During the National Organic Standards Board’s meeting this week in Florida, the agenda was packed, but the hydroponic proposal garnered significant attention. The board, which votes on nonbinding recommendations for the USDA’s consideration, has been grappling with this topic for years. Attempts to vote on the proposal last November and this April were postponed as board members sought additional information. A public discussion in August also revealed a lack of consensus on the matter. The regulations regarding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic remain ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal legal complaint against the USDA, asserting that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from receiving the organic seal, the USDA has permitted over 100 domestic and foreign growers to obtain certification.
Prior to this week’s meeting, the only significant action taken on this issue occurred in 2010, when the NOSB recommended that “Hydroponics…certainly cannot be classified as certified organic growing methods due to their exclusion of the soil-plant ecology intrinsic to organic farming systems and USDA/National Organic Program regulations governing them.” Various interest groups hold strong opinions on the matter. Organizations like the Cornucopia Institute argue that soil is essential for organic crops, and that the legislative intent of the organic program did not include hydroponics.
In a petition to the NOSB, Cornucopia argues that allowing hydroponic cultivation “does not comply with the spirit and letter of the law,” criticizing container growth—which allows some liquid feeding and a substrate like compost—as “a recipe for widespread cheating.” During this week’s meeting, board members also rejected a motion to limit organic container production to 20% liquid feeding and 50% in the container by a narrow 7-8 vote. The petition states, “The current federal regulations require careful stewardship of the soil as a prerequisite for the granting of organic certification to farmers.” It emphasizes that the guiding principle for pioneering organic farmers is: feed the soil, not the plant. It asserts that nutritionally superior food and taste require diligent care of a diverse and healthy soil microbiome.
Traditionally, the Organic Trade Association has opposed hydroponics, but it recently noted that the NOSB altered its definition of hydroponically grown crops. The new definition states that anything in a container receiving over 20% of its nitrogen through liquid and more than 50% of its nitrogen after planting qualifies as hydroponically grown. According to position papers and a spokesperson, the Organic Trade Association did not support the motion to ban hydroponics due to the significant changes in the definition.
Companies like Plenty, which advocates for indoor vertical organic farming, have lobbied against the hydroponic ban. In written testimony to the board, representatives from Plenty highlighted the growing demand for organic food and farming. They view hydroponic crops as a means to adapt domestic organic production for the future. “We must leverage all available solutions to meet the increasing demand while remaining true to our identity as organic producers,” Plenty’s statement asserts. “We must also embrace U.S. innovation to retain our leadership in the industry and develop solutions that will ultimately nourish the world. For instance, Plenty’s organic growing system yields up to 350 times that of traditional methods and can be situated close to consumers, independent of climate, geography, or economic circumstances. We can establish an organic field-scale farm within months, allowing us to rapidly scale U.S. organic production capacity to meet rising demand.”
Despite votes having been cast, the question of hydroponics in organic agriculture remains unresolved. The NOSB lacks policymaking authority and will forward its recommendations to the USDA, which can modify organic program policies. However, these votes are likely to influence future developments. Most of them do not signify a shift in the status quo, meaning no new government regulations are necessary. Given the Trump administration’s aversion to regulations, these recommendations could be relatively straightforward to implement.
In relation to this ongoing debate, it’s worth noting the potential health benefits of certain supplements like calcium citrate malate, cholecalciferol, and folic acid tablets, which some advocates emphasize as part of a holistic approach to nutrition—one that aligns with the principles of organic farming and healthy living.