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.
Luke, you’ve summed up so many of the real-world challenges in turning “regenerative” from a hopeful buzzword into something meaningful and trustworthy. I completely agree there’s a minefield of certification schemes out there already, and it’s easy for well-intentioned standards to become diluted or misunderstood, especially when logos don’t always match what’s happening on the ground.
The debate around inputs (like glyphosate), the differences in standards between countries, and the challenge of creating something both robust and flexible enough for all types of land and farming systems - these are huge hurdles.
And you’re right whatever system emerges, it absolutely can’t put all the cost and admin on farmers’ shoulders. If we want real change, the support (financial and otherwise) needs to be shared across the supply chain, with transparency for consumers and a fair approach for producers who are genuinely trying to improve.
It’s complicated, and it won’t happen overnight, but having these conversations is where it starts. Thanks for laying out the issues so clearly if we keep pushing for standards that actually deliver real, measurable benefits for land, animals, and communities, I think we can get there, even if it takes time.
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.
Absolutely agree “regenerative” has become a buzzword in so many circles, and without clear standards or real accountability, it risks meaning very little on the ground. If we want genuine progress, we need transparency, measurable outcomes, and practical support for farmers who are actually doing the work. Otherwise, as you say, it’s just more talk and no real change for the soil or the people working it.
For myself, I only eat what I produce or I trade my excess dairy products for with a friend or neighbor. I am not interested in labels or marketing because money means less to me than health. Any marketing is just a way to get my money.
My frustration is with my kids, who have decided that brands and marketing are more important than real food. I remember as a young adult enjoying the freedom to eat sweet cereal anytime I wanted. It lasted for only a few years before I focused on producing my own food. I hope my kids swing the same way. The excitement of earning your own money and spending it on junk food should fade, but in the meantime I am interacting with teenagers who are cranky because they are living on gas station food and monster energy drinks. The good news is that they still will drink lots of fresh milk and they run out of money before the next paycheck for junk food, so there is a window of time they nurish bodies before the cycle repeats. Modern living is a challenge!
Thank you for sharing your story I really relate to the tension between wanting the best, most nourishing food and the realities of modern life, especially with children in the mix!
It’s so true that labels and marketing can distract from what actually matters: real food, grown and shared within a community. I love that you’re able to produce and trade for most of what you eat that’s something many of us aspire to. And you’re right, the pull of convenience and branded foods is strong, especially for young people finding their independence.
It sounds like you’re giving your kids a great foundation, even if they’re not always choosing it right now. I hope, like you, they’ll come back around to valuing good food as they get older. Modern living definitely has its challenges, but it’s encouraging to hear how you’re navigating it with patience and a sense of humour!
My fear is, that as soon as the big corps get involved, the costs will be lumped on to the farmers & growers. The big corps will take all the box ticking glory, whilst more farmers will go out of business and food will become unaffordable.
I dream of the day where these big mega company groups disappear... I know its fantasy, but we can dream.
I completely hear you, and your fears are well-founded. Too often, when big corporations step in, the extra costs and compliance demands end up falling on farmers and growers, while the corporations collect the headlines and the profits. It’s frustrating to see small producers squeezed out, even as they’re the ones actually doing the work on the ground.
Like you, I sometimes dream of a food system where independent farmers are valued, supported, and able to thrive without being buried by red tape or pushed out by big business. It might feel far off, but I think it’s a vision worth holding onto and one we should keep pushing for.
Thank you I completely agree. Regenerative farming has so much potential to benefit both people and the planet, but it really does need meaningful support if it’s going to move beyond just being a buzzword. That means proper investment, clear standards, and real backing for the farmers actually doing the work. I’m hopeful we’ll see more of that in the future, because genuine change is possible if we all push for 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.
Luke, you’ve summed up so many of the real-world challenges in turning “regenerative” from a hopeful buzzword into something meaningful and trustworthy. I completely agree there’s a minefield of certification schemes out there already, and it’s easy for well-intentioned standards to become diluted or misunderstood, especially when logos don’t always match what’s happening on the ground.
The debate around inputs (like glyphosate), the differences in standards between countries, and the challenge of creating something both robust and flexible enough for all types of land and farming systems - these are huge hurdles.
And you’re right whatever system emerges, it absolutely can’t put all the cost and admin on farmers’ shoulders. If we want real change, the support (financial and otherwise) needs to be shared across the supply chain, with transparency for consumers and a fair approach for producers who are genuinely trying to improve.
It’s complicated, and it won’t happen overnight, but having these conversations is where it starts. Thanks for laying out the issues so clearly if we keep pushing for standards that actually deliver real, measurable benefits for land, animals, and communities, I think we can get there, even if it takes time.
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.
Absolutely agree “regenerative” has become a buzzword in so many circles, and without clear standards or real accountability, it risks meaning very little on the ground. If we want genuine progress, we need transparency, measurable outcomes, and practical support for farmers who are actually doing the work. Otherwise, as you say, it’s just more talk and no real change for the soil or the people working it.
For myself, I only eat what I produce or I trade my excess dairy products for with a friend or neighbor. I am not interested in labels or marketing because money means less to me than health. Any marketing is just a way to get my money.
My frustration is with my kids, who have decided that brands and marketing are more important than real food. I remember as a young adult enjoying the freedom to eat sweet cereal anytime I wanted. It lasted for only a few years before I focused on producing my own food. I hope my kids swing the same way. The excitement of earning your own money and spending it on junk food should fade, but in the meantime I am interacting with teenagers who are cranky because they are living on gas station food and monster energy drinks. The good news is that they still will drink lots of fresh milk and they run out of money before the next paycheck for junk food, so there is a window of time they nurish bodies before the cycle repeats. Modern living is a challenge!
Thank you for sharing your story I really relate to the tension between wanting the best, most nourishing food and the realities of modern life, especially with children in the mix!
It’s so true that labels and marketing can distract from what actually matters: real food, grown and shared within a community. I love that you’re able to produce and trade for most of what you eat that’s something many of us aspire to. And you’re right, the pull of convenience and branded foods is strong, especially for young people finding their independence.
It sounds like you’re giving your kids a great foundation, even if they’re not always choosing it right now. I hope, like you, they’ll come back around to valuing good food as they get older. Modern living definitely has its challenges, but it’s encouraging to hear how you’re navigating it with patience and a sense of humour!
My fear is, that as soon as the big corps get involved, the costs will be lumped on to the farmers & growers. The big corps will take all the box ticking glory, whilst more farmers will go out of business and food will become unaffordable.
I dream of the day where these big mega company groups disappear... I know its fantasy, but we can dream.
I completely hear you, and your fears are well-founded. Too often, when big corporations step in, the extra costs and compliance demands end up falling on farmers and growers, while the corporations collect the headlines and the profits. It’s frustrating to see small producers squeezed out, even as they’re the ones actually doing the work on the ground.
Like you, I sometimes dream of a food system where independent farmers are valued, supported, and able to thrive without being buried by red tape or pushed out by big business. It might feel far off, but I think it’s a vision worth holding onto and one we should keep pushing for.
Regenerative farming sounds like a great idea. I hope it starts getting the support it needs rather than it just being a marketing tool.
Thank you I completely agree. Regenerative farming has so much potential to benefit both people and the planet, but it really does need meaningful support if it’s going to move beyond just being a buzzword. That means proper investment, clear standards, and real backing for the farmers actually doing the work. I’m hopeful we’ll see more of that in the future, because genuine change is possible if we all push for it.