Statement on Regenerative
June 2026
Interest in regenerative agriculture has grown rapidly in recent years, and we view this as a positive development. Farmers, consumers, food companies, and policymakers are increasingly recognizing the need to support agricultural systems that restore soil health, biodiversity, water quality, while strengthening rural communities and building resilience in the face of climate change. The growing interest in regenerative agriculture reflects a welcome desire to move beyond extractive and polluting models of production and toward farming systems that renew and restore the natural resources upon which food production depends.
At the same time, the growing popularity of regenerative agriculture has created a fundamental challenge: it is often unclear whether people are talking about the same thing when they express support for regenerative agriculture. Despite widespread use of the term, regenerative has no single agreed-upon definition. Today it is used to describe a wide range of farming systems, standards, certifications, corporate initiatives, and marketing claims—many of which differ substantially in both philosophy and practice. As a result, two people may both support regenerative agriculture while envisioning very different approaches to farming. This lack of clarity creates confusion for farmers, buyers, policymakers, and consumers, and makes it difficult to distinguish between genuinely regenerative systems and conventional practices repackaged under a new name.
We believe regenerative agriculture should be understood as an approach to farming that works with living biological systems rather than relying on synthetic inputs to replace or override them. A truly regenerative system seeks to restore ecological function, support healthy soil biology, enhance biodiversity, and strengthen the relationships—both natural and social—that sustain agricultural productivity over time.
For this reason, we believe farming systems that use toxic synthetic pesticides or synthetic fertilizers cannot be considered regenerative. Synthetic pesticides are designed to disrupt living biological systems, while regenerative agriculture is founded on the principle of supporting those systems for the purpose of growing food and fiber. Likewise, synthetic nitrogen fertilizers replace biological nutrient-cycling processes with fossil-fuel-intensive manufactured inputs and have been shown to undermine the soil ecology that regenerative agriculture seeks to build.
We are concerned by efforts that blur these distinctions. Too often, the language, imagery, and aspirations of truly regenerative agriculture are used to market systems that remain fundamentally dependent on synthetic fertilizers and toxic pesticides. When the term regenerative is used to describe both approaches, meaningful distinctions are lost, public understanding is weakened, and the work of farmers who have invested in truly regenerative systems is undermined.
We recognize that farming is complex and that no system is perfect. We also recognize that farmers may be on different points along a transition journey. However, pathways and transition programs must have a meaningful destination. If regenerative claims are used to communicate value to buyers, brands, retailers, and consumers, those claims should be transparent, verified, and tied to measurable improvements that ultimately move agriculture away from dependence on synthetic fertilizers and toxic pesticides. We have seen too many claims, certifications, and corporate initiatives using the term regenerative that fail to do so.
We further recognize that regenerative agriculture did not emerge in a vacuum. Organic farmers have spent decades developing and demonstrating farming systems that build soil health, increase biodiversity, reduce pollution, and produce food without synthetic fertilizers or toxic synthetic pesticides. While organic is not perfect and should continue to evolve, it remains the most established, regulated, and widely implemented regenerative framework operating at scale today. For consumers seeking to support regenerative farming through their purchasing decisions, certified organic and regenerative organic certified remain the most transparent, verifiable, and widely available options in the marketplace.
Regenerative agriculture should be a broad and inclusive movement, but inclusivity must not come at the expense of integrity. Any vision of regenerative agriculture that excludes organic farming—or that allows continued dependence on synthetic fertilizers and toxic pesticides—fails to address some of the most important drivers of ecological degradation in agriculture.
The future of regenerative agriculture depends not on broader marketing language, but on a shared commitment to agricultural systems that genuinely restore the health of soils, ecosystems, communities, and future generations.
Additional resources:
Friends of the Earth no-till report: https://foe.org/resources/rethinking-no-till/
Friends of the Earth labels guide: https://foe.org/resources/label-guide/
Organic is regenerative toolkit from OFRF: https://ofrf.org/organic-is-regenerative/
Statement by IFOAM International: https://www.ifoam.bio/news/elevating-truly-regenerative-agriculture
