natural Foods Merchandiser, 03 1997. http://www.nfm-online.com/nfm_backs/nfm_backs/Mar_97/news_fraud.html (viewed 21 04 1999).Google Scholar
13.OCC. 1998. Survey of organic certifiers. Unpublished report. Organic Certifiers Council of the Organic Trade Association, Greenfield, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
14.OFPANA. 1992. Guidelines for the Organic Food Industry. Organic Food Producers Association of North America, Greenfield, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
15.OFRF. 1998. National Organic Certifiers Directory. September. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, California.Google Scholar
16.OFRF. 1999. Third Biennial National Organic Farmers' Survey. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, California.Google Scholar
17.OMRI. 2000. OMRI's list of subscribing certifiers and state/provincial programs. Organic Materials Review Institute, Eugene, Oregon, http://www.omri.org (viewed 26 09 2000).Google Scholar
18.OTA. 1996. How to harvest the profits of organic produce: an organic intensive co-sponsored by the Organic Trade Association and New Hope Communications. Manual compiled by OTA to accompany workshop in Baltimore, Maryland, 10 1996. Organic Trade Association, Greenfield, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
19.Riddle, J.A., and Ford, J.E.. 1997. What's in an organic standard? A comparative analysis of various national and international organic standards. Organic Trade Association, Greenfield, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
20.Tourte, L., and Klonsky, K.. 1998. Organic agriculture in California: a statistical review. University of California Agricultural Issues Center, No. 6 (April), Davis, California.Google Scholar