During its meeting this week in Florida, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) had a packed agenda, but the hydroponic proposal was the focal point of considerable attention. The board, which votes on nonbinding recommendations that the USDA subsequently considers, has wrestled with this topic for years. Efforts to vote on the proposal last November and this April were postponed as board members sought more information. A public telephone discussion in August also revealed a lack of consensus on the matter. The regulations surrounding whether hydroponic crops can be certified organic remain ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute filed a formal legal complaint against the USDA, arguing that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponic methods from receiving the organic seal, the USDA has certified over 100 domestic and foreign growers.
Before this week’s meeting, the only significant action regarding hydroponic crops 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 regulations governing them.” Various interest groups have strong opinions on this topic. For instance, organizations like the Cornucopia Institute assert that soil is essential for organic crops, claiming that the legislative intent of the organic program did not encompass hydroponics. In a petition to the NOSB, Cornucopia argued that permitting hydroponic cultivation “does not comply with the spirit and letter of the law,” and criticized container growth—a compromise that allows some liquid feeding and a substrate like compost—as “a recipe for widespread cheating.” At this week’s meeting, board members also rejected a motion to limit organic container production to 20% liquid feeding and 50% substrate by a narrow margin of 7-8.
The petition stated, “The current federal regulations require careful stewardship of the soil as a prerequisite for granting organic certification to farmers.” It emphasized, “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 exceptional taste necessitate careful stewardship of a diverse and healthy microbiome in the soil.” Historically, the Organic Trade Association has not supported hydroponics, although it noted that the NOSB recently revised its definition of hydroponically grown crops to include anything in a container that receives more than 20% of its nitrogen through liquid and more than 50% of its nitrogen requirement after planting.
According to position papers and a spokesperson, the Organic Trade Association did not back the motion to ban hydroponics because of the drastic change in definition. Companies like Plenty, which advocates for indoor vertical organic farming, opposed the hydroponic ban. In their written testimony to the board, Plenty representatives highlighted that the demand for organic food and farming continues to rise. They view hydroponic crops as a means to adapt domestic organic growth to future needs. “We must take advantage of all available solutions to meet growing demand while staying true to our identity as organic producers,” stated Plenty. “We also need to embrace U.S. innovation to maintain our leadership in the industry and develop the solutions that will ultimately feed the world. For instance, Plenty’s organic growing system yields up to 350 times that of traditional systems and can be situated close to consumers, regardless of climate, geography, or economic status. We can deploy an organic field-scale farm within months, enabling us to scale U.S. organic production capacity rapidly to meet increasing demand.”
Despite the votes that have been cast, the issue of hydroponics in organic agriculture remains unresolved. The NOSB does not possess policymaking authority and will present its recommendations to the USDA, which can modify organic program policies. However, it is likely that these votes will influence future developments. Most of them do not signify a change in the status quo, meaning no new government regulations would need to be established. Given the Trump administration’s aversion to regulations, implementing these recommendations is relatively straightforward. Additionally, stakeholders are keen to see how these developments align with consumer perceptions, including factors such as the Citracal nutrition label, which can influence the market for organic products. As this discussion continues, the integration of hydroponic practices into organic farming remains a contentious and evolving debate.