International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tags20

Drivers and barriers to adoption of regenerative

agriculture: cases studies on lessons learned from organic

Shawna Lemke, Nathan Smith, Christian Thiim & Katie Stump

To cite this article: Shawna Lemke, Nathan Smith, Christian Thiim & Katie Stump (2024)
Drivers and barriers to adoption of regenerative agriculture: cases studies on lessons
learned from organic, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 22:1, 2324216, DOI:
10.1080/14735903.2024.2324216

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2024.2324216

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa View supplementary material

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 15 Mar 2024. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4696 View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tags20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
2024, VOL. 22, NO. 1, 2324216
https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2024.2324216

Drivers and barriers to adoption of regenerative agriculture: cases

studies on lessons learned from organic
Shawna Lemkea, Nathan Smithb, Christian Thiimc and Katie Stumpd
a
SLL Consulting & Services, St. Louis; bDepartment of Agronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette; cO’Neill School of Public
and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington; dCrop Life America, Arlington

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Regenerative agriculture has emerged as a potentially outcome-based paradigm Received 14 May 2023
centring on soil health, biodiversity and other environmental and social Accepted 20 February 2024
parameters. Early days of organic agriculture also focused on philosophy first and
KEYWORDS
evolved into a process-based regulatory paradigm whose adoption remains small Regenerative agriculture;
relative to conventional production. Five case studies of professional growers, organic agriculture;
representing a total of 100,000 acres of production, were collected to identify environmental outcomes
reasons for choosing to grow or stop growing organic, challenges faced and
attitudes around regenerative agriculture. Growers identified issues of complex and
unpredictable regulation, labour, inability to predict market trends and secure
needed premiums, cost and effectiveness of natural fertilizers and lack of
effectiveness in pest control. These growers adopted similar practices (e.g.,
integrated pest management) for environmental benefits across conventional and
organic acres, and viewed consumer demand and potential profitability rather than
environmental benefits as the main drivers for practising organic. Growers
expressed interest in outcome-based regenerative agriculture. To be viable, a
programme requires criteria on measurement and certification, regionally tailored
flexibility and clear financial incentives. Growers doubt such a programme would
replace organic but see opportunities for new marketing programmes, particularly
in carbon sequestration and water management. Challenges identified by growers
warrant further study.

Abbreviations: EPA: Environmental Protection Agency; FIFRA: Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide And Rodenticide Act; IPM: Integrated Pest Management; MRL: Maximum
Residue Limit; NOP: National Organic Program; NOSB: National Organic Standards
Board; OAP: Organic Approved Pesticide; OFPA: Organic Foods Production Act;
OMRI: Organic Materials Review Institute; PAMS: prevention avoidance monitoring
suppression; SOC: soil organic carbon; USDA AMS: US Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service; WASDA: Washington State Department of Agriculture

Introduction
fertilizer, and pest control; while the scale and
Production of safe, nutritious, affordable, and methods have evolved, the overall result has
sufficient food is one of the greatest challenges been increased global agricultural productivity over
facing humanity. Food production is a resource inten­ time (USDA ERS, 2020 Steensland, 2022; USDA ERS,
sive process, requiring land, water, quality seed, 2022). Concerns over environmental degradation

CONTACT Shawna Lemke [email protected] SLL Consulting & Services, LLC. 507 Medina Dr., St. Louis, MO 63122
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2024.2324216.
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on
which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 S. LEMKE ET AL.

from agricultural practices, as evidenced by the 1930s organic have emerged in recent years such as
dust bowl in the U.S., spurred interest in new tech­ climate-smart, circular, and regenerative agriculture
niques such as reduced tillage that would over the fol­ (FAO, 2019; UN, 2021; Strauss & Chhabria, 2022).
lowing decades become part of a ‘conservation The latter has garnered attention in both publi­
agriculture’ approach (Derpsch, 2003; CIMMYT, 2020; cations and as part of sustainable sourcing pro­
USDA NRCS, 2023). Over the same time period, grams (Sustainable Brands, 2020; Unilever, 2022).
organic agriculture also emerged as a potential The term regenerative agriculture is currently
alternative to ‘industrial agriculture’ (Mann, 2018). ambiguous and lacks a scientific or regulatory
The organic market has enjoyed decades of growth, definition (Newton et al., 2020; Tittonell et al.,
reaching more than $55 billion annually in U.S. sales 2022). Within the organic production community
in 2020 (Statistics, 2022). Demand for organic pro­ there has been interest in developing a set of prac­
ducts is highest in North America and Europe tices that go beyond organic as demonstrated in
(Meemken & Qaim, 2018). In the U.S., from 2008 to the Framework for Regenerative Organic Certifi­
2019, the number of certified organic farms increased cation (Regenerative Organic, 2019). The goal of
by 5% and land area under organic production this framework is described as promoting holistic
methods increased by 6% (Mpanga et al., 2021). agriculture practices that ‘Increases soil organic
Despite this growth, certified organic agriculture is matter over time and sequesters carbon below
still a relatively small portion of total land in pro­ and above ground, which could be a tool to miti­
duction, estimated to be about 1% of total agricultural gate climate change; improve animal welfare; and
land worldwide in 2015 (Meemken & Qaim, 2018). provide economic stability and fairness for
There are also major differences in the adoption by farmers, ranchers, and workers.’ Others are less
crop species. Certified organic production plays a focused on using organic certification as a baseline
larger role for permanent crops, such as berries, for regenerative agriculture and have set out to
coffee, and olives, than for annual crops such as define the practices and outcomes of interest.
cereals and vegetables (Meemken & Qaim, 2018). Schreefel et al. (2020) recently conducted a sys­
Mpanga et al. (2021) examined agricultural pro­ tematic review of literature on regenerative agricul­
duction surveys from the USDA from 2008 to 2019 ture and of the 28 papers identified, there were 214
to investigate state and national trends in U.S. objectives and 77 activities described. The largest
certified organic production. Over that time, the per­ convergence was on environmental objectives and
centage of certified organic farms employing on- fell into four main themes: enhance and improve
farm organic practices declined except for a modest soil health, optimize resource management, allevi­
increase for rotational grazing. Declines were seen in ate climate change, and improve water quality
several practices associated with pest and weed man­ and availability. There was less convergence on
agement, including organic compost/mulch, conser­ the objectives of human health and economic pros­
vation tillage, location selection to avoid pests, perity, which also often lacked clear definition of
variety selection to resist pests, and use of beneficial activities and had many diverse issues embedded
habitats and organisms. The two largest challenges that at present would be difficult to measure. Simi­
reported by certified organic crop producers and ran­ larly, Tittonell et al. (2022) describes three broad
chers in the U.S. are related to production and regu­ types of regenerative agriculture that differ in
lation. The authors postulated that production issues their degree to which they internalize social dimen­
could be related to soil fertility, weeds, diseases, and sions. Newton and colleagues (2020) found that
pest control. Other challenges included price, definitions of regenerative agriculture contained
market access, and management issues. The authors both processes and outcomes. Among the most
concluded that to sustain the growth trends of cited processes included use of low or no external
organic production in the U.S., these challenges inputs, integrated livestock, and reduced tillage
need to be addressed. practices. Among the most cited outcomes
In the context of the United Nations Sustainable included improving soil health, biodiversity, and
Development goals and renewed focus on develop­ carbon sequestration. Giller et al. (2021) posited
ing agricultural systems that meet food security that from an agronomic standpoint, the two chal­
needs while treading lightly on the environment, lenges most linked to regenerative agriculture are
additional sustainable agriculture concepts beyond restoration of soil health (including the capture of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 3

