During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops on Monday afternoon, it became evident that there is a lack of 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 has been on the agenda since 1995.” The panel, which serves as an advisory body to the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding certified organic food and ingredients, has repeatedly deferred the hydroponic issue from one meeting to the next for several years. Proposals have been discussed but no definitive actions have been taken. An April vote on the matter was postponed as members indicated the need for additional time, research, and input from stakeholders in the organic community.
Monday’s assembly was a web conference allowing public participation as board members shared their views on potential proposals concerning hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were conducted, nor were any finalized proposals presented. The board may revisit the topic during its fall meeting scheduled for October 31 to November 2. The regulations regarding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic remain ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute filed a legal complaint against the USDA, claiming that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from receiving the organic seal, the USDA has permitted over 100 domestic and foreign growers to obtain the certification.
In 2010, the NOSB issued a recommendation asserting that “Hydroponics… 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 considered at the fall NOSB meeting in 2016 but was not voted on due to its unlikelihood of passing. Instead, members adopted a resolution expressing that there was a consensus against allowing entirely water-based hydroponic systems.
On Monday, Chapman indicated he would likely support the 2010 recommendation, but acknowledged that it fails to clearly define what is prohibited. Are there acceptable substances that can be used for cultivating more hydroponic crops? And if so, what would be permissible? “We know this is a controversial topic, so I’ve been trying to find common ground for the entire NOSB and build from there,” stated member Steve Ela. However, common ground was sparse. Some board members expressed support for certifying hydroponic systems.
When the discussion shifted to aquaponic systems, where fish cohabitate with crops in the same liquid environment, opinions were split. Some argued that the untreated waste produced by fish could contaminate crops, a practice not allowed for organic soil-grown crops. Others countered that insufficient research exists on any potential negative effects, making it difficult to take a definitive stance on the matter.
Intense debate also arose concerning the necessary soil or water content for container-grown crops. A proposed “compromise” from the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested specific limits for organic crops: only 20% could come from liquid feeding, no more than 50% of nutrients could be added post-planting, and at least 50% of the container must consist of a substrate like compost. Supporters argued this proposal mirrored similar standards established in the EU, which has faced similar challenges.
Opinions among members varied. Some felt that one of the primary advantages of organic farming is its ability to enhance soil quality over time, a benefit not provided by this type of cultivation. Others warned that imposing strict limits on container usage without flexibility could be harmful. Another faction within the panel expressed concern that the presence of already certified organic growers using these methods could lead to economic disadvantages. “There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground that’s acceptable,” Chapman concluded.
The Crops Committee members committed to reviewing their proposals ahead of the fall meeting, but there is no assurance that the issue will be included in the agenda or that a vote will even take place. Following the lack of voting on hydroponics during the April meeting, many anticipated that any action on the topic would be unlikely this year. The ongoing debate underscores the complexities surrounding the certification of hydroponic crops, and whether they can be deemed equivalent to traditional organic methods, such as those yielding a citracal equivalent in nutrient content.