ANSI Report Critical Of USDA National Organic Program

A report detailing the finding of a voluntary audit by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) of the USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) accreditation program found significant holes in many aspects of the Program's accreditation process. From the report's Executive Summary:

During the October 2003 opening meeting the evaluation team noted that the NOP accreditation body does not have a number of documented policies and procedures in place, as required by ISO/IEC Guide 61 (pp. 8-10). Current NOP regulations do not reflect conformance to ISO/IEC Guides 61 and 65 requirements. As a result, a majority of the discrepancies identified are due to the absence of complete and consistent requirements as defined in the regulations.

Among the identified shortcomings of the report are:

• no defined process for developing explanations of the regulations
• management (organization personnel) with responsibility for accreditation activities not identified;
• no documented structure of the organization;
• no documented quality system;
• no policies and procedures to distinguish between accreditation activities and other activities;
• no policies and procedures for resolution of complaints, appeals and disputes received from bodies or other parties about the handling of accreditation matters;
• no procedures to assure that current copies of all reference documents are maintained on file and available to all of its applicants and participants;
• no procedures for granting, maintaining, withdrawing, suspending or denying accreditation and for extending or reducing the scope of accreditation;
• does not conduct an internal audit and management review of all accreditation body activities;
• no procedures for controlling all documents and data related to the accreditation functions;
• no system for maintaining all records;
• does not obtain consent from the certifying agent for disclosure of information;
• no definition for the minimum criteria for competence for auditors and technical experts providing advice on the regulations;
• no documented instructions describing the duties and responsibilities;
• auditor training records do not always include the date of the most recent update of records;
• no procedures in place for appeals, complaints, and disputes received from applicants, certifying agents and others;
• does not require its certifying agents to make available to it the records of all complaints, appeals, disputes, and subsequent actions;
• no detailed description of the completion of the accreditation process;
• does not inform the applicant of the names of the auditor to carry out the assessment with sufficient notice to appeal against the appointment of any particular experts or auditors;
• does not witness fully the on-site activities of one or more assessments or audits conducted by the applicant prior to initial accreditation;
• does not invite the certifying agent to comment on the report.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/CertifyingAgents/ANSIReportInfo.html