In September, three years after it first pivoted to regenerative principles, Waitrose-owned Leckford Estate became the first UK orchard to have its efforts validated by leading US certifier Regenified.
Cider, juices and sparkling wines are all produced in the 30-acre orchard and vineyard in Hampshire, using ‘nature-friendly techniques.’ These include the planting of florally diverse species between rows of apple trees and the replacement of herbicides with mechanical weed trimmers.
And from now on, products using fruit from those harvests will bear the Regenified seal, another milestone for Waitrose in its wider push toward regenerative farming practises.
Only in May, the supermarket confirmed its ambitions to support more than 2,000 British farmer-suppliers to make the transition, following its learnings at Leckford.
‘Our commitment to regenerative farming reflects our belief that producing high-quality products and caring for the environment go hand in hand,’ said head of the estate, Andrew Hoad. ‘This builds on our regenerative farming journey and we hope to see more farmers embrace similar practices which could lead to certification.’
But while Waitrose’s achievement has earned it further plaudits, should all regenerative farmers aspire to certification? What value does it really add? And as existing schemes face a slew of ‘welfare washing’ allegations, how can the breadth of regenerative agriculture be captured in a single stamp?
Pioneering certification
Based in the US and co-founded by regenerative rancher Gabe Brown, Regenified may be one of the early movers in certification – having already certified producers in six countries – but the organisation’s rapid growth reflects a building appetite for some type of external validation from the agricultural community, believes Kyle Richardville, a consultant at Understanding Ag.
“There is a real appetite among a large swathe of producers to attempt regenerative agriculture and be recognised for their efforts,” he says. “Regenified alone has certified one million acres, and that number is quickly rising. Various other certification groups have cited high demand for their services as well.
“Farmers can sense this desire for change, and the innovators and early adopters among them are interested in setting themselves apart for the time when supply chains are really begging for regenerative products.”
There’s a lot of behind-the-scenes work that goes into creating a regeneratively produced product, after all. As an example, four years of dedicated effort preceded the launch of Trewithen Dairy’s Regen Milk in October, explains its head of marketing, Mark Moody. To develop the branded milk saw six of its farms invest heavily in additional regenerative practises across five core principles (crop diversity, soil health, living roots, soil disturbance and livestock integration) with tests to check on metrics such as carbon, plant diversity and soil pH. “For our farmers, it’s a lot of work,” he says. “Collecting, analysing, and acting on data to improve farming practices requires time and can be labour-intensive.
“The administrative aspect also demands a lot of time, which is challenging for small dairy farmers who already handle the daily demands of farming,” he adds. “There are additional costs, too – such as investing in diverse seed varieties and non-soy-based feed for cattle.”
With third-party certification, producers could charge a premium, helping to increase the upfront affordability of regenerative practises. According to Regenified’s 2024 Consumer Index, more than half (56%) of ‘values-based shoppers’ would pay more for a certified regenerative product.
Consumer support
The benefits don’t end there, points out Moody. “For farmers, it clarifies what’s needed and why. Consultants have clear standards to support, and consumers know exactly what they’re supporting and why it matters for future generations. [But] ultimately, consumer support will determine if this remains a niche movement or becomes mainstream.”
That support is there already, say Regenified. Their research found that though awareness of regenerative farming has catapulted – from 6 per cent five years ago to 47 per cent in 2024 – there remains a knowledge deficit. Even across these same ‘values-based shoppers,’ just 37 per cent claim to have a good grasp of what the term really means.
“Consumers are increasingly demanding nutrient-dense food that improves the environment, and the food industry is seeking reliable regenerative supply chains, so these certifications have the potential to play an important role in linking producers with sellers and sellers with consumers,” says Richardville.
To deliver this value though, any certification needs to develop standards that reflect the breadth of regenerative agriculture – and catch producers that fall short. Otherwise, any scheme is likely to face the same allegations of ‘welfare washing’ that have dogged the likes of RSPCA Assured in recent months.
That, however, is no easy task.
Organic versus Regen
Unlike organic, regenerative farming doesn’t come with clear-cut criteria and legal parameters.
“Regenerative comes from a different paradigm,” points out regenerative agriculture consultant Caroline Grindod. “It comes from the systems approach to doing things. So rather than a set of practises that define whether a farm is regenerative or not, it’s a principles-based approach.”
Or to put it in laymen’s terms, it’s really complicated. There are different lineages that feed into the definition, practises adjust according to time, place and context, and it digs into root causes rather than surface-level problems.
“People demanding certification are approaching it on a functional level,” believes Grindod. That risks being reductive, and “missing the point.” Not least as it’s largely, in her view, being pushed by large corporates keen to validate global supply chains when regenerative is supposed to focus on the creation of “localised, decentralised products.”
