Grocery Update #145: The Fight Over The Meaning Of “Regenerative”.

A Guest Post By Industry Veteran Alan Lewis.

The Fight Over The Meaning Of “Regenerative”.

By Alan Lewis

Alan Lewis navigates government affairs and food and agriculture policy for a growing Colorado based health food chain founded in 1955 with 170 stores in 22 states. At the international, federal, state and local level, Alan engages on food, agriculture, nutrition, rural vitality, biotechnology, trade and health issues. He is active in several trade and advocacy organizations and is a fearless writer, speaker and panelist.

As “regenerative” spreads across food labels, a coalition of farmers, brands and grocers is working to ensure the claim still means something.

The retail food industry obsessively tracks data and trends in search of attributes that attract new purchasers. Low fat, no calorie, and gluten free have each had their moment. Now, the newest label gaining traction is “regenerative.”

As the term spreads across product packaging, its meaning is being pulled in different directions. Some stakeholders define regenerative through a rigorous set of practices and outcomes, while others apply the claim more loosely to enhance conventional methods of production. In a competitive marketplace, both approaches can appear side by side.

But that tension is now coming to a head. For those committed to the underlying practices, regenerative is not just another marketing term--it is a standard that must be upheld. As more products adopt the label, the distinction between meaningful claims and marketing language is becoming harder to see, prompting a growing effort to draw a clear line between the two.

What “Regenerative Agriculture” Is Supposed To Mean

To understand the tension around regenerative claims, it helps to look at what the term is intended to represent. For those using it seriously, regenerative agriculture describes a set of practices designed to restore and maintain the long-term health of the land while supporting the people who depend on it.

At the farm level, this means building soil fertility as an outcome of everyday operations rather than relying on external inputs to sustain production. Crops are rotated to manage nutrients and pests, livestock are integrated to recycle plant material into manure, and beneficial species help control insects and weeds. The goal is to capture energy from the sun and cycle nutrients, carbon, and water in ways that support consistent, resilient harvests over time.

Beyond production practices, regenerative agriculture also carries broader expectations. It suggests that farms operate within systems that can sustain not only yields, but also the well-being of farm families, workers, and surrounding communities.

In this sense, regenerative is not just about how food is grown, but about how agricultural systems function over the long term. For consumers, these ideas translate into a set of assumptions when they encounter regenerative claims on food packaging. The term signals that the product was produced using methods that support environmental health, responsible resource use, and stronger agricultural communities. Many shoppers are willing to pay more for products that align with these expectations.

That connection between claim and expectation is what gives regenerative its value in the marketplace--and what makes inconsistent use of the term problematic. When products that do not meet these expectations carry the same label, the meaning of the claim becomes unclear, setting the stage for the tensions now emerging across the industry.

A Familiar Pattern In Food Labeling

When those expectations are not consistently applied, the meaning of regenerative claims begins to blur. The natural products industry has a long experience of its best laid plans being co-opted by outside forces. Big food conglomerates were quick to notice the success of regenerative claims and sought to bask in their glow.

One global food company committed to converting a million acres to regenerative farming to produce better grain and sugar for its products. In practice, those million acres were still planted with GMO seeds, treated with synthetic fertilizer, and sprayed with toxic pesticides. The only change was to replace conventional deep tilling with tractors that drill seeds into the soil.

Using this logic, the producers of both herbicide-tolerant crops and the herbicides the crops tolerate simply proclaim themselves the world leaders in regenerative practices.

The Industrial Incentive To Water Down Standards

As more companies adopt regenerative language in different ways, the incentives of food marketing begin to shape how the claim is used. Food marketing is highly competitive, and the well-informed shopper is often perceived not as the preferred goal but as a problem to overcome.

The daily sales of nearly a million unique packaged goods are tracked by every possible measure. Analysts can see how each product attribute, such as a regenerative claim, moves markets or falls flat. Incremental increases in consumer interest trigger product formulators and marketers to follow suit. But imitation of the claim is different from actually implementing the practices that caused shoppers to value it in the first place.

When one term is used to mean many different things, effective market communication begins to break down.

A Coalition Response

Natural products industry leaders are now moving from concern to coordination, aiming to establish a clear boundary around what qualifies as a legitimate regenerative claim. Rather than waiting for regulators or certification bodies to resolve the issue, a growing coalition of farmers, brands, retailers and advocacy groups is beginning to define that boundary themselves.