carbon to mitigate climate change) and reversal of positions and are regarded by their peers as influen­
biodiversity loss. cers, i.e. innovative farmers who others look towards
There is currently discussion and debate about the when making decisions. It is noteworthy that USDA
definition of sustainable agriculture (Thompson, 2007; has described family farms as playing a dominant
Knickel et al., 2017) and whether regenerative agricul­ role in U.S. agriculture, accounting for 99% of U.S.
ture or another similar paradigm can align incentives farms and 89% of production in 2015 (MacDonald &
to drive the needed changes (FORA, 2021; Giller et al., Hoppe, 2017).
2021; Martins et al., 2021; USDA, 2022a). The current The growers were interviewed about their experi­
status of regenerative agriculture has been likened ences with organic agriculture to identify reasons for
to the early days of organic agriculture, which was choosing to grow certified organic and specific chal­
focused on core philosophy and principles (Schreefel lenges in organic agriculture related to the categories
et al., 2020). This paper reviews the historical and of regulation, production, management issues, price,
regulatory foundations of organic agriculture as it and market access. Growers were queried on use of
may be instructive for understanding how new para­ environmental stewardship practices. Finally, the
digms are introduced into agriculture. Further, case studies were also designed to gain insights into
insights from growers were captured to identify knowledge and attitudes around regenerative
areas of current alignment and barriers to advance­ agriculture.
ment of regenerative agriculture. Building on The survey utilized a semi-structured approach
Mpanga et al. (2021), results of the current survey and included a mixture of closed and open-ended
along with discussion are classified into the areas of questions. The full survey can be found in Appendix
regulation and its achievement of environmental out­ 1 (note, the questions there were used to guide the
comes, production and farm management, and interview and were not completed as a written
market access and profitability. survey by the participants). Responses were tran­
scribed by the interviewer. Growers interviewed
represented a diversity of locations and crops
Grower survey across the U.S. (Table 1). All growers were operating
A multiple case study approach was utilized to further farms that are significantly above the average size
explore the results of Mpanga et al. (2021) and assess of 445 acres as reported by USDA (USDA, 2022b)
the applicability of lessons learned from organic to and represent in total approximately 100,000
the emerging concept of regenerative agriculture. acres. Two operations were growing 7-20% of
Growers (n = 5) were recruited by CropLife America, their acres as certified organic. One of the
and were selected for the following reasons: The growers had not entered organic production and
growers in this survey manage very large farms (sig­ two growers had recently exited certified organic
nificantly over the 445 acre average farm size reported due to barriers they encountered. Growers not cur­
in the US by USDA (USDA, 2022b)), the farms they rently growing organic discussed the barriers to
manage are considered family farms, which is entry and reasons they exited organic agriculture.
defined by USDA as ‘the principal operators and Insights were also gained through open-ended dis­
their relatives (by blood or marriage) own more than cussion on regenerative agriculture and the role of
half of the business’s assets’ (MacDonald & Hoppe, process vs. outcome-based certification programs.
2017), they represent their peers at advisory board While a small sample size, this survey provides

Table 1. Grower location and production characteristics.

Production Location
Grower (State) Crops Production under organic (% of farm acres)
1 WA Apples, cherries, wine grapes 20% certified, 5% in transition
2 IA, NE, ID Corn, soybeans, wheat, chickpeas Currently none, took 400 acres through
transition period previously
3 CA Tomatoes, cotton, carrots, garlic, onion, melons, pistachios, 7%
almonds, herbs, kale, wheat, alfalfa
4 LA Corn, soybeans, cotton none
5 IN Corn, soybeans Currently none, tried 20 acres previously
4 S. LEMKE ET AL.

