Organic certification is a certification process for producers of organic food and other organic agricultural products. In general, any business directly involved in food production can be certified, including seed suppliers, farmers, food processors, retailers and restaurants.
Requirements vary from country to country, and generally involve a set of production standards for growing, storage, processing, packaging and shipping that include:
- no human sewage sludge fertilizer used in cultivation of plants or feed of animals
- avoidance of synthetic chemical inputs not on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (e.g. fertilizer, pesticides, antibiotics, food additives, etc.), genetically modified organisms, irradiation, and the use of sewage sludge;
- use of farmland that has been free from prohibited synthetic chemicals for a number of years (often, three or more);
- keeping detailed written production and sales records (audit trail);
- maintaining strict physical separation of organic products from non-certified products;
- undergoing periodic on-site inspections.
In some countries, certification is overseen by the government, and commercial use of the term organic is legally restricted. Certified organic producers are also subject to the same agricultural, food safety and other government regulations that apply to non-certified producers.
- 1 Purpose
- 2 Methods
- 3 Organic Certification and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
- 4 Regional variations
- 5 Issues
- 6 See also
- 7 References
- 8 External links
Organic certification addresses a growing worldwide demand for organic food. It is intended to assure quality and prevent fraud, and to promote commerce. While such certification was not necessary in the early days of the organic movement, when small farmers would sell their produce directly at farmers' markets, as organics have grown in popularity, more and more consumers are purchasing organic food through traditional channels, such as supermarkets. As such, consumers must rely on third-party regulatory certification.
For organic producers, certification identifies suppliers of products approved for use in certified operations. For consumers, "certified organic" serves as a product assurance, similar to "low fat", "100% whole wheat", or "no artificial preservatives".
Certification is essentially aimed at regulating and facilitating the sale of organic products to consumers. Individual certification bodies have their own service marks, which can act as branding to consumers—a certifier may promote the high consumer recognition value of its logo as a marketing advantage to producers. Most UK certification bodies operate organic standards that meet the UK government's minimum requirements. Some certification bodies, such as the Soil Association, certify to higher standards.
To certify a farm, the farmer is typically required to engage in a number of new activities, in addition to normal farming operations:
- Study the organic standards, which cover in specific detail what is and is not allowed for every aspect of farming, including storage, transport and sale.
- Compliance — farm facilities and production methods must comply with the standards, which may involve modifying facilities, sourcing and changing suppliers, etc.
- Documentation — extensive paperwork is required, detailing farm history and current set-up, and usually including results of soil and water tests.
- Planning — a written annual production plan must be submitted, detailing everything from seed to sale: seed sources, field and crop locations, fertilization and pest control activities, harvest methods, storage locations, etc.
- Inspection — annual on-farm inspections are required, with a physical tour, examination of records, and an oral interview.
- Fee — an annual inspection/certification fee (currently starting at $400–$2,000/year, in the US and Canada, depending on the agency and the size of the operation).
- Record-keeping — written, day-to-day farming and marketing records, covering all activities, must be available for inspection at any time.
In addition, short-notice or surprise inspections can be made, and specific tests (e.g. soil, water, plant tissue) may be requested.
For first-time farm certification, the soil must meet basic requirements of being free from use of prohibited substances (synthetic chemicals, etc.) for a number of years. A conventional farm must adhere to organic standards for this period, often two to three years. This is known as being in transition. Transitional crops are not considered fully organic.
Certification for operations other than farms follows a similar process. The focus is on the quality of ingredients and other inputs, and processing and handling conditions. A transport company would be required to detail the use and maintenance of its vehicles, storage facilities, containers, and so forth. A restaurant would have its premises inspected and its suppliers verified as certified organic.
“Participatory Guarantee Systems are locally focused quality assurance systems. They certify producers based on active participation of stakeholders and are built on a foundation of trust, social networks and knowledge exchange” (IFOAM definition, 2008).
Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) represent an alternative to third party certification, especially adapted to local markets and short supply chains. They can also complement third party certification with a private label that brings additional guarantees and transparency. PGS enable the direct participation of producers, consumers and other stakeholders in:
- the choice and definition of the standards
- the development and implementation of certification procedures
- the certification decisions
Participatory Guarantee Systems are also referred to as “participatory certification”.
