Not Just Another Organic: Defining Regenerative Agriculture

While our current agricultural system is fueling climate change and soil degradation, there is reason to believe that agriculture is also a source of hope. In the past few years, an approach to farming known as regenerative agriculture has emerged as a potential climate and soil health solution. This farming approach incorporates practices that enhance soil health–such as minimizing tillage, keeping the soil covered by planting cover crops, integrating animals, using compost and manure, and increasing crop diversity. Proponents of regenerative agriculture claim that it can not only improve soil quality and sequester greenhouse gases (Kenne & Kloot 2019), but also make farmland more resilient in the face of unpredictable weather conditions, improve farmers’ profits, and improve the nutrient density of our food (Rodale Institute 2016).

As more attention is drawn to the possible benefits of regenerative agriculture, and consumer interest in regeneratively grown products has increased, more people and businesses have sought to get involved, including well-known companies like General Mills, Danone, and Patagonia. While these companies’ efforts have been widely lauded, they also raise concern regarding greenwashing, which is defined as “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service” (UL 2020). There have been efforts to establish clarity on regenerative agriculture, but a universal definition has remained elusive, and there is currently no regulation of the use of the word “regenerative” in food labels or advertisements.

My research examines the wide range of perspectives on regenerative agriculture. Through my research, I attempt to understand how stakeholders define regenerative agriculture, if there are commonalities among the various definitions/perspectives, and whether there are best practices for preventing greenwashing. Further, I explore how stakeholders envision the movement growing and changing as the demand for regenerative continues to grow. This research relies on primary data collected from stakeholders involved in regenerative agriculture.

Methods

Between October 2019 and February 2020, I conducted 14 interviews, one of which was with two individuals, with people working in regenerative agriculture. This group included 4 farmers and ranchers, 6 nonprofit organizations, 4 investors, 4 for-profit companies and a soil scientist. Some of those interviewed belonged to multiple stakeholder groups. To identify the individuals engaged in regenerative agriculture, I relied on social networks and the method of snowball sampling. The process involved searching for regenerative-focused organizations online, using personal contacts, and asking participants for the names of others involved in regenerative agriculture. I conducted semi-structured interviews over the phone with these individuals, which lasted between 30 minutes and one hour. The interviews were recorded, and later transcribed. The transcripts were next coded and analyzed, using ATLAS.ti software.

Results and Analysis

Defining Regenerative Agriculture

Nearly all the interviewees indicated that the purpose of regenerative agriculture is to improve the natural environment and the soil. As one farmer explained, “degenerative, you’re losing organic matter. Sustainable, you’re keeping the same total organic matter you have now. Regenerative, you say ‘wow this isn’t very good, we got to start to fix it,’ in such a way that we actually build soil organic matter. And when we rebuild, we actually make the soil get healthier.” Some stakeholders took a broader view of the purpose of regenerative than just improving soil health, but the emphasis on improving soil health and the environment in general was nearly unanimous.

Despite the agreement on the purpose of regenerative, the stakeholders’ perspectives diverged when it came to what practicing regenerative agriculture should entail. When asked which practices should be considered regenerative, the most common practices identified by respondents were no-till or low-till farming, cover crops, using compost and manure, integrating animals, and minimizing synthetic input usage. However, a common theme that emerged was that most stakeholders felt that defining regenerative agriculture through a list of practices is missing the point, because regenerative agriculture, by design, is place-specific, holistic, and should strive to mimic a particular area’s natural landscape. One for-profit stakeholder explained, “the reality is that farming on the coast of California versus farming in Hawaii versus farming in Iowa is very different, and your land versus your neighbor’s land could even be very different….like, no-till–we know that tilling the soil is not so great for fungal communities and releases a ton of carbon. But there may come a moment when on your farm, that’s the best way to deal with something. So the answer, unfortunately, is ‘it depends.’”

“It depends” was a common sentiment among stakeholders. Unfortunately, it poses a formidable challenge for regulating regenerative: an overly-strict definition would exclude some legitimately regenerative individuals, while a looser definition would allow room for greenwashing.

Organic vs. Regenerative

The challenges of defining and regulating regenerative are perhaps best exemplified by the debate over whether regenerative agriculture must be organic. Some have suggested that regenerative may become “the next organic” (Hensel 2018). However, the discussion surrounding organic in the regenerative community is particularly contentious, and several stakeholders acknowledged tension between organic and regenerative advocates.