insight into the views of large family farm oper­ those regulations were implemented in 2002. OFPA
ations and is representative of the factors that also established an advisory National Organic Stan­
need to be considered for acreage under regenera­ dards Board (NOSB) to make recommendations regard­
tive agriculture practices to grow. ing the substances that could be used in organic
A literature search was conducted using Google practices (SAN, 2007).
Scholar to identify relevant papers analyzing the USDA organic regulations describe organic agricul­
definition of regenerative agriculture since 2020. ture as ‘the application of a set of cultural, biological,
and mechanical practices that support the cycling of
on-farm resources, promote ecological balance, and
Regulation as a means to achieve
conserve biodiversity. These include maintaining or
environmental outcomes
enhancing soil and water quality; conserving wet­
To put regulatory challenges in context, it is helpful to lands, woodlands, and wildlife; and avoiding use of
briefly review the history of the organic standard and synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and
consider lessons that could be applied to the emer­ genetic engineering’ (USDA AMS, 2015a). The prin­
ging regenerative agriculture paradigm. One of the ciples of organic agriculture and resulting standards
most fundamental shifts in food production occurred represent a combination of practices meant to
as the result of the discovery and scaling of a method enhance environmental quality such as crop rotation
to produce synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, termed the and cover crop use to maintain soil health and a pre­
Haber–Bosch process. Nitrogen is a limiting nutrient ference for ‘natural’ inputs such as manure for fertili­
for many plants, and the ability to add it to the field zer and plant- or microbe-produced pesticides. As
was responsible for rapid increases in food production part of the implementation of OFPA, the National
after 1913, and many would argue significantly con­ Organic Program (NOP) was created to develop the
tributed to increased food security (Erisman et al., rules and regulations for the production, handling,
2008; Fedoroff, 2015; Mann, 2018). While science labeling, and enforcement of all USDA organic pro­
had unlocked the ability to increase productivity, ducts. The NOP can revise and update the rules and
use of synthetic fertilizer was not without drawbacks regulations as needed, and this process involves
including pollution from nitrogen run off and other input from the NOSB and the public. The NOP also
practices such as tillage that did not demonstrate an maintains a handbook that includes guidance, instruc­
appreciation for, or thorough understanding of, soil tions, policy memos, and other documents that com­
dynamics and soil health (Mann, 2018; Kopittke municate the organic standards (USDA AMS, 2022).
et al., 2019). Use of synthetic inputs such as chemical According to the survey by Mpanga et al. (2021),
fertilizers or pesticides that protect plants from regulatory challenges were the most frequently
insects, weeds, and disease grew over the following reported issue for organic farmers. Growers in the
decades. The 1940s saw the rise of what was coined current survey were asked to expound on how regu­
‘organic’ agriculture by Lord Northbourne to lation creates challenges (summary of responses
connote ‘life giving’ food as a juxtaposition to food found in Table 2). Participants identified a close link
produced using chemicals (Mann, 2018). between regulatory and management challenges as
The 1970s saw an acceleration in interest for organic it requires expertise either within the operation or
agriculture, influenced by the focus on many environ­ through third-party consultants to manage documen­
mental issues of that time. Initially, there were no cen­ tation of certification. This adds cost and complexity
trally governed standards or regulations to define to the operation. One grower stated, ‘ … certification
organic agriculture (SAN, 2007). This was particularly cost me $10/acre. There’s a cottage industry of people
evident when comparing state by state certification who have to lead you through it.’ In addition,
programs, which could vary greatly. Creating a level growers had experienced unpredictability and lack
playing field for interstate marketing drove a move­ of consistency within the rule setting and certification
ment to develop a national organic standard. Congress agencies that hampered their ability to use crop pro­
passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) in tection products. One grower expressed concern that
1990 to develop a national standard for organic food using tillage as a weed control method instead of
and fiber production. USDA was charged with the chemical herbicides could hamper the ability to
development of regulations that would apply to pro­ comply with other program standards for soil
ducers and would make certification standardized; erosion or carbon emissions.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 5

Table 2. Challenges in organic production.

Category Grower Responses
Regulatory Unpredictability of NOP, inconsistent application of philosophy on excluded products
Lack of consistency amongst certification agencies on included products (based on brand name rather than active
ingredient)
State agencies lack resources and efficiency
Cost
Concerns that tillage needed would not comply with other program standards for soil erosion control or future
regulation related to carbon emission
Production Yield: size of fruit, tonnage is less
Cost
Fertilizer is insufficient (cost, supply, and efficiency)
Significant labor required to reduce blooms in fruiting trees that experience biannual bloom
Isolation distances required from conventional production
Pest Lack of effective tools; many diseases and insects are not adequately controlled (e.g. fire blight, codling moth, corn borer
management and corn ear worm)
Lack of post-emergence options for weeds; ‘just have to accept weedy fields’
Some organic pesticides are non-selective and kill beneficial organisms
Growers choose acres with lower pest pressure which limits total amount of organic production and leads to non-ideal
matches of variety to other environmental conditions.
Management Amount of labor; labor shortages
Takes a lot more equipment (tractors, mowers) and time
Requires paying for specialists to manage the complex and costly certification process
Expansion of acres is more difficult
Requires more time to monitor fields
Market Access Must respond to big box store demands
Higher risk: some growers use contracts to avoid this (e.g. produce) some cannot (e.g. corn, cotton)
Need to make predictions out into the future about amount of demand (especially for permanent crops)
Requires more time and sophistication in marketing product to find the best buyer
Price Commodity prices vary and organic variety prices often follow, which means margin can go down. In some cases, it is not
profitable to grow organic.
In commodity row crops it is hard to guarantee a premium and there is a greater risk of rejection at the point of sale.
Other Insufficient H2A guest worker visa infrastructure – an issue for conventional but exacerbated by larger need in organic for
labor
Global food security

Amongst this group of large-acre professional et al., 2020). Research in regenerative agriculture prac­
growers, environmental benefits were not seen as a tices has demonstrated that several practices are key
driver for selecting organic production. Growers to optimizing SOC: practicing minimum or no tillage
were also asked about environmental stewardship
practices on the organic and conventional parts of
Table 3. Use of environmental stewardship practices by surveyed
their farm operations (summarized in Table 3). Inter­ growers.
estingly, the authors note that use of certain practices Conventional
such as fertilizer management, cover crops, crop Organic Acres Acres
rotation and water use management was fairly con­ (n of 4 farmers (n of 5 farmers
Practice surveyed) surveyed)
sistent between the organic and conventional acres.
Buffer Strips 3/4 4/5
This may be due to the broad introduction of conser­ Fertilizer management (e.g. 4Rs, 3/4 5/5
vation agriculture practices several decades ago data enabled precision
(Kassam et al., 2009). application)
No/minimum tillage 2/4 4/5
While the NOP is a well-established certification Cover Crops 4/4 5/5
program, there are other environmental and agro­ Crop Rotation 3/4 4/5
nomics researchers developing the body of evidence Intercropping 0/4 0/5
Rotational grazing 1/4 1/5
on best practices for enhancing environmental stew­ Use of beneficial organisms 3/4 2/5
ardship and outcomes within agriculture. For IPM principles (identifying, 4/4 5/5
example, soil organic carbon (SOC) quantity, quality, evaluating, preventing,
acting, and monitoring pests)
and turnover are integral to soil health and often Water use management 4/4 5/5
used as measures of soil health (Lal, 2016; Maharjan Natural habitat areas 4/4 5/5
6 S. LEMKE ET AL.

