Trump Signs EO on Regenerative Agriculture While EPA Approves More Toxic Forever Chemicals
This article first appeared in the August 2026 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.
By Steven Hoffman
The summer of 2026 has delivered a dizzying regulatory whiplash for the natural, organic, and regenerative agriculture industry. On one hand, the phrase "regenerative agriculture" has officially reached the highest echelons of federal policy, recently enshrined in a presidential executive order and championed loudly under the populist "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) banner.
On the other hand, a quiet but aggressive rollout of toxic synthetic "forever chemicals," deep cuts to public health and agricultural inspection funding, and sweeping executive and legal victories for the agrochemical lobby tell a starkly different story.
For business owners, executives, and retailers in the natural and organic products sector, this legislative and regulatory environment presents a highly volatile mixed bag. We are witnessing a fundamental tension between the administration's public health rhetoric and its actual regulatory execution. As consumers increasingly look to the natural channel for transparency and safety, understanding these seismic shifts is critical.
Here is a comprehensive look at how recent federal actions, courtroom reversals, and public health fallouts are redefining the business of food and agriculture from the soil to the shelf.
The Biofuel Pivot: Is It True Regenerative Agriculture?
On June 25, 2026, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14414, formally titled Advancing Regenerative Agriculture and Strengthening American Farm Resilience. The directive instructs the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Health and Human Services (HHS) to expand precision farming, streamline agricultural innovation, and evaluate cumulative chemical exposures in the food supply.
Simultaneously, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins introduced a final Regenerative Feedstock Rule. Rather than injecting expansive new government subsidies into direct federal conservation or organic transition programs, the administration’s approach is entirely market-driven. As detailed by the Western Ag Network, the new USDA framework ties directly into the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Tax Credit, utilizing an updated "Feedstock Carbon Intensity Calculator" to connect on-farm practices with biofuel supply chains.
In practice, this allows massive conventional corn, soybean, and sorghum producers to document specific farming practices—such as no-till or cover cropping—and market their harvests at a premium to ethanol and biofuel producers. The goal is to incentivize carbon reduction without imposing federal mandates.
While market-based incentives for carbon reduction sound promising, advocates and organic farmers are raising the alarm. Many view this framework as a blatant co-opting of the regenerative movement by Big Ag. True regenerative agriculture—as pioneered by the organic movement—focuses on eliminating toxic inputs, restoring biodiversity, and building soil health to grow nutrient-dense food. Critics argue that the administration is simply repackaging the term "regenerative" into a carbon-scoring mechanism to subsidize industrial biofuel production, all while continuing to allow the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers on those very same crops. For natural products retailers, this underscores the urgent need to differentiate true regenerative organic food from conventional crops participating in carbon tax credit programs.
Funding Volatility and a Courtroom Rebuke
This pivot toward corporate biofuel subsidies has been accompanied by aggressive cuts to programs meant to support small-scale and marginalized farmers.
The administration’s new executive order did not add net-new financial outlays; rather, it shifted approximately $700 million within existing agency budgets to fund its new pilot programs. To balance the books and fulfill a mandate to eliminate what it deemed wasteful spending and "diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)" initiatives, the USDA abruptly canceled the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program (ILCMA) earlier this year. Originally a $300 million initiative to help Black, Native American and historically underserved farmers secure land and financing, the program was canceled earlier this year over alleged administrative and DEI-related concerns.
However, the administration’s aggressive funding cuts recently hit a major legal wall. On June 30, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell granted a preliminary injunction ordering the USDA to restore $127 million in canceled grants to 24 organizations while litigation continues. The plaintiffs successfully argued that the USDA unlawfully terminated the awards based on arbitrary keyword searches rather than on performance or merit. This courtroom rebuke is a massive victory for grassroots agricultural groups and reinforces the USDA's legal obligation to honor its contracts with the young and first-generation farmers who represent the future of the nation’s specialized food supply.
In another piece of rare, positive news for the natural products sector, the USDA recently announced that the organic certification cost-share funds have finally been released. These funds are a vital lifeline for small- to mid-sized organic operations, reimbursing them for a portion of the financial burden required to maintain their rigorously audited USDA Organic certifications. The release of these funds will help stabilize the organic supply chain as farmers finalize their operational budgets for the coming year.
#ChemGate and PFAS Proliferation
While the administration touts its commitment to farm resilience, its environmental regulatory arm is moving in a dangerously contradictory direction.
