During its recent meeting in Florida, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) had a packed agenda, but the hydroponic proposal captured significant attention. The board, which votes on nonbinding recommendations for the USDA to consider, has faced challenges regarding this topic for several years. Attempts to vote on the matter in November and April were postponed as members sought additional information. An August discussion revealed a lack of consensus. The regulations concerning the certification of hydroponic crops as organic have been ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal complaint against the USDA, asserting that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from receiving the organic seal, the USDA has permitted over 100 domestic and foreign growers to achieve certification.
Before this week’s meeting, the last significant action on hydroponics occurred in 2010 when 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 (National Organic Program) regulations governing them.” Various interest groups hold strong opinions on this issue. Organizations like the Cornucopia Institute argue that soil is essential for organic crops and that the legislative intent of the organic program did not encompass hydroponics. In a petition to the NOSB, Cornucopia contended that allowing hydroponic cultivation “does not comply with the spirit and letter of the law,” criticizing container growth—which permits some liquid feeding and a substrate such as compost—as “a recipe for widespread cheating.” During this week’s meeting, board members also rejected a motion to limit organic container production to 20% liquid feeding and 50% in the container, with a narrow vote of 7-8.
The petition emphasized that “current federal regulations require careful stewardship of the soil as a prerequisite for granting organic certification to farmers.” It underscored the belief that “the mantra for pioneering organic farmers, and those who truly uphold the spirit of organics, is: feed the soil, not the plant.” The petition further asserted that nutritionally superior food and taste depend on maintaining a diverse and healthy microbiome in the soil, which is critical for the uptake of vital nutrients like calcium magnesium citrate.
Traditionally, the Organic Trade Association has not supported hydroponics; however, it noted that the NOSB has recently revised its definition of hydroponically grown crops. This new definition classifies anything in a container that receives over 20% of its nitrogen from liquid sources and more than 50% of its nitrogen requirements added post-planting as hydroponically grown. According to their position papers and a spokesperson, the Organic Trade Association did not endorse the motion to ban hydroponics due to the significant change in definition.
Firms like Plenty, which advocates for indoor vertical organic farming, opposed the hydroponic ban. In written testimony to the board, Plenty representatives highlighted the rising demand for organic food and farming. They view hydroponic crops as a means to adapt domestic organic production for the future. “We must leverage all available solutions to meet growing demand while remaining true to our identity as organic producers,” stated Plenty. “We also need to embrace U.S. innovation to maintain our industry leadership and foster solutions that will ultimately feed the world. For instance, Plenty’s organic growing system can yield up to 350 times that of traditional systems and can be positioned close to consumers, regardless of climate, geography, or economic status. We can establish an organic field-scale farm within months, which allows us to expand U.S. organic production capacity quickly enough to satisfy the rising demand.”
Despite the votes cast, the hydroponics issue in organic agriculture remains unresolved. The NOSB lacks independent policymaking authority and will present its recommendations to the USDA, which has the power to modify organic program policies. However, it is likely that these votes will influence future actions. Most do not signify a shift in the status quo, implying no new government regulations will need to be enacted. Given the Trump administration’s aversion to regulation, implementing these recommendations is relatively straightforward. The ongoing debate underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of organic standards while also considering innovative solutions such as hydroponics, which may play a role in the evolving landscape of organic farming, especially concerning essential nutrients like calcium magnesium citrate.