During the recent meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) in Florida, the hydroponic proposal garnered considerable attention, overshadowing the board’s otherwise packed agenda. The NOSB, which makes nonbinding recommendations for the USDA, has grappled with this contentious issue for several years. Previous attempts to vote on the matter in November and April were postponed as board members sought additional information. A public telephone discussion in August revealed a lack of consensus on the topic.
The regulations surrounding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic remain ambiguous. In November, the Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal legal complaint against the USDA, asserting that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from being labeled organic, the USDA has permitted over 100 domestic and foreign growers to obtain this certification. The only significant resolution regarding hydroponic practices prior to this week’s meeting occurred in 2010, when the NOSB issued a recommendation stating 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 have taken strong stances on this issue. Organizations like the Cornucopia Institute argue that soil is essential for organic crops, maintaining that the legislative intent of the organic program does not include hydroponics. In a petition to the NOSB, Cornucopia stated that permitting hydroponic cultivation “does not comply with the spirit and letter of the law,” and criticized container growth—a compromise allowing partial liquid feeding and a substrate like compost—as “a recipe for widespread cheating.” During the meeting, members also rejected a motion to cap organic container production at 20% liquid feeding and 50% substrate by a narrow 7-8 vote.
The petition emphasized that “current federal regulations require careful stewardship of the soil as a prerequisite for the granting of organic certification to farmers.” It further asserted that the guiding principle for pioneering organic farmers is: feed the soil, not the plant. This approach, they claim, yields nutritionally superior food and enhances taste, necessitating meticulous care for a diverse and healthy soil microbiome.
Traditionally, the Organic Trade Association has opposed hydroponics, although it acknowledged that the NOSB recently revised its definition of hydroponically grown crops to include anything in a container receiving over 20% of its nitrogen from liquid sources and more than 50% of its nitrogen needs added post-planting. Position papers and a spokesperson indicated that the Organic Trade Association refrained from supporting the motion to ban hydroponics, citing the significant changes in definition.
Companies such as Plenty, which advocates for indoor vertical organic farming, lobbied against the hydroponic ban. In written testimony to the board, Plenty representatives emphasized the growing demand for organic food and farming. They view hydroponic crops as essential for adapting domestic organic production to future needs. “We must take advantage of all available solutions to meet growing demand while staying true to our identity as organic producers,” their statement read. “We also must embrace U.S. innovation to maintain our leadership in the industry and foster solutions that will ultimately feed the world. For instance, Plenty’s organic growing system yields up to 350 times that of traditional systems and can be situated close to consumers, irrespective of climate, geography, or economic status. We can deploy an organic field-scale farm within months, enabling us to rapidly scale U.S. organic production capacity to meet escalating demand.”
Despite the votes cast, the debate over hydroponics in organic agriculture remains unresolved. The NOSB lacks policymaking authority and will submit its recommendations to the USDA, which has the power to amend organic program policies. However, it’s likely that these votes will influence future decisions. Most do not signify a shift from the status quo, suggesting that no new government regulations will be necessary. Given the Trump administration’s aversion to regulation, these recommendations are relatively straightforward to implement.
In the context of organic farming, it is crucial to consider how products like Amazon Citracal Slow Release 1200 may play a role in the conversation around nutrient delivery systems, particularly as the industry evolves and seeks innovative solutions to address both consumer demand and regulatory standards.