SANTA ROSA – A Sonoma County organic producer is responding to statements made about it by the California Department of Agriculture.

After entering into a settlement agreement with Valley End Farm to resolve without trial some minor technical violations pertaining to the National Organic Program, the CDFA issued a press release on July 9 regarding the settlement.

The CDFA press release was issued without prior disclosure or authorization by Valley End Farm, and with incomplete information concerning the settlement, the business alleged, calling it “unprecedented” for CDFA to publicize minor technical violations in this manner, especially where the certified organic farmer is allowed to retain its organic certification and continue to operate its business.

Valley End Farm suggested that CDFA may have issued its press release regarding these minor technical violations in an apparent attempt to cover its own failures which were recently documented in a March 2010 Audit Report issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, regarding oversight of the National Organic Program to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, which administers the NOP.

In the audit report, specific findings were made that for approximately six years the CDFA had failed to implement proper state organic program approval procedures in its oversight of California organic farmers.

The audit report specifically found that CDFA’s actions in this regard “reduces NOP’s assurance that California – which had over 2,000 organic operations whose sales exceeded $1.8 billion in 2007 – was producing organically labeled products that met NOP regulatory requirements.”

The report concluded by recommending that the CDFA must “[i]mplement a time-phased action plan for the California SOP to fully comply with NOP regulations.” If it does not improve, then the USDA has been advised to “initiate appropriate enforcement actions against the California SOP.”

Valley End Farm contends that the findings in the audit report directly contradict the statements made in the press release by Rick Jensen of the CDFA that “California’s organic oversight system is the leader in protecting consumers from fraud.”

Similarly, the rest of the story regarding the minor technical violations which were settled by Valley End Farm demonstrates that CDFA did not provide the public with a full and accurate portrayal of the nature of the settlement, the company alleged.

Valley End Farm is a 70-acre farm located in Santa Rosa, Calif., which is owned and operated by a mother and her son. Valley End Farm has been certified organic since 1996. Its founder and owner, Sharon Grossi, strongly believes in the NOP, and has never done anything to intentionally mislead her customers.

Valley End Farm sells affordable organic fruits and vegetables to the local community through its community supported agriculture program. Valley End Farm also has nurtured long-term relationships with its wholesale accounts, which sell organic produce to retail consumers. The farm interacts with its customers in mutually trusting relationships.

The technical violations that occurred included Valley End Farm’s selling $600 of locally sourced special heirloom fruits to its CSA customers, through their weekly boxes of organic fruits and vegetables. The weekly box insert with recipes and emailed newsletter to CSA members regarding their weekly produce deliveries clearly distinguished the fruits from other organic items in the box as “heirloom.”

Valley End Farm was faulted for not identifying in writing that the “heirloom” fruits were not organic, although the CSA customers were orally told this information.

Valley End Farm also was faulted for using the term “transitional organic” on produce it sold from a certified transitional farm it formerly operated in Yolo County (which farm was ultimately certified organic and then sold). Technically, Valley End Farm should have identified the produce as only “transitional.”

However, Valley End Farm has proof that none of its customers were misled by its use of incorrect terminology. All of its CSA customers and its wholesale customers were provided with complete information that the Yolo County farm was not certified as organic at the time the produce was sold. Moreover, the wholesalers all sold the produce to retail consumers as “conventional” or “transitional,” and not as organic.

Valley End Farm was also faulted because at a certification inspection, the records produced did not identify all sales. This was also a technical violation. Current sales records for produce delivered by Valley End Farm were kept with the produce delivery truck until the receipt book was completed. The inspector was not aware of this practice.

Valley End Farm settled the technical violations on which it was cited because it would have been very costly for Valley End Farm to fight these violations in court. In connection with the settlement, Valley End Farm was specifically authorized by the CDFA to continue as a certified organic business.

Valley End Farm said the CDFA led it to believe that it could put these technical violations behind it, by simply paying a fine over a three and a half year year period and complying with all of the technical aspects of the NOP, which Valley End Farm fully intends to do.

The CDFA never informed Valley End Farm that it intended to publicize the settlement, which the farm said could do harm to its business, contrary to the express terms of the settlement negotiated by the CDFA.

In these tough economic times, where it is very difficult for small businesses to survive, Valley End Farm responded to the CDFA statement by saying it is “difficult to fathom” that the CDFA would be trying to harm a small business which it has authorized to continue in operation.

Valley End Farm has authorized its attorney to protest the issuance of the press release by the CDFA on these matters to the California Attorney General’s office, to the USDA and to the director of the CDFA.