Standards and Regulations
B EATE H UBER 1 AND O TTO S CHMID 2
In Europe, the dominating topic in 2016 continued to be the European Commission’s proposal for a new organic regulation. The proposal published by the European Commission in March 2014 foresaw a new regulation, whereas many stakeholders believed that a revision of the existing regulation would have been more desirable and more feasible. Despite intensive negotiations between the European Council, the European Parliament, and the European Commission, no compromise could be achieved on the most conflicting themes, such as pesticide residues, and cultivation under glass and seeds. At the beginning of December 2016, the negotiations came to a halt. By the end of 2016, it was not clear how the process will continue.
On the international level, the governments of the key organic markets, such as the United States and European Union, have started to explore options for multilateral recognition of each other’s organic control systems – realizing that bilateral agreements can be handled well among a few governments but get very complex when more countries are expected to be involved.
Organic legislation worldwide: current situation
According to the FiBL survey on organic rules and regulations, the number of countries with organic standards is 87, in 2016. Seventeen countries are in the process of drafting legislation. Data on regulations around the world was collected from various authorities and experts. The categorization of regulations as being “not fully implemented” or “fully implemented” was based directly on the feedback from the persons interviewed, and the information was not subject to verification. We received responses from experts and authorities from the majority of the countries. It is assumed that the non-responding countries had not passed legislation on organic production. It should be noted that some countries listed below as having regulations, do not enforce them, i.e., the indication
“not fully implemented” relates to countries that have only recently adopted legislation and are still in the process of finalizing its implementation, as well as to countries that have adopted legislation but are not providing the resources necessary for its implementation.
Table 42 shows the list of countries that have regulations for organic agriculture or are in the process of drafting them. Please send comments or information on countries that are not listed to Beate Huber (beate.huber@fibl.org).
Some countries have not adopted organic legislation and neither do they have national production standards. Such standards provide a national definition of organic products and are a reference point for certification activities. They do not usually foresee
1 Beate Huber, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), 5070 Frick, Switzerland, www.fibl.org
2 Otto Schmid, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), 5070 Frick, Switzerland, www.fibl.org
adopting a national inspection and certification system, which would be supervised by the government.
Table 44 shows that at least 20 countries, mostly in Asia and Africa, have adopted national standards for organic agriculture.
Table 42: Countries with regulations on organic agriculture 2016
Remark: Countries highlighted in blue have standards officially endorsed as organic by IFOAM – Organics International, based on their equivalence with the Common Objectives and Requirements of Organic Standards (COROS, www.ifoam.org/en/coros). Both private standards and government regulations are admissible for the IFOAM Family of Standards (see www.ifoam.org/ogs). A list of organic regulations is available on the Organic Trade Association (OTA) website at
http://www.globalorganictrade.com/country_list.php.
Region Country Remark
European Union (28)1 Austria Fully implemented
Belgium Fully implemented
Bulgaria Fully implemented
Croatia Fully implemented
Cyprus Fully implemented
Czech Republic Fully implemented
Denmark Fully implemented
Lithuania Fully implemented
Luxemburg Fully implemented
Malta Fully implemented
Poland Fully implemented
Portugal Fully implemented
Romania Fully implemented
Slovak Republic Fully implemented
Slovenia Fully implemented
Spain Fully implemented
Sweden Fully implemented
The Netherlands Fully implemented United Kingdom Fully implemented
Non EU Europe (11) Albania Fully implemented
Iceland Fully implemented
Kosovo Not fully implemented
Macedonia, FYROM Fully implemented
Moldova Fully implemented
Montenegro Fully implemented
Norway Fully implemented
Serbia Fully implemented
Switzerland2 Fully implemented
Turkey Fully implemented
Ukraine Not fully implemented
Asia & Pacific Region (25) Armenia Fully implemented
Australia Fully implemented
1 Official Journal of the European Union (2007). REGULATIONS Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Available at eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:189:0001:0023:EN:PDF
2Suisse legislation, available at www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/c910_18.html
Region Country Remark
Azerbaijan Not fully implemented
China Fully implemented
