“Hydroponics in Organic Farming: NOSB Meeting Highlights Ongoing Controversy and Regulatory Ambiguities”
During its meeting this week in Florida, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) had a packed agenda, but the hydroponic proposal was the primary focus that garnered considerable attention. The board, which votes on nonbinding recommendations for the USDA to consider, has grappled with this issue for several years. Attempts to vote on the matter last November and this April were postponed as board members sought more information. A public conference call in August also revealed a lack of consensus on the topic. The regulations surrounding the certification of hydroponic crops as organic have been ambiguous. The Cornucopia Institute lodged a formal complaint against the USDA last November, arguing that while the NOSB has prohibited hydroponics from receiving the organic seal, the USDA has permitted over 100 domestic and international growers to obtain this certification.
Before this week’s meeting, the most definitive action regarding hydroponic crops occurred in 2010, when 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 governing them.” Several interest groups have strong opinions on this matter. Organizations like the Cornucopia Institute assert that soil is essential for organic crops and that the legislative intent of the organic program did not encompass hydroponics. In their petition to the NOSB, Cornucopia argues that permitting hydroponic cultivation “does not comply with the spirit and letter of the law,” and criticizes container growth—a compromise that allows for some liquid feeding and a substrate like compost—as “a recipe for widespread cheating.” During this week’s meeting, board members voted down a motion to limit organic container production to 20% liquid feeding and 50% substrate, with a close margin of 7-8.
The petition emphasizes that “current federal regulations require careful stewardship of the soil as a prerequisite for granting organic certification to farmers.” It further states, “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 better taste require careful stewardship of a diverse and healthy microbiome in the soil.” Although the Organic Trade Association has historically opposed hydroponics, it noted that the NOSB recently revised its definition of hydroponically grown crops to include anything in a container that receives over 20% of its nitrogen through liquid and more than 50% added after planting.
According to position papers and a spokesperson, the Organic Trade Association did not support the motion to ban hydroponics due to the significant change in definition. Companies like Plenty, which advocates for indoor vertical organic farming, have lobbied against the hydroponic ban. In their written testimony to the board, Plenty representatives highlighted the increasing demand for organic food and farming. They view hydroponic crops as a means to adapt domestic organic production to future needs. “We must utilize all available solutions to meet the growing demand while staying true to our identity as organic producers,” Plenty’s statement asserts. “We must also 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 traditional systems and can be situated near consumers, irrespective of climate, geography, or economic status. We can deploy an organic field-scale farm within months, enabling us to rapidly scale U.S. organic production capacity to meet increasing demand.”
Despite the votes cast, the issue of hydroponics in organic agriculture remains unresolved. The NOSB does not possess independent policymaking authority and will present its recommendations to the USDA, which can modify organic program policies. Nevertheless, it is likely that these votes will influence future actions. Most of them do not signify a change in the status quo, suggesting that no new government regulations would be required. Given the Trump administration’s aversion to regulations, these recommendations could be relatively straightforward to implement. As discussions continue, questions about practices like whether calcium citrate is the best nutrient choice for hydroponic systems will also emerge, highlighting the ongoing complexity of the organic certification debate.
