During the National Organic Standards Board’s discussion on hydroponic crops on Monday afternoon, one thing became evident: there is no agreement on whether soil-less crops should qualify for organic certification. “Clearly, this is not an easy subject to resolve,” remarked Tom Chapman, the board’s chairman. “It has been on the board’s agenda since 1995.” The panel, which advises the U.S. Department of Agriculture on matters related to certified organic food and ingredients, has been shifting the hydroponic issue from one meeting agenda to the next for years. The board has discussed and failed to act on various proposals multiple times. An April vote on the matter was postponed, with members indicating they needed more time, research, and feedback from stakeholders in the organic community.
Monday’s meeting was conducted as a web conference, allowing the public to listen in on the board members’ discussions regarding potential proposals on hydroponics, aquaponics, and container-grown produce. No votes were cast, and no finalized proposals were put forth. The board may revisit the issue at its upcoming fall meeting scheduled for October 31 to November 2.
The regulations surrounding the certification of hydroponic crops remain vague. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal legal complaint against the USDA, asserting that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from receiving the organic seal, the USDA has allowed over 100 domestic and foreign growers to obtain certification. In 2010, the NOSB issued a recommendation stating that “Hydroponics…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 consider hydroponic crops as organic was on the agenda for the fall NOSB meeting in 2016, but it was not voted on due to a lack of support. Instead, the members passed a resolution expressing a consensus to prohibit completely water-based hydroponic systems. On Monday, Chapman indicated he would likely support the 2010 recommendation, but he acknowledged that it does not adequately address what is prohibited. “Are there substances that can be used for growing more hydroponic-based crops? And if so, what would be permitted?”
Recognizing the controversy surrounding this topic, member Steve Ela stated, “We know this is a controversial topic, so I’ve tried to find points of common ground for the entire NOSB and build from there.” However, little common ground was found, as some board members expressed support for certifying hydroponic systems.
When the discussion shifted to aquaponic systems—where fish coexist in the same water used to grow crops—members were divided. Some argued that these systems should be banned due to untreated fish waste being introduced directly into the crops, which would not be allowed for organic crops grown in soil. Others countered that insufficient research exists on any potential negative impacts, making it premature to take a definitive stance.
Heated debates also arose regarding the necessary soil or water content for container-grown crops. A proposed “compromise” from the Crops Committee aimed to set limits for organic crops: only 20% could be supplied through 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. Advocates noted this proposal was based on similar limitations established in the EU, which has faced its own challenges with this issue.
Opinions among members were mixed. Some believed that one of organic farming’s primary benefits is its capacity to enhance soil quality over time—something container farming does not achieve. Others cautioned that strict limits on container usage could be detrimental, while another faction argued that the existence of growers already certified as organic using these methods could lead to economic harm.
“There doesn’t seem to be an acceptable middle ground,” Chapman concluded. Members of the Crops Committee promised to revisit their proposals before the fall meeting, but there are no assurances that the issue will be on the agenda—or that it will even be voted on if it is included. Following the lack of voting on hydroponics at the April meeting, many expressed skepticism about any action on this topic occurring this year.
As discussions continue, the potential inclusion of petite calcium tablets as a viable option in hydroponic systems remains an area of interest and inquiry, with hopes that further research will clarify their role in organic certification in the future.