APEDA Refutes Misleading Allegations on Organic Cotton Certification Under NPOP

The Agriculture & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) has strongly refuted recent allegations made in a press briefing by an opposition leader, terming them unfounded, misleading, and factually incorrect. These remarks, aimed at discrediting India's National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP), were based on misinterpretations of the certification process, subsidies, and geographic concentration of certified organic producers.

What is NPOP and APEDA’s Role?

Launched in 2001 by the Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, the National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP) aims to support the export of organic products from India. APEDA serves as the Secretariat for its implementation, ensuring adherence to international organic standards and certifications.

To support small and marginal farmers, Grower Group Certification was introduced in 2005 under NPOP, making certification more inclusive and accessible. The program functions on a third-party certification model, with stringent regulations and compliance checks across the entire organic value chain.

International Recognition of NPOP

NPOP standards are internationally recognized, with the European Commission and Switzerland acknowledging them as equivalent to their own. These standards are also accepted by Great Britain, and India has a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with Taiwan for organic product exports.

Currently, there are 37 active Certification Bodies in India, including 14 State Certification Bodies, responsible for overseeing certification compliance.

Setting the Record Straight on Recent Allegations

APEDA clarified that:

• No subsidies are provided to organic farmers under NPOP. The claimed figure of ₹50,000 per hectare and subsequent extrapolations are baseless.

• Organic certification under NPOP is not limited to Madhya Pradesh, as wrongly suggested. As of July 19, 2025, there are 4,712 active Organic Grower Groups covering 19.29 lakh farmers across 31 States and UTs. These farmers grow a variety of crops — not just cotton, but also cereals, pulses, oilseeds, tea, coffee, and spices.

• The assertion that all grower groups are from one state or produce one crop (cotton) is entirely false and misleading.

Understanding the Certification and Audit Mechanism

The certification process under NPOP involves:

• Internal Control Systems (ICS) managed either independently or through a service provider.

• Biannual internal inspections of all member farms.

• Annual external audits by Certification Bodies that include both office and farm inspections, guided by a risk-based sampling plan.

• Unannounced audits conducted by evaluation committees coordinated by APEDA and National Accreditation Body (NAB), further strengthening credibility.

Addressing Non-Compliance and Strengthening Oversight

Despite rigorous systems, instances of misuse and non-compliance have been reported — a challenge not unique to India but common in global regulatory ecosystems. In response, APEDA has taken concrete corrective steps, including:

• Stringent action against defaulting Certification Bodies and Grower Groups.

• Revision of NPOP regulations to tighten norms around grower group registration, office proximity requirements, and inspections through mobile apps (to be introduced soon).

• Special procedures for organic cotton to enable zonal restriction of Certification Bodies, enhancing monitoring and accountability.

• Significant increase in unannounced inspections and field-level monitoring activities.

Upholding Transparency and Credibility

APEDA reaffirmed its commitment to a credible, transparent, and internationally respected organic certification system. Each complaint or violation reported is investigated under due legal process and action is taken as per NPOP regulations.

The recent press briefing casting doubts on the NPOP system was criticized for being politically motivated and detrimental to the organic movement in India. APEDA highlighted that generalised accusations against a robust, well-audited regulatory framework only serve to undermine the trust in India’s organic sector, which is vital for both global trade and domestic agricultural sustainability.