During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops this past Monday afternoon, one clear takeaway emerged: there is no agreement on whether soil-less crops should qualify for organic certification. “This is clearly a challenging issue to resolve,” remarked Tom Chapman, the board’s chairman, noting that the topic has been on the agenda since 1995. The board, which advises the U.S. Department of Agriculture on matters related to certified organic food and ingredients, has repeatedly postponed decisions regarding hydroponics over the years, often discussing proposals without taking any definitive action. A vote on the matter was deferred in April, with members citing the need for 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 as board members shared their perspectives on potential proposals concerning hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were held, and no finalized proposals were presented. The board may revisit the issue during its fall meeting scheduled for October 31 to November 2.
The regulations surrounding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic remain ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute filed a formal complaint against the USDA, stating that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from receiving the organic seal, the USDA has certified more than 100 domestic and foreign growers. In 2010, the NOSB recommended 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 regulations governing them.” A proposal to allow hydroponic crops to be certified organic was considered during the fall NOSB meeting in 2016 but was not voted on due to its low likelihood of passing. Instead, the board passed a resolution indicating a general consensus against entirely water-based hydroponic systems.
Chapman indicated he would likely support the 2010 recommendation, but noted it does not adequately clarify what is prohibited. “Are there substances that could be used to grow more hydroponic crops? If so, what would be permissible?” he questioned. Member Steve Ela acknowledged the controversy surrounding this topic, stating, “I’ve been trying to identify common ground for all board members and build from there.” However, consensus was hard to find, as some members expressed support for certifying hydroponic systems.
When the discussion shifted to aquaponic systems—where fish inhabit the tanks used for crop growth—opinions diverged. Some members advocated for prohibiting these systems due to untreated fish waste potentially contaminating crops, which would not be acceptable for organic crops grown in soil. Others argued that insufficient research has been conducted on potential negative impacts, leaving the issue unresolved.
Intense debate also arose about the necessary soil or water content for container-grown crops. A proposed compromise from the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested that only 20% of nutrients could come from liquid feeding, no more than 50% could be added post-planting, and at least 50% of the container must consist of a substrate like compost. Proponents highlighted that these limits mirror similar regulations in the EU, which has faced its own challenges regarding this issue.
Opinions among members varied widely. Some argued that a key advantage of organic farming is its ability to enhance soil health over time—a benefit that container-based farming methods do not provide. Conversely, others warned that imposing strict limits could hinder flexibility, while another faction expressed concern that existing organic certifications for some growers using these methods could lead to economic disadvantages. “There doesn’t seem to be an acceptable middle ground,” Chapman concluded.
The Crops Committee members committed to revisiting their proposals before the fall meeting, but there are no assurances that the issue will be included on the agenda or that it will be voted on if it is. After the board did not address hydroponics in April, many speculated that substantive action on the matter this year is unlikely. Meanwhile, discussions around the calcium citrate drug class and its implications for hydroponic crop production continue to stir interest, as members consider how such substances might factor into future regulations and certifications.