California Weakly Defines Regenerative, Misses Chance for Meaningful Progress

13
Feb

California Weakly Defines Regenerative, Misses Chance for Meaningful Progress

(Beyond Pesticides, February 13, 2025) After months of deliberations and a public comment period, the California State Board of Food and Agriculture (SBFA) on January 10, 2025, formalized a definition of “regenerative agriculture” that is being widely criticized as undermining the transition of agriculture to certified organic practices that eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. The call for the urgent and widespread adoption of organic land management is advanced by those who see organic practices—with its focus on soil health management, a national list of allowed and prohibited substances, an enforcement system, and a prohibition on genetically engineered seeds and plants, synthetic fertility and biosolids—as the only way to effectively address the current health, biodiversity, and climate crises. Nonetheless, the Board’s recommendation, accepted by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), loosely defines regenerative agriculture as “an integrated approach to farming and ranching rooted in principles of soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem resiliency.”

The 15-member SBFA advisory board, appointed by the governor, unanimously finalized a recommendation formally defining “regenerative agriculture,” concluding two years’ worth of workgroups and stakeholder engagement. The proposal, addressed to Secretary Karen Ross, fulfills a Board project outlined in California’s Ag Vision for the Next Decade. It is now the accepted definition of California’s Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). CDFA how points to the definition, saying, “This recommendation is to inform State Agencies, Boards and Commissions on CDFA’s definition of regenerative agriculture as it relates to state policies and programs. This is not a definition for certification.”

The CDFA definition fails to include specific practices or measurable outcomes, and declines to include organic certification as foundational to “regenerative.” It lacks enforceable standards and an acceptable materials (inputs) list, like those required in organic certification, under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). The definition has drawn sharp criticism from organizations including Beyond Pesticides, who argue that the definition is a ‘masterwork in greenwashing.’ “Because there isn’t a definition of allowable practices and materials to which people can be held accountable, those practicing ‘regenerative agriculture’ may continue to use synthetic fertilizers, genetically engineered crops, or biosolids,” remarks Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

The Problem with CDFA’s Approach

Mr. Feldman highlights the core issue: “Strategies that allow continued use of toxic substances undermine the soil biology and biodiversity critical to healthy plants.” The CDFA definition fails to establish accountability by omitting a clear standard for inputs, such as OPFA’s National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. This omission leaves room for practices like synthetic fertilizer use, genetically engineered crops, biosolids, and synthetic pesticides—all explicitly banned in organic systems.

While the CDFA definition of regenerative is not intended for use in a certification process or legal statute, critics argue that without specific, measurable goals, the new definition remains open to interpretation and greenwashing. In Civil Eats reporting, Rebekah Weber, policy director for California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) states, “I could survey 100 farmers and show them this definition and they would each have a different interpretation of what this means, and the verification and accountability pieces just aren’t there.”

By not including verifiable outcomes, the new definition also fails to meet the recommendations provided by the Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory Panel of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The panel, composed of subject matter experts from around the state, was asked to provide input regarding the definition. A May 2023 letter from the panel to SBFA Chair Don Cameron repeatedly emphasized the need for “providing measurable and verifiable outcomes.”

CDFA’s reliance on other frameworks, like California’s Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) Roadmap and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) further exacerbates the problem. As Beyond Pesticides previously critiqued in its analysis of California’s SPM Roadmap, IPM allows for continued reliance on toxic chemicals under the guise of “sustainability.” Without a prohibition on synthetic inputs, including synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, regenerative agriculture risks has become another vague term, subject to the interpretation of individual practitioners, that prioritizes some degree of change over transformative solutions.

Background

CDFA’s definition of regenerative agriculture evolved from priorities identified in Ag Vision, a 10-year plan for California’s agricultural industry, led by SBFA and published by CDFA in 2023. From the vision statement: “California agriculture is growing opportunity—for farmers and ranchers, farmworkers, individuals and communities—and is demonstrating leadership on climate action.” The 10-year plan repeatedly calls for the use of regenerative practices “that enhance ecosystems and improve the land,” also without best practices or enforceable standards. Instead, the recommended definition by SBFA lists examples of eight “target outcomes of regenerative agriculture,” including: building soil health; reducing reliance on pesticides; protecting animals in agriculture; building healthy, local communities; protecting spiritual and cultural traditions; and maintaining a positive impact on the economic vitality/livelihoods of farmers and ranchers. While the Ag Vision report states “‘regenerative terminology is gaining traction and support like never before due in part to the belief that ‘regenerative’ moves beyond the philosophy of ‘do no harm’ to one of making things better,” efforts to create a robust definition for ‘regenerative’ that actually does no harm were thwarted, due to the influence of chemical-intensive farming interests.

