CCOF Comment on Proposed RulemakingPage 1 of 3

Steve Patton, Branch Chief

Inspection and Compliance Branch

California Department of Food and Agriculture

1220 N Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

September 8, 2017

Dear Mr. Patton,

Thank you for theopportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking to update the California Code of Regulations to reflect changes in the State Organic Program (SOP).

CCOF is a nonprofit organization that advances organic agriculture for a healthy world. We advocate on behalf of our members for organic policies, support the growth of organic through education and grants, and provide organic certification services. Founded in California more than 40 years ago, CCOF is supported by an organic family of farmers, ranchers, processors, retailers, consumers, and policymakers.

CCOF offers the attached comments and recommendations on the proposed changes to the California Code. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Kelly Damewood

Director of Policy and Government Affairs

Cc: Cathy Calfo, Executive Director/CEO

  1. The proposed changes strike the balance between streamlined registration and data collection.

CCOF’s top priority is to limit the burden of state registration on certified organic producers who already report production information to a range of entities, but CCOF also supports the SOP collecting useful information to ensure strong enforcement of organic standards. The proposed changes accurately reflect the presentation made by SOP staff at the May 3, 2017 meeting of the California Organic Program Advisory Committee (COPAC) where SOP staff demonstrated how carefully structured webpages would ensure a streamlined registration process while also providing the state with more production information. Therefore, CCOF supports the proposed expanded categories and acreage requirements.

  1. CDFA should prioritize the ability to receive data from certifiers.

After finalizing the registration requirements, CDFA should work directly with certifiers to exchange production information. The true intent of the recently enacted California Organic Food and Farming Act (COFFA) is to eliminate duplicative reporting by allowing certifiers to complete registration on behalf of their clients. While this option is technically available, it is not economically feasible for certifiers because it would result in significant increases in fees for producers. The most streamlined SOP registration process would allow certifiers to deliver batches of informationabout their clients to the SOP. By receiving data directly from certifiers, CDFA would not only eliminate duplicative reporting requirements for organic producers, but it would also provide the SOP with more accurate, up to date information for enforcement purposes. Thus, CCOF strongly encourages CDFA to prioritize receiving registration data directly from certifiers.

  1. Tomatoes should be reclassified as vegetables to ensure consistency between federal and state crop reportingrequirements.

Section (a)(2)(H) of the proposed changes classifies tomatoes as fruits rather than vegetables. While the classification of tomatoes as fruits is botanically correct, the SOP should classify tomatoes as vegetables to ensure consistency with federal and state crop reporting and survey agencies. Growers who frequently fill out crop surveys may not look for tomatoes under the fruit category, which could result in misreporting. Therefore, the SOP should reclassify tomatoes as vegetables in the final rule.

  1. CDFA should weigh the costs and benefits of requiring additional livestock, poultry, and dairy reporting.

Producers should report the acreage of livestock, poultry, and dairy production because it will ensure California has an accurate acreagecount of the full spectrum of organic production in the state. However, other data may be helpful for the organic livestock, poultry, and dairy sector such as requiring the number of head of livestock and poultry and the units of pounds of organic milk production. CDFA should weigh the cost of requiring more reporting for the livestock, poultry, and dairy producers versus the benefits of additional data on the sector. Specifically, CDFA should consider whether SOP reporting could fulfill other data collection needs such as reporting for milk pricing or data collection by the National Agricultural Statistics Service. If SOP reporting cannot fulfill other data collection needs, then CDFA should not require additional reporting of headcount or units of pounds of milk.

  1. The SOP should share real time registration data with county agricultural commissioners.

The SOP should share timely registration data with county agricultural commissioners to ensure counties have the information they need to support organic producers. For example, counties need registration information to effectively manage sprays for vector control, pest abatement projects, and pesticide drift issues.