Here's a lawsuit that reminds me a bit of the Democratic primary, in a "Why-are-you-fighting-aren't-you-all-supposed-to-be-on-the-same-side" kind of way.

Because personally, I always assumed organic farmers were one big mellow, patchouli-smelling bunch, espousing the virtues of clean eating, chemical-free produce and heirloom squash.

Or not.

It turns out, there's a fierce divide within the organic farming community between those who grow organic crops in the soil and those who grow them in water, or hydroponically. 

The soil farmers just sued the government in a bid to stop their hydroponic competitors from using the organic label, because—as one dirt farmer put it—"The soil is not dead. It's a living creature. A major part of the sanctity of organic agriculture is discovering and honoring the mystery of soil."

Um, OK. If you say so. 

The Center for Food Safety plus a coalition of organic farms and stakeholders sued Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue (no relation to the chicken Perdues) and other USDA officials in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

They say the feds violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Organic Foods Production Act when they refused to initiate a rulemaking that would ban hydroponic farmers from labeling their produce as organic.

Personally, when I buy organic produce, it's because I don't want a mouthful of Roundup along with my strawberries. I never gave much thought to whether the food was grown in soil or water. But the soil camp claims they are the only true "organic" farmers. 

In support, they point to the Organic Foods Production Act, which was passed in 1990 and establishes uniform national production and handling standards for organic food. The law specifies that organic crop production must "foster soil fertility."

"These mandatory, specific soil-based production requirements create an equal marketplace for organic farmers," wrote Center for Food Safety lawyers Sylvia Shih-Yau Wu and Meredith Stevens.

But hydroponic growers don't use soil. That means they "do not foster soil fertility, and cannot meet the requirements for organic certification," the Center for Food Safety lawyers argue.

Gotcha!

Or not. 

When the USDA last year denied the center's rulemaking petition, National Organic Program deputy director Jennifer Tucker offered a different interpretation of the statutory and regulatory language. 

The provisions "do impose certain requirements to maintain or improve soil quality or engage in crop rotation and similar practices," she acknowledged. But the government "disagrees that those statutory and regulatory provisions require that all organic production occur in a soil-based environment. Rather, those provisions are applicable to production systems that do use soil."

Besides, Tucker wrote, it's not like there's anything wrong with hydroponic farming. 

The plaintiffs presented no evidence that hydroponic systems "hinder cycling of resources, ecological balance, or conservation of biodiversity," she wrote. 

On the contrary, hydroponic systems "support microbial diversity and nutrient cycling. These systems can also preserve natural resources, including water and natural environments. These systems can sustain and improve soil and water quality at the sites they occupy, and reduce runoff and soil erosion."

Perhaps the bigger problem is that soil-based farmers are getting squeezed in the marketplace by hydroponic competitors.  

Soil management involves things like mulching and manure application, and that's expensive. "[O]rganic farmers invest their time and labor, and often incur higher costs of production, to practice soil management practices," the complaint states. 

Take plaintiff Swanton Berry Farm in California. It was founded in 1983, when the conventional wisdom held that it wasn't possible to grow a large enough number high-quality organic strawberries and sell them at a low enough price to sustain a business.

Swanton succeeded by painstakingly developing soil-building techniques that give its berries "a more appealing flavor as well as a better nutritional value. The higher-quality fruit could justify a higher price, making the farm financially successful," according to the complaint.

They grow other crops too, and offer year-round employment to workers, with good wages and full benefits. 

Except now, Swanton says it is competing against cheap organic hydroponic strawberries that are being sold "without due regard for the principles of organic farming" as required by the law. 

Hydroponic crops are also available year-round. That's hurting plaintiff Terra Firma Farm, which says it is committed to soil management practices like compost application, cover cropping, and crop rotation to protect its soil, reduce erosion and runoff, retain soil moisture content and build up nitrogen and carbon in the soil. 

The result, they say, is "healthier and more flavorful fruits and vegetables."

The California farm used to dominate the market for early season tomatoes. But now, it says its hydroponic competitors are flooding the market with an inferior product that still gets labeled "organic."

"Terra Firma Farm believes that its soil-grown, early-season tomatoes provide more flavor than those that are grown hydroponically, but because consumers do not have a way of distinguishing between hydroponically produced organic tomatoes and Terra Firma Farm tomatoes sold in stores, they may instead conclude that all early-season tomatoes have less flavor and stop purchasing them."

No hydroponic growers are named in the suit. But their trade group, the Coalition for Sustainable Organics, is nonetheless pushing back publicly. 

"It is disappointing to see groups target pioneering organic farmers that use the most appropriate organic growing methods adapted to their site-specific conditions on their farms to meet the needs of consumers," said the group's executive director, Lee Frankel, in a news release. 

The Center for Food Safety, he added,  "is seeking to eliminate public input to achieve their goals of restricting competition to drive up the price of organics for organic consumers to allow favored producers to increase their profit margins."