What’s Behind Regenerative Food Label Claims?

Everybody has heard the word ‘regenerative’ applied to agriculture and farming these days. It seems to be on everybody’s lips and all over the media. It’s as if organic has been forgotten and something new has come to take its place. People and organisations have and will continue to have opinions on this, some saying regenerative offers more than organic (social, carbon sequestration?), perhaps others, a pathway to organic, still others, its faux organic. It’s possible all opinions are true.

Friends of the Earth (FOE) USA has just published a review of ten ‘regenerative’ food labels. The 60-page document is aimed at consumers and buyers so is written to be accessible to those communities but is a comprehensive review which focuses on three main pillars of ‘regenerative’; agrochemicals and related practices, soil health practices and what they refer to as ‘standard integrity’. The focus is also on crop production and does not go into depth on livestock. The authors freely admit that such schemes may set standards and offer other benefits such as on social compliance and farmer training which were beyond the scope of the study.

Not all the programs studied use the term ‘regenerative’. Six that do are Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC), Certified Regenerative by A Greener World (AGW), Certified Regenerative by Regeneration International (RI), Regenified, Regenagri and Rainforest Alliance Regenerative. The four that do not, are USDA Organic (NOP), Real Organic Project (ROP), Demeter Biodynamic and Soil & Climate Health Initiative Verified (SCHIV). The authors recognize that ROC and ROP require USDA Organic as a prerequisite, the demands of which is of course legally defined.