APEDA Refutes Claims on Organic Cotton Certification, Defends Robust Oversight Under NPOP

New Delhi — The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) has firmly rejected recent allegations questioning the credibility of India’s organic cotton certification framework. In an official statement, the authority clarified that the National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP) — which governs organic certification for exports — is internationally recognized and strictly regulated through a multi-tiered auditing system.

Launched in 2001 under the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, the NPOP has been the backbone of India’s organic export system, with APEDA functioning as its implementing secretariat. Since 2005, the system has included a dedicated framework for small and marginal farmers through grower group certification, a move aimed at expanding access to international markets.

Under the NPOP, certification of organic products is conducted through third-party agencies — both public and private — that are accredited for specific scopes of operation. Currently, 37 certification bodies are active in India, including 14 state-level agencies. This third-party model is a prerequisite for exporting organic goods and has been officially recognized by the European Commission, Switzerland, and Great Britain, with a mutual recognition agreement also in place with Taiwan.

Contrary to recent claims, APEDA stated that it does not provide any subsidies — such as the alleged ₹50,000 per hectare — to farmers under the NPOP framework. Such financial figures, the authority emphasized, are inaccurate and misleading.

Responding to assertions that organic farming under NPOP is concentrated in Madhya Pradesh and focused solely on cotton, APEDA clarified that certified organic activities span 31 States and Union Territories. As of July 19, 2025, the programme includes 4,712 active grower groups representing nearly 1.93 million farmers cultivating a diverse range of crops including cereals, pulses, spices, tea, and coffee — not just cotton.

It was also clarified that NPOP certifies only up to the production stage for cotton. Post-harvest activities such as ginning and processing fall under the purview of private certification schemes.

The internal control systems (ICS) managing grower groups are required to conduct biannual inspections of all farms, while accredited Certification Bodies must carry out annual audits of each group, including on-site farm checks guided by risk-based sampling protocols.

Further, APEDA coordinates with the National Accreditation Body (NAB) to conduct unannounced audits of operators and certification agencies based on risk assessments or complaints. These surprise inspections serve as an additional layer of scrutiny.

Despite these mechanisms, APEDA acknowledged that isolated incidents of malpractice have occurred — as with any large-scale regulatory system — but asserted that each case has been met with decisive action. Measures taken include:

• Suspension or penalisation of certification bodies involved in violations

• Tighter regulatory norms for grower group registration and operations

• Increased frequency of random inspections, especially in high-risk zones

• New protocols specifically for cotton, including zonal limitations for certification bodies to allow for closer oversight

• Launch of a mobile inspection application to enhance transparency in audits

APEDA reaffirmed its zero-tolerance approach toward violations and stressed that any evidence of non-compliance is addressed through thorough investigations, following principles of natural justice.

The statement follows a press briefing by an opposition leader who levied generalized accusations against the country’s organic certification system. APEDA has expressed concern that such sweeping and unfounded claims — particularly when focused on a single crop or region — risk damaging the reputation of India’s regulatory institutions and the broader organic farming ecosystem.

“The organic certification system under NPOP is credible, structured, and subject to continuous oversight. Disparaging it without evidence not only misleads the public but also demoralizes genuine stakeholders,” the authority noted.