Many consumers reasonably assume that regenerative food is grown without toxic pesticides. After all, how can a system claim to regenerate soil, biodiversity, and human health while relying on chemicals designed to kill living organisms? 

Yet Friends of the Earth’s new label guide finds that some regenerative labeling programs still allow the use of synthetic pesticides, including substances linked to cancer, hormone disruption, infertility, and neurological harm.

That disconnect matters. For families trying to reduce pesticide exposure—especially those with young children or who are pregnant—labels are not just values statements. They are health decisions.

It also matters for the land itself. Decades of scientific research make it clear that reducing reliance on fossil-fuel-based 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. A label that ignores this reality risks reinforcing the very system it claims to transform.

The report finds that certifications using the term regenerative vary dramatically in what they require—not just for harmful inputs but also for soil health practices. It also finds that some of the most rigorous standards meeting regenerative principles don’t use the term at all. 

Overall, the analysis shows that the USDA Organic seal, and labels that build on it—Regenerative Organic Certified and Real Organic Project—lead in prohibiting toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers as well as in requiring ecological soil health practices like cover cropping, crop rotations, appropriate tillage, and feeding the soil with biological sources of fertility.

A label is only as strong as the verification system behind it. The report also highlights another source of inconsistency: some labels are backed by rigorous, enforceable criteria while others rely on vague requirements and weak verification systems.

For a labeling program to be credible, it needs to do more than make claims—it needs to define clear standards and verify that farmers meet those standards through independent audits. 

Equally important is traceability—the system a labeling program puts in place to track a product through the supply chain. 

This matters in a very practical way for consumers trying to avoid pesticide residues. With no reliable way to trace a product from the field where it’s grown to the labeled product, it’s impossible to know whether it was mixed with conventional supply at some point along the way.

Again, organic stands out: it requires third-party certification, annual inspections, and binding standards with a full audit trail from farm to shelf. And it’s the only food labeling system in the U.S. backed by federal law.

Studies show that just one week on an organic diet can reduce pesticide levels in people’s bodies up to 95 percent. And decades of data show that organic farming systems result in regenerative outcomes for the land. 

More concerning still is how thoroughly the term regenerative can be co-opted when it’s not attached to any standards at all. Pesticide companies now market themselves as leaders in regenerative agriculture, even as they continue to profit from the very products that decimate soil life, biodiversity, and our health. When a single word can be used to describe both pesticide-free farming and farming systems drenched in toxic chemicals, it ceases to function as a meaningful word. 

This kind of greenwashing doesn’t just create confusion—it diverts public energy and attention away from true solutions. For those seeking a genuinely healthier food system, labels grounded in rigorous standards—like organic—offer a clear path.

Labels matter because public policy is failing. The explosion of regenerative labels points to a deeper issue: the failure of U.S. food and farm policy. Farmers operate within a system that heavily subsidizes chemical-intensive monocultures while making it riskier to adopt ecological practices like crop diversification or cover cropping. 

Meanwhile, regulators in the United States continue to allow over 80 pesticides banned in other countries because science shows they threaten our health or the environment.

Meaningful labels are doing important work to bridge the chasm between what farmers, consumers, and the planet need and the toxic food system our public policies are delivering.

But labels alone cannot fix a broken system. Ultimately, the goal should not be a marketplace crowded with competing labels, each asking consumers to decode its meaning. It should be a food system where the highest standards—healthy soil, clean water, thriving biodiversity, safe food, and fair conditions for farmers and workers—are the baseline, not the exception.

Until then, the clarity, transparency, and integrity of food labels matter. 

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Jan Kopriva, Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | Consumers Think Regenerative Means No Pesticides. They’re Often Wrong. appeared first on Food Tank.

The U.S. government recently approved a genetically engineered wheat called HB4 to be grown and sold for human consumption. This marks a troubling turning point for our food system. HB4 is engineered to tolerate glufosinate, a highly hazardous herbicide. Glufosinate is banned in the European Union because it’s toxic to reproduction. Research links it to premature birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, and birth defects in offspring. According to data from the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, glufosinate is significantly more chronically toxic than glyphosate, another herbicide that’s been the focus of public outcry.

Because it goes together with glufosinate, this genetically modified organism, or GMO, wheat could lead to increased residues of this toxic chemical in common foods like bread, pasta, and cereals.

A new report from Friends of the Earth makes clear that GMO wheat offers high risks, no clear benefits, and moves us further away from the safe, healthy, regenerative food system we urgently need. Along with harm to human health, glufosinate can harm soil organisms, pollinators, and aquatic life—undermining the very ecological foundations of agriculture.

HB4 wheat is not innovation, it is a repetition of a well-documented failure—the chemical-dependent model introduced with Monsanto’s glyphosate-tolerant Roundup Ready crops in the 1990s. Those GMO crops drove massive increases in herbicide use, spawned herbicide-resistant superweeds, and trapped farmers on a costly pesticide treadmill. Glufosinate-tolerant crops like corn and soy are already following the same path.

