Regenerative agriculture is gaining traction across the U.S., but a sharp divide is emerging over what the term truly means—and whether it delivers on its environmental promises. Once championed for promoting soil health and resilience, the regenerative label is now at the center of a growing debate over chemical use, consumer trust, and the future of sustainable farming.
At issue is the widespread adoption of herbicides in no-till systems. While organic producers rely on mechanical tillage to manage weeds, regenerative growers often turn to chemical controls to preserve soil structure and reduce erosion. Advocates argue that reduced tillage and the use of cover crops and diverse rotations can improve soil biology and carbon storage, even with herbicide use.
But critics, including longtime organic experts, warn that labeling chemically reliant systems as “regenerative” risks misleading consumers and diluting the term. They point out that truly regenerative farming should include minimal chemical inputs, integration of livestock, and a systems-based approach rooted in long-term soil and ecosystem health.
The lack of a formal regulatory definition has left the term vulnerable to marketing spin. While some private organizations are developing certification standards, there is currently no federal guideline for what qualifies as regenerative—raising concerns about greenwashing in both food labeling and ag policy.
Despite the disagreements, both sides agree on the need for better soil stewardship. Whether through organic or regenerative methods, the shared goal remains clear: rebuilding healthy, productive soil for future generations.
Source: Carey Gillam, “Q&A – A look at the ‘turf war’ over regenerative agriculture,” The New Lede, May 2025.