‘Regenerative’ food labels risk confusing consumers due to a “patchwork” of standards, according to American NGO Friends of the Earth.
The organisation found ‘regenerative’ food label standards varied widely in its report ‘Regenerative Food Labels: What’s Behind the Claim?’, particularly around pesticides, synthetic fertilisers, soil health practices, verification standards and traceability.
Arguing consumers were liable to reasonably assume that ‘regenerative’ meant no pesticides, the organisation said, “organic stands out as the most rigorous, reliable standard for reducing pesticide exposure”. The study evaluated 10 food label programmes in the US.
The report concluded the term ‘regenerative’ should not “be reduced to a set of aspirational ideas or loosely defined practices” and had to be “anchored in clear, enforceable standards that directly address one of the most consequential drivers of ecological and human harm in our food system – fossil fuel-based agrochemicals”.
It comes as food and beverage launches carrying regenerative farming claims grew at a rate of 44% globally between 2021 and 2025, according to Dutch non-profit foundation Foodvalley, despite 71% of people saying they were unfamiliar or only slightly familiar with the term.
“For shoppers who care about what’s actually in their food, distinguishing which labels verify reduced use of harmful pesticides matters,” said Kendra Klein, deputy director of science at Friends of the Earth US. “For consumers prioritising reduced pesticide exposure, organic is a top choice.”
María Montosa Ródenas, technical specialist at global investor network FAIRR, said the report highlighted a “critical challenge” with corporate approaches to regenerative farming.
“Because the concept of regenerative agriculture is so flexible, companies can label a wide range of practices as ‘regenerative’, even when some of those practices contradict, or undermine, the outcomes they are pursuing,” she continued.
With more regeneratively-labelled products appearing in the UK, the Soil Association said it was cautious about the risk of greenwashing, despite recognising the actions of “genuine regenerative advocates”.
A spokeswoman for the organisation said organic certification offered “the most comprehensive, verifiable, legally protected benchmark for regenerative agriculture and believe it should be recognised and supported as such”.
Organic brand Yeo Valley said that while it had “huge potential”, there was “a responsibility for regenerative principles to be honestly upheld”.
Despite calls for more rigorous standards, many regenerative farming advocates said they found the concept offered a more flexible approach to sustainable farming.
“Regenerative standards are not necessarily helpful as every farm situation is different, so different approaches will be taken to deliver the best results,” said a spokeswoman for dairy co-operative First Milk.
The business, like many others engaged in regenerative farming, said it was focussed on delivering clarity on the outcomes of its regenerative actions, along with the processes used. As previously reported by The Grocer, First Milk’s methods include cover cropping and reduced soil disturbance to deliver healthier soils, lower emissions, improved biodiversity and better water retention.
“Hence the field-level digital tools being used to record regenerative interventions and a focus on long-term approaches to demonstrate the outcomes being achieved,” the spokeswoman added. “This is illustrated by the robust soil dataset referenced previously, meaning we can ultimately create clarity around messaging to customers and, in turn, consumers.”
No comments yet