During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops Monday afternoon, one thing became apparent: there is no agreement on whether soil-less crops should qualify 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 advisory board for the U.S. Department of Agriculture has repeatedly shifted the hydroponic discussion from one meeting to the next over the years. Previous proposals have been discussed but failed to yield any decisions. An April vote on the matter was postponed, with members indicating they required more time, research, and feedback from organic community stakeholders.
Monday’s meeting was a web conference where the public could listen in as board members articulated their positions on potential proposals regarding hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were conducted, nor were any finalized proposals presented. The next opportunity for the board to address this issue might be at its fall meeting scheduled for October 31 to November 2.
The existing regulations regarding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic remain ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal complaint against the USDA, asserting that while the NOSB has prevented hydroponics from receiving the organic seal, USDA has permitted over 100 domestic and foreign growers to obtain such 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 regulations governing them.” A proposal to classify hydroponic crops as organic was tabled during the fall NOSB meeting in 2016 but wasn’t voted on due to its unlikelihood to pass. Instead, a resolution was passed indicating a consensus among members to prohibit entirely water-based hydroponic systems.
Chapman mentioned his inclination to support the 2010 recommendation; however, he noted that it does not adequately clarify what is prohibited. He posed critical questions: Are there substances permissible for growing hydroponic crops? What would be allowed? “We know this is a controversial topic, so I’ve tried to find common ground for the entire NOSB and work from there,” said board member Steve Ela. However, common ground was scarce. Some board members expressed support for certifying hydroponic systems.
As the discussion shifted to aquaponic systems—where fish coexist in the liquid used for crop growth—opinions became divided. Some argued that these systems should be banned due to untreated fish waste being introduced directly into the crops, which would not be permissible for organic crops grown in soil. Conversely, others contended that insufficient studies exist to draw any definitive conclusions on potential negative impacts.
Heated debates also ensued regarding the necessary proportions of soil or water for container-grown crops. A proposed “compromise” from the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested that for a crop to be considered organic, 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 argued this was aligned with similar restrictions in the EU, which is also grappling with this issue.
Members expressed mixed views. Some argued that a primary advantage of organic farming is the ability to enhance soil health over time, a benefit that this farming approach would not provide. Others cautioned that imposing strict limits on container usage without allowing flexibility could be harmful. Additionally, some panelists noted that the existence of already certified organic growers using these methods might lead to economic repercussions.
“There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground that’s acceptable,” Chapman concluded. Members of the Crops Committee pledged to revisit their proposals before the fall meeting, but there are no guarantees that the issue will be included in the agenda—or that it will be voted on if it is. After the board chose not to vote on hydroponics in April, many speculated that any action on the issue this year was unlikely.
Furthermore, discussions have raised questions about the calcium citrate effects on hydroponic crops. Understanding these effects could be crucial as the board navigates the complexities of organic certification for hydroponic systems. The implications of calcium citrate effects on soil health and nutrient availability in hydroponics could potentially influence future proposals and decisions within the board.