CSO Urges Biden USDA transition team to make organics more inclusive and to continue defense of lawsuit

The CSO reached out to the Biden transition team to request that the incoming administration support a more inclusive organic community built for the needs of the future that include increasing demand and supply for clean and healthy foods.
 
We urged the Biden – Harris Administration to continue to make sure that organic farming remains open to growers from around the world that are ready to meet the high USDA standards. We asked that USDA continue to defend against the lawsuit brought by the Center for Food Safety that seeks to overturn decades of organic policy set by Congress and the USDA and affirmed by the National Organic Standards Board.
 
The CSO will continue to reach out to new political appointees in 2021 to make sure they continue to understand our issues.

Don’t let your voice be silenced as efforts to revoke your organic certification continue

If the lawsuit to revoke organic certification for growers using pots and other containers is successful, the case would have detrimental consequences for all organic growers that use containers including substrate production.

Your help is needed now to defend your interests in the lawsuit. Without your continued financial support to allow the CSO to fully engage with expert attorneys to strengthen our efforts in the courts in California, no one will be there to defend your farm and your production practices.  

Please join today at this link or donate today if you are more comfortable making a one-time contribution. The CSO members are grateful for whatever support you can provide.     

The CSO believes that everyone deserves organics. By working together, we can help sustainably and legitimately increase your markets and expand supplies to meet the needs of consumers.

CSO welcomes incoming House Agriculture Committee Chair David Scott of Georgia

The U.S. House Committee on Agriculture will see significant changes to its leadership in the new Congress. The current Committee chairman Collin Peterson lost his reelection bid last month. In addition, the ranking Republican on the committee Mike Conaway will retire at the end of the current session. Democrats have selected David Scott of Georgia as the next chair of the committee.

“I am honored to have been chosen by my colleagues in the Democratic Caucus to serve as Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee,” said Congressman Scott. “I was born on my grandparents’ farm in rural Aynor, South Carolina, during the days of segregation, and the hardships, of those, on whose shoulders I now stand. I owe this historic selection as the first African American Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee to a diverse coalition of members from across our nation. And I will use this critical opportunity to represent the values of our entire caucus and advance our priorities for trade, disaster aid, climate change, sustainable agriculture, SNAP, crop insurance, small family farms, specialty crops, and rural broadband. The fault lines dividing our rural and urban communities are running deep, and climate change is now threatening our nation’s food supply. As Chairman, I will lead the fight to rise up and meet these challenges.”

Congressman David Scott has served as a Member of Congress and the House Agriculture Committee since 2003. In his various leadership roles on the House Agriculture Committee, Congressman Scott has chaired the Subcommittees on Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit as well as Livestock and Foreign Agriculture. Scott played a key role in ushering through the three last Farm Bills, including by serving as a conferee, securing critical disaster aid for our farmers, strengthening the food and nutrition programs that help our families, seniors and school children and securing $80 million for new scholarships for students attending 1890 African-American land-grant colleges and universities.

Congressman David Scott grew up living and working on his grandparents’ farm when his parents moved north to find work.  During his 18 years in Congress, he has developed a deep understanding of the critical issues facing farmers today and the practical challenges posed by an agricultural lifestyle.  He also understands the critical role agriculture plays in our economy and the importance of policies that preserve our place as the #1 exporter of agricultural products.

In addition, the Senate Agriculture Committee will have a new chair regardless of the outcome of the Georgia special election Senate results. Chair Pat Roberts is retiring.

If you would like to participate in outreach to any new leaders and their staff in the upcoming year, please contact the CSO at info@coalitionforsustainableorganics.org.

BY THE COALITION FOR SUSTAINABLE ORGANICS

The Center for Produce Safety delivered a petition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture calling for the USDA to

1. Issue new regulations prohibiting organic certification of hydroponic agricultural production based on the National Organic Standards Board’s April 29, 2010 recommendation on Production Standards for Terrestrial Plants in Containers and Enclosures.
2. Specifically, amend 7 C.F.R. 205.105, Allowed and prohibited substances, methods, and ingredients in organic production and handling, to prohibit hydroponic systems.
3. Ensure that ecologically integrated organic production practices are maintained as a requirement for organic certification as defined by the existing OFPA regulations.
4. Revoke any existing organic certifications previously issued to hydroponic operations.

The petition defines “hydroponics” as “a diverse array of systems which incorporate, to some degree, containers that house plant roots in either a liquid solution or various solid substrates, including coconut coir, soil, compost, vermicompost, peat moss, bark, sawdust, rice hulls, potting soil and a number of other growing media.” In short, any production system that uses a container or tray or soil lining that isolates the roots of a plant from the outer crust of the Earth is targeted for decertification by the petition.

The petition states that the following groups support the decertification effort – The Cornucopia Institute, Food & Water Watch, Cultivate Oregon, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association Certification Service, Northwest Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA), Organic Farmers Association (OFA), Northeast Organic Farming Association of Connecticut (CT NOFA), Northeast Organic Farming Association Interstate Council, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey (NOFA-NJ), Northwest (sic) Organic Farming Association – New York (NOFA-NY), Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont (NOFA-VT), and PCC Community Markets.

Here is a copy of the press release issued by CFS. The CFS did successfully bring legal action to overturn USDA National Organic Program guidance that allowed the use of compost made from materials collected under municipal yard clipping collection programs.

We have not heard any reaction from USDA at this time.

BY THE COALITION FOR SUSTAINABLE ORGANICS

The Farm Bill is moving in Congress and could impact your farm.

As you may have learned in our previous post, Congress typically rewrites the Farm Bill every five years and is currently in the process of writing a new Farm Bill with the goal of passing it by the end of September. The next two and a half weeks are a critical time for farmers who want to inform the decisions made around this bill.

So what’s in it for you?

Each Farm Bill contains resources for farmers of all kinds, but the current bill presents unique opportunities for indoor farmers.

