Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 25-1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 24
`
`Lynn R. Fiorentino (Bar No. 226691)
`ARENT FOX LLP
`55 Second Street, 21st Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Phone: (415) 757-5517
`Facsimile: (415) 757-5501
`Email: lynn.fiorentino@arentfox.com
`
`Karen Ellis Carr*
`ARENT FOX LLP
`1717 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Phone: (202) 715-8531
`Facsimile: (202) 857-6395
`Email: karen.carr@arentfox.com
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ARENT FOX LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`WASHINGTON
`
`Brian Farkas*
`ARENT FOX LLP
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Phone: (212) 492-3297
`Facsimile: (212) 484-3990
`Email: brian.farkas@arentfox.com
`
`Counsel for Coalition for Sustainable Organics,
`Aquaponics Association, Western Growers
`Association, and The Scotts Company, LLC, Amici Curiae
`
`* pro hac vice to be filed
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`SONNY PERDUE, et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-1537-RS
`
`Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of
`Defendants’ Combined Opposition and
`Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Date: January 21, 2021
`Courtroom: 3 – 17th Floor
`Hon. Richard Seeborg
`
`AMICI CURIAE BRIEF ISO DEFS’ COMBINED
`OPP'N & CROSS-MOTION FOR SJ
`[CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS]
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 25-1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 24
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Pages
`
`Interest of Amici Curiae........................................................................................................1
`Introduction and Summary of Argument..............................................................................2
`Argument ..............................................................................................................................6
`I.
`The Legal Framework of the Organic Foods Production Act Establishes Broad
`Standards for Organic Certification..........................................................................6
`A.
`The Framework of the Organic Foods Production Act.................................6
`B.
`Overview of the Certification Process..........................................................8
`Hydroponic Production is Compatible with National Organic Program Standards
`to Foster Ecological Balance and Recycling of Resources. ...................................11
`Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion Would Harm Both Growers and Consumers. ............15
`III.
`Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................18
`
`II.
`
`-i-
`
`AMICI CURIAE BRIEF ISO DEFS’ COMBINED
`OPP'N & CROSS-MOTION FOR SJ
`[CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ARENT FOX LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`WASHINGTON
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 25-1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 3 of 24
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Disability Rights Montana, Inc. v. Batista,
`930 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2019) ....................................................................................................5
`
`Grutter v. Bollinger,
`539 U.S. 306 (2003)....................................................................................................................5
`
`Trout Unlimited v. Lohn,
`559 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................................5
`
`Statutes and Regulations
`
`7 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6524 .....................................................................................................................6
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6503(a) ............................................................................................................................6
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6503(c) ............................................................................................................................7
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6504...........................................................................................................................8, 12
`
`7 U.S.C. §§ 6505(a) ..........................................................................................................................7
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6506(a)(4) .................................................................................................................7, 10
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6506(a)(5) .................................................................................................................8, 10
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6508...............................................................................................................................12
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6508(b)(1), (c)(1) ............................................................................................................8
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6512...............................................................................................................................11
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6514(a) ............................................................................................................................8
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6514(b)............................................................................................................................9
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6515(b)............................................................................................................................9
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6515(g)............................................................................................................................9
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6515(i).............................................................................................................................9
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6518(a) ............................................................................................................................7
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6518(b), (d) .....................................................................................................................7
`
`- ii -
`
`AMICI CURIAE BRIEF ISO DEFS’ COMBINED
`OPP'N & CROSS-MOTION FOR SJ
`[CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ARENT FOX LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`WASHINGTON
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 25-1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 4 of 24
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.2....................................................................................................................3, 11, 12
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.200 et seq..................................................................................................................8
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.201..................................................................................................................8, 9, 10
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.201(a)(5), (6)..........................................................................................................10
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.203(b) .....................................................................................................................11
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.205..........................................................................................................................11
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201 ..............................................................................................................................5
`
`S. Rep. No. 101-357 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4656....................................7, 16, 18
`
`Becky L. Jacobs, et al., A Quixotic Quest for Definition: Perceptions of ‘Organic’
`and Implications for the Environment and for Market Participants, NAT. RES.
