Yves here. It should come as no surprise that large food companies, even ones that sport organic product lines, care more about cost minimization than farming conditions. This of course is typical neoliberal short-sightedness and corporate short-term return incentives writ large.
The reason this matters is food, more so than ever in the modern era, is set to become a flash point for political and geopolitical conflict. At least in the US, ample farm output meant that the big controversies were mainly about subsidies, such as to milk producers. There’s only been the occasional media bleat about consolidation of farm ownership and how small family farms have been badly squeezed.
Climate change is shifting growing patterns and producing erratic weather patterns that are producing more and more crop shortfalls around the world. This is happening as nations and investors have been snapping up productive land. I know a hedge fund that was buying farmland in Africa in the early 2000s, and China has similarly bought farms in Africa to help assure food supplies. Some US billionaires have also been buying up large swathes of arable land.
Some optimists contend that climate change will make land in further north regions more productive, compensating for climate-change-induced yield reductions in now prime regions. This is misguided. Those parts of the planet get less sunlight over the year, which limits agricultural productivity. As a result, they also have much less accumulated organic material in the soil, again lowering output potential. In other words, “more productive” is not likely to be “productive enough”.
This is a long-winded way of pointing out that food production and supply is set to become more politicized as scarcity increases.
By Shannon Kelleher. Originally published at The New Lede
Major food corporations are failing to effectively support farming practices that protect human and environmental health, according to an assessment of 20 companies released Thursday by a corporate watchdog group.
The report scored corporate programs and policies related to regenerative agriculture – a type of farming that prioritizes healthy soil – determining that, on average, the companies deserved a near-failing grade of “D”.
The nonprofit group As You Sow, which said it based its analyses on industry reports and other publicly available data, assigned the lowest grades to W.K. Kellogg Co., known for popular cereals including Frosted Flakes and Rice Krispies, and B&G Foods, Inc., whose brands include Crisco and Cream of Wheat.
Companies earning the highest scores included PepsiCo, the global snack and beverage giant, as well as McCain Foods and Lamb Weston, both known for their French fries and other potato products.
Regenerative farming practices have been surging in popularity in recent years, driven by concerns that industrial agricultural practices are contributing to global warming, polluting waterways, degrading soil health, harming delicate ecosystems and endangering human health and the health of many important species with widespread use of toxic chemicals.
Leaders of the regenerative agriculture movement encourage farmers to reduce and eventually eliminate pesticide use, diversify crops, incorporate livestock into their operations, and to make soil health a top priority to better sequester carbon, protect waterways from chemical runoff, and grow healthier crops.
Promoting regenerative practices is one of the stated goals of the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again movement.
Several large corporations are embracing the movement, offering an array of programs and incentives to farmers, and touting their support for the regenerative movement to shareholders and customers.
Over half of the companies assessed in the report have adopted some type of regenerative agriculture program with “general goals, measurable by acreage or percentage of supply chain,” the authors found. More than half also provide regenerative farmers with financial support, a major barrier to transitioning to the sustainable farming style.
However, most of the companies are not collecting field-level data from their suppliers, highlighting an “important blind spot …. [and] areas for improvement across the food industry,” according to the report.
On average, the companies are failing to provide farmers with the support needed to scale up regenerative farming, the authors concluded. And only six of the companies require their suppliers to follow three or more specific practices, which can include planting cover crops that control erosion and suppress weeds, cutting back on soil-disrupting tillage and boosting crop diversity.
“Engaging in a full range of regenerative practices is essential to improving soil health, biodiversity, farm resilience, and other outcomes,” the authors write. “Companies requiring two or fewer practices as part of their regenerative programs … may fail to regenerate healthy soils and be at risk for greenwashing claims.”
Lamb Weston and Conagra were the only companies in the assessment to both collect and publicly report pesticide use by their suppliers, setting “a standard for peers to follow,” the authors wrote. Two other companies, McCain Foods and Post Holdings, collected pesticide use data but did not publicly report it. While reducing pesticides is “essential to achieving regenerative outcomes, particularly with regard to maintaining soil health,” according to the report, regenerative programs generally permit the use of such chemicals.
In addition to significantly reducing or eliminating pesticides, the authors recommend that companies develop clear indicators to measure their suppliers’ progress, such as soil organic matter and water quality, and that they provide financial incentives to farmers to support using regenerative techniques. They also note that almost all of the companies scored in the report use limited remoting sensing technologies to track soil health, which can provide unreliable data.