(which can be enabled by both organic and conven­ that this represents a rare occasion where there is
tional weed control), employing use of cover crops alignment in language and purpose between
to keep the soil covered through the winter months, growers and ESG-minded investors (i.e. Environ­
crop rotation, and addition of organic matter amend­ mental, Social and Governance). This grower felt
ments such as manure or biochar (Lal, 2016). Cur­ that to be successful, a carbon market requires consu­
rently, much research is focused on the association mers and/or investors to pay, likely in the form of
of these practices with carbon sequestration in carbon credits, and will require the right sensing tech­
order to combat climate change. The utility of this nology to assist measurement.
approach is still under discussion given the multitude The authors note that in contrast, organic agricul­
of factors involved in the system (Giller et al., 2021). ture as defined in the U.S. by USDA is largely a
For example, carbon storage is highly dependent on process-based certification program rather than an
the soil type and can reach saturation potential. In outcome-based program. While the philosophy is
the larger scheme, the impact on greenhouse gas based on promoting ‘ecological balance,’ there are
emissions from carbon storage in the soil of current many examples where organic processes are not con­
agricultural lands may be small relative to land use sistently better in terms of environmental outcomes.
change and other aspects of crop emission such as Seufert and Ramankutty (2017) conducted a thorough
fertilizer use and irrigation. Nonetheless, outreach assessment and found a high degree of variability in
programs to train farmers, grants, and direct incen­ how organic performs compared to conventional
tives such as government subsidies and private agriculture. There were some circumstances where
carbon markets are at various stages of development organic had clear benefits such as a positive
(Honeycutt et al., 2020; USDA, 2021). A key challenge influence on local biodiversity and high productivity
in this process will be establishment of measurement, for fodder, legumes, and perennials. There were
reporting, and verification to ensure that the desired some circumstances where there was equivocal or
outcome is met. no benefit of organic compared to conventional prac­
Several of these US-based growers thought that an tices (i.e. conventional practices were more beneficial)
environmental outcome-based regenerative agricul­ such as yield stability, also known as resilience, and
ture program could be viable if the following criteria greenhouse gas emissions per unit of food output.
were met: flexibility and options to pick from in man­ Use of non-synthetic pesticides is also not uniformly
agement practices that achieve the desired outcome, associated with beneficial environmental outcomes.
acknowledgement on a regional level of varying Take the case of copper containing products such as
needs and practices (to acknowledge differences in copper sulfate, which is used to control various
pest pressures, soil types and other environmental plant diseases. Repeated use of copper sulfate can
factors), a clear list of certification requirements, a result in soil accumulation of copper. At high levels
third-party verification system, and being tied to a in soil, copper can cause damage to crops through
premium. One grower pointed to water management interveinal chlorosis and root damage and can
programs in rice as an example of a system that met impact soil earthworms and microorganism (Kühne
these requirements to build success. Growers et al., 2017; USDA AMS, 2015b).
acknowledged that soil health is of interest to the In summary, regenerative agriculture models that
environmental community and consumers, but to combine recommended practices with a focus on
become viable, there would need to be a clear indi­ desired outcomes may provide some flexibility for
cator set like soil organic matter and an appropriate farmers and acknowledge that while certain practices
window of time (e.g. 5 years) to measure the may be shown to achieve a desired outcome, that
change, and the other elements of data collection may not be true in all situations.
process, claim certification and mechanism for
financial return established. One grower pointed out
Production and farm management
that most research on soil health has been conducted
in the Midwest corn and soy belt, and data collection According to the survey by Mpanga et al. (2021), pro­
and practice recommendations may not easily trans­ duction challenges were the second most frequently
fer to other production environments. Another reported issue for organic farmers. Growers in the
grower expressed that a carbon market may be the current survey were asked to expound on challenges
best proxy for many environmental indicators and related to production as well as farm management.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 7

Participants identified low yields, cost and availability organic agriculture. The National List of Allowed and
of labor, larger investment of time and equipment, Prohibited Substances identifies substances that can
and management of isolation distances and reduced and cannot be used in organic crop and livestock pro­
ability to expand acres (Table 2). In addition, fertilizer duction. In general, synthetic substances are prohib­
issues were a common theme amongst growers, ited for crop and livestock production unless
citing cost, availability of manure, and substandard specifically allowed and non-synthetic substances
release characteristics relative to synthetic fertilizers. are allowed for crop and livestock production unless
Pest management was also cited as a major chal­ specifically prohibited (USDA AMS, 2024). The
lenge (summarized in Table 2). Growers using current list is available through the Code of Federal
organic production methods were queried on the regulations (7CFR Part 205 Subpart G). Sewage
type of interventions used to manage weeds, sludge, irradiation, genetic engineering, and most
insects, and disease (summarized in Table 4). For synthetic fertilizers and pesticides may not be used.
weed control, tillage and mechanical weeding were Permitted synthetic substances include soaps as
most common. Lack of effectiveness of organic herbi­ animal repellent, copper sulfate and boric acid as
cides was mentioned by a current organic grower and insecticides and peracetic acid to control bacterial
a grower who identified this as a barrier to entry. Oils, disease.
crop rotation, and biological methods were used for Regulation of Organic Approved Pesticides (OAPs)
insect control. Oils, biologicals, and copper-based fun­ in the US is a three-step process that involves: (1) U.S.
gicides were cited for disease control. Several growers Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (2) United
discussed the need to select fields that are naturally States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Market­
low in certain insect and disease pressures for their ing Service (USDA-AMS) and (3) A certifying agent
organic fields. One grower stated, ‘ … we convert such as Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI),
acres [to certified organic] based on low pest pressure the Washington State Dept. of Ag (WASDA), or
… that approach is not always good for a particular Ecocert. EPA does not change their process of risk
[apple] variety’. From this observation, the authors sur­ assessment or risk management of pesticides based
mised that this phenomenon may be widespread and on whether the pesticide qualifies as an OAP.
thus, not all acres under production could successfully However, many OAPs fall into specialized regulatory
grow crops organically. All growers in the survey categories such as biopesticides, which require less
maintain and follow an integrated pest management study data and make use of literature summaries to
(IPM) plan on their farm. Growers discussed the request waivers from certain studies, can be regis­
limited set of tools, the need to ‘get ahead’ of any out­ tered more quickly, and often are exempt from the
breaks to prevent major loss and frustration that non- establishment of a Maximum Residue Level (MRL)
selective organic pesticides can harm beneficial (40 CFR 158.2). After a pesticide has received EPA
organisms. approval, it must be approved by USDA-AMS to join
To put these challenges in perspective, it is useful the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Sub­
to review how pesticides are approved for use in stances described above (7 CFR 205.6). It is important
to note that joining this list not a statement or endor­
sement by USDA regarding product safety or nutri­
Table 4. Types of pest control interventions used in organic tion; rather, the USDA organic label is a marketing
production.
statement (USDA AMS, 2012). The National List may
Weeds Insects Disease
be changed by the recommendation of the NOSB (7
Propene burners Mating disruption Biologicals
Weed strips on through pheromones Fatty acid soaps
USC 6518). The primary criteria for a material to be
ground Insecticidal oils Crop oils included on the National List is that the material
Organic herbicides Fatty acid soap Tactical removal must be consistent with organic farming, meaning
(e.g. Fatty acid Predator release Inoculums
herbicides) Biologicals, e.g. Copper-based
that it is non-synthetic whenever possible (7 U.S.C
Light tillage viruses engineered fungicides 6504). As the USDA-AMS maintains a list of approved
Electric arms towards pest Choose fields with ingredients only and does not approve individual pes­
Crop rotation Crop rotation low or no disease
Cover crops Selecting fields with pressure
ticides, it is the role of a materials agent to identify
Rotational grazing no natural pests to which pesticides meet the NOP standards and
Mechanical/hand the crop provide each approved product with a seal of
weeding
approval. The seal that materials agents provide
8 S. LEMKE ET AL.

