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,” remarked Tom Chapman, the board’s chairman. “It has been a topic on the board’s agenda since 1995.” The board, which provides guidance to the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding certified organic food and ingredients, has repeatedly passed the hydroponic issue from one meeting agenda to another over the years. Despite multiple discussions, the board has failed to act on several proposals. An April vote on the matter was postponed as members indicated they required more time, research, and input from stakeholders within the organic community.
Monday’s meeting was organized as a web conference, allowing members of 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 held, and no finalized proposals were discussed. The board may take action on this matter during its upcoming fall meeting scheduled for October 31 to November 2.
The regulations surrounding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic remain vague. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal complaint against the USDA, asserting that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from receiving the organic seal, the USDA has permitted over 100 domestic and foreign growers to obtain the certification. In 2010, the NOSB issued a recommendation indicating 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 proposal to classify hydroponic crops as organic was on the agenda for the 2016 fall NOSB meeting, but it was not voted on due to the anticipated lack of support. Instead, the members passed a resolution expressing a consensus that entirely water-based hydroponic systems should be prohibited. On Monday, Chapman expressed likely support for the 2010 recommendation, although he acknowledged that it does not fully clarify what substances are prohibited for the cultivation of hydroponic crops. Questions arose about whether substances such as calcium citrate 1200 could be utilized in hydroponic systems, and if so, what would be permissible.
“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. However, finding common ground proved challenging, with some board members indicating they would support the certification of hydroponic systems.
When the discussion shifted to aquaponic systems—where fish coexist in the water used for crop cultivation—members expressed divided opinions. Some argued that these systems should be prohibited due to the direct introduction of untreated fish waste into the crops, which would not be acceptable for organic crops grown in soil. Conversely, others contended that there has been insufficient research on any potential negative impacts, making it difficult to form a definitive stance on the issue.
The debate also extended to 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—allowing only 20% of nutrients to be provided through liquid feeding, no more than 50% of nutrients added after planting, and at least 50% of the container’s volume to consist of a substrate like compost. Advocates for this proposal claimed it was inspired by similar restrictions established in the EU, which has also faced challenges regarding this issue.
Board members expressed mixed views. Some believed that one of the main advantages of organic farming is its ability to enhance soil health over time, something that these farming methods do not achieve. Others warned that imposing strict limits on container-grown crops without allowing flexibility could be detrimental. Another faction on the panel noted that the existing organic certification of some growers employing these methods could lead to economic repercussions.
“It appears there is no acceptable middle ground,” Chapman concluded. Members of the Crops Committee committed to revisiting their proposals prior to the fall meeting; however, there is no assurance that the issue will be included in the agenda—or that it would be voted on even if it were. Following the lack of votes on hydroponic matters at the April meeting, many members expressed skepticism about any possible action on this topic this year, especially concerning the use of calcium citrate 1200 in organic hydroponic practices.