This latter concern is a pressing one – with numerous reports finding that a significant proportion of agri-food businesses had not rolled out any formal targets on regen farming, despite promoting their brands as ‘regenerative’. Given that many of the world’s most polluting agrifood mega-corporations from dairy giant Arla and Coca Cola, to Cargill, Danone and Unilever, all actively promote their ‘regenerative’ approach, it’s clear that some claims must be taken with a spadeful of salt.
As a result, earlier this month, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published new guidance on regenerative farming claims, which were welcomed by farmers and organic bodies alike.
Soil Association Director of Standards Innovation, Sarah Compson, said, “We welcome this clear and considered advice from the ASA which shows they are putting the interest of consumers first and are vigilant to the potential risk of greenwashing when it comes to regenerative farming claims.
“Regenerative agriculture or simply ‘regen’ are great buzzwords which have everyone talking and excited about the possibilities to deliver significant benefits for nature and the environment. And it is really heartening that so many farmers are embracing regenerative farming principles. However, consumer awareness and understanding of what regenerative farming is and what practices it involves is relatively low thus far – so it is critical that brands don’t overclaim, and clearly explain and substantiate any claims they do make. There is a big risk that businesses or brands could overstate the nature-friendly farming practices used to grow or produce their product or ingredients for commercial gain,” concluded Compson.
One size won’t fit all
It’s a nuanced situation. Mark Sainsbury, owner at Lockerly Estate, only 10 miles down the road from Leckford, believes that any certification schemes needs to avoid too much rigidity. “To the extent that we expect it to be a one-size-fits-all, that there is a single meaning of regenerative that accreditation pushes one towards, then that’s something to resist because the nuances are huge and the appropriate processes on one farm won’t be befitting elsewhere. It’s got to flex to that kind of variation.”
To carry weight, any scheme also needs to measure outcomes, rather than the adoption of a list of regenerative practises, in Grindod’s view, i.e., “you only get the stamp if you actually are showing that you’re on an upward trend of regeneration.” In other words, it isn’t enough to watch a YouTube clip of mob grazing, try it out and claim you’re a regenerative farmer. You’ve got to demonstrate the ecological outcomes of that practise.
For their part, Regenified do track outcomes. Their verification framework starts with a baseline in-field evaluation, followed by annual assessment to track improvements in soil health, animal husbandry, biodiversity and reduced input use, explains a spokeswoman. Operators are also ranked using a five-tier system that reflects the proportion of land to which regenerative practises have been applied. “As operations move up the tiers, they must show reduced disturbances and increased ecosystem benefits,” they add. “A Verification Review Board oversees the verification process, ensuring objectivity and adherence to regenerative standards.”
“It’s important that farmers who are genuinely trying to improve the way they farm by adopting regenerative practices should have access to robust tools that not only help them understand where they are on their journey but also support continuous improvement,” the organisation tells Wicked Leeks. “Our approach also helps farmers and brands who are genuinely passionate about changing farming for the better differentiate themselves from those who could be accused of greenwashing or ‘greenwishing’, two of the biggest threats to consumer trust in this space.”
Look, if it can be done and done well it’s practically the holy grail, points out Sainsbury. “It’s complicated and it’s messy and it’s not particularly sexy but gosh, if somebody could capture the imagination of the consumer, and in ways that aren’t just befitting a middle-class shopper, but everyone, that is hugely important, is it not? If they start shopping and voting with their wallets, then that’s huge and will affect enormous change.”
And change is, after all, what the whole regenerative movement is all about.
I have concerns over two aspects of the food and feed industries that are not usually mentioned, as in your article on Regen certification. There is no mention of transport costs between farm and fork, and there’s no mention of packaging costs.
Both transport and packaging contribute negatively to environmental costs, and both can be minimised if “food miles” becomes part of the standards. The organic certification standard has been missing these two items for decades; both point to “local” and decentralised production, and the big food-industry players cannot compete; hence these items are left out of the standards – – we don’t want to offend the big players, do we?
“Food miles” is an easy concept to understand: the more miles, the more pollutants are generated. the less fresh the products are when delivered. The more food miles the more packaging is required to prevent damage and to try to preserve freshness. Packaging in the food industry nowadays is heavily dependent on plastic and cardboard, so more trees and wood-pulp, more manufacturing of the packaging, and more non-recyclable single-use plastic to go into landfill.
If “food miles” and packaging become quantified and part of the standards there will be benefits to all parts of the eco-system – – better for the environment, better for freshness, better for local vs. global. The only downside is that big producers will not agree to such standards because their business models are entirely dependant on long supply lines.