A new definition for an old way of farming may help California soil, but it won’t mean organic.
X
A new definition for an old way of farming may help California soil, but it won’t mean organic.
February 5, 2025
California urgently needs to improve its soil. Better soil produces healthier food, but it also holds more water—a boon for a wildfire state with depleted groundwater. Better soil also holds more carbon, making it an effective tool to combat the climate crisis. One way to improve soil is through regenerative agriculture, an array of sustainable farming practices that, as of January, are gathered under an official definition in the state of California.
Expand your understanding of food systems as a Civil Eats member. Enjoy unlimited access to our groundbreaking reporting, engage with experts, and connect with a community of changemakers.
Already a member?
Login
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.
The definition’s supporters say it provides an entry point toward better practices for thousands of farmers.
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.
The approved document runs to a single page and begins with the following:
“‘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.
Critics say the new definition will do little to promote significant regenerative practices and will potentially confuse the public.
“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.
Agriculture plays a significant role in climate change, producing 10 percent of U.S. and 8 percent of California’s greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from croplands, industrial vehicles, and livestock.
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.
But a lack of specificity in the definition is problematic for many farming experts.
“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.
Bryce Lundberg of Lundberg Family Farms. Photo courtesy of Lundberg Family Farms.
“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.
USDA really needs to be the one setting the definition—they label food products nationally.
“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.”
Secretary Ross has underscored that the definition will help determine where state resources go, and that it is not consumer-facing or about retail labeling claims or certifications.
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.
July 30, 2025
From Oklahoma to D.C., a food activist works to ensure that communities can protect their food systems and their future.
Like the story?
Join the conversation.