Defining the Future of Regenerative Agriculture
By: Xavier Roberts
If capitalism is a cause of the climate crisis, can it also be a solution? Proponents of carbon offset markets would argue yes. Carbon offsets allow companies to claim “net-zero” emissions, garnering favor amongst consumers who are increasingly concerned with how their purchases impact climate change. Morgan Stanley predicts that carbon offset markets, which are currently around $1-2 billion in size, could boom to $100 billion by 2030 and $250 billion by 2050. A growing player in carbon offset markets is “regenerative agriculture” (RA), but without a formal definition of RA from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there is opportunity for fraud that could undermine market integrity.
RA is a holistic approach to farming that emphasizes the health of soil, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. It has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, increase carbon sequestration, and improve soil health. It can do all this while making farmers more profitable without sacrificing crop yields.
Mega corporations like Apple, Microsoft, BP, Google, and Facebook are positioned to purchase carbon offsets from RA to help achieve their carbon neutrality goals. Similarly, huge food corporations like PepsiCo, Unilever, Mars, and McDonalds are investing scaling up RA throughout their supply chains to meet their commitments to net zero GHG emissions.
However, with the rise of interest in sustainable and RA, there is a need for clear and consistent definitions and regulations to prevent “greenwashing” - when companies make false or misleading claims about their sustainability. A formal definition from the USDA could also catalyze consumer awareness and market demand for “regeneratively grown” products, similar to the market for “USDA organic” goods.
Currently, there is no official definition of RA, which means that the term can be used loosely even while it is unusable for marketing purposes. Furthermore, without clear standards, companies could inaccurately claim their products are regenerative, misleading carbon offset investors and undermining the legitimacy of RA.
To address this problem, the USDA should develop a comprehensive definition of RA and regulations to enforce it. Such regulations could require farmers and companies to meet specific criteria to be labeled as regenerative, similar to how “organics” are regulated. Criteria should include the three core principles of conservation agriculture (no-till, diverse crop rotation, cover cropping, zero tillage) but be flexible enough to accommodate regional adaptations such as intensive rotational cattle grazing. To be considered truly regenerative, farming practices should also be socially responsible, respect animal welfare, and ensure a living wage for farm workers.
Defining regulations for RA has the potential to combat greenwashing. Without precise criteria, businesses could falsely assert that their investments support RA. There is evidence this is already happening. For example, PepsiCo and Unilever are financing farmers under the banner of RA even though farmers are merely “avoiding tilling… as much as possible”, which runs counter to the “no-till” ethos inherent is most RA literature. Such divergencies threaten the effectiveness of RA in reducing GHG emissions and the credibility of the carbon offset market.
Regulations could require companies to provide proof that their investments are truly supporting regenerative practices. This could include documentation of the specific practices being used, monitoring and reporting on the impact on soil health and biodiversity, and certification from a third-party organization.
In addition to preventing greenwashing, regulations could also encourage more farmers to adopt regenerative practices by creating a market for regeneratively produced goods. With a clear and consistent definition of RA, consumers would be able to make informed choices about the products they buy, and farmers would have a clear incentive to adopt regenerative practices. Furthermore, regulations could lead to new financial supports, designed specifically for regenerative farmers, through the USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program or the USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service.
However, there are potential downsides to regulating RA. Some advocates of RA argue that regulations could stifle a farmer’s innovation by limiting the range of practices that are considered regenerative. Furthermore, existing regenerative farmers may lose business if they cannot meet new standards, as occurred in the aftermath of the USDA’s creation of rigid standards for “organic” in 2000. Additionally, if regulations specified the use of certain farm equipment, farmers might face a financial burden to keep producing regeneratively grown crops.
To address these concerns, regulations should be designed to be flexible and adaptable, allowing for innovation and creativity while still maintaining a core set of standards that reflect the dynamic nature of RA. Additionally, to protect existing farmers and ensure the integrity of RA, practitioners and scholars of RA should be involved in the process of crafting regulations.
RA has the potential to play a significant role in reducing GHG emissions, improving soil health, and promoting biodiversity. It could also improve national food security and make farmers more profitable. The median small family farm income was an astonishing -$250 per year in 2021, and regenerative farming systems are more resilient than conventional farms to climate change and herbicide-resistant “superweeds” that could wipe out entire crops and jeopardize domestic and global food supply chains.
Despite all the potential of RA, we still need clear and consistent definitions and regulations to ensure integrity of RA practices and prevent greenwashing. By providing clear standards and regulations, we can ensure that RA is truly sustainable and socially responsible, benefiting both the environment and the people who depend on it.
Xavier Roberts is a graduating MPP student at Duke with a background in education and food policy. At Duke, he has honed his expertise in food policy while growing his knowledge of social policy and fiscal policy.