`L. 141 (2020) ............................................................................................................................17
`
`Dan Nosowitz, “National Organic Standards Board Decrees That Hydroponic Can
`Be Organic,” MODERN FARMER, Nov. 2, 2017,
`https://modernfarmer.com/2017/11/national-organic-standards-board-decrees-
`hydroponic-can-organic/...........................................................................................................12
`
`Data tables, 2019 Organic Survey, USDA-NASS (Oct. 22, 2020),
`https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/Or
`ganics/index.php .......................................................................................................................18
`
`Josh Dhyani, Science-Based Food Labels: Improving Regulations & Preventing
`Consumer Deception Through Limited Information Disclosure Requirements,
`26 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 1 (2016) ............................................................................................7
`
`Jyoti Rana & Justin Paul, Health Motive and the Purchase of Organic Food: A
`Meta-Analytic Review...............................................................................................................17
`
`Karen Campion, A Tough Row to Hoe: What Partlo v. Johanns Means for the
`Organic Food Industry, 21 J. NAT. RES. & ENV’T L. 121 (2007).......................................5, 7
`
`Mary Ellen Shoup, Packaged Facts: Gen Z shoppers emerge as strong consumers
`of organic and natural foods, FOOD NAVIGATOR, Jan. 8, 2020,
`https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2020/01/08/Packaged-Facts-Gen-
`Z-emerges-as-strong-consumer-of-organic-and-natural-foods...................................................5
`
`Organic Labels Explained, USDA.GOV,
`https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/whats-behind-organic-seal-
`organic-labels-explained (May 24 2018)....................................................................................5
`
`- iii -
`
`AMICI CURIAE BRIEF ISO DEFS’ COMBINED
`OPP'N & CROSS-MOTION FOR SJ
`[CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ARENT FOX LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`WASHINGTON
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 25-1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 5 of 24
`
`Organic Survey, USDA-NASS (Oct. 22, 2020),
`https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/Or
`ganics/index.php .......................................................................................................................18
`
`Rita-Marie Cain Reid, Alternative Organic: Legal Issues in Marketing Uncertified
`Organic Products, 73 FOOD & DRUG L.J. 570, 576 (2018)......................................................15
`
`USDA, AMS/NOP/NOSB New Member Training Agenda, at 6,
`https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOSB%20New%20Memb
`er%20Training_2016.pdf......................................................................................................9, 12
`
`USDA, Executive Briefing, 2019 Organic Survey Data Release, at 8 (Oct. 22,
`2020),
`https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Organic_Produ
`ction/pdf/2019_Organic_Executive_Briefing.pdf ....................................................................10
`
`USDA, Instruction-Accreditation Policies & Procedures, at 4,
`https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/2000.pdf...................................................9
`
`USDA-NASS, Highlights, 2019 Organic Survey, USDA-NASS (Oct. 22, 2020),
`https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Organic_Produ
`ction/ ...................................................................................................................................16, 17
`
`USDA, Organic 101: Five Steps to Organic Certification (2017),
`https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/10/10/organic-101-five-steps-organic-
`certification...............................................................................................................................10
`
`USDA, Organic System Plan Template (2015),
`https://www.ams.usda.gov/reports/organic-system-plan-template...........................................10
`
`- iv -
`
`AMICI CURIAE BRIEF ISO DEFS’ COMBINED
`OPP'N & CROSS-MOTION FOR SJ
`[CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ARENT FOX LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`WASHINGTON
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 25-1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 6 of 24
`
`Interest of Amici Curiae
`The Coalition for Sustainable Organics (“CSO”), Aquaponics Association (“AA”), Western
`Growers Association (“Western Growers”) and The Scotts Company, LLC (“Scotts”) (collectively,
`“Amici”) submit this brief to aid the Court in its consideration of whether growers who use
`hydroponic growing methods should continue to be eligible for organic certification under the
`National Organic Program (“NOP”) administered by the United States Department of Agriculture
`(“USDA” or the “Agency”). Amici are three not-for-profit agricultural trade associations and a
`major supplier of conventional and organic hydroponic materials who either directly or have
`members who would suffer material and substantial harm should Plaintiffs succeed on their motion.
`The Coalition for Sustainable Organics (“CSO”) is a group of environmentally and socially
`responsible growers committed to maintaining the current high standards of the USDA for
`certifying organic produce. CSO is comprised of approximately 50 large and small growers alike.
