Regenerative Agriculture: How Did It Start And Where Is It Headed?

Regenerative agriculture promises to leave the land in a better state than before somebody farmed it. The term is popping up in scientific papers, steadily rising in our Google searches, and some of the biggest food companies are pledging to practise it. But how did regenerative agriculture come about, and why do we need it?

The term “regenerative agriculture” has roots in the organic movement. In the late 1980s, Robert Rodale, a big name in organic farming, began championing the idea. He felt that “regenerative” conveyed a more powerful message than “sustainable,” to describe a type of farming that worked with nature rather than against it. “I prefer the idea of regenerative agriculture,” he said in an interview at the time. “I’m not satisfied with the term sustainability, I think it’s very appealing to policymakers and scientists, but I don’t think the average person wants to live in a sustained environment, they want to live something that is expanding and going better.”¹ 

"I don't think the average person wants to live in a sustained environment, they want to live in something that is expanding and going better" - Robert Rodale

This framed regenerative as an approach that not only avoided chemical inputs, as organic farming does, but actively improved soil fertility, biodiversity, and the health of farm ecosystems.²

Why regenerative agriculture focuses on soil health

There are a lot of different ways to reach Rodale's ambitious goal to become agriculturally ‘regenerative’, but there is one clear North Star of the movement. Regardless of the approach, it is all about enhancing soil health and boosting its ability to store carbon.² Ask anyone involved in regenerative agriculture, and they’ll tell you that soil is the unsung hero of our food system. “Soil health is a useful term because it recognises that the soil does more for us than just giving us something to produce crops in,” says Ken Giller, Emeritus Professor in Plant Production Systems from Wageningen University. Saskia Visser, an expert in Climate Resilient Food Systems at EIT Climate, adds that “we have forgotten that soil is also alive. There’s a lot of biodiversity in the soil, under the soil, making sure that the soil works the way it does.” 

“We have forgotten that soil is also alive. There’s a lot of biodiversity in the soil, under the soil, making sure that the soil works the way it does.” - Saskia Visser, EIT Climate

Maintaining soil health is crucial to prevent erosion – it takes millennia for agricultural soil to develop, yet we can lose it quickly if conditions aren’t right.³ And once soil is eroded, it can take decades, if not centuries, to restore.⁴

Soil is also far more than just a medium we need to grow plants. It also acts as a giant carbon sink. As plants grow, they suck up carbon dioxide from the air to build their tissues. When plants die, they decompose, and that stored carbon is transferred into the soil, where it can remain locked for centuries.⁵ While it’s still unclear how much of our carbon emissions soil could store, we know that poor farming practices deplete soil and release its baseline carbon, contributing to carbon in the atmosphere rather than mitigating it.⁶

We’re losing soil, but we don’t have 60 harvests left

Claims about soil loss are sometimes overly hyped. A particularly dramatic claim has been circulating within the regenerative movement and beyond - the idea that global soils are so degraded we may only have 60 harvests left.⁷ In reality, the origin of this figure is unclear. We can trace it back to a statement by a UN official at a conference, but there’s no concrete source to support it.⁸

A comprehensive review of soil erosion, however, offers a clearer perspective. The findings suggest that, over the next century, we could lose 20% of conventionally farmed soils and 7% of conservationally farmed soils. While this doesn’t mean an impending global food collapse is right around the corner, it does mean we’re losing a lot of soil. It’s a problem we can’t ignore and, more importantly, a problem we can solve: the study’s data confirm that better farming practices can substantially reduce soil damage.⁹

‘Big Food’ is jumping on the regenerative agriculture bandwagon

Major agrifood companies are now talking about regenerative agriculture - and that’s a good thing, in theory. Meat and dairy producers like JBS, grain companies such as General Mills, agrochemical giants like Bayer and Syngenta, and fast-food chains like McDonald's are all using the term. But a lack of a standard definition means that in some cases, this term has become meaningless.  Johanna Jacobi, Assistant Professor for Agroecological Transitions at ETH Zürich says, “I came across huge coffee monocultures in Brazil: they have coffee monocultures, super high inputs of pesticides and fertilisers, and it is called regenerative. They made some calculations to show it’s carbon positive compared to baseline, which was probably nothing. And then this is branded as regenerative.” That’s why a lot of claims, especially from big industry, are treated with scepticism.

“I came across huge coffee monocultures in Brazil: they have coffee monocultures, super high inputs of pesticides and fertilisers, and it is called regenerative..” - Johanna Jacobi, ETH Zürich

Is regenerative agriculture still part of organic farming?

