Organic certification: Getting it right

THE recently formed Organic Consumers Association of Australia (OCAA) is the first and only non-profit organisation in Australia dedicated to protecting and advancing the interests of consumers of organic food and other products. OCAA will be active in the area of organic standards, certification and promoting organic food to consumers and encouraging more conversion to organic growing.

Organic standards

Organic standards within Australia are generally high and well-regarded both domestically and in our export markets, but unfortunately, the regulation and application of organic standards are not well understood and is not straightforward. Inevitably, there are economically-derived pressures to reduce the requirements of the standard.

Australia currently has two major organic standards that are relevant to regulation. Certification according to the National Standard for Organic and Bio-Dynamic Produce (usually called the National Standard, see is required by the Federal Government before exporting organic produce from Australia. For export purposes, the National Standard can only be applied by Certification Bodies (CBs) that are accredited by the Department of Agriculture. It has no legal status within Australia but has been used as a ‘default’ standard for domestic purposes.

Standard-setting authority

The AS6000 can be recognised by Australian courts as a definition of organic, although certification to the AS6000

is not mandated. That means products can be sold as organic in Australia without any legal requirement to be certified.

Australian Standards can be recognised by the courts and other regulators such as the ACCC, but it is the convention that certification to an AS (Australian Standard) can be delivered by a certification organisation without needing Government accreditation.

Note that Standards Australia is recognised by the Federal Government as a standard- setting authority. So, whilst certification to AS6000 has some advantages for consumers, it is also a concern that multiple organic certification agencies could arise without much scrutiny. It would be better if the Australian Government was to refer to AS6000 in legislation. In fact, it could be that this would be best done under coordinated national agreement by the State Governments acting in unison, perhaps via the COAG process whereby State and Federal Governments collaborate.

Legal status

There are also two ‘private standards’, operated by the largest Certifying Bodies (CBs), Australian Certified Organic and NASAA.

These standards have no legal status for export or in the courts. They are only ways in which the CBs distinguish themselves from others and inform growers.

They are also used by certification bodies to obtain accreditation for organics exports from overseas accreditation and regulatory bodies, so the clients of these two certification bodies can gain market access for their products, in addition to the arrangements provided by equivalence to the National Standard via government to government processes.

There is the potential for these standards to impose higher requirements than the National Standard, and they have historically always met at least the minimum requirement of the National Standard.

A recent decision of one CB to slightly amend the private standard to facilitate drought feeding is a concern because it lowers the requirement below the National Standard and because the CB acted alone without engaging the accepted process of managing standards issues via the Organic Industry Standards and Certification Council (OISCC).

Lack of support for AS6000 by some CBs has seen the ongoing development of the standard fall behind the National Standard, which is continuously updated by the National Standards Committee and approved by OISCC.

This is ironic because only a few years ago, the same CBs used AS6000 to justify the use of methionine in organic egg and poultry production and to change the National Standard.

Domestic regulation

It would be better if there was only one standard, which is generally the requirement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and that standard should have teeth for domestic regulation. Neither the National Standard nor AS6000 are

currently fit for this purpose, but there are many reasons why ‘one standard’ makes much more sense.

Another issue of concern is that the expertise to develop and administer standards exists within the industry more than in the bureaucracy and in the past, OISCC and its predecessors have worked collaboratively with Government, recognising industry skills and knowledge and conceding the need for Government to control export regulation.

Over time, some Government agents have tended to assume that they control the entire process. OCAA believes the interests of growers and consumers are best preserved and maintained by industry, and that Governments’ role should be limited to the necessary regulatory requirements. It should be noted that Standards Australia, which owns AS6000, apart from being Australia’s representative on the International Standards Organisation and governmentrecognised standards- setting authority, has strict governance protocols which oversee standard setting.

Commercial pressure to weaken the standard has seen the introduction of several synthetic inputs (methionine for chickens and yeast food for winemaking) although the National Standards Committee has recently recommended to OISCC that these inputs be removed. Current pressure from industry (and unfortunately at least one CB) is to permit some level of contamination of organic produce with GMO products and to permit hydroponics. These pressures will be strongly resisted by OCAA.

Certification

As mentioned above, the recent appearance of unaccredited CBs does raise some concerns about their capacity to apply AS6000, including qualifications of inspectors/auditors, how the decision to grant certification is delivered, and the separation of inspection and certification functions.

Qualifications and independence of inspection and qualifications of inspectors is generally a concern to OCAA, and we would prefer that the three functions of standard- setting, inspection/audit and certification were separated, and that inspectors were required to conform to a professional code of ethics independent of the CBs.

Lack of transparency of certification decision-making, even on the part of accredited CBs, is also concerning to OCAA. We believe all the processes of certification, including OISCC, the CBs and Government should be as open as possible. There should be standardised application and interpretation of the standard, and in the regulation of permitted input products, to avoid conflict of interest.

As can be seen from the above discussion, the landscape of standard- setting and certification is complex. It is the goal of OCAA to greatly increase knowledge of how the process works and transparency throughout the system so that consumers and growers can become more involved and provide proper surveillance.

Organic growing and processing

To ensure the continuing increase in the availability of organic food, OCAA recognises the need to offer support to organic growers, including the right to protection from contamination with GMOs. If organic consumers want more product, it is legitimate to promote conversion, including government policy and institutional support for organic. To that end, we would like to see more education and assistance for growers to understand the standards and certification requirements, which should be provided by an independent authority other than certification bodies. Government policy at all levels of government can have a significant influence upon the future growth of organic, by removing current impediments, and provision of information. There is a potential for proactive policies, such as application of the same rate rebates on organic land that apply, at least in some states, to land dedicated to biodiversity.

Environmental stewardship

Note that the organic standards require five per cent setaside for biodiversity preservation and the provision of ecosystem services. The recent report on the magnitude of biodiversity loss in Australia and the world is an impetus for payments for the environmental stewardship that organic producers provide.

OCAA will advocate for certification of organic produce and products as the ‘operating norm’ for organic trade, noting that certification is currently not mandated. Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS), under appropriate governance arrangements, has a lot to offer small growers and local supply, and as an easy stepping stone to conversion and, where appropriate, eventual ‘third party accredited’ certification. Organic PGS schemes should use the same standard as third-party certification. OCAA will keep a watchful eye on the operations of accredited and unaccredited CBs, including the application of the certification process and training and standardisation of qualifications of organic inspectors/auditors. When necessary it will identify and respond to marketplace fraud.

OCAA will encourage organic- friendly food and farm policy. For instance, we had recent legislative changes mooted for the import of seed into Australia. When first announced, it appeared to mandate chemical treatment for all imported vegetable seed from four major vegetable families. It is no longer appropriate that legislation requires chemical treatment without proper consideration of whether non-chemical treatments can deliver appropriate outcomes. ☐