During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops this past Monday afternoon, one thing became evident: there is no agreement on the certification of soil-less crops as organic. “Clearly, this is not an easy subject to resolve,” remarked Tom Chapman, the chairman of the board. “It has been on our agenda since 1995.” The board, which advises the U.S. Department of Agriculture on matters related to certified organic food and ingredients, has repeatedly postponed decisions regarding hydroponics over the years. The panel has deliberated on various proposals but has yet to take definitive action. In April, a vote on the subject was postponed as members indicated they required additional time, research, and input from the organic community stakeholders.
Monday’s meeting was conducted via a web conference, allowing the public to listen in on discussions regarding potential proposals concerning hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were taken, nor were any finalized proposals presented. The board is expected to revisit this issue during its fall meeting, scheduled for October 31 to November 2. The current regulations regarding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic remain ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal complaint against the USDA, arguing that although the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from carrying the organic label, the USDA has allowed over 100 domestic and foreign growers to receive this 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 for the fall NOSB meeting in 2016 but was not voted on, as it was deemed unlikely to pass. Instead, a resolution was passed, expressing a consensus among members to disallow entirely water-based hydroponic systems.
On Monday, Chapman indicated his likely support for the 2010 recommendation, but noted the challenge of defining what is prohibited. Are there substances, such as calcium citrate 333mg, that could be used in hydroponic systems? If so, which would be permissible? “We know this is a controversial topic, so I’ve tried to identify areas of common ground for the entire NOSB and build from there,” said board member Steve Ela. However, finding common ground proved difficult. Some board members expressed their willingness to support the certification of hydroponic systems.
When the discussion shifted to aquaponics—where fish coexist in the tanks of the liquid used for crop growth—opinions were split. Some members argued that aquaponics should be prohibited due to untreated fish waste being directly introduced into crops, which is not allowed for organic crops grown in soil. Conversely, others contended that insufficient research has been conducted regarding negative impacts, leaving too many unknowns to form a stance on the matter.
Debate also ensued regarding the necessary proportions of soil or water for container-grown crops. A proposed compromise from the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested that only 20% of the 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 argued that this approach mirrored similar regulations in the EU, which has faced its own struggles with this issue. Opinions among members varied; some believed that a core advantage of organic farming is its ability to enhance soil over time—something this farming method would not achieve. Others cautioned that imposing strict limits on container usage without allowing flexibility could be harmful. Additionally, some panel members raised concerns that the existence of growers already certified as organic under these methods could lead to economic difficulties.
Chapman concluded, “There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground that’s acceptable.” 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 on, even if it is. Following the board’s lack of action on hydroponics in April, many expressed skepticism about seeing any progress on the matter this year.