HB4 wheat would extend this failed, toxic system to one of the world’s most important staple foods—deepening chemical dependence, increasing costs for farmers, and compounding environmental damage, while delivering no proven public benefit.

The implications for farmers are especially serious. Wheat is the third most widely-grown crop in the United States, and about 44 percent of U.S. wheat is exported—representing billions of dollars in farm income. Yet major trading partners, including Mexico, Japan, and the Philippines, do not accept genetically engineered wheat.

Even limited commercialization of HB4 could jeopardize export markets and disrupt supply chains. This is not a hypothetical concern. Past incidents involving unapproved GMO crop contamination triggered import suspensions and cost U.S. farmers millions of dollars.

Because wheat systems are highly interconnected, farmers who choose not to plant GMO wheat could still be harmed by genetic contamination and commingling. Once again, farmers would shoulder the risks of a technology that primarily benefits seed and chemical corporations.

Despite these risks, HB4 was approved through a deeply flawed regulatory process. Regulators did not require independent research, accepting voluntary data from the manufacturer to conclude the wheat is “safe.” Nor did agencies require a thorough assessment of cumulative health, environmental, or economic impacts. This approach places corporate assurances above precaution—and leaves the public to bear the consequences.

Even the central marketing claim behind HB4—that it offers drought tolerance—doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Independent evidence demonstrating superior performance under drought conditions is lacking. Analyses of available data suggest HB4 may yield less than conventional wheat, even in dry years. Drought tolerance is a complex trait shaped by soil health, crop diversity, and management practices—not a single engineered gene.

If we are serious about climate resilience, doubling down on chemical-intensive agriculture is the wrong path. True climate solutions already exist, and they don’t require toxic trade-offs. Agroecological approaches—such as organic farming, diversified crop rotations, cover cropping, and regionally adapted plant breeding—have been shown to improve soil health, increase water retention, reduce input costs, and strengthen farm resilience in the face of climate extremes.

Organic agriculture, which prohibits GMOs and more than 900 synthetic pesticides, offers a powerful example of how we can produce food while protecting biodiversity, public health, and farmer livelihoods. These systems build resilience from the ground up, rather than relying on chemical crutches that ultimately fail.

The approval of GMO wheat threatens to lock us into a past we should be moving beyond. Instead of repeating the mistakes of the last 30 years, we have an opportunity to invest in solutions that truly serve farmers, consumers, and the planet.

Friends of the Earth is calling on food companies, policymakers, and consumers to reject HB4 genetically engineered wheat—now, before it is grown at commercial scale in the U.S. Our food system cannot afford another costly experiment in chemical dependence. We need courage to choose a different path—one rooted in science and care for our health, our planet, and the communities that feed us.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Tomasz Filipek, Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | A Toxic Turn for Our Daily Bread: Why GMO Wheat Raises Serious Concerns appeared first on Food Tank.

“Biologicals used to be the uncool kid in the classroom,” said Prem Warrior, a senior technical advisor at Syngenta who took part in the summit, “but now every company in the world wants to do something with them.”

Among the things companies want to do is genetically engineer them—specifically, to engineer microscopic living creatures in the soil, like bacteria and fungi, to enhance their ability to kill pests or to or generate nutrients like nitrogen.

A new report from Friends of the Earth explores the potential implications of this novel use of genetic engineering, something that is fundamentally different from the genetically engineered (GE) crops that have been the center of debate for decades. Microbes can share genetic material with each other far more readily than crops and can travel great distances on the wind. The genetic modifications released inside GE microbes could move across species and geographic boundaries with unforeseen and potentially irreparable consequences. The scale of release is also far larger, and the odds of containment far smaller. An application of GE bacteria could release 3 trillion genetically modified organisms every half an acre that’s about how many GE corn plants there are in the entire U.S.

The entry of massive agrichemical companies into the field and their interest in genetically engineering microbes raises red flags. The creation and distribution of GE crops has typically been controlled by these same corporations, which have a long track record of disregarding the environmental and human health impacts of their products, disenfranchising family-scale farmers, obfuscating the truth, and obstructing regulations.

The new report details a range of concerns. The stakes are high—healthy soil is central to our ability to continue feeding ourselves in a changing climate. It’s the basis of farmers’ resilience to droughts and floods, and it could help slow climate chaos by serving as a carbon sink. The tiny microbes that reside in the soil play an outsized role—regulating global carbon and nitrogen cycles, building soil structure, providing crops with immunity to pests and diseases, and unlocking nutrients in the soil so crops can thrive.

What could go wrong when we genetically engineer them? The latest science highlights a range of genetic mishaps that can happen when we engineer living organisms, like gene insertions and deletions that we never intended. Pivot Bio’s patent application for the most prominent GE microbe available to farmers, a bacteria called Proven® that’s marketed as a source of nitrogen fertilizer, lists at least 29 different genes and myriad proteins and enzymes that can be manipulated to, in their own words, “short circuit” the microbe’s ability to sense nitrogen levels in its environment and “trick” it into overproducing nitrogen. A study published by Pivot Bio scientists shows that they were surprised to find that knocking out two of these genes enhanced nitrogen generation, as it could just as easily have reduced it. That we can tinker with genetic regulatory processes does not mean we understand the complexity of the system.

