Science and farming denounce the misuse of the concept of regenerative agriculture by private companies

A large group of entities, including the Iberian Regenerative Agriculture Association (ARI network) and the Spanish Society of Ecological Agriculture and Agroecology (SEAE) have launched a collective campaign under the slogan “ Neither greenwashing nor camouflaged poisons: united for a regenerative agriculture without agrotoxics ” with the aim of protecting the integrity of the regenerative agriculture concept against its misuse by some private certification companies. Some companies have developed “regenerative” seals that allow the use of herbicides, pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, practices that are completely contrary to the foundations of agroecology and the regenerative model. Regenerative agriculture, based on the principles of agroecology and recommended by intergovernmental panels such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), seeks to regenerate, stimulate and maintain the fertility and biodiversity of the land. The entities promoting the campaign have been working with CREAF as a scientific reference expert in this field for years, and have this research center as an advisor to the campaign. The basic and non-negotiable principles of regenerative practice are the maintenance of the soil's natural structure, the increase in biodiversity, the optimal use of water, the integration of animals into the system, the coverage of the soil and the total elimination of the use of heavy machinery and agrochemicals.

According to the IPCC, 24% of total human-caused greenhouse gas emissions come from conventional agriculture and livestock farming. In Spain, almost half of these emissions are generated by the use of agrochemicals and poor soil management. In this context, the term regenerative agriculture is gaining increasing prominence in political, business and climate discourses, which is why the same scientific body describes it as a multiple solution, due to its mitigation capacity (it emits less carbon and captures more) and its role in adaptation (it is better resistant to droughts and does not depend on fossil fuels). Unfortunately, as happened with the concepts of “eco” or “bio”, the rise of regenerative agriculture is being accompanied by a process of appropriation and emptying of content for advertising, commercial and image-washing purposes. Certifying as regenerative foods those that have been produced with the use of synthetic chemicals is a contradiction and a deception for the consumer.

The regenerative agriculture model –as defined by practice groups and research centers– is based on bringing life back to the soil and all adjacent ecosystems using nature's own resources. Biocides (pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc.) aim to do just the opposite: eliminate some of the living organisms in the environment. Numerous studies have shown that restoring life to the soil and ecosystems is only possible by ceasing to use toxic inputs and adopting practices such as vegetation cover, rotational grazing, agroforestry or productive diversification. In fact, a living and regenerated agroecosystem does not need agrochemicals because it allows species to balance each other. For example, ladybugs are great aphid predators and can control their proliferation as a pest in crops.

On the one hand, the application of synthetic chemicals in agriculture gradually increases soil and water pollution. Given that water resources are scarce and finite, their deterioration through agrochemicals can never go hand in hand with the agroecological or regenerative model. On the other hand, these substances can also accumulate in the foods themselves. Therefore, food produced with the use of agrochemicals will be less healthy for the consumer. People, like any other animal, can bioaccumulate these chemical compounds in their tissues and suffer health problems associated with this. In addition, the conventional model, which uses synthetic chemicals, is absolutely dependent on large agrochemical companies and the continuous increase in the price of their products. This is added to the fact that agricultural ecosystems are increasingly resistant to the effects of these substances, so their dose must be increased, as is the case with antibiotics in healthcare. This is one of the many reasons why a recent CREAF study has shown that regenerative agriculture can produce the same amount of food as conventional agriculture and, in the long run, at the same or lower economic cost .

CREAF is working with the Iberian Regenerative Agriculture Association and regenerative producers from all over Spain to generate a scientific and practical reference framework around the real regenerative agriculture model in the Iberian context . The project, called REGEN and funded by the European Climate Foundation , is opening debates on how to adapt this innovative agricultural and livestock model to the different types of crops and the different climatic regions of the peninsula. For its part, the Iberian Regenerative Agriculture Network has been defining and specifying for years what this agriculture is and what it is not, offering validated practices in the field and technical manuals with a scientific and practical basis.

Now, the promoters of the campaign against fraudulent regenerative certification are seeking everyone's support for its dissemination, asking to give visibility to producers and experts who practice or research real regenerative agriculture and to adhere to the manifesto "Neither greenwashing nor camouflaged poisons".

Note made jointly with the Iberian Regenerative Agriculture Association, VerdCamp Fruits, A Regenerar and the rest of the entities united in the campaign in question.