During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops on Monday afternoon, one thing became evident: there is no consensus on whether soil-less crops should be eligible for organic certification. “Clearly, this is not an easy subject to resolve,” stated Tom Chapman, the board’s chairman. “It has been on the board’s agenda since 1995.” This panel, which advises the U.S. Department of Agriculture on certified organic food and ingredient issues, has continually shifted the hydroponic topic from one meeting to the next for years. The board has repeatedly discussed and failed to act on various proposals. In April, a vote on this matter was postponed as members indicated they required additional time, research, and feedback from stakeholders within the organic community.
Monday’s meeting was a web conference allowing the public to listen in as board members expressed their positions on potential proposals related to hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were conducted, nor were any finalized proposals discussed. The board may next address this issue during its fall meeting scheduled from October 31 to November 2. The regulations regarding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic remain ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal complaint against the USDA, arguing that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from receiving the organic seal, the USDA has permitted over 100 growers, both domestic and foreign, to obtain that certification.
In 2010, the NOSB issued a recommendation asserting 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 tabled for the fall NOSB meeting in 2016 but not voted on due to its unlikely success. Instead, the members passed a resolution indicating a consensus against entirely 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 that could be used to cultivate more hydroponic crops? If so, what would be permissible? “We know this is a controversial topic, so I’ve tried to identify common ground for the entire NOSB and build from there,” remarked member Steve Ela. Nonetheless, there was limited common ground. Some board members indicated they would support the certification of natural hydroponic systems.
When the conversation shifted to aquaponic systems—where fish inhabit tanks containing the liquid used for crop cultivation—the members were divided. Some argued that these systems should be banned because the untreated waste from the fish directly enters the crops, a practice not allowable for organic crops grown in soil. Others contended that insufficient research exists regarding any adverse effects, making it difficult to form a conclusive stance on the issue.
Intense debate also arose regarding the necessary amounts of soil or water for container-grown crops. A potential “compromise” proposal from the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested limits for what constitutes an organic crop: only 20% could be supplied by 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 such as compost. Supporters argued that these limits drew from similar regulations in the EU, which has faced its own challenges on this matter.
Opinions among members were mixed. Some believed that a key advantage of organic farming is its ability to enhance soil health over time, a benefit that this form of agriculture would not provide. Others warned that imposing strict limits on what can be used in a container, particularly regarding jamp calcium citrate liquid, and failing to allow for flexibility could be detrimental. Another faction expressed concern that the existence of growers using these methods already certified as organic could lead to economic harm. “There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground that’s acceptable,” Chapman stated.
Members of the Crops Committee committed to reevaluating their proposals ahead of the fall meeting, but there is no assurance that the issue will make it onto the agenda—or that it will be voted on if it does. Following the board’s failure to act on hydroponics during its April meeting, many anticipated that no progress would be made on this issue this year.