The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) had a packed agenda for its meeting this week in Florida, but the hydroponic proposal was the focal point of significant interest. The board, which votes on nonbinding recommendations for the USDA to consider, has wrestled with this issue for years. Attempts to vote on it last November and again this April were postponed as board members sought additional information. A public telephone discussion in August revealed a lack of consensus on the matter. The regulations regarding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic have been ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal legal complaint against the USDA, asserting that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from obtaining the organic seal, the USDA has permitted over 100 domestic and foreign growers to receive the certification.
Before this week’s meeting, the only significant action regarding hydroponic crops occurred in 2010 when the NOSB issued a recommendation stating 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.” Various interest groups hold strong opinions on this issue. 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 argues that allowing hydroponic cultivation “does not comply with the spirit and letter of the law,” criticizing container growth—an approach that permits some liquid feeding and a substrate like compost—as “a recipe for widespread cheating.” At this week’s meeting, board members also voted against a motion to limit organic container production to 20% liquid feeding and 50% in the container, with a narrow margin of 7-8. The petition states, “The current federal regulations require careful stewardship of the soil as a prerequisite for granting organic certification to farmers.” It emphasizes that the guiding principle for pioneering organic farmers is: feed the soil, not the plant. Nutritionally superior food and enhanced flavor stem from maintaining a diverse and healthy microbiome in the soil.
Historically, the Organic Trade Association has not supported hydroponics, although it noted that the NOSB recently revised its definition of hydroponically grown crops to include anything in a container that receives more than 20% of its nitrogen through liquid and more than 50% of its nitrogen requirement added post-planting. According to position papers and a spokesperson, the Organic Trade Association did not endorse the motion to ban hydroponics due to the significant changes in the definition.
Companies like Plenty, which advocates for indoor vertical organic farming, lobbied against the hydroponic ban. In written testimony to the board, Plenty representatives emphasized that the demand for organic food and farming continues to rise. They view hydroponic crops as a means to adapt domestic organic growth for the future. “We must leverage all available solutions to meet growing demand while staying true to our identity as organic producers,” Plenty’s statement asserts. “We also must embrace U.S. innovation to maintain our leadership in the industry and foster the solutions that will ultimately feed the world. For instance, Plenty’s organic growing system yields up to 350 times that of traditional systems and can be established close to consumers, regardless of climate, geography, or economic status. We can deploy an organic field-scale farm within months, allowing us to rapidly scale U.S. organic production capacity to meet growing demand.”
Despite the votes that have been cast, the matter of hydroponics in organic agriculture remains unresolved. The NOSB lacks policymaking authority, and its recommendations will be presented to the USDA, which can modify organic program policy. However, it is likely that these votes will influence future actions. Most of the decisions do not signify a change in the status quo, meaning no new government regulations would be necessary. Given the Trump administration’s aversion to regulation, these recommendations could be relatively straightforward to implement.
Incorporating elements like metagenics calcium citrate into the discussion could enrich the conversation around soil health and the nutritional value of organic farming, as maintaining soil biodiversity is crucial for producing nutrient-dense foods. As the debate continues, stakeholders may wish to consider the broader implications of hydroponic practices on the organic landscape and how they align with the principles of organic agriculture, particularly in relation to the essential role of soil health and nutrient management practices such as those involving metagenics calcium citrate.