The California State Board on Food and Agriculture convened after spending 10 months workshopping and receiving public input on a proposed definition of regenerative agriculture – one intended for shaping state policies and programs, not marketing.
The current staff definition outlines 13 target outcomes that broadly identify positive results of regenerative practices, stressing “principles of soil health” and acknowledging Indigenous farming traditions.
During the three hour meeting, questions were repeated over how a definition will restrict the organic market. Participants also debated whether organic should be the baseline for the regenerative ag definition, and how it could ultimately be interpreted by other agencies.
“This definition is kind of neglecting the fact that all of this will produce marketing, no matter what you think will happen… we're already in the marketplace seeing regenerative certifications come up,” said Mark Squire, a Petaluma based grocer and organic farmer. “It's confusing the hell out of the consumer.”
Board members addressed concerns over ambiguity in the definition, saying that some of the language was written intentionally to avoid stifling innovation.
“[We] can't see everything from where we stand,” said board member Doria Robinson, who noted that target outcomes regarding pest management were the hardest for staff to summarize.
California Farm Bureau policy advocate Richard Filgas asked the board to consider waiting for a federal definition from the USDA to avoid disruptions in interstate commerce, citing the National Organic Program as an example for such standardization. He and others mentioned that industry buzzwords – like “sustainable agriculture” – have stirred confusion among consumers and farmers alike, despite not having attachment to any quantitative variables.
California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) policy director Rebekah Weber pointed the board toward CCOF’s regenerative pathway model, which she recommended the state use as a framework to provide a tiered incentive structure for interested growers.
“Our pathway is based on the idea that farmers do not regenerate overnight, but that most farmers are on the pathway to becoming regenerative,” Weber said.
Robinson responded via Zoom chat to the pathway approach from the perspective of the work group, writing that while a pathway was considered, the group decided to focus “on desired outcomes” over a list of specific practices.
Fears over the definition influencing regenerative certification persisted throughout the board and public comment. CDFA Secretary Karen Ross asked the board to consider amending the introduction to explicitly state a focus on regenerative agriculture practices, which can then “lead to a certification by those who choose to do it.”
Board members agreed that staff needs to examine what kinds of programs this definition is going to inform and how it will be interpreted and subsequently integrated into those programs.
The board motioned to have CDFA staff reach out to the Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory Panel (EFA SAP) representatives to receive feedback on how the definition could be used in the agency’s programs. The decision was informed by Sec. Ross, who noted that the panel has interagency participation from the State Water Resources Control Board, Air Resources Board and Department of Conservation, among others.
The next Food and Ag board meeting is scheduled for Oct. 2.
