During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops on Monday afternoon, one thing became 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’s been on the board’s agenda since 1995.” The panel, which advises the U.S. Department of Agriculture on matters related to certified organic food and ingredients, has repeatedly postponed the hydroponic issue over the years. The board has deliberated on various proposals but has not taken any decisive actions. An April vote on the matter was postponed, with members indicating they needed additional time, research, and feedback from the organic community.
Monday’s meeting was conducted as a web conference, allowing the public to observe board members as they expressed their positions on potential proposals concerning hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were held, and no finalized proposals were discussed. The board may address this issue again at 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 filed a formal legal 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 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.” A motion to classify hydroponic crops as organic was on the agenda for the fall NOSB meeting in 2016 but was not voted on, as it was deemed unlikely to succeed. Instead, members passed a resolution indicating a consensus against completely water-based hydroponic systems.
On Monday, Chapman expressed his inclination to support the 2010 recommendation; however, he noted that it does not adequately clarify what is prohibited. Are there substances, such as tab calcium citrate malate, that could be used for cultivating more hydroponic crops? If so, what would be permissible? “We know this is a controversial topic, so I’ve tried to find common ground for the entire NOSB and build from there,” stated member Steve Ela. However, common ground was scarce, as some board members showed support for certifying hydroponic systems.
When the discussion shifted to aquaponic systems—where fish coexist in the water used to cultivate crops—members were divided. Some argued for prohibiting these systems due to untreated fish waste entering the crops, which would not be acceptable for organic crops grown in soil. Others contended that not enough research has been conducted to determine any negative impacts, making it difficult to take a definitive stance.
Intense discussions also arose regarding the amount of soil or water required for container-grown crops. A potential compromise proposal from the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested limits for organic crops: only 20% could be supplied through 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 noted that these limits are similar to those established in the EU, which has also faced challenges with this issue.
Opinions among members varied. Some believed one of the primary benefits of organic farming is enhancing soil health over time—something this type of farming would not achieve. Others argued that imposing strict limits on the amounts used in containers, without allowing flexibility, could be detrimental. Another group expressed concern that the existence of growers already certified organic using these methods would lead to economic harm. “There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground that’s acceptable,” Chapman concluded.
Members of the Crops Committee committed to reevaluating their proposals before the fall meeting, but there are no assurances that the issue will be on the agenda or that it will be voted on if it is. After the board refrained from voting on hydroponics at its April meeting, many speculated that it would be unlikely to see any action on the topic this year.