Federal Actions Focus on Greater Transparency for GMOs & Ultra-Processed Foods

This article first appeared in the September 2026 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

For years, leaders in the natural and organic products industry have advocated for a simple, fundamental consumer right: the right to know exactly what is in the food we eat. Despite the steady growth of the natural channel and the soaring consumer demand for clean labels, federal regulations have historically provided conventional food manufacturers with ample regulatory shelter. Through confusing digital disclosures, vague ingredient definitions, and self-certified safety standards, the conventional food sector has often avoided the level of transparency that natural and organic brands readily provide to their customers.

However, a confluence of landmark judicial and federal regulatory actions in August 2026 has signaled a significant paradigm shift. Within a single month, a federal court struck down the regulatory loophole allowing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be hidden behind QR codes, while the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) advanced efforts to formally define ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and tighten the oversight of self-certified food additives.

Photo by Annie Vo on Unsplash

For business owners, executives, and professionals in the natural, organic, and regenerative agriculture markets, these actions validate decades of persistent advocacy. More importantly, they stand to reshape the competitive grocery landscape, potentially forcing conventional brands to reformulate their products or face a new era of mandatory, unavoidable on-package transparency.

The Demise of the QR Code Loophole
The movement toward transparent GMO labeling achieved a decisive victory when a federal district court issued a final remedy decision regarding the USDA's bioengineered food labeling rules. According to the Center for Food Safety, the court ruled that the USDA must rewrite its National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard by Jan. 1, 2028, effectively voiding the provisions that previously allowed companies to obfuscate GMO disclosures.

The litigation, which was championed by a coalition of natural food retailers and consumer advocacy groups—including Natural Grocers and PCC Natural Markets—targeted two specific, controversial loopholes in the original 2018 regulation. First, the USDA had allowed food manufacturers to use a digital QR code, text message, or web address as the sole method of disclosing bioengineered ingredients. Critics argued this was fundamentally discriminatory, as it placed an undue burden on consumers who either lacked smartphones, experienced poor internet connectivity in grocery aisles, or simply did not know that a digital scan was required to view ingredient information.

Second, the original rule exempted "highly refined" ingredients from being labeled as bioengineered if the modified genetic material was no longer detectable through standard DNA testing. This exemption allowed a vast swath of ultra-processed ingredients—such as highly refined corn syrup, canola oil and soy oil—to avoid GMO labeling entirely, even though they were derived from genetically modified crops.

As reported by Food Dive, the federal court has now mandated that the USDA close these loopholes. The court’s official vacatur order requires the agency to implement clear, on-package text or symbols and to comprehensively address the disclosure of highly refined, ultra-processed GMO ingredients.

The reaction from the natural products community has been swift and celebratory. Max Goldberg, editor and publisher of Organic Insider, noted in a recent LinkedIn post: “The headline that Big Food has been dreading. Why? Because the QR code loophole is dead. A federal court just ordered the USDA to rewrite its GMO labeling rules by January 1, 2028 — and this time, there's nowhere to hide. For years, up to 80% of GMO products dodged real disclosure. Sodas, cooking oils, ultra-processed staples — all slipped through. And when brands did 'disclose'? A QR code you needed a smartphone to scan. Not anymore. Clear on-package labels. Actual transparency. The right to know what's in your cart. Big shift coming for food brands. Bigger win for consumers.”

As noted by DTN Progressive Farmer, the ruling places the timeline squarely in the hands of the USDA, rejecting the agency's initial request to delay the implementation of new rules until 2029. According to Feedstuffs, the mandated January 2028 deadline means food manufacturers must begin auditing their supply chains immediately to prepare for the transition to mandatory on-package disclosures.

George Kimbrell, legal director for the Center for Food Safety, underscored the historical importance of the ruling. Speaking to Food Navigator, Kimbrell stated: “Yesterday's decision was the final nail in the coffin of the 2021 unlawful GMO labeling regulations. We are gratified that the district court, like the court of appeals before it, has agreed with our legal arguments and struck them down.”

Closing the GRAS Loophole and Modernizing Food Oversight
While the courts tackled GMO transparency, the executive branch moved to address the proliferation of chemical additives in the American food supply.

As announced on Aug. 10, 2026, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. introduced two landmark food policy reforms designed to modernize federal oversight of ingredients. The most immediate regulatory shift involves a proposed rule to tighten the "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS) designation.

For decades, the GRAS framework has served as a primary regulatory pathway for food manufacturers to introduce new ingredients into the market. Originally intended by Congress for common, historically well-understood ingredients like vinegar or baking soda, the GRAS provision has increasingly been utilized by companies to self-certify novel synthetic chemicals, preservatives, and artificial additives as safe. In many cases, companies could convene their own industry-funded expert panels to determine safety, effectively bypassing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review process altogether.

According to Food Business News, the proposed HHS rule will fundamentally alter this dynamic by requiring food and animal feed manufacturers to formally notify the FDA whenever they conclude that a new substance added to food meets the GRAS criteria. By ending the era of secret, self-certified additives, the administration aims to ensure that the FDA can properly review the safety data of novel ingredients before they ever enter the food supply.

This move has drawn widespread support from medical professionals and health experts who have long criticized the FDA's lack of authority over food additives. Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb voiced his support, stating that the reform is important because the FDA has generally lacked sufficient authority to meaningfully regulate these substances. This shift aligns closely with the long-standing demands of natural health advocates, who have consistently warned about the cumulative health impacts of unchecked synthetic chemicals.

The Drive to Define Ultra-Processed Foods
Alongside the GRAS rule proposal, the federal government took an unprecedented step toward formally defining a category of food that has dominated recent nutritional research and public health discussions: ultra-processed foods (UPFs).

As reported by Food Safety Magazine, the FDA and the USDA jointly submitted a white paper to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final review, proposing the first-ever federal definition of ultra-processed foods. While there are international frameworks—such as the NOVA classification system developed by researchers in Brazil—the United States has historically lacked a uniform, statutory definition for UPFs.

Establishing a formal definition is far more than a semantic exercise. As highlighted by Food Industry Executive, the submission of the definition as a white paper signals a foundational step toward widespread regulatory changes. Once a federal definition is established and finalized, it can be utilized across multiple government agencies to shape public policy. This could eventually impact everything from the composition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the National School Lunch Program to the eligibility of certain products within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. emphasized the urgency of the initiative. “Nearly 60% of the American diet is made up of ultra-processed foods, and childhood obesity now affects more than one in five American children,” Kennedy noted in a statement. “We cannot reverse America’s chronic disease epidemic without transforming our food system.”

Writing for The Atlantic, journalist Nicholas Florko noted that Kennedy’s push to define ultra-processed foods is a central pillar of the administration's "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) agenda. By creating a standardized metric for what constitutes an ultra-processed food, the administration is laying the groundwork for a broader public health campaign aimed at reducing the consumption of heavily refined, additive-laden products that have been linked to rising rates of diet-related chronic diseases. As health advocates have pointed out, reining in UPFs is fundamental to tackling chronic disease in America, and establishing a federal definition is the required first step.

Industry Pushback and the Economic Argument
Unsurprisingly, these swift regulatory changes have encountered vocal resistance from conventional food industry groups and free-market advocates. The prospect of reformulating products, updating packaging to remove QR codes in favor of explicit text, and submitting GRAS ingredients for rigorous federal review represents a significant operational cost for legacy food manufacturers.

According to a statement from Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), the new food proposals advanced by HHS threaten to disrupt supply chains and increase consumer costs. ATR argued that by growing the regulatory state and enforcing stricter definitions on processed foods, the administration will invariably drive up the cost of manufacturing. “HHS’s new food proposals would raise grocery prices and grow the regulatory state,” the group warned, suggesting that the financial burden of compliance will ultimately be passed down to consumers at the checkout counter.

Conventional industry trade associations have echoed similar concerns regarding the GMO labeling mandate. They argue that replacing digital QR codes with on-package text could clutter labels and confuse consumers who are already overwhelmed by existing nutritional information. They further contend that highly refined oils and sugars derived from bioengineered crops are chemically identical to their non-GMO counterparts, arguing that forcing a bioengineered label on these ultra-processed ingredients is scientifically unnecessary and economically punitive.

A Competitive Advantage for the Natural Channel
Despite the pushback from the conventional food sector, the recent federal actions represent a profound validation for the natural, organic, and regenerative agriculture industries. For decades, independent retailers and natural product brands have voluntarily adhered to higher standards of transparency, often bearing the financial cost of non-GMO verification, organic certification, and clean-label formulation without any federal mandate requiring their competitors to do the same.

The death of the QR code loophole effectively levels the playing field. When conventional brands are forced to explicitly disclose the presence of bioengineered ingredients on their packaging by January 2028, consumers will be able to make direct, side-by-side comparisons in the grocery aisle. This increased visibility is expected to drive even greater consumer migration toward certified organic and Non-GMO Project Verified products, categories that already serve as the bedrock of the natural products industry.

Furthermore, the federal drive to define ultra-processed foods aligns perfectly with the core philosophy of the natural channel. Independent natural and organic food stores have long prioritized whole foods, minimally processed ingredients, and regenerative agricultural practices over synthetic formulations. If federal nutrition programs eventually integrate the new UPF definition to disincentivize the purchase of highly processed items, the market demand for nutrient-dense, clean-label alternatives will likely accelerate.

