The 6 problems you get from asking consumers about regen ag

They recognise it but don’t truly understand it. A new report from the EIT Food Consumer Observatory​ conducted in 17 European countries provides a unique insight into consumer attitudes towards regenerative agriculture.

Most, for example, believe that foods produced this way are healthier than the products they usually consume. There is an appetite to learn more, and consumers want to understand regenerative agriculture better.

But some problems stand out:

Consumers confuse regen ag with organic​According to the report, consumers recognise that for agriculture to be regenerative, biodiversity needs to be promoted through things like crop rotation, chemical pollution needs to be limited and farming processes need to be as natural as possible, including limiting the use of machines, and letting foods grow at a slower, natural rate.

But many consumers who believe they know about regenerative agriculture are synonymously thinking about organic agriculture. For them, regenerative agriculture is difficult to differentiate from organic agriculture.

Why is this a problem? For one, it means shoppers equate the term with a price premium. According to Lucy Wallace, director of global relations at EIT Food, this is a potential barrier for regenerative agriculture to continue to grow and become a more prominent and sustainable approach to farming and food production.

Speaking with AgTechNavigator​, she said: “A lot of the benefits of regen ag haven’t been well communicated to consumers.”

Other experts warn that regen ag risks becoming indistinguishable from organic​. The fear is that because organic farming eliminates the use of chemical fertilisers (compared to regen ag’s prescription of moderating their use) the practice will prove incapable of producing enough at scale to feed a growing global population.

The EIT survey also notes a misperception among consumers that it is only relevant for and applicable to small-scale farmers or local farms. Therefore, many are not convinced that transitioning to more widespread regenerative practices will address food security.

But no one knows what regen ag is​Consumer misunderstanding of the term is more than understandable given that no one is yet to agree on a standard definition. Regen ag is not a specific practice, but rather a philosophy that uses a variety of different techniques in combination.

Many have argued the case for an internationally agreed definition to help avoid things like greenwashing from brands and retailers and to incentivise uptake among farmers.

But others argue that regen ag cannot be defined as practices may need to be tailored to specific crops, locations, and environmental conditions.

One recommendation from the EIT survey is to use a consumer-friendly definition in combination with front-of-pack labels on foods to effectively communicate the concept of regenerative agriculture to consumers.

The existing definitions in academic and agricultural literature often focus on technical aspects and environmental benefits, which “might not fully engage the average consumer”, the EIT report states. Consumers pay little attention to technical agricultural details. Rather, “they are compelled by the product benefits like better tasting food and healthier foods.”

A definition may also help deal with the price problem. Once they are sure of the difference and the benefits, for example, consumers may accept higher prices for foods produced through regenerative agricultural methods, as long as the price point is not higher than the price of organic.

And while regenerative foods may currently be more expensive, supporters argue that these higher prices reflect the true cost of sustainable food production and the long-term benefits to the environment and human health. As regenerative practices become more widespread, economies of scale may eventually help reduce costs.

Is food produced via regen ag really any healthier for us?​According to the report, a large majority of consumers are convinced that products coming from regen ag are healthier than the foods they usually buy. “Consumers are very interested in the perceived health aspects,” Wallace told us.

But regen ag refers to farming practices, not food manufacturing methods. So in theory, there’s nothing stopping the ingredients produced via regen ag becoming, say, ultra-processed foods.

Take the example of alternative proteins. These were initially fiercely pushed to consumers by food brands and retailers as a healthier and greener solution. Now they are becoming associated with ultra-processed foods​.

Regen ag’s healthy perception is justified, said Wallace, thanks to a growing body of evidence that shows that the nutritional profile of regeneratively produced food is a lot higher than that which has been produced under conventional agriculture. “That’s down to soil health.” This doesn’t stop the problem of ultra-processed foods or make them any better for us, she says. But at least some of the ingredients will have been produced in way that’s better for the environment and better for farmers who can expect, in the long term at least, to be more profitable. 

Does it even matter what consumers think about regen ag? ​In an ideal world, it shouldn’t. According to Wallace, for example, in a perfect world consumers should simply be able to visit a supermarket and find food that’s associated with a lower or potentially net positive environmental and social impact.

But, the EIT report notes, it takes effort, time and monetary investment for farmers to switch to regenerative practices. And without clear consumer preference for products produced through regenerative practices, the benefits for farmers are not as clear and the risks not as small as some would hope. 

We don’t need regenerative agriculture. We need a regenerative supply chain​We therefore need more than a shift to regenerative agriculture, says Wallace. We need a regenerative supply chain. According to the EIT report, consumers want to be reassured that farmers will not bear the brunt of transitioning to this way of agriculture. They want to know that farmers will be supported, for example through subsidies, collaborations with retailers, or other support systems that will offset initial costs.

Policy incentives are needed to incentivise more regenerative production, the EIT says. It supports the European Alliance for Regenerative Agriculture proposals to reshape the EU Common Agricultural Policy towards a farmer-centric and performance-based approach​.  

Consumers aren’t buying into the need to transform current agricultural practices​But there’s another problem. The EIT survey reveals that many European consumers view conventional modern agriculture with admiration and as a source of national pride; the downsides are not widely recognised.

That’s heartening given the marginalisation often felt by farmers. But if prompted to compare conventional agriculture to regenerative agriculture, their impression of conventional agriculture “becomes less romanticised and idyllic in favour of regenerative agriculture… This means there may be a demand for regenerative agriculture products in the future.”

Wallace puts it more starkly: the way we produce food is putting at risk the way we produce food. Climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion are undermining the natural systems that food production depends on, she says. “The supply chain resilience is not there.” This fact will continue to steer regenerative ag into the spotlight, she believes.