During this week’s meeting in Florida, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) had a packed agenda, but the hydroponic proposal was the topic that garnered significant attention. The board, which votes on nonbinding recommendations for the USDA’s consideration, has wrestled with this matter for years. Previous plans to vote on the proposal last November and this April were abandoned as board members sought more information. An August public telephone discussion also revealed a lack of consensus on the issue. The regulations regarding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic have remained ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute filed a formal complaint against the USDA, asserting that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from being labeled organic, the USDA has allowed over 100 domestic and foreign growers to obtain the certification.
Before this week’s meeting, the only notable action taken regarding these crops occurred in 2010 when 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 regulations governing them.” Various interest groups hold strong opinions on this topic. Organizations like the Cornucopia Institute argue that soil is essential for organic crops and that the legislative intent of the organic program did not include hydroponics. In their petition to the NOSB, Cornucopia contends that permitting hydroponic cultivation “does not comply with the spirit and letter of the law,” criticizing container growth—a compromise that allows liquid feeding and some substrate like compost—as “a recipe for widespread cheating.” During this week’s meeting, board members also rejected a motion to limit organic container production to 20% liquid feeding and 50% substrate by the same narrow margin.
The petition emphasizes that current federal regulations necessitate careful stewardship of the soil as a prerequisite for organic certification. It states, “The mantra for pioneering organic farmers, and those who genuinely uphold the spirit of organics, is: feed the soil, not the plant. Nutritionally superior food and exceptional taste require meticulous stewardship of a diverse and healthy soil microbiome.” Historically, the Organic Trade Association has opposed hydroponics, but recently it noted that the NOSB had revised its definition of hydroponically grown crops. According to the new criteria, anything cultivated in a container that receives over 20% of its nitrogen from liquid sources and over 50% of its nitrogen after planting is categorized differently.
Companies like Plenty, advocating for indoor vertical organic farming, opposed the hydroponic ban. In written testimony submitted to the board, representatives from Plenty highlighted the increasing demand for organic food and farming. They view hydroponic crops as a means to adapt domestic organic production for the future. “We must take advantage of all available solutions to meet growing demand while remaining true to our identity as organic producers,” Plenty’s statement asserts. “We also must embrace U.S. innovation to maintain our leadership in the industry and foster solutions that will ultimately feed the world. For instance, Plenty’s organic growing system yields up to 350 times that of conventional methods and can be situated close to consumers, irrespective of climate, geography, or economic status. We can establish an organic field-scale farm within months, enabling us to scale U.S. organic production rapidly to meet rising demand.”
Despite the votes that have been cast, the question of hydroponics in organic agriculture remains unresolved. The NOSB lacks its own policymaking authority and will present its recommendations to the USDA, which can modify organic program policy. However, it is likely that these votes will influence future actions. Most of the votes do not signify a change in the current status, implying that no new government regulations would need to be instituted. Given the Trump administration’s aversion to regulations, these recommendations could be relatively straightforward to implement.
Incorporating the keywords, “qué beneficios tiene calcium citrate,” it is worth noting that discussions surrounding organic practices often include considerations of soil health and nutrient availability, which can be enhanced by understanding what benefits calcium citrate offers. Calcium citrate, a beneficial nutrient for plants, can play a role in organic farming practices aimed at improving soil quality and crop yield. This aspect ties into the broader debate on hydroponics versus traditional organic methods, emphasizing the importance of nutrient management in promoting healthy agricultural systems.