cause equivalency would allow competitors to meet a different set of technical requirements than those to which domestic producers and handlers must adhere,
such opponents argue that consumers might struggle to understand the definition of organic, or have less faith and trust in products labeled organic and therefore hurt the overall market for organic goods. However, this argument seems
specious considering the significant amount of NOP-compliant products already
sold in the Canadian market, and the rate at which demand continues to outpace
supply in both countries.
Other stakeholder groups, such as the International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and UNCTAD, have offered a decidedly different—and in many cases more compelling—perspective on equivalency. From
their standpoint, equivalency not only strengthens the domestic market for organic goods, but also serves to spur the growth of the organic market in general.
Instead of having to certify products to multiple standards, organic producers in
the U.S. or Canada could instead certify products to the standard of the country
in which their products were produced, reducing paperwork and streamlining
the certification process.
Jake Lewin, certifications services director with CCOF, believes “equivalency
with Canada is critically important to farms and processors of all sizes,” and adds
“Maintaining multiple certifications is often costly, inefficient and complicated.
Equivalency allows everyone involved to focus their energies on producing organic products.” Because it would reduce the cost, proponents argue that this
equivalency would enable more small-and medium-sized companies to sell their
products beyond their domestic market. For Canadian producers and processors,
this promises access to a market 20 times the size of their own. For U.S. producers
and processors, continued access to their most important buyer is at stake.
Proponents have identified increased availability of ingredients and raw materials as yet another benefit that equivalency has to offer. Whether it is a matter of
finding livestock feed, organic seeds or the right ingredients in sufficient supply
ENGAGING THE INTERNATIONAL EQUIVALENCY DEBATE
As equivalency has assumed a more prominent place in the international dialogue
about organic, several groups have formed to examine the policy and its implications
more thoroughly. Perhaps the most significant of these groups, from an international perspective, is the FAO-IFOAM-UNCTAD International Task Force on Harmonization and
Equivalence in Organic Agriculture (ITF). Launched in February 2003, ITF consists of government, intergovernmental agencies, and key private-sector stakeholders who work together to both promote public-private sector dialogue, analysis and solution-seeking,
with the goal of identifying ways to remove technical barriers to organic trade, particularly in regards to the vast amount of organic crops grown in countries which do not have
their own organic regulations.
In October 2008, ITF presented two tools in support of this mission. The first of these
tools is the International Requirements for Organic Certification Bodies, which serves as a
“reference norm that can be used by governments and private accreditation and certification bodies as a means of accepting certification of organic products outside of their own
system.” The second tool, entitled the “Guide for Equivalence in Organic Agriculture” or
“Equi Tool” for short, establishes procedures and criteria used to determine when standards applicable in one country are equivalent to those in another region. As UNCTAD
economist Sophia Twarog describes it, the Equi Tool is designed to “support governments
and other actors in their efforts to ensure a transparent, rigorous, logical and predictable
approach to judging equivalence of other organic standards.” For more information, visit
www.ifoam.org.
and quality, processors and farmers in
both the United States and Canada
struggle to access the materials they
need to produce organic products.
Equivalency offers a means to enable
greater, more reliable, and more efficient access to much-needed ingredients. Moreover, by facilitating the
supply of ingredients and by opening
up markets for export, equivalency will
actually strengthen each domestic
value chain, supporting domestic
processors and farmers alike with a
bigger, more fluid market.
Dag Falck, organic program manager with Nature’s Path Foods says,
“There is no question that we follow
the highest organic principles. However, dual and triple certifications
along with labeling and import rules
with their myriad requirements for
documentation (which also affect our
suppliers) are becoming so complex
that they could threaten to impede
our ability to bring healthy organic
products to our customers. Equivalency would be one significant and
positive step in the right direction to
alleviate this.”
Representatives of the organic sectors in both Canada and the United
States have brought these positions to
their governments, urging them to discuss a possible trade agreement. Miles
McEvoy, president of the National Association of State Organic Programs
(NASOP), wrote in a letter to the U.S.
Secretary of Agriculture that, “
Establishing an organic equivalency agreement
is extremely important to maintain
trade between the U.S. and Canada,
and to the continued success of the organic food industry in our country.”
Similarly, an April 2008 white paper
issued to Canada’s minister of agriculture, Gerry Ritz, by the advisory Organic Value Chain Roundtable
proclaimed the “continued success
and access to markets for the organic
sector will depend upon the negotiation of equivalency or other trade
