Greentrade A-Domestic Organic Standard for Australia

Organic Federation of Australia

Special Organic Update January 2006

www.ofa.org.au

A Domestic Organic Standard for Australia - a significant milestone

This is a special edition of the Organic Update devoted to the issue of a domestic organic standard through Standards Australia. After more than 10 years of unsuccessfully trying for different options, the organic sector is finally about to achieve a domestic standard that can be called into regulation to stop misrepresentation and fraud.

This is a significant milestone and we believe that it is important that all stakeholders are accurately informed as to why the Organic Federation of Australia and other key organisations are supporting this process.

Best Regards

Andre Leu
Chair

A Domestic Organic Standard - what does it mean?

A Domestic Organic Standard for Australia

There is no official domestic standard for organic products marketed for consumption in Australia. Currently the organic sector has an export standard, the National Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce (NS), under the auspices of the Organic Industry Export Consultative Committee (OIECC) (a consultative committee between the organic sector and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS)). AQIS uses the NS as the basis for exports of organic and biodynamic produce. This standard has become a defacto domestic standard. With the exception of exports, its has limited regulatory authority in stopping fraud and misrepresentation and cannot be used to regulate imported organic products.

The lack of a domestic standard as the basis of regulation has been a major issue for the organic sector for many years.

Standards Australia
In January 2006 an application was sent to Standards Australia to develop an Australian Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce. Standards Australia is an independent, non profit organisation owned and run by its members. Its sole function is to develop credible standards that can be used by industries, governments and regulatory authorities. Australian State and Federal Government regulatory authorities recognise these Australian Standards and can call them up into regulation where needed, whereas the existing NS, is unlikely to be called up as it is a private standard.

An Australian Organic Standard has many benefits

1. The organic sector would ‘own’ the Australian Standard. It would be a standard written by the sector for the sector and controlled by the sector.
2. The process is free.
3. An Australian organic standard can be constantly changed and adapted under the Standards Australia approach in a similar manner as the current AQIS process. The other regulatory processes for amending standards are not very flexible, nor amenable to small variations.
4. An Australian Standard can be called up by regulatory authorities like FSANZ, ACCC and the various State food safety and consumer protection authorities to prosecute fraud.
5. This option gives the Australian organic sector the best of both worlds. The control and flexibility to change the standard and backed up by the regulatory powers of the relevant State and Federal Government authorities.

It will take around two years to develop an Australian Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce, to the level where it is endorsed by Standards Australia. Then it will become the credible benchmark for organic standards in Australia. The next step will be to work with the State, Territory and Federal governments to have the standard called up into regulation by the relevant authorities to be used to prevent and or prosecute fraud and misrepresentation.

While it is envisaged that the existing National Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce (NS) will be used as the starting point, the Standards Australia process will see the development of a new standard.

One of the differences will be in the make up of the technical committee that will oversee the new standard process. This will see a broadening of the stakeholders. This is a very important issue as the new standard will be the document that defines organic and biodynamic production in Australia. Consequently it effects all stakeholders in the organic sector from producers through to consumers.

The process will bring a new level of sophistication and maturity to organic sector. Historically the current NS grew out of the private standards of Australia’s first certification organisations, principally the Bio-Dynamic Research Institute (BDRI), National Association for Sustainable Agriculture (NASAA) and Biological Farmers of Australia (BFA). Other stakeholders began to have input when these standards evolved into the NS under AQIS.

While the role of certifiers is very important to the standard development process, it is equally important that the stakeholders who are affected the most by the standard, the producers, processors and consumers are represented. This will ensure a fairer, more robust and effective standard.

A Domestic Organic Standard - Background

Background
The Australian organic sector has tried for over 10 years to get a mandatory standard under Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ). FSANZ is the main food regulatory authority in Australia. Food labelling, ingredients, colourings, additives, pesticide levels and food hygiene requirements are some of the areas regulated by this federal government authority.

However the organic sector has been unsuccessful in getting a mandatory standard to protect the integrity of the certified organic industry under FSANZ. The main reasons are:

1. The current National Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce (NS) is a production standard, not a food safety standard.

2. The political climate in Australia is one where the major political parties favour deregulation and mostly regulate only when there is evidence of widespread failure in the existing self-regulation systems. Consequently the Federal Government has stated that the organic sector should use the existing self-regulation mechanisms rather than mandatory government regulation such as FSANZ.

Concern over the Organic Sector Loosing Control
Since the advent of the United States National Organic Program (NOP), many of the Australian organic sector leaders (not all) have decided in favour of self-regulation rather than government regulation. The loss of control over the content of the standard is a major concern and the Australian organic sector does not want to have to fight the types of battles our colleagues in the USA are continuously facing.

A mandatory standard under FSANZ means that the organic sector would have a limited part in the process of developing the standard as FSANZ would control and own it. While it is likely that the sector would be consulted during the preparation of the various stages of the standard development, the shaping of the standard would not necessarily be in accordance with the sector preference. The primary point for sector comment (and any other interested parties) is at the release of initial, draft and final assessment reports.

The current NS is a living document that can be and is changed as the need arises. Changes to a FSANZ standard require an application for a variation. Each variation would "take its place in the queue". This means that it could take years to change a standard under FSANZ. Also the organic sector would have virtually no control over the process or the outcome.

A real concern is that the organic sector may not be the only party interested in applying for variations to the standard. Any interested party can put in an application for change and the decision will rest with FSANZ, not the organic sector. This means under the FSANZ system, Australia could be facing the same types of issues and pressures for dilution of the standard as we are seeing in the USA.