Several members of Congress have proposed that the new Farm Bill include policies and programs that could benefit your indoor farm. Read on for three potential inclusions that could impact your business.

1) A USDA office focused on indoor agriculture and other emerging food and ag technologies

One proposed change in the Farm Bill is to create a new office and advisory committee at the U.S. Department of Agriculture that will be focused specifically on helping those using new and emerging food and ag technologies navigate USDA loan, grant and technical assistance programs, connect with experts, and share best practices. The advisory committee will include producers using emerging technologies to grow food, like indoor farmers.

2) Expanded eligibility for renewable energy loans & grants

In a recent survey of Upstart University members, all respondents agreed that they plan on investing in energy efficient equipment of some kind:

• 56% plan on investing in energy efficient lighting
• 39% plan on investing in energy efficient cooling systems
• 36% plan on investing in energy efficient pumps

Which of the following systems do you plan to invest in over the next year?

Proposed updates to an existing Farm Bill program called the Rural Energy for America Program could benefit indoor farmers who want to use energy efficient equipment. This update to the program would make certain indoor farmers eligible to apply for direct loan guarantees and grants to support renewable energy and energy efficiency upgrades.

3) Boosted indoor agriculture research

Another proposed change to the Farm Bill directs USDA to focus on indoor agriculture production in public agricultural research, education and extension activities. While current public research activities do benefit indoor agriculture, this expanded focus will create new opportunities to test ideas and techniques that will lead to more productive agriculture.

Help Get a Farm Bill That Supports Indoor Agriculture

One of the most important things you can do is to call your Member of Congress and urge them to support a Farm Bill that includes policies and programs that could benefit indoor agriculture.

When you call, make sure to tell them that you live in their District and that you own or operate an indoor farming business that is contributing to your state’s agriculture industry.

Here’s what to ask for in the Farm Bill:

• An office and advisory committee at USDA focused on indoor agriculture and other emerging food and ag technologies
• Updating the Rural Energy for America Program, an existing Farm Bill program, to allow certain indoor farmers to be eligible to apply for direct loans and grants for new equipment
• Including indoor agriculture production in public research, education and extension activities

Visit www.house.gov to locate contact information for your Member of Congress. Be sure to make your calls before September 30.

The USDA has published the pre-meeting materials on their website for the Fall 2018 National Organic Standards Board meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota to be held from October 24-26.  The Discussion Documents and Formal Proposals do NOT include anything specific to greenhouse, container, hydroponic, aeroponic or aquaponic production systems. Those topics remain on the inactive work agenda of the National Organic Standards Board in spite of calls from an NOSB member to place the topic back on the active agenda.

In addition to the review of materials for the National List, the NOSB will review other topics including research priorities, strengthening the requirements for the use of organic seed in crop production, further defining excluded plant breeding methods, criteria for accreditation oversight and training and oversight of inspectors among others.

If you would like to give verbal comments directly to the members of the NOSB and to the broader organic community, you may sign up through the following links for the webinars on October 16 and 18 or in person on October 24/25. The deadline to sign up is October 4 or until all of the speaking slots have been allocated. Those slots have filled up before the deadline for the last several meetings.

You may also submit written comments for the public record by October 4.

In a recent survey conducted by Upstart University, 70% of respondents stated that they were unsure of whether the Farm Bill would impact their [future] business. Yet ironically all respondents plan on investing in some kind of energy-efficient equipment in the next year, whether that’s lighting, HVAC, pumps, or motors.

These two facts conflict with each other! Why? Because the Farm Bill directly influences how billions of government dollars are allocated —and that includes the programs that can help farmers launch or scale their farms.

In other words: the Farm Bill will affect your business more than you think! And the next month is a critical period.

Survey respondents also rated their Farm Bill knowledge at an average of 14—out of a hundred. Ouch.To help youget up to speed, here’s a quick primer on the Farm Bill, its contents, how it’s created, and how you can impact the outcome.

The Farm Bill is the biggest collection of food and ag-related policy for the U.S.

The Farm Bill is the most powerful collection of food, nutrition and agricultural policy, intertwined with all kinds of farms, how they function, and the economics surrounding them. It’s separated into sections (“titles”) that cover the policy around a certain topic, from conservation and energy, to nutrition programs, to rural development, to crop insurance, to beginning farmers. Every farmer has a vested interest in at least one of these topics!

You can read short explanations of each title here.

If you’ve been listening to news or skimming headlines in the last few months, you’ve seen discussions of the upcoming version of the Farm Bill. The reason that so many people are involved in the Bill is that it decides how a lot of money is directed. For example, the last Farm Bill cost an estimated 95 billion dollars a year. Roughly 75% of that went towards nutrition programs (mostly SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

With so much funding and other programs and benefits hanging in the balance, there’s a lot to fight for.  (Learn more about that in our next post.)

How the Farm Bill works

In most cases, the Farm Bill has a defined 5-year lifecycle with distinct decision making points. It starts wh

en two different versions of the Bill are drafted—one by the House Agriculture committee, and one by the Senate Agriculture committee. Once the drafts have been passed in the House and the Senate, a new “conference committee” is formed to work out the differences. It includes the Chairs of the House and Senate Agriculture committees as well as a mix of other Senators and Representatives. (This is the current stage of the Farm Bill. Meet the Conference Committee members from the Senate and the House.)

The Conference Committee members will reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill into a single piece of legislation. That legislation goes back to be debated and voted on in both the House and the Senate. If it doesn’t pass, the debate goes back to the Ag Committees.  When it does pass Congress, it is sent to the President and becomes law if it is signed. On rare occasions, the President has vetoed Farm Bills in the past. Congress can then vote to override a veto with a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber.

A process designed for input

When the Farm Bill was first created under President Roosevelt in the wake of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, it had three original goals: fair food prices, adequate food supply, and protectio

n of America’s natural resources. It is the duty of the Agriculture Committees to protect these goals.