`Through public education, lobbying, and other efforts, CSO advocates for the continued allowance
`of containerized growing methods under the NOP, while enabling growers to select the most
`appropriate production system for their specific site and commodity needs. CSO has provided oral
`and written testimony and submitted docket comments in connection with USDA’s administrative
`processes relating to whether hydroponic growers are eligible for organic certification under the
`NOP.
`
`AA’s mission is to promote the benefits of aquaponic agricultural growing through
`education and outreach, representing approximately 200 such members. It aims to educate both
`consumers and food safety officials about the safety of aquaponically-grown food. Like CSO, AA
`has also participated in USDA’s administrative processes relevant to the issue of organic
`certification of hydroponic growers, providing oral and written testimony at National Organic
`Standards Board (“NOSB”) meetings and comments to relevant USDA dockets.
`Founded in 1926, Western Growers represents local and regional family farmers in Arizona,
`California, Colorado, and New Mexico. Its members grow, pack, and ship over half of the nation’s
`fresh produce including nearly one-third of America’s fresh organic produce. Western Growers is
`a leading public policy advocate for the fresh produce industry and has a longstanding interest in
`AMICI CURIAE BRIEF ISO DEFS’ COMBINED
`OPP'N & CROSS-MOTION FOR SJ
`[CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS]
`
`-1-
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ARENT FOX LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`WASHINGTON
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 25-1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 7 of 24
`
`environmental matters, in general, and matters impacting organic production in particular.
`Finally, Scotts, founded in 1868, is one of the world’s leading suppliers of consumer lawn
`and garden products. In addition to Scotts’ traditional lawn and garden business, it is represented
`in the hydroponic market by its affiliate The Hawthorne Gardening Company. Hawthorne
`Hydroponics LLC supplies growing media, liquid nutrients and lighting to hydroponic growers
`through its brands including General Hydroponics, Gavita and Botanicare. On multiple occasions,
`Scotts has supplied written and oral comment to the NOSB with respect to the certification process
`for hydroponic organic growers through the NOP.
`Amici all have a particular interest in the determination of the issues in this case. Plaintiffs
`seek a judicial declaration invalidating USDA’s June 6, 2019 denial of Plaintiffs’ petition
`requesting that the agency conduct rulemaking to exclude organic certification of hydroponic
`agricultural production systems under the Organic Foods Production Act. Plaintiffs seek a judicial
`determination that USDA’s denial was arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law, in violation of
`the Administrative Procedure Act. Relying upon their extensive experience in the industry, Amici
`file this brief to explain the hydroponic agricultural and certification processes at issue, to elucidate
`some of the factual and legal errors contained in Plaintiffs’ motion, and to provide information
`about the harm that growers, retailers, and consumers would suffer should Plaintiffs prevail.1
`Introduction and Summary of Argument
`For centuries, humans have developed and improved agricultural technologies. Today, new
`innovations allow farmers to grow and produce food more efficiently, safely, and sustainably than
`ever before. This litigation concerns one such innovation – hydroponics – an agricultural production
`method that allows farmers to produce nutritious fruits and vegetables in a manner that is
`environmentally beneficial and meets the sustainability goals of the Organic Foods Production Act
`(“OFPA”). 2 Since the advent of USDA’s NOP, hydroponic methods have consistently been
`
`
`1 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than Amici and
`their counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission.
`
`2 As discussed in greater detail herein, “hydroponic” agriculture is a broad term that includes any
`method of growing plants without soil. Many farmers also employ “aquaponics” (growing crops
`
`- 2 -
`
`AMICI CURIAE BRIEF ISO DEFS’ COMBINED
`OPP'N & CROSS-MOTION FOR SJ
`[CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ARENT FOX LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`WASHINGTON
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 25-1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 8 of 24
`
`recognized as eligible for organic certification so long as a hydroponic farmer’s operation meets
`the NOP requirements for “organic production,” i.e., “[a] production system that is managed in
`accordance with the Act and regulations in this part to respond to site-specific conditions by
`integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote
`ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.”3 Granting the relief Plaintiffs seek in this lawsuit
`would prevent hydroponic farmers – like the members of Amici CSO, AA and Western Growers
`and customers of Scotts – who have met those requirements from continuing to produce and sell
`produce under the USDA’s “organic” label.