And then there’s the environment into which we’ll release these GE microbes. Consider this—of the billions of species of microbes that make up the living soil, we understand the function of only a few hundred thousand, far less than one percent. And we understand even less the complex relationships that microbes have with each other and with plants and other living things.

Despite these unknowns, biotech and pesticide companies are speeding ahead with the commercialization of GE soil microbes with very little government oversight. Proven® is already being used on over three million acres of U.S. farmland. And BASF sells a 2.0 version of its 40-million-acre Poncho®/VOTiVO® seed treatment that includes a GE bacteria aimed at improving plant health.

There may be more GE microbes available to farmers, but it’s all but impossible to figure out what they are. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it has registered eight GE microbes as pesticides on its website, but there is no publicly available information on what they are or whether they have been commercialized. This extreme lack of transparency precludes the type of informed, scientific debate that we should be having about this new technology.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and EPA have jurisdiction over different types of GE microbes, enhancing confusion, and neither has developed regulations that account for their unique properties. Once products are released, there is no program dedicated to surveilling the extent of their use or safety over time.

The regulatory system is set to rapidly greenlight new GE microbes without assessing their potential health and environmental risks. And given that the biologicals market is booming—with Bayer, Syngenta, BASF, and Corteva spending millions to acquire biologicals companies in recent years—we are likely on the cusp of a wave of new GE biologicals moving from the lab to the field.

While a shift toward biological solutions could be a huge win for the environment and public health, farmers and policymakers will be challenged to decipher legitimate claims from false marketing. Already, Bayer and other companies are trotting out the debunked trope of ‘feeding the world’ in their marketing of biologicals. They are also claiming their leadership in regenerative agriculture. Yet, the industry is indicating that it intends biologicals to be add-ons rather than replacements to its toxic products. Take BASF’s 2.0 seed treatment—it combines a GE biological with a toxic neonicotinoid insecticide associated with the decimation of pollinators and growing concerns for human health.

This strategy was made clear from the stage of the Biologicals Summit when Bayer’s representative, Peter Muller, said, “biologicals are one instrument in an orchestra. They will play an important part as a complement with many tools in the toolbox.”

In the face of climate change and biodiversity loss, we need a deeper shift. Adding biologicals to a failing industrial farming system and tricking microbes to act more like chemicals, by pumping out nitrogen for example, doesn’t harness the true power of biology—the complex, living relationships between soil organisms, plants, air, and water that sustain life on earth. We can farm in accordance with these relationships. Millenia of farmer experience and decades of modern organic and agroecological farming show the way.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Adrian Infernus, Unsplash

The post Op-Ed: Biologicals 2.0: Why Genetically Engineered Soil Microbes Are Concerning appeared first on Food Tank.

Why are bees dying? Along with climate change and habitat loss, the toxic pesticides used to grow our food are one of the main drivers. In fact, U.S. agriculture is now 48 times more toxic to bees since we started using a type of pesticide called neonicotinoids in the 1990s.

This should raise alarm bells for grocery stores since approximately one in three bites of food they sell depends on pollinators. There would be no apple pie, no tomato sauce for pizza, no coffee for a morning pick-me-up without pollinators. Even the dairy and meat cases at the grocery store would look bare since bees pollinate alfalfa and other crops eaten by cows. In fact, research shows that pollinator declines have already decreased production of delicious U.S. crops like apples and cherries.

This year’s Bee-Friendly Retailer Scorecard from Friends of the Earth reveals that some of the largest U.S. grocery stores are beginning to take action to protect bees from toxic pesticides.

Giant Eagle, a grocery chain on the east coast, jumped to first place on the scorecard as the only major U.S. food retailer to commit to begin reducing pesticide use. The company will eliminate use of the most harmful neonicotinoids in its produce supply chain by 2025. These chemicals—imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran—have been banned in the EU but are still allowed in the U.S.

To help ensure that produce growers don’t swap neonics for other toxic chemicals, Giant Eagle is also requiring them to use ecological farming methods known as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and to aim to avoid a list of dozens of other pesticides that are highly toxic to pollinators.  IPM can reduce use of pesticides by guiding farmers to use non-chemical approaches to manage pests first, such as rotating crops, planting resistant varieties and fostering beneficial insects.

This April, Walmart also stepped up with a leading pollinator policy. By 2025, 100 percent of Walmart’s global produce supply will be certified for Integrated Pest Management. Growers will be required to achieve one of a list of vetted third-party certifications that have meaningful IPM criteria.

Other companies got high marks because of their commitment to organic food. Research shows that organic farming can help reverse pollinator declines and can support up to 50 percent more pollinating species than conventional agriculture. Just two of the largest U.S. grocers—Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s—have met the goal set by Friends of the Earth to expand organic offerings to 15 percent of overall sales by 2025.

