“Regenerative” farming
Real change or just the latest buzzword?
As food giants race to rebrand, a new report from As You Sow puts their claims under the microscope. Here’s what you need to know and why it matters.
What Is Regenerative Agriculture?
Regenerative agriculture broadly refers to farming practices that restore soil health, increase biodiversity, and improve ecosystem resilience. It’s become a hot topic as more brands promise to “heal the land” but how much is real, and how much is just marketing?
The Report in a Nutshell
Who’s in the Spotlight?
Twenty of the world’s biggest food and beverage companies including Nestlé, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Unilever, General Mills, Danone, Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, and more were graded on their efforts to make food production better for soil, climate, and communities.
How Were They Judged?
Companies were scored (A–F) across 15 performance indicators in four categories:
Commitment
Implementation
Transparency
Farmer Support
Why the Scoring Matters:
The grading isn’t just about PR, companies had to provide evidence for their claims, and independent verification was rare. That means most scores reflect what brands say about themselves, not what’s been proven by outside experts. The full report and company scorecards are available here.
Key Findings
Industry-wide underperformance:
The average grade was a “D.” Only General Mills and Danone cracked a “C,” mainly thanks to better reporting and some real farmer support.Vague commitments:
Most brands promise “regenerative” change but rarely define it or set deadlines.Transparency gaps:
Less than 25% offer independently verified data; most rely on their own PR.Minimal farmer support:
Direct help for farmers is rare - without this, change won’t reach the field.Animal welfare & social justice overlooked:
These issues are inconsistently addressed and rarely part of “regenerative” frameworks.High risk of greenwashing:
“Regenerative” is often just a label, not a practice.What’s needed:
Stronger standards, regulatory oversight, and third-party verification are critical for real progress.
What the Critics Say
A review from The New Lede echoes these findings:
Companies like W.K. Kellogg Co. and B&G Foods scored at the bottom, while PepsiCo, McCain Foods, and Lamb Weston received higher marks.
The review highlights the challenge of moving from pilot projects to full supply chain transformation and the lack of field-level data.
There’s a strong warning about greenwashing, regenerative claims are outpacing real action.
Both sources agree: robust standards, regulatory oversight, and investor involvement are critical for real progress.
Helen’s Perspective
I’ve seen this pattern before: big promises, fuzzy definitions, little substance. Until “regenerative” means something concrete and companies are held to it - it’s just another marketing ploy.
Without independent checks, we’re left taking their word for it and that’s not enough.
Real change starts with real standards, real data, and real support for the people actually growing our food.
If farmers aren’t equipped or incentivised to transition, “regenerative” will stay a boardroom slogan, not a field-level reality.
So, next time you see “regenerative” on a label, ask yourself: what does it really mean and who’s making sure it’s true?
Want more honest breakdowns and independent commentary?
Subscribe for regular deep dives—and if you value this work, my 20% off promotion for new paid subscribers is still running. Let’s hold the food system to account, together.
Your support keeps this work independent and accessible. Thank you!
If just 5% of my readers tipped £1/$1 this essay would pay for itself in terms of time spent working on it.
I very much agree with the need to stop it being a term that’s taken over by use in greenwashing, and data and standards are probably the answer. I worry that isn’t without significant challenges though…
There are lots of kitemark/certificate schemes that we see all over boxes, that don’t mean what a lot of people assume they do from the logo (RSPCA assured, Red Tractor). Some are rigorously tested, but they don’t always mean what people assume.
Getting to a strong definition that really delivers the outcomes needed, will mean agreeing on some really complicated debates within regen, like whether glyphosate is ok.
Then when you’ve agreed them, people will still argue! There’s still fierce debate about whether organic farming rules the right things in and out (like if you buy in muck to spread, whether that has to be from an organic farm too). It’ll have to be a set of standards that can encompass a huge set of practices, as regen has to suit the needs of every type of land, at many starting levels of degradation, for all types of farming.
And organic (as an example) means different standards in America to the U.K., creating a bit more confusion!
So it might be better to make the standards about outputs/outcomes, not practices… but for that we need a really robust set of KPIs, that can be controlled by a farmer (so you can plan ahead) with the tech to reliably measure them, and that can’t be gamed by someone (so they can appear to hit the standard, without the philosophy).
Standards have to be set and maintained, but then getting to the right standard might take time, so we might not want a situation where people who are genuinely ‘working towards regen’ can’t use the word… but then I could see how a category for people on the way to the standards could open up loopholes too.
Developing all of that has costs. So as someone very wisely said, we don’t want those costs to all fall of farmers too. That has to be equitable! So while I don’t think you’d want government to resolve any of the above, they could provide some funding… but would that turn some people off? And if it falls to consumers, will they all pay it?
I’m totally on board with the idea - it being difficult doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing - but my worry is that it might take quite a while, and would need big support to fund and devise the system, develop and roll-out the tech, get genuine transparency and get people to really ask questions and look at that information about their food.
Exactly this. “Regenerative” without proof is just marketing compost. Real change needs real standards, real data, and real farmer support — otherwise, it’s all boardroom talk while the soil stays the same.