Organic Processing Vo1.7 #4 - July/August 2010

fine the key areas of material classification, specifically synthetic versus nonsynthetic and agricultural versus nonagricultural. The Materials Working Group met regularly throughout 2008 and 2009 regarding the classification of materials and at the fall 2009 meeting, the NOSB passed a recommendation attempting to clarify this matter. The Board continued to work on the classification of materials at the recent spring 2010 NOSB meeting.

“T“The majority of those who offered comments requested a complete prohibition of nanotechnology (and products resulting from it)
in certified organic production and processing.”

One important and significant aspect of these recommendations is the recognition that both the source of the substance and the processes it undergoes are important in determining whether a particular version of a material is categorized as “synthetic” or “nonsynthetic.” The NOSB also recommended that agricultural products that are minimally processed stay classified as “agricultural” rather than being put in the separate category of “nonsynthetic.” However, if the agricultural material is processed extensively with significant chemical change, then it would be classified as synthetic. Another point made was that depending on source and process, it’s possible for versions of a particular substance to be classified as agricultural, nonsynthetic or synthetic. Citric acid is an example of a substance that, depending on its source and processing, could fit into any of the three categories.

The Board also recommended that if a nonsynthetic version of a substance listed on 605(b) (allowed synthetics) becomes available, then it should be allowed for use in organic processing without having to go through the lengthy petition process to have that substance specifically listed on section 605(a) (allowed nonsynthetics) of the NL. For example, cellulose is listed on 605(b) due to the typical chemical processing methods the substance undergoes. However, if a less synthetic cellulose was developed—using a nonchemical-based processing method—it could be used without having to wait for it to be added to the list separately.

The Board also discussed the classification of microbiological life such as yeast, fungus and bacteria, and the products made via natural biological processes from microbiological life. While a few of these products are already considered agricultural, most are currently classified as nonagricultural/nonsynthetic and listed on section 605 of the NL. Some individuals have argued that more forms should be considered agricultural. The Board acknowledged in the recommendation that the classification of these items is complicated and suggested that both categories be evaluated and reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Board through the established petition process.

One of the reasons why some have sought to have microbiological
life such as yeast categorized as agri-
cultural is because it would then be
subject to the “commercial availabil-
ity” rule for items listed in section 606
(nonorganically produced agricul-
tural products). Earlier this year, the
NOP decided that yeast could be cer-
tified organic; however, because it is
listed on section 605 (nonagricultural
substances), manufacturers are not
required to use the organic form. To
offer a solution for issues like this, the
Board requested that the NOP con-
sider extending the “commercial
availability” rule to include NL sec-
tion 605. If this change is made, man-
ufacturers will need to prove that
yeast, as well as any nonagricultural
ingredient, is not commercially avail-
able in organic before they are per-
mitted to use nonorganic versions.

Inert Atmospheric Gas

Another topic discussed at the meeting was inert atmospheric gases such as nitrogen. These are used in processing as a floating gas barrier to displace oxygen and prevent oxidation and rancidity in the product. Prior to 2007, the use of these materials was allowed in products that made a 100 percent organic labeling claim. In 2007, this interpretation was changed by the NOP and these gases were determined to be processing aids, which voided the 100 percent claim. However, since these inert gases do not cause any change to the product, the Board suggested that they be viewed as a packaging aid rather than a processing aid. At the spring 2010 meeting, the NOSB passed a guidance recommendation that the use of inert atmospheric gases to displace oxygen in processed products once again be allowed within the 100 percent organic claim.