ABSTRACT Voluntary organic standard-setting organisations (SSOs) depend upon public trust in the truth claims implied by their labels: that the product in question has been produced using organic methods. They create and maintain this trust through assurance frameworks based on third-party verification of compliance with organic standards. It is therefore potentially problematic if an SSO makes additional claims that are not capable of being supported by their assurance frameworks. We investigate the claims made about the sustainability of organic agriculture by three voluntary organic SSOs, compared with assurance provisions within their standards. The analysis covers Australia, which has 53 per cent of the world's certified organic farmland; and is extended internationally by including the IFOAM standard, with which a further 49 organic standards are affiliated worldwide. We find that while these standards generally contain principles and requirements that support sustainability claims, they lack well-specified means of verification in most cases other than the ‘core’ claims to exclude synthetic chemical inputs and genetically modified organisms. This assurance gap creates the risk of a consumer backlash. We discuss two ways to mitigate this risk: by strengthening verification within standards; and/or by employing new agricultural information and communication technologies to support claims outside the certification process.

中文翻译：

---

将可持续发展要求与有机农业标准中的保证进行比较

摘要自愿性有机标准制定组织（SSO）依靠公众对其标签所隐含的真相主张的信任：所涉及的产品是使用有机方法生产的。他们通过基于对有机标准合规性的第三方验证的保证框架来建立和维护这种信任。因此，如果SSO提出无法由其保证框架提供支持的其他索赔，则可能存在问题。我们调查了三个自愿性有机SSO关于其有机农业可持续性的主张，并比较了其标准中的保证规定。分析覆盖了澳大利亚，该国拥有世界认证的有机农田的53％；并通过包括IFOAM标准在国际范围内进行扩展，全球范围内还与49个有机标准相关联。我们发现，尽管这些标准通常包含支持可持续性主张的原则和要求，但在大多数情况下，除了排除合成化学物质和转基因生物的“核心”主张外，它们缺乏明确指定的验证手段。这种保证差距会造成消费者强烈反对的风险。我们讨论了减轻这种风险的两种方法：通过加强标准内的验证；和/或通过采用新的农业信息和通讯技术来支持认证过程之外的声明。在大多数情况下，除了缺乏将合成化学原料和转基因生物排除在外的“核心”主张外，他们缺乏明确指定的验证手段。这种保证差距会造成消费者强烈反对的风险。我们讨论了减轻这种风险的两种方法：通过加强标准内的验证；和/或通过采用新的农业信息和通讯技术来支持认证过程之外的声明。在大多数情况下，除了缺乏将合成化学原料和转基因生物排除在外的“核心”主张外，他们缺乏明确指定的验证手段。这种保证差距会造成消费者强烈反对的风险。我们讨论了减轻这种风险的两种方法：通过加强标准内的验证；和/或通过采用新的农业信息和通讯技术来支持认证过程之外的声明。