Self Regulation
Due to the considerable concern that a mandatory FSANZ standard was not a good option because of loss of control, the Organic Federation of Australia (OFA) along with other sector organisations began to investigate self regulation options. The main avenue seemed to be a code of conduct under the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). This is the main regulatory authority that deals with issues of consumer and corporate fraud. The complicated and costly process along with very little support from most of the certification organisations meant that it was not pursued.

The OFA along with AQIS and the Federal Department for Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) investigated the existing systems and options for developing recognized and credible standards outside of government. In March 2005 the Chair of the OFA met with representatives of AQIS and DAFF in Canberra. It was at this meeting AQIS put forward the option of Standards Australia as well as investigating a code of conduct with the ACCC again.

A Domestic Organic Standard - The Standards Australia Option

Standards Australia Option
DAFF and the Organic Federation of Australia (OFA) hosted a roundtable meeting of key organic sector stakeholders, in Sydney on May 11 2005. One of the key agenda items was to investigate all the current options for implementing a domestic standard that would protect the integrity of our domestic sector. The benefits of the Standards Australia option were put to the sector for the first time. The meeting came up with three options, Standards Australia, the ACCC and FSANZ. The pros and cons of these options were to be investigated and presented to the stakeholders at another roundtable meeting for consideration in July.

Two weeks later OIECC discussed the Standards Australia and ACCC options. OIECC is a government appointed committee under AQIS auspices that is composed of the AQIS accredited certifying organisations, the Organic Federation of Australia (as the peak organisation) and various sector stakeholders. It is the committee that controls the National Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce (NS).

George Devrell (NASAA), Paul Dargusch (BFA/ACO) and Andre Leu (OFA) were asked by the OIECC meeting to pursue the issue of having a domestic standard under Standards Australia and report back to the November OIECC meeting.

On July 29 the pros and cons of the three options were presented to the OFA/DAFF hosted stakeholder roundtable in Sydney. The meeting regarded Standards Australia as the best option, however there were considerable concerns that warranted more investigation.

George Devrell and Andre Leu participated in several meetings with Standards Australia representatives. These also included written requests for clarification on several issues of concern that were raised, particularly by some of the certifiers.

The main concerns were:

1. Concern about Standards Australia Owning the Copyright of the Standard
2. Maintaining Organic Sector Control over the Standard

1. Concern about Standard Australia owning the Copyright of the Standard
Standards Australia participation is in the administration of the process, including public consultation and secretariat functions. The copyright of the Standard is held by Standards Australia to recoup the expenses of these functions that are provided at no cost to industry.

The best analogy to understand this process is the relationship between a book author and a publishing company. The author writes the book, has control over the information/content of the book. The publishing house sells the book, but the publishing house has no hand in the author’s intellectual content of the book.

2. Maintaining Organic Sector Control over the Standard
The organic sector will have control of the content of the organic standard. The contents of all Australian Standards are developed by the sector concerned. The members of the technical committees are sector representatives - not Standards Australia staff. The organic standard technical committee can be similar to the current AQIS process.

This means that the actual wording of the standard, how the standard functions and how and when the standard is altered is controlled by the organic sector in much the same way that it currently works under AQIS.

In other words the integrity and functioning of any Australian organic standard would be determined by the Australian organic sector not Standards Australia.

An Australian Organic Standard has many benefits

1. The organic sector would ‘own’ the Australian Standard. It would be a standard written by the sector for the sector and controlled by the sector.
2. The process is free.
3. An Australian organic standard can be constantly changed and adapted under the Standards Australia approach in a similar manner as the current OIECC process. The other regulatory processes for amending standards are not very flexible, nor amenable to small variations.
4. An Australian Standard can be called up by regulatory authorities like FSANZ, ACCC and the various State food safety and consumer protection authorities to prosecute fraud, which does not always apply to an export standard held by AQIS.
5. This option gives the Australian organic sector the best of both worlds. The control and flexibility to change the standard and backed up by the regulatory powers of the relevant State and Federal Government authorities.

Despite the foregoing, several certifiers still wanted special government regulation rather than a self-regulatory approach. In order to clarify this, the OFA wrote to Senator the Hon. Richard Colbeck, The Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture who had the ministerial responsibility for the organic sector.

The government response was consistent with earlier responses. The government would be unwilling to introduce special regulations for the organic sector until it had utilised the existing self regulatory systems used by most industries to stop fraud and misrepresentation. The government recommended that the organic sector went down the Standards Australia approach.

If the organic sector finds that there are significant problems with the Standards Australia process to stop fraud and misrepresentation, it will have a valid argument to government for specific regulation.

At the OIECC meeting on November 24 2005, the OFA, all the certifiers and other participating stakeholders agreed to apply to Standards Australia to develop an Australian Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce.

The Implications
An Australian Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce, endorsed by Standards Australia, will become the credible benchmark for all Australian organic standards. This will mean that the standards used by organic certifiers will have to comply with this standard as a minimum. Individual certifiers will be able to have additional requirements that are ‘above’ the Australian Standard, however they will not be able to allow practices or inputs that are not permitted or do not comply with the standard.

AQIS has indicated that it will call up the Australian Standard as the export standard. This will ensure that all products that are certified to the Australian standard can be exported.

After the Australian Standard is called up by the various State and Federal regulatory authorities it will mean that all products stating that they are ‘organic’ will have to comply with the Australian Standard. It will also provide a benchmark for organic produce imported into Australia.

This will mean uncertified products or products labelled under inferior standards that do not comply with the Australian Standard can be prosecuted for fraud and misrepresentation.

Standards Australia
The question many stakeholders are asking is: ‘Why didn’t we approach Standards Australia years ago?’

Andre Leu

Chair
Organic Federation of Australia

Organic Update is a publication of the Organic Federation of Australia
Phone +61 1300 657 435
PO Box 166 Oakleigh South Vic 3167 Australia
Join the OFA
Subscribe to the Organic Update