Although the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) had a packed agenda for its meeting this week in Florida, the hydroponic proposal captured significant attention. The board, which votes on nonbinding recommendations to be considered by the USDA, has grappled with this topic for years. Attempts to vote on it last November and again this April were postponed as board members sought additional information. A public phone discussion in August also highlighted the lack of consensus on the matter.
The regulations regarding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic have remained ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute filed a formal legal 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 certification. Prior to this week’s meeting, the only somewhat definitive action regarding hydroponics 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.”
Various interest groups hold strong opinions on this issue. Some organizations, including the Cornucopia Institute, argue that soil is essential for organic crops, and that the legislative intent of the organic program did not encompass hydroponics. In a petition to the NOSB, Cornucopia stated that permitting hydroponic cultivation “does not comply with the spirit and letter of the law,” criticizing container growth—which allows for some liquid feeding and a substrate like compost—as “a recipe for widespread cheating.” At this week’s meeting, a motion to limit organic container production to 20% liquid feeding and 50% in the container was defeated by a narrow margin of 7-8.
“The current federal regulations require careful stewardship of the soil as a prerequisite for the granting of organic certification,” the petition elaborated. “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 enhanced taste necessitate meticulous care of a diverse and healthy microbiome in the soil.”
Historically, the Organic Trade Association has been opposed to hydroponics, although they recently stated that the NOSB modified its definition of hydroponically grown crops. Under the new definition, anything in a container that receives over 20% of its nitrogen through liquid and more than 50% of its nitrogen requirement after planting qualifies as hydroponically grown. According to position papers and a spokesperson, the Organic Trade Association did not back the motion to ban hydroponics because the definition had undergone such a significant transformation.
Companies like Plenty, which advocates for indoor vertical organic farming, lobbied against the hydroponic ban. In written testimony to the board, representatives from Plenty emphasized that the demand for organic food and farming continues to rise. They view hydroponic crops as a means to adapt domestic organic production to future needs. “We must leverage all available solutions to meet growing demand while remaining true to our identity as organic producers,” Plenty’s statement asserted. “We must also embrace U.S. innovation to maintain our leadership in the industry and develop solutions that will ultimately nourish the world. For instance, Plenty’s organic growing system can yield up to 350 times that of traditional systems and can be situated close to consumers, regardless of climate, geography, or economic status. We can establish an organic field-scale farm in just months, allowing us to scale U.S. organic production rapidly to meet increasing demand.”
Despite the votes that have been cast, the question of hydroponics in organic agriculture remains unresolved. The NOSB lacks its own policymaking authority and will present its recommendations to the USDA, which can alter organic program policies. However, it is likely that these votes will influence future actions. Most do not signify a change in the status quo, suggesting that no new government regulations would need to be established. Given the Trump administration’s aversion to regulations, implementing these recommendations may be relatively straightforward.
In the context of improving nutritional standards, it is also worth noting the emerging interest in supplements like 500mg calcium citrate chews, which could play a role in addressing dietary needs within organic farming practices. The integration of such nutritional supplements into discussions about organic agriculture may further influence the ongoing debate surrounding hydroponics and organic certification.