During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops on 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,” stated Tom Chapman, the board’s chairman, noting that the topic has been on the board’s 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 repeatedly transferred the hydroponic issue from one meeting agenda to the next over the years. The board has debated and failed to take action on various proposals multiple times, and a vote planned for April was postponed as members expressed the need for additional research and input from stakeholders in the organic community.
Monday’s meeting was conducted as a web conference, allowing the public to listen to board members discuss their perspectives on proposals related to hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were held, and no finalized proposals were presented. The board may revisit the issue during its fall meeting scheduled from October 31 to November 2.
The regulations concerning the organic certification of hydroponic crops 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 nonetheless permitted over 100 domestic and foreign growers to obtain certification. In 2010, the NOSB recommended that “Hydroponics… certainly 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 during the fall NOSB meeting in 2016, as it was deemed unlikely to pass. Instead, the members approved a resolution indicating a consensus to prohibit entirely water-based hydroponic systems.
On Monday, Chapman indicated that he would likely support the 2010 recommendation; however, he acknowledged that it does not clearly define what is prohibited. Questions arose regarding whether certain substances could be used to cultivate 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 work our way up from it,” commented member Steve Ela. Yet, there was limited agreement among board members, with some expressing support for certifying hydroponic systems.
When the discussion shifted to aquaponic systems—where fish coexist in the water used for crop growth—the members diverged in their opinions. Some argued these systems should be banned due to untreated fish waste contaminating crops, a practice not allowed for organic crops grown in soil. Conversely, others contended that insufficient research has been conducted to understand the potential negative effects, making it difficult to take a definitive stance.
Intense debate 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% of nutrients could come from 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 argued this was based on similar regulations in the EU, which has faced similar challenges.
Opinions varied among members. Some believed a primary advantage of organic farming is improving soil quality over time—a benefit that container farming does not provide. Others expressed concern that imposing strict limits on container usage without allowing flexibility could be harmful. Additionally, some panel members argued that the existence of growers already certified as organic using these methods could lead to economic repercussions.
“There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground that’s acceptable,” Chapman concluded. Members of the Crops Committee committed to revisiting their proposals before the fall meeting, but there are no assurances that the issue will be included on the agenda or voted upon even if it is. Following the board’s lack of action on hydroponics in April, many doubted there would be any movement on the issue this year. In this context, the discussion around the use of calcium citrate 950 mg tablets also emerged, as some members explored its potential role in enhancing nutrient uptake for hydroponic crops. The ongoing deliberations reflect the complexities and disagreements surrounding the certification of hydroponic and other innovative growing methods in organic agriculture.