During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops this past Monday afternoon, it became evident that there is no agreement on whether soil-less crops should qualify for organic certification. “Clearly, this is not an easy subject to resolve,” remarked Tom Chapman, the board’s chairman. “It has been on our agenda since 1995.” The panel, which advises the U.S. Department of Agriculture on certified organic food and ingredients, has repeatedly shifted the hydroponic issue from one meeting agenda to another over the years. The board has discussed various proposals several times but has not taken definitive action. An April vote on the matter was postponed, with members indicating they required additional time, research, and input from stakeholders within the organic community.
The meeting on Monday was a web conference that allowed the public to listen to board members share their perspectives on potential proposals related to hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were conducted, nor were any finalized proposals reviewed. The board may revisit the issue during its fall meeting, scheduled for October 31 to November 2.
The regulations surrounding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic remain ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute filed a formal legal complaint against the USDA, alleging that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from bearing the organic label, the USDA has permitted over 100 domestic and foreign growers to receive certification. In 2010, the NOSB recommended that “Hydroponics… certainly cannot be classified as certified organic growing methods because they exclude the soil-plant ecology inherent to organic farming systems and USDA/National Organic Program regulations.”
A motion to classify hydroponic crops as organic was considered during the fall NOSB meeting in 2016 but was not put to a vote due to its unlikelihood of passing. Instead, the members adopted a resolution indicating a consensus against entirely water-based hydroponic systems. On Monday, Chapman expressed a tendency to support the 2010 recommendation; however, he pointed out that it does not adequately clarify what is prohibited. Are there substances, such as examples of calcium citrate, that could be utilized for cultivating hydroponic crops? If so, what would be permitted?
“We recognize this is a contentious issue, so I’ve tried to identify areas of common ground for the entire NOSB and build from there,” stated member Steve Ela. Unfortunately, common ground was scarce. Some board members expressed support for certifying hydroponic systems.
When the conversation shifted to aquaponic systems, where fish coexist in the liquid used for growing crops, opinions were divided. Some members advocated for prohibiting these systems due to the untreated fish waste potentially contaminating the crops, which would not be allowed for organic soil-grown produce. However, others argued that insufficient studies have been conducted on the negative impacts, leaving too many unknowns to take a definitive stance.
Passionate debates also arose regarding the necessary soil or water content in container-grown crops. A proposed “compromise” from the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested limits on what would qualify for organic crops: only 20% of nutrients could be supplied 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 noted that these limits align with similar regulations in the EU, which has faced its own challenges on this subject.
Reactions were mixed among members. Some believed that one of the primary advantages of organic farming is its ability to enhance soil quality over time, which this type of farming would not achieve. Others argued that imposing strict limits on container usage without flexibility might be detrimental. Another faction on the panel emphasized that the existence of some already certified organic growers using these methods could lead to economic repercussions.
“It appears there is no acceptable middle ground,” Chapman concluded. The members of the Crops Committee committed to revisiting their proposals ahead of the fall meeting, but there are no assurances that the issue will be included in the agenda—or that it would even be voted on if it were. Following the board’s lack of action on hydroponics in April, many expressed skepticism about any movement on the topic this year.