In early July 2026, the EPA quietly fast-tracked the approval of three new toxic pesticides containing PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances)—commonly known as "forever chemicals." The hazardous new herbicides—trifludimoxazin, diflufenican, and epyrifenacil—can now be sprayed directly on major food crops, including wheat and citrus. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), EPA scientists themselves flagged one of these chemicals as having "suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential."
This decision brings the total number of PFAS pesticides greenlit by the current EPA to five in under two years. These chemicals do not break down in the environment; they accumulate in the soil, the water table, and ultimately, the human bloodstream, where they are linked to immune system suppression and severe reproductive health issues.
The regulatory failure extends to the FDA, which recently refused a formal petition to set strict limits on forever chemicals in food, leaving consumers entirely unprotected from the downstream effects of the EPA's pesticide approvals.
Food industry visionary and financial analyst Robyn O’Brien has aptly dubbed this crisis "#ChemGate." O'Brien warns that when regulatory bodies become hopelessly captured by the chemical lobbying arms they are meant to oversee, the entire integrity of the American food supply collapses. For natural products retailers, the EPA's quiet unleashing of forever chemicals onto conventional produce serves as the ultimate marketing imperative for the organic seal. As conventional agriculture becomes increasingly saturated with indestructible synthetic toxins, the rigorously audited, “no toxic synthetic pesticides” promise of the organic aisle transforms from a premium lifestyle choice into a fundamental public health necessity.
The Glyphosate Betrayal: A Fracture in the MAHA Alliance
The tension between the populist MAHA movement and the administration’s actual policy execution reached a breaking point this year over the world’s most notorious herbicide: glyphosate.
The fracture began in February 2026 when President Trump issued an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to mandate and protect the domestic production of glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup), citing national security and food supply chain resilience. The order granted broad liability immunities, infuriating MAHA advocates who had championed the administration on the promise of health reform. As Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook noted at the time, the move was viewed by many wellness advocates as a "direct assault" on the MAHA platform and a great gift to the chemical lobby.
This administrative protection was recently compounded by a landmark decision from the nation's highest court. This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of agrochemical giant Bayer regarding its glyphosate-based weedkiller. The ruling effectively blocks thousands of state-level "failure-to-warn" lawsuits, determining that federal EPA label approvals preempt state laws that might otherwise require cancer-warning labels on toxic pesticides.
This decision essentially grants a liability shield to pesticide manufacturers, protecting them from plaintiffs alleging they were not properly informed about the severe health risks associated with chronic glyphosate or other chemical pesticide exposure.
For the MAHA movement, the executive protections and the Supreme Court ruling exposed a deep rift between the political rhetoric of "making America healthy" and a regulatory reality that actively insulates the chemical agriculture industry from legal consequence. As reported by Grist, attempts to appease MAHA's fury over the Roundup rulings have largely backfired, leaving health-freedom advocates feeling profoundly betrayed. Protests have taken place outside the Supreme Court, signaling that the coalition of health advocates that helped propel the administration into office is fracturing over its failure to regulate Big Chem.
The Public Health Fallout: The Cost of Cutbacks
The consequences of prioritizing corporate deregulation and cutting federal research and inspection budgets are not abstract; they are already playing out in real time across the nation's supply chains and emergency rooms.
The current administration has initiated historic cutbacks in public health funding, FDA food inspections, and USDA agricultural research. The result is a regulatory apparatus that is operating with severe blind spots, and the public is paying the price.
In recent weeks, an explosive food-borne Cyclospora outbreak has swept across the United States, causing severe, prolonged gastrointestinal illness. Cyclospora is a microscopic parasite transmitted through feces and typically linked to contaminated fresh produce. As of July 2026, the parasite has sickened thousands of Americans across at least 34 states, with the Midwest bearing the brunt of the crisis. In Ohio, the Cleveland Clinic reported a staggering jump in lab testing, skyrocketing from just one test per day to nearly 200 as symptomatic patients flooded local hospitals.
The federal response has been heavily hindered by recent agency rollbacks. Due to severe staffing shortages and budgetary cuts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—which recently made the tracking of certain foodborne illnesses optional—federal case data has drastically lagged behind real-time state-level reporting. Without a robust, centralized federal tracing apparatus, state health investigators have been left to piece together the puzzle on their own. While early interviews strongly point to lettuce and salad greens as the leading suspected source, a specific grower, brand, or supplier has yet to be definitively named by federal authorities.
