The question is, will the new definition do any good?

Broadly speaking, regenerative agriculture improves soil health and carbon sequestration through diverse crop rotations, animal grazing, limited tillage, and reduced (or eliminated) external inputs like fertilizer and pesticides. But it also has wider benefits, including farmer wellbeing, community engagement, and ethical animal husbandry. The problem is that it’s notoriously hard to define. No federal or scientific definition exists, leaving the term open to interpretation—and greenwashing.

Two years ago, in an effort to guide California’s farming policy and programs, the state launched a public process to define regenerative agriculture.

The process included seven public listening sessions—two of them for California Native American tribes—and three work group meetings. Hundreds of people from across the U.S. food system joined the sessions, adding impassioned comments that ranged from “Regenerative MUST be coupled with organic to have any value whatsoever” (Annie Brown, Rodale Institute) to “We’re trying to make a difference in agriculture and we need to be open minded: Instead of asking everyone to switch religions immediately, at least get them into regenerative ag, and we’ll get ‘em into organic after a while” (a farmer at California’s Alexandre Family Farm). For some, farmworker health was essential to the definition; for others, it was irrelevant.

On Jan. 7, the state’s advisory board for food and agriculture unanimously approved the work group’s definition and forwarded it to Karen Ross, secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), who is expected to accept it. Critics say the new definition will do little to promote significant regenerative practices and will potentially confuse the public, but the definition’s supporters say it provides an entry point toward better practices for thousands of farmers.

A Definition as a Continuum

“‘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, biodiversity and ecosystem resiliency leading to improved targeted outcomes. Regenerative agriculture is not an endpoint, but a continuous implementation of practices that over time minimize inputs and environmental impacts[,] and further enhances the ecosystem while maintaining or improving productivity, economic contributions and community benefits. ‘Regenerative agriculture’ is an ongoing continuum of sustainability for California’s farmers and ranchers, informed by current science as well as the traditions and innovations from the original Indigenous stewards of the land.”

Don Cameron, president of the state’s advisory board, lauded the definition’s flexibility and discretion while making clear that this effort was not about establishing certification or a framework for companies to make label claims.

“That bridge will be crossed if [companies] move forward with a certification process,” he said. “I look at this for different state agencies to have guidelines so they can put programs out there that are regenerative in nature.”

In accepting the board’s definition, the CDFA will not be pursuing a regulatory or statutory action. They will, in essence, be agreeing to follow a guideline that includes eight targeted outcomes. At this time, there is no funding allocated for outcome assessment, verification, or third-party audits.

What Prompted the Definition, and What It’s Supposed to Do

In 2022, California’s Climate Innovation Program provided $525 million in financial incentives to California-based companies, including agriculture businesses, to develop and commercialize technologies to help California meet its climate goals. Regenerative agriculture efforts were specifically mentioned.

This prompted CDFA Secretary Karen Ross to turn to the State Board of Food and Agriculture, an advisory board consisting of members from across the sector. The board appointed a work group to establish a definition that would help guide farmers who want to increase sustainability practices, as well as state agencies and programs looking to focus their funding.

Since the passage of the 2022 bill, Governor Gavin Newsom has removed its funding to help address the projected state budget shortfall, so it is unknown at this time what programs farms would be eligible for if they adopt qualifying regenerative practices.

“I really do think it was a pretty remarkable effort by the most remarkable state in our economy in the agriculture space,” said Elizabeth Whitlow, who until recently was the executive director of the Regenerative Organic Alliance and she was part of the work group that hammered out the guidelines. “Secretary Ross said we need to define this so we can have money to reward the practices. I listened and said, ‘You are stepping into muddy waters here. You should back away from this definition and call it ‘agroecological’ or ‘holistic.’”

In a state with more than 1,500 soil types and 400 crops, the work group’s central tension from the outset was—as Tom Chapman, co-chief executive of the Organic Trade Association, described it—“whether to go narrow and meaningful, or wide but not that deep.”