You are an expert on the minute details and nuances of how those goals play out. You live them every day! This makes your insight a precious resource to those working on the Farm Bill. (Hurray for democratic government!) One of the best things you can do is make sure that lawmakers are aware of your needs by speaking up.

Stay tuned for more on the Farm Bill and what it means for your business

Curious what will affect your farm the most in the Farm Bill? Next time, we’re going to cover specific issues in the Farm Bill that could affect indoor farmers—and what you can do about them.

Frankel testified, “Comprised of growers big and small, we [the CSO] advocate for the continued allowance of containerized growing methods under the National Organic Program, while enabling growers to select the most appropriate production system for their specific site and commodity needs.”

“In addition, the CSO was pleased to receive confirmation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that of the legal basis for these methods via Sections 6503 and 6512 of the Organic Foods Production Act,” stated Lee Frankel.   “CSO has long argued that OFPA and the accompanying regulations do not prohibit containers and hydroponics from the organic program.”   

“Thanks to USDA’s strong statement, producers can continue to meet the rising demand for fresh organic produce using a wide variety of environmentally sound and sustainable farming methods such as containers and hydroponics,” continued Frankel.

Following a presentation by Undersecretary Ibach on USDA efforts to increase organic integrity, members of the CSO as well as Frankel testified today in Tucson, Arizona at the meeting of the National Organic Standards Board to show continued support for efforts to further strengthen and clarify the USDA organic regulations and ensure integrity in the USDA Organic Seal.

Eighteen months ago, the outlook for hydroponic, aquaponic, and containerized growing methods in the National Organic Program looked bleak.  A small, yet vocal, minority in the organic sector had mounted a campaign within the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to prohibit these production methods from organic certifications despite a lack of scientific basis to do so.  Through the hard work and dedication of CSO’s Board and member companies, we were able to launch a strategic advocacy plan to push back against this unfair and arbitrary effort.  After three failed votes in the NOSB, our place in the organic industry is safe for now but more work is needed to ensure the continued success of these systems.

As the NOSB considers additional potential regulations that may impact your on-farm practices, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to educate policymakers on the integrity and sustainability of your production systems. The CSO still needs you as a member to fight the good fight and ensure a sustainable future in the U.S. organic industry for farmers incorporating containers in their operations. Please fill out the linked application form today to join the CSO.

The CSO is closely monitoring the following additional potential threats to hydroponic, aquaponics and containerized growing methods:

1)      Some Certifiers Continue to Refuse to Certify Legitimate Organic Operations: In spite of the recent NOSB votes rejecting proposals to prohibit container, hydroponic, and aquaponic production tools used by organic growers, widespread inconsistencies remain between USDA-authorized certifiers. Many certifiers are defying USDA regulations and refusing to certify operations incorporating containers beyond their use for nursery stock.  Other certifiers will certify growers using certain types of substrate, but not growers using Nutrient Film Technique or Floating Raft Systems regardless of the fact they have created complex, living biological systems to cycle nutrients in an organic manner.

2)      NOSB’s Next Steps for Containers Remains Unknown: At the close of the November 2017 NOSB meeting, the Board released a draft agenda indicating a plan to continue to pursue additional recommendations to revise USDA’s organic standards related to containers including potential regulations on new labeling requirements and the reuse and recycling of containers. This remaining uncertainty hurts growers and producers looking to make investments and upgrades.

3)      Groups Opposed to Organic Certification for Containers Threaten Legal Action: After their latest setback at the NOSB, our opponents are now planning to file legal action against the USDA over the current certification policy that does allow for container production systems. Specifically, they claim that the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and as amended REQUIRES that crops must be grown in the soil. The CSO stands ready to defend the rights and interests of its members.

4)      Voluntary “Regenerative Organic” Label Efforts Move Forward: The Rodale Institute is leading efforts to create a new, and at this time voluntary, label currently taking the name of Regenerative Organics. This label would exclude containers from participation. Groups like the Organic Consumers Association are coalescing around this effort. Details of that standard can be found here. The idea is to add specific requirements for soil management including tillage practices as well as social justice and animal welfare elements that are not part of the current USDA standard.

Your Help Is Needed 

The CSO needs your continued participation in efforts to safeguard your rights to select the most appropriate growing methods in your organic operations.  Our opponents continue to push Congress to pass restrictions on our operations and will only ramp up their efforts after their defeat at the NOSB.

Actions to take:

• Send a version of the draft letter below.
• Offer a tour of your operations to the Member or staff.
• Visit Washington, DC to see your Member of Congress.  If you are a member of CSO our team in will coordinate meetings on your behalf.

Please forward any notes and the contact information you gathered during the visit to Lee Frankel at info@coalitionforsustainableorganics.org.

You can find the contact information for your Member of Congress and Senatorat the highlighted links.

Thanks for your help.

Sample Letter to email or fax

The Honorable XXXXXX
United States House of Representatives or United States Senate
Local Address

Date

Dear Representative XXXXXX, 

As your constituent, I am writing to invite you to visit our farming operation to learn more about the use of hydroponic/container/aquaponic cultivation to grow certified organic produce for our community. 

Our company grows [list your products here] in [city of facility/farm] and employs XXX people. In addition, we are perfecting our growing methods to expand our line into more and more fresh produce items. Our current production is helping to make fresher produce available to our community and alleviating food deserts in the area. We achieved certification under the U.S. Department of Agriculture and take pride in meeting all the necessary requirements under the law to meet this incredibly high standard.  

You may be aware that, over the last few years, USDA’s advisory committee on organic agriculture, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), has been considering multiple proposals to revoke the existing organic certifications for growers using hydroponic methods to produce fresh vegetables, herbs, and fruit. While the latest proposal was defeated by an 8 to 7 vote, the NOSB continues to examine ways to limit our ability to maintain our organic certification through their insistence that only farms that look like theirs should carry the organic label. 