Alternative certification options
The word organic is central to the certification (and organic food marketing) process, and this is also questioned by some. Where organic laws exist, producers cannot use the term legally without certification. To bypass this legal requirement for certification, various alternative certification approaches, using currently undefined terms like "authentic" and "natural", are emerging. In the US, motivated by the cost and legal requirements of certification (as of Oct. 2002), the private farmer-to-farmer association, Certified Naturally Grown, offers a "non-profit alternative eco-labelling program for small farms that grow using USDA Organic methods but are not a part of the USDA Certified Organic program."
In the UK, the interests of smaller-scale growers who use 'natural' growing methods are represented by the Wholesome Food Association, which issues a symbol based largely on trust and peer-to-peer inspection.
Organic Certification and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
Organic certification, as well as fair-trade certification, has the potential to directly and indirectly contribute to the achievement of the MDG targets. With the growth of ethical consumerism in developed countries, imports of eco-friendly and socially certified produce from the poor in developing countries have increased, which could contribute towards the achievement of the MDGs. A study by Setboonsarng (2008) reveals that organic certification substantially contributes to MDG1 (poverty and hunger) and MDG7 (environmental sustainability) by way of premium prices and better market access, among others. This study concludes that for this market-based development scheme to broaden its poverty impacts, public sector support in harmonizing standards, building up the capacity of certifiers, developing infrastructure development, and innovating alternative certification systems will be required.
Germany (old, now EU Label used)
In some countries, organic standards are formulated and overseen by the government. The United States, the European Union, Canada and Japan have comprehensive organic legislation, and the term "organic" may be used only by certified producers. Being able to put the word "organic" on a food product is a valuable marketing advantage in today's consumer market, but does not guarantee the product is legitimately organic. Certification is intended to protect consumers from misuse of the term, and make buying organics easy. However, the organic labeling made possible by certification itself usually requires explanation. In countries without organic laws, government guidelines may or may not exist, while certification is handled by non-profit organizations and private companies.
Internationally, equivalency negotiations are underway, and some agreements are already in place, to harmonize certification between countries, facilitating international trade. There are also international certification bodies, including members of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) working on harmonization efforts. Where formal agreements do not exist between countries, organic product for export is often certified by agencies from the importing countries, who may establish permanent foreign offices for this purpose. In 2011 IFOAM introduced a new program - the IFOAM Family of Standards - that attempts to simplify harmonization. The vision is to establish the use of one single global reference (the COROS) to access the quality of standards rather than focusing on bilateral agreements.
United States of America
In the United States, federal legislation defines three levels of organic foods. Products made entirely with certified organic ingredients and methods can be labeled "100% organic," while only products with at least 95% organic ingredients may be labeled "organic." Both of these categories may also display the USDA Organic seal. A third category, containing a minimum of 70% organic ingredients, can be labeled "made with organic ingredients," but may not display the USDA Organic seal. In addition, products may also display the logo of the certification body that approved them.
Products made with less than 70% organic ingredients can not be advertised as "organic," but can list individual ingredients that are organic as such in the product's ingredient statement.
In the U.S., the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 "requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances which identifies synthetic substances that may be used, and the nonsynthetic substances that cannot be used, in organic production and handling operations."
Also in the U.S., the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated regulations establishing the National Organic Program (NOP). The final rule was published in the Federal Register in 2000. It restricts the use of the term "organic" to certified organic producers (excepting growers selling under $5,000 a year, who must still comply and submit to a records audit if requested, but do not have to formally apply). Certification is handled by state, non-profit and private agencies that have been approved by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
One of the first organizations to carry out organic certification in North America was the California Certified Organic Farmers, founded in 1973. Some retailers have their stores certified as organic handlers and processors to ensure organic compliance is maintained throughout the supply chain until delivered to consumers, such as Vitamin Cottage Natural Grocers, a 60-year old chain based in Colorado.
In Canada, certification was implemented at the federal level on June 30, 2009. Mandatory certification is required for agricultural products represented as organic in import, export and inter-provincial trade, or that bear the federal organic logo. In Quebec, provincial legislation provides government oversight of organic certification within the province, through the Quebec Accreditation Board (Conseil D'Accréditation Du Québec).