gives confidence to organic farmers required to docu­ important part of IPM and that restricting their use
ment all chemicals that are used on their farms, and by considering them a ‘last resort’ or selecting only
the use of unapproved chemicals could cause them the ‘least toxic pesticide’ can result in a build-up of
to lose their organic label (7 USC 6504). pests and reduce the overall options for control
As illustrated in the case studies, the process-based (WSSA, 2012). There are other examples of non-
approach to allowing primarily non-synthetic chemi­ organic practices that reduce or even eradicate
cals creates substantial regulatory burden that limits pests and enable area-wide pest suppression that
adoption of organic farming. On the other hand, benefits other producers within the area (Tabashnik
many useful practices are in place for pest manage­ et al., 2021; Dively et al., 2018). The food supply
ment on organic farms that have broad applicability, chain is working to support the IPM approach
i.e. the use of the PAMS strategy: prevention, avoid­ through training, measurement, and communication
ance, monitoring, and suppression (USDA AMS, with stakeholders (TSC, 2021).
2015a). This strategy is also a key component of Growers in this survey indicated current use of IPM
IPM. Prevention and avoidance include activities and fertilizer management practices, and willingness
such as cleaning equipment to prevent spread to adopt innovative tools and practices to improve
between fields, using pest-free seeds and pest resist­ farm management. Therefore, the authors conclude
ant varieties, crop rotation and refuge management, that regenerative agriculture definitions and pro­
and managing irrigation to prevent situations where grams could build on these concepts to expand
disease can develop (NRCS, 2010; North Central IPM uptake and place additional emphasis on measuring,
Center, 2010). Monitoring includes scouting in the evaluating and improving practices to achieve
field and using models and weather forecasts to desired outcomes. Farm management improvements
decide when to employ pest suppression strategies. are likely to benefit the cited issues with labor as well.
Suppression includes use of cultural, mechanical, bio­
logical, and chemical control methods that reduce or
Market access and profitability
eliminate a pest population (NRCS, 2010). This could
include things like releasing predatory insects, laying The most common reason from those surveyed for
down mulch to smother weeds, application of a natu­ growing certified organic was profitability, which is
rally occurring microorganisms or insecticides derived supported by consumer demand for organic pro­
from plants, or one of a few approved synthetic sub­ ducts (Figure 1). Despite the equivalence in regulat­
stances (USDA AMS, 2015a). ory standards and clear articulation by USDA that
Like the example of soil health, the authors posit certified organic is a marketing program, consumers
that regenerative agriculture may benefit from do perceive a difference in safety between organic
applying the concept of marrying recommended and conventionally produced foods. Funk and
processes with desired outcomes to the topic of Kennedy (2016) pointed out that this difference is
pest control. This concept is embedded in IPM, particularly strong in developed countries. In a
defined by USDA as: ‘ … a sustainable, science- survey, Boston consumers perceived relatively high
based, decision-making process that combines bio­ risks associated with conventionally grown produce
logical, cultural, physical, and chemical tools to compared with other public health hazards such as
identify, manage and reduce risk from pests and mortality risk from motor vehicle accidents in the
pest management tools and strategies in a way U.S. Over 90% of consumers surveyed perceived a
that minimizes overall economic, health, and reduction in pesticide residue risk associated with
environmental risks.’ IPM is inclusive of managing substituting organically grown produce for conven­
insects, weeds, and disease and is built on the five- tionally grown produce (Williams & Hammitt, 2001).
prong strategy of identifying, evaluating, preventing, The authors of that study found that distrust
taking action, and monitoring pests (Regional IPM towards regulatory agencies contributed to a
Centers, 2022). This approach does not put higher risk perception. Similarly, a study by the
process-limits on the use of pesticides. In fact, The Center for Food Integrity (CFI, 2018) showed that
Weed Science Society of America, the American Phy­ American consumers view federal regulatory
topathological Society, and the Plant-Insect Ecosys­ agencies such as the EPA most responsible for ensur­
tems Section of the Entomological Society of ing safe food, but they are only the eighth most
America issued a statement that pesticides are an trusted. A more recent ethnographic survey
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 9

Figure 1. Reason for growing organic N = 4; Growers could select more than one reason. Other: Relationship management with product buyer;
experimentation to understand impact of practices on yields and soil.

