OTA applauds the effort put forth by the NOSB Aquaculture Working Group to grapple with the complex issues surrounding organic aquaculture standards. We commend this product as a worthwhile step towards credible and consistent standards that will stimulate organic production of aquaculture products and ensure consumer confidence in the organic label.
In addition to the seven questions posed by the AWG in presenting its document, we suggest that the aquaculture standards should also address the question of international harmonization. Since a significant portion of aquaculture products is internationally traded, strong consideration should be given to compatibility with existing standards and ongoing development work in the European Union, Canada and other countries.
OTA also supports the timely development of standards specific to bivalve molluscan shellfish species, as their culture and harvest requirements differ in significant ways from those of finfish.
§ 205.250 Aquaculture General:
OTA supports the ideas expressed in section (4), which encourages “the use of culture water and associated solid and dissolved constituents for the irrigation of organically produced terrestrial plant corps (sic).” We also commend the Task Force for the statement encouraging aquaponics, or the combination of aquaculture and plant hydroponics.
§ 205.251 Origin of Aquaculture Animals:
It is unclear how Item (i) would be enforceable. An appropriate definition of “commercially available” would be needed here, as well as parameters for the appropriate wild harvest of brood stock.
§ 205.252 Aquaculture Feed: Discussion of Option A vs. Option B:
The AWG has grappled with several contentious issues with respect to appropriate feeding requirements for organic aquaculture species. We note that a choice between the two options presented is offered, and offer the following analysis of these options:
Option A provides some allowance for use of fish oil and fish meal from wild caught fish as feed; the wild caught fish must come from fishery resources certified to be sustainably managed. While it seems to make sense to permit some amount (specified as less than one pound of wild fish harvested for every pound of aquatic animals cultured) of sustainably harvested wild fish products to be used as feed for organic aquaculture, there are several problems with this option. First, it would be difficult to require certification (Marine Stewardship Council) for which there is currently no regulatory definition or enforcement. There is also no clear definition or criteria given for “sustainably harvested,” nor are parameters given for verifying that a wild-caught fish met them. Thirdly, this option would not fully comply with the OFPA requirement that any organic livestock be fed organically produced feed.
One suggestion that has been raised by OTA members, which may have some merit, is that of allowing a portion of aquatic animals feed to come from wild caught fish under a Sunset clause, so that the allowance would end at a date certain. This could give the industry time to develop sources of organically produced fish and fish by-products suitable for feed, and anticipate possible implementation of organic certification of wild caught fish.
Option B only permits wild caught fish products to be used only as supplements, which has the advantage of being fully compatible with the existing NOP livestock standards. However, the problem remains of finding acceptable sources of certified organic feeds for carnivorous fish species.
Both options specify parameters for contaminants in feed that is “comparable to the lowest levels found in commercially available fish meal and fish oil.” Because the EPA has not established tolerance levels for contaminants in aquatic species, the provisions of § 205.671 of the NOP, Exclusion from organic sale, are not applicable to this situation. In its discussion the NOSB requests that USDA “undertake the development of standards applicable to all organic foods with the establishment of methods for determining specific numerical tolerance levels for contaminants of concern to organic consumers...”
We do not believe that such a request is realistic. A more fruitful approach might be to determine what those “lowest levels found in commercially available fish meal and fish oil” might be. States are now monitoring contaminants in fish and issuing warnings about consuming those species found to have excessive levels. It might be reasonable to base organic tolerance levels on these figures.
Both options also prohibit the feeding of mammalian and poultry slaughter by-products, regardless of whether the species is carnivorous, omnivorous or herbivorous. The lack of compelling scientific rationale to prohibit this practice suggests that some percentage of carnivorous and omnivorous aquatic animals' diet from certified organic terrestrial animals should be permitted. This would also offer another market for organic livestock by-products and encourage nutrient recycling. It would also minimize the need for feeding or supplementation with wild caught fish by-products, which are arguably more environmentally problematic. It would also address the OFPA requirement for organically produced feed, which is otherwise rendered impossible under Option B in the case of carnivorous species.
