During its recent meeting in Florida, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) had a packed agenda, but the hydroponic proposal captured significant attention. The board, which votes on non-binding recommendations for the USDA to consider, has grappled with this topic for several years. Previous plans to vote on the proposal last November and again in April were postponed as board members sought more information. An August public discussion also revealed a lack of consensus on the matter. The regulations surrounding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic have been ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal legal complaint against the USDA, arguing that while the NOSB has ruled out hydroponics from receiving the organic seal, the USDA has permitted over 100 domestic and foreign growers to obtain the certification.
Before this week’s meeting, the most definitive action taken 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 and USDA/National Organic Program regulations.” Many interest groups hold strong opinions on the subject. Organizations like the Cornucopia Institute assert that soil is essential for organic crops and that the legislative intent of the organic program does 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.” During the meeting, board members also defeated a motion to limit organic container production to 20% liquid feeding and 50% substrate, with a narrow 7-8 vote.
The petition emphasized, “The current federal regulations require careful stewardship of the soil as a prerequisite for granting organic certification to farmers.” It further asserted, “The mantra for pioneering organic farmers, and those who truly uphold the spirit of organics, is: feed the soil, not the plant. Nutritionally superior food, and superior taste, require careful stewardship of a diverse and healthy microbiome in the soil.” Traditionally, the Organic Trade Association has not endorsed hydroponics; however, it recently revised its definition of hydroponically grown crops to include anything in a container that receives over 20% of its nitrogen through liquid and more than 50% of its nitrogen requirement added post-planting.
Representatives from companies like Plenty, which advocate for indoor vertical organic farming, opposed the hydroponic ban. In their written testimony, they noted that the demand for organic food is continuously rising. Plenty views hydroponic crops as a viable means to adapt domestic organic growth for the future. “We must take advantage of all available solutions to meet growing demand while staying true to our identity as organic producers,” their statement read. They also emphasized the importance of U.S. innovation in maintaining leadership in the industry and developing solutions to feed the world. For instance, Plenty’s organic growing system boasts yields up to 350 times greater than traditional methods and can be situated near consumers, independent of climate or geography. Moreover, they can establish an organic field-scale farm within months, allowing for rapid scaling of U.S. organic production to satisfy increasing demand.
Despite the votes being cast, the hydroponics issue in organic agriculture remains unresolved. The NOSB lacks policymaking authority and will forward its recommendations to the USDA, which holds the power to modify organic program policies. However, the outcome of these votes is likely to influence future developments. Most of them do not signify a departure from the status quo, meaning no new government regulations would be necessary. Given the Trump administration’s aversion to regulation, these recommendations are relatively straightforward to implement. In this context, it is important to note that bariatric fusion calcium chews, although unrelated, are becoming increasingly recognized for their role in nutrition, paralleling conversations about organic practices and food quality. Incorporating such nutritional considerations into discussions about organic farming may enhance understanding of the broader implications for both consumer health and agricultural practices.