Three other companies—Meijer, Target, and Dollar Tree, improved their scores by establishing new pollinator health policies this year. The policies all encourage suppliers to reduce or eliminate neonicotinoids and other concerning pesticides and to shift to less-toxic methods of farming.

Despite this important momentum, these actions still fall far short of what is needed to truly protect pollinators and all of us from toxic pesticides. Stronger market leadership is critical because our federal pesticide policy system is broken. U.S. agriculture uses more than 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides annually, representing approximately 15 percent of total global pesticide usage. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows use of over 70 pesticides that are banned in other countries. And the EPA approved over 100 new pesticide products containing ingredients widely deemed to be highly hazardous between 2017-2018. Meanwhile, the five largest pesticide manufacturers —Bayer, Corteva, FMC , BASF, and Syngenta—reap billions in profit from pesticides known to be highly toxic to bees and people.

In the absence of federal action, the grocery stores that sell our food have a major role to play in moving from pesticide-intensive agriculture to the organic and regenerative food system that we need. They certainly have the market power to do so, the four largest alone—Walmart, Amazon, Kroger, and Costco—controlled US$924 billion in grocery sales last year.

New polling shows that Americans think grocery stores should be part of the solution. Seventy-four percent said they believe grocery stores should support efforts to protect pollinators, such as bees and butterflies, and 83 percent believe it is important to eliminate pesticides that are harmful to pollinators from agriculture.

This would also be a huge win for human health since many of the same pesticides that threaten pollinators can also disrupt and derail the healthy functioning of our bodies. Pesticide exposure is linked to cancers, asthma, neurodevelopmental disorders like autism and ADHD, and to adult neurological diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Exposure is also associated with reproductive disorders like infertility and other disorders related to the hormone system.

We have proven ecological solutions in the farming sector that can grow healthy, abundant food while protecting pollinators, contributing to climate solutions, and bolstering farmers’ bottom line. Major U.S. grocery stores are among the biggest buyers of food produced with toxic pesticides. It is time that they implement policies that reflect the interrelated biodiversity and climate crises we’re facing and support a rapid transition to the ecological food system of the future.

For the full analysis and findings click here.

Photo courtesy of Arthur Yao, Unsplash

The post Major U.S. Grocery Stores Step Up to Save the Bees, But Are They Doing Enough? appeared first on Food Tank.

Without them, a trip to your local grocery store would be a sad affair. Many fruit and veggie bins would be empty, jars of nuts and cans of beans would be sparse, delicious favorites like chocolate and coffee would be unavailable. And even the dairy and meat cases would look bare since bees pollinate alfalfa and other crops eaten by cows.

A new Bee-Friendly Retailer Scorecard from Friends of the Earth ranks 25 of the largest U.S. grocery retailers on protecting pollinators from toxic pesticides. It shows important momentum in the sector  but reveals that these companies have a long way to go.

Major U.S. food retailer, Giant Eagle, just released a new pollinator health policy making the company the only top retailer to make a clear commitment to reduce toxic pesticide use, according to the scorecard. The policy commits Giant Eagle to eliminate use of a class of pesticides that is highly toxic to pollinators, called neonicotinoids, in its produce supply chain, taking a first step toward protecting pollinators.

In addition to Giant Eagle, in the past year Albertsons, Aldi U.S. and Rite Aid recognized the need to protect the bees by creating new pollinator health policies that encourage reductions in bee-toxic pesticides, and Kroger expanded a similar policy. Costco was the first major U.S. food retailer to establish a pollinator health policy in 2018. Only Giant Eagle’s policy includes a measurable commitment to reduce use of pollinator-toxic pesticides in its food supply chain. And the scorecard found that none of the companies evaluated track which pesticides are being used in their supply chains — a critical first step to understanding and reducing the highest risk uses.

While agriculture accounts for the vast majority of pesticide use, the scorecard also awarded points to nine companies for complimentary policies in their home and garden supply chains, including credit to Costco, Ahold Delhaize and CVS for commitments to end sales of Roundup and other glyphosate-based products.

From honeybees to bumblebees, study after study shows that bee populations are declining. This loss of bees is already causing shortages in key food crops in the U.S.

Bees are the canaries in the corn fields – their demise warns us that industrial agriculture is on a deadly track. Forty percent of insect species face extinction in coming decades according to a recent meta-analysis, leading the authors to warn of “catastrophic ecosystem collapse” if we don’t change the way we farm. Scientists warn the biodiversity crises we face is on par with the climate crisis.

A growing body of science shows that agricultural pesticides are one of the main drivers of what scientists are calling the “insect apocalypse,” along with habitat loss and climate change. Many pesticides commonly used to grow food in the U.S. kill pollinators and other beneficial insects. Among the pesticides of highest concern are neonicotinoids, glyphosate and organophosphates, including the notorious chlorpyrifos. These very same pesticides threaten human health.

While other governments have followed the science and banned key pollinator-toxic pesticides, the U.S. government has been expanding use of pesticides that we know kill bees and harm our health. Meanwhile, the five largest pesticide manufacturers  — Bayer-Monsanto, Dow-Dupont (Corteva), FMC , BASF and Syngenta — reap billions in profit from pesticides known to be highly toxic to bees and people.

