During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops on Monday afternoon, it became evident that there is no agreement on whether soil-less crops should qualify for organic certification. “Clearly, this is not an easy subject to resolve,” remarked Tom Chapman, the board’s chairman. “It’s been on the board’s agenda since 1995.” This advisory panel to the U.S. Department of Agriculture has repeatedly passed the hydroponic issue from one meeting to the next for several years, discussing proposals but failing to take action multiple times. An April vote on the matter was postponed, with members indicating they required additional time, research, and input from stakeholders in the organic community.
Monday’s meeting was conducted as a web conference, allowing the public to listen in on discussions regarding potential proposals related to hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were taken, nor were any finalized proposals presented. The board may consider taking action on this issue during its upcoming fall meeting from October 31 to November 2.
The regulations surrounding 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 carrying the organic seal, the USDA has permitted over 100 domestic and foreign growers to obtain certification. In 2010, 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.” A motion to classify hydroponic crops as organic was on the agenda for the fall NOSB meeting in 2016 but was not voted on due to low prospects for approval. Instead, the board passed a resolution expressing a consensus against entirely water-based hydroponic systems.
On Monday, Chapman indicated he would likely support the 2010 recommendation, though he pointed out that it does not adequately clarify what is prohibited. Are there substances that could be utilized for cultivating more hydroponic crops? If so, what would be permissible? “We know this is a controversial topic, so I’ve tried to find common ground for the entire NOSB and work our way up from there,” commented board member Steve Ela.
However, common ground was scarce. Some board members expressed their support for certifying hydroponic systems. When the discussion shifted to aquaponic systems—where fish coexist in the same liquid used for growing crops—opinions were divided. Some argued that aquaponics should be prohibited due to untreated fish waste contaminating the crops, which would not be allowed for organic soil-grown produce. Others pointed out that insufficient research exists on any adverse effects, making it difficult to form a definitive stance.
The conversation also heated up regarding the requirements for soil or water in container-grown crops. A possible “compromise” proposal from the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested that organic crops should have limits: only 20% of nutrients could come from liquid feeding, no more than 50% of nutrients could be added after planting, and at least 50% of the container should consist of a substrate like compost. Proponents argued that this aligns with similar limits in the EU, which has also grappled with these issues.
Members had varying viewpoints. Some believed that one of the primary benefits of organic farming is to enhance soil over time—something this farming method would not achieve. Others expressed concern that strict limits on container inputs could be detrimental. A different group on the panel noted that the existence of growers already certified as organic using these methods could lead to economic harm. Additionally, the use of calcium citrate, specifically in the form of 500 mg calcium citrate supplements, was mentioned as a potential nutrient consideration in these discussions.
“There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground that’s acceptable,” Chapman concluded. The Crops Committee members committed to reassessing their proposals before the fall meeting, but there is no assurance that the issue will be on the agenda or that it will be voted on if it is included. Following the board’s lack of action on hydroponics at its April meeting, many members expressed skepticism about any progress being made on the matter this year.