Bayer calls it regenerative. Nestlé calls it regenerative. PepsiCo calls it regenerative. None of them are wrong, because nobody defines what "regenerative" really means.
Unlike organic, regenerative has no certification requirement, no legal standard, and no verification system. So every company sets its own bar. And when a word can mean almost anything, it becomes easy to claim and hard to question.
Scientists and farmers are pushing back. Certification advocates argue that without a verified standard, regenerative will travel the same road as sustainable... a term that once meant something, adopted by marketing until it meant nothing. The pressure to define it is building. But so is the resistance from the companies that benefit most from it staying loose.
Eighteen of the top 30 food and agriculture companies already define regenerative agriculture on their own terms. Eighteen different definitions. Zero external verification.
For innovators and investors in this space: who do you think should own the standard? Farmers, scientists, governments, or the market itself?
