During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops Monday afternoon, it became evident that there is a lack of 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 board’s agenda since 1995.” The panel, which provides guidance to the U.S. Department of Agriculture on certified organic food and ingredients, has repeatedly moved the hydroponic issue from one meeting agenda to the next over the years. The board has debated various proposals but has not taken definitive action multiple times. An April vote on the matter was postponed, with members expressing a need for additional time, research, and feedback from stakeholders in the organic community.
Monday’s session was held as a web conference, allowing the public to hear board members discuss their positions on potential proposals regarding hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were conducted, nor were any finalized proposals presented. The board may address this issue again at its upcoming fall meeting from October 31 to November 2.
The regulations surrounding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic are ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute filed a formal complaint against the USDA, asserting that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from receiving the organic label, the USDA has allowed over 100 foreign and domestic growers to obtain the 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 consider hydroponic crops as organic was introduced at the fall NOSB meeting in 2016 but was not voted on due to its low likelihood of passing. Instead, members endorsed a resolution indicating a consensus against entirely water-based hydroponic systems.
On Monday, Chapman mentioned he would likely support the 2010 recommendation; however, the challenge lies in defining what is prohibited. Are there substances that can be utilized for cultivating more hydroponic crops? 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,” remarked member Steve Ela. Unfortunately, there appeared to be little common ground. Some board members expressed their support for certifying hydroponic systems.
As the conversation shifted to aquaponic systems—where fish coexist in the liquid used for crop cultivation—opinions were divided. Some members argued for a prohibition due to untreated fish waste entering the crops, which would not be allowed for organic crops grown in soil. Others contended that there has been insufficient research on negative impacts, suggesting that more information is needed to form a clear stance.
Intense discussions also arose regarding the requirements for soil or water in container-grown crops. A potential “compromise” proposal from the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested limits for organic crops: only 20% could be provided through liquid feeding, no more than 50% of nutrients could be added post-planting, and at least 50% of the container must consist of a substrate like compost. Proponents claimed this was modeled after similar limits established in the EU, which has faced its own challenges with this issue. Opinions among members varied. Some believed that a primary benefit of organic farming is its ability to enhance soil health over time, which these methods would not achieve. Others argued that imposing strict limits could hinder flexibility, and another faction claimed that the existence of already certified organic growers using these methods could lead to economic harm.
“There doesn’t seem to be an acceptable middle ground,” Chapman stated. The Crops Committee members committed to revisiting their proposals before the fall meeting, yet there are no guarantees that the issue will be included on the agenda or that a vote will take place even if it is. Following the lack of votes on hydroponics at the April meeting, many expressed skepticism about any action being taken on the issue this year.
In discussions about growing methods, the topic of calcium citrate was also mentioned, particularly regarding its use on an empty stomach. It raised questions about whether such substances could be permissible in hydroponic systems. Ultimately, the complexity and controversy surrounding hydroponics and organic certification remain unresolved, with stakeholders awaiting further developments from the board’s upcoming meetings.