Australian Standard 6000 || Tim Marshall

History, status and relevance to the future of the organic industry

Tim Marshall

The first organic certifications in Australia were implemented in the early-mid 1970’s by the Organic Food Movement (OFM), a short lived South Australian venture, and the BDRI (Bio-Dynamic Research Institute), which is still in existence. Neither organisation produced a significant written standard. OFM used a two page document and BDRI used the International Demeter Standard, but it was not widely disseminated, even among certified operators.

The first written organic standard in Australia was produced by the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture, Australia Ltd. (NASAA) in 1987, and it was followed by the Biological Farmers of Australia (BFA) Standard in 1988. BFA transformed into Australian Organic Ltd. (AOL), and these two ‘private standards’ are still in existence.

In 1990 the Department of Agriculture established the Organic Produce Advisory Committee (OPAC) which produced the National Standard for Organic and BioDynamic Produce (the National Standard), first published in 1992, and the current version is 3.7 available here.

The National Standard was the first organic standard in the world to be fully operational (USA and EU standards were under development but not implemented). The National Standard was mandated under the Export Control (Organic Produce Certification) Orders, by the Federal Minister of Agriculture, and applied to exports only.

It became the default ‘domestic standard’, there being no other available document, but it had no legal force.

In 1989 NASAA had made an approach to the ANZ Food Authority, the precursor to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), to request regulation of the word organic, and the Department of Agriculture made a formal request in 1992. Both were refused.

In August 2007, the ACCC brought a case against an egg producer, G O Drew P/L, and Timothy Drew, the Manager, for selling eggs with the NASAA label, in contravention of the Trade Practices Act. They were fined $270,000 plus costs but Justice Grey said that he could only find them guilty of misusing the NASAA label and could not determine if the eggs were indeed organic.

About $30,000 of the fine went to NASAA, as the offended party, and the remainder was used by the Organic Federation of Australia (OFA) to encourage Standards Australia to develop the Australia Standard (AS) 6000 Organic and Biodynamic Products, and the associated control document, the MP100 Procedures for certification of organic and biodynamic products. The MP deals with technical matters that do not appear in the standard itself, such as equivalence, conformity assessment, competent authorities, and other systems for determining what is an acceptable standards and certification system, and whether the products of that system can be included in AS6000 compliant operations. The AS6000 does not mandate certification or labeling, so it remains possible to sell organic products that are not certified. However, the courts and the ACCC may refer to Australian Standards and could determine that produce clearly not in compliance with AS6000 is not eligible to be sold with an organic claim.

The current situation

1n 2021, two standards are used by the Australian organic industry. The National Standard and export control orders regulate export and is used by five CBs (NASAA Certified Organic, Australian Certified Organic, AUS-Qual, BDRI and OFC), and the AS6000 is used by Southern Cross Certified (SXC). In fact, the landscape of standards is more complicated than that, and farms, handling operations and produce are often certified and recertified using the two private standards owned by the largest certification bodies (CBs) or to compliance systems in other countries, for export facilitation, in accordance with deals negotiated by the CBs. Private standards may also be used for domestic-only certification (e.g. a small grower scheme operated by NASAA) or organic inputs (e.g. allowable fertilisers or crop protectants) or for retailer certification.

The application of separate standards in export and domestic markets is not compliant with WTO policies, which demands one standard, and therefore will inhibit attempts to negotiate mutual recognition arrangements with other countries. Mutual recognition, such as we have with the EU (for most categories of certified organic product) and Japan (for fewer categories) is generally cheaper and preferable for exporters because it avoids the need for the CBs to negotiate individually with foreign countries or certifiers, and it avoids replication of the audit process as part of those arrangements.

The current push for domestic legislation developed by AOL is supported in principle by the entire organic industry, but the dominant view of AOL about how to formulate the legislation is not, especially their refusal to consider anything other than the National Standard as the relevant foundation document. The most common view is that the AS6000 already has some applicability in the domestic market, and that we have not done our due diligence as industry managers unless we consider the cost, benefits, and problems with each of the standards, and that whatever standard is selected should be used in both domestic and export situations. Broad applicability will require amendments to whichever standard (and standard management system) is selected, to make it fit for purpose, so why limit our choices by not considering the AS6000 in this important consideration?

Only one document has compared the National Standard and the AS6000 with respect to their suitability for use in both domestic and export conditions. That is a Deloitte report Organic Orders Review, delivered to the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (as it was then called) and distributed to the organic industry at the Canberra ‘Love Organic’ workshop in February 2018. The Organic Orders Review does not definitively propose either standard as the basis of future regulation, but it does make many comments in favour of the AS and it raises doubts about all the considerations usually cited against the AS6000.

Whichever standard is selected, the following issues are relevant and critically important: The standard should benefit all producers, processors and traders regardless of which certification system they use.

The AS6000 requires some minor updating to be equivalent to the National Standard, and MP100 needs changes to incorporate current/future administrative arrangements.

A single standard must be able to manage organic claims in domestic and export markets and include clear rules for acceptance of imported organic produce.

The Standards Australia (SA) standards management system is widely respected as an exemplary system (and importantly emphasizes broad industry and consumer representation). The Organic Industry Standards and Certification Council (OISCC) is currently responsible for managing the National Standard. Membership of OISCC does not include consumer representation and Organic Industries Australia (OIA, the new peak body for the organic industry, that has now replaced OFA) has requested OISCC to broaden its membership beyond certifier interests. The AS6000 would likely be acceptable to all our current export trading partners.

Image Courtesy of Ian James, Western Australian organic grain producer

Continuing to operate a domestic and international standard is not acceptable and will prevent negotiation of mutual recognition between Australia and our major trading partners. cheaper to run and a thorough evaluation of cost must include current expenditure on maintaining the National Standard and the cost of CBs individually negotiating market access. Neither standard is currently ‘owned’ by the organic industry, but the AS6000 could be produced by a Standards Development Organisation (SDO) established by the organic industry.

The SDO should be owned by the organic industry (ideally established by OIA with engagement of all CBs, producers, processors and consumer interests). Whichever standard is used must be readily and freely available to current and intending certified operators.