In the absence of federal action, the grocery stores that sell our food have a major role to play in moving from pesticide-intensive agriculture to the organic and regenerative food system that we need. Their ability to continue to source abundant food depends on this shift, and they have the economic power to make massive changes in our food system. The top four alone — Walmart, Kroger, Costco and Albertsons — control $519 billion in food and beverage sales every year.

Consumers looking to help save the bees can seek out organic food. Research shows that organic farming can reverse pollinator declines and support up to 50 percent more pollinating species than pesticide-intensive agriculture. That’s because organic farmers grow food without using over 900 toxic pesticides allowed in conventional farming and often provide more bee-friendly habitat on their farms.

The scorecard analysis shows that Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s lead other major retailers on organic offerings. But for consumers looking to support retailers that source bee-friendly organic food, the report shows that they should seek out their local independent natural grocer. A survey of 36 independent food retailers across the country found that 94 percent (34 of 36) have already exceeded the benchmark that Friends of the Earth has challenged top grocery stores to meet: increasing certified organic offerings to 15 percent of total sales or products, while 64 percent (23 of 36) report that over 50 percent of their total sales are organic.

We have proven ecological solutions in the farming sector that can grow healthy, abundant food while protecting pollinators, contributing to climate solutions and bolstering farmers’ bottom line. Major U.S. grocery stores are among the biggest buyers of food produced with toxic pesticides. It is time that they implement policies that reflect the interrelated biodiversity and climate crises we’re facing and support a rapid transition to the ecological food system of the future.

For the full analysis and findings click here.

Photo courtesy of Bianca Ackermann, Unsplash

The post Which Grocery Retailers Make the Grade on Bee-friendly Food? appeared first on Food Tank.

But in this increasingly robust conversation, there is rarely a mention of a critical issue—reducing agricultural pesticide use. As a new scientific brief shows, pesticides can damage soil biotic communities—the very life that drives soil carbon sequestration and therefore the heart of regenerative agriculture. Failure to explicitly talk about pesticide reduction leaves a critical piece out of the conversation and also opens the regenerative agriculture movement to co-optation by the pesticide industry.

The farming methods being promoted under the banner of regenerative agriculture—which have long been championed by organic farmers, the original soil health advocates—are a huge environmental win. Practices like cover cropping, crop diversification, composting, no-till farming, and managed grazing of livestock not only help sequester carbon, research shows they save precious water resources and bolster farmers’ resilience to drought, flooding and climate chaos.

But these practices will only go so far toward building a sustainable food system if we don’t include pesticide reduction as a fundamental goal.

Pesticide giant Bayer-Monsanto is already cashing in on the interest in soil carbon sequestration. The company claims that by using the “right practices and products” farmers can build “healthy soils for a better planet” that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Scratch the surface, and this is a thin polish on Monsanto’s multi-billion-dollar product, the toxic herbicide Roundup. The company is promoting Roundup as a tool to reduce tillage, encouraging farmers to chemically “burn down” crops at the end of the season rather than till them under. But both organic and conventional farmers who are committed to truly regenerative agriculture are demonstrating that it’s possible to practice no-till farming without toxic chemicals.

The movement around soil health that is taking the national stage should follow the lead of farmers like these and become a vocal force for the reduction of toxic pesticides in our farming systems. The health of the soil and all life depends on it.

Above ground, pesticides are decimating populations of bees, butterflies, and other insects that sustain life on Earth. A new study found that U.S. agriculture has become 48 times more toxic to insect life in the past two decades. This came on the heels of a meta-analysis of global insect populations that found 40 percent of species could face extinction, threatening “catastrophic ecosystem collapse” if we don’t change the way we farm. And the most comprehensive scientific assessment to date warns that biodiversity loss is a global challenge on par with climate change.

Looking below ground, research shows that pesticides can damage the complex living communities of the soil. The billions of bacteria and other microorganisms that live in every teaspoon of healthy soil have been sequestering carbon for hundreds of millions of years. The networks they form with plant roots are what enable the flow of carbon from the atmosphere to the soil.

Toxic pesticides can damage this microbial bridge. They have been found to disrupt soil communities, alter biochemical processes, and harm the fauna that maintain the structure of the soil, like earthworms and springtails.

And Roundup? The new brief shows how the active ingredient—glyphosate—harms soil life and therefore undercuts the goals of regenerative agriculture. Among the evidence are studies finding that glyphosate can damage the ecology of mycorrhizal fungi that are essential for the transfer of carbon to the soil, increase pathogenic microorganisms in the soil, impair respiration of soil-dwelling organisms, and immobilize nutrients that plants and microorganisms need for healthy functioning.

Including pesticide reduction as a vital part of the regenerative agriculture conversation ensures that Monsanto and its ilk do not define the path forward.

As our climate and biodiversity crises worsen, regenerative farming offers a crucial path to growing food in a way that nourishes both people and the planet. Innovative solutions should be guided by the best available science. And the science shows that eliminating or greatly reducing toxic pesticides is key to building healthy soils and ecosystems for a healthy planet.

