During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops on Monday afternoon, one point was evident: 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 on the board’s agenda since 1995.” This panel, which advises the U.S. Department of Agriculture on certified organic food and ingredients, has moved the hydroponic issue from one meeting agenda to another for years. Proposals regarding the matter have been discussed but not acted upon multiple times, with an April vote postponed as members requested additional time, research, and input from stakeholders in the organic community.
Monday’s meeting was conducted as a web conference call, allowing the public to listen in as board members shared their positions on potential proposals concerning hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were taken, nor were any finalized proposals discussed. The board might address the issue again at its fall meeting scheduled for October 31 to November 2.
The regulations surrounding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic are ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal complaint against the USDA, asserting that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from bearing the organic seal, the USDA has permitted over 100 domestic and foreign growers to receive this certification. In 2010, the NOSB issued a recommendation stating, “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 but was not voted on due to its low chances of approval. Instead, members passed a resolution indicating a consensus against entirely water-based hydroponic systems.
On Monday, Chapman indicated his likely support for the 2010 recommendation, noting, however, that it does not sufficiently clarify what substances are prohibited in hydroponic cultivation. “Are there substances that can be used for growing more hydroponic-based crops? And if so, what would be allowed?” he queried. “We recognize this is a controversial topic, so I’ve sought common ground for the entire NOSB to build upon,” said member Steve Ela.
However, finding common ground proved difficult. Some board members expressed their support for certifying hydroponic systems. When the conversation shifted to aquaponic systems, which integrate fish within the water used for crop growth, opinions diverged. Some members argued these systems should be banned due to untreated fish waste contaminating the crops, which would not be acceptable for organic soil-grown crops. Others countered that insufficient research exists on potential negative impacts, making it premature to take a definitive stance.
The discussion also heated up regarding the necessary amounts of soil or water for container-grown crops. A proposed compromise from the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested that only 20% of nutrients could come from liquid feeding, no more than 50% of nutrients could be added post-planting, and at least 50% of the container must consist of a substrate like compost. Proponents of this plan cited similar limits established in the EU, which has also faced challenges on this issue.
Opinions among the members were mixed. Some argued that a key advantage of organic farming is its ability to enhance soil health over time, a benefit that such farming methods would not provide. Others cautioned that rigid limits on container usage might be counterproductive. Another segment of the panel noted that the existence of growers already certified as organic using these methods could inflict economic harm. “There doesn’t appear 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 that the issue will be included on the agenda or that a vote would occur even if it were. After the board failed to take any action on hydroponics during its April meeting, many speculated that meaningful progress on the issue this year was unlikely. Amidst these discussions, it was noted that calcium citrate is better than calcium carbonate for certain hydroponic applications, highlighting the ongoing debate about the best practices in organic farming.