This is an unnecessary and burdensome action that will significantly impact our livelihood, jobs in your district, and reduce the availability and accessibility of fresh organic produce.  If the use of these innovative and practical growing techniques is limited, our company will no longer be permitted to continue to produce certified organic fresh produce, and our economic potential will be significantly impacted. 

I look forward to welcoming you to our operation to demonstrate our use of these techniques to help meet the rising consumer demand for organic produce.  

Thank you for your consideration.  You can contact me at [email address] or by phone at [phone number].

Respectfully, 

Your Name
Farm/Operation Name

Click here for a Sample letter to Congress expressing support for the NOSB’s Organic decision

Originally published in Issue 14, July 2016

Organic hydroponic and aquaponic growers are waiting for the results of a National Organic Program task force report which is scheduled for release this month. Members of the NOP Organic Hydroponic and Aquaponic Task Force were appointed last fall to examine hydroponic and aquaponic production practices and their alignment with USDA organic regulations. The task force includes members who are USDA organically-certified hydroponic growers.

Hydroponic and aquaponic growers are concerned that the report may contribute to the overturning of the long-standing USDA policy to certify their operations. The reason for this concern is that there is an effort by some field growers to stop the organic certification of hydroponic and aquaponic growers by USDA.

Lee Frankel, executive director of Coalition for Sustainable Organics, said the organization was formed in March 2016 to give growers a platform to preserve their ability to choose the most appropriate growing method, including those where the plant is not grown in the outer-crust of the Earth, to meet their site specific conditions when producing organically.

“The coalition members believe that sustainability and using natural inputs are the pillars of the organic philosophy and movement,” he said. “For instance, some of the initial members are from Arizona and southern California, where water availability is a major issue. Being able to grow hydroponically helps these growers use up to 10 times less water to be more sustainable.”

The coalition currently has 35 members and includes growers from the United States, Mexico and Canada. Some of these organic growers produce in the field as well as hydroponically.

Frankel said the supply of organic products is becoming more international.

“Nearly one-third of all USDA-certified operations are now outside the United States,” he said. “USDA sets the standards and determines what inputs can and cannot be used, regardless of country or method of production. USDA then accredits certifiers to inspect operations around the world.

“Opponents have cited the fact that there are a number of other countries that have a ban on hydroponic organic products. But if you examine the matter more closely, the issue is often a question of semantics. For example, growers in Canada and even in some of the Nordic countries in the European Union can grow organically in containers despite a ban on hydroponics in their regulations.”

Opposition to hydroponic, aquaponic production

Frankel said one of the main opposition groups pushing for the changes in USDA organic rules is Keep the Soil in Organic. The spokesperson for the group is David Chapman, who operates Long Wind Farm in Vermont. Chapman is a member of the NOP Organic Hydroponic and Aquaponic Task Force.

“Other groups that have spoken out against hydroponic organic production include many of the organic trade associations and organic certifiers in the northeastern part of the United States,” said Frankel. “Some of the certifiers have been working with field growers for a long time so they feel it is in their best interest to support their current customers.”

While there is a philosophical debate as to what organic growing does or does not mean, Frankel said there is also an economic component.

“Retailers and consumers are voting with their pocketbooks,” he said. “They appreciate a variety of flavorful and available hydroponic and aquaponic organic products on a consistent basis that meet their expectations for produce grown without synthetic pesticides.

“Sustainability and economics go hand in hand. As inputs are reduced, seasons are extended and yields are increased, enabling growers to reduce their costs.”

Frankel said another benefit to growing in containers is that it is really scale neutral.

“It allows for people who are just getting started, who were not fortunate enough to inherit a family farm or are in urban areas with high land costs, to be able to grow organically,” he said.

Changes to current standards

Frankel said USDA selected members for the NOP task force from a cross-section of people in the organic industry. They represent a broad range of technical expertise, knowledge and philosophies to examine the current regulations.

“These people were tasked with helping clarify the regulatory issues and to describe the current technologies in use,” he said. “I expect that the task force will describe how container, hydroponic and aquaponic production systems operate, how they meet the current standards and identify different interpretations of the regulations.

“The task force is not technically supposed to make recommendations. The task force is analyzing whether the production technologies used today meet current USDA regulations, standards and laws. The task force will also determine whether any areas within those regulations may need to be updated, revised or defined based on their findings.”

Frankel said once the report is released, the National Organics Standards Board will study the document and determine if it would like to recommend changes to the current regulations. NOSB has traditionally sought input and testimony from the organic industry prior to making recommendations on any proposed changes or modifications.

“If NOSB votes to forward recommendations to USDA, USDA would then translate those recommendations into formal proposed regulations and open them up to public comment,” he said. “USDA would then respond and would incorporate meaningful comments into the final rule.”

Time for growers to respond

Frankel said release of the task force report will be another opportunity for hydroponic growers to tell their story to prevent NOSB from starting the process to push the growers out of the organic market.

“Organic-certified hydroponic and aquaponic growers need to make a case about the validity of what they are doing,” he said. “In addition to their production methods being thousands of years old, USDA has long recognized the legitimacy of these systems. The systems have helped to grow demand for organics while reducing inputs and opening the market for new growers.

“Most critically from a philosophical perspective, these production systems use the same biological processes as those of organic field growers.”

Frankel said growers have a number of ways of bringing attention to their rightful place in the organic industry.

“Growers need to participate in the all-important public comment periods in the rulemaking process,” he said. “Growers can have their retail customers share their stories through company newsletters. Highlighting growing operations with CSAs (community supported agriculture) or reaching out to the local press can help spread a common message while building a grower’s own business. Hosting farm visits is often the easiest way to directly show how a grower’s operation is following the organic principles of cycling nutrients, eliminating synthetic pesticides and conserving resources such as land and water.”

Frankel said these farm visits for fellow growers, certifiers, elected officials, trade association staff, USDA officials and even NOSB members have proven to be an effective method to dispel any misconceptions spread by opponents of these organic production systems.