The post Opinion | Why Talk of Regenerative Agriculture Should Include Pesticide Reduction appeared first on Food Tank.

Because of its promise for rural America, organic agriculture has growing support from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress. So why is there language in the Farm Bill that would weaken the organic standards?

Republican Sen. Pat Roberts—who is supported heavily by agrichemical and conventional agriculture industries—is pushing a rollback that could open up the organic standards to allow toxic pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). 

This could end organic agriculture as we know it.

The top reason consumers buy organic food is to avoid toxic pesticides and GMOs. Allowing these materials in the standard will destroy consumer confidence in the organic seal. And with it, the livelihoods of thousands of organic farmers and businesses across the country.

What’s happening?

Right now, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, under the leadership of Chairman Roberts, is writing the Senate version of the Farm Bill, expected for release in late May.

In a July 2017 Senate Agriculture Committee hearing, Roberts slammed the organic regulatory process. This alerted the organic community that he could use the Farm Bill process to weaken the standards.

No one has seen written Farm Bill language from Roberts yet, but we can guess what he’s planning based on language in the House version of the Farm Bill released in April, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act (HR2). The target of the House language and Roberts’ comments is the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). To understand the nature of this threat, it’s important to understand why the NOSB matters.

The National Organic Standards Board

The booming growth of the organic industry rests on consumer trust in the organic seal. And although consumers don’t know it, their trust depends on the role of the NOSB in governing the organic standards.

The NOSB exists because of the foresight of the early leaders of the organic movement. They knew that when they enshrined the organic standards at the USDA, they were dropping their baby off on the doorstep of a hostile home. And so, in the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act, they gave gatekeeping authority over what types of fertilizers, pest control agents, and other inputs could be used in organic production to a group of citizens who could listen to the public and act with the best interests of organic farmers and consumers in mind. To add anything to what is called the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, the USDA would have to first get the okay from the NOSB.

No other part of our food system is governed by such a transparent and democratic process. The NOSB consists of 15 dedicated citizen volunteers from across the organic community. They meet twice annually at hotels and conference centers across the U.S., from Jacksonville, Florida to Tucson, Arizona. The meetings are open to the public, and hundreds of people show up each time, including farmers, businesses, consumers, scientists, environmentalists, animal welfare advocates, and many others with a stake in organic agriculture.

The NOSB members read hundreds of written public comments and listen to hours and hours of testimony. They deliberate on all of this public input and then advise the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture on a wide variety of topics related to organic standards.

The purpose of the NOSB is to allow the organic standards to continually improve over time. But the USDA has increasingly failed to enact key recommendations from the board. Most recently, the agency killed a proposed rule 10 years in the making to enact comprehensive animal welfare guidelines on certified organic farms.

If regulators have it in for the NOSB, why not just continue to ignore the board rather than expend the effort to try to change the law through the Farm Bill? Here is the crux: on issues other than the National List, the NOSB has the authority to recommend improvements to the organic standards. But in the case of the National List, the board has statutory responsibility as a gatekeeper for what may be added to the list.

What Roberts aims to cripple is this striking example of democracy in action—a volunteer citizen board that engages directly with the community to make decisions that shape a federally-regulated standard.

Roberts’ assertion that the NOSB process needs to be reformed to help the growth of the organic industry is built on a lie. Statistics on the booming growth of the organic sector prove it. Organic remains the fastest-growing sector of the food industry, blowing past the stagnant 0.6 percent growth rate in the overall food market with 8.4 percent growth in sales from 2016 to 2017.

In March, the Organic Trade Association (OTA) sent a letter to Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Pat Roberts and ranking member Debbie Stabenow signed by 138 heavy weights in the organic industry opposing any changes to the NOSB. According to OTA’s Megan DeBates, the majority of the association’s 9,500 members “oppose making changes to the NOSB.”

Roberts is acting in the interest of companies that want to make it easier to cash in on the organic market by watering down the standards and companies that want to peddle their pesticides and other synthetic inputs to organic farmers.

For over two decades, the NOSB process has safeguarded the organic standards from the influence of political and special interests. Weakening the NOSB means opening the organic standards to the dictates of those interests. In the words of an industry leader, we are on the brink of an organic crisis.

On the brink of an organic crisis

A major blow to the NOSB’s authority was embedded in the House version of the Farm Bill, but an eleventh hour amendment from a Republican representative from Illinois, Rodney Davis, curtailed the force of the hit. Roberts is expected to be more aggressive, and as the Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, is unlikely to allow amendments that temper his attack.

The House Farm Bill attempted to shift authority over the National List from the NOSB to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture through the loophole of “emergency exemptions.” It stated that in the case of a crop or public health emergency, the Secretary of Agriculture could greenlight a new “crop protection substance” (aka pesticides) for a year of use. For nearly 20 years, organic farmers have succeeded without emergency exemptions. And the history of the emergency exemption loophole in conventional agriculture has resulted in thousands of pounds of previously restricted or banned toxic pesticides being applied to the environment and crops the public consumed.

