U.S. Code » Title 7 » CHAPTER 94— ORGANIC CERTIFICATION

7 U.S.C. § 6507

State organic certification program

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In general

The governing State official may prepare and submit a plan for the establishment of a State organic certification program to the Secretary for approval. A State organic certification program must meet the requirements of this chapter to be approved by the Secretary.

(b) Additional requirements(1) Authority

A State organic certification program established under subsection (a) may contain more restrictive requirements governing the organic certification of farms and handling operations and the production and handling of agricultural products that are to be sold or labeled as organically produced under this chapter than are contained in the program established by the Secretary.

(2) ContentAny additional requirements established under paragraph (1) shall—(A) further the purposes of this chapter;(B) not be inconsistent with this chapter;(C) not be discriminatory towards agricultural commodities organically produced in other States in accordance with this chapter; and(D) not become effective until approved by the Secretary.(c) Review and other determinations(1) Subsequent review

The Secretary shall review State organic certification programs not less than once during each 5-year period following the date of the approval of such programs.

(2) Changes in program

The governing State official, prior to implementing any substantive change to programs approved under this subsection, shall submit such change to the Secretary for approval.

(3) Time for determination

The Secretary shall make a determination concerning any plan, proposed change to a program, or a review of a program not later than 6 months after receipt of such plan, such proposed change, or the initiation of such review.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XXI, § 2108, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3939.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: In re Aurora Dairy Corp. Organic Milk Mktg., 621 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Aurora Dairy Corp. Organic Milk Mktg., 621 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “Aurora fails to support its argument with citation to any language in the statute or regulations which could show Congress’s intent to preempt the claims at issue here.”
Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc., 361 P.3d 868 (Cal. 2015). · cites it 3× “) As noted, states may establish organic certification programs ( 7 U.S.C. § 6507 ); once federally approved, these state programs take principal responsibility for certifying growers and instituting administrative proceedings for noncompliance with the governing standards ( 7 C.”
Marentette v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 886 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2018). “Parents point to 7 U.S.C. § 6507 , which precludes all state-certification schemes unless they are more stringent than the OFPA's standards and are *120 approved by the Secretary of Agriculture.”
Solus Indus. Innovations, LLC v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty., 410 P.3d 32 (Cal. 2018). “, 7 U.S.C. § 6507 (c)(2) [in context of changes to federally-approved supplemental state requirements for organic food certification, governing state official, "prior to implementing any substantive change to programs approved under this subsection, shall submit such change to…”
Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 2012). “7 U.S.C. § 6507 (b)(1). Minnesota has adopted the OFPA and the NOP as its state organic farming law.”
In re Santa Fe Nat. Tobacco Co. Mktg. & Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 288 F. Supp. 3d 1087 (D.N.M. 2017). “See 7 U.S.C. § 6507 (b). The Court concludes, accordingly, that that the Plaintiffs' organic-premised claims are not field preempted.”
Marentette v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 201 F. Supp. 3d 374 (E.D.N.Y. 2016). “” 7 U.S.C. § 6507 (a). In other words, the federal government has chosen to define an “Organic” product as one that has met a certain standard, and the only way the State can alter that standard is with the federal government’s approval.”
Organic Consumers Ass'n v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 285 F. Supp. 3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “Plaintiff contends that the OFPA enforcement structure is capacious enough to allow for private rights of action via state law, since approved state programs may "contain more restrictive requirements" than the OFPA, 7 U.S.C. § 6507 (b)(1), and state enforcement programs might…”
Organic Consumers Ass'n v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., No. 2016-0925 (D.D.C. Jan. 3, 2018). “None of Plaintiff s counter-arguments are persuasive Plaintiff contends that the OFPA enforcement structure is capacious enough t_o allow for private rights of action via state law, since approved state programs may “contain more restrictive requirements” than the OFPA, 7 U.S.C.…”
Marenette v. Abbott Labs., No. 17-62 (2d Cir. Mar. 23, 2018). “Parents point to 7 U.S.C. § 6507 , which precludes all 3 state‐certification schemes unless they are more stringent than the OFPA’s 4 standards and are approved by the Secretary of Agriculture.”
Env't Democracy Proj. v. Rael, No. A170385 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2025). “306 ; see 7 U.S.C. § 6507 .) In 2002, effective in 2003, the Legislature enacted the California Organic Products Act of 2003 (COPA).”
Env't Democracy Proj. v. Rael, Inc., No. A170385M (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2025). “306 ; see 7 U.S.C. § 6507 .) In 2002, effective in 2003, the Legislature enacted the California Organic Products Act of 2003 (COPA).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.