The group, directed by Secretary Ross to provide a “big tent” in which all stakeholders could operate, went with the latter. The definition’s harder edges were softened as large farms and conventional agriculture industry groups weighed in. For instance, from an early draft that sought the “elimination” of reliance on pesticides—a key tenet of organic farming—language changed in the final draft to a “reduction” of reliance.

Many in the industry, especially in the conventional sector, feel this broader definition, anchored by its first target outcome of “building soil health, soil organic matter and biodiversity,” is a good place to start.

“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 nonprofit trade organization that represents the interests of fertilizer and pesticide manufacturers. She says she sees this definition as a starting point, as “someplace from which to constructively move forward.”

For conventional farmers in California who contend with year-round pests and diseases in the state’s mild climate, she said, “We have to be realistic about how quickly we can move to softer biological products. We can’t mandate the removal of products until we have replacements, or farmers can’t defend themselves and you’ll have massive crop failures.”

A broader definition allows for innovations in technology or advances in inputs or soil amendments to be incorporated, Pinel and others have argued.

What the Definition Doesn’t Do

“I could survey 100 farmers and show them this definition and they would each have a different interpretation of what this means,” said Rebekah Weber, policy director for California Certified Organic Farmers. “And the verification and accountability pieces just aren’t there.”

In fact, at the Jan. 7 meeting to finalize a definition, State Board of Food and Agriculture  member Michelle Passero, director of The Nature Conservancy’s climate change plan for California, spoke up, saying she was hoping for a definition that was “a little more outcomes-oriented.”

“If I was trying to use it in a legal sense, how would it be helpful? How do you apply it? Does it mean if you do one [of the eight targeted outcomes,] then it’s fine or sufficient?” she asked.

The definition ends with a guidance for state agencies and departments to coordinate with the CDFA, and, “contingent upon resources,” to develop measurable, verifiable outcomes. Agencies and programs are also responsible for keeping track of verification and reporting.

The fact that organic has been minimized in the definition also bothers many. These farmers view regenerative agriculture as steeped in organic, biodiverse practices that rely on plants and other organisms to produce soil fertility and control pests, instead of on industrial fertilizers and pesticides. For them, the definition does not go far enough.

Bryce Lundberg is vice president of agriculture at Lundberg Family Farms, a fourth-generation organic rice and quinoa company. He is a member of the state advisory board as well as the work group that oversaw the regenerative definition. In the group’s final meeting, he said that he appreciated the definition’s approach to the health of humans and the environment, but underscored that the organic component was vital.

“To have organic as a baseline to regenerative agriculture, that would be my hope,” he said in the meeting. “That ‘regenerative’ would be beyond organic as a standard, that would be my preference.” In a subsequent interview, Lundberg said, “I’m proud of the organic community in California that advocated that ‘organic’ be the baseline for this definition. Two-thirds of the comments have been from the organic community [saying] that we need a higher bar.” Farming according to a watered-down regenerative definition, he suggested, is like getting a “participation trophy.”

California has more than 3,000 organic farms and ranches but more than 70,000 farms and ranches total, meaning only 4.2 percent of California’s farms are certified organic.

Using the word “organic” would immediately exclude thousands of farmers and ranchers who may want to adopt regenerative practices but have not yet. And in the wake of the hottest year on record and a new administration that has expressed tepid enthusiasm for climate-change mitigation efforts, more producers need to adopt at least some regenerative practices, said Andrew deCoriolis, executive director of Farm Forward, a nonprofit focused on reducing animal suffering.

“Even if this ends up being marginally better practices across all of California, that would be a net good,” he said.

Weber says this new definition could be cataclysmic for certified organic farmers in the state.

“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,” she said.

Whitlow echoed that sentiment, saying the definition might lead consumers to choose “regenerative” over “organic.” “If all you have to do is spray one fewer time or use a little less fertilizer, and you can use the term ‘regenerative,’ consumers may say, ‘I’m going to buy this regenerative product, that sounds pretty good.’ We are concerned that it could have unintended consequences for organics.”