EU countries acquired comprehensive organic legislation with the implementation of the EU-Eco-regulation 1992. Supervision of certification bodies is handled on the national level. In March 2002 the European Commission issued a EU-wide label for organic food. It has been mandatory throughout the EU since July 2010. and has become compulsory after a two-year transition period.
In 2009 a new logo was chosen through a design competition and online public vote. The new logo is a green rectangle that shows twelve stars (from the European flag) placed such that they form the shape of a leaf in the wind. Unlike earlier labels no words are presented on the label lifting the requirement for translations referring to organic food certification.
|Country||Area (ha)||Percent (%)|
|Source: "Eurostat press release 80/2007"|
In Belgium, a similar process is being used where certification of the "Biogarantie" label is overseen by the public "Association sans but lucratif" (ASBL) administration. This administration has existed since 27 June 1921 and was reformed on 2 May 2002 to take over the new responsibilities of the label certification.
Following private bodies certify organic produce: KEZ, o. p. s. (CZ-BIO-001), ABCert, AG (CZ-BIO-002) and BIOCONT CZ, s. r. o. (CZ-BIO-003). These bodies provide controlling of processes tied with issueing of certificate of origin. Controlling of compliancy (to (ES) no 882/2004 directive) is provided by government body ÚKZÚZ (Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture)."9"|Source: "Information on organic produce of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic"
In France, organic certification was introduced in 1985. It has established a green-white logo of "AB - agriculture biologique." The certification for the AB label fulfills the EU regulations for organic food. The certification process is overseen a public institute ("Agence française pour le développement et la promotion de l'agriculture biologique" usually shortended to "Agence bio") established in November 2001. The actual certification authorities include a number of different institutes like Aclave, Agrocert, Ecocert SA, Qualité France SA, Ulase, SGS ICS.
In Germany the national label was introduced in September 2001 following in the footsteps of the political campaign of "Agrarwende" (agricultural major shift) led by minister Renate Künast of the Greens party. This campaign was started after the mad-cow disease epidemic in 2000. The effects on farming are still challenged by other political parties. The national "Bio"-label in its hexagon green-black-white shape has gained wide popularity - in 2007 there were 2431 companies having certified 41708 products. The popularity of the label is extending to neighbouring countries like Austria, Switzerland and France.
In the German-speaking countries there have been older non-government organizations that had issued labels for organic food long before the advent of the EU organic food regulations. Their labels are still used widely as they significantly exceed the requirements of the EU regulations. An organic food label like "demeter" from Demeter International has been in use since 1928 and this label is still regarded as providing the highest standards for organic food in the world. Other active NGOs include Bioland (1971), Biokreis (1979), Biopark (1991), Ecoland (1997), Ecovin (1985), Gäa e.V. (1989), Naturland (1981) and Bio Suisse (1981).
In Greece, organic certification is available from eight (8) organizations approved by EU. The major of them are BIOHELLAS and the DIO (Greek: Οργανισμός Ελέγχου και Πιστοποίησης Βιολογικών Προϊόντων - ΔΗΩ)
In the United Kingdom, organic certification is handled by a number of organizations, regulated by The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), of which the largest are the Soil Association and Organic Farmers and Growers.
The farmland converted to produce certified organic food has seen a significant evolution in the EU15 countries, rising from 1.8% in 1998 to 4.1% in 2005. For the current EU25 countries however the statistics report an overall percentage of just 1.5% as of 2005. However the statistics showed a larger turnover of organic food in some countries, reaching 10% in France and 14% in Germany. In France 21% of available vegetables, fruits, milk and eggs were certified as organic. Numbers for 2010 show that 5.4% of German farmland has been converted to produced certified organic food, as has 10.4% of Swiss farmland and 11.7% of Austrian farmland. Non-EU countries have widely adopted the European certification regulations for organic food, to increase export to EU countries.
In other countries
In Japan, the Japanese Agricultural Standard (JAS) was fully implemented as law in April 2001. This was revised in November 2005 and all JAS certifiers were required to be re-accredited by the Ministry of Agriculture.
