A new report from Friends of the Earth US argues that the growing number of ‘regenerative’ food labels in the marketplace is creating confusion for consumers and challenges for food companies seeking clear sustainability standards.

Released on 5 May, the 60-page report reviews 10 food regenerative – or ‘regen’ – labelling schemes and concludes that standards vary widely, particularly around pesticide use, soil health requirements, and verification systems. It shows products carrying similar sounding regenerative claims may in fact reflect sharply different farming practices.

The analysis comes as regenerative agriculture continues to gain traction across the food industry, with retailers, brands, and institutional buyers increasingly adopting regenerative sourcing goals tied to climate resilience, biodiversity, and soil health.

Friends of the Earth says one of the central points of confusion concerns pesticide use. While many consumers associate regenerative agriculture with reduced chemical inputs, the report states that several certification systems still permit synthetic pesticides and fertilisers.

“Consumers may assume that regenerative food is grown without toxic pesticides, but that is not always the case,” said Sarah Starman, senior campaigner at Friends of the Earth US.

Organic sets the regenerative standard
The US-focused report identifies USDA Organic and programmes built on organic standards — including Regenerative Organic Certified and Real Organic Project — as the most comprehensive systems evaluated for restricting synthetic chemical use, while also requiring soil health practices. Under USDA Organic rules, synthetic fertilizers and more than 900 synthetic pesticides are prohibited.

The report also highlights research showing that just one week on an organic diet can reduce pesticides in the body by up to 95%. And it points out that organic also has strong requirements for ecological soil health practices combined with a robust verification system backed by federal law.

Other programs identified as prohibiting synthetic pesticides include Demeter Biodynamic and Certified Regenerative by Regeneration International at its Grade A level. Meanwhile, programs such as Certified Regenerative by A Greener World, Rainforest Alliance Regenerative, and Soil & Climate Health Initiative Verified were described as having partial restrictions on pesticide use.

Beyond chemical inputs, the report shines a light on verification and traceability. It argues that the credibility of regenerative claims depends not only on production standards but also on independent auditing and the ability to track ingredients through supply chains.

Charlotte Vallaeys, principal at Vallaeys Consulting and co-author of the report, said third-party verification and traceability systems are essential if regenerative claims are to maintain consumer confidence. “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. 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.

“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”

The report also raises important questions about how regenerative agriculture should be defined. Currently, regenerative agriculture currently lacks a single legal or universally accepted definition. As a result, certification programmes have emerged with very differing priorities and requirements.

Friends of the Earth says that reducing dependence on synthetic pesticides and fertilizers should be considered “foundational to any credible regenerative agriculture system”. It says: “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.”

‘Regenerative’ – but with degenerative practices allowed
Commenting on the report’s findings on LinkedIn, the prominent organic commentator, Paul Holmbeck, said: “I have held back on criticism of the ‘regenerative’ certifications emerging in the market. But with the new, rigorous report and “Regen Label Guide” out today, it’s time to call out the greenwashing going on.

Holmbeck says “regen labels are all over the map on pesticides, soil health requirements and (often dubious) verification of practices”. He points out that some of the schemes reviewed in the FoE report are “promising consumers ‘regenerative’ products, where use of de-generative pesticides and  synthetic fertilisers continues”, adding that “truly regenerative agriculture must phase out agrochemicals that undermine the very ecological functions on which life depends”.