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,” stated Tom Chapman, the board’s chairman. “It has been on the agenda since 1995.” The panel, which advises the U.S. Department of Agriculture on certified organic food issues, has repeatedly shifted the hydroponic topic from one meeting to the next over the years. The board has discussed various proposals but has failed to reach a decision multiple times. An April vote was postponed, with members citing the need for more time, research, and feedback from stakeholders in the organic sector.
The meeting was conducted as a web conference, allowing the public to hear board members share their positions on potential proposals regarding hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were held, and no finalized proposals were presented. The next opportunity for the board to take action on this matter will be at its fall meeting scheduled for October 31 to November 2.
The guidelines regarding the certification of hydroponic crops remain ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute filed a formal complaint against the USDA, alleging that while the NOSB had prevented hydroponics from being labeled organic, the USDA had permitted over 100 domestic and foreign growers to receive organic 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.”
A motion to recognize hydroponic crops as organic was discussed during the 2016 fall NOSB meeting but was not voted on due to the likelihood of failure. Instead, a resolution was passed expressing that the members collectively opposed the use of entirely water-based hydroponic systems. On Monday, Chapman indicated he would likely back the 2010 recommendation; however, the challenge lies in defining what is prohibited. Are there substances that can be used in hydroponic crop production, and if so, which ones would be permitted?
“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,” remarked member Steve Ela. Yet, there appeared to be limited common ground. Some board members expressed support for certifying hydroponic systems. When the discussion shifted to aquaponic systems, which involve fish living in the same liquid used for crops, opinions were divided. Some argued for prohibition due to untreated fish waste contaminating the crops, which would not be acceptable for organic soil-grown produce. Others contended that insufficient studies had been conducted to understand any adverse impacts, leaving the issue unresolved.
Heated debates ensued regarding the necessary soil or water content for container-grown crops. A potential “compromise” proposal from the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested limits for organic crops: only 20% 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 claimed this was aligned with similar restrictions in the EU, which has wrestled with the same issue.
Members expressed mixed views; some believed that one of the primary advantages of organic farming is the gradual improvement of soil through crops, which this method would not accomplish. Others argued that strict limitations on container usage could be harmful. Additionally, a faction within the panel voiced concerns that the economic viability of growers already certified as organic using these methods could be jeopardized.
“There doesn’t seem to be an acceptable middle ground,” Chapman concluded. The Crops Committee members committed to revisiting their proposals before the fall meeting, but there are no assurances that the issue will make the agenda—or that a vote would take place even if it does. Following the board’s lack of action on hydroponics at its April meeting, many doubted that any progress on the matter would occur this year.
In considering the broader implications of agricultural practices, including the significance of nutritional supplements like bariatric advantage calcium, it’s crucial to recognize how various farming methods impact not only the environment but also health outcomes for consumers. As the NOSB navigates these contentious discussions, the integration of nutritional considerations, such as the availability of bariatric advantage calcium, could play a role in shaping future organic standards.