Davis walked the threat back from the edge with an amendment that fully preserved the authority of the NOSB overall additions to the National List. At the hearing (minute 1:48) Davis was clear in his intent:

“Consumer trust in the USDA organic seal is one of the main reasons we continue to see growth in organic agriculture. My amendment protects the role of the National Organic Standards Board in reviewing and establishing the National List of approved and prohibited substances for use in organic production and handling. By protecting this role of the NOSB, we give our consumers continued trust in the USDA seal.”

However, the language on reviewing substances for emergency exemptions remains in the House version of the Farm Bill, and additional concerning language provides more insight on what Roberts might have up his sleeve as he’s writing the Senate version.

There is one paragraph directed at who can serve as an NOSB member. The language states that employees of farms or businesses are eligible, but this is unnecessary to codify, as employees of companies and farming operations already serve on the NOSB. The implication intends to tip the balance of the NOSB’s concern away from farmers and consumers and to ease the ability of larger-scale operations and companies to serve on the board. The make-up of the NOSB was carefully crafted by the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act to balance perspectives from across the organic industry.  

Another paragraph creates a new process for reviewing pesticides for inclusion in the organic standards deemed “safe” by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Specifically, it requires the NOSB to create a task force to consult with these agencies on substances that the FDA “has determined to be safe for use” and that the EPA “has determined there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.” Again, it is unnecessary to codify this, as the original organic law already establishes a process for the NOSB to consult with the FDA and EPA on materials, and they routinely do so.

The inclusion of this language is a veiled attempt to undermine the precautionary nature of the organic standards, which excludes most synthetic inputs. Under the Organic Foods Production Act, any additions to the National List require thorough evaluation of ecological and health impacts, availability of alternatives and “compatibility with a system of sustainable agriculture”—standards that go far beyond FDA and EPA guidelines for approval of pesticides.

A precautionary approach to regulating toxic substances uses the weight of the available scientific data to restrict or ban use of that substance without having to wait for definitive proof of harm, whereas the EPA’s approach to pesticides consists of waiting for ever more data to accumulate before taking action. Even when the health of humans and the environment are at stake. The current examples of EPA’s failure to regulate glyphosate and chlorpyrifos are leading examples. The EPA deems a host of pesticides as “safe” that have been banned or restricted in the European Union and other jurisdictions because the weight of the scientific evidence identifies them as harmful to humans and other organisms.

This language could ensnare the NOSB in a lengthy process of engagement with the FDA and EPA on substances that have never had, and should not have, a place in organic production. And, taking a play from the Big Tobacco playbook, it sets the stage for deceptive claims about the state of the science on pesticides — a tactic long used by toxic industries to block adequate regulations of their products.

It’s time to grow U.S. organic

We need more support for organic agriculture in the Farm Bill, not a sneak attack to water down the standards.

Organic consumers are everywhere and their numbers are growing. Data show that over 80 percent of U.S. households buy organic food, and the demographics of organic consumers matches the diversity of the American population.

Yet along with the assault on the NOSB, the House Farm Bill zeros out funding for the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program and the Agricultural Management Assistance program which help small and mid-size farmers transition to organic and afford organic certification. It eliminates the Conservation Stewardship Program, the nation’s largest conservation program by acreage, and a critically important program that supports organic farmers. And while the bill proposes to increase funding for organic research from $20 million to $30 million, this is short of the $50 million requested by the organic community and a slim shadow of the billions included for research for conventional agriculture. Less than one percent of federal agricultural research dollars go to organic farming.  See the National Organic Coalition scorecard for an analysis of how organic fared in the House Farm Bill.

Because our government doesn’t give organic farmers and businesses the tools they need to keep pace with growing consumer demand, the U.S. accounts for 44 percent of global organic sales, but just four percent of global farmland under organic production. That means U.S. farmers are losing out on the chance to feed Americans’ growing appetite for organic food, and our farms, rivers, and rural communities remain soaked in toxic pesticides and overloaded with synthetic nitrogen.

The science is clear that organic farming is key to future food security. To feed the future, we’re going to need a food system that is less reliant on synthetic chemical inputs and fossil fuels, more resilient to the shocks of extreme weather events and one that uses water wisely. Organic farming does all that and more. It has been proven to yield more in times of drought and floods and to use less energy and water, all while protecting pollinators like bees and butterflies, essential to one in three bites of food we eat.

And those on the frontlines of pesticide exposure—farmers and farm workers exposed in the fields, rural communities living in pesticides drift zones, and low-income communities in the shadows of chemical manufacturing plants—need a rapid shift toward an organic future.

While we work to ensure that all people have access to organic food, we need to make sure that the organic standards remain robust. The NOSB is the heart of the transparent, democratic process that upholds the integrity of the organic seal—central to consumer trust that organic farmers and businesses rely on. If the Farm Bill cuts the legs out from under the NOSB, it would spell the beginning of the end for this vital, vibrant part of our food system.

