What’s preventing better agriculture from being the future of food?

December 20, 2024

Regenerative Agriculture has so much potential to clean up our food system, but why isn’t it widely adopted?

Regenerative agriculture has the potential to transform the way we grow and consume food, offering benefits for people, the planet, and farmers. Unlike conventional farming, which often relies on methods using pesticides and fertilizers, regenerative practices focus on improving soil health, which can lead to more nutrient-dense, healthier food with fewer harmful chemicals. Early research shows that regeneratively grown produce has a better nutritional profile, and pasture-raised meat boasts healthier fats that may reduce chronic diseases like heart disease and inflammation. Regenerative agriculture could create a food system that works better for people and the planet, but what’s stopping it from doing so?

Defining Regenerative Agriculture is Crucial for Its Future

Regenerative agriculture sounds like the perfect solution to many of our food system’s challenges, but the movement is held back by one major problem: there’s no clear, unified definition. While most proponents agree that soil health and fertility are central to regenerative farming, the specifics vary widely. Some organizations focus on improving outcomes like carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and reduced chemical use, while others prioritize specific practices like rotational grazing, cover cropping, and interplanting. This patchwork of principles and certifications creates confusion about what truly qualifies as “regenerative.”

The lack of regulation and standardized definitions has practical consequences. Farmers adopting regenerative practices often face criticism or even accusations of “greenwashing” from purists who believe their methods don’t meet arbitrary standards. Certifying organizations further complicate things with varying rules that sometimes emphasize rigid practices over measurable outcomes. While some flexibility can encourage innovation, overly prescriptive guidelines can stifle progress and discourage farmers from embracing regenerative methods altogether.

Without a clear and regulated definition, regenerative agriculture risks being diluted or misused as a marketing term, eroding trust in its potential. Minor debates over details often lead to infighting among advocates, fracturing the movement and making it harder to bring farmers on board. To truly become the future of food, regenerative agriculture needs consensus on its core principles, balanced with enough flexibility to allow farmers to innovate and adapt to their unique contexts.

The Scalability Problem

One major hurdle holding back regenerative agriculture is scale. Most farms adopting regenerative practices today are small or mid-sized, leaving the vast majority of the nearly 900 million acres of U.S. farmland untouched by this movement. For perspective, while 4.9 million acres are USDA-certified organic, estimates suggest about 1.5% of U.S. farmland – 13.5 million acres – is truly regenerative. Even participation in USDA conservation programs, which cover roughly 100 million acres – only 11% of U.S. farmland, often represents farms using basic conservation practices rather than fully regenerative methods.

Scaling regenerative agriculture to larger farms is challenging. Small operations often have more flexibility to experiment with practices like rotational grazing or cover cropping, but these methods don’t easily translate to the massive monocultures common in industrial farming. Additionally, scaling up regenerative agriculture will require significant investment in technology and innovation to maintain its core principles while meeting the demands of large-scale production.

Without clear standards or widespread incentives, many larger farms are hesitant to adopt regenerative methods. Even with some progress, the movement still leans heavily on independently owned farms, which make up only a fraction of total farmland. To make regenerative agriculture the future of food, we need bold investments, technological breakthroughs, and systems that support both small and large farms in adopting sustainable practices.

Crop Insurance Undermines Regenerative Agriculture

The Farm Bill, which is the only federal policy addressing all things farming, creates significant barriers for regenerative agriculture. While the Farm Bill funds critical conservation programs, accounting for 7% of its budget, it also heavily supports the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP). Originally designed to protect farmers from weather and market risks, the FCIP predominantly favors large-scale, monoculture farms. This leaves regenerative farms with few options for insurance coverage, effectively disincentivizing sustainable practices.

Crop insurance requirements actively penalize regenerative agriculture. Policies often reject practices like intercropping, crop diversity, and cover cropping for deviating from USDA’s Good Farming Practices. These practices, essential for soil health and climate resilience, may lead to denied insurance claims for farmers using them. Additionally, transitioning to regenerative agriculture risks lower yields during the adjustment period, which can jeopardize insurance payouts tied to crop quantity or revenue.

While alternative policies like Whole Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) exist and accommodate regenerative practices, they’re far from accessible. WFRP requires extensive documentation, has higher premiums, and covers only a fraction of U.S. farms – less than 1% in 2021. Custom insurance plans are another option but demand significant research and resources, creating further hurdles for farmers looking to adopt regenerative methods.

These contradictions within federal policies are striking. While USDA conservation programs encourage soil-friendly practices like intercropping, crop insurance rules can punish farmers for implementing them. This misalignment reinforces a cycle where large-scale conventional farms dominate, benefiting from subsidies and guaranteed revenues while sustainable practices are sidelined. To truly support regenerative agriculture, federal farm policy needs to align its conservation goals with its insurance policies, creating a unified framework that rewards, rather than penalizes, sustainability.

Building a Regenerative Future: Defining, Supporting, and Scaling Sustainable Agriculture

Regenerative agriculture offers a powerful solution to many challenges in our food system, prioritizing soil health, biodiversity, and nutrient-dense food while reducing harmful chemical use. Despite its promise, its growth is hindered by unclear definitions, limited scalability, and policy misalignment.

To overcome these barriers, we need standardized definitions that unite the movement. FoodFight USA has supported initiatives like the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s efforts to define regenerative agriculture and believe consistency is key. Technology can also drive progress by helping farmers adopt regenerative practices more efficiently – innovative tools and data-driven solutions can pave the way for large-scale adoption.

Policy reform is crucial to align federal programs with regenerative goals. Agencies like the USDA need to address inconsistencies, such as how the Farm Bill’s crop insurance programs often penalize regenerative practices despite their environmental and health benefits. Revising the Federal Crop Insurance Program to better support regenerative farms and streamlining USDA programs would provide farmers the resources and stability they need to transition.

By clarifying definitions, embracing innovation, and advocating for policy alignment, we can transform regenerative agriculture into the future of food, delivering benefits for farmers, consumers, and the planet.

So, if you think it’s time to clean up our food system, become a FoodFight USA Warrior. Sign up to stay informed with important changes in your food and learn about ways you can make your voice heard.

Are you ready for a FoodFight?