There is an evolving relationship between regenerative and organic agriculture, as the two approaches align in principles but differ in certification and structure. Drawing on insights from a recent Climate Farm Demo webinar titled ‘Regenerative and Organic Agriculture: Same, Same but Different?’ this blog explores the need for clear definitions, credible measurement, and outcome-based frameworks to ensure regenerative farming delivers on its environmental promises without greenwashing. Watch the full webinar here.
What does it mean to be regenerative?
Speaking in the webinar, Silvia Schmidt of IFOAM Organics Europe reflected on the evolution of regenerative agriculture and its deep ties to the organic movement. Organic agriculture, which emerged at the end of the 19th century, was built on four principles: health, ecology, fairness and care. In the 1980s, Robert Rodale introduced the term "regenerative agriculture," emphasising soil health as central to farming systems.
Silvia explained that regenerative and organic systems are historically intertwined. "Regenerative agriculture started from pioneers in organic agriculture. The aims are similar, the ways to get there may differ. The practices may be similar as well," she said. However, she noted a critical distinction: organic agriculture is process-based and certified, while regenerative agriculture is principle-led and open to interpretation.
This flexibility has opened regenerative agriculture to broad adoption, enabling farmers who are not certified organic to take strides in improving soil health. However, it has also open the term to potential misuse.
The risk of regenerative greenwashing
Silvia highlighted a sharp rise in the use of "regenerative" over the past decade, particularly among multinational corporations. Yet, without a shared definition or legal framework, there is a significant risk of greenwashing.
Unlike "organic," which is globally regulated and prohibits synthetic pesticides and GMOs, "regenerative" is loosely defined. A 2023 IFOAM Organics Europe position paper found that only 12.4% of regenerative definitions explicitly ban synthetic pesticides, while some regenerative-labelled farms use genetically modified organisms.
Silvia argued that this vagueness creates confusion for consumers and unfair competition for certified organic producers. Misleading claims not only erode public trust but distort market dynamics. She advocated for a return to the original intent of regenerative agriculture—to restore ecosystems and soil health—and warned against diluting its meaning for marketing gain.
Why measurement matters
A recurring theme in the webinar was the importance of data. As Silvia noted, processors and retailers increasingly demand sustainability metrics from farms, often driven by corporate social responsibility commitments. While not mandated by law, data reporting is becoming an operational requirement.
Yet sustainability metrics are often narrow. Measuring only carbon emissions or sequestration overlooks biodiversity, water management and human nutrition. Organic systems, being process-focused, may not always capture these metrics. Therefore, they may need to expand their data collection, while sustainability reporting frameworks must better recognise the robust standards already embedded in certified organic systems.
An example of a regenerative organic farm system
Austrian farmer Alfred Grand provided a real-world example of combining organic and regenerative systems. At Grand Farm, which includes a market garden, he integrates nature-based practices with scientific rigour.
His second business, VermiGrand, uses earthworms to produce compost and also produces seed coating with the microbiome of earthworms to introduce biology back into soil. VermiGrand has experimented with combining biochar with vermicomposting to improve both carbon sequestration and water retention. Grand Garten, the first regenerative-certified market garden in the EU, grows over 60 crop varieties. Across the market garden and main farm, agroforestry, lucerne mulches and perennial hedgerows help sequester carbon, reduce evaporation, and boost resilience.
Alfred recounted a 330mm rainfall event over five days following a drought. Despite the extreme weather, his team harvested carrots shortly after. This, he said, demonstrated how a resilient, regenerative-organic system can adapt to climate extremes while maintaining productivity.
Scaling a regenerative agriculture system
Phillipp Birker of Climate Farmers closed the webinar with a macro perspective. The current agricultural model, he argued, is not just unsustainable—it is failing. Farmer numbers are falling, depression is rising, and industrial agriculture continues to damage ecosystems.
Phillip shared that regenerative agriculture offers a path forward. It builds soil, stores water, and restores biodiversity. But to scale it, measurement and verification are essential. Climate Farmers has developed a metrics-based framework to track outcomes over time. Regenerative systems are those that show tangible improvement.
Phillip acknowledged the challenge: some farms using glyphosate still score positively on ecosystem indicators. The key, he said, is to measure actual outcomes rather than prescriptive practices, which supports farmers where they are and moves towards a food production system where regeneration is the norm.
Farming with purpose and proof
The webinar made clear that regenerative and organic approaches share a common goal: to heal the land while feeding people. But achieving this at scale requires clarity, consistency, and credibility.
As Silvia, Alfred and Phillip showed, the future of food lies in systems that are not only principled, but measurable; not only innovative, but transparent. Whether labelled organic or regenerative, these approaches must remain accountable to the soil, the consumer, and the planet.