showed that online conversation about pesticides is organic farmers. The authors surmised that these
strong with over 20 million consumers involved responses highlight the fact that livelihood is a signifi­
and expected to triple over the next two years (CFI, cant component of sustainability for largeholder
2021). The study points to consumer concern about farmers, just as it is for smallholders.
food safety and the environment, the belief that The growers surveyed did not see the regenerative
chemical use should be avoided, and that organic agriculture trends impacting organic significantly in
offers an alternative that reduces pesticide use. the near term. They cited the value as a recognized
In strong contrast to consumer perceptions, the certification to consumers and perceived health and
majority of growers in this survey did not see environmental benefits of that certification. Growers
organic as having strong cutting-edge leadership felt that to enable growth in that market, some of
(i.e. using the most advanced techniques amongst the challenges identified in Table 2 should be
peer group) or environmental benefits. Instead, one addressed. One interesting insight from a grower in
grower cited the need to grow organic to maintain the survey was the idea that derogations to allow
successful relationships with product buyers that emergency use in pest control situations under an
expected a mix of conventional and organic product. IPM plan could provide relief to certified organic
In the Mpanga et al. study (2021), market access growers in certain circumstances.
and price were identified as significant challenges Growers were asked to comment on how they
for certified organic growers. Consistent with other defined regenerative agriculture, whether creating
reports, growers in the current survey discussed the an outcome-based program or certification is viable
challenges that organic production has lower market­ and the critical elements required to make such an
able yield and requires more labor and equipment approach attractive to growers. Growers generally
(Seufert et al., 2012; Seufert & Ramankutty, 2017; found the term ‘regenerative agriculture’ to be ill-
Meemken & Qaim, 2018). Some growers were able defined and defined differently across various stake­
to manage this additional cost by securing contracts holders. One grower felt that it may provide more
at a price premium. Others were dependent on clarity and thus offer an improvement over the term
market price at time of harvest. In both scenarios, ‘sustainability’. Personal definitions included: redu­
growers identified significant risk to profitability cing degradation of soil; use of less inputs; less mono­
when undertaking organic production. From this culture; improving soil fertility, biodiversity, and water
survey, specific challenges in the areas of cost and cleanliness; and creating links between carbon in the
availability of labor, and the ability to secure price pre­ soil and climate change. Growers emphasized that
miums to ensure profitability are major issues facing any system needs to recognize that grower
10 S. LEMKE ET AL.

profitability, economic survival, and durability of agri­ pressure (Heisey & Day Rubenstein, 2015), it will be
culture is essential. One grower stated, important both from a mitigation and adaptation per­
spective to continue to invest in research for new
‘No one would say they disagree with these goals [i.e. of
regenerative agriculture]. However, the number one goal
technologies and best practices.
of a farm is to survive and be profitable – so how do you Desired environmental outcomes may not always
incorporate these things and still maintain profitability?’. be met by relying too heavily on certification pro­
Another grower stated, ‘ … the economics needs to be cesses that are highly prescriptive but without clear
there to support radical practice changes. There must evidence of leading to environmental benefits. New
be a mechanism to reward that process change.’
paradigms like regenerative agriculture may help
As described previously, several growers thought that move more of agriculture towards these outcomes.
an outcome-based regenerative agriculture program This mindset will be important to continue to
could be viable if it allows flexibility and options to produce enough food to feed our communities
pick from in management practices that achieve the using optimum resources and continue improving
desired outcome, acknowledges varying needs and environmental outcomes and soil health.
practices, has a clear list of certification requirements, For a new paradigm to be successful, it will require
has a third-party verification system, and is tied to a flexibility and options to pick from in management
premium. Growers believe that for the foreseeable practices that achieve the desired outcome, acknowl­
future, both process-based organic and development edgement on a regional level of varying needs and
of outcome-based programs will continue to co-exist. practices, a clear list of certification requirements, a
Whether the latter will develop into a cohesive third-party verification system, and should be tied to
definition of regenerative agriculture remains to be a premium to reward the grower for the practices.
seen. Consumers should have confidence in the safety of
their food regardless of type of pesticides used given
the robust nature of the pesticide review and regis­
Conclusions and future implications
tration process in the U.S. for organic and conven­
Organic has a long and rich history rooted in desire to tional pesticides. Additional opportunity exists to
promote ecological balance. While it has enjoyed research communication strategies to build confi­
robust growth in recent years, to be further successful dence in the U.S. food system.
or to facilitate introduction of the broader regenera­ Agriculture will continue to improve in its ability to
tive agriculture paradigm, there are several challenges provide sufficient nutritious food while meeting local
that will need to be addressed. Profitability of the and global environmental goals. These approaches
system is a key concern considering higher pro­ come with inherent complexity that will need to be
duction costs combined with constraints that do not addressed through additional research, outreach to
always deliver a guaranteed premium. A key pro­ growers and consumers alike and supportive policy.
duction challenge is management of pests. Growers
could benefit from more flexibility such as develop­
Acknowledgements
ment of additional tools to combat difficult pests,
ensuring multiple modes of action to prevent resist­ Many thanks to the growers who participated in this survey.
ance and exploration of the use of derogations in
concert with an IPM plan to deal with emergency situ­ Disclosure statement
ations. The current survey was small and focused on
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
large acre growers. Additional research should be
conducted to examine differences among farm types.
Environmental outcomes are important. It was Funding
clear from the present small survey that growers do
This work was supported by Crop Life America.
not discriminate between production systems when
adding in practices that have known benefits such
as buffer strips, cover crops, and crop rotation. Notes on contributors
Given the serious concerns surrounding potential Shawna Lemke holds a PhD in toxicology from Texas A&M Uni­
impact of climate change in the U.S. and impact on versity. She has occupied a unique position in the science-to-
abiotic and biotic stressors like pest and disease policy continuum on a wide range of food, nutrition and
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 11

