The State of California is in the Process of Defining "Regenerative Agriculture" and the Consequences for Organic Could Be Severe

(Image from the California Department of Food and Agriculture)

This is Part II of a two-part series on “sustainable” certifications. Part I is here.

If you are new to our newsletter, Organic Inisder accepts no advertising, has no paywalls and makes its newsletters free to everyone because vital information about our industry needs to get out to as many people as possible. Please consider supporting our work, whether you are an individual or a company. Thank you so much.

Despite its tremendous importance, there is no widely accepted definition of “regenerative agriculture.” As a result, it has become a highly contentious subject among various factions of the organic community.

Now, the state of California appears poised to step into the fray and legally define this term, something that could have very serious implications for organic.

At its core, the regenerative agriculture controversy stems from the question of whether a farming practice can be truly “regenerative” if super-toxic chemicals, such as glyphosate or dicamba, are applied to the crops.

With an estimated 60 harvests remaining and no time to waste, there is one camp that believes we must persuade as many farmers as possible to switch from chemical-intensive, monocropping to regenerative farming, a practice that may include cover crops, crop rotation and less tillage — and allowing for some chemicals to be used. This camp also contends that trying to push conventional farmers to organic, many of whom have an inherent aversion to this method of farming, is an ineffective strategy, and meeting farmers where they are is the best and most expeditious way to reduce the overall application of chemicals and improve soil health.

On the opposite side, there is a contingent of organic advocates who believe that if any amount of super-toxic chemicals are used, it cannot be “regenerative.” These individuals maintain that the term “regenerative” needs to be used in conjunction with organic, whether it is the Regenerative Organic Certified® label or alongside the USDA certified organic seal.

There is no question that the regenerative movement has brought incredible attention to soil health, certainly buoyed by the hit Netflix movie Kiss the Ground, and that it has led to very important steps forward in farming practices around the world.

But with all of the positive developments, “regenerative” is ripe for abuse and greenwashing, and the multinational chemical companies, who have no intention of minimizing the importance of GMO seeds and synthetic pesticides, are eagerly embracing the term.

“As regenerative agriculture becomes the norm, farmers will have access to more sound, scientific analysis and advice than ever before,” said Erik Fyrwald, CEO of Syngenta Group, one of the world’s largest pesticide and fertilizer companies.

WHAT CALIFORNIA’S ACTION COULD MEAN FOR ORGANIC

Last fall, the California State Board of Food and Agriculture, an advisory board to the governor, asked for assistance from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and its Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory Panel (EFA SAP) to help define “regenerative agriculture.” The State Board believes that California needs a definition to help align work across state agencies to better support farmers and ranchers in mitigating climate change, improving soil health, restoring biodiversity and enhancing ecosystems.

On May 11th, EFA SAP sent back its findings and spelled out five core components of this definition: being useful to the state’s agriculture sector, leading to positive climate and other impacts, providing measurable outcomes, allowing for context-specific outcomes and building soil health as a foundational element.

Nowhere in the recommendations did it mention anything about prohibited pesticides or organic.

If California codifies or legally defines “regenerative agriculture” using the recommendations from the EFA SAP, it will certainly raise the profile of this term among consumers and farmers may end up paying more attention to the way they manage their soil, which is a real positive.

However, both the opportunity for greenwashing and the consequences for organic could be severe.

GMO farms could make very minor changes to the way they farm, if at all, and these “regenerative” monocropping farms that still use heavy amounts of pesticides could be sold to both politicians and consumers as climate-friendly.

Additionally, conventional brands could start labeling their products as “regenerative,” claiming that their suppliers are practicing this method of agriculture, based on California’s official definition.

In both of these cases, assuming no third-party certification is used, who would verify the “regenerative” claims?

According to a CDFA spokesperson, California has no intention of creating its own certification. So, a company could essentially utilize a self-reporting system with no checks.

Based on data from the 2023 U.S. Grocery Shopping Trends report, consumers are already seeking out “natural” ahead of “certified organic.” If California codifies this definition of “regenerative” — a term that would not preclude the use of GMOs and toxic pesticides — there would be yet another “seemingly-sustainable” label potentially taking further market share.

Elizabeth Whitlow, executive director of the Regenerative Organic Alliance, which oversees the Regenerative Organic Certified® label, believes the state needs to act with real caution.

“There are many groups and farmers advocating for ‘regenerative agriculture’ that are doing some excellent and extremely vital work. My concern, however, is that if the state defines ‘regenerative agriculture’ and it excludes organic, it could have the unintended effect of actually doing a lot more harm than good. Bad actors greenwashing the term is a real threat, and all stakeholders in California’s organic industry need to be fully engaged and on board with how the state is going to define ‘regenerative agriculture.’ The stakes are very high, for both California and our entire country, and this process cannot be rushed.”

This summer or fall, the State Board plans to facilitate a public engagement process on the topic of defining “regenerative agriculture.”

With gratitude, Max Goldberg, Founder