The closure of the GRAS loophole further reinforces consumer trust in the natural sector. As the FDA gains greater visibility into the synthetic additives utilized by conventional manufacturers, consumers will become increasingly aware of the chemical complexities inherent in highly processed diets. Brands that are committed to simple, recognizable, and transparent ingredient panels will find themselves perfectly positioned to capture the market share of health-conscious shoppers seeking refuge from synthetic additives.

Looking Ahead: The Path to 2028
While the regulatory wheels have been set in motion, the transition will not occur overnight. The USDA now faces a mandated deadline of Jan. 1, 2028, to finalize and implement the new bioengineered food disclosure rules. Concurrently, the proposed UPF definition and the GRAS notification rule must navigate the federal review process, including periods for public comment and potential revisions by the Office of Management and Budget.

For business owners and leaders in the natural products sector, the immediate path forward requires sustained vigilance and proactive consumer education. Retailers and manufacturers should begin preparing marketing and merchandising strategies that highlight their existing commitments to transparency, non-GMO sourcing, and minimal processing.

As the federal government finally moves to mandate the transparency that the natural channel has championed for decades, the industry is entering a new era. The days of hiding ingredients behind digital links and self-certified safety designations are drawing to a close. For the natural, organic, and regenerative food market, this is not just a regulatory victory; it is an affirmation of a business model built on integrity, health, and the consumer's fundamental right to know.

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.

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.

2026 Federal Hemp Ban: Understanding the Legislative Paradox Reshaping the Consumable Hemp Market

This article first appeared in the July 2026 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

For years, the natural products industry has served as the tip of the spear for plant-based wellness and agricultural innovation. Independent health food stores, natural grocery chains and co-ops were among the first to educate American consumers on the endocannabinoid system. They were the pioneers who brought hemp-derived CBD to the mainstream, championing a botanical remedy that offered millions relief from pain, anxiety and inflammation without the intoxicating effects of traditional marijuana.

Thanks to the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized commercial hemp cultivation, a vibrant supply chain emerged. From the regenerative organic farmer cultivating the crop to the innovative manufacturer formulating tinctures and topicals, to the retailer curating wellness aisles, the hemp economy blossomed into a formidable market. According to Inc. Magazine, the hemp sector is now valued at a staggering $28.4 billion, supporting more than 300,000 jobs nationwide.

Yet, as we move through the summer of 2026, this thriving ecosystem faces an existential threat. A looming federal ban, passed quietly as a rider in a 2025 appropriations bill, threatens to decimate the consumable hemp market by the end of the year.

At the exact moment the federal government is taking historic steps to deregulate and reschedule marijuana, it is simultaneously moving to criminalize the non-intoxicating, therapeutic hemp products that natural products retailers have safely sold for years. For business owners, executives, and professionals in the natural and organic food market, understanding the mechanics of this ban, the paradox of federal cannabis policy, and the ongoing fight for agricultural seed sovereignty is critical to navigating the turbulent months ahead.

Section 781 and the November 12 Deadline
The crisis stems from the Appropriations Act for 2026, signed into law on Nov. 12, 2025, to end a government shutdown. Buried within the legislation was Section 781, a provision orchestrated largely by Representative Andy Harris (R-MD), who presides over the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, and bolstered by the legislative weight of Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), that fundamentally redefines legal hemp in the United States.

Under the 2018 Farm Bill, hemp was defined as cannabis containing less than 0.3% delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis. Beyond the promise of food and fiber products derived from hemp, this definition allowed for the proliferation of full-spectrum CBD products, which naturally contain trace amounts of THC. However, it also created a loophole that allowed chemists to synthesize intoxicating cannabinoids—like delta-8 THC and THCA—from legal hemp CBD, leading to a flood of unregulated, intoxicating products in convenience stores and gas stations across the country.

Rather than creating a robust regulatory framework to address synthetic intoxicants, Congress opted for a blunt instrument. As detailed by Vicente LLP, Section 781 shifts the definition of hemp to a "total THC standard" (0.3% total THC, inclusive of THCA and delta-8). More devastatingly, the law caps final-form hemp-derived cannabinoid products at a microscopic 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container.

Absent intervening legislation, this restrictive standard takes effect on Nov. 12, 2026. Because even non-intoxicating, full-spectrum CBD products naturally contain more than 0.4 milligrams of trace THC per container, the new law essentially throws the baby out with the bathwater. According to the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, the ban will render approximately 95% of existing hemp-derived cannabinoid products federally unlawful.

As Forbes recently noted, the new rules will knock out popular, non-intoxicating CBD products that consumers rely on daily. For natural products retailers, this means that the tinctures, gummies, and functional beverages currently driving significant foot traffic and revenue will likely become contraband overnight. According to Recovered.org, the law will stringently restrict the possession and sale of these products, particularly in states where marijuana remains illegal.

Retailers and Producers Raise the Alarm
The impending ban has sent shockwaves through the natural products supply chain. Retailers who meticulously vetted brands for organic certification, clean extraction methods and third-party testing are now facing the prospect of emptying their shelves of CBD products.

Local businesses and wellness practitioners are raising the alarm, arguing that federal policymakers have fundamentally misunderstood the products they are banning. "We have the backing of medical professionals in Lancaster, in Pennsylvania, and across the country that refer their patients to us for pain relief," Heather Kreider, owner of Hempfield Botanicals in Lancaster, PA, told Fox43. "I'm a registered nurse myself. I'm also a cannabis educator, so I take what we do here very seriously. We're doing the right things here; however, those bad players are not, and they're the ones that are causing the issues."

The collateral damage extends beyond the retail sector and into federal healthcare initiatives. As reported by The Guardian, the hemp ban will effectively derail a highly anticipated Medicare pilot program designed to reimburse seniors for hemp-derived products. The model program, which launched just months ago, covered up to $500 per year for eligible Medicare patients utilizing CBD products. The federal ban undermines this progress entirely, cutting off affordable access to natural wellness for vulnerable populations.

As the Alliance for Natural Health argues, the ban is "built on broken science." By targeting the trace, naturally occurring cannabinoids in full-spectrum hemp, the government is effectively outlawing a botanical medicine that millions of Americans rely upon daily.

The Marijuana Rescheduling Paradox
Perhaps the most bewildering aspect of the 2026 federal hemp ban is the stark policy contradiction it creates within the broader cannabis landscape.

While the federal government is lowering the hammer on non-intoxicating hemp products, it is simultaneously taking historic steps to deregulate traditional, high-THC marijuana. In recent months, federal agencies have moved to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act, recognizing its medical utility and reducing tax burdens for state-licensed dispensaries.

This creates a jarring paradox for grocery retailers and natural food vendors: The federal government is facilitating the growth of the intoxicating, highly regulated dispensary market while actively criminalizing the non-intoxicating hemp market historically sold in mainstream grocery aisles.

Reason magazine recently highlighted this hypocrisy, noting that Mitch McConnell's push for the hemp ban betrays the very industry he helped create through the 2018 Farm Bill. The prohibition destroys a thriving industry to solve a regulatory issue that individual states were already handling effectively.

The backlash against this paradox has prompted unexpected political alliances. In April 2026, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to push Congress to save the industry. Following his administration's historic moves to protect medical marijuana, Trump stated he was calling on Congress to update the law "to ensure that Americans can continue to access the full-spectrum CBD products they have come to rely on ... while preserving Congress’s intent to restrict the sale of products that pose health risks."

Seed Sovereignty: The Hidden Threat of Section 781
While the consumer impact of the hemp ban has dominated the headlines, Section 781 contains a more insidious threat to agriculturalists: the erosion of seed sovereignty.

In the regenerative agriculture and organic farming communities, seed sovereignty—the right of farmers to save, breed, and exchange seeds free from corporate or government overreach—is a sacred tenet. Yet, the new federal definitions deeply compromise this right. As detailed by Grow Weed Easy, the new federal hemp and cannabis seed law dictates that viable seeds from high-THC plants are explicitly excluded from the definition of legal hemp, even if the seeds themselves contain zero THC.

This linguistic shift in the federal code has profound implications. Green State reports that this little-known federal rule could effectively make vast swaths of cannabis seeds illegal, paralyzing the nation's seed banks, agricultural research institutions, and independent farmers. Local businesses are already feeling the chilling effect. In Maine, the Fairfield Hemp Seed Company warned that the federal bill could lead to their closure, stripping farmers of access to reliable, region-specific genetics

Leading the charge against this agricultural overreach is the American Seed Innovation & Genetics Association (ASIGA). In a comprehensive white paper regarding Section 781, ASIGA meticulously outlines how the government's conflation of mature plant cannabinoids with the genetic potential of a seed stifles agricultural innovation.

By criminalizing seeds based on their potential future THC expression rather than on their current chemical makeup, the federal government is erecting massive barriers to entry for independent breeders. ASIGA argues that seeds are the essential foundation of agricultural diversity. Without the legal protection to trade and cultivate diverse cannabis genetics, the industry risks consolidating into the hands of a few well-capitalized, multi-state operators, directly contradicting the anti-monopoly ethos of the natural products industry. For organizations championing seed sovereignty and legal clarity, repealing or amending Section 781 is not just about saving CBD gummies; it is about defending a farmer's fundamental right to the seed.