“From the coalition’s point of view, everyone deserves organics,” he said. “Containers are an integral part of a more resilient production system that allows for growers of all sizes and economic backgrounds to produce organic products that an increasing number of consumers are demanding.”

For more: Coalition for Sustainable Organics, (619) 587-45341;  info@coalitionforsustainableorganics.org; http://coalitionforsustainableorganics.org.

David Kuack is a freelance technical writer in Fort Worth, Texas; dkuack@gmail.com.

The members of the NOSB voted on Wednesday by a margin of 8 to 7 to reject the proposals to make Hydroponic and Aquaponic production methods prohibited practices under the USDA organic standards. In addition, the NOSB rejected the proposal by a vote of 8 to 7 to create prescriptive nitrogen ratio requirements and to limit delivery of nutrients through irrigation systems in other container production systems. The proposed definition of hydroponics was any system in a container (roots of a plant not in the outer crust of the Earth) that does not have at least 50 percent of the nitrogen needs of the plant in the container before planting and that no more than 20 percent of nitrogen needs are delivered through the irrigation system, watering cans or in a liquid form.

The NOSB did vote to make aeroponics a prohibited practice by a vote of 14 in favor of the ban with 1 member abstaining from the vote. This recommendation will now go to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Given that the NOSB is technically a Federal Advisory Committee, the staff of the National Organic Program and other USDA officials will determine if the USDA will begin formal rulemaking to modify the existing USDA organic standards. The USDA typically will move forward with rule making or return the proposal for additional clarification. Only after a public comment period and regulatory review would the proposal convert into a regulation.

Greenhouse production practices to be discussed on Thursday by NOSB

The NOSB will begin discussions on the need to create modifications to the standards regarding the use of artificial light, the composting and disposal of green waste and substrate after a production cycle, requirements to recycle containers, and the use of plastic mulches and weed cloth in greenhouse and container operations. No votes are scheduled for these topics.

CSO thanks all growers who contributed their views through written or oral testimony

The CSO wishes to express its gratitude to the roughly 70 producers from all sides of the issue who delivered oral comments and the hundreds of individuals that submitted written comments. The Coalition especially appreciates the time of the many growers who volunteered their time to help educate members of the NOSB and the organic community. Ultimately, both the quantity and quality of the voices explaining the importance of preserving the rights of growers to determine the most appropriate growing method for their site-specific conditions led to this mostly positive outcome.

What happens next?

The vote did not resolve the long-standing issue of the lack of consistency in how accredited auditors review the farms and production facilities of growers that incorporate containers in their systems. The members of the NOSB and the USDA NOP staff will determine in the coming hours, days and weeks if there is value in continuing work on proposed regulations that would impact other aspects of greenhouse and container production systems. The CSO will be there to protect your interests.

Everyone deserves organics

The most viable option to achieve this goal is to use all certified systems and scales of production, not to kick certain growing practices out of the industry. The organic industry should embrace and promote diversity rather than stifle it. Organic production should not be limited to annual crops grown in temperate climates with high rainfall and killing freezes in the winter. The NOSB should be ensuring that organic rules do not arbitrarily discriminate against production in urban, desert, or tropical areas, nor should they exclude other systems that use containers and greenhouses. We should trust growers to make their own determination to know when growing in the soil or in containers make the most sense for the protection of the consumer and the ecology we all share.

Crops Subcommittee of National Organic Standards Board Sends Forward Formal Recommendation to Ban Hydroponics, Aquaponics and Aeroponics While Proposing Limits on Other Forms of Container Production Systems

The USDA recently published on their website the proposals written by the Crops Subcommittee of the National Organic Standards Board. The full membership of the NOSB will take up these proposals during the November 1Crops portion of the meeting with a potential vote coming that day or on November 2. The public will have an opportunity to comment on the proposals in writing, via a web conference on October 24, or in person on October 31.

What would be prohibited
The proposals would make aeroponics, aquaponics and hydroponics prohibited practices under Section 205.105 of the USDA Organic Regulations.

Aeroponics would be defined as “a variation of hydroponic plant production in which plant roots are suspended in air and misted with nutrient solution.”

Aquaponics would be defined as “a recirculating hydroponic plant production system in which plants are grown in nutrients originating from aquatic animal waste water, which may include the use of bacteria to improve availability of these nutrients to the plants. The plants improve the water quality by using the nutrients, and the water is then recirculated back to the aquatic animals.”

Hydroponics would be defined as “any container production system that does not meet the standard of a limit of 20% of the plants’ nitrogen requirement being supplied by liquid feeding, and a limit of 50% of the plants’ nitrogen requirement being added to the container after the crop has been planted.”

The proposals would allow for some types of container production systems. In general, all systems that can meet the nitrogen formulas laid out by the Crops Subcommittee would be eligible for certification. The Crop Subcommittee in their own words state that systems that do not “meet the standard of a limit of 20% of the plants’ nitrogen requirement being supplied by liquid feeding, and a limit of 50% of the plants’ nitrogen requirement being added to the container after the crop has been planted is defined as hydroponic and should not be allowed to be certified organic. For perennials, the nitrogen feeding limit is calculated on an annual basis.”

This proposed language implies that perennials would need to be transplanted each year to a new container. In addition, it also has implications for growers using the larger volume containers for staked vegetable plants that are grown to the Canadian Organic Standard regarding how they manage multiple crops after their first production cycle.

Transplants, ornamentals, herbs, sprouts, fodder, and aquatic plants are proposed to be exempted from these requirements.

The Subcommittee votes on the proposals were to make aeroponics a prohibited practice by an 8 to 1 vote, to make aquaponics a prohibited practice by a 7 to 2 vote, to make hydroponics a prohibited practice by a 6 to 3 vote and to create the nitrogen formulas by a 6 to 3 vote.