In Australia, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) is the controlling body for organic export certification. As of 2013, there are six AQIS-approved certifying organisations, they are AUS-QUAL Limited, Australian Certified Organic, Organic Food Chain, Bio-Dynamic Research Institute, NASAA Certified Organic, Tasmanian Organic-dynamic Producers these organisations are authorised to issue Organic Produce Certificates on behalf of AQIS. In 2004 there were 2345 certified operators in Australia.
Australia does not have a logo or seal to identify which products are certified organic, instead the logos of the certifying organisations are used.
There are certification bodies that work domestically and are not controlled by AQIS. These certifiers certify to the Australian Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Products (AS 6000).
All claims about the organic status of products sold in Australia are covered under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Australia’s main consumer regulatory authority the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission(ACCC)is of the view that AS 6000 will be of assistance to courts when they next attempt to determine the meaning of organic.
The largest importer of Australia's organic produce (by weight) is Japan (33.59%), followed by the UK (17.51%), France (10.51%), and New Zealand (10.21%). The Organic Federation of Australia is recognized by the Federal and State Governments of Australia as the Peak Industry Body and cover the whole sectors from farmers, traders, processors, certification bodies, consumers and researchers. It does not certify as this would mean that it competes with members and that would be a conflict of interest.
In India, APEDA regulates the certification of organic products as per National Standards for Organic Production. "The NPOP standards for production and accreditation system have been recognized by European Commission and Switzerland as equivalent to their country standards. Similarly, USDA has recognized NPOP conformity assessment procedures of accreditation as equivalent to that of US. With these recognitions, Indian organic products duly certified by the accredited certification bodies of India are accepted by the importing countries." Organic food products manufactured and exported from India are marked with the India Organic certification mark issued by the APEDA. APEDA has recognized 11 inspection certification bodies, some of which are branches of foreign certification bodies, others are local certification bodies.
The Chinese government refuses to recognise international standards and has no current certification equivalency agreements with other producing countries. Non-Chinese food producers are required to spend up to $50,000 (AUD) to be certified organic by Chinese authorities.
Organic certification is not without its critics. Some of the staunchest opponents of chemical-based farming and factory farming practices also oppose formal certification. They see it as a way to drive independent organic farmers out of business, and to undermine the quality of organic food. Other organizations such as the Organic Trade Association work within the organic community to foster awareness of legislative and other related issues, and enable the influence and participation of organic proponents.
Obstacles to small independent producers
Originally, in the 1960s through the 1980s, the organic food industry was composed of mainly small, independent farmers, selling locally. Organic "certification" was a matter of trust, based on a direct relationship between farmer and consumer. Critics view regulatory certification as a potential barrier to entry for small producers, by burdening them with increased costs, paperwork, and bureaucracy
In China, due to government regulations, international companies wishing to market organic produce must be independently certified. It is reported that "Australian food producers are spending up to $50,000 to be certified organic by Chinese authorities to crack the burgeoning middle-class market of the Asian superpower." Whilst the certification process is described by producers "extremely difficult and very expensive", a number of organic producers have acknowledged the ultimately positive effect of gaining access to the emerging Chinese market. For example, figures from Australian organic infant formula and baby food producer Bellamy's Organic indicate export growth, to China alone, of 70 per cent per year since gaining Chinese certification in 2008, while similar producers have shown export growth of 20 per cent to 30 per cent a year following certification
Peak Australian organic certification body, Australian Certified Organic, has stated however that "many companies have baulked at risking the money because of the complex, unwieldy and expensive process to earn Chinese certification." By comparison, equivalent certification costs in Australia are less than $2,000 (AUD), with costs in the United States as low as $750 (USD) for a similarly sized business.
Manipulative use of regulations
Manipulation of certification regulations as a way to mislead or outright dupe the public is a very real concern. Some examples are creating exceptions (allowing non-organic inputs to be used without loss of certification status) and creative interpretation of standards to meet the letter, but not the intention, of particular rules. For example, a complaint filed with the USDA in February 2004 against Bayliss Ranch, a food ingredient producer and its certifying agent, charged that tap water had been certified organic, and advertised for use in a variety of water-based body care and food products, in order to label them "organic" under US law. Steam-distilled plant extracts, consisting mainly of tap water introduced during the distilling process, were certified organic, and promoted as an organic base that could then be used in a claim of organic content. The case was dismissed by the USDA, as the products had been actually used only in personal care products, over which the department at the time extended no labeling control. The company subsequently adjusted its marketing by removing reference to use of the extracts in food products. Several months later, the USDA extended its organic labeling to personal care products; this complaint has not been refiled.