The Legislative Scramble: Will Congress Intervene?
With the November 12 deadline approaching, the hemp industry has launched a desperate legislative scramble to save itself.

Several lawmakers have attempted to introduce rescue measures. In the House, Rep. James Comer (R-KY) and Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY)  introduced bills and amendments aimed at establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework or delaying the ban entirely. Three U.S. House Republicans recently attempted to thwart the intoxicating hemp product ban during Farm Bill negotiations, and another GOP lawmaker is currently circulating a bill to keep hemp THC drinks federally legal. Furthermore, the intoxicating hemp industry is actively seeking a rescue in Congress.

However, the political reality is grim. Despite bipartisan lobbying efforts, the U.S. Congress has repeatedly blocked the latest rescue attempts. According to Marijuana Moment, top marijuana reform groups concede that Congress is unlikely to prevent the new federal ban this year.

The broader cannabis industry finds itself fractured. Some stakeholders in the licensed marijuana dispensary space view the hemp ban as a victory, eliminating competition from unregulated hemp-derived products. As Hemp Today reports, bipartisan lobbyists have joined the cynical cause as intoxicating hemp faces its endgame, resulting in a situation where the federal axe is finally falling on intoxicating hemp.

Unfortunately, the collateral damage of this infighting is the natural and organic food retailer, the hemp farmer, and the consumer relying on full-spectrum CBD.

How Retailers and Brands Can Prepare
As we stare down the barrel of November 2026, business leaders in the natural products sector must be pragmatic. Hoping for a last-minute congressional miracle is not a viable business strategy.

While the question of which products will disappear under the national hemp ban remains unanswered pending potential enforcement guidance, retailers and manufacturers must audit their supply chains immediately. Brands should consult with legal counsel to understand their exposure to the 0.4-milligram total THC limit per container. Retailers must review their vendor agreements and prepare for significant SKU rationalization in their wellness aisles.

However, as MJBiz Daily astutely points out, hemp THC regulation is inevitable, but it’s not a ban—and operators must prepare. The natural products industry must pivot from reacting to prohibition to actively advocating for intelligent, science-based regulation. This means supporting organizations like ASIGA in the fight for seed sovereignty, and aligning with groups like the U.S. Hemp Roundtable and others to demand strict age restrictions on sales (age-gating), cGMP manufacturing standards, and truthful labeling over outright bans.

The natural products sector is no stranger to navigating complex regulatory shifts, and while retailers will ultimately adapt to the loss or transformation of a popular wellness category, the 2026 Federal Hemp Ban poses a genuine threat to the farmers, formulators, and producers who built the $28 billion consumable hemp products market. Moving forward, the survival of the consumable hemp sector depends not on a return to the unregulated gray market, but on a unified industry push for sensible, safety-focused legislation. By advocating for mandatory age verification, stringent manufacturing standards and seed sovereignty rather than blunt prohibition, the trade can chart a sustainable path forward—one that protects consumers, preserves retail revenue streams, and defends the agricultural innovators who supply them.

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.

How a Surprise Vote on Pesticides Reshaped the 2026 Farm Bill

This article first appeared in the June 2026 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

The U.S. food and agriculture sector is navigating a pivotal transition as new legislative actions and regulatory shifts take shape. Recent developments in Washington are establishing a new policy landscape that business owners, brand executives, retailers, and farmers in the natural, organic, and regenerative space will need to monitor closely.

On April 30, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 by a vote of 224–200, marking the first major movement on a Farm Bill since 2018. However, for a natural and organic industry that has now grown into a $325.2 billion market, according to the Natural Foods Merchandiser 2025 Market Overview, the current legislation has drawn mixed reactions regarding its alignment with modern agricultural practices and evolving consumer demand.

As the bill moves to the Senate, where its passage remains uncertain, it introduces a mix of regulatory adjustments, funding reallocations, and structural reorganizations. These legislative changes, combined with a concurrent restructuring at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), present both operational challenges and new market dynamics for the natural products industry.

The following is an overview of these policies, the political context, and the business implications for the regenerative and organic food supply chain.

The MAHA Movement and a Shift in Pesticide Regulation
One of the most notable developments to emerge from the House Farm Bill debates was a bipartisan vote regarding pesticide oversight—a legislative shift influenced in part by the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement.

For months, the drafted Farm Bill contained language designed to federally preempt states from requiring health and cancer warning labels on pesticides, a provision intended to protect agrochemical manufacturers from state-level lawsuits. However, the House voted, 280-142, to strip this pro-pesticide language from the bill.

According to Politico, this vote represents a major win for MAHA-aligned Republicans and Democrats. The amendment to remove the shield was championed by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who had signaled she would oppose the entire Farm Bill if the protections remained. Despite pressure from House Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.), who argued the shield was necessary to prevent “frivolous lawsuits” and to protect crop yields, 73 Republicans joined the majority of Democrats to remove the provision.

This legislative fight highlights the increasing complexity of food politics. As reported by the Montana Free Press, Bob Quinn, a renowned organic kamut farmer from Big Sandy, Montana, noted his surprise at the outcome, acknowledging the historical influence of the pesticide lobby. Interestingly, six Democrats representing regions with heavy pesticide use voted with the chemical industry to bar state labels, showcasing the fact that regional agricultural interests often intersect with party lines.

The removal of the liability shield is being hailed as a significant public health and environmental victory. According to Friends of the Earth, stripping the shield affirms that corporations selling chemicals linked to human health concerns should not be insulated from state-level oversight. Similarly, Kathleen Merrigan, executive director of the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems, told FoodTank that the MAHA movement has pushed the pesticide issue to a "tipping point" in food policy.

Even conservative outlets are analyzing this shift. An op-ed in Fox News questioned the broader coherence of a Farm Bill that maintains high levels of agrochemical support while elements of the party simultaneously back MAHA principles.

The Business Takeaway: For natural and organic CPG brands, this development provides a distinct market signal. Consumers are increasingly attentive to the use of synthetic inputs. With states retaining the right to mandate health warnings on conventional, chemically treated products, the value proposition of the USDA Organic label and third-party certifications like Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) will likely strengthen. Brands should continue to emphasize transparency and clean-label marketing, as the regulatory contrast between conventional and organic agriculture becomes more visible.

Organic Legislation: Modest Progress Amid Broader Funding Cuts
While the pesticide provision's removal was a focal point, the broader Farm Bill presents a challenging framework for the organic and sustainable agriculture sectors.

The Organic Trade Association (OTA) noted that the House-passed bill includes some important wins for organic agriculture, but it stressed that federal policy must evolve to support the sector proactively rather than treat it as an "afterthought." Despite the industry's significant retail footprint, the National Organic Coalition warned that the legislation "largely assumes a stagnant organic marketplace rather than making the targeted investments needed to support continued growth."

Critiques of the bill suggest it continues to heavily favor industrial agribusiness. According to Friends of the Earth, the legislation reduces critical conservation funding—including a $1 billion cut to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)—while shifting resources toward subsidies for larger agribusiness operations. Furthermore, the bill attempts to override voter-approved laws such as California’s Proposition 12, which mandates humane animal welfare standards, potentially invalidating numerous state and local measures on food safety and environmental protection.

Conservation programs remain a cornerstone of the regenerative movement. As The Nature Conservancy highlights, the Farm Bill typically provides roughly $6 billion annually for conservation work on private working lands. Reducing these incentive-based programs may stifle farmers' ability to transition to climate-smart, soil-building practices.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) states that the bill "falls unmistakably short" in addressing the current needs of farmers. NSAC points out that producers are currently facing abrupt trade policy shifts and federal workforce reductions. Earlier this year, the USDA began freezing and terminating held contracts, disrupting planning for the 2025 and 2026 planting seasons for many small and mid-sized producers.

SNAP Policy Changes and Food Access
Another critical component of the House Farm Bill is its approach to nutrition assistance. The legislation outlines $187 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), alongside expanded work requirements for certain demographics and stricter eligibility rules, according to Food & Wine.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that one in eight participants could lose access to some form of food relief as a result of these measures. Kathleen Merrigan noted via FoodTank that food pantries are already seeing increased demand, a trend that could accelerate later in the year as the cuts take full effect.

The Business Takeaway: SNAP funding is integral to the broader grocery economy, injecting tens of billions of dollars into retail annually. Reductions in food purchasing power can cause a ripple effect across the entire grocery ecosystem. Natural and organic retailers, who have increasingly integrated SNAP benefits to democratize access to healthier foods, may see shifts in consumer purchasing behavior. Brands and retailers will need to evaluate pricing strategies and explore ways to maintain accessibility without compromising on product integrity.

Organizational Restructuring at the USDA
Alongside the legislative process in Congress, recent administrative and structural changes within the USDA under Secretary Brooke Rollins are impacting the organic community's oversight and funding mechanisms.

Recent reports indicate a rollback of infrastructure designed to support alternative agriculture. In a recent op-ed published by Civil Eats, it was noted that the USDA abruptly canceled $300 million in contracts for the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program (ILCM). This program was established to help underserved and first-generation farmers overcome barriers to entry; its termination halts 50 community-based agricultural projects nationwide.