“The benchmarks outlined in this report can assist investors in evaluating the degree to which companies are moving to proactively reduce risks in their supply chains through regenerative agriculture,” the authors write.
Nate Powell-Palm, a first-generation regenerative farmer in Montana, was initially enthusiastic about the prospects for regenerative farming, but has since become disappointed.
“What I found was that mostly the word ‘regenerative’ became synonymous with ‘no-till’ systems,” said Powell-Palm during a July 10 webinar hosted by As You Sow, referring to a farming practice in which crops are grown without plowing the soil. While the technique can reduce soil erosion, it has also been associated with heavy weedkiller use.
Such farming systems fail to live up to visions of a more sustainable agricultural system, mostly maintaining the status quo, said Powell-Palm.
Two things:
one- if your food glows in the dark it won’t really matter,
Two- Just remember, Soylent Green is “people”.
It’s pretty obvious that the author of the article never read nor contacted Gabe Brown. He explains how no-till is one part of an approach that reduces chemical fertilizer and pesticide use and increased planting diversity.
And Yves, your point about the arable band moving north into the Boreal forest is spot on. Not gonna happen for the reasons you outlined.
Yes, at least in the case of North America (i.e. Canada) the soils are thin in the boreal forests, particularly in the area known as the Canadian Shield.
Even if Canadians deliberately set fires to clear land like farmers in Brazil’s Amazon, the soils ain’t that good and the growing season is short. Plus, erratic weather will still be the norm which means early frosts, downpours, heat domes, etc.
It’s all quite… a bad state of affairs.
see: anna evy, solviva
for cold weather mitigation.
one of my heroes
sorry…arthitic fangers…Ana Edey.
ive been at mold mitigation, laundry(like, all of it…with the dryer currently down)…as well as hacking through the jungle my place turned into in the time since the sun came out tuesday.
i am overwhelmed.
2 hoglegs, so far, to force stillness.
(but i still had to hang clothes to dry…nails throughout bar extension, lil greenhouse, and otherwise hither and yon…2 clotheslines strung so far.
7 loads, today.
at least that many manana.
https://www.solvivagreenlight.com/
Thanks for this. The term “regenerative” agriculture has always bugged me as vague and open to interpretation. Unlike “organic” which is a well defined set of practices that has had farmer input and wide-spread public debate, “regenerative” is kinda-sorta like organic but without any rules or regs or inspections.
So I was pleased to see the Beyond Pesticides article linked in the piece. Worth noting here: “Regenerative” Agriculture Still Misses the Mark in Defining a Path to a Livable Future.
A quote: “For instance, “regenerative” agriculture could embrace genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crops.”
No wonder Big Ag embraces the term to greenwash destructive behaviors.
Really worth reading in full.
yeah,lol.
Malcolm Beck, himself, pegged me as a Pioneer or Organic Ag, 25 years ago.
i lobbied intensively with him, Hightower, etc for the Texas Organic Certification Program…and we won.
we had a good, honest program.
then they federalised it, and made it friendly for big ag, while also making it cumbersome==> ruinous for little people like me.
so i dont trust any moniker that i see on corporate media, or even adjacent, for some Movement akin to what Organic Farming used to be.
“Know yer Farmer” is still the best practice to know what yer getting…ignore the labels, as they mean nothing, under statute.
We’ve also got a water problem, and the NY Times of all places had a multi-part in depth story about draining aquifers in the midwest and CA.
None of this is gonna end well.
And worse we ship plenty of water, in the form of crops, overseas.
i’ll just leave this here.
ive been’a’wanderin’ far and wide.
https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2025/07/what-we-lose-when-we-lost-the-plot/
and this, found adjacent to a link yesterday, i think:
https://www.noemamag.com/to-save-nature-make-it-sacred/
neighbors at end of road always leave on sundays around 10am…so i texted the wife to stop by on way back for some veggies…and she went on and on, asking me about church…where they go, where do i go, etc.
i said, as i always do, hell, hunney, i live in church….and proceeded to confuse her with referenced to Spinoza, etc.
ended up pointing her to Wendell Berry
As far as I am concerned, any food that has artificial additives, is a risk to my health.
And that includes foods produced from farmed and processed products where artificial ingredients have been used – such as chemical fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, etc.
It is bad enough having to breathe polluted air, and drink impure water, so eating ‘contaminated’ food just makes it worse.