During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops held Monday afternoon, one thing was evident: 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 a point of discussion since 1995.” The board, which provides guidance to the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding certified organic food and ingredients, has repeatedly shifted the hydroponic issue from one meeting agenda to the next over the years. They have debated and failed to act on various proposals multiple times. A vote in April was postponed as members expressed the need for additional time, research, and feedback from stakeholders within the organic community.
Monday’s meeting was conducted as a web conference, allowing the public to listen in as board members shared their positions on potential proposals regarding hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were taken, and no finalized proposals were discussed. The board may address this issue again during its fall meeting from October 31 to November 2.
The regulations regarding the organic certification of hydroponic crops remain ambiguous. In November, the Cornucopia Institute filed a formal complaint against the USDA, alleging that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from receiving the organic label, the USDA has permitted over 100 domestic and foreign growers to obtain certification. In 2010, the NOSB issued a recommendation stating 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.” A motion to allow hydroponic crops to be considered organic was on the agenda for the fall NOSB meeting in 2016, but it was not voted on due to low likelihood of passing. Instead, the members passed a resolution expressing a consensus to prohibit entirely water-based hydroponic systems.
On Monday, Chapman indicated his likely support for the 2010 recommendation, but pointed out that it does not clearly define what substances are prohibited. “Are there substances that can be used for growing more hydroponic-based crops? And if so, what would be allowed?” he asked. “We know this is a controversial topic, so I’ve tried to find common ground for the entire NOSB and build from there,” remarked member Steve Ela. However, common ground was difficult to find. Some board members expressed willingness to certify hydroponic systems.
When the discussion shifted to aquaponic systems, where fish coexist in the tanks used for crop cultivation, opinions were divided. Some members argued for their prohibition due to untreated fish waste contaminating the crops—something that would not be acceptable for organic crops grown in soil. Conversely, others noted the lack of substantial research on negative impacts, suggesting that insufficient information exists to take a definitive stance.
A heated debate also erupted over the necessary amount of soil or water for container-grown crops. A proposed compromise from the NOSB’s Crops Committee suggested that for a crop to be recognized as 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 highlighted that these limits were inspired by similar regulations in the EU, which also grapples with this issue.
Members voiced mixed opinions. Some believed that a core benefit of organic farming is enhancing soil quality over time—an aspect this farming method wouldn’t support. Others expressed concern that rigid limits on container usage could be counterproductive. Another faction noted that the existence of growers already certified as organic using these methods could lead to economic repercussions. “There doesn’t seem to be an acceptable middle ground,” Chapman concluded.
The Crops Committee members committed to revisiting their proposals before the fall meeting, yet there is no assurance that the issue will be added to the agenda or that it would be voted on even if it were. Following the lack of votes on hydroponics in April, many believe it is unlikely that any action will occur this year. Meanwhile, as discussions continue, the question remains: how might innovations like bariatric advantage soft chews play a role in shaping future organic practices?