Regenerative agriculture is gaining traction as a buzzword in the agrifood industry. However, despite the growing interest, a recent study from the EIT Food Consumer Observatory indicates that the sector still faces significant challenges in generating consumer demand. The study, titled “Cultivating Resilience: Regenerative Agriculture,” surveyed consumers across 17 European countries to gauge awareness and understanding of regenerative agriculture, as well as the drivers and hurdles to consuming products produced through regenerative practices.
A critical finding of the study is that while many consumers recognize the term “regenerative agriculture,” a much smaller group accurately comprehends what it entails. The confusion is exacerbated by the frequent conflation of regenerative agriculture with organic farming. According to the European Parliament, organic production is a sustainable agricultural system that respects the environment and animal welfare, encompassing all stages of the food supply chain. Under EU regulations, organic farming bans chemical inputs and GMOs, heavily restricts antibiotics, and emphasizes crop rotation. Regenerative agriculture can share many of these traits, but with no universally accepted definition, distinguishing it from organic farming remains challenging for consumers.
The study highlights that European consumers often use the term “regenerative” synonymously with “organic” and believe that all foods sourced from local farms are sustainable and regenerative. This confusion makes it difficult for consumers to differentiate between the two practices. From the perspective of those surveyed, it would make more sense for organic foods to also be regenerative, given the overlap in principles and practices.
EIT’s study offers a frequently used definition of regenerative agriculture: “an approach to farming that uses soil conservation as the entry point to regenerate and contribute to multiple provisioning, regulating, and supporting services, with the objective of enhancing not only the environmental but also the social and economic dimensions of sustainable food production.” Beyond environmental benefits, regenerative agriculture also encompasses economic and social factors, yet these aspects remain unclear to many consumers.
Consumers are aware of some benefits of regeneratively farmed foods, particularly those that overlap with organic agriculture, such as healthier food that is better for the environment and animals, and free from artificial chemicals. However, the unique benefits of regenerative agriculture, such as improved soil health, are not well understood. The study notes that consumers do not prioritize soil health when purchasing food, suggesting a gap in consumer education and communication.
To bridge this gap, EIT recommends that food companies develop a consumer-centric definition of regenerative agriculture that highlights product-level benefits. The study emphasizes that effective communication should focus on tangible advantages, such as improved taste and enhanced nutritional value, rather than the technical aspects of the farming process. This approach could make the concept more relatable and appealing to consumers, potentially justifying higher prices for regeneratively produced food, provided these prices do not exceed those of organic products.
The majority of consumers surveyed believe that products from regenerative agriculture will be healthier and tastier. EIT suggests further research to align these expectations with reality and to avoid greenwashing. By focusing on the direct benefits to consumers, the agrifood industry can better engage the average customer and drive demand for regenerative agriculture products.