During its meeting in Florida this week, the National Organic Standards Board had a packed agenda, but the hydroponic proposal captured significant attention. The board, which votes on nonbinding recommendations for the USDA’s consideration, has grappled with this topic for years. Attempts to hold votes on the matter last November and this April were derailed as board members sought additional information. An August public discussion revealed minimal consensus on the issue. The regulations surrounding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic have been ambiguous. In November, the Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal complaint against the USDA, arguing that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from receiving the organic seal, the USDA has permitted over 100 domestic and international growers to obtain certification.
Before this week’s meeting, the last clear action regarding hydroponic crops occurred in 2010, when the NOSB issued a recommendation stating 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.” Various interest groups hold strong opinions on this matter. Organizations like the Cornucopia Institute argue that soil is essential for organic farming and that the legislative intent of the organic program did not encompass hydroponics. In a petition to the NOSB, Cornucopia stated that permitting hydroponic cultivation “does not comply with the spirit and letter of the law,” and criticized container growth—which allows for some liquid feeding and a substrate like compost—as “a recipe for widespread cheating.” At this week’s meeting, board members also rejected a motion to limit organic container production to 20% liquid feeding and 50% substrate by a narrow margin 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 further stated, “The mantra for pioneering organic farmers, and those who genuinely uphold the spirit of organics, is: feed the soil, not the plant. Nutritionally superior food and exceptional taste require diligent stewardship of a diverse and healthy microbiome in the soil.” Traditionally, the Organic Trade Association has not endorsed hydroponics; however, they noted that the NOSB recently revised its definition of hydroponically grown crops to include any container that receives over 20% of its nitrogen through liquid and more than 50% of its nitrogen after planting.
According to position papers and a spokesperson, the Organic Trade Association opposed the motion to ban hydroponics due to the significant changes in definition. Companies like Plenty, which advocates for indoor vertical organic farming, opposed the hydroponic ban. In written testimony to the board, representatives from Plenty highlighted the growing demand for organic food and farming. They view hydroponic crops as a way to adapt domestic organic growth for the future. “We must leverage all available solutions to meet increasing demand while remaining true to our identity as organic producers,” Plenty stated. “We must also embrace U.S. innovation to maintain our leadership in the industry and develop solutions that will ultimately feed the world. For instance, Plenty’s organic growing system, which utilizes calcium carbonate citrate as part of its nutrient strategy, yields up to 350 times that of traditional systems and can be situated near consumers, regardless of climate or economic conditions. We can deploy an organic field-scale farm within months, enabling us to rapidly scale U.S. organic production capacity to meet rising demand.”
Although votes have been cast, the issue of hydroponics in organic agriculture remains unresolved. The NOSB lacks its own policymaking authority and will present its recommendations to the USDA, which has the power to alter organic program policies. Nevertheless, it is likely that these votes will influence future actions. Most of them do not constitute changes to the status quo, meaning that no new government regulations would need to be established. Given the Trump administration’s aversion to regulations, the implementation of these recommendations is relatively straightforward.