What Happens When the Definition Gets Loose in the Wild

Many farming advocates think that’s naïve.

“I’d pose the question back to the CDFA: How do you plan on assuring this doesn’t influence the marketplace or embolden folks who put a regenerative claim on their product?” Weber asked. “There hasn’t been enough discussion around that.”

In the past few years, label claims have proliferated, with climate-related terms such as “net-zero” or “climate-smart” beef drawing little scrutiny, and package claims like “pure” and “all-natural” energizing consumer class-action lawsuits. The new, loose definition might unleash more greenwashing, and consumer confusion.

Also, there are several regenerative-associated marketing certifications already in existence, including what’s considered to be the highest bar for farming: Regenerative Organic Certified, which builds on the USDA Organic certification.

“USDA really needs to be the one setting the definition—they label food products nationally,” said Anne Schechinger, Midwest director for the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.

She added, “We support California’s attempt, but they obviously need to include specific practices, a way to measure the benefits of these practices, a way to show that there are water or climate benefits.”If California’s definition of regenerative does, in fact, encourage widespread healthier soils in the state, it will be interesting to see whether it gains traction with supporters of regenerative ag at the federal level—including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. His Make America Healthy Again platform includes regenerative agriculture as a central pillar.

+ + +

An earlier version of the article misspelled the name of Annie Brown at Rodale Institute.

The post California Decides What ‘Regenerative Agriculture’ Means. Sort of. appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]> https://civileats.com/2025/02/05/california-decides-what-regenerative-agriculture-means-sort-of/feed/ 2 https://civileats.com/2025/01/06/wics-recent-gains-likely-to-face-challenges-in-next-administration/ Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:00:39 +0000 https://civileats.com/?p=60298 The program, which turned 50 last year, serves people who are pregnant, postpartum, breastfeeding, or have infants or children up to age 5. Services include monthly checks or vouchers for healthy foods, as well as personalized education, breastfeeding support, and referrals to other services. These provide crucial support to those struggling with food insecurity, especially […]

The post WIC’s Recent Gains Likely to Face Challenges in Next Administration appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) has been undersubscribed since 2016, in many years serving only around half of the mothers and children who are eligible. Even though it reaches 6.7 million low-income people, including 40 percent of the babies born in the U.S., WIC has had wiggle room in its budget, which has helped it deal with partisan funding debates and the vicissitudes of the economy.

The program, which turned 50 last year, serves people who are pregnant, postpartum, breastfeeding, or have infants or children up to age 5. Services include monthly checks or vouchers for healthy foods, as well as personalized education, breastfeeding support, and referrals to other services. These provide crucial support to those struggling with food insecurity, especially with a recent surge in food prices and deepening hunger across the country. And WIC participation has been shown to improve birth outcomes, lower infant mortality, and reduce Medicaid expenses, among other benefits.

Biden’s USDA made increasing participation in WIC a priority. To enroll more people, agency staff fought for increasing the benefit to participants, creating a food package that hewed closer to current nutrition standards and incorporating new technologies to make participation easier. Perhaps as a result, participation has been ticking up over the last two years. With a new administration intent on cost cutting, experts say they’re fearful about undoing what they see as incremental progress made.

Potential Cutbacks in WIC Funding

The program is permanently authorized but its funding is not guaranteed, as opposed to an entitlement like the National School Lunch Program, in which every eligible student is assured the benefit. Each year, Congress provides the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) with a specific amount of funds for state agencies to operate WIC. Increased participation could mean that participants are turned away if allocated funds run out, or in the event of a government shutdown.

If Project 2025 is any predictor of the next administration’s agenda, the program could see significant funding cuts.

After 25 years of bipartisan Congressional support for fully funding the program, WIC funding has become more political during the last few rounds of appropriations. Budget plans by both the House and Senate in 2023 included cuts to the nutrition benefit program for the following year.