As local health departments scramble to track the outbreak's expanding footprint across the country, this unresolved crisis raises grave questions about the ability of gutted federal agencies to adequately monitor the safety of the conventional food supply. When the government can no longer proactively track and trace a pathogen, the burden of food safety falls entirely on the retailer and the private supply chain.
Simultaneously, the agricultural sector is battling a devastating screwworm outbreak affecting livestock. For decades, the USDA successfully managed the threat of the New World screwworm—a parasite that feeds on the living tissue of warm-blooded animals—through robust research and sterile insect release programs. However, recent reductions in federal research funding and the mass exodus of USDA researchers who are refusing mandatory relocations have compromised the agency's ability to maintain these critical biological defense lines, resulting in a crisis for ranchers and a direct threat to the meat supply chain.
The Strategic Path Forward for the Natural Channel
As we survey the current landscape, the mandate for the natural, organic and regenerative products industry is unmistakably clear. We can no longer rely on federal tailwinds, government definitions, or public safety nets to protect our consumers or our food supply.
When the federal government co-opts the term "regenerative" to subsidize industrial biofuels, unleashes PFAS forever chemicals onto conventional crops, shields glyphosate manufacturers from liability, and defunds the agencies responsible for keeping parasites out of our produce, the conventional food system ceases to be a safe default for the American family.
In this environment of deep institutional failure, the natural products channel stands as the last line of defense.
Retailers, brands and investors must step into the regulatory void and double down on uncompromising transparency. We have an opportunity to educate customers on the profound difference between a federally subsidized "regenerative" biofuel crop and rigorously audited USDA Certified Organic and Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) food systems.
Furthermore, private capital must continue to step forward. To truly scale clean agriculture, the private sector needs to prioritize funding the organic transitions, the local supply chain infrastructure, and the independent agricultural research that the federal government is actively abandoning.
The agricultural policies of 2026 are indeed a mixed bag—heavy on chemical appeasement and light on actual public health reform. But out of this chaos emerges a profound opportunity. As the conventional system compromises itself, the value proposition of the natural, organic, regenerative, and specialty food industry has never been more vital, more distinct or more essential to the future of human health and environmental resilience.
Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a strategic communications and brand development agency serving the natural and organic products industry. Learn more at www.compassnatural.com.
EWG Publishes ‘Clean 15’ to Reduce Dietary Pesticide Exposure; Study Shows Glyphosate Still Carcinogenic at Levels Deemed Safe
This article first appeared in the July 2025 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.
By Steven Hoffman
As public awareness of the connection between food and health continues to grow, so too does concern over pesticide residues in the food we eat every day. This month, two major developments underscore just how crucial it is to pay attention not only to what’s on our plates — but how it got there.
On June 11, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released its 2025 Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce, including the highly anticipated “Clean Fifteen” and “Dirty Dozen” lists. These guides rank popular fruits and vegetables based on pesticide contamination, using data compiled from the USDA and FDA. For nearly two decades, these rankings have helped consumers make more informed decisions about when buying organic matters most.
This year’s “Clean Fifteen” offers some good news: Nearly 60% of the tested samples of the 15 least-contaminated conventional produce items showed no detectable pesticide residues whatsoever. Topping the clean list were avocados, sweet corn, pineapple, onions, and papaya — all relatively safe bets for budget-conscious shoppers looking to reduce pesticide intake without going fully organic.
But the release of EWG’s guide was accompanied by sobering news on another front: The results of a two-year study published in Environmental Health adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that glyphosate — the active ingredient in Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup®, the world’s most widely used herbicide — may cause multiple types of cancer, and at doses considered safe by regulators.
“Our study provides solid and independent scientific evidence of the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides,” said lead investigator Daniele Mandrioli of the Ramazzini Institute in Italy.
Glyphosate and the American Diet
Glyphosate has been a mainstay of industrial agriculture since the 1970s, praised for its broad-spectrum weed-killing power. With the rise of genetically modified crops engineered to resist glyphosate, its use exploded in the late 1990s and 2000s. Today, it’s sprayed on millions of acres of GMO corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola. But it doesn’t stop there.