Staffing challenges within the USDA are also drawing attention. According to the Federal News Network, a significant majority of USDA researchers tapped for an agency relocation have declined to move, raising concerns about a potential reduction in agricultural research capacity.

This staffing shift directly affects the organic sector. According to industry watchdog OrganicEye, the National Organic Program (NOP)—which oversees certification within the $76 billion organic products market—has reportedly seen staff reductions of up to 30%. In addition, Secretary Rollins delayed appointing five members to the 15-member National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) prior to their spring meeting.

Consequently, the NOSB convened in Omaha last month with only 10 members. OrganicEye reported that this lack of representation for key constituencies—such as farmers, consumers, and scientists—strays from the original intent of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, leading to concerns that business conducted during the meeting could face legal challenges.

Personnel reductions extend to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a key agency assisting farmers with soil health improvements. As reported by Organic Insider, the NRCS has reportedly lost approximately 22% of its staff, leaving offices in several vital agricultural states operating with limited personnel. This comes shortly after the launch of a $700 million pilot program aimed at boosting soil health, raising questions about the agency's capacity to administer the new funds effectively.

The cumulative impact of these changes is placing significant pressure on producers. Food industry analyst Robyn O'Brien highlighted this convergence of factors on her Substack, noting that farmers are currently facing "a convergence of policy decisions, tariffs, immigration crackdowns, energy freezes, [and] budget cuts" that threaten operational stability.

The Senate's Role and the Path Forward
With the House-passed Farm Bill viewed by many as highly partisan and unlikely to pass the Senate in its current form, industry stakeholders are focusing their attention on the upper chamber. Senate markups are expected in June, and differing legislative priorities are already emerging.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a new voice on the Senate Agriculture Committee, has outlined a contrasting legislative vision. According to AgInfo, Schiff’s priorities include enhanced support for specialty crops, regional food systems, organic agriculture, and expanded fruit and vegetable purchasing within federal food programs. Additionally, Schiff has stated his intention to oppose any Farm Bill language that overrides state-level animal welfare standards like California’s Proposition 12, while advocating for the protection of SNAP benefits.

Industry Implications and Next Steps
For business leaders in the natural, organic, and regenerative agriculture sectors, navigating this transition requires strategic adaptation. The legislative and regulatory events of the past month underscore a shift in federal support structures for sustainable food systems.

With government grants for new farmers being canceled, adjustments to the organic oversight board, and proposed reductions in conservation funding, the private sector may need to assume a larger role. As noted by Organic Insider, brands, investors, and retailers have an opportunity to privately fund transition programs, invest in supply chain resilience, and cultivate direct, supportive partnerships with farmers managing these macroeconomic pressures.

At the same time, the industry can look to align with the shifting priorities of consumers. The bipartisan rejection of the pesticide liability shield demonstrates that shoppers across the political spectrum are prioritizing clean food, transparency, and corporate accountability. Industry advocacy will remain crucial as the Senate drafts its version of the Farm Bill—urging investments in organic research, the protection of nutrition assistance, and policies that recognize regenerative agriculture as a key component of the nation's food economy.

As agricultural policy continues to be debated in Washington, it is essential for the natural products industry to remain engaged, ensuring that future legislation supports the health of the soil, the economic viability of the farmer, and the well-being of the consumer.

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.

How Consumer Values, Inflation and ‘MAHA’ Are Reshaping the Natural & Organic Landscape

This article first appeared in the May 2026 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

In our recent analysis, Organic Outpaces the Market: Global Sales Hit Record Highs as U.S. Crosses $76B, we highlighted a defining economic reality of the 2025-2026 marketplace: Organic food is no longer a niche preference, but a primary economic driver. But the raw sales data tells only half the story. As a “bookend” to that financial milestone, we must dive deeper into the complex, often contradictory psychology of today’s natural and organic consumer.

Food industry thought leader Robyn O’Brien, author of The Unhealthy Truth, once famously noted,”We are not allergic to food. We are allergic to what has been done to it.” That sentiment has never been more relevant than it is today. Consumers are deeply engaged with how their food is grown, processed, and regulated. Yet, they are also navigating an unprecedented maze of economic pressures, political crossfires, confusing sustainability claims, and loud social media detractors.

To chart a successful path forward, natural products brands, retailers, and investors must intimately understand the shifting demographic attitudes toward organic food, regenerative agriculture, pricing, and the policies governing our plates.

The K-Shaped Economy: Valuing the Price of Organic Amidst Inflation
Food inflation and the resulting price elasticity of consumer goods have been the central plotlines of the grocery sector over the last few years. How are food prices affecting the natural and organic products consumer? The reality is nuanced.

According to recent analysis by CoBank, consumers are exploring a range of approaches to handle double-digit cost increases. Looking at the specialty coffee and beverage sector as a bellwether, consumer price index (CPI) data showed coffee prices jumping 18.3% year-over-year in early 2026, leading to a noticeable shift in consumer behaviors, including a retreat to do-it-yourself, at-home preparation.

When it comes to organic goods, consumers are highly sensitive to the premium, yet they continue to buy. CoBank points out that in our increasingly “K-shaped economy”—where the top 10% of wealthy Americans account for roughly half of all consumer spending—the high base price of organic products risks limiting its ultimate audience to higher-income brackets. Recent LendingTree research cited by CoBank notes that organic produce commands a 52.6% price premium over conventional counterparts.

However, despite this premium, organic sales are not stalling; they are growing at 6.8%, double the 3.4% rate of the broader marketplace. Produce remains the undisputed gateway, accounting for 30% of the nation's total organic sales ($22.7 billion). 

Consumers view organic produce as an affordable, high-return entry point into health and wellness. They may balk at a $9 organic specialty beverage, but they will readily pay an extra dollar for organic berries or bananas to avoid synthetic pesticides. For the industry to maintain its momentum and avoid being boxed into an elite, high-income corner, the expansion of competitively priced organic private labels, focusing on supply chain efficiencies and economies of scale, and adopting more collaborative partnerships with co-packers and others to cut production costs will be critical.

Deciphering Purchasing Decisions: Safety, Price, and Demographic Heterogeneity
So, just how important is the organic label when a consumer is standing in the grocery aisle making a split-second purchasing decision?

According to the brand-new Consumer Perception of USDA Organic Report released in March 2026 by the Organic Trade Association (OTA) and Euromonitor, organic continues to hold a distinct edge over competing label claims like “natural,” “non-GMO,” and “raised without antibiotics.” As the OTA’s newly launched April 2026 Organic Starts with You campaign underscores, the USDA Organic seal remains the clearest, most credible signal for consumers seeking trust in a crowded marketplace.

Also, a 2026 Best-Worst Scaling study published in Q Open examining U.S. rice consumers provides critical insights into the modern shopper's mindset. The study reveals that across the board, food safety and price remain the most influential factors in purchasing decisions. But beneath those universal priorities lies profound demographic heterogeneity, which researchers divided into four distinct consumer segments: conventional, pragmatic, sustainability-conscious, and low-engagement.

• Conventional: Older demographics tend to focus predominantly on price and domestic origin, showing less willingness to pay a premium for ecological farming methods.

• Pragmatic: This is arguably the most vital group for marketers to understand. Comprising younger and educated consumers, the “pragmatic” shopper is highly interested in sustainability and regenerative agriculture—but they exhibit deep skepticism toward traditional “organic” marketing claims.

• Sustainability-Conscious: This segment, heavily skewing toward younger, highly educated, and higher-income consumers, strongly prefers organic and regenerative attributes. For them, the organic seal is a non-negotiable baseline for environmental stewardship and personal health.

• Low Engagement: This consumer shows little to no interest in organic attributes.

The pragmatic segment highlights a growing challenge: The younger cohort is deeply invested in the idea of sustainable food, but they are scrutinizing the validity of certifications. They want the benefits of organic—clean soil, no pesticides, biodiversity—but they are increasingly vulnerable to alternative claims like "regenerative," even when those alternative labels lack strict regulatory definitions.

At the same time, conventional and low-engagement consumers may require accessible education to build awareness and trust in non-conventional farming practices. Additionally, the overlap between regenerative and organic preferences underscores the need for standardized labeling and consistent communication to help consumers meaningfully differentiate between these production systems.

Meeting Increased Demand for “Clean Label” Products
Despite the skepticism of some pragmatic shoppers, the broader consumer base intrinsically links the organic seal to the “clean label” movement. According to breaking data from SPINS’ 2026 Trend Predictions, the clean-label and Non-UPF (non-ultra-processed food) movements also are gaining massive momentum, driven by consumer skepticism, proactive brand reformulation, and younger generations rejecting rigid diets in favor of personalized, clean-ingredient nutrition.

Echoing this shift, recent coverage by SupplySide Food & Beverage Journal notes that the clean-label movement has transitioned from a niche premium differentiator into a baseline consumer expectation. Today’s consumers define natural and organic through a lens of total transparency and purity. In fact, NIQ’s (NielsenIQ) latest 2026 Consumer Outlook reveals that brand trust has become the ultimate currency, with an overwhelming 95% of consumers stating that trust is critical when choosing a brand.

