During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops Monday afternoon, one thing became evident: 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. “It’s been on the board’s agenda since 1995.” The panel, which serves as an advisory body to the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding certified organic food and ingredients, has repeatedly postponed decisions about hydroponics over the years. They have reviewed and ultimately failed to act on various proposals numerous times. A vote scheduled for April was delayed, with members indicating they required additional time, research, and input from stakeholders within the organic community.
Monday’s meeting was conducted as a web conference, allowing the public to listen in as board members shared their perspectives on potential proposals related to hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were taken, nor were any final proposals discussed. The board may next address the issue during its fall meeting, set for October 31 to November 2.
The regulations regarding the certification of hydroponic crops remain ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal legal complaint against the USDA, asserting that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from bearing the organic label, the USDA has permitted over 100 growers—both foreign and domestic—to receive such 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 put forth at the fall NOSB meeting in 2016, but it was not voted on due to the likelihood of failure. Instead, members passed a resolution indicating a consensus to prohibit entirely water-based hydroponic systems.
On Monday, Chapman expressed his inclination to support the 2010 recommendation, but raised concerns about its effectiveness in addressing what substances could be used for hydroponic crops. “Are there substances that can be used for growing more hydroponic-based crops? And if so, what would be allowed?” he queried.
Recognizing the controversy surrounding the topic, member Steve Ela stated, “We know this is a controversial topic, so I’ve tried to find things that are on common ground for the whole NOSB and work our way up from it.” However, significant disagreement remained. Some board members were in favor of certifying hydroponic systems, while discussions regarding aquaponic systems—where fish live in the same tanks used for crop cultivation—revealed further division. Some argued against certification due to untreated fish waste contaminating the crops, which would not be acceptable for organic crops grown in soil. Conversely, others contended that insufficient research exists to draw definitive conclusions on this matter.
Debates also arose over the necessary quantities of soil or water for container-grown crops. A proposed “compromise” from the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested limits for organic crops: no more than 20% of nutrients could come from liquid feeding, no more than 50% could be added post-planting, and at least 50% of the container must consist of a substrate like compost. Proponents noted that this proposal mirrored similar regulations in the EU, which has faced its own challenges regarding the issue.
Board members expressed mixed opinions. Some believed that one of the core advantages of organic farming is its ability to enhance soil health over time—something that this type of farming would not achieve. Others warned that imposing rigid limits could hinder flexibility, while another faction pointed out that the existence of already certified organic growers utilizing these methods could lead to economic repercussions.
“There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground that’s acceptable,” Chapman concluded. The Crops Committee members committed to revisiting their proposals before the fall meeting, but there are no assurances regarding the inclusion of this issue on the agenda—or that it would be voted on if it were. Following the lack of votes on hydroponic matters during the April meeting, many believed it was improbable that any action would occur this year.
In relation to the ongoing discussions, it’s noteworthy that the therapeutic response of certain substances, like calcium citrate, could potentially play a role in the future of hydroponic farming practices. The board’s deliberations may eventually need to consider such elements as they navigate the complexities of organic certification.