In conventional grain production, glyphosate is also used as a desiccant — sprayed just before harvest to dry out crops like oats, wheat, lentils, and chickpeas. That means it doesn’t just show up in livestock feed. It ends up in our breakfast bowls and lunchboxes: in oatmeal, crackers, tortillas, hummus, and cereal — it can even end up in products marketed as “natural” or “healthy.”
Glyphosate is now so prevalent in our environment that it has been detected in everything from rainwater to breast milk. A 2022 CDC study found glyphosate in the urine of 80% of a representative sample of U.S. children and adults. Just last year, EWG reported that popular oat-based cereals and snack bars still contained detectable glyphosate residues, years after promising to reformulate.
So, how dangerous is it?
A Closer Look at the Science
The new Environmental Health study, published in June 2025, evaluated nearly 2,000 previously published studies to reassess glyphosate’s potential health risks. It concluded that even very low doses — far lower than currently allowed by regulatory agencies — can pose significant risks of cancer, hormone disruption, reproductive harm, and immune suppression. The researchers found that glyphosate can interfere with endocrine signaling pathways at parts-per-billion levels, meaning even tiny exposures could be biologically active.
This follows a 2015 determination by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.” Since then, thousands of lawsuits have been filed against Bayer-Monsanto, many resulting in high-profile jury verdicts linking glyphosate exposure to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Although Bayer continues to deny glyphosate’s carcinogenicity and has spent billions to settle lawsuits, public confidence in the safety of this chemical is eroding.
And now, with researchers warning there may be no safe level of exposure, the need for regulatory reassessment — and consumer action — is more urgent than ever.
What the ‘Clean Fifteen’ Tells Us — and What It Doesn’t
In the midst of all this, EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce offers a valuable, practical resource for consumers trying to navigate the complexity of the modern food system.
EWG analyzed over 47,000 samples of 46 popular fruits and vegetables. The “Clean Fifteen” list identifies produce items that typically have the lowest pesticide levels, even when grown conventionally. This year’s top 15 are:
Avocados
Sweet corn
Pineapple
Onions
Papaya
Frozen sweet peas
Asparagus
Honeydew melon
Kiwi
Cabbage
Watermelon
Mushrooms
Mangoes
Sweet potatoes
Carrots
It’s worth noting that some of these crops, such as papaya and sweet corn, are frequently genetically modified. That means they may be lower in pesticide residues, but still part of the chemical-dependent industrial agriculture model.
In contrast, the “Dirty Dozen” — which includes strawberries, spinach, and kale — are best purchased organic due to their high pesticide loads. For instance, 90% of strawberry samples tested had detectable pesticide residues, and spinach samples had, on average, 1.8 times more pesticide residues by weight than any other crop.
The takeaway: if you can’t afford to buy everything organic, prioritize organic options for items on the Dirty Dozen, and rest a bit easier when purchasing from the Clean Fifteen.
Resources & References
EWG Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce: https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/
Glyphosate cancer study summary: https://www.thenewlede.org/2025/06/new-study-adds-to-evidence-that-glyphosate-weed-killer-can-cause-cancer/
Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a strategic communications and brand development agency serving the natural and organic products industry. Learn more at www.compassnatural.com.
Organic Packaged Foods Contain Fewer Ingredients Linked to Negative Health Effects
Photo: Pexels
This article originally appeared in Presence Marketing’s October 2021 Industry Newsletter
By Steve Hoffman
Processed, packaged foods labeled as organic have a more healthful profile than their conventional counterparts, says a new analysis of 80,000 food products conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and published in the journal Nutrients.
The study focused on packaged foods, which EWG said accounts for more than 60% of the calories consumed in the U.S. The study analyzed nutrition and ingredient information for 8,240 organic and 72,205 conventional foods sold in the U.S. in 2019 and 2020. It is the most comprehensive study to date of the differences between non-organic, or conventional, packaged foods and those labeled as Certified Organic, said EWG.
According to the EWG study, organic packaged foods have fewer ultra-processed ingredients and additives that may promote overeating. EWG reported that the overall nutritional profile of organic foods is better, too, with less added sugar, saturated fat and sodium. Organic packaged foods contain more potassium, a heart-healthy nutrient found in fruits, vegetables and other unprocessed or minimally processed foods, EWG reported.
Nearly three-quarters of the U.S. packaged food and beverage supply in 2018 was ultra-processed, claimed EWG. This category of food makes up a significant source of calories for people over the age of two, and even higher for kids ages two to 19, EWG noted.