Talk Of "Regenerative Agriculture" Fills The Air At Climate Week, But w/o Definitions, It's Looking Like Greenwashing

EDIT

The world’s biggest meat companies have come under legal scrutiny for making climate-related claims. In 2024, the New York Attorney General’s office sued the world’s largest beef company, JBS, for misleading consumers by promising to achieve “net zero” emissions by 2040, even though the company clearly has a growth strategy that relies on ramping up beef production. (In January of this year, the New York State Supreme Court granted JBS’s motion to dismiss the case, saying the attorney general had not made a clear case for why the matter should be handled in a New York court.) Also in 2024, EWG sued Tyson Foods for misleading consumers by marketing its beef as “climate smart.” That case is technically pending, although Tyson’s website no longer lists its “climate smart” beef products. Tyson did not reply to a request for comment from Inside Climate News.

A “regenerative agriculture” label invites less legal heat because it’s so vague, unlike a climate claim or other labels. The USDA’s organic label, despite some controversies and confusion, has a very specific set of requirements that farmers must meet to earn its imprimatur. The opacity of the regenerative term, critics say, is a deliberate play by the food industry. Matthew Hayek, a researcher with New York University who studies the environmental and climate impacts of the food system, noted that rules and requirements defined by the USDA organic label came about because of a concerted, organized effort by proponents of organic agriculture in the 1990s.

“There was no coalition like that for regenerative because I think everyone is happy with the reputation laundering that the regenerative label is providing,” Hayek said. “There’s been an emergent choice of this network of producers and manufacturers to not pursue federal standardisation, because the width and inclusiveness [of the term] allows the maximum benefits of the positive association, even if the material climate benefits aren’t being produced.”

As big companies call their products regenerative, advocates worry they’re appropriating and taking credit for a term that smaller producers have worked hard to pursue and legitimize. Regenerative agriculture practices, like minimizing tillage, planting cover crops and avoiding synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, often cost money and lower profits for farmers who deserve to be rewarded for the extra, truly “climate friendly” steps they take, advocates say. “I think you’ll see some of these smaller producers pushing for a standard that can mean something,” Feldstein said. “Because they’re losing out—being out-competed by these industrial actors that are co-opting these terms for a profit.”

EDIT

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22092025/regenerative-agriculture-climate-week-nyc/