That prompted the USDA to warn of a $1 billion shortfall in estimated funding need for WIC—the cost of providing six months of benefits. A shortfall of this magnitude, the USDA said, “presents states with difficult, untenable decisions about how to manage the program.”

WIC ended up getting $7 billion in 2024, $1 billion more than the 2023 enacted level, but talk of cuts worried child nutrition and anti-hunger advocates.

“The biggest concern is that are we going to run into what we did last year with a potential shortfall in funding,” said Meghan Maroney, who leads the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s Federal Child Nutrition Programs initiatives. “We narrowly avoided a crisis and were facing potential waiting lists for WIC. At the eleventh hour we avoided that, but we’re scarred by the idea that this would happen again.”

If Project 2025 is any predictor of the next administration’s agenda, the program could see significant funding cuts. And if tariffs were to raise food prices, that quickly impacts what it costs to administer the program and how many people could be served.

Growth in Participation

Meanwhile, participation in the program grew by 5.3 percent between 2021 and 2023, which heightens concerns that full participation might leave some low-income mothers and young children without assistance. WIC has a triage plan in the event they can’t serve everyone.

The reason for the uptick tracks with higher inflation and food costs, but it is also a response to improvements to the program itself, said Maroney.

“WIC has seen a lot of innovation over the past several years. There were flexibilities that were tried out during the pandemic that people would like to see implemented long term: online shopping benefits, virtual online registration, and enhanced fruit and vegetable benefits all contribute to the long-term success of the program,” she said.

Bottom line, WIC is now easier to use, and the benefits are more desirable.

Mahagani Jenkins lives in Denver and has been participating in WIC with her 1-year-old son for the past year. For her, the program has been invaluable. “I was able to get formula, baby food, and fruits and vegetables for him, even though he wasn’t quite ready for that, so it was a nutrition benefit for myself as well,” she said. “It allowed me to have extra spending money to spend on more diapers and wipes. It has also allowed me to reach out for housing . . . [and] other networks. It’s been very beneficial for us.”

WIC’s Expanded Benefits

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, passed during the pandemic, gave the USDA $490 million to allow states to temporarily offer a boost in the benefits, roughly doubling the benefit to children and nearly tripling the benefit to pregnant people and new mothers.

During the pandemic, a cash-value benefit voucher was added to allow participants to purchase fruits and vegetables as part of their WIC food package, providing up to $35 per child and adult, per month. This aimed to align the WIC food packages with the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans and to reflect recommendations from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine as a means of improving maternal and child nutrition.

In April 2024, the USDA published a final rule revising the WIC food packages, making permanent that cash value benefit for fruits and vegetables, currently $26 for child participants, $47 for pregnant and postpartum participants, and $52 for mostly and fully breastfeeding participants.

“There have been tremendous strides in strengthening WIC with the new food package that came out in April,” said Alexandra Ashbrook, director of special projects and initiatives at Food Research & Action Center, an anti-hunger nonprofit. Although the revision included adding beans and canned fish, and more whole grain options, the fruit and vegetable options are proving the most popular. “More fruit and vegetable benefits are one of the reasons the program is making gains. We know what an important tool it is, and how WIC participation is tied to multiple health benefits.”

Other advocates worry that if Trump in his second administration brings back a version of his “public charge” rule, which would have denied green cards to immigrants who use SNAP and other public benefits, WIC participation could falter. WIC-eligible people might not use the program because they don’t want their names in the system for fear of jeopardizing their legal immigration status.

Ease of Participation

WIC historically required everyone seeking to enroll or re-enroll in the program to do so in person at a WIC office. New applicants had to be screened for iron deficiency anemia through blood work, and babies and toddlers had height/length and weight checks conducted in offices. Participants were also often required to pick up the benefits themselves from WIC offices. It was an attempt to monitor maternal and young children’s health, but schlepping to these office visits could be onerous for mothers with transportation problems or young kids to wrangle.

