Integrity in Regenerative: RI Responds to the IFOAM North America Synthetic Inputs Session
“ Degenerative practices, which are, by definition, the opposite of regenerative, cannot be deemed regenerative.” André Leu
Can synthetic fertilizers and pesticides coexist with genuine regenerative agriculture? It’s one of the most contested questions in the food movement right now, and IFOAM North America and Natural Grocers brought stakeholders together to discuss in a session moderated by Alan Lewis of Natural Grocers. The panel featured Dr. Jon Lundgren, agroecologist and founder of the Ecdysis Foundation; Dr. Linley Dixon, plant pathologist, farmer, and Co-Director of the Real Organic Project; and Carrie Balkcom, Executive Director of the American Grassfed Association. Alongside them, farmers, advocates, retailers, and food system leaders weighed in.
The Problem: A Label Without a Definition
The conversation kept returning to a central frustration: shoppers are increasingly confronted with regenerative claims at the shelf, yet have little way of knowing what those claims actually mean. During this IFOAM session, it was argued that retailers must act as gatekeepers, ensuring that only products meeting a credible standard can carry a regenerative label. Without that, the term risks going the way of “sustainable” or “natural” greenwashed and hollowed out by overuse and corporate co-option.
Participants explored the tension between transition models, which allow some synthetic inputs during a farm’s journey toward regenerative practice, and more principled approaches that reject them altogether. The discussion was grounded in real farming experience. One speaker challenged the assumption that growers must choose between tillage and herbicides, remarking, “If this is the attitude you have then you’re dead in the water before you even begin.” Another reflected on years of field observation: “The only place that I had annual weeds, was where I used herbicides.”
What the Data Shows
A stakeholder survey conducted alongside the session captured where the broader community stands. Soil health, biodiversity, and livestock welfare were rated non-negotiable by the overwhelming majority of respondents. Eliminating synthetic inputs and GMOs ranked similarly. When it came to verification, third-party certification and scientifically verifiable data with record-keeping were seen as the most credible approaches. Organic certification itself was more contested, with a significant share of respondents viewing it as desirable but not essential to a minimum regenerative standard
.RI’s Position: The Opposite of Regenerative is Degenerative
At Regeneration International, we’ve been clear on this question since our founding. As our International Director André Leu has written: “Agricultural systems that use degenerative practices and inputs that damage the environment, soil, and health, such as synthetic toxic pesticides, synthetic water-soluble fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, confined animal feeding operations, and destructive tillage systems, are not regenerative. They must be called out as degenerative agriculture.”
This isn’t a semantic argument. It goes to the heart of what regenerative systems actually do. Leu’s work and the Regeneration International Standard explains why: “The key to successful regenerative agriculture is maximizing the capture of solar energy through photosynthesis. This solar energy powers the production system that feeds the soil microbiome, making nutrients, water, pest, and disease management available to plants and animals.” Synthetic inputs disrupt exactly this system, killing the soil biology that makes regenerative productivity possible in the first place. As Leu notes, “the most productive regenerative systems avoid using herbicides and excessive tillage to kill plants” because dead plants and bare soil don’t photosynthesize, and it is photosynthesis that powers the entire system.
The greenwashing concern is equally important. Leu has written extensively about the way agrochemical corporations are attempting to claim the regenerative label for systems that are, by any honest definition, degenerative: “Bayer/Monsanto, Syngenta, and other members of the poison cartel are trying to greenwash their toxic industrial farming systems by hijacking Regenerative Agriculture.” The IFOAM North America session is part of the industry’s necessary response to this, an attempt to set a floor that makes the label defensible. RI strongly supports that effort.
Why Standards Matter and What Good Ones Look Like
RI has developed its own Regeneration International Standard as a contribution to this work, not as a competing certification, but as a clear framework for what regenerative agriculture should and should not include. It is intentionally farmer-friendly with principles and guidance rather than a lengthy regulatory document. It outlines clear prohibitions on synthetic toxic pesticides, synthetic water-soluble fertilizers, GMOs, confined animal feeding operations, and destructive tillage.
The RI Standard has two levels: Regenerative A Grade – (meeting all the requirements) and Transition to Regenerative – (in the process of meeting all the requirements)
Dr. Leu outlines the Framework:
Our Regenerative A Grade is our minimum standard. Other standards are degenerative if they permit degenerative practices and inputs – this includes hydroponics and synthetic feed supplements in the USDA NOP standard and destructive tillage in most organic standards. This is where the FOE analysis was not correct and very misleading. We have regenerative in transition for farmers and ranchers who are actively moving away from degenerative practices and inputs towards fully regenerative practices and inputs. This is being honest: we are not stating that they are regenerative yet, but we are encouraging them to transition.
Our transition model makes it easy for farmers and ranchers to make the change. The organic conversion model has been the biggest impediment to farmers worldwide becoming organic because it means years of lower yields without the organic premium to compensate for income loss. I have spoken to thousands of farmers worldwide about this stating “it is one of the major reasons they will not go organic.” Our in-transition label rewards farmers for changing and, at the same time, is honest with consumers, letting them know the products are not fully regenerative.
What Comes Next
Conversations like this one are important. The movement is at a critical juncture, regenerative agriculture is now mainstream enough that the term is worth fighting over. Bringing together scientists, farmers, retailers, and advocates to work toward shared definitions is how the movement defends its integrity.
Recordings, slides, and the full survey results from the IFOAM North America session are available here. We also encourage you to read André Leu’s writing on degenerative agriculture and greenwashing and the RI Standard for RI’s full position on these questions.
Join Us at the People’s Food Summit
These questions — what regenerative means, who gets to define it, and how we build food systems that truly restore rather than deplete — are at the heart of what the People’s Food Summit exists to explore. Held every year on World Food Day, October 16, the PFS is a free 24-hour global virtual event bringing together farmers, advocates, researchers, and food system leaders from around the world. If the conversation happening at IFOAM North America matters to you, this is your space. Learn more and register here.