At a recent industry trade show, nearly one hundred stakeholders convened for an extended working session focused specifically on regenerative claims. The group represented multiple layers of the food system: independent farmers, emerging and established brands, certification organizations, retailers, and engaged consumers. While perspectives varied, the objective was shared--determine what minimum practices must be in place before a product can credibly be marketed as regenerative.

The discussion was not abstract. Retailers described the difficulty of maintaining shopper trust when similar claims appear on products produced under very different conditions. Farmers questioned the value of investing in rigorous practices or certifications if weaker claims are allowed to compete on equal footing. Certification bodies defended their frameworks, while others challenged whether existing standards adequately reflect consumer expectations. Across these perspectives, a common concern emerged: without a clear threshold, the term risks losing its meaning in the marketplace.

The most consequential signals came from the retail side. Some natural and organic retailers indicated they are preparing to take a more active role in enforcing claim integrity. Products that use regenerative language without meeting emerging minimum expectations may no longer qualify for placement, promotion, or endorsement.

In some cases, brands may be asked to either substantiate their claims more clearly or remove them altogether. This approach marks a notable shift. Historically, retailers have been reluctant to act as gatekeepers for production claims, instead relying on third-party certifications or supplier representations. But as regenerative language proliferates without consistent standards, some retailers now see active curation as necessary to preserve both category integrity and consumer trust.

What is emerging is not a single unified certification, but a coordinated effort to establish shared expectations. Each participant may implement those expectations differently, but the direction is aligned: if a product carries a regenerative claim, it should meet a baseline that is recognizable and defensible across the marketplace.

How A Consensus Standard Works

As retailers and other stakeholders begin to draw clearer lines around regenerative claims, the focus shifts to how those lines are defined and communicated.

Throughout this effort, there has been a steady call for transparency. Since there is a spectrum of attributes associated with regenerative farming, companies should disclose to the public how well they perform on each one.

A consensus standard provides a useful shared methodology: it helps compare the dimensions of different regenerative standards against each other. What a certification scheme leaves out is often as telling as what it includes.

Even with the hair-splitting, minimum requirements to claim regenerative status are becoming clear. Only when a product crosses that threshold should a brand make a regenerative claim for it. Otherwise, no product’s regenerative claim will have value in the market.

Why This Matters For Brands And Retailers

Once those expectations are defined, the implications for brands and retailers become immediate. Brands that rely on strong regenerative claims invest extra effort implementing the practices that support them. Shoppers who recognize this value will seek out the product and pay a higher price. A regenerative claim is essentially a broad promise to make the world better. When a product bearing a substandard regenerative claim attracts shoppers and wins the sale, that competitive advantage is lost.

Retailers that position themselves as leaders in natural and organic foods face the same dilemma. If any product offered by conventional competitors can be presented as regenerative, then supporting better products made with stronger practices delivers little return for the trouble. One retailer’s carefully curated regenerative product selection can begin to look indistinguishable from conventional offerings that are marketed the same way elsewhere.

As a result, both brands and retailers have a clear incentive to push back on claims that are not supported by consistent practices. Maintaining trust in regenerative claims requires more than marketing--it requires that the products carrying those claims meet expectations that shoppers can recognize and rely on.

The Real Test: Will The Meaning Hold?

To ensure a consensus regenerative standard works, brands and retailers will need to apply it consistently. Retailers in particular will need to refuse to sell products with unsupported or confusing claims.

Products with weak or aspirational regenerative claims may still fill conventional markets, but brands that want access to natural and organic retail shelf space may have to adapt to stronger standards that support at least some of their product line.

This is how gate-keeping by progressive natural product retailers drives food system change. There are dozens of regenerative schemes already in place; a responsible retailer will triage the good ones and elevate them among savvy shoppers.

Brands that continue to hide behind less meaningful regenerative claims may be called to account by influencers, shoppers and ESG investors.

Protecting The Meaning of Regenerative

If regenerative claims are to retain their value, the standards behind them must be clearly defined and consistently applied. A competitive market depends on accurate and complete information.

Regenerative claims that fail to disclose how they comply with a meaningful consensus standard and shopper expectations may be circumventing the free market by introducing misinformation that leads to confusion. A focused and determined set of farmers, brands, retailers and consumers can cut through this confusion simply by refusing to support it.

(Perspectives are 100% our own and do not reflect sponsors.)

(Grocery Nerds, Errol Schweizer and Alan Lewis, August 2024.)

peace.