In 2013 the Australia Consumer Competition Commission said that water can no longer be labelled as organic water because, based on organic standards, water cannot be organic and it is misleading and deceptive to label any water as such.
False Assurance of Quality
The label itself misleads many customers; foods labelled as being organic are perceived by much of the public as being safer, healthier, and more nutritious due to marketing and chemophobia, despite there being no evidence of such. It is also incorrectly seen as indicating that no pesticide was used on the produce, despite the fact that both organic and synthetic pesticides are used on organic crops. Likewise, it is perceived as being more environmentally friendly, despite there being no scientific consensus that organic farming practices are less harmful to the environment than mainstream agricultural practices.
Erosion of standards
Critics of formal certification also fear an erosion of organic standards. Provided with a legal framework within which to operate, lobbyists can push for amendments and exceptions favorable to large-scale production, resulting in "legally organic" products produced in ways similar to current conventional food. Combined with the fact that organic products are now sold predominantly through high volume distribution channels such as supermarkets, the concern is that the market is evolving to favor the biggest producers, and this could result in the small organic farmer being squeezed out.
In the United States large food companies, have "assumed a powerful role in setting the standards for organic foods." Many members of standard-setting boards come from large food corporations. As more corporate members have joined, many nonorganic substances have been added to the National List of acceptable ingredients. The United States Congress has also played a role in allowing exceptions to organic food standards. In December 2005, the 2006 agricultural appropriations bill was passed with a rider allowing 38 synthetic ingredients to be used in organic foods. Among the ingredients are food colorings, starches, sausage and hot-dog casings, hops, fish oil, chipotle chili pepper, and gelatin. This allowed Anheuser-Busch in 2007 to have its Wild Hop Lager certified organic "even though [it] uses hops grown with chemical fertilizers and sprayed with pesticides."
A related concern holds that certification is replacing consumer education, and this goes against the essential, holistic nature of organic farming. By reducing complex issues and regulations to a simple, convenient certified organic label, consumers may more easily ignore the principles and practices behind organics, leaving the definition of organic farming and organic food open to manipulation.
- Association of Natural Biocontrol Producers
- List of countries with organic agriculture regulation
- List of organic food topics
- Organic farming
- Organic food
- Organic clothing
- Organic cotton
- Farm assurance
- Certified Naturally Grown
- Chitosan (Natural Biocontrol for Agricultural & Horticultural use qualified for organic use )
- Organic Council of Ontario
Citations and notes
- "EPA Definion of certified organic".
- CAP2020 - Organic Farmin in Brazil - Participatory Certification and Local Markets for Sustainable Agricultural Development
- [Certified Naturally Grown]. Retrieved 4-Mar-2006.
-  Setboonsarng, S. 2008. Can Ethical Trade Certification Contribute to the Attainment of the Millennium Development Goals? A Review of Organic and Fair-Trade Certification. Discussion Paper 115. ADBI, Tokyo.
- "IFOAM Family of Standards". IFOAM.
- "Labeling organic products". U.S. Department of Agriculture. October 2012. Retrieved 3 April 2013.
- Text copied from "National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances". Agricultural Marketing Service. Retrieved 15 June 2011.
- Organic Food and Farming Certification Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). May 1, 2002.
- 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 labeling of organic products with regard to organic production, labeling and control
- EU Organic Logo now Compulsory, Nathan Gray (2 July 2012)
- European Commission » Agriculture and Rural Development » Organic Farming: Questions and Answers
- link EU organic logo vote
- Organic Farming - Logo, European Commission Agriculture and Rural Development (n.d.)
- List of bodies or public authorities in charge of inspection provided for in Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91
- Welcome to KRAV - www.krav.se
- EU-Biosiegel mit Kontrollen und Codeangaben nano, 3sat, 1. July 2010
- JAS Standards
- Spices Board of India. 'Organic certification mark'.
