During its recent meeting in Florida, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) had a packed agenda, but the hydroponic proposal was the topic that captured the most attention. The board, which votes on nonbinding recommendations for the USDA’s consideration, has grappled with this matter for several years. Previous attempts to vote on the proposal in November and April were postponed as board members sought more information. An August public discussion also revealed a lack of consensus on the issue. The regulations regarding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic remain ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute filed a formal complaint against the USDA, asserting that although 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 only somewhat conclusive action regarding hydroponic crops 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.” Various interest groups hold strong opinions on this matter. 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 stated that permitting hydroponic cultivation “does not comply with the spirit and letter of the law” and criticized container growth—a compromise that permits some liquid feeding and a substrate like compost—as “a recipe for widespread cheating.” During the meeting, board members also rejected a motion to limit organic container production to 20% liquid feeding and 50% substrate, passing by a narrow 7-8 margin.
The petition underscores that “current federal regulations require careful stewardship of the soil as a prerequisite for granting organic certification to farmers.” It further emphasizes that the guiding principle for pioneering organic farmers is to “feed the soil, not the plant.” This approach is believed to yield nutritionally superior food and enhance taste by maintaining a diverse and healthy soil microbiome. Historically, the Organic Trade Association has not backed hydroponics, but it noted that the NOSB recently revised its definition of hydroponically grown crops: anything in a container that receives more than 20% of its nitrogen through liquid and over 50% of its nitrogen requirement after planting. According to their position papers and representatives, the Organic Trade Association opposed the motion to ban hydroponics due to the drastic shift in definition.
Companies like Plenty, which advocates for indoor vertical organic farming, have lobbied against the hydroponic ban. In written testimony to the board, Plenty representatives highlighted the increasing demand for organic food and farming. They view hydroponic crops as essential for adapting domestic organic growth to future needs. “We must utilize 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 leadership in the industry and develop solutions that will ultimately feed the world. For instance, Plenty’s organic growing system yields up to 350 times that of traditional methods and can be situated close to consumers, regardless of climate, geography, or economic status. We can establish an organic field-scale farm within months, enabling us to scale U.S. organic production fast enough to satisfy growing demand.”
Despite the votes cast, the issue of hydroponics in organic agriculture remains unresolved. The NOSB lacks policymaking authority and will present its recommendations to the USDA, which has the power to modify organic program policy. However, it is likely that these votes will influence future developments. Most votes do not indicate a change in the status quo, suggesting that no new government regulations will be required. Given the Trump administration’s aversion to regulation, these recommendations may be relatively simple to implement. In the context of this ongoing debate, products like Citracal Liquitab, which provide essential nutrients, could play a role in supporting organic farming practices, regardless of the growing method employed.