In a state with over 1,500 types of soil and 400 crops, the core challenge in crafting a definition of regenerative organic was—as Tom Chapman, co-chief executive of the Organic Trade Association, put it in a recent Civil Eats article—“whether to go narrow and meaningful, or wide but not that deep.” Ultimately, under pressure from large-scale farms and conventional agriculture industry groups, the working group chose the latter. Instead of upholding a truly regenerative-organic approach that eliminates synthetic inputs and allows healthy soil to sustain itself, the definition’s language was softened. A key example: an early draft seeking to “eliminate” reliance on pesticides—a fundamental principle of organic farming—was watered down in the final draft to a mere “reduction” in reliance.

For those invested in chemical-intensive farming, this dilution ensures the debate remains centered on incremental input substitutions, rather than a fundamental shift in farming practices. The industry’s grip is evident in the framing of soil health as simply a starting point, rather than an achievable outcome of eliminating synthetic chemicals. “In agriculture, nothing is one size fits all, so the adoption of systems has to be realistic for each particular kind of crop,” said Renee Pinel, president of Western Plant Health, a trade organization representing fertilizer and pesticide manufacturers. By positioning synthetic inputs as indispensable, Ms. Pinel reinforces the notion that transitioning away from them is unrealistic, a supposition belied by the success and size of California’s current organic certified agricultural production.

This argument—a familiar refrain from the chemical industry—keeps the focus on substituting one product for another, rather than embracing proven regenerative-organic methods that eliminate the need for synthetic fertilizers and pesticides entirely. Instead of recognizing that healthy soil, managed regeneratively, can sustain itself without chemical inputs, the agrichemical industry perpetuates the idea that farmers must always have a synthetic crutch. By keeping the conversation locked in a framework of gradual “product swaps,” rather than supporting a full transition to organic-regenerative systems, chemical-intensive agriculture ensures its own continued dominance—at the expense of a truly sustainable future, human health, and biodiversity, as climate impacts from industrial agriculture accelerate.

David Bronner, CEO of Dr. Bronner’s soaps, wrote a relevant comment in a 2017 blog, maintaining the following: “ ‘[R]egenerative’ is going to go the way of ‘sustainable’ and mean whatever anyone wants it to mean…we are shortchanging the regenerative movement’s ability to fix and elevate the organic movement to its true regenerative potential, versus catering to lower bar low-chemical-input no-till agriculture with cover crops. The latter is hugely important and commendable, but insofar as any amount of synthetic fertilizer and pesticide is used, another term such as ‘sustainable no-till’ is a better descriptor. As soon as we go away from organic as the floor, we go down the rabbit hole of having to decide which chemical inputs can be used in what amounts and when. We should reserve ‘regenerative’ as the gold standard and incentive for true holistic no-chemical-input ‘regenerative organic’ agriculture. If we don’t, then there’s no incentive to improve toward the holistic regenerative goal.”

Greenwashing and Consumer Confusion Concerns

Critics argue that CDFA’s definition opens the door to greenwashing and consumer confusion by allowing industrial agriculture to adopt minimal soil health practices while continuing harmful chemical use. In permitting genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crops under the regenerative definition, heavy use of weed killers is permitted. As reported by Beyond Pesticides, companies including ADM, Cargill, Danone, General Mills, Tyson, Unilever, Walmart, and more have committed to millions of acres of “regenerative” agriculture in their supply chain with target dates ranging from 2024 to 2050. In 2019, industrial food titan General Mills committed to converting one million acres of farmland to regenerative practices by 2030. Their strategy allows for the transitional use of glyphosate-based herbicides in their regenerative agriculture strategy, which does not align with organic standards of proving that restricted pesticides have not touched land for three years. Beyond Pesticides warns that an aspirational definition of regenerative practices, widely advertised as good for health and the environment, will derail efforts to address clearly defined organic standards. As Mr. Feldman remarked, “It’s disingenuous to claim you can regenerate soil health while still using synthetic inputs.” The absence of enforceable standards allows industrial players to market themselves as sustainable without adopting more rigorous standards.

