Bulk Organic Imports Face Risk-Based Testing

Summary#

The Organic Imports Verification Act of 2026 would create new requirements; it does not amend the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Its stated goal is to report on residue testing of imported organic feedstuffs shipped in bulk. The bill would require risk-based testing of selected feedstuffs and remove a tested shipment’s organic status if it exceeds the permitted residue level.

  • The Agriculture Secretary, acting through the Agricultural Marketing Service and consulting Homeland Security and an existing interagency working group, must develop and regularly update risk-based testing protocols.
  • The Secretary must use those protocols to choose and annually update a list of feedstuffs for testing. The list would not be public.
  • The Secretary must test for each listed feedstuff each year. The bill does not say that every shipment must be tested.
  • If required testing finds a prohibited substance above the permitted level, that shipment must be excluded from organic sale and cannot be sold, labeled, or represented as organic.
  • The Secretary must report to Congress within 180 days of enactment and annually after that. Reports must cover testing of listed feedstuffs and other imported organic feedstuffs shipped in bulk with an import certificate.

The bill is not law. Its passage and start date are uncertain.

What it means for you#

  • Importers and sellers of bulk organic feedstuffs: If testing required by the bill finds an over-limit prohibited substance, the affected shipment loses its eligibility for organic sale and claims. The bill does not create a general ban on selling it without an organic claim.
  • Feedstuff businesses: “Shipped in bulk” includes loose shipments in ship holds, railcars, containers, or super sacks, and similar methods. Packaged goods are excluded.
  • Agriculture Department: The Secretary must develop protocols, maintain a confidential annual testing list, carry out testing for listed feedstuffs, and report results and actions to Congress.
  • Consumers and the public: The bill creates no direct application, benefit, or new consumer service. It does not require the testing list or reports to be made public.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill requires the Agriculture Department to develop protocols, conduct testing, and prepare reports, but gives no cost estimate or staffing figure.
  • The protocols must address testing responsibility, but the bill does not specify who would pay for testing.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “feedstuff.” It also does not say how many shipments or samples must be tested, or how much of a feedstuff must be tested.
  • The risk-based protocols would determine which feedstuffs are selected and key testing details. The bill sets no specific risk criteria or minimum testing frequency.
  • The bill does not explain how importers or sellers would be told about a failed test, or whether they could challenge a result.
  • The report goes to Congress, but the bill does not require public release.
  • The bill does not explain how its testing would fit with existing testing under the Organic Foods Production Act and related rules, or which state certification program would apply when state and federal standards differ.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that risk-based testing can focus testing resources on selected imported feedstuffs rather than requiring the same testing for every product.
  • Requiring testing each year for every feedstuff on the list, plus reports on testing methods, results, standards, and actions, could give Congress information to assess the program.
  • Removing organic status from a shipment with an over-limit prohibited substance creates a clear consequence for a failed test.

Case against#

  • The bill leaves important testing choices to protocols that are not specified in the law, while keeping the list of selected feedstuffs confidential.
  • Because the bill does not require testing every shipment, some shipments may not be tested; it does not set a minimum number of tests or samples.
  • The bill provides no cost estimate or funding details, and does not say who pays for testing.
  • Reports go to Congress, not necessarily the public, so consumers and businesses may not learn which feedstuffs were selected or what testing found.