`Through this litigation, Plaintiffs challenge USDA’s authority to permit the certification of
`hydroponically-grown fruits and vegetables as “organic” – a decades-long practice that has
`coincided with the dramatic expansion of hydroponic agriculture. After the National Organic
`Standards Board in 2017 rejected a proposal to categorically preclude organic certification for all
`hydroponic growers, Plaintiffs filed a petition with USDA requesting that USDA undertake a
`rulemaking seeking the same result. USDA denied the petition, citing its longstanding position
`under its OFPA authority to permit organic hydroponic production; Plaintiffs sued and have now
`moved for summary judgment, arguing that USDA’s denial of their administrative petition was
`arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.4 But Plaintiffs’ motion
`paints an incomplete and deeply misleading picture of the goals of the OFPA, the organic
`certification process, the compatibility of hydroponic production with the OFPA and NOP, and the
`harm to growers and consumers that will follow from an adverse ruling for USDA in this case. In
`Plaintiffs’ telling, the primary goal of the OFPA is to benefit soil, and the certification process for
`hydroponics is untethered from both the OFPA’s legislative standards and basic biology.
`Hydroponically-grown fruits and vegetables, in Plaintiffs’ view, are inherently inappropriate for
`the “organic” label – even if capable of “integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices
`
`
`
`with fish in closed water ecosystems) and “aeroponics” (growing crops in a hanging fashion, often
`in greenhouses). For brevity, the term “hydroponics” is used inclusively to describe all of these
`non-soil-based agricultural methods.
`3 7 C.F.R. § 205.2.
`4 Administrative Record (“AR”) 1375–76.
`
`- 3 -
`
`AMICI CURIAE BRIEF ISO DEFS’ COMBINED
`OPP'N & CROSS-MOTION FOR SJ
`[CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ARENT FOX LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`WASHINGTON
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 25-1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 9 of 24
`
`that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity” – because
`they are not physically grown in the ground. Accordingly, Plaintiffs contend that USDA should
`prohibit hydroponic farmers from being certified “organic” and from labeling their produce as
`“organic” when sold to consumers.
`The reality is that hydroponically-grown produce has been a growing part of the American
`agricultural landscape for 30 years, and has been part of the NOP since its inception. Hydroponic
`production is a broad term often used to describe several methods of agricultural growth outside of
`the soil – for example, using indoor or outdoor containers, biologically active waters, and/or indoor
`greenhouses. One segment of hydroponic production is referred to as “inert” or “sterile” and is
`made up of inorganic systems in which plants are fed nutrients in their basic ionic forms (e.g.,
`nitrate, potassium, iron) that can immediately be taken up through their roots. “Sterile” hydroponic
`systems do not rely on biological organisms to make minerals available to the plants.5 Another
`segment, and the one at issue here, is for “organic” hydroponic systems, also referred to as
`“bioponic” systems, which rely instead on a “soil food web micro-biological ecosystem to provide
`nutrients to a crop. All inputs come from animal, plants and minerals and require biologyto convert
`these raw inputs into plant-usable form.” 6 CSO’s members, for example, operate organic
`hydroponic systems for which the members have either obtained organic certification or hope to
`obtain certification in the future.
`Organic hydroponic growers employ all sorts of site-specific production methods
`depending on their particular geographies and crops, some of which are detailed herein. Common
`among them, however, is their ability to establish biological activity in the roots of plants to enable
`the breakdown of organic matter into plant-available nutrients. Numerous studies demonstrate that
`organic hydroponic growers are able to establish the same quantity and diversity of microbiology
`– a fundamental component of organic agriculture – found in in-soil production methods.7 This
`activity readily enables organic hydroponic growers to meet the standard for organic production
`
`
`
`
`
`5 AR 0437-0632.
`6 Id. at 0565.
`7 Id. at 0609, 0626.
`
`- 4 -
`
`AMICI CURIAE BRIEF ISO DEFS’ COMBINED
`OPP'N & CROSS-MOTION FOR SJ
`[CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ARENT FOX LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`WASHINGTON
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 25-1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 10 of 24
`
`under the NOP.
