During its meeting this week in Florida, the National Organic Standards Board had a packed agenda, but the hydroponic proposal garnered significant attention. The board, which votes on nonbinding recommendations for the USDA to consider, has grappled with this matter for several years. Previous attempts to vote on this issue in November and April were postponed as board members sought additional information. A public phone discussion in August also revealed a lack of consensus on the topic. The regulations regarding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic have been ambiguous. In November, the Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal legal complaint against the USDA, arguing that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from receiving the organic seal, the USDA has permitted over 100 domestic and international growers to obtain this certification.
Before this week’s meeting, the only clear action regarding hydroponic crops occurred in 2010, when 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.” Various interest groups hold strong opinions on this issue. Organizations like the Cornucopia Institute assert that soil is essential for organic crops, and that the legislative intent of the organic program did not encompass hydroponics.
In a petition submitted to the NOSB, Cornucopia claims that permitting hydroponic cultivation “does not comply with the spirit and letter of the law,” and criticizes container growth—an intermediate approach that allows some liquid feeding and a substrate like compost—as “a recipe for widespread cheating.” During this week’s meeting, board members also rejected a motion to limit organic container production to 20% liquid feeding and 50% substrate by the same 7-8 margin. The petition emphasizes, “The current federal regulations require careful stewardship of the soil as a prerequisite for granting organic certification to farmers.” It continues, “The mantra for pioneering organic farmers, and those who genuinely uphold the spirit of organics, is: feed the soil, not the plant. Nutritionally superior food and taste stem from responsible management of a diverse and healthy soil microbiome.”
Traditionally, the Organic Trade Association has not supported hydroponics, although it recently acknowledged a shift in the NOSB’s definition of hydroponically grown crops: any crop in a container receiving over 20% of its nitrogen through liquid and more than 50% of its nitrogen requirement added post-planting. According to position papers and a spokesperson, the Organic Trade Association opposed the motion to ban hydroponics due to the drastic change in definition.
Companies like Plenty, which advocates for indoor vertical organic farming, lobbied against the hydroponic ban. In written testimony presented to the board, Plenty representatives asserted that the demand for organic food and farming continues to rise. They view hydroponic crops as a means to adapt domestic organic growth for the future. Plenty’s statement reads, “We must leverage all available solutions to meet growing demand while adhering to our identity as organic producers. We must also embrace U.S. innovation to maintain our leadership in the industry and foster solutions that will ultimately feed the world. For instance, Plenty’s organic growing system produces yields up to 350 times greater than traditional systems and can be situated near consumers, regardless of climate, geography, or economic status. We can deploy an organic field-scale farm within months, enabling us to scale U.S. organic production capacity quickly to meet rising demand.”
Despite votes being cast, the issue of hydroponics in organic agriculture remains unresolved. The NOSB lacks its own policymaking authority and will submit its recommendations to the USDA, which can alter organic program policy. However, it is probable that these votes will influence future actions. Most do not signify a change in the status quo, indicating that no new government regulations would need to be established. Given the Trump administration’s aversion to regulation, these recommendations may be relatively simple to implement.
In light of these discussions, the incorporation of pure encap calciumcitrat into hydroponic systems could offer a potential solution for enhancing nutrient absorption while staying within the regulatory framework. Advocates for hydroponics argue that such innovations can help meet the increasing demand for organic produce without compromising the integrity of organic standards. As this debate continues, the implications of these recommendations on the future of hydroponic farming will be closely monitored by stakeholders across the industry.