A recent report from Purdue University reveals a significant knowledge gap among U.S. consumers regarding regenerative agriculture, a farming approach designed to enhance soil health, capture carbon, and promote biodiversity. According to the monthly Consumer Food Insights Report from Purdue’s Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability (CFDAS), approximately 71% of consumers are either unfamiliar with the term or its practices. The findings indicate that while there is a general awareness of the concept, many consumers are not willing to pay higher prices for products labeled as “regenerative,” even when they recognize the environmental benefits associated with such farming methods.
The survey, which gathered responses from consumers across the nation, highlighted that nearly half of the participants (43%) reported being “not at all familiar” with regenerative agriculture, while an additional 28% described themselves as “slightly familiar.” This lack of understanding presents a unique opportunity for producers to engage with consumers and clarify what regenerative agriculture means for their operations. Brenna Ellison, a Purdue professor of agribusiness management, emphasized the importance of transparency in communication, noting that producers need to clearly articulate the significance of regenerative practices to effectively differentiate their products in the marketplace.
Despite the absence of a universally accepted definition of regenerative agriculture, Purdue’s report describes it as farming methods that lead to improved soil health, carbon capture, enhanced biodiversity, and healthier water resources. When asked to define the term in their own words, consumers frequently mentioned “soil,” which was cited 393 times, along with “health,” “land,” and “agriculture,” each appearing over 100 times. This indicates that while consumers may have some awareness of the foundational principles of regenerative agriculture, their understanding remains superficial.
Interestingly, even among those who are aware of regenerative agriculture, the willingness to pay a premium for such products diminishes when faced with higher prices. Joseph Balagtas, the lead author of the report and a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue, noted that consumer support for regenerative agriculture initiatives declines significantly when informed about the associated costs. As many consumers are already grappling with rising food prices, the prospect of additional expenses is met with skepticism. The survey revealed that more than 88% of respondents who were unwilling to pay more for regenerative foods cited “the higher price point” compared to conventional options as their primary reason.
While 45% of consumers expressed a willingness to incur extra costs for regenerative agriculture, it is crucial to note that 20% of these respondents indicated their support for regenerative practices without a genuine commitment to paying more. The report also found that 42% of consumers believe the government should fund regenerative farming methods in the U.S., while only 6% think the cost should fall on consumers. This highlights a disconnect, as government funding ultimately derives from taxpayer dollars.
The survey results underscore that maintaining affordable food prices is the most critical attribute consumers associate with regenerative foods, surpassing even environmental benefits such as improved soil health and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Farmer profitability was viewed as a middle-ground concern, while maintaining biodiversity and mitigating emissions ranked lower in consumer priorities.
As startups, agrifood corporations, and investors work to transition more agricultural acreage to regenerative practices, the findings from Purdue’s report spotlight the challenges ahead. To foster consumer support and understanding, producers must prioritize education and transparent communication about regenerative agriculture. As the landscape of food production evolves, bridging the knowledge gap will be essential for ensuring that consumers not only recognize the value of regenerative practices but also feel empowered to support them without the burden of inflated prices.