Additional Discussion and Alternative Framework Proposed by Minority of Crops Subcommittee
The web conference call conducted by the Crops Subcommittee and attended by the full membership of the NOSB on August 14, 2017 indicated that a two-thirds majority of the entire board might not support the same restrictions being proposed by the majority of the Crops Subcommittee to revoke certifications for many current organic operations.

The minority view of the Crops Subcommittee wishes to delay votes on the topic for at least one more meeting to more fully explore other options and approaches. In general, the minority view believes that organics is about more than just the soil. They state “Members of the organic community were drawn to organic foods and production for various reasons, including but not limited to: Environmental impacts of agriculture, resource conservation, avoidance of highly toxic synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, believed health benefits, local agriculture, etc. Some of these aspects were included in the law and regulations, while others were left out. Most members of the organic community are motivated by these concerns and more, each to varying degrees. Each of these concerns have tradeoffs which need to be balanced.”

More specifically, the minority view looks to build on the 2010 Recommendation that focused on the need to nurture the proper biology with their accompanying ecologies. The minority proposal focuses on how to develop a production standard that can verify the presence of a complex biology. Their initial suggestion, for which they request feedback from the industry, is to require the presence of at least four trophic levels present in the system.

“The minority view is based upon the beliefs that organic production should enforce responsible stewardship practices, address sustainability and conservation of resources (e.g. land, water, on-farm inputs, energy, biodiversity), and allow for novel developments in organic food production systems that assist in providing greater access of organic food to consumers.”

Justifications Given for Crops Subcommittee Proposal
The Crops Subcommittee states that the job of the NOSB is to be the “gatekeepers of the organic label.” In other words, it is their job to decide who can use the label and who should not be allowed to use the USDA Organic label.

The further state that the integrity of the USDA organic seal is “built upon the primacy of soil stewardship.” Other organic principles such as supporting and enhancing biodiversity, minimizing the negative effects of farming and producing safe, nutrition and tasty food are secondary to soil.

The Crops Subcommittee suggests that plants grown hydroponically are inferior to organic soil grown product since plants produced in containers have fewer metabolites because they have not been stressed as much as plants grown in the ground; there are differences in flavor and nutrition based upon different biology in the root zone; there are dangerous concentration of nitrates in the leaves of leafy greens grown using hydroponic production; hydroponics systems use too much energy; and a lack of “resilience.”

The Crops Subcommittee states that since Aquaponic Systems are hydroponic, they would not be eligible for certification. In addition, aquaponics would need to prove that they do not cause widespread food borne illness before being allowed for reconsideration for potential certification.

The Crops Subcommittee uses proposed Canadian standards and general organic guidelines from the British Soil Association as the justification for the limitations on post planting fertility additions and the use of liquid fertilizers.

The Crops Subcommittee also imply that any nutrients supplied through the irrigation system are the equivalent of non-organic nitrogen fertilizers.

Sprouts are exempted based on the idea that they only need water to grow. Seedlings and transplants are said to be “future crops” so they should be exempted since they will ultimately spend the majority of their time growing in the soil. Mushrooms are exempt since they are fungi and “don’t have a direct link to soil.” The Crops Subcommittee suggest that mushrooms may eventually need additional rulemaking.

No justification was given for the exemptions for herbs and ornamentals. There was a discussion of the wild harvested plant standard when discussing aquatic plants, but doubt remained over whether aquatic plants should wait until USDA publishes a final standard on aquaculture. So while the proposal states they should be exempt, the justification for the proposed standard contains contradictory information.

Short Rebuttal of Assertions of Crops Subcommittee
Nearly all the studies cited by the Crops Subcommittee look at non-organic hydroponic production systems. The Crops Subcommittee did not cite a single study showing any differences in nutrition or composition of organic foods harvested from organic hydroponic systems versus organic soil systems. The Crops Subcommittee did not cite a single study to support their assertion that organic hydroponic leafy greens contain different amounts of nitrates than field grown organic leafy greens. Based upon the definition of “resilience” for a production system, any crop grown in the field and subject to a complete loss from an ice storm and a flock of birds outside in the same ice storm suffering losses would also be non-resilient, so it is unclear what the standard for resilience would be.

In addition, the Crops Subcommittee continued to ignore the biological analysis included in the Hydroponic and Aquaponic Task Force report that showed even higher levels of biological activity and diversity in the organic hydroponic systems sampled relative to the levels typically found in healthy organic soils by the laboratory that conducted the analysis.

The Crops Subcommittee did not acknowledge (or know) that not all sprouts are grown only in water (so are sprouts requiring some outside nutrition now need to be classified as herbs to be exempt?). In addition, no additional guidance was given for how much time a plant for transplanting/seedling can be in a container (half their life, until fruit is harvested, a certain number of days?). In addition, no definitions were given to determine the difference between an herb, a microgreen and a leafy vegetable to know exactly what is exempt and what is not.

In fact, the justification given are so flawed that even the minority position of the Crops Subcommittee states, “It would be difficult for the NOP to implement [the proposed regulation] without additional justification.”

Next Steps
Your membership is critical to the efforts to secure a bright and sustainable future for a growing organic industry. Please consider joining the Coalition for Sustainable Organics. While we have made noteworthy progress in strengthening the legitimacy of container production systems with members of the National Organic Standards Board and with members of the organic establishment, much more work needs to be done to secure your right to continue to select the most appropriate site-specific solutions and production methods for your operations. Even if our efforts have helped win your crop an exemption under the current proposal, the justifications used by the Crops Subcommittee are so weak that your exemption could be under jeopardy again if the NOSB needs to make its recommendation logically consistent.    

There are several ways for you to communicate with the members of the NOSB. These include written comments and oral comments. You can send your written comments through Regulations.gov through October 11. You can sign up to give testimony via webinar on October 24 or to sign up to give testimony in person on October 31 in Jacksonville, Florida.