During the pandemic, USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service allowed WIC agencies to issue benefits remotely, and participants to enroll or re-enroll in the program without visiting a clinic in person and to postpone certain medical tests. It even allowed agencies that didn’t have online benefit services to issue up to four months of benefits on EBT cards at one time so people didn’t have to make frequent office visits.

“More fruit and vegetable benefits are one of the reasons the program is making gains.”

For Jenkins, that benefit has proven extremely helpful. “Once I was certified, I was able to have access to my money immediately via a debit card,” she said. “They had a brochure that broke down the brands I was able to get. . . . Every six months it’s updated. They make it comfortable for you and your child.”

The waiver that allows these remote services expires in September 2026. If it goes away, the requirement of in-person applications, recertification appointments, and benefit receipt comes back. Just about everyone using the program now has never experienced that requirement, says Ali Hard, policy director of the National WIC Association, and a shift could create significant barriers to families staying on the program.

In a satisfaction survey, she says one of the big things participants appreciated was the ease of getting remote services and being able to conduct meetings over the phone or use the web portal for their recertification appointments.

“People appreciate that convenience. It puts WIC on par with other services,” Hard said.

Online Shopping

WIC has been slower than SNAP, the food assistance program formerly known as food stamps, to offer online shopping.

“Lack of modernization is the thing holding the program back,” said Carolyn Vega, associate director of policy analysis at Share Our Strength. “There are younger users of the program, and it has to keep up with the times and be more flexible with job schedules and family schedules.”

Enabling the use of benefits for online shopping was piloted in seven states initially in 2020, according to Hard, with 14 states now doing some kind of pilot program, spearheaded by the Center for Nutrition and Health Impact. Walmart has been a vendor in some of the pilots and Instacart has partnered with WIC to deliver products to program participants. But the future of online shopping now hangs in the balance.

“The agency is putting out a final rule about online shopping, to be published in February. We hope that stays on track and does not get slowed down and that the USDA keeps supporting these pilots,” Hard said. Orchestrating online shopping is complicated by the fact that, while SNAP participants all have the same benefit, WIC-approved foods differ state by state.

“Setting up an approved products list with very specific SKUs is complicated,” Hard said, with 50 states and all the territories expected to maintain complex data systems of their own.

The Future of WIC

Child Nutrition Reauthorization (CNR) is Congress’s process of updating the permanent statutes that authorize child nutrition programs such as WIC, the National School Lunch Program, and the Summer Food Service Program. Congress reviews the laws governing these programs through the reauthorization process, including things like eligibility criteria, funding levels, and program benefits.

The last reauthorization was the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which expired in September 2015. In 2021, leaders in both the Senate and House expressed interest in advancing CNR, but it got bogged down in political wrangling.

Without CNR, says Whitney Carlson, national recruitment and retention campaign manager for the National WIC Association, “we lose the opportunity to make critical program updates, like what we’re seeing in WIC with the need to authorize modern service models like virtual services.”

She said there were many important proposals in the House CNR bill that would have improved the program.

“These are common-sense improvements like allowing multiple family members to consolidate their certification and recertification appointments so they can get them all done at once,” she said. “It also would have extended WIC eligibility to age 6 so that there is no gap for kids before they start kindergarten.”

There is widespread consensus that the process is unlikely to be taken up by Congress in the next administration, according to Vega.

“The farm bill is thought to be a more pressing bill to be considered and is likely to take up more time and space in the next Congress,” she said. “If there’s never an appetite for a CNR, you lose the opportunity for that comprehensive revisiting of the entire program.”

If WIC loses support in Congress, the new and planned benefits could disappear—and funding reductions might mean waitlists for millions of people like Jenkins and her son. “Waitlists would impact families like mine because I’m a single parent with one sole income that me and my child have to survive off of,” she said.

The post WIC’s Recent Gains Likely to Face Challenges in Next Administration appeared first on Civil Eats.

]]>