When asked if regenerative agriculture must be organic, the consensus was clear. 12 out of 15 individuals said that regenerative does not need to be organic, while three felt that it does. Among those 12, though, the majority (8) felt that regenerative farming should be organic in nearly all cases, but should allow for the occasional use of chemicals if the circumstances require them. Of the three who said regenerative must be organic, two conceded that chemicals might be necessary during the transition to regenerative, but should be prohibited after that. No stakeholders felt that chemical usage didn’t matter at all. One of the most popular reasons that stakeholders were wary of requiring organic methods was the idea that in certain scenarios, chemicals are a necessary safety net. One for-profit stakeholder pointed out that although his organization uses organic methods as a baseline, “if you have a buckthorn problem in your woods, good luck trying to get rid of it with a chainsaw, with organic methods.”

 A rancher summed up the challenge well: “I do think you can use herbicides and pesticides to be regenerative as well. But not a lot of them, and if you use them all the time, you’re not.” The question, then, is how much is “a lot,” and just how often is “all the time?” These thresholds, though, are context- and place-specific, which makes drawing a rigid line very difficult.

 Greenwashing

All 15 individuals agreed that regenerative creates an opportunity for greenwashing, and many felt that greenwashing is already happening. The degree of concern about this problem varied. Most hoped to see action to prevent greenwashing, while a smaller number (2) acknowledged that greenwashing would happen, but accepted it as an inevitable byproduct of a new movement. One nonprofit stakeholder explained, “sustainable got overused so much. And now no one trusts that term when describing food or a food system or a product, like, well what do you mean sustainable?And I do fear that regenerative may become that one day if we’re not extremely precise about what we mean.”

When asked what they thought would help prevent greenwashing, the answers varied widely. The most common responses were consumer education (9 stakeholders), followed by government regulation and third party certification (6 stakeholders), and increased financial and technical support for farmers and ranchers to transition to regenerative. (5 stakeholders).

While the majority of stakeholders (9) mentioned consumer awareness as a crucial part of avoiding greenwashing, they disagreed about how well consumers understand labels. Some felt that “consumers don’t know what they’re buying,” while others argued that “we have enough consumer awareness for people to dig behind the details and figure out what they’re really buying.” Research, though, supports the idea that consumers, even those who consider themselves “environmentalists,” are often misled by greenwashed labels (Halverson 2018). Despite this disagreement, most felt that consumers would be part of the solution, and that the “nut that needs to be cracked,” as two stakeholders described, is figuring out how to convey the value of regeneratively farmed products to consumers.

Conclusion

 Because of its size, the sample may not be representative of regenerative agriculture stakeholders in general. Thus this analysis should be seen as a preliminary look at some of the challenges of maintaining integrity in a trendy and rapidly growing movement. Regenerative agriculture is particularly challenging to define and to regulate, because its holistic and place-specific nature cannot easily be confined to a list of best practices, and because attempting to do so would inevitably exclude some people who are legitimately regenerative. However, it is also clear that greenwashing poses a substantial challenge for the regenerative movement, and taking no action to prevent it would likely result in the term “regenerative” losing its meaning over time. Stakeholders identified many different strategies for preventing greenwashing, from consumer education to offering economic incentives for farmers to transition.

More research is needed about whether regulation is necessary to prevent greenwashing, and, if so, how policy could overcome some of the challenges identified in this research.

References

 Halverson, R. (2018). Consumer Perceptions of Greenwashing: Understanding Awareness, Trust, and Effectiveness. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Consumer-Perceptions-of-Greenwashing%3A-Understanding-Halverson/068d6def3dbc20283ff5fed8585e0f5347b57251

 Hensel, K (2018). Will Regenerative Agriculture Become the Next ‘Organic’? (n.d.). Retrieved April 23, 2020, from https://www.ift.org/news-and-publications/food-technology-magazine/issues/2018/june/columns/iftnext-regenerative-agriculture

Patagonia. (n.d.) Join Us: The Journey to Regenerative Organic Certification. Retrieved April 23, 2020 from https://www.patagonia.com/stories/join-us-the-journey-to-regenerative-organic-certification/story-33037.html

Kenne, G. J., & Kloot, R. W. (2019). The Carbon Sequestration Potential of Regenerative Farming Practices in South Carolina, USA. American Journal of Climate Change, 08(02), 157. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajcc.2019.82009

 U.L. (n.d.) Sins of Greenwashing. (n.d.). Retrieved April 23, 2020, from https://www.ul.com/insights/sins-greenwashing

 Danone. (n.d.) Regenerative Agriculture.  Retrieved April 23, 2020, from https://www.danone.com/impact/planet/regenerative-agriculture.html.

General Mills. (n.d.) Regenerative Agriculture. Retrieved April 23, 2020 from https://www.generalmills.com/en/Responsibility/Sustainability/Regenerative-agriculture

Rodale Institute. (2016). Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change. Retrieved April 23, 2020 from https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/rodale-white-paper.pdf