Consumers are backing up this sentiment with their wallets. According to NIQ, clean label products in the U.S. are currently growing at a rate of 7.5% this year, significantly outpacing the 5.9% overall average for U.S. fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG).

Recent research by Innova Market Insights shows that globally, 58% of consumers prioritize honesty and transparency in products, with the top influential purchasing claims being “natural,” “locally sourced,” and “organic.” Furthermore, a 2025 global consumer trends survey from Market Research Future underscores that this shift is heavily driven by younger demographics. The study found that 64% of Gen Z consumers actively seek out clean-label claims such as “organic,” “no artificial ingredients,” and “minimally processed.” SupplySide notes that consumers are reading labels more closely than ever, demanding that brands invest in sustainable sourcing and formulation technologies that preserve shelf life and sensory appeal without compromising the “clean” promise.

To meet this increased demand, the natural and organic industry has expanded its footprint across standard supermarkets, convenience channels, and e-commerce platforms. But meeting mainstream demand brings significant operational hurdles. The industry continues to grapple with supply chain bottlenecks, real-time raw material shortages, and the ongoing challenge of maintaining consistent global sourcing standards. As brands scale, maintaining the transparency that consumers demand—proving that the product is as “clean” as the label implies—is becoming a defining operational challenge … and an opportunity.

Pesticides and the MAHA Influence: For Better and For Worse
The consumer desire for “less/no pesticides/chemicals” is currently colliding with an increasingly politicized food system, most notably the profound influence of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement. Led by political figures and advocates pushing to upend the FDA and USDA, MAHA has dramatically shifted the national conversation around food and agriculture—yielding intensely mixed results for the natural and organic industry.

The Better
The MAHA movement has successfully thrust the concept of “food as medicine” into the mainstream political arena, validating concerns that natural and organic industry advocates have championed for decades, as reported by SupplySide Food & Beverage Journal and many others. By aggressively targeting petroleum-based artificial food dyes, seed oils, and ultra-processed foods (UPFs), MAHA has elevated everyday consumer awareness about clean ingredients to unprecedented heights. This populist uproar against the conventional, highly processed food system inherently drives traffic toward the natural and organic aisles, where consumers know they can find refuge from artificial ingredients.

The Worse
However, when it comes to the bedrock of organic farming—the prohibition of synthetic toxic pesticides—the MAHA influence has been far more complicated. Environmental watchdog groups note that despite the populist rhetoric regarding health, the current political administration’s actual policy execution has heavily favored chemical agribusiness, much to the chagrin of many MAHA proponents, according to a recent report from Politico.

Rather than restricting toxic agricultural inputs, there has been a trend of pesticide protectionism that is further frustrating health proponents, NPR reported in April 2026. We are witnessing regulatory rollbacks regarding risk evaluations for hormone-disrupting chemicals and a startling lack of new federal pesticide restrictions. Furthermore, 2025 and 2026 saw federal funding freezes and delays for critical programs meant to assist farmers transitioning to organic systems. This creates a paradox: Consumers are being told by political influencers to eat cleaner, healthier food, while the very mechanisms needed to scale organic farming and protect rural communities from toxic chemicals are being undermined at the federal level.

Defending the Shield: Countering the Social Media “Gaslight” Narrative
This political turbulence is mirrored by a growing, concerning cultural backlash against organic food on social media. If the organic industry wants to protect its $76 billion market share, it must learn how to aggressively and effectively counter negative PR.

As highlighted in a poignant April 2026 newsletter by Organic Insider, a rising tide of large content creators, fitness influencers, and self-appointed “truth-tellers” on Instagram and TikTok have been relentlessly attacking the organic industry. They are going viral by calling organic food “the greatest gaslight of all time,” “worthless,” and “a scam.”

Max Goldberg of Organic Insider, correctly identifies this trend not as a good-faith critique of a flawed agricultural system, but as the “monetization of destruction.” These influencers are farming clicks and outrage by tearing down the organic seal, yet they offer no constructive alternative framework, Goldberg says.

If the organic system were to be dismantled by this wave of social media cynicism, what would we be left with? We would be left entirely with the conventional food system—a system optimized for cheap, extractive production where crops are routinely desiccated with glyphosate, a known carcinogen, and sprayed with dicamba, a highly toxic pesticide. We would be left with a system reliant on genetically engineered crops, synthetic biology, and the total externalization of environmental costs onto rural farming communities.

To counter this negative PR, organic brands and marketers must stop playing defense and start playing offense. For example:

• Elevate the Farmer: The influencers calling organic a scam will never look a fourth-generation farmer in the eye—someone who has spent years earning certification, paid thousands in annual fees, and worked without synthetic shortcuts—and tell them their life’s work is a gaslight. Brands must put these farmers front and center in their marketing campaigns. Show the soil. Show the labor. Show the humanity behind the seal.

• Educate on the Alternative: Brands must clearly articulate what the absence of organic means. Remind consumers that organic federal certification mandates soil health standards, annual certifier inspections, chain-of-custody requirements, and a strict prohibition on synthetic pesticides and GMOs.

• Acknowledge and Improve: As Organic Insider notes, the organic system is not perfect. The industry must publicly champion stronger enforcement and the elimination of fraud. Transparency builds trust; defensiveness destroys it. By acknowledging flaws while fiercely defending the system’s foundational principles, the industry can win back the “pragmatic” consumers who are currently paralyzed by social media skepticism.

The Path Forward
The market research of 2026 paints a complex, highly dynamic picture for the natural and organic industry. Consumers are highly motivated and willing to pay a justified premium for clean, safe food, even amidst tightening economic belts. They are increasingly savvy about the links between agricultural practices, environmental resilience, and their own health.

However, the industry is no longer operating in an echo chamber of early adopters. It is operating in a noisy, politically charged, and economically stressed mainstream marketplace. As terms like “regenerative” risk being co-opted by conventional agriculture to obscure ongoing pesticide use, and as social media algorithms reward outrage over nuance, the mandate for organic brands is crystal clear: uncompromising transparency and bold advocacy.

Relying on the rigorously audited USDA Organic seal and also newer, Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) standards—while relentlessly educating consumers on why organic remains the gold standard for pesticide-free, non-GMO food—will be the most vital strategy for retaining consumer trust, justifying the price premium, and securing the next generation of growth for the natural and organic products sector.

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 Outpaces the Market: Global Sales Hit Record Highs as U.S. Crosses $76B

As the global food and beverage industry navigates economic headwinds, inflation, and climate volatility, one sector is not just surviving—it is redefining the modern food system. According to a wave of newly released 2026 market reports from around the globe, organic is not slowing down; it is structurally pulling ahead of the conventional marketplace. For business executives, the message is clear: Consumer demand for health, transparency, and sustainability has fundamentally transformed from a niche preference into a primary economic driver.

This article first appeared in Presence Marketing’s April 2026 newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

In an era defined by fluctuating supply chains and evolving consumer behaviors, the organic food and beverage industry continues to demonstrate remarkable resilience. A trio of recently published annual market research reports from the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom reveals a sector that is consistently outperforming the broader conventional food market.

Driven by the mainstreaming of "food as medicine," an increased demand for clean ingredients, and a growing commitment to sustainability, global consumers are speaking with their wallets. Yet, as retail sales rise to unprecedented heights, the industry faces structural and supply-side challenges that require strategic foresight from organic food producers.

The Global Perspective: Record Sales Meet Supply Chain Realities
The global organic market has reached yet another milestone. According to The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics & Emerging Trends 2026, published jointly by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and IFOAM Organics International, global retail sales increased 5 percent year over year to nearly 145.0 billion euros ($156.9 billion) in 2024. This represents an all-time high for the sector, pointing to a robust, volume-driven recovery following periods of price-driven inflation.

According to the FiBL and IFOAM data, the global landscape is dominated by a few key powerhouses, though consumption is growing worldwide:

● The United States remains the largest single market for organic food, accounting for 60.4 billion euros ($65.4 billion) in retail sales

● Germany followed as the second-largest global market, generating 17.0 billion euros ($18.4 billion)

● China secured its position as the third-largest market, recording 15.5 billion euros ($16.8 billion) in organic sales

● France represented the fourth-largest market, with sales reaching 12.2 billion euros ($13.2 billion)

When looking at individual consumer habits, Europe remains the epicenter of organic loyalty. Per capita consumption was highest in Switzerland, where consumers spent an average of 481 euros ($521) on organic products in 2024, up from 468 euros the previous year. Denmark followed closely at 373 euros ($404) per person , an increase from 362 euros in 2023. Austria also ranked among the highest, maintaining a steady per capita consumption of 292 euros ($316) year-over-year. Meanwhile, the United States ranked eighth globally, with a per capita organic consumption of 176 euros ($190) in 2024.

However, the FiBL and IFOAM report reveals a dichotomy between soaring consumer demand and agricultural realities. In 2024, almost 98.9 million hectares (244.4 million acres) of agricultural land were organic, including in-conversion areas. This represented 2.1 percent of the world's total agricultural land. Yet, for the first time in years, organic farmland saw a slight contraction, decreasing by 176,000 hectares (434,904 acres), or 0.2 percent compared to the previous year.

