But is the certifier accredited ("recognized as conform with a standard")? Accreditation programs, whether national or international, affirm that a certifier is following consistent business practices in line with its established rules. Accreditation will with luck, give those that are being certified additional assurance that there are teeth behind the certification. Unfortunately, the accreditation angle of this puzzle is the one that is still lagging (particularly in the United States, with no national organic standards). Its impact can be felt in areas including international trade and mutual recognition.

Certification, on the surface, is a fairly simple process. Joe the grower decides he's been growing organically, but wants to have the benefit of certification. He checks out the different organizations and decides he likes the standards of Farm Verified Organic (FVO) the best. Joe submits an application and processing fee and waits. The folks at FVO check out the form, see that Joe's processes are fairly well in line with their own, and decide to proceed. An independent inspector is then hired to check out Joe's farm. The inspector checks for materials used, that complete records are kept, analyzes the chance of contamination from other farms, and assesses other issues to ensure Joe is in line with all the standards of FVO. The inspector reports back to FVO with his findings and a recommendation. After review of this information, FVO finds that Joe is following the standards and awards certification.

This certification is usually updated yearly, including having an annual inspection conducted and a fee paid. Easy enough? Well, on the surface. But why would Joe pick FVO instead of one of the other many certifers on the block? Most of the standards are very similar, but the differences among them get sticky. "There are actually very few differences amongst certification pro-grams in terms of standards issues," said Annie Kirschenmann, director of FVO. "Those that exist can be difficult to resolve." Agreed Joe Smillie, vice president of Quality Assurance International (QAI), "The standards are pretty much the same, but there are some basic philosophical differences that are tough to come to agreement on." Some of these issues include materials allowed, crop rotation and transition requirements. In addition, there is an ongoing debate about organic's place on the world stage and how other countries will view U.S. organic standards.

The World Stage

Currently, the U.S, has no organic standards. Ten years after the passage of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and almost two years after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its misguided pro-posed regulations, there is still no national organic standard. Even as the USDA debates the standard, with input from the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), industry, big business, consumers, etc., a trade war brewing between the United States and the EU may bode well or ill for the organic industry. In the best scenario, organic comes out as a hero. "Organic may well be the silver bullet in the international trade conflicts," said Bob Anderson, chair-man of the NOSB. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has already floated the notion that organic will solve the trade problem with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in U.S. foods, since USDA has publicly stated that the national organic standard will not permit GMOS in growing or processing.

On the other hand, organic could get lost in the mix of bananas, GMOS and hormone-filled meats. No government to government recognition of the common term "organic" Ieaves room for misunderstanding. "It is disturbing to me that USDA is using organic as a playing card in their diplomatic games," said Brian McElroy, director of grower certification for California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF). One of the most recent moves in the US-EU organic trade conflict was EU's insistence that all organic certifiers meet the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Guide 65, General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems. IS065 accreditation, put simply, ensures that a certifier has a set of established standards, and that it is following those standards in its business practices. Called in to help implement this IS065 requirement was USDA's Meat Grading & Certification. Branch.

As of late July, QAI and the Organic "Growers & Buyers Association (OGBA) were the only two U.S. certification agencies that had been approved IS065 compliant. In the review process are CCOF, FVO and the Organic Crop Improvement Association (OCIA). What the IS065 review does not give you is an assessment of the standards themselves. "This is a cut and dried conformity assessment," said Mark Bradley, quality manager at the USDA branch. "We don't look at standard equivalency, we just ensure that they have standards and are following them."

So IS065 will help certifiers whose clients have products to trade into Europe now, but there is still no national, or international, definition and standard for organic that is recognized by governments, which could facilitate trade. Many parties in the organic industry think that the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) could be the solution. IFOAM was founded in 1972 to serve as a forum for the organic community. It has a set of basic organic standards that are revised on an ongoing basis. However, IFOAM is not a certifier, nor an accreditation agency. It has an accreditation program that is implemented by the International Organic Accreditation Services (IOAS). But a certification body does not have to be a member of IFOAM to be IFOAM accredited, and not all IFOAM certifier members are IFOAM accredited.

What about this IS065 requirement compared to IFOAM? As Bradley pointed out, IS065 requirement does not assess the standards themselves, simply that a written policy is in place and being fol-10wed. IFOAM has a set of standards, but does not currently have recognition worked out at a government level for its certifiers. This is why organizations such as CCOF and FVO, which are IFOAM accredited, are also getting IS065 approval. "Our clients have asked us to get IS065 accredited as added ,insurance' in terms of EU acceptance," said Kirschenmann (who also serves on the IFOAM Board of Directors) . Other certification agencies have not worked with IFOAM, but with certification agencies in EU member countries to ensure product will make it into trade in Europe. "We went to a European certifier to give us reciprocity," Smillie said.