At times, Regenerative Agriculture is viewed as a step forward from organic practices, with an enhanced commitment to soil health. Other times – especially when discussed by major industry players – it appears as neither organic nor conventional, perhaps serving as a bridge between the two. 

The appeal of regenerative agriculture to those who don’t practise organic is clear: unlike organic farming, which adheres to strict practices, regenerative farming is all about following a set of guiding principles and aiming for tangible outcomes.¹⁰ For example, minimising soil disturbance is a principle, while measuring nutrient levels in soil is a measurable outcome linked to that principle. So long as farmers can prove impact, there aren’t strict rules about how they achieve it. There’s no one-size-fits-all approach: each farmer must determine what works best for their unique situation. For example, organic farming bans synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, but regenerative agriculture doesn’t.¹¹

Without organic farming’s strict regulations, high certification costs, and often lower yields, regenerative advocates view it as a more viable alternative to organic - which has struggled to gain traction with large agrifood players. 

While organic farming has been on the rise across Europe in recent decades, it still only accounts for about 10% of agricultural land. In the US, that figure drops to just 1%, and globally it stands at only 2%.

Legally speaking, regenerative agriculture doesn’t mean anything

Since the term “regenerative” has not been standardised or legally certified like organic, any farmer can choose how to apply regenerative principles. This means that, at the moment, it’s up to anyone’s conscience to determine what justifies labelling a product as “regenerative.” Legally speaking, anything goes.¹¹ Some may argue that what’s crucial is not having a “legally certified” method, but being able to measure outcomes.¹² In other words, don’t look at what I’m doing to keep the soil healthy, measure if it is. 

This approach would be fair if the outcomes weren’t so difficult to measure. “It’s very, very difficult to find indicators that we could really use in a consistent way to tell a story and monitor the benefits of what we’re doing, I’m afraid,” adds Prof. Giller. 

“It’s very, very difficult to find indicators that we could really use in a consistent way to tell a story and monitor the benefits of what we’re doing” - Prof. Giller, Prof. Giller, Wageningen University

Nevertheless, some experts and farmers agree that the lack of a clear definition can be beneficial. “If you end up with a clear definition, it’s usually something along the lines of ‘thou shalt not do this, thou shalt not do that’,” notes Prof. Giller. The risk is that rigid rules could stifle the creativity and versatility farmers need to adapt to the conditions of their land. So there’s a fine line to tread: we’ll need regenerative agriculture policies to prevent misuse, but they will have to be flexible enough to allow adaptability. 

Read more about the push to standardise regenerative agriculture here.

More labour is needed to scale up

Social issues are a key challenge in regenerative agriculture, though not all advocates prioritise them.¹² According to Prof. Giller, “regenerative agriculture signs up often to issues of fairness and equity and things which go beyond the actual crop production to the way the whole food system works.” A major hurdle for scaling regenerative practices lies in labour: unlike monocultures, which are machine-reliant, diversified regenerative farms need a dedicated workforce. Yet, the farming population is shrinking—only 4% of workers in Europe and 2% in the U.S. are in agriculture.^{13, 14} You can learn more about why European farming faces a demographic crisis here. 
 

“Regenerative agriculture signs up often to issues of fairness and equity and things which go beyond the actual crop production to the way the whole food system works.” - Prof. Giller, Wageningen University

Some proponents hope regenerative farming could attract people disillusioned with urban life, while tech advocates argue that automation is the answer, even if it reduces the human role in farming.¹⁵ Right now, though, most tech innovations benefit conventional farms, as regenerative systems require more complex ecosystem management. This may change, but for now, dedicated farmers remain essential for advancing regenerative goals.

Can regenerative agriculture feed the world?

The big looming question is: will regenerative agriculture succeed in feeding the world? 

At first, I was asking this question all the time to all of my interviewees. Now, I’m beginning to think that might not be the right question at all. My research on the ground visiting regenerative farms in Spain, Italy, and Brazil showed me that regenerative agriculture can be a powerful tool for small-scale farmers, a means to restore degraded lands, a lifeline for communities deeply connected to farming, and an effective method to combat desertification. While it may not revolutionise global agriculture overnight, its significance in these struggling pockets of the planet is undeniable. 

If anything, regenerative agriculture reminds us that we don’t have to choose between global organic agriculture or global conventional agriculture. Each piece of land has unique needs that farmers must be free to address. But if we leave it to big food corporations to define what regenerative agriculture means, we will risk diluting the term so much that it becomes meaningless.