NOTE: This opinion piece first appeared in Food Safety News on 9/22/2025
Regenerative agriculture has always been a difficult concept to comprehend and is often inconsistently defined. Despite this complexity, it has gained widespread attention because of its holistic approach that focuses on potential solutions to crises in the food system – including climate change, soil degradation, inhumane handling of farm animals, and biodiversity loss.
However, because of this loose definition, regenerative agriculture label claims are highly vulnerable to co-option, and certification is supposed to guard against that risk. Credible certification systems provide assurances to consumers that regenerative claims are backed by meaningful and transparent standards, independent governance, and impartial verification. Unfortunately, some labels appear to be barely worth the adhesive that affixes them to food packaging.
Climate Week NYC 2025 offers a timely moment to examine the growing number of “regenerative” certifications and ask which ones truly protect the integrity of the term. A forthcoming white paper from Consumer Reports will analyze Regenified and other labels through the lens of internationally recognized best practices. This discussion is especially urgent because as more companies adopt regenerative claims, the credibility of the standards supporting them will determine whether those claims build trust — or fuel accusations of greenwashing.
What comprises a credible certification?
Credible certifications share two essential safeguards. First, they are built through transparent, participatory processes: standards are developed with diverse stakeholder input, published for scrutiny, and opened to public comment. Second, they rely on independent verification: the organization that sets the standard is separate from the inspectors who enforce it. These steps ensure impartiality, prevent conflicts of interest, and give consumers and companies confidence that claims are meaningful.
Regenified and its unusual structure
Launched in 2022, Regenified has aggressively promoted itself as a leader in regenerative certification. Yet instead of filling a gap in the marketplace, Regenified creates confusion with a highly unusual model that does not align with international best practices (such as those outlined by ISEAL’s Code of Good Practice) or with the expectations of food companies seeking credible partners.
Unlike standards that are developed through inclusive stakeholder processes and made available for public review, Regenified’s standard is a trademarked framework created by its founders. It was not developed through a transparent, public process, is revised on an irregular and unpublished schedule, and is never opened for public comment. This means there is no opportunity for stakeholders in the regenerative agriculture movement to participate in shaping or improving the requirements — a basic expectation for credible certification systems.
Regenified’s structure is highly unusual among credible certification programs. Regenified was established as a for-profit LLC, rather than as a non-profit organization. Its founders also own the consulting firm Understanding Ag and co-founded the nonprofit Soil Health Academy, which teaches farmers the founders’ trademarked framework, which now also serves as the standard for Regenified. To achieve certification, the Regenified standard states that farmers “must attend a multi-day regenerative agriculture educational workshop.” Farmers have told us that the workshop costs over $1,000 not including travel costs.
While Regenified told us there are many options and farmers are not restricted to any given provider, the only one teaching the framework that forms the basis of Regenified’s program is the Soil Health Academy. Also, according to their Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 990 form, the non-profit directs nearly all of its revenue back to the consulting firm Understanding Ag. This arrangement raises serious questions for any company considering Regenified for their supply chains: it functions less like an impartial certification system and more like a closed business model in which revenue circulates but safeguards do not.
Weak verification and false assurances
Verification is another weak spot. Regenified touts itself as a third-party certification, and promotes its approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Process Verified Program (PVP) as proof of credibility, and as a means of bestowing regulatory credibility to the label. But PVP is virtually meaningless in this context because it merely verifies that a company is following its own procedures; it does not evaluate whether the standards themselves are meaningful or that the structure is free from conflicts of interest.
Instead of working with accredited, independent certifying bodies — the hallmark of true third-party certification — Regenified conducts its own inspections. The on-farm audits are carried out by Regenified’s own field verifiers, who are trained by the same nonprofit that farmers attend for so-called certification. In effect, the for-profit company that writes the rules is also paying the referees — an arrangement that rewards more approvals, not meaningful standards.
When asked about these issues, Regenified asserted that its standards prohibit conflicts of interest, because verifiers cannot consult for, or own, the farm that they inspect. They further added, “Our verifiers are employed by Regenified” and are trained in-house. However, by employing its verifiers, it’s our belief that the conflict of interest is baked into the model.
Why it matters
Certification isn’t just a marketing add-on; it’s the backbone of trust in sustainability claims. Food companies now face a critical choice. By relying on credible programs, they can ensure that regenerative claims are backed by transparency, independent governance, and third-party verification. However, if non-credible certifications are allowed to flourish, and food companies adopt marketing schemes disguised as certification, it could mislead consumers and undermine trust in regenerative agriculture.