- "China's Organic Revolution" Paull, J. (2007) Journal of Organic Systems, 2(1) 1-11
- Han, Esther (November 17, 2013). "Organic food: Companies pay $50,000 for Chinese certification". Good Food. Retrieved 27 March 2014.
- Omnivore's Dilemma
- Meirelles, Laércio. "Certification of Organic Products". Central Ecologico. Retrieved 1 September 2011.
- "National import regulations and the fact that the international certification bodies charge high fees for assessing and certifying farmers tend to drive development towards agribusiness, with plantations run by major multinational companies. Therefore a more local system for trade in farm products and their certification brings a range of advantages for farmers(...)." http://www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/upload/Foreningsdokument/Rapporter/engelska/organic-farming-in-brazil.pdf
- Ifad. (2003) The Adoption of Organic Agriculture Among Small Farmers in Latin America and the Caribbean.Thematic Evaluation. http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/public_html/eksyst/doc/agreement/pl/organic.htm#1.
- "Organic exports to China on the rise". Dynamic Export. Retrieved 14 April 2014.
- http://austorganic.com/australian-certified-organic-standard1/. Missing or empty
- "Organic Agriculture - certification costs". Retrieved 27 March 2014.
- "OCA Files Complaint with USDA's National Organic Program Against 'Organic Water' Scheme". Organic Consumers Association, 18-Feb-2004. Retrieved 4-Mar-2006.
The USDA decision was summarized in a formal letter dated 9-Mar-2005: USDA Final Decision 030905. Retrieved 19-Apr-2006.
In August 2005, the USDA did extend NOP coverage to non-food products: "Organic Consumers Association: USDA Yields in Battle Over Access of Personal Care to National Organic Program; Organic Non-Food Products Qualify, Says USDA". Retrieved 21-Apr-2006.
- Davidson, Helen (16 July 2013). "Water cannot be organic, ACCC says". The Guardian (London).
- Blair, Robert. (2012). Organic Production and Food Quality: A Down to Earth Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK. ISBN 978-0-8138-1217-5
- Magkos F et al (2006) Organic food: buying more safety or just peace of mind? A critical review of the literature Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 46(1): 23–56 | pmid=16403682
- Bourn D, Prescott J (January 2002). "A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods". Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 42 (1): 1–34. doi:10.1080/10408690290825439. PMID 11833635.
- Smith-Spangler, C; Brandeau, ML; Hunter, GE; Bavinger, JC; Pearson, M; Eschbach, PJ; Sundaram, V; Liu, H; Schirmer, P; Stave, C; Olkin, I; Bravata, DM (September 4, 2012). "Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: a systematic review.". Annals of Internal Medicine 157 (5): 348–366. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-5-201209040-00007. PMID 22944875.
- Dangour AD et al (2009) Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 92(1):203–210
- "Organic food". UK Food Standards Agency. Archived from the original on 11 June 2011.
- Williams, Christine M. (February 2002). "Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?" (PDF). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 61 (1): 19–24. doi:10.1079/PNS2001126.
- "Purity of Federal 'Organic' Label Is Questioned" article by Kimberly Kindy and Lyndsey Layton in The Washington Post July 3, 2009
- Strom, Stephanie (July 7, 2012). "Has ‘Organic’ Been Oversized?". The New York Times. Retrieved August 14, 2012.
- "Congress negates changes to organic standards". BNET. December 2005.
- Scott J. Wilson. "'Organic' food rule could have up to 38 loopholes". Los Angeles Times. June 10, 2007.
- Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA National Organic Program: Final Rule (7 CFR Part 205; Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 246, 21 December 2000)
- OCPP/Pro-Cert Canada Organic Agriculture & Food Standard (OC/PRO IS 350/150)
- The Australian Organic Industry: A Profile, 2004,  (pdf)
- European Commission: Organic Farming
- Organic Council of Ontario (Canada)
- Organic Standards Database to compare the EU regulation on organic farming, the National Organic Program (NOP) of the US and the guidelines for the production, processing, labeling and marketing of organically produced food of the Codex Alimentarius