Confusion regarding the difference between organic and regenerative is another concern of farmers and advocates. Consumers may erroneously assume that “regenerative” products are equivalent to organic and have not been grown with and do not contain harmful chemicals. Moreover, that confusion may bleed over into the marketplace. “Organic farmers have to meet strict requirements. And now they will be in the same marketplace as a ‘regenerative’ farmer who is being subsidized by the state of California, but there isn’t verification behind that word? That’s an unfair market advantage,” according to California Certified Organic Farmers policy director Rebekah Weber.

California’s Sustainable Pest Management Roadmap: A Parallel Failure and Missed Opportunity

California is uniquely positioned to lead on agricultural sustainability, but its failure to ground regenerative agriculture in organic principles undermines this potential. Organic certification provides a proven framework for soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem resilience through clear prohibitions on petrochemical inputs. As Beyond Pesticides argues, organic agriculture is already delivering on many of the promises attributed to regenerative systems. The Real Organic Project alongside businesses such as Patagonia, Lundberg Family Farms, Dr. Bronner’s, and Good Earth Natural Foods have echoed this sentiment in public comments, emphasizing that regenerative agriculture must start with organic standards. Straus Organic Creamery’s Albert Straus has also offered an incentive program for farmers to replicate Straus organic practices, which reduce greenhouse gas emissions (see here and here) while improving soil health—critical components of any climate-smart agricultural system.

The issues with CDFA’s regenerative definition mirror those found in California’s Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) Roadmap, released in 2023. The roadmap identifies goals like eliminating “priority pesticides” by 2050 but fails to address the urgent need to phase out synthetic fertilizers and pesticides comprehensively. Beyond Pesticides criticized this timeline as far too slow, given the escalating crises in biodiversity loss, climate change, and public health. SPM also lacks a holistic approach to soil health management. As Mr. Feldman observed, “An SPM program that is a genuinely holistic response…must proscribe the currently ubiquitous use of synthetic fertilizers as well as pesticides.” Without these prohibitions, both SPM and regenerative agriculture risk perpetuating chemical-intensive systems under new branding.

The Path Forward

According to organic producers and advocates, to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the regenerative movement, CDFA must revise its definition of regenerative to require organic certification as a baseline. This would prohibit synthetic fertilizers, pesticides (including herbicides and insecticides), biosolids, and genetically engineered crops—practices incompatible with genuine soil regeneration. Building on organic standards would provide transparency and accountability while ensuring alignment with environmental and public health goals. As Mr. Feldman aptly puts it: “The public is really calling for organic, whether they know it yet or not.” By grounding regenerative agriculture in organic principles, California can lead the way toward truly sustainable food systems that protect biodiversity, mitigate climate change, and safeguard human health.

Widespread adoption of organic and certified organic regenerative agriculture breaks agricultural dependence on chemical-intensive methods, freeing farmers from the relentless cycle of toxic synthetic inputs and the pesticide treadmill. The public has an important role to play in this transition! Learn more about organic and regenerative-organic agriculture, and “vote” with your wallet organically. Create market demand by purchasing trusted labels for certified organic (see here and here) and regenerative organic certified food and products.

Join Beyond Pesticides in fighting to end the use of fossil fuel-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers and push for urgent adoption of regenerative-organic and organic agriculture as necessary actions to meet the existential threats to human health, the environment, and of climate change, exacerbated by chemical-intensive agriculture.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Sources:

What ‘Regenerative Agriculture’ Means. Sort of, Civil Eats, February 5, 2025.

Letter to Secretary Karen Ross, CDFA, January 10, 2025.

CDFA BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Defining Regenerative Ag for State Policies and Programs, CDFA announcement, January 10, 2025.

Defining Regenerative Agriculture for State Policies and Programs, CDFA website, accessed February 12, 2025.

Ag Vision for the Next Decade, CDFA report, 2023.

To Make Regenerative Meaningful, It Must Require Organic Certification as a Starting Point, according to Advocates, Beyond Pesticides Daily News, May 28, 2024.

Study Shows Value of Organic Practices in Lowering Environmental Impact of Agriculture, Beyond Pesticides Daily News, May 23, 2024.

Defining “Regenerative Agriculture” in California, Dr. Bronner’s All-One blog, April 2, 2024.

Regenetarians Unite: How the Regenerative Agriculture and Animal Welfare Movements Can End Factory Farming, Restore Soil and Mitigate Climate Change, Dr. Bronner’s All-One blog, March 7, 2017.