There’s currently no widely accepted definition of regenerative agriculture in the U.S. As a result, it’s increasingly becoming a contentious subject among different factions in agriculture and the food industry, including practitioners of both organic and regenerative farming methods. Some say the general public also is confused by the term.
The state of California has decided to fill this void by developing a definition for the term regenerative agriculture.
The groundbreaking initiative is being spearheaded by the California State Board of Food and Agriculture, an advisory board to the governor, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), with assistance from the Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory Panel (EFP SAP).
The First stage of the process towards a definition of regenerative agriculture, a report on findings from the Scientific Advisory Panel, has been completed. It concluded (the key findings) that a definition of regenerative agriculture should provide:
- Positive impacts on California’s environmental, social and economic goals, including climate goals.
- Measurable and verifiable outcomes.
- Context-specific outcomes.
- Healthy soil.
The next step, which is currently in process, is public outreach and engagement. With the Panel’s findings in hand, state agricultural officials are conducting public outreach efforts among key stakeholders. The purpose is to obtain input to help shape the eventual definition of regenerative agriculture. State officials hope to have that definition by the end of this year.
Regenerative agriculture has been around for a long time as a farming practice. Different farmers can and do apply the term and practice differently on the farm but all share a commitment to soil health under the regenerative agriculture banner. How they get there can take numerous different as well as common paths though.
The goal of the California initiative is to develop a broad, basic public understanding of what is meant by regenerative agriculture, according to Karen Ross, CDFA secretary. Regenerative agriculture is becoming more popular so a better common understanding of what it is probably a good idea, both within food and agriculture and among the general public.
The federal government doesn’t have an official definition of regenerative agriculture like, for example, it does, for organic. There are, however, organizations like the Regenerative Organic Alliance and others that offer third-party-certified regenerative agriculture certification and seals to farmers and food company brands. These groups define regenerative agriculture and in order to get certification, farmers and food brands must follow their definitions, guidelines and processes.
The Regenerative Organic Alliance and associations like California Certified Organic Farmers are advocating that any definition of regenerative agriculture needs to include organic within the definition. Organic certification includes grown without pesticides, fungicides and herbicides and non-GMO.
Other stakeholders though don’t see the need to include organic as the foundation of a definition of regenerative agriculture.
Regenerative agriculture as a farming practice exists independently of organic, although many farmers who practice it also practice organic farming. But organic is a certification – for example, you can not use pesticides, herbicides and fungicides on a crop but still not certify it as being organic, which is a 5-year process. Organic also exists independently of regenerative agriculture. Many – perhaps even most – organic farms don’t follow the practice of regenerative agriculture as part of their operations. The two aren’t mutually inclusive in practice.
It’s not a surprise California would tackle an issue, even an extremely ambitious one like defining regenerative agriculture, that the federal government isn’t. The state is the nation’s leading farm state, including when it comes to specialty crops, as well as the most environmentally-forward agriculture region in the U.S. and perhaps the world. California, for example, pioneered organic farming and to a large degree set the standards that were adopted by the federal government.
Whether a definition of regenerative agriculture is needed is a subject for fair debate though. Good arguments pro and con can be made on either side.
The practice is gaining in both attention and popularity though and the fact that most of the crops grown using regenerative agriculture are grown in California puts the Golden State in the driver’s seat for such an initiative, which is in large part the logic behind the California State Board of Food and Agriculture’s decision to define regenerative agriculture from a California perspective.
Because of California’s outsized influence on everything involving food and agriculture policy, the definition the state comes up with will likely have great influence far beyond the Golden State and may even be adopted by the food and agriculture industries nationally as the de facto definition. At present, the federal government hasn’t stated an interest in formally defining regenerative agriculture or in creating a federal certification for it like is the case with organic.
CDFA Secretary Ross also has said that she doesn’t know if the state will create a regenerative agriculture certification program and seal once it has a formal definition for the term and practice.
The food industry, including multi-billion dollar food and beverage giants like Nestle, PepsiCo, General Mills, Kelloggs and others, also have a major interest in California’s defining regenerative agriculture. These and numerous other food companies of all sizes, have and are creating brands differentiated by regenerative agriculture. For example, Kelloggs has introduced a number of food products like breakfast cereal and snack bars under its Kashi brand that feature almonds grown in the Central Valley using regenerative agriculture. General Mills is doing the same thing with its Annie’s brand, as is PepsiCo, with its Quaker Oats brand.
These and other companies also have set up programs where they pay farmers to devote acreage to growing crops using regenerative agriculture. The crops then become the ingredients for food products marketed as regenerative. A growing number of affluent and environmentally-conscious consumers are buying the products despite the fact they sell for considerably higher prices than conventional items. These food companies are investing billions of dollars, including on the farm, in regenerative agriculture initiatives in search of the next hot thing in what is an extremely competitive business, food and grocery.
My analysis is that coming to a formal definition of regenerative agriculture is going to be a very contentious and controversial process for the state officials charged to do so. Even though regenerative agriculture is small at present, the stakes are high and the stakeholders – the organic lobby, big food companies, farmers, food processors, investors – are many.
I think ultimately any definition arrived at will tie organic to regenerative if not for practical reasons – regenerative is all about building soil health, among other things, and conventional wisdom, right or wrong, is that using pesticides, fungicides and herbicides detracts from rather than contributes to soil health – then for political reasons. Regenerative organic is a term already used a lot. But there will be pushback if this is the case because regenerative agriculture in practice is independent of organic agriculture. The two aren’t mutually inclusive.
The larger question to ask is if California needs to define regenerative agriculture? There’s no consensus on that answer either. But the reason it’s happening is because enough stakeholders think the answer is yes and that the time is now. State officials didn’t get the idea to do this in a vacuum, after all.
Lastly, I think that at the end of this process it’s possible the state might punt for now on creating a definition of regenerative agriculture because doing so just might be too contentious and in the final analysis the various stakeholders might not be able to agree on anything meaningful. The worst thing California can do at the end of this year is to create a meaningless definition of regenerative agriculture.
My Job Depends on Ag Magazine columnist and contributing editor Victor Martino is an agrifood industry consultant, entrepreneur and writer. One of his passions and current projects is working with farmers who want to develop their own branded food products. You can contact him at: victormartino415@gmail.com.