agricultural technology topics. She has extensive experience in Fedoroff, N. V. (2015). Food in a future of 10 billion. Agriculture &
building partnerships to advance sustainability goals. Currently, Food Security, 4(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-015-
she has a consulting practice in regulatory science strategy and 0031-7
communication. Fora – Funders for Regenerative Agriculture. (2021). Analysis and
Recommendations - U.S. Policy & Regenerative Agriculture.
Nathan Smith holds an MS in molecular biology from Purdue
University. He is passionate about advancing the global and FORA U.S. Policy Working Group. https://forainitiative.org/
wp-content/uploads/policy_2021_Final.pdf.
local impact of Purdue technologies and currently focuses on
Funk, C., & Kennedy, B. (2016). The New food fights: US public
licensing within the Purdue Research Foundation Office of
Tech Commercialization. divides over food science. Washington, DC: Pew Research
Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/
Christian Thiim holds an MPA in Environmental Policy and uploads/sites/9/2016/11/PS_2016.12.01_Food-Science_
Natural Resource Management from the O’Neill School of FINAL.pdf.
Public and Environmental Affairs. He has a multidisciplinary Giller, K. E., Hijbeek, R., Andersson, J. A., & Sumberg, J. (2021).
background in environmental studies, political science and Regenerative agriculture: An agronomic perspective.
public affairs and currently works in Sustainability for the City Outlook on Agriculture, 50(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.
of Salem, MA. 1177/0030727021998063
Katie Stump holds an MS in Agricultural and Applied Economics Heisey, P. W., & Day Rubenstein, K. (April 2015). Using crop
from Virginia Tech. She currently works as a science policy genetic resources to help agriculture adapt to climate
manager for Crop Life America. change: Economics and policy, EIB-139, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Honeycutt, C. W., Morgan, C. L. S., Elias, P., Doane, M., Mesko, J.,
Myers, R., Odom, L., Moebius-Clune, B., & Nichols, R. (2020).
Conflict of interest Soil health: Model programs in the USA. Frontiers of
Agricultural Science and Engineering, 7(3), 356–361. https://
SLL received a stipend from Crop Life America for her doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2020340
work on this article. NS and CT were interns for Crop Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Shaxson, F., & Pretty, J. (2009). The
spread of conservation agriculture: Justification, sustainabil­
Life America. KS is an employee of Crop Life America.
ity and uptake. International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability, 7(4), 292–320. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.
2009.0477
Knickel, K., Ashkenazy, A., Chebach, T. C., & Parrot, N. (2017).
References Agricultural modernization and sustainable agriculture:
Behar, H. (2022). The Tragedy of Fraud. Organic Farmers Contradictions and complementarities. International Journal
Association website. https://organicfarmersassociation.org/ of Agricultural Sustainability, 15(5), 575–592. https://doi.org/
news/the-tragedy-of-fraud/. 10.1080/14735903.2017.1373464
CFI, Center for Food Integrity. (2018). A Dangerous Food Kopittke, P. M., Menzies, N. W., Wang, P., McKenna, B. A., &
Disconnect When Consumers Hold You Responsible But Don’t Lombi, E. (2019). Soil and the intensification of agriculture
Trust You. https://foodintegrity.org/research/current- for global food security. Environment International, 132,
research/. 105078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105078
CFI, Center for food integrity. (2021). Illuminate: Pesticides. CFI, Kühne, S., Roßberg, D., Rohrig, P., von Mering, F., Weihrauch, F.,
2021. https://foodintegrity.org/trust-practices/illuminate- Kanthak, S., Kienzle, J., Patzwahl, W., Reiners, E., & Gitzel, J.
research/illuminate-pesticides/. (2017). The use of copper pesticides in Germany and the
CIMMYT. (2020). What is conservation agriculture? https://www. search for minimization and replacement strategies.
cimmyt.org/news/what-is-conservation-agriculture/. Organic Farming, 3(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.12924/
Derpsch, R. (2003). Conservation tillage, no-tillage and related of2017.03010066
technologies. In L. García-Torres, J. Benites, A. Martínez- Lal, R. (2016). Soil health and carbon management. Food and
Vilela, & A. Holgado-Cabrera (Eds.), Conservation agriculture. Energy Security, 5(4), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.96
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1143-2_23 MacDonald, J. M., & Hoppe, R. A. (2017). Large family farms con­
Dively, G. P., Venugopal, P. D., Bean, D., Whalen, J., Holmstrom, tinue to dominate U.S. Agricultural Production. USDA
K., Kuhar, T. P., Doughty, H. B., Patton, T., Cissel, W., & Economic Research Service Report. https://www.ers.usda.
Hutchison, W. D. (2018). Regional pest suppression associ­ gov/amber-waves/2017/march/large-family-farms-continue-
ated with widespread Bt maize adoption benefits vegetable to-dominate-us-agricultural-production/.
growers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Maharjan, B., Das, S., & Acharya, B. S. (2020). Soil health gap: A
115(113), 3320–3325. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. concept to establish a benchmark for soil health manage­
1720692115 ment. Global Ecology and Conservation, 23. https://doi.org/
Erisman, J., Sutton, M., Galloway, J., et al. (2008). How a century 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01116
of ammonia synthesis changed the world. Nature Geoscience, Mann. (2018). The wizard and the prophet: Two remarkable scien­
1(10), 636–639. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo325 tists and their dueling visions to shape tomorrow’s world.
FAO. (2019). Climate-smart agriculture and the sustainable devel­ Random House.
opment goals: Mapping interlinkages, synergies and trade-offs Martins, F., Atleo, T., Mbazima, G., & Israelit, S. (2021). Helping
and guidelines for integrated implementation. farmers shift to regenerative agriculture. https://www.bain.
12 S. LEMKE ET AL.

