Organic Processing Vo1.6 #2 - March/April 2009

nize and treat such products as organic mental—equivalency suddenly seems within Canada’s borders, without the need to very far away. However, with further certify to a second standard. In turn, the consideration of the rule’s actual ob-

United States would also recognize Canadian jective, it’s not so clear that the differ-products. This is the concept of equivalency, ence is really all that pronounced. In in which domestic standards may differ at Canada, the objective is to safeguard the technical level, but trading partners view against possible commingling of or-the systems and objectives as equivalent. To ganic and nonorganic crops at the put it more simply: equivalency considers farm level; In the United States, the two systems as comparable, though not al- rule has specific protocols in place to ways identical. avoid any commingling on a farm that

From an organic perspective, this makes grows the same crop in both organic

Companies that sell both in Canada

sense since organic growing standards have and nonorganic form. Although the

and the United States, such as Amy’s

always been developed for specific growing methods may differ between the two

Kitchen and Nature’s Path, are big pro-

conditions depending on regional variances. approaches, the end result is very

ponents of an equivalency agreement.

If the principles and processes are the same, much the same.

then technical requirements can be different in accordance with the agro-ecologi- Opponents have also raised con-cal needs of each country’s public policy goals. To simply require everyone to cerns about an increase in competition meet your standard and only your standard is reductionist and runs counter to as a potential drawback of equivalency the principles on which both organic movements were founded. As Dr. Sophia agreements. As such, they advocate Twarog, an economist with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Devel- protectionist measures to maintain opment (UNCTAD) puts it, “We should accept that organic production standards their market share. Additionally, some will, and indeed should, vary as each is tailored to local conditions. In short, ex- opponents of equivalency have expect the best, but don’t force the entire world to be like you.” As with any trade pressed reservations about its potential negotiation, equivalency agreements allow governments to reaffirm their policy to lead to consumer confusion. Be-objectives. If irreconcilable differences

ANALYZING SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN

remain at the technical level, they do not

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIC REGULATORY SYSTEMS

have to compromise the entire agree-

With the growth of the international marketplace for organic products has come the

ment—and equivalency is still possible

development of national organic regulations that are, in many ways, as varied as organic

for everything else.

products themselves. Some are characterized by strict regulations and extensive bureau-

While seemingly straightforward, this

cratic structures, while others are loosely defined and contain few, if any, mechanisms

issue can still become a source of wide-

for oversight. While arguably beneficial at the domestic level, such diversity has the po-

spread debate. Some prefer a policy of

tential to erect trade barriers between nations and impede the growth of the interna-

mandatory “full compliance” rather than

tional organic market.

one of equivalence, as a means of main- Over the past several years, the USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) has taken taining the absolute consistency of or- concrete steps to better understand international regulatory differences and improve ganic products available in a given the position of U.S. organic products on the world market. In October 2008, FAS market. Often, though, differing ap- awarded the OTA, in partnership with the consulting group, Sustainable Strategies, proaches may, in fact, share the same

$750,000 to fund projects that analyze technical trade barriers for U.S. organic products.

goal.

With this funding, Sustainable Strategies will conduct side-by-side comparisons (also

A perfect example is the practice of

known as GAP analyses) of U.S. national organic standards and those of designated countries. USDA will then use the analyses in its negotiations with other nations with which