The Crops Subcommittee appears to view organic production as a system of input substitution rather than a systems approach. Rather than thinking about how their farm is part of a larger system of cycling nutrients, they look to a checklist of potential nutrient sources such as compost, cover crops and items on an OMRI approved list. Rather than carefully thinking about how each of their production decisions impacts the biology in their system, they assume that the “magic” of the soil takes care of everything.

You can help set the record straight and ultimately strengthen the organic industry if you take the time to help educate the members of the NOSB on the importance of systems approaches, even if your product is currently exempted from the proposal. You can do this by explaining your organic systems plan, what environmental and other factors influenced your decision to use containers for certain crops, where your supplies come from (residues of plant and animal sources with some mined products), how you use biology to make nutrients available for your crops, what you do to optimize the biology in your system (your lab results which guide your choices of substrates, irrigation schedules, organic teas, inoculants, etc.), how you recycle materials (from irrigation water to composting green waste to reusing containers), and how you listen to the priorities of your customers (reducing residues on your product, using non-GMO seeds and being resource efficient). This can hopefully guide the thoughts of the NOSB members back into a more useful discussion regarding the future of various organic production systems.

Washington, DC, July 13, 2017 – Theo Crisantes Vice President of Operations for Wholesum Harvest and Board member of the Coalition for Sustainable Organics (CSO) was invited to testify at the Senate Agriculture Committee Hearing on “Opportunities in Global and Local Markets, Specialty Crops, and Organics: Perspectives for the 2018 Farm Bill” to share his concerns about recent attempts to limit the availability of organic produce.  Mr. Crisantes explained to the Committee how the uncertainty created by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has limited his willingness to expand production.

“The NOSB has drafted and considered proposals to eliminate containerized and hydroponic growing methods from organic certification,” said Mr. Crisantes. “These growing methods, which have been certified by USDA since the inception of the organic program, are crucial to meeting the rising consumer demand for organic produce.”

Mr. Crisantes identified three actions to strengthen and streamline the organic policy making process, (1) allowing for expanded diversity of the NOSB to allow for a greater variety of viewpoints, (2) increased transparency, and (3) a stronger role for the NOP in setting NOSB priorities and regulatory actions.

Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts opened the hearing expressing concern that organic regulations and the operations of the National Organics Standards Board had exposed “uncertainty and dysfunction” in the process to maintain strong and transparent development of organic standards.

“These problems create an unreliable regulatory environment and prevent farmers that choose organics from utilizing advancements in technology and operating their businesses in an efficient and effective manner,” stated Chairman Roberts.  “Simply put, this hurts producers and economies in rural America.”

Comprised of growers from across the country, CSO is committed to maintaining the USDA’s high standards for certifying organic produce and supports the continued allowance of containerized growing methods under the National Organic Program.

“Conflicted” is the most common sentiment of National Organic Standards Board members moving forward on the issue of the role of containers in the USDA organic program

The members of the Crops Subcommittee of the NOSB who wrote the Discussion Document calling for the elimination of hydroponic, aquaponic and aeroponic production methods from the USDA organic program presented the basis for their document and then invited feedback from each of the board members individually at the recently concluded Spring 2017 NOSB meeting in Denver. The most common theme emerging from the thoughts shared by the board members was the sense that they were “conflicted.” Most board members expressed that they thought organics is primarily about the soil, but that container systems seemed to have an important place as well in organics.

On one extreme, there are still board members that would like the ultimate decision to result in as large a restriction of supplies as possible to help raise prices for small organic farms that harvest their crops from the soil. At the other extreme, one member urged the board to make sure that the entire spectrum of container definitions and issues were fully studied and discussed before votes to restrict production systems such as aeroponics and aquaponics to move forward. Most members expressed a desire to find some type of “compromise” that would restrict some current production of organics, but to include enough container production systems to avoid the rise of a strong competitive label (similar to non-GMO certified) for growers using container production systems.

Agreements by NOSB Regarding Process to Make Decisions on Containers

The board members also expressed a sense of conflict in pushing forward in an expedited manner to give more certainty to growers and the organic trade in resolving the issue of what systems should or should not be allowed under the USDA organic label. At the same time, they also expressed concern about making sure that they had enough information to make an informed decision and that the organic community would have a chance to fully vet and respond to any proposal so that any decision by the NOSB would have credibility in the eyes of the industry, USDA and elected officials.

One board member specifically expressed concern that the animal welfare rule is suffering delays and is under attack by some organic producers because not all aspects of the rule were well justified and explained during the policy development process. Some would like to minimize the risk to the credibility of any future proposed rule by making sure that the NOSB allows time for real public input and participation, even if it means delaying a vote until the Spring of 2018.

As part of the effort to create more consensus with the entire board, the Crops Subcommittee invited and expects all members of the board to participate on the conference calls of the Subcommittee when the issue of containers is discussed. If the NOSB completes their analysis quickly, we may see a formal proposal by the Fall 2017 NOSB meeting. If the members of the NOSB do not feel ready to have a more complete proposal ready by then, they may present yet another discussion document in the Fall with the expectation of having a formal recommendation ready for the Spring 2018 meeting.

Most Frequent Requests for More Information

The members of the board identified several items either during their formal discussion or through questions asked to the public presenting testimony. Those items included more detailed information about

• the quantity and diversity of biology in various productions systems,
• the composition of substrates used in container systems,
• the types of fertility sources used, and
• the market volume and/or market share for product grown in containers.

The members also expressed an interest in visiting more operations to better understand the diversity of the production systems as well as the commonality between different operations. They requested to the USDA to investigate if a budget could be obtained for all the members of the NOSB to visit farms together and what public meeting requirement may exist that could restrict NOSB members’ ability to gather outside of a formal meeting.

Please let us know if you are willing to host a visit from either NOSB members in your area or for a visit by the full board.