`Consumers are increasingly demanding organic produce, and are willing to pay a premium
`for produce bearing that label.8 For this reason, organic farming has become one of the fastest
`growing agricultural sectors in the United States. 9 And throughout the life of the NOP,
`hydroponically-grown produce has been eligible to attain organic certification so long as the
`operation is able to meet the rigorous certification standards that are generally required of organic
`growers. In recognition of that burgeoning consumer market, many of CSO, AA, and Western
`Grower’s members and other growers have invested heavily in hydroponics to earn that “organic”
`label, and consumers have come to rely on the availability of hydroponically-produced organic
`produce.10
`In Plaintiffs’ view, the “organic” designation should apply to a far more restricted universe
`of produce – that which is literally grown in the Earth’s soil. For three reasons, Plaintiffs are
`incorrect. First, as a legal matter, the OFPA and NOP establish broad standards for organic
`production based on site-specific analyses by Certifying Agents of farm-specific Organic System
`Plans. Plaintiffs’ categorical approach is ill-suited to Congress’s design. Second, hydroponic
`
`
`8 See Mary Ellen Shoup, Packaged Facts: Gen Z shoppers emerge as strong consumers of organic
`Jan. 8, 2020, https://www.foodnavigator-
`foods, FOOD NAVIGATOR,
`and natural
`usa.com/Article/2020/01/08/Packaged-Facts-Gen-Z-emerges-as-strong-consumer-of-organic-and-
`natural-foods (in a survey of over 20,000 American adults, millennial and Gen-Z consumers were
`more likely to purchase “organic” food). As a general matter, Amici rely upon transcripts and
`reports contained in the Administrative Record. On occasion, however, Amici cite to academic
`articles or news articles related to organics or the organic agricultural industry. Courts will often
`consider social scientific, scientific, or industry information outside of the contours of the record
`when presented by amici briefs. See, e.g., Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 330 (2003)
`(considering amici’s social science evidence regarding benefits of diversity in higher education);
`Disability Rights Montana, Inc. v. Batista, 930 F.3d 1090, 1099 (9th Cir. 2019) (considering amici’s
`medical and social science researcher on solitary confinement); Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, 559 F.3d
`946, 947 (9th Cir. 2009) (considering amici’s view of the scientific consensus regarding the ways
`in which the National Marine Fisheries Service categorizes certain species of fish); see also Fed.
`R. Evid. 201 (noting that courts may take judicial notice of facts outside the record).
`9 Karen Campion, A Tough Row to Hoe: What Partlo v. Johanns Means for the Organic Food
`Industry, 21 J. NAT. RES. & ENV’T L. 121, 121 (2007) (describing growth of organic farming since
`the enactment of the OFPA in 1990).
`10 Agricultural products that meet the organic standard can be sold as “USDA Organic” with the
`formal seal of the Agency. See USDA, What’s Behind the Organic Seal? Organic Labels
`Explained, USDA.GOV, https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/whats-behind-organic-
`seal-organic-labels-explained (May 24 2018).
`
`- 5 -
`
`AMICI CURIAE BRIEF ISO DEFS’ COMBINED
`OPP'N & CROSS-MOTION FOR SJ
`[CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ARENT FOX LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`WASHINGTON
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 25-1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 11 of 24
`
`growers, by establishing and fostering a soil food web with an active microbiome, are readily able
`to meet the OFPA and NOP standards. Third, Plaintiffs tellingly ignore the significant
`consequences that their restrictive certification scheme would have on both the agricultural industry
`that has invested in organic hydroponic production and on its consumers, who are demanding an
`ever-increasing supply of organic produce at a fair price.
`Ultimately, Plaintiffs’ position is untenable. They wish to restrict the valuable “organic”
`label for one category of organic farmers, to the detriment of growers utilizing the types of
`sustainable practices that Congress intended to encourage. Amici respectfully request that
`Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment be denied, and that Defendants’ cross-motion for
`summary judgment be granted.
`
`I.
`
`Argument
`The Legal Framework of the Organic Foods Production Act Establishes Broad
`Standards for Organic Certification.
`Under the OFPA, Congress set out the broad standards under which hydroponic farmers
`who meet USDA’s requirements are entitled to obtain organic certification based on a site-specific
`certification process. Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary are unsupported by the statute, its
`legislative history, and USDA’s NOP regulations.
