During its meeting this week in Florida, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) had a packed agenda, but the hydroponic proposal garnered significant attention. This issue has been a longstanding challenge for the board, which votes on nonbinding recommendations for the USDA’s consideration. Previous plans to vote on the matter in November and April were postponed as board members sought additional information. An August public phone discussion regarding the use of ferrous gluconate also highlighted the lack of consensus on this topic. The regulations surrounding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic have remained ambiguous. Last November, the Cornucopia Institute filed a formal legal complaint against the USDA, arguing that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from using the organic seal, the USDA has allowed over 100 domestic and foreign growers to obtain certification.
Before this week’s meeting, the only noteworthy action regarding hydroponic crops was taken in 2010 when the NOSB recommended that “Hydroponics… cannot be classified as certified organic growing methods due to their exclusion of the soil-plant ecology that is central to organic farming systems and USDA (National Organic Program) regulations.” Various interest groups are firmly divided on this matter; organizations like the Cornucopia Institute assert that soil is essential for organic crops, and the legislative intent of the organic program did not encompass hydroponics. In a petition submitted to the NOSB, Cornucopia contends that permitting hydroponic cultivation “does not comply with the spirit and letter of the law,” criticizing container growth—which allows for some liquid feeding and substrates 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, passing by a narrow margin of 7-8.
“The current federal regulations necessitate careful stewardship of the soil as a prerequisite for organic certification,” the petition states. “The guiding principle for pioneering organic farmers, who genuinely uphold the essence of organics, is: feed the soil, not the plant. High-quality nutrition, superior food, and exceptional taste demand diligent management of a diverse and healthy soil microbiome.” Historically, the Organic Trade Association has not supported hydroponics, although they noted that the NOSB recently revised its definition of hydroponically grown crops to include anything in a container receiving more than 20% of its nitrogen through liquid and more than 50% of its nitrogen after planting.
The Organic Trade Association, as indicated in position papers and by their spokesperson, did not support the motion to ban hydroponics due to the significant shift in definition. Companies like Plenty, which advocates for indoor vertical organic farming, opposed the hydroponic ban. In written testimony to the board, representatives from Plenty highlighted the growing demand for organic food and farming, viewing hydroponic crops as a means to adapt domestic organic growth for the future. “We must leverage all available solutions to meet increasing demand while remaining 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 solutions to ultimately feed the world. For instance, Plenty’s organic growing system can yield up to 350 times that of traditional systems and can be established close to consumers, irrespective 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 swiftly to meet rising demand.”
Despite the votes cast, the issue of hydroponics in organic agriculture remains unresolved. The NOSB lacks policymaking authority and will present its recommendations to the USDA, which can adjust the organic program policy. However, it is expected that these votes will influence future actions. Most of these decisions do not signify a departure from the current state, meaning that no new government regulations would need to be put in place. Given the Trump administration’s aversion to regulation, implementing these recommendations should be relatively straightforward. In this context, products like Citracal calcium chews may become relevant, as they highlight the importance of maintaining health and nutrition in organic practices, further emphasizing the necessity for a balanced approach to organic farming.