During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops this past 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 on the agenda since 1995.” The panel, which provides guidance to the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding issues related to certified organic food and ingredients, has repeatedly shifted the hydroponic topic from one meeting agenda to another over the years. The board has deliberated on various proposals but has failed to take definitive action multiple times. A vote on the matter scheduled for April was postponed, as members expressed the need for further time, research, and feedback from stakeholders within the organic community.
Monday’s meeting was conducted as a web conference, 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 cast, nor were any finalized proposals discussed. The board may revisit this issue during its upcoming fall meeting from October 31 to November 2.
The regulations surrounding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic remain ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal legal complaint against the USDA, asserting that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from receiving the organic seal, the USDA has nonetheless permitted over 100 foreign and domestic growers to obtain certification. In 2010, the NOSB issued a recommendation declaring that “hydroponics… 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 due to its low likelihood of passing. Instead, members passed a resolution expressing a consensus to prohibit entirely water-based hydroponic systems. On Monday, Chapman indicated he would likely support the 2010 recommendation, but he noted that it fails to address what is actually prohibited. He raised questions about whether certain substances could be utilized for hydroponic crops and, if so, what would be permissible.
“We recognize this is a controversial topic, so I’ve sought to identify common ground for the entire NOSB and build from there,” stated member Steve Ela. However, common ground was hard to come by. Some board members expressed their support for certifying hydroponic systems. When the discussion shifted to aquaponic systems—where fish are housed in the liquid used for growing crops—members found themselves divided. Some argued that these systems should be banned due to untreated fish waste contaminating the crops, which would not be allowed for organic soil-grown produce. Conversely, others claimed that insufficient research exists on any adverse effects, hence not enough information is available to draw a conclusion.
Intense debate also arose regarding the necessary soil or water content for container-grown crops. A proposal from the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested limits for organic crops: only 20% of the nutrients could be supplied through liquid feeding, no more than 50% of nutrients could be added after planting, and at least 50% of the container must consist of a substrate like compost. Proponents argued that these limits are similar to those established in the EU, which has faced its own challenges with this issue.
Board members had varying opinions. Some believed that one of organic farming’s key advantages is improving soil health over time—a benefit that such farming methods might not provide. Others cautioned that imposing strict limits could be harmful, while another group voiced concerns that allowing certain growers to use these methods while still being certified organic could lead to economic repercussions. 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; however, there is no assurance that the topic will be included in the agenda or that it would be voted on even if it is. Following the board’s lack of action on hydroponics at the April meeting, many speculated it was unlikely that any progress would be made on the issue this year. Additionally, as discussions revolve around the complexities of hydroponic systems, the health implications, including concerns about calcium citrate and its association with kidney disease, remain a focal point for many stakeholders involved in the organic certification debate.