`A.
`The Framework of the Organic Foods Production Act
`Enacted in 1990, the Organic Foods Production Act (“OFPA”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6524,
`directed USDA to “establish an organic certification program for producers and handlers of
`agricultural products that have been produced using organic methods[.]”11 As noted in Senate
`Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee Report that accompanied the bill, the OFPA
`became law at a time when “[t]he market for organically produced food is growing as consumers
`begin to search for local food alternatives.” Congress was concerned that “[g]rowth in the organic
`food trade” was “hampered by a lack of consistent standards for production,” prompting Congress
`
`11 7 U.S.C. § 6503(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`AMICI CURIAE BRIEF ISO DEFS’ COMBINED
`OPP'N & CROSS-MOTION FOR SJ
`[CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ARENT FOX LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`WASHINGTON
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 25-1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 12 of 24
`
`to establish “national standards for organic production.”12 Indeed, growth of the organic program
`was front and center at the time Congress considered the OFPA.
`With the passage of the OFPA, “organic foods gained a certain status” because only food
`produced and handled in certain ways “could rightfully call itself ‘organic.’”13 Prior to OFPA, the
`standards for organic certification were product-oriented, focusing on “observable characteristics”
`and ingredient composition of produce.14 But the OFPA shifted the standards to a process-oriented
`approach, focusing on the practices that a specific farmer uses to grow the produce on a specific
`site. The regulatory framework of the OFPA therefore centers on the ways in which individual
`growers grow, harvest, and prepare produce.
`The OFPA directed USDA to create a program for certifying produce as “organic,”
`including the creation of a “USDA Organic” seal to be used on labels to demonstrate to consumers
`that a product is grown in a manner that complies with the NOP. 15 Under the statute, any
`agricultural products sold as “organic” must be “produced only on certified organic farms and
`handled only through certified organic handling operations in accordance with [the OFPA][.]”16
`The OFPA further “require[s] each certified organic farm or each certified organic handling
`operation to certify compliance annually17 and submit to an “annual on-site inspection by the
`
`
`
`12 S. Rep. 101-357, at 289 (1990), as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4656, 4943 (emphasis
`added).
`13 Karen Campion, 21 J. NAT. RES. & ENV’T L. at 122.
`14 Josh Dhyani, Science-Based Food Labels: Improving Regulations & Preventing Consumer
`Deception Through Limited Information Disclosure Requirements, 26 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 1,
`18-19 (2016).
`15 The OFPA also established the National Organic Standards Board (“NOSB”). The NOSB’s
`mission is “to assist in the development of standards for substances to be used in organic production
`and to advise the Secretary on any other aspects of the implementation of this chapter.” 7 U.S.C. §
`6518(a). The group includes 15 members, who are required by statute to include members with
`relevant expertise, including individuals who own or operate organic farms or handling operations,
`as well as those with experience in retail, environmental protection, ecology, and other related
`areas. The USDA is required to “consult” with the NOSB (7 U.S.C. § 6503(c)), but its
`recommendations are not binding. Members serve for five-year terms without compensation. 7
`U.S.C. § 6518(b), (d) (outlining NOSB’s composition).
`16 7 U.S.C. §§ 6505(a); 6506(a)(1)(A).
`17 7 U.S.C. § 6506(a)(4).
`
`- 7 -
`
`AMICI CURIAE BRIEF ISO DEFS’ COMBINED
`OPP'N & CROSS-MOTION FOR SJ
`[CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS]
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ARENT FOX LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`WASHINGTON
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 25-1 Filed 11/06/20 Page 13 of 24
`
`certifying agent[.]”18 To qualify as an “organically produced agricultural product,” the produce
`shall:
`
`(1) have been produced and handled without the use of synthetic chemicals, except
`as otherwise provided [herein];
`(2) except as otherwise provided [herein] and excluding livestock, not be produced
`on land to which any prohibited substances, including synthetic chemicals, have
`been applied during the 3 years immediately preceding the harvest of the
`agricultural products; and
`(3) be produced and handled in compliance with an organic plan agreed to by the
`producer and handler of such product and the certifying agent.19
`B.
`Overview of the Certification Process
`Through the OFPA, Congress established broad, nationally uniform standards for organics
`certification – standards that are implemented under t