{"id":40654,"date":"2026-01-08T00:01:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T05:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=40654"},"modified":"2026-01-06T17:05:58","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T22:05:58","slug":"usdas-new-regenerative-agriculture-program-called-greenwashing-diverts-resources-needed-for-organic-transition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2026\/01\/usdas-new-regenerative-agriculture-program-called-greenwashing-diverts-resources-needed-for-organic-transition\/","title":{"rendered":"USDA\u2019s New Regenerative Ag Program, Called Greenwashing, Diverts Resources Needed for Organic Transition"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, January 8, 2026) In a press release<\/a> published on December 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the creation of \u201ca $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program to help American farmers adopt practices that improve soil health, enhance water quality, and boost long-term productivity, all while strengthening America\u2019s food and fiber supply.\u201d The agency specifically ties the program to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA), diverting resources that could be used to support organic transition and phase out pesticides that are clearly defined as prohibited by USDA\u2019s National Organic Program<\/a> under the Organic Foods Production Act<\/a><\/em> (OFPA), but allowed in regenerative agriculture programs. Regenerative agriculture, embraced by major food companies<\/a>, has been identified by Beyond Pesticides and many organizations as greenwashing because it typically allows wide use of weed killers and other petrochemical pesticides and is not defined as a transition to organic practices and compatible products. (See here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Public health and environmental advocates, farmers, and businesses fear that pouring funding into a loosely defined \u201cregenerative agriculture\u201d program will not only undermine existing efforts to transition farming and communities to more sustainable and truly regenerative systems but also contribute to greenwashing, where corporations that are enabling the climate, biodiversity, and public health crises are rewarded. (See here<\/a> for Bayer advert on how it supports \u201cRegenerative Agriculture.\u201d)<\/p>\n

USDA\u2019s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) will administer the Regenerative Pilot Program, which is purported to divert $400 million in funds from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and $300 million from the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) for Fiscal Year 2026. The NRCS, meanwhile, has lost almost 25 percent of its staff since January 2025, according to an analysis<\/a> by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition in September 2025. Family farmers are often distrustful of USDA, which is seen as aligned with industrial agribusiness\u2014as captured in a recent expose by More Perfect Union<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cA leading form of truly regenerative agriculture is organic farming,\u201d says Sarah Starman, senior food and agriculture campaigner at Friends of the Earth, in a press release<\/a> published in response to the USDA announcement. \u201cDecades of research shows that organic farms, on average, improve soil health, climate resilience, and soil carbon sequestration; reduce emissions; and protect biodiversity, human health, and community well-being.\u201d<\/p>\n

Advocates view the USDA announcement as a distraction from the Administration\u2019s alignment with multinational pesticide corporations such as Bayer. In an amicus brief<\/a>\u00a0published on December 1, 2025, the Office of the Solicitor General (SG) and the White House are calling on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to grant certiorari on Bayer\u2019s petition to shield chemical companies that fail to warn people about the potential hazards of their pesticide products. (See Daily News <\/em>here<\/a>.)\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWe must imagine a future beyond a reliance on petrochemical, synthetic pesticides,\u201d says Max Sano, senior policy and coalitions associate at Beyond Pesticides. \u201cNot only must we protect and expand safeguards to hold corporations accountable for harmful products and bring long-awaited scientific integrity to the registration review process, but we must also get focused and expansive in supporting organic land management systems that can finally move us away from this toxic treadmill.\u201d<\/p>\n

Organic Under Pressure<\/h2>\n

Be it at the federal level or in state programs like California, the legacy of organic systems is under threat.<\/p>\n

The beginning of 2025 marked a time of turmoil that upended years-long projects in organic and local food systems due to the far-reaching defunding of critical programs by DOGE, the now-defunct \u201cDepartment of Government Efficiency.\u201d Earthjustice and Knight First Amendment Institute (Columbia University), on behalf of Northeast Organic Farmers Association of New York (NOFA-NY) and other farmer associations, filed a lawsuit against USDA, challenging the Department\u2019s alleged illegal purging of climate-smart agriculture datasets, resources, and pertinent information that organic farmers rely on to carry out their operations, according to the complaint<\/a> filed on February 24, 2025. In addition to this, federal funding freezes in 2025 adversely impacted farmers who had made investments based on approved grants through the Organic Market Development (OMD) program and funding through the Partnerships for Climate Smart Commodities Program in support of organic and transitioning farmers. (See Daily News <\/em>here<\/a>.) See a publicly available repository of farmer stories<\/a> impacted by federal funding freezes.<\/p>\n

According to an Earthjustice press release<\/a>, \u201cShortly after filing the [NOFA-NY] lawsuit, the plaintiffs moved the court for a preliminary injunction, which sought a court order requiring USDA to restore the removed webpages and preventing USDA from taking down additional climate-related information,\u201d but \u201c[d]ays before that motion was set to be heard in federal court, USDA reversed course.\u201d The release continues, \u201cIn a letter<\/a> filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, USDA now says that it \u2018will restore the climate-change-related web content that was removed post-inauguration\u2019 and that it \u2018commits to complying with\u2019 federal laws governing its future \u2018posting decisions.\u2019 USDA also says that it has begun restoring climate-related webpages and expects to substantially complete the restoration process in approximately two weeks.\u201d (See Daily News <\/em>here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

In 2024, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) opened a comment period for the public to share their thoughts on how the state agency would internally define \u201cregenerative agriculture\u201d in the context of their programmatic work moving forward. Advocates raised concerns that organic was not included at all, when in reality, there are many groups, farmers, and consumers who say that an organic system should be the baseline for any definition of regenerative. CDFA\u2019s Environmental Farming Act<\/em> Science Advisory Panel (SAP), falling short of this, proposes a framework for developing a definition:<\/p>\n