While there is some concern that consumers may object to the use of terrestrial animal by-products in fish feed, we do not believe that this concern warrants such a general prohibition. Companies wishing to cater to markets that reject livestock products that are fed animal by-products may reasonably specify that their aquaculture products are not fed animal by-products, and obtain certification to that effect. Consumers could also be informed that they can choose only herbivorous species if they are concerned about the feeding of animal by-products.
Both options include a provision (b) requiring, to the greatest practical extent, that cultured aquatic animals “be provided their natural foods as closely as possible.” Additional clarification is needed in order to make this enforceable. How is it possible to determine what the “natural foods” of a given species are, and whether the feed provided is close enough to meet the standard?
Both options also include provision (c), requiring adherence to “high human food safety standards.” Adherence to human health and safety standards should be assumed, and is already regulated by other agencies.
Option A section (j) permits use of meals and oils containing essential fatty acids produced by “organically certified microbial processes.” It is unclear what is meant by “organically certified microbial processes.” OTA supports the inclusion of microbes and single-celled organisms in the category of agricultural ingredients, and would welcome further clarification on this subject.
§ 205.253 Aquaculture Health Care:
While this section is fully consistent with the existing NOP livestock standards, concerns about international harmonization of aquaculture standards, as well as humane practices, suggest that the prohibition on any use of therapeutic levels of antibiotics for aquaculture production should be reconsidered. It should be noted that the OFPA prohibits only subtherapeutic administration of antibiotics, so this would be consistent with the law.
We note that organic aquaculture standards now in use in Europe and Canada permit the use of conventional veterinary medicines when all else fails, under strictly controlled circumstances. For example, Section 6.9.6.2. of the CAAQ (Conseil des Appellations Agroalimentaires du Quebec) Organic Aquaculture Standards allows only vertebrate aquatic animals to receive no more than two veterinary treatments a year, and withdrawal times must be doubled or two weeks, whichever is longer.
§ 205.254 Aquaculture Living Conditions:
Extensive explanatory material may not be appropriate for regulations, but the basic provisions appear to be reasonable. OTA supports further development of specific standards to address living conditions for different families and species, particularly for bivalve molluscan shellfish.
§ 205.255 Aquaculture Facilities:
It is not clear what item (b) is requiring. Is it the same as mandating that water sources meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act? Specific parameters for quality of water sources used for aquaculture should be included in guidance documents issued in support of the standards.
It is not clear how item (h) would be enforceable. How would significant impact on freshwater quality or supply be determined?
Item (k) appears to require some provision for biological diversity in an aquaculture system to help recycle nutrients and to hold disease organisms in check. OTA strongly supports this provision, and urges the NOSB to emphasize a more explicit requirement of this sort, in a separate section analogous to the crop rotation requirement in the NOP crop standards. Biological diversity is key to both terrestrial and aquatic systems, and should be a central requirement.
It is not clear what is meant by “chemical treatment of biofouling organisms,” and if it applies to sanitation practices, a separate section concerning sanitation and protection from commingling and contamination, analogous to the NOP handling requirements (§ 205.272), would be preferable.
Item (m) should specify that the conversion period only applies to containment vessels that were previously used for conventional aquaculture production, or that had prohibited feeds or medications administered to organisms they contained.
§ 205.258 Farmed Aquatic Plants:
Item (b)(2) appears to equate “non-organic” with “synthetic,” in allowing “non-organic macro-nutrients and micro-nutrients...” to be provided to aquatic plants, where “non-synthetic nutrients...” are not available. This confusion should be corrected.
§ 205.259 Harvest, Transport, Post-Harvest Handling, and Slaughter of Aquatic Animals:
General: The term “minimal disturbance” needs to be more clearly defined to indicate what conditions would make an activity non-compliant.
Item (g) requires clarification of the meaning of “non-sentient.” How are aquatic animals (or plants) distinguished according to sentience? Why are the stated procedures acceptable for non-sentient but not sentient organisms?
Provisions such as items (h) through (k) are governed by other health and safety regulations, and do not need to be specified here.
