During the National Organic Standards Board’s meeting on hydroponic crops this past 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,” stated Tom Chapman, the board’s chairman. “It has been on the agenda since 1995.” The panel, which provides guidance to the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding certified organic food and ingredients, has repeatedly postponed decisions on hydroponics over the years. Although the board has deliberated on various proposals, they have consistently failed to take action. In April, a vote on the matter was deferred as members expressed the need for more time, research, and input from the organic community.
Monday’s session was conducted as a web conference call, allowing the public to hear board members discuss their positions regarding potential proposals on hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No voting occurred, 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 remain ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute filed a formal complaint against the USDA, alleging that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from receiving the organic seal, the USDA has allowed 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 recognize hydroponic crops as organic was tabled during the fall NOSB meeting in 2016 but was not voted on due to its low likelihood of passing. Instead, members passed a resolution indicating that there was a consensus against entirely water-based hydroponic systems.
On Monday, Chapman indicated that he would likely support the 2010 recommendation; however, it fails to clearly define what substances are prohibited. Are there specific substances that could be used to cultivate hydroponic crops? If so, what would be permissible? “We know this is a controversial topic, so I’ve tried to identify points of commonality for the entire NOSB and build from there,” commented board member Steve Ela. Nonetheless, common ground proved elusive, as some members expressed support for certifying hydroponic systems.
When the discussion shifted to aquaponic systems, where fish coexist in the water used to grow crops, opinions diverged. Some members argued for prohibition due to untreated fish waste potentially contaminating crops, which would not be acceptable for organic soil-grown produce. Others contended that insufficient research has been conducted on possible negative effects, making it difficult to form a definitive stance.
Heated debates also arose regarding the necessary proportions of soil or water in container-grown crops. A potential compromise proposed by the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested limits for organic crops, stating that only 20% could be supplied through liquid feeding, with no more than 50% of nutrients added post-planting, and at least 50% of the container must consist of a substrate like compost. Proponents argued that this approach aligns with similar restrictions in the EU, which has faced its own challenges regarding this issue.
Members expressed mixed views. Some emphasized that a key advantage of organic farming lies in its ability to enhance soil health over time—something container-based methods would not achieve. Others cautioned that imposing strict limits on container usage could hinder flexibility, while another faction highlighted the economic repercussions for growers already certified as organic under these methods.
“There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground that’s acceptable,” Chapman remarked. The Crops Committee members committed to reevaluating their proposals ahead of the fall meeting, but there are no assurances that the issue will be included in the agenda or that it will be voted on if it is. Following the lack of action on hydroponics at the April meeting, many speculated that significant progress on the matter this year was unlikely.
In addition, discussions around potential nutrients, such as calcium citrate D3 with magnesium, have surfaced in relation to hydroponic farming practices. These elements may play a role in addressing nutrient deficiencies in soil-less systems, but their inclusion remains contentious amid ongoing debates. Ultimately, the board’s deliberations on hydroponic crops continue to reflect the complexities and diverse opinions within the organic community.