Now is the time to urge your elected officials to immediately halt this attack on organic standards and expand funding for certification cost share, organic research, and conservation agriculture programs in the Farm Bill. Now is the time to expand healthier, more sustainable food and farming systems, not roll them back.

The post Opinion | 2018 Farm Bill Watch: A Sneak Attack on the Organic Standards? appeared first on Food Tank.

A new report from Friends of the Earth, Farming for the Future, compiles the data and details how we can create a food system that feeds all people, now and into the future.

Democracy

Scientists estimate that farmers already produce enough food to feed 10 billion people — far more than the current population of roughly 7.3 billion. Still, at least 800 million go hungry every day and many more are undernourished. Why? Because hunger is not caused by a scarcity in food, it’s caused by a scarcity in democracy and unequal access to land, water, credit, and fair markets.

Small farmers are the backbone of world food supply, making up 90 percent of farmers worldwide and providing more than 80 percent of the food consumed in much of the developing world. Increasing their access to resources is fundamental to food security and poverty reduction.

Diets

The great plenty of the United States grain belt is not “feeding the world.” It is primarily feeding cars, cows, chickens and pigs; 40 percent of U.S. corn goes to biofuels and another 35 percent is used for animal feed. These trends are replicated globally. Reducing meat consumption in line with standard dietary guidelines could free up land and resources to grow nutritious food directly for people. It could also save up to US$31 trillion globally by reducing healthcare costs and environmental damage associated with livestock production, according to one analysis.

Reducing food waste is also key; one-third of food produced globally is lost to waste, spoilage or left in the field, creating scarcity out of abundance.

Dirt

To grow food, we need good soil, clean water, abundant pollinators, and a stable climate. Our ability to feed ourselves and future generations depends on healthy ecosystems.

Today’s industrial food system is hurtling headlong in the wrong direction. Environmental harm caused by industrial agriculture costs the world US$3 trillion each year, including US$1.8 trillion from livestock production, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. Evidence of harm is everywhere: from soil erosion and major greenhouse gas emissions, to depletion of water resources and oceanic dead zones associated with synthetic fertilizer run-off.

The good news is millions of farmers around the world are leading the way to a more sustainable food future by using organic and other ecological farming methods. Not only can they yield enough to feed a growing population, research shows that agroecological practices like intercropping, cover cropping, crop rotation, conservation tillage, composting and managed livestock grazing can foster biodiversity, natural soil fertility, water conservation and biological control of insects.

Compared with industrial agriculture, organic farming is less energy intensive and sequesters more carbon in the soil, making it a crucial climate change mitigation strategy. Organic farming systems provide greater resilience in the face of climate-related weather impacts like drought and floods by improving soil structure and soil water-holding capacity.

Organic also outperforms industrial agriculture on measures of economic stability and well-being and protects the health of consumers, farmers, farmworkers, and rural communities by eliminating the use of highly toxic pesticides.

The public relations spin

Why is the myth that we need more food to feed the world so persistent despite all of this evidence? As Friends of the Earth’s 2015 report Spinning Food documents, agrichemical companies and their allies spend tens of millions of dollars a year to spread misleading messages about the safety and necessity of chemical-intensive industrial agriculture. This narrative — along with a political process captured by corporate interests — bolsters a system that delivers billions of dollars a year in profits to agribusinesses from costly inputs — including pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics, growth hormones and genetically engineered seeds.

Policies for a sustainable food future

The myth that we need more food to feed the world is used to justify policies, research and markets that keep us on the path of business as usual. The following policy priorities address the true causes of hunger and lead the way to a sustainable food future:

• Boost public investment in conservation programs, research, and technical assistance to expand support for transition to organic and more diversified, sustainable production systems;
• Increase small- and mid-scale food producers’ access to arable land, water, credit, and fair markets, with a focus on women, disadvantaged, beginning, and young farmers;
• Reject international trade agreements that prioritize export commodity production and erode public investments in local and regional diversified food production;
• Shift subsidies and policies away from support for biofuel and livestock feed crops and into support for diversified, nutritious crops and mixed crop/livestock systems; linking existing subsidies, including crop insurance to the implementation of diversified farming and conservation practices;
• Create stricter regulations and anti-trust enforcement to prevent unfair pricing and consolidation throughout the food supply chain;
• Shift diets by enacting nutrition and procurement policies that promote consumption of more plant-based foods and less meat;
• Increase living wages and strengthen and enforce labor laws protecting agricultural workers, particularly women;
• Strengthen the regulation of industrial agriculture and concentrated animal feeding operations to reduce air and water pollution and curb greenhouse gas emissions;
• Enact stricter regulation of use of synthetic chemical inputs, including banning the routine use of antibiotics in animal agriculture and bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides;
• Reduce the billions of tons of food wasted each year.

Friends of the Earth and our allies are helping to lead a groundswell of citizen, consumer and farmer action focused on building a sustainable, healthy, and equitable food system for all. Please join us!

The post Dirt, Democracy, and Organic Farming: A Recipe to Feed the World appeared first on Food Tank.