Where is Ag on defining regenerative?
The push for a definition
2-min read
This just in:
OMG they need to hurry up.
Legislators need to hurry up and make their own definition, without being swayed by organic lobbysits. The only non-animal regenerative certification that exists right now is tied to organic – the Regenerative Organic Alliance certification, which is a private authority making its own standard.
If California chooses to tie ‘regenerative’ to organic, meaning you can only be certified regenerative if you are also USDA certified organic, then I think that will mean lower adoption rates by farmers, less supply, and even higher prices than organic — at least for most California crops.
Brands are the ones lighting the fire by sponsoring on-farm projects such as The Almond Project with Treehouse Nuts, and KIND’s Almond Acres Initiative with Olam Food Ingredients, neither of which are organic projects.
In terms of spreading the word, the environmental non-profit Kiss the Ground is out there educating consumers, who are still confused. Only 4% of us understand what regenerative is all about.
The point is, ag is not taking the wheel on the topic of regenerative. And that’s a problem. (For a refresher on what regenerative farming practices are, go here).
Instead we have the organic community speaking on behalf of ag: the Regenerative Organic Alliance , California Certified Organic Farmers, and organic rice producer Bryce Lundberg who sits on the State Board of Food and Agriculture. These folks want to attach organic to regenerative – because after decades of trying, certified organic only accounts for 6% of total food sales, and they’d like to bump that statistic. They argue that regenerative is meaningless without organic. But according to many in the industry, that isn’t necessarily true.
According to Cannon Michael, sixth-generation farmer and authority on sustainable farming in California, conventional farming can be better for the environment than organic in some cases. That’s because organic is a substitution of inputs (fertilizer, amendments) which are often more expensive than conventional. And the point is to use less inputs while building up the soil. Regenerative compliments this idea because it is a farming method that does all these great things.
The broader ag community is going to have to accept that a regenerative designation is happening, and there’s an opportunity to own it. Maybe it will involve input reporting – which farmers are already doing (can we consolidate paperwork here… anyone? anyone?) or a sleek tech solution that is burdenless to the farm.
Last week Forbes published a piece called, “What Would Regenerative Farming Mean For Almonds”. Let’s unpack that one next week.
All my best,
Jennifer
NEWS