French Polynesia Fully implemented
Georgia Fully implemented
Jordan Not fully implemented
Kazakhstan Not fully implemented
Korea, South Fully implemented
Lebanon Fully implemented
Malaysia Fully implemented
New Caledonia Fully implemented
New Zealand3 Fully implemented
Philippines Not fully implemented
Saudi Arabia Fully implemented
Solomon Islands Fully implemented
Taiwan Fully implemented
Tajikistan Fully implemented
Thailand4 Fully implemented
United Arab Emirates Fully implemented The Americas &
Caribbean (21) Argentina Fully implemented
Bolivia Fully implemented
Brazil Fully implemented
Canada Fully implemented
Chile Fully implemented
Colombia Fully implemented
Costa Rica Fully implemented
Cuba Not fully implemented
Dominican Republic Fully implemented
Ecuador Fully implemented
El Salvador Not fully implemented
Guatemala Fully implemented
Venezuela Not fully implemented
Africa (2) Morocco Not fully implemented
Tunisia Fully implemented
Source: Survey by Carolin Möller and Beate Huber, October 2015, update December 2016
1 www.apeda.gov.in/apedawebsite/organic/index.htm
2 JAS Standards for organic plants and organic processed foods: www.maff.go.jp/e/jas/specific/organic.html
3 New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) Official Assurance Programme for Organic Products:
www.foodsafety.govt.nz/industry/sectors/organics
4 Homepage of the National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards, www.acfs.go.th/eng/index.php
Table 43: Countries in the process of drafting regulations 2016
Region Country
Europe (3) Belarus
Bosnia & Herzegovina Russia
Asia and Pacific Region (5) Bangladesh Jordan Kyrgyzstan Nepal Pakistan The Americas & Caribbean (2) Jamaica
St. Lucia
Source: Survey by Carolin Möller and Beate Huber, October 2015, update December 2016
Table 44: Countries with a national standard but without a national legislation 2016
Region Country
Asia and Pacific Region (9) Bahrein Bhutan
Africa (11) Burkina Faso
Burundi
Source: Survey by Carolin Möller and Beate Huber, October 2015, update December 2016
The Codex Alimentarius Guidelines: Recent developments1
The need for clear and harmonized rules has not only been taken up by private bodies, IFOAM – Organics International, and state authorities, but also by organizations of the
1 Information about Codex Alimentarius is available via http://www.codexalimentarius.org/codex-home/en/
United Nations, including the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The Codex Alimentarius Commission approved plant production guidelines in June 1999 and animal production guidelines in July 2001. They also provide guidance to governments in developing national regulations for organic food. The latest update of the guidelines was done in 2013.1
The annex lists of the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines, which define the substances that can be used in organic food and farming systems, have been under revision since 2005, mainly with a focus on substances for food processing and criteria for the use of new substances. The Codex Commission adopted several amendments to the annex lists that were proposed by the Codex Committee for Food Labelling in July 2009. Other substances discussed, such as nitrites and nitrates, ascorbates for meat processing, and phosphates as food additives, were not approved in the Codex Guidelines for organic food. In 2010, an amendment was made to increase restrictions on the use of rotenone for pest control: the substance should be used in such a way as to prevent it from flowing into waterways.
In 2011, the Codex Committee for Food Labelling agreed (as proposed by the European Union) on the inclusion of spinosad, copper octanoate, potassium bicarbonate, and uses of ethylene for the degreening of citrus for fruit fly prevention and flowering induction in pineapples. In May 2012, the committee decided that “Spinosad should only be used where measures are taken to minimize the risk to non-target species and to minimize the risk of development of resistance.” Potassium hydrogen carbonate, copper octanoate (with the same conditions as for other copper products), and ethylene for the degreening of citrus for fruit fly prevention and as a flowering agent for pineapples were included in the Annex 2 list of the Codex Guidelines of organically produced food. In 2012, the Codex Committee for Food Labelling decided that for the revision of the regulation and the list of substances, a structured approach with a two-year cycle is followed.
Furthermore, in 2011 it was agreed to take up organic aquaculture and seaweed production as a new area. However, after discussion at several meetings of draft working papers, elaborated by the European Union, in 2016 Codex Committee for Food Labelling proposed to either discontinue the work on organic aquaculture guidelines or identify a different subsidiary body to continue the work. No compromise could be found on the most controversial issues, such as the use of juveniles, the use or non-use of recirculation or containment systems, breeding techniques, feeding sources, the non-use or limited use of hormones, and conversion periods.