This stabilization in acreage is largely attributed to shifting regulatory landscapes—such as the implementation of the new EU Organic Regulation (EU) 2018/848—as well as market disruptions stemming from the energy crisis, rising input costs, and climate variability that delayed farmer conversions. Extreme weather events have heavily impacted key export sectors, specifically commodities like coffee and cocoa. For executives, this signals a critical mandate: securing resilient, long-term supply chains and investing in farmer transition programs will be essential to meeting future demand.

The distribution of organic farmland highlights the global nature of the supply chain:

● Oceania accounted for the majority of organic land, with 53.2 million hectares (131.4 million acres) (Australia accounts for >99 percent of the total organic agricultural land in the entire Oceania region)

● Europe followed with 19.6 million hectares (48.4 million acres)

● Latin America held 10.3 million hectares (25.4 million acres)

● Asia managed 8.7 million hectares (21.5 million acres)

● North America accounted for 4.3 million hectares (10.6 million acres)

● Africa represented 2.8 million hectares (6.9 million acres)

Despite the slight dip in acreage, the human footprint of the organic movement expanded. The global number of organic producers increased to 4,844,872 in 2024. India reported the highest number of organic producers globally, with 2,363,607 farmers. Uganda followed with 404,246 producers. Ethiopia ranked third, registering 203,258 organic producers.

The U.S. Market Surge: Crossing the $76 Billion Mark
In the United States, organic is not just growing; it is redefining the marketplace. According to the 2026 Organic Market Report published by the Organic Trade Association (OTA) on March 4, 2026, U.S. sales of certified organic products reached a record $76.6 billion in 2025.

The data illustrates a sector that is structurally outpacing conventional food. Total U.S. organic sales grew by 6.8% year-over-year, effectively doubling the 3.4 percent growth rate of the overall marketplace. Organic food sales alone hit $70.1 billion, up 6.9 percent and growing three times faster than the overall food market's sluggish 2.3 percent growth.

As has historically been the case, the produce aisle remains the primary gateway for U.S. consumers entering the organic lifestyle. Organic produce accounted for $22.7 billion in sales, representing roughly 30 percent of total organic food sales. Growth within this category was robust, with berries up 10.5 percent, citrus climbing 18.1 percent, and bananas seeing a 12.6 percent boost.

However, the most striking shift in the American diet is occurring in the protein sector. Organic beef has emerged as the fastest-growing segment in the industry, skyrocketing by an astonishing 44.3 percent. This indicates a profound evolution in consumer priorities, where shoppers are increasingly willing to pay a premium for meat products that align with their ethical, environmental and health values. Organic dairy and eggs also saw impressive gains, growing 12.8 percent to reach $9.6 billion.

The concept of "food as medicine" seems to have firmly transitioned from a fringe trend to mainstream consumer behavior. This is most evident in the organic beverage category, which reached $10.2 billion in sales (up 7.2 percent), driven heavily by demand for functional benefits and clean-ingredient profiles. Furthermore, shelf-stable, value-driven organic goods—such as dried beans, fruits, and vegetables—experienced a 13.6 percent surge, proving that shoppers are finding ways to integrate organic staples into their pantries, even amid economic pressures.

As the OTA notes, consumers are consistently choosing trust over price, relying heavily on the USDA Organic seal. If this current trajectory holds, the U.S. organic sector crossing the $100 billion threshold by 2030 is very much within reach.

Import Dependencies: Closing the Supply-Demand Gap
While the U.S. dominates global consumption, its reliance on international trade highlights a critical vulnerability and an opportunity for industry stakeholders. Because domestic organic acreage remains under 1 percent of total U.S. farmland, domestic supply falls significantly short of demand.

The U.S. tracked $5.7 billion in organic imports in 2024. The volume of organic imports into the United States reached 3.25 million metric tons, an increase of 17.7 percent compared to the previous year. Combined, the imports of organic products into the European Union and the United States reached nearly 5.89 million metric tons in 2024.

According to The World of Organic Agriculture 2026 report published by FiBL and IFOAM Organics International, the top exporters supplying these large western markets were Mexico, with 865,076 metric tons; Ecuador, with 765,605 metric tons; and Canada, with 378,820 metric tons. The commodities driving this international trade network highlight consumer reliance on tropical and feed products:

● Bananas were the most imported organic product, totaling 1,365,512 metric tons

● Oilcakes accounted for 593,753 metric tons of total imports

● Sugar represented 535,699 metric tons of the organic imports

The reliance on imported organic feed crops is particularly stark. For instance, U.S. organic soy supply currently meets only about one-third of domestic demand, requiring substantial imports to support the booming organic livestock and poultry sectors.

Complicating this reliance on imports is a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape. As noted in the FiBL and IFOAM report, earlier U.S. trade policies introduced significant volatility into the supply chain, as President Trump’s tariffs “are having a negative effect on agricultural food imports, more so on the organic sector, as it is heavily dependent on imported raw materials."

The legal and economic reality for organic importers shifted dramatically in early 2026 when the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the President to impose sweeping tariffs, effectively striking down the measures, as reported by SCOTUSblog. However, the relief for the organic supply chain was short-lived. Within hours of the ruling, the administration invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a new temporary 10 percent across-the-board global tariff, according to an analysis by the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE).

This rapid pivot means the organic sector continues to face elevated taxes on imported raw materials and feed grains. Furthermore, because these new Section 122 tariffs are temporary—set to expire after 150 days—the environment remains unstable. This forces organic businesses to make critical pricing and supply chain decisions against a backdrop of extreme trade policy volatility.

Complicating matters further is the prospect of potential refunds. Because the Court ruled the IEEPA tariffs were collected illegally, importers may be entitled to recoup billions of dollars in costs. But as Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in his dissent, the process of refunding these tariffs is likely to be a "mess," leaving organic businesses to navigate complex litigation to recover funds, as highlighted by SCOTUSblog.

Ultimately, because the administration quickly replaced the struck-down tariffs with new ones, overall tariff rates remain similar to their previous levels. Organic businesses continue to face high input costs, which will likely still be passed on to consumers at the grocery store. For C-suite executives, investing in domestic transition programs and expanding local infrastructure is no longer just a marketing win; it is a vital survival strategy for supply chain security in an era of unpredictable trade policy.

The U.K. Perspective: Growth Outpaces Non-Organic
The story of organic resilience extends across the Atlantic. According to the Organic Market Report 2026 published by the Soil Association, and reported by Wicked Leeks on March 19, 2026, 83 percent of U.K. households now purchase organic products.

Despite enduring a severe cost-of-living crisis and rampant food inflation, the U.K. organic market's growth has successfully outpaced the non-organic sector. This trend underscores a broader European and global realization: organic is no longer viewed as an expendable luxury by the majority of consumers. Instead, it is increasingly seen as a non-negotiable investment in personal health, animal welfare and environmental stewardship.

Strategic Takeaways
The convergence of data from FiBL, IFOAM, the OTA, and the Soil Association paints a picture of an industry at an inflection point. Organic is no longer simply growing; it is actively restructuring the modern food system. For business leaders in the natural and organic space, several key directives emerge from these 2026 reports:

1. Capitalize on the Protein and Beverage Boom: While produce remains the foundation of organic retail, the aggressive 44.3 percent growth in U.S. organic beef and the $10.2 billion beverage market point to the next major battlegrounds. Innovating in the functional beverage space and expanding organic protein offerings will be critical for capturing premium consumer dollars.

2. Invest in Supply Chain Resilience: The slight 0.2 percent global decrease in organic farmland  paired with record-breaking consumer demand is a recipe for future supply shortages. Brands must proactively partner with growers, offer transition incentives, and secure long-term contracts, particularly for high-risk commodities including coffee, cocoa and feed grains.

3. Lean into Transparency: With consumers navigating a crowded landscape of sustainability claims, the rigorous, third-party verification of the USDA Organic and equivalent international seals remains the gold standard. Brands that clearly communicate the holistic benefits of organic—from soil health to clean ingredients—will continue to win on consumer trust.

As the data makes clear, the global organic market has transitioned from an alternative niche to a dominant force. Executives who align their sourcing, product development, and marketing strategies with this reality will be best positioned to lead the industry as it marches toward the $100 billion milestone and beyond.

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.

Legislative Initiatives Mount to Lower Grocery Prices and Ban Surveillance Pricing

This article first appeared in Presence Marketing’s March 2026 newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

As the food and beverage industry moves deeper into 2026, the narrative governing the grocery aisle has shifted from simple supply chain economics to a complex battlefield of technology, privacy, and political maneuvering. While headline inflation has ostensibly cooled from its post-pandemic peaks, the lived reality for the American consumer remains one of relentless sticker shock—a reality that is now precipitating a wave of legislative interventions at both the state and federal levels.

For retailers and manufacturers, the signal from Washington and state capitals is clear: the era of unrestrained pricing strategies may be drawing to a close. A bipartisan recognition of consumer distress is fueling a two-pronged legislative assault. On one flank, lawmakers are targeting the raw costs of goods through tax repeals and affordability agendas. On the other, they are taking aim at the very mechanisms of modern retail—specifically, the emerging use of artificial intelligence and data-driven "surveillance pricing."

