New Report Finds “Regenerative” Food Labels Are a Confusing Patchwork

While consumers think “regenerative” means no pesticides, they’re often wrong—organic stands out as most rigorous, reliable standard for reducing pesticide exposure

WASHINGTON — A new analysis of regenerative food labels reveals a rapidly expanding — but inconsistent — marketplace that risks causing consumer confusion. As interest in sustainably grown food grows, the Friends of the Earth report finds that products can bear similar claims but may represent vastly different farming practices on the ground. Consumers trying to make healthier and more environmentally responsible food choices face a grab bag of labels.

“While consumers might reasonably assume that ‘regenerative’ food is grown without toxic pesticides, that’s not always the case,” said Sarah Starman, senior campaigner at Friends of the Earth U.S. “Some regenerative labeling programs allow the use of synthetic pesticides, including substances linked to cancer, hormone disruption, infertility, and neurological harm. Consumers may not always be getting what they believe they’re paying for.” 

The report evaluates 10 prominent food labeling programs, finding that certifications using the term “regenerative” vary dramatically in what they actually require—and some of the most rigorous standards meeting regenerative principles don’t use the term at all. 

The report found wide variation across three critical areas: toxic pesticide and synthetic fertilizer use, soil health practices, and standard integrity related to verification and traceability.

In a crowded field of regenerative food labels, the report asserts that USDA Organic, and labels that build on it — Regenerative Organic Certified and Real Organic Project — are the most reliable and enforceable standards when it comes to chemical use and soil health. The organic standard prohibits all synthetic fertilizers and more than 900 synthetic pesticides otherwise allowed in farming. Research shows that just one week on an organic diet can reduce pesticides in the body by up to 95%. Organic also has strong requirements for ecological soil health practices combined with a robust verification system backed by federal law.

“For shoppers who care about what’s actually in their food, distinguishing which labels verify reduced use of harmful pesticides matters,” said Kendra Klein, deputy director of science at Friends of the Earth U.S. “For consumers prioritizing reduced pesticide exposure, organic is a top choice.” 

Other labels that prohibit harmful pesticides are Demeter Biodynamic and Certified Regenerative by Regeneration International – Grade A. Three labels in the analysis don’t go as far but have meaningful restrictions on pesticides: Certified Regenerative by A Greener World, Rainforest Alliance Regenerative, and Soil and Climate Health Initiative Verified.

Along with human health, agrochemical reduction matters for the land itself. Decades of scientific research show that reducing reliance on synthetic pesticides and fertilizers is foundational to any credible regenerative system. These chemicals degrade soil biology, decimate pollinators, contribute significantly to climate emissions, and pollute our air and water. Labels that ignore this reality risk reinforcing the very system they claim to transform.

While the report is designed to help consumers make informed choices, it also recognizes that regenerative labels are of growing interest to food companies. For retailers, brands, and institutional buyers, regenerative labeling programs can be mechanisms for transforming supply chains to meet climate, biodiversity, and resilience goals. Some programs can help companies meet specific consumer demands — e.g. for food without toxic pesticide residues — while others may help companies engage a broader set of farmers and support gradual improvement over time, an approach that can be critical for scaling regenerative practices. But the report warns that regardless of a regenerative labeling program’s approach or model, structural integrity is key.

“Labels only matter if people can trust them. That trust depends on independent third-party verification to confirm that farmers are meeting the standard and strong traceability systems to ensure that the final product actually contains ingredients from those farms,” said Charlotte Vallaeys, principal at Vallaeys Consulting and one of the co-authors of the report. “Even the most rigorous standards have limited value without credible systems to verify compliance and track products from the farm to the final product consumers see on the shelf.”

Finally, the report asserts that the surge in regenerative labels reflects growing demand for a better food system, and highlights gaps in public policy. Current agricultural policies continue to favor conventional, chemical-intensive monocultures and factory farming, leaving labeling programs to fill the void when it comes to regenerative agriculture. The report envisions a future in which the highest standards set by food labels become not exceptional achievements, but a baseline expectation for what our agricultural policies deliver in terms of environmental and public health, community well-being, and sustainable farmer livelihoods.

The labeling programs evaluated are: Certified Regenerative by A Greener World, Certified Regenerative by Regeneration International, Demeter Biodynamic, Rainforest Alliance Regenerative, Real Organic Project, Regenagri, Regenerative Organic Certified, Regenified, Soil & Climate Health Verified, and USDA Organic. 

Contact: Kendra Klein, PhD, [email protected]