Import requirements of major economies
The major import markets for organic products are the European Union, the United States, Canada, and Japan. All of these markets have strict regimes for the importation of organic products. In the European Union, the United States, and Japan, products may only be imported if the certifying agency has been approved by the respective competent authority. The approval of certification bodies requires compliance or equivalency with the requirements of the importing countries, which can be achieved through (a) bilateral
1 Current version of Guidelines for organically produced food (2013, available in English, French, Spanish, Chinese): http://www.codexalimentarius.org/download/standards/360/cxg_032e.pdf
agreements between the exporting and the target import country, or (b) direct acceptance of the certifying agency by the target import country.
Bilateral agreements between the exporting and the target import country
Most importing countries, including the United States, the European Union, and Japan have options for bilateral recognition (i.e., the option to confirm that another country's control system and its standards are in line with domestic requirements and that the products certified in those countries can be sold on the national market). Bilateral agreements are largely political agreements that depend on political will and negotiations between the governments, but they are also based on technical assessments.
The United States and the European Union have also recognized each other's national organic standards and control systems, except for animal products from the European Union and apples and pears from the United States, which require extra verification.
Additional specifications are agreed upon for wine. In addition, products from aquaculture production are not yet included in this agreement.
In 2009, the United States and Canada concluded their first bilateral agreement. Under a determination of equivalence, producers and processors, who are certified according to the U.S. National Organic Program (NOP)1 standards by a certifying agent accredited by the United States Department of Agriculture, do not have to be certified to the Canada Organic Product Regulation (COPR) standards in order for their products to be represented as organic in Canada. Likewise, Canadian organic products certified to COPR standards may be sold or labelled in the United States as organically produced.2 The United States has further concluded bilateral agreements with Japan, South Korea, and Switzerland and is currently assessing the Mexican organic control system. In October 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Mexico established an agreement to require import certificates for all organic products traded between the United States and Mexico. Mexico will implement its own requirements for organic products entering Mexico from the United States in early 2017. NOP import certificates are already required in the United States for all organic imports from Japan, Korea, and 29 European countries.
Canada has signed equivalency agreements with the European Union, Costa Rica, Japan, and Switzerland.
The European Union currently recognizes twelve countries3 as being equivalent to the European Union’s system (known as the Third Country list). The latest change was in February 2015 when South Korea was listed based on a bilateral agreement concluded between South Korea and the European Union in 2014. Since February 1, 2015, Korea has accepted products certified in the European Union as equivalent.
1 National Organic Program (NOP) www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOP
2 There are exemptions to the United States COR agreements relating to sodium nitrate, hydroponics and livestock for the United States and antibiotics for livestock in Canada.
3 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Tunisia and the United States.
The United States has accepted several foreign governments’ accreditation procedures.
Certification bodies accredited according to the United States requirements by India, Israel, and New Zealand are accepted by the United States Department of Agriculture for certification according to the U.S. National Organic Program (NOP), even though they are not directly accredited by the United States Department of Agriculture. This level of recognition only covers accreditation procedures; the respective certification bodies still have to meet the requirements of NOP to issue certificates accepted by the United States.
Acceptance of the certifying agency by the target importing country
The United States, the European Union, and Japan have options for recognizing certification bodies operating outside of their countries. The technical requirements for achieving such recognition are difficult to meet, and the associated fees are high.
Maintaining recognition and/or the necessary accreditation requires substantial financial capacity and personnel from the certification agency.
Products are only granted import into the European Union if they have been certified by an inspection body or authority recognized by the European Commission. In updates to EU regulation 1235/2008, the European Union publishes the list of approved control bodies and authorities recognized for applying equivalent standards and control schemes in non-EU countries. Certification from recognized control bodies has been accepted for imports to the European Union since July 1, 2012. The system of the United States (U.S.) provides for the approval of certification bodies as agents to operate a U.S. certification program. Inspections have to be conducted by inspectors trained in NOP requirements using NOP-based questionnaires, and only certificates issued by certification bodies accredited by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are accepted. It is not relevant whether the certification body is based in the United States or elsewhere. Around 90 agents are currently authorized to certify farms and businesses to USDA organic regulations. Most USDA-accredited certifying agents are allowed to certify farms and businesses anywhere in the world.
Literature
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 of 8 December 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries;
Consolidated version: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02008R1235-20161026&from=EN
Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control; Consolidated Version:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02008R0889-20161107
Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91; Consolidated version:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02007R0834-20130701
European Commission (2008) Guidelines on imports of organic products into the European Union. 15.12.2008. Rev.1.
European Commission, Brussels. Available at
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/sites/orgfarming/files/docs/body/guidelines_for_imports_en.pdf