During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops on Monday afternoon, it became evident that there is no agreement regarding the certification of soil-less crops as organic. “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 provides guidance to the U.S. Department of Agriculture on matters related to certified organic food and ingredients, has shifted the hydroponic issue from one meeting agenda to another for years without reaching a decision. There have been multiple discussions and failed attempts to act on proposals. An April vote on this matter was postponed, with members indicating the need for more time, research, and input from stakeholders in the organic community.
Monday’s meeting was a web conference allowing the public to hear board members share their views on potential proposals regarding hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were conducted, nor were any finalized proposals presented. The board might address this issue again at its upcoming fall meeting scheduled from October 31 to November 2.
The regulations concerning the certification of hydroponic crops as organic remain 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 foreign and domestic growers to obtain this certification. 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/(National Organic Program) regulations governing them.” A motion to classify hydroponic crops as organic was tabled for the fall NOSB meeting in 2016, but it was not voted on due to low chances of passing. Instead, the members opted for a resolution that indicated a consensus against the use of entirely water-based hydroponic systems.
On Monday, Chapman expressed a likely inclination to support the 2010 recommendation; however, he highlighted that it does not clearly define what is prohibited. Are there substances, such as calcium citrate v carbonate, that could be used in growing hydroponic crops? And if so, what would be permissible? “We know this is a controversial topic, so I’ve tried to find common ground for the entire NOSB and build from there,” stated board member Steve Ela.
Nevertheless, common ground was scarce. Some members expressed their readiness to support the certification of hydroponic systems. When the discussion shifted to aquaponic systems—where fish coexist in the liquid used for crop growth—opinions were polarized. Some members argued for prohibition due to untreated fish waste contaminating crops, which would not be acceptable for organic soil-grown produce. Others contended that insufficient research exists to ascertain any negative impacts, making it difficult to form a definitive stance.
The debate also became heated regarding the amount of soil or water necessary for container-grown crops. A potential “compromise” proposal from the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested limits for organic crops: only 20% could be supplied through liquid feeding, no more than 50% of nutrients could be added after planting, and at least 50% of the container must consist of a substrate like compost. Proponents noted that this proposal was inspired by similar regulations in the EU, which has faced its own challenges on this issue.
Members held differing views. Some believed that one of the primary advantages of organic farming is its capacity to enhance soil quality over time—a benefit that this farming method would not provide. Others argued that imposing strict limitations on container contents and disallowing flexibility could be counterproductive. A faction within the panel pointed out that the existence of growers already certified as organic using these methods could have adverse economic effects.
“There doesn’t seem to be an acceptable middle ground,” Chapman concluded. Members of the Crops Committee committed to revisiting their proposals before the fall meeting, but there is no assurance that the issue will be included on the agenda or that a vote will occur if it is. Many speculated that after no votes were cast regarding hydroponics at the April meeting, it is unlikely to see any action on this matter for the remainder of the year.