Summary of Written Comments and Public Testimony

Members of the public including farmers, consumers and trade associations submitted over 1,000 written comments regarding the proposed restrictions on container production systems. Nearly all were letters speaking in general terms. Many wrote in support of the sustainability, efficient resource use, legitimacy and sensibility of continued certification for growers incorporating containers in their production. The other side focused on the necessity of active soil management as a requirement for organic systems. Just a few submissions went into more detail responding to the questions posed by the Crops Subcommittee regarding container production and the use of nutrition delivered in liquid form to the biology surrounding the roots of the plant.

Supporters of container production systems outnumbered during the verbal testimony section of the meeting by over a 2 to 1 margin of those stating the organics should only be produced in soil with limited exceptions. The NOSB members seemed much more engaged with their questions to speakers compared to the 2016 NOSB meetings.

Leading points made by the pro-container side included the following:

• Containers allow for more efficient use of land, water and fertility inputs relative to soil systems;
• Growers should not be asked to incorporate wasteful production practices or inputs in order to meet an arbitrary requirement for certification;
• Virtually all nutrients are taken up by a plant in a liquid form by the root;
• While everyone would like strong and clear regulations, we should make sure there is flexibility for future improvements in production practices since we are in the early stages of understanding optimal biological balances and plant needs in container systems;
• The definitions proposed in the discussion document are unclear to allow for a clear classification of production methods; therefore, the NOSB should consider first defining required root zone dynamics first; and
• Organic consumers overwhelming look to a clean product that is healthy for them as a top priority over issues such as the growing media of the plant.

Leading points made by the anti-container side included the following:

• Organics is primarily about improving the health of the soil;
• Attempts to define organics based upon biology or inputs are wrong;
• Eliminating competition coming from organics grown in containers will help allow small farms to benefit from higher suppliers based on restricted supplies; and
• Exceptions should be made for plantlets and nursery stock that benefit soil farmers.

Join the Coalition for Sustainable Organics

Please consider joining the Coalition for Sustainable Organics. While we have made significant progress in strengthening the legitimacy of container production systems with members of the National Organic Standards Board and with the active members of the organic establishment, much more work needs to be done to secure your right to continue to select the most appropriate site specific solutions and production methods for your operations. The Coalition will continue to educate the NOSB, USDA and elected officials, but we need your help. Your membership makes our voice much more powerful in influencing the struggle to keep container methods in the USDA organic program.

View in their newsletter

About every five years the Federal Government passes a massive, far-reaching “Farm Bill” with the main aim of providing an adequate national supply of food and nutrition. The Bill affects all facets of the U.S. food system including nutrition assistance, crop subsidies, crop insurance, research, and conservation. The 2014 Farm Bill directed the spending of about $450 billion.

Unfortunately, in recent decades, the Farm Bill has become a boondoggle for “corporate mega-farms”; multi-billion dollar operations that control vast acreage. The Farm Bill has failed to provide commensurate assistance to urban farmers. In effect, our government is using our tax dollars to give an advantage to corporate mega-farms over our small urban farms. Sad.

For example, the Farm Bill is the main reason high-fructose corn syrup is so cheap and loaded into 70% of food in the grocery store. In his book, Food Fight: The Citizens Guide to the Next Food and Farm Bill, Daniel Imhoff writes: “Fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains – the foods most recommended by the USDA dietary guidelines – are largely ignored by Farm Bill policies.”

The Farm Bill has provided us a large, reliable quantity of food, but a food system racked with economic consolidation, environmental damage, and poor health outcomes.

The Urban Agriculture community has a great opportunity to shape the 2018 Farm Bill for two big reasons: 1) we offer benefits that appeal to politicians across the political spectrum, and 2) the public is already with us on this issue, ahead of the politicians.

Urban Agriculture boasts the following benefits that politicians love to hear:

• Year-round controlled-environment jobs and local economic growth;
• More fresh food to improve our diets and lower healthcare costs;
• Less waste from food spoilage and food transport; and
• Better food security.

The American consumers’ spending habits show that they are ahead of the politicians on this issue: Consumer Reports found an average price premium of 47% on a sample of 100 USDA Organic products. If folks are willing to pay 47% more for organic, then they are also willing to call their representative’s office, attend a town hall meeting, and show up at the ballot box. The energy to make the change already exists, we just need to channel it.

We have already seen the first step to shifting the Farm Bill toward our direction: Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), the top Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, recently introduced the Urban Agriculture Act of 2016. The goal for the Act is to be eventually included as its own Title of the 2018 Farm Bill.

Here are some provisions of the Act:

• expands USDA authority to support urban farm cooperatives;
• makes it easier for urban farms to apply for USDA farm programs;
• explores market opportunities and technologies for lowering energy and water use;
• expands USDA loan programs to cover urban farm activities;
• provides an affordable risk management tool for urban farms to protect against crop losses;
• creates a new urban agriculture office to provide technical assistance; and
• expands resources to research, test, and remediate contaminated urban soils.

In Washington, DC, change is sometimes painfully slow. Positive changes for Urban Agriculture are by no means a foregone conclusion, especially in our unpredictable political environment. Politicians need to see that this issue will move votes.

So let’s stress our message and get the word out now, the politicians are ready to listen. Urban Agriculture offers jobs; fresh food and better health; less waste; and better food security. The legislative soil is fertile my agricultural amigos, now it’s our job to plant the seeds of an urban-friendly Farm Bill!

One way to stay involved is to sign up for the Aquaponics Association’s 2018 Farm Bill Coalition. Or there are many other groups that will be getting involved, including a few listed below.

Here’s some related resources to learn more:

• National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition Farm Bill Primer
• Haas Institute: The U.S. Farm Bill; Corporate Power and Structural Racialization in the United States
• Food Tank, the Think Tank for Food
• Association for Vertical Farming
• Congressional Research Service 2014 Farm Bill: Summary and Side-by-Side
• Congressional Research Service The Role of Local Food System in U.S. Farm Policy
• The Atlantic: Overhauling the Farm Bill; the Real Beneficiaries of Subsidies

Brian Filipowich
Director of Public Policy
The Aquaponics Association