WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2016 - The question of whether
hydroponic growing should be officially eligible for organic certification
remains open following a National Organic Standards Board decision to gather
more information.
At the recent NOSB meeting in St. Louis, indoor growing in
all its permutations was arguably the hottest topic on the agenda. But the
board, which makes recommendations to USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP), indicated
it did not have enough detail to address the myriad issues raised by the indoor
growing methods.
Those methods include aeroponics, in which plants are raised
without a growing medium but receive nutrients through misting; hydroponics, in
which nutrients are delivered through water; and aquaponics, in which fish and
plants are raised together.
Taken together, the NOSB task force that examined the issue
and delivered a report to the board in July, referred to the practices as
“bioponics.”
But the task force was split on the question of whether any
or all of those methods could be considered organic, leaving the board with a
document without a clear recommendation. The result was a 10-3 NOSB vote to
send the matter back to NOSB’s crops subcommittee.
Importantly, however, that was accompanied by a 12-0 vote
for a resolution upholding NOSB’s 2010 statement – never translated into USDA regulations
– that hydroponics is not
compatible with organic production systems.
“It was frustrating that we couldn’t get a detailed enough
document,” said NOSB member Jean
Richardson, a University of Vermont law professor and organic maple syrup
producer. And
NOSB chair Tracy Favre, newly
appointed director of Quality Assurance International, said the task force
“made our job very difficult – to come up with a recommendation when the
experts couldn’t reach a consensus.”
Richardson said that bioponics have a future in organic
agriculture, but that “straight hydro,” plants that are fed water and nutrients
through a “piped medium,” probably don’t. In the meantime, because they are not
expressly prohibited, hydroponic and related operations remain eligible for
organic certification. There are currently 52 certified organic
hydroponic/aquaponic operations and 69 certified operations that grow crops in
containers, according to the crops subcommittee’s meeting report to the NOSB.
The delay in taking action translates into uncertainty in
the marketplace, said NOSB member Francis
Thicke, an organic dairy farmer in Iowa. But he thinks there’s enough
information now to prohibit hydroponic operations from being certified as
organic.
“I’m a soil scientist,” he said. “I would rather not see a
whole new generation of these hydroponics operations.”
If containerized growing “takes off,” he said, “we could
have most of our fruits and vegetables grown in containers. I don’t think
that’s what we want.”
That’s the “philosophical issue” at the root of the debate, Favre
said: Whether or not a system that does not have plants planted in the ground
can be considered organic.”
Charlie Shultz,
a former organic crop production inspector who helped prepare the task force
report, “strongly encouraged” NOSB to continue allowing certifying agencies to
consider bioponic systems for the organic imprimatur.
In comments to the board, he said, “Soil is not the basis of all
life, water is… Most bioponic producers not only conserve arable land for other
soil-based uses, but also enhance the fertility of their whole farm soil
through composting or other methods of incorporating organic matter back into
the land.”
Favre said it’s unclear what action a future NOSB will take.
She, like Richardson and three other NOSB members, is leaving the board next
month, which means five new members will have to get up to speed on the issue.
That, and the need to gather public comment on any proposals, could make it
difficult to turn around a proposal by April, when
the board next convenes.
Favre did say she doubted that currently certified indoor
growers will lose that status if USDA ultimately decides to adopt new
rules. “The NOP does not have a history
of jerking certifications for operations that are already certified,” she said.
Board recommends banning of carrageenan in
organic production
The board did take action on another controversial issue, narrowly approving a recommendation that USDA prohibit the use of carrageenan in organic production, despite
conflicting data over whether the substance causes any human health problems.
A technical report commissioned by NOSB said “definitive
conclusions regarding the varying degrees of human susceptibility to
inflammation effects of carrageenan cannot be made from the available
literature." Citing “different experimental results,” however, it also
said “it is reasonable to expect that humans may also experience varying
degrees of sensitivity to carrageenan in the diet."
Made
from red seaweed, carrageenan is used as a stabilizer and thickener in
products such as infant formula and protein shakes. The Center for Food Safety backed
the decision, saying that “studies have raised significant concerns that
carrageenan consumption may pose certain health risks, such as intestinal
inflammation and inflammatory bowel disease.”
Besides, said Cameron Harsh, CFS senior manager for organic
and animal policy, many manufacturers have been able to eliminate carrageenan
from their products, showing that it is not essential for organic agriculture.
The International Food Additives Council took
a different view, saying carrageenan’s use
in food “is supported by decades of research and approvals by every food
regulatory body in the world.” Removing carrageenan from organic foods and
beverages “will result in products that are less nutritious, less appealing,
less enjoyable and more expensive.”
The board also voted 14-0
that genetic modification techniques such as gene editing and gene silencing
should not be allowed in organic agriculture.
“The
board’s hard-fought proactive stance on synthetic biology will both help
preserve the integrity of organic standards and raise awareness about this
virtually unregulated and unlabeled form of genetic engineering,” said Dana Perls, food and
technology policy campaigner with Friends of the Earth.
But
the NOSB materials/GMO subcommittee discussion document, prepared for the
meeting, noted that detection is difficult. “In the newer gene splicing and gene editing
technologies there is no foreign DNA introduced,” the document says. “The DNA
in the genes has been moved around, or sequences introduced from within the
same genome that change the expression of certain traits. Many if not most of
these methods are not detectable with the existing tests for GMOs.
“While it is likely that such testing may be developed in
the future, it becomes very challenging for the National Organic Program and
Accredited Certifying Agents to determine if any new variety was produced with
one of the newer excluded technologies.”
#30