The Economic Context: A Slowing Pace, But Rising Pain
To understand what’s driving the current legislative landscape, one must look at the data. According to NPR, grocery prices have surged between 30% and 40% since 2019, fundamentally altering the economics of the American household.

While the pace of increases is technically slowing, the trajectory remains upward. As reported by Progressive Grocer, the January Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) showed a 0.2% rise in food-at-home prices for the month and a 2.1% increase over the last 12 months.

The pain is not distributed equally across the store. The data shows that five of the six major grocery store food group indexes increased yet again in January:

• Cereals and bakery products rose 1.2%

• Dairy and related products increased 0.8%

• Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs inched up 0.2%

• Both the nonalcoholic beverages and fruits and vegetables category saw a slight rise of 0.1%

Independent analysis paints an even starker picture. The ConsumerAffairs Datasembly Shopping Cart Index reported a nearly 6% year-over-year climb in January. The cost for their basket of everyday items jumped from $147.71 in January 2025 to $156.43 in January 2026. This $8.72 increase was driven largely by coffee, cereal, and paper products, though staples like eggs and butter offered modest relief.

The Drivers: Tariffs, Labor, and “Sentiment”
Industry analysts are quick to point out that these price hikes are not occurring in a vacuum. A complex web of federal policy decisions is actively influencing shelf prices.

Foremost among these are tariffs. A report from the Council on Foreign Relations highlights that 65% of Americans now view tariffs as a primary driver of unaffordability. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that recent trade policies will likely increase food prices by 1.4% in the short run. This is already visible in the coffee aisle, where prices soared after the Administration imposed tariffs as high as 50% on major importing countries like Brazil—a move Consumer Federation of America likens to a "$200 billion federal sales tax."

Furthermore, labor dynamics linked to immigration enforcement are creating disparities between retail and foodservice. Prices for "food away from home" rose significantly more (4.1%) in 2025 than "food at home" (2.4%), reflecting the higher proportion of labor costs in prepared foods.

However, Jayson Lusk, head of agricultural economics at Purdue University, notes a critical psychological component for the industry to consider. "Consumer anxiety is increasingly driven by food prices and tariffs, not inflation as a general economic concept," Lusk told the Council on Foreign Relations in February. It is this anxiety that politicians are rushing to assuage.

The New Target: “Surveillance Pricing”
Perhaps the most significant development for retail technology vendors and data analysts is the emergence of "surveillance pricing" as a legislative target. Surveillance pricing refers to the practice of using consumer data—purchase history, location, and even biometric data—to set personalized prices or fluctuate prices in real-time based on demand. As retailers invest millions in Electronic Shelf Labels (ESLs) and AI-driven dynamic pricing models to optimize margins, lawmakers are characterizing these tools as predatory. 

Leading the charge against this practice is the Stop Price Gouging in Grocery Stores Act of 2026. Introduced in the Senate on February 12 by Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), the bill explicitly bans corporations from "leveraging new technologies" to raise grocery prices. "The bill aims to prohibit retail food stores from price gouging and engaging in surveillance-based price setting practices," the Senators stated in a press release.

In the House, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) introduced companion legislation, H.R. 4966, which targets "personalized price gouging" where she claims stores use consumers’ sensitive personal information against them to raise prices. “The majority of Americans are stressed about rising grocery prices,” said Rep. Tlaib. “While our neighbors struggle, corporate grocery chains are feeding customer data into algorithms to decide who can be charged more. Companies should not be allowed to use electronic labeling or your personal information to charge you a higher price. We need to ban corporate price gouging and surveillance pricing.”

The Union Push
This legislative push is being bolstered by organized labor. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), representing 1.2 million workers, has launched the "Affordable Groceries and Good Jobs Campaign."

According to Store Brands, this national effort seeks to ban surveillance pricing and target the growth of AI-driven technology in grocery stores. The union argues that these technologies not only harm consumers but potentially devalue retail labor. For the industry, this signals a potential alignment between consumer advocacy groups and labor unions that could create a powerful lobbying block against retail automation.

The “Affordability Agenda” in Congress
Beyond the calls for specific bans on tech-enabled pricing, a broader "Affordability Agenda" is taking shape in the House, championed by the New Democrat Coalition, a group of of 115 House Democrats “who work across the aisle and across the Capitol to advance innovative, inclusive, and forward-looking policies.”

Congresswoman Janelle Bynum (D-OR), in collaboration with the New Democrat Coalition, recently unveiled a roadmap focusing on lowering five key costs, including household essentials like groceries. Similarly, Reps. Nikki Budzinski (D-IL) and Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) published an opinion piece outlining plans to address these "core costs crushing working Americans."

"The American people need a real plan to make life more affordable," Budzinski and Houlahan wrote, criticizing any dismissals of affordability concerns.

This rhetoric is intensifying along partisan lines. Congresswoman Susie Lee (D-NV) on February 17 released a report utilizing House Budget Committee data to argue that the current administration's economic agenda is directly responsible for higher costs. "Families in Nevada were promised lower prices. Instead, President Trump and Republicans in Congress have delivered higher grocery bills," Lee stated in a press release, pointing specifically to tariffs as a crushing weight on working families.

Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, too, pressed the administration for more action on food costs. In a February 5 statement, Sen. Kelly called on the current administration to work with Congress to lower food prices. “Arizona families cannot continue to bear the cost of rising food prices. I encourage you to take swift action and work with us to lower the price of food for American families. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter,” Kelly said.

State-Level Actions: Bans and Tax Cuts
While Washington debates, state legislatures are moving with speed. The approaches vary wildly depending on the political makeup of the state, presenting a patchwork compliance risk for national chains.

New York: Democrats have introduced two aggressive bills. The Protecting Consumers and Jobs from Discriminatory Pricing Act specifically targets grocery stores and pharmacies, prohibiting personalized algorithmic pricing and electronic digital shelving labels. A broader bill, the One Fair Price Act, would ban most businesses from using personal data to make prices fluctuate. As reported on February 11 by News10, these bills would empower the New York Attorney General to sue companies and, crucially, allow private citizens to sue when they believe they are victims of price discrimination.

Maryland: Similar momentum is building in Annapolis. Maryland Matters reported on January 20 that HB0148, which would prohibit the use of personal or biometric data in price setting, has already begun committee hearings. The bill, backed by Maryland Governor Wes Moore, targets the "customized prices" enabled by AI, despite objections from retail advocates who argue dynamic pricing can also benefit consumers through personalized discounts.

Tennessee & Missouri: In conservative-leaning states, the legislative weapon of choice is tax relief. In Tennessee, State Rep. Mike Sparks (R-Smyrna) filed the Fresh Food Affordability Act (House Bill 2086), which would eliminate the state sales tax on fresh fruits and vegetables. In Missouri, Senate Bill 1239, sponsored by Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R-Arnold), aims to end both state and local sales tax on food and grocery items. "I am looking to increase affordability for Missourians as prices rise," Coleman told the Columbia Missourian.

The Looming Data Void
Amidst this flurry of activity, a quiet bureaucratic decision may hamper the industry's ability to understand the full scope of the crisis. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) reported in February that the USDA is ending its 30-year-old annual survey on food security, beginning with the cancellation of data collection for 2025.

This comes at a time when food insecurity remains stubbornly high—affecting 47.9 million people in 18.3 million U.S. households in 2024—and as SNAP benefits face historic cuts. The CBPP warns that "the absence of this data will make it harder for policymakers, researchers, and the public to measure the harm inflicted" by rising food costs.

Implications for the Industry
For the food and beverage sector, the message is multifaceted. The "tech-forward" future of retail—dynamic pricing, facial recognition, and hyper-personalization—is colliding with a populist backlash. Retailers investing in these technologies must now price in the risk of strict regulatory prohibitions.

Simultaneously, the foundational costs of doing business are shifting. Tariffs are raising input costs, while state-level tax repeals may offer some demand-side relief. As legislative initiatives mount, the industry must prepare for a year where the price on the shelf is determined as much by the statehouse as it is by the supply chain.

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.

Natural Grocers Wins GMO Labeling Appeal; Supplement Industry Under Pressure

This article first appeared in the February 2026 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

In January 2026, the regulatory framework governing the natural products industry encountered significant developments affecting how food and dietary supplements are labeled and regulated. Through a combination of judicial rulings, agency guidance, and legislative proposals, the requirements for transparency and product disclosure are shifting, presenting new compliance considerations for manufacturers and retailers alike.

For CPG brands, ingredient suppliers, and compliance officers, these updates signal a continued move toward explicit, on-package disclosure. Recent events indicate that both the courts and legislators are increasingly prioritizing clear, accessible information for consumers, challenging previous standards that allowed for digital or abbreviated disclosures.

This report outlines two primary developments from the start of the year: the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Natural Grocers regarding Bioengineered (BE) disclosures, and a dual-front regulatory discussion involving the FDA and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) regarding the dietary supplement sector.

Federal Appeals Court Sides with Natural Grocers in GMO Ruling
In a decision delivered on Jan. 6, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of a coalition of plaintiffs led by the Lakewood, CO-based retailer Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage (NYSE: NGVC) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS). The court’s decision effectively strikes down key portions of the USDA’s Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, addressing industry arguments that the previous rules contained exemptions that limited consumer access to information.