com/insights/helping-farmers-shift-to-regenerative- sustainability-goals#:~:text=Regenerative%20agriculture%
agriculture/. 20can%20be%20a%20powerful%20tool%20for,and%
Meemken, E.-M., & Qaim, M. (2018). Organic agriculture, food 20transparency%20from%20the%20companies%20that%
security, and the environment. Annual Review of Resource 20make%20them.
Economics, 10(1), 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- Tabashnik, B. E., Liesner, L. R., Ellsworth, P. C., Unnithan, G. C.,
resource-100517-023252 Fabrick, J. A., Naranjo, S. E., Li, X., Dennehy, T. J., Antilla, L.,
Mpanga, I. K., Tronstad, R., Guo, J., LeBauer, D. S., & Omololu, O. J. Staten, R. T., & Carriere, Y. (2021). Transgenic cotton and
(2021). On-farm land management strategies and production sterile insect releases synergize eradication of pink bollworm
challenges in United States organic agricultural systems. a century after it invaded the United States. Proceedings of the
Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, https://doi. National Academy of Sciences, 118(1), e2019115118. https://
org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.10097 doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2019115118
Newton, P., Civita, N., Frankel-Goldwater, L., Bartel, K., & Johns, C. Thompson, P. B. (2007). Agricultural sustainability: What it is and
(2020). What is regenerative agriculture? A review of scholar what it is not. International Journal of Agricultural
and practitioner definitions based on processes and out­ Sustainability, 5(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.
comes. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 577723. 2007.9684809
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.577723 Thompson, T., & Agnew, J. Virginia tech college of agriculture and
North Central IPM Center. (2010). Integrated Pest Management – life sciences.
The PAMS Approach. Michigan State University College and Tittonell, P., El Mujtar, V., Felix, G., Kebede, Y., Laborda, L., Luján
Agriculture and Natural Resources. https://www.canr.msu. Soto, R., & de Vente, J. (2022). Regenerative agriculture—
edu/ipm/uploads/files/NRCS/PAMSapproach2010-9-1new. agroecology without politics? Frontiers in Sustainable Food
pdf. Systems, 6, 844261. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.
NRCS - National Resources Conservation Service. (2010). 844261
Conservation Practice Standard Integrated Pest TSC - The Sustainability Consortium. Responsible Pest
Management (IPM). https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/ Management (RPM) Framework. (2021). https://
FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044470.pdf. Sustainabilityconsortium.org/rpm-framework.
Regenerative Organic. (2019). Framework for regenerative Unilever. (2022). Sustainable and regenerative sourcing.
organic certification. October 2019 Pilot Program Version. https://www.unilever.com/planet-and-society/protect-
https://Regenorganic.org/pdf/ROC-Framework.pdf. and-regenerate-nature/sustainable-and-regenerative-
Regional IPM Centers. (2022). What is IPM? www.ipmceters.org/ sourcing/.
about/what-is-ipm. UN, United Nations. (2021). UN/DESA Policy Brief #105: Circular
SAN - Sustainable Agriculture Network. (2007). Transitioning to agriculture for sustainable rural development. https://www.
Organic production. www.sare.org/bulletin/organic. un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/un-desa-policy-
Schreefel, L., Schulte, R. P. O., de Boer, I. J. M., Pas Schrijver, A., & brief-105-circular-agriculture-for-sustainable-rural-
van Zanten, H. H. E. (2020). Regenerative agriculture – The soil development/.
is the base. Global Food Security. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. USDA. (2021). Carbon. Accessed October 11, 2021. https://www.
gfs.2020.100404 usda.gov/oce/energy-and-environment/markets/carbon.
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, M., & Foley, J. A. (2012). Comparing the USDA. (2022a). USDA offers expanded conservation program
yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature, 485 opportunities to support climate smart agriculture in 2022.
(7397), 229–232. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11069 Press Release Release No. 0005.22 https://www.usda.gov/
Seufert, V., & Ramankutty, N. (2017). Many shades of gray—The media/press-releases/2022/01/10/usda-offers-expanded-
context-dependent performance of organic agriculture. conservation-program-opportunities-support.
Science Advances, 3(3), e1602638. https://doi.org/10.1126/ USDA. (2022b). Farms and land in farms 2021 summary. ISSN:
sciadv.1602638 1995-2004. https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-
Sjerven, J. (2020). USDA moves to stamp out organic fraud. Food esmis/files/5712m6524/6h441w232/vx022h58v/fnlo0222.
Business News. https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/ pdf.
16677-usda-moves-to-stamp-out-organic-fraud. USDA AMS. (2012). USDA Oversight of Organic Products. USDA
Statistics. (2022). Organic food sales in the US from 2005-2021. Agricultural Marketing Service. Published November 2012.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/196952/organic-food- https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/USDA%
sales-in-the-us-since-2000/. 20Oversight.pdf.
Steensland, A. (2022). 2022 Global Agricultural Productivity USDA AMS. (2015a). Fact sheet: Introduction to organic practices.
Report: Troublesome trends and system shocks. USDA agricultural marketing service. Published September
Strauss, T., & Chhabria, P. (2022). What is regenerative agricul­ 11, 2015. https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/
ture and how can it help US get to net-zero food systems? fact-sheet-introduction-organic-practices.
3 industry leaders explain. World Economic Form. https:// USDA AMS. (2015b). Copper Sulfate https://www.ams.usda.gov/
www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/12/3-industry-leaders-on- sites/default/files/media/Copper%20Sulfate%203%20TR%
achieving-net-zero-goals-with-regenerative-agriculture- 202015.pdf.
practices/. USDA AMS. (2022). NOP Handbook: Guidance & Instructions for
Sustainable Brands. (2020). Regenerative Sourcing Helping Accredited Certifying Agents & Certified Operations. USDA
Companies Meet Sustainability Goals – Sustainable Brands. Agricultural Marketing Service. Accessed June 23, 2022.
https://sustainablebrands.com/read/supply-chain/ https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/
regenerative-sourcing-helping-companies-meet- handbook.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 13

USDA AMS. (2024). The National List of Allowed and Prohibited US EPA. (2021). Final Test Guidelines for Pesticides and Toxic
Substances. Accessed March 1, 2024. https://www.ams.usda. Substances. https://www.epa.gov/test-guidelines-pesticides-
gov/rules-regulations/national-list-allowed-and-prohibited- and-toxic-substances/final-test-guidelines-pesticides-and-toxic.
substances. US EPA. (2022). Labeling Pesticide Products under National
USDA ERS. (2020). A Look at Agricultural Productivity Growth in Organic Program. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registrat
the United States, 1948-2017. Posted by Eric Njuki. https:// ion/prn-2003-1-labeling-pesticide-products-under-nat
www.usda.gov/media/blog/2020/03/05/look-agricultural- ional-organic-program.
productivity-growth-united-states-1948-2017. Williams, P. R. D., & Hammitt, J. K. (2001). Perceived risks of con­
USDA ERS. (2022). Land and Natural Resources. https://www.ers. ventional and organic produce: Pesticides pathogens and
usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the- natural toxins. Risk Analysis, 21(2), 319–330. https://doi.org/
essentials/land-and-natural-resources/#:~:text=U.S.%20ag 10.1111/0272-4332.212114
ricultural%20production%20relies%20heavily%20on%20the WSSA Weed Science Society of America. (2012). Three Leading
%20Nation%E2%80%99s,on%20the%20quality%20of% Scientific Societies Take an Objective Look at the Issues
20the%20Nation%E2%80%99s%20natural%20environment. Associated with “Least Toxic Pesticides” Applied as a “Last
USDA NRCS. (2023). Conservation Practice Standards Resort”. https://wssa.net/2012/11/three-leading-scientific-
Information. Accessed September 8, 2023. https://www. societies-take-an-objective-look-at-the-issues-associated-
nrcs.usda.gov/getting-assistance/conservation-practices. with-least-toxic-pesticides-applied-as-a-last-resort/.