California Food & Agriculture officials wrestle with regenerative agriculture definitionCalifornia Food & Agriculture officials wrestle with regenerative agriculture definition

California Department of Food and Agriculture officials last week offered a first draft of a definition of the term “regenerative agriculture” for state regulators, a relatively short document long on vision but parsimonious with details. 

“Regenerative agriculture, as defined for use by State of California policies and programs, is an integrated approach to farming and ranching rooted in principles of soil health and informed by the traditions and innovations from the original Indigenous stewards of the land,” begins the document. 

Later, the definition said regenerative agriculture must be “customized to specific production systems, ecoregions and local Indigenous cultural regions.” It also said that approaches toward achieving regenerative agriculture should be “based on the best available science and practice, including organic and traditional ecological knowledge, for production systems.”

Target outcomes of successful regenerative farming efforts would include everything from protecting the welfare of livestock to building healthy local communities, and boosting statewide efforts to sequester carbon.

At the conclusion of the meeting, members of the Department’s 15-member board sent the document back to state regulators to massage different aspects of the draft definition that gave some board members pause.

Related:Top 2024 documentaries about organic food and regenerative ag

Among the critiques, those revolving around the document’s lack of specifics emerged as the most prominent. Some board members worried the definition was too broad, and could allow farmers not engaged with regenerative agriculture in meaningful ways to nevertheless broadcast regenerative bona fides.

“The current definition really lends itself to greenwashing. There aren’t limits on what clearly is not regenerative,” said board member Doria Robinson during the hearing. “Almost anything could fall under this definition because there really aren’t limits. That’s one of the things people are afraid of.” She added if such a broad definition gets implemented it could amount to a “disservice” to the state’s farmers. In fact, she said, if California became known for regenerative agriculture bounded by sturdy guidelines it could improve the state's reputation for agricultural excellence.

Other board members and audience participants welcomed the draft, which has been subject to many working group meetings prior to the definition’s public debut. Among other things, some board and audience members applauded the definition’s capaciousness, arguing that given California’s striking diversity of ecosystems and soil types—everything from searing desert to wet coastal to high-elevation mountainous—a working definition must encompass all environments. As brought up several times during the meeting, regenerative agriculture is site-specific and malleable—different conditions and environments dictate various regenerative practices and strategies.

Related:UNFI’s latest realignment divides natural and conventional grocery sales

“We like the fact that this definition needs to reflect the diversity of California agriculture and that California not be preferential to one type of farming,” said Dan Sonke, speaking on behalf of the Almond Alliance, the almond industry’s trade association. “We are excited about the opportunities that regenerative agriculture can offer to produce more biology in the economic systems” that surround the growing of crops.

Board member Bryce Lundberg, vice president of agriculture at Lundberg Family Farms—a fourth-generation family business famous for rice and rice products—recognized the breadth of California’s farming pursuits. The state serves as a domestic agricultural behemoth for everything from rice to tomatoes, grapes, nuts, lettuce and much more. 

But he also urged regulators to ensure the final definition does provide meaningful standards and guidelines for farmers interested in pursuing regenerative agriculture.

Related:‘Misleading’ report cites lead levels in protein powders

“The goal is that you are trying to improve the (environmental) outcomes. I do feel like having a specific goal of moving toward something in particular kind of differentiates what in my mind is regenerative from what is not,” he said. “Rather than just doing something to kind of mark off a box, so then you can say in the marketing campaign that you are doing regenerative farming. There should be a commitment and a tracking and a moving toward a specific goal.”