The "National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard" (NBFDS) has been a subject of debate since its inception. Critics, including the plaintiffs, argued that the USDA’s implementation allowed manufacturers to obscure the presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) through the use of digital links and unfamiliar terminology.

According to a Natural Grocers press release, the court’s ruling necessitates a significant revision of USDA rules. The outcome aligns with a long-standing position of Natural Grocers, the nation’s largest family-operated organic and natural grocery retailer, which has prohibited most GMO ingredients in its stores since 2012 and advocated for clearer labeling standards.

The court’s decision focused on three specific areas where the USDA’s previous rules were found to be insufficient or unlawful. Food and beverage manufacturers must now prepare for a regulatory environment that will likely require strategic adjustments in the next rulemaking cycle.

The "Bioengineered" Terminology Battle
First among the court's findings was the rejection of the USDA’s mandate that strictly required the use of the term "bioengineered." Plaintiffs successfully argued that this term is unfamiliar to the average shopper and infringed on free speech rights by prohibiting the use of terms consumers actually understand.

Under the overturned rules, a manufacturer was forced to use "bioengineered" even if their customer base was far more familiar with "GMO" or "Genetically Engineered." According to the Non-GMO Project, recent market research indicates that while 63% of consumers recognize the term "GMO," only 36% are familiar with "bioengineering." By mandating the lesser-known term, the USDA was seen as complicating disclosure. The ruling now paves the way for retailers and brands to use terms that resonate more clearly with their customers, potentially returning the familiar "GMO" acronym to federal disclosures.

Closing the Digital Divide: The End of QR Code Exclusivity
Operationally, a significant aspect of the ruling is the rejection of standalone QR codes as a sufficient means of disclosure. The USDA had previously allowed companies to forgo on-package text disclosures entirely in favor of a scannable code. Natural Grocers and the Center for Food Safety argued that this practice excluded consumers without smartphones, reliable internet access, or technical literacy—demographics that often include the elderly and rural populations.

The court agreed, ruling that companies cannot rely solely on digital disclosures. This decision impacts the "scan to learn more" approach that some large CPG companies had adopted. Brands that utilized digital links to manage label space must now redesign packaging to include clear, on-pack text or symbols accessible to the naked eye.

Highly Processed Ingredients: No More Hiding
Finally, the court found the USDA was incorrect in exempting highly processed foods—such as sugar from sugar beets or oil from canola—simply because the genetic material might not be detectable in the final refined product.

This "highly refined" exemption had been a major point of contention. Natural Grocers argued that even if the DNA is denatured or removed during processing, the ingredient still originates from a bioengineered crop system. The environmental and agricultural impacts remain, regardless of the final chemical structure of the sugar or oil.

"The court’s rejection of the ‘highly refined’ exemption reinforces an important principle: how food is made matters," noted Charlene Guzman, Communications Director of the Non-GMO Project, in a statement to Nosh. Brands that have relied on this exemption should expect closer scrutiny as the USDA revises its rules, particularly for ubiquitous ingredients like oils, sugars, and starches derived from GMO crops.

Heather Isely, Executive Vice President of Natural Grocers, stated that the decision reflects congressional intent. "Congress never intended to require the use of specific terms, the sole use of QR codes, or the exclusion of ingredients made from highly processed GMO crops," she said. "We are pleased the court recognized the shortcomings of the final rule and mandated corrections. Natural Grocers will remain actively engaged in the GMO regulatory process."

George Kimbrell, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety, added that the ruling ensures consumers will eventually see "clear and accurate GMO label information."

The legal victory is consistent with Natural Grocers' long history of rigorous product standards. Founded in 1955 and with 168 stores across 21 states, the company has utilized a dynamic list—"Things We Won't Carry and Why"—to screen products. As stated in WholeFoods Magazine, if a company cannot verify non-GMO status, Natural Grocers will not stock the item.

The Supplement Industry’s Regulatory Tug-of-War
While the food industry assesses the implications of the GMO ruling, the dietary supplement sector is navigating a complex regulatory landscape. On one hand, the FDA is signaling potential flexibility regarding labeling requirements. On the other, Senator Dick Durbin has reintroduced legislation that could impose new registration requirements.

In a letter to the industry issued on Dec. 11, 2025, the FDA announced it is considering amendments to 21 C.F.R. § 101.93(d). This regulation currently governs the placement of the disclaimer required for structure/function claims under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).

Under current rules, supplements making claims such as "Supports heart health" must carry the standard disclaimer: "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." Regulations have historically required this disclaimer to appear on every single panel where a claim is made. For small bottles, this often leads to "label clutter," where the same disclaimer is repeated multiple times.

According to the National Law Review, the FDA is looking to remove the "each panel" requirement. Kyle Diamantas, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods, noted in the letter that revising this regulation would "reduce label clutter and unnecessary costs," aligning with the agency's historical enforcement posture.

Effective immediately, the FDA is exercising "enforcement discretion." The agency will not prioritize penalizing companies that do not repeat the disclaimer on every panel, provided the disclaimer appears at least once and is properly linked to the claims. However, companies should proceed with caution; this is a relaxation of placement frequency, not a removal of the disclaimer itself.

Not all experts view this relaxation as positive. Pieter Cohen, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School expressed concern to Nutraceutical Business Review, warning that reducing disclaimer visibility could mislead consumers. "Then you start saying things such as, ‘We only need it on the actual bottle.’ Then you let the print get smaller," Cohen noted, highlighting the tension between industry simplification and consumer protection.

Durbin Reintroduces the Dietary Supplement Listing Act
While the FDA offers potential labeling flexibility, Congress is considering increased oversight. On Jan. 17, 2026, Senator Dick Durbin reintroduced the Dietary Supplement Listing Act, aimed at modernizing FDA oversight through Mandatory Product Listing (MPL).

The core of the bill would require manufacturers to register products with the FDA, providing product names, ingredient lists, electronic copies of labels, allergen statements, and structure/function claims. This data would populate a public database accessible to consumers.

Senator Durbin’s argument is rooted in the growth of the sector. When DSHEA passed in 1994, there were approximately 4,000 supplements on the market. Today, the FDA estimates there are over 100,000. Durbin argues that the FDA cannot effectively regulate a market it cannot track. "FDA—and consumers—should know what dietary supplements are on the market and what ingredients are included in them. This is FDA’s most basic function," Durbin stated.

As reported by RiverBender, the bill has garnered endorsements from the American Medical Association, US Pharmacopeia, and Consumer Reports. However, the industry itself remains divided, illustrating a strategic difference between its two major trade associations.

A House Divided: CRN vs. NPA
The reintroduction of the Listing Act has reignited a debate between the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) and the Natural Products Association (NPA).

The CRN supports the legislation, viewing transparency as a path to legitimacy and consumer trust. Steve Mister, President and CEO of CRN, stated, "In an era when the Administration has rightly called for more transparency about what we eat and how food is made, it makes sense to apply that same transparency to dietary supplements." The CRN views the registry as a tool to distinguish legitimate, responsible brands from "fly-by-night" actors selling tainted products, arguing that a federal registry is "a transparency tool—not a barrier to innovation."

Conversely, the NPA opposes the bill. Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D., President and CEO of NPA, characterizes it as unnecessary bureaucracy that burdens lawful companies while failing to stop bad actors. Fabricant argues that DSHEA already gives the FDA ample authority; the agency simply fails to use it.

As detailed in Nutrition Insight, NPA fears that the FDA could use the list to arbitrarily challenge ingredients, citing the recent (and reversed) attempt to ban NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide) as an example of regulatory overreach. "This proposal will hand bureaucrats new leverage over lawful products, cool innovation, and punish companies investing in new science," Fabricant warned.

Conclusion: The Transparency Mandate
As the year progresses, the common thread connecting the Natural Grocers victory and the Durbin bill is transparency. In the food aisle, the courts have ruled that accessibility is key—labels must be readable without a smartphone and use terms the public understands. In the supplement aisle, the debate continues over whether transparency requires a federal database of every product on the market.

For business leaders, the takeaway is operational agility. Packaging workflows must be adaptable, supply chain documentation must be robust, and regulatory monitoring must be constant. The "clean label" trend is extending beyond ingredients to include the regulatory integrity of the package itself.

Natural Grocers has signaled it will remain active, with executive Heather Isely stating, "Natural Grocers will remain actively engaged in the GMO regulatory process." Brands wishing to remain on the shelves of such high-standard retailers must ensure their transparency efforts meet these rising expectations.

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.

Industry Leaders Respond to USDA’s Funding Announcement for Regenerative Agriculture

This article first appeared in the January 2026 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, alongside U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, M.D., on December 10 announced a $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program to help American farmers adopt practices that improve soil health, enhance water quality, and boost long-term productivity, all while building a healthier, more resilient food system, said USDA. According to the release, HHS also is investing in research on the connection between regenerative agriculture and public health, as well as developing messaging to explain this connection.

“Protecting and improving the health of our soil is critical not only for the future viability of farmland, but to the future success of American farmers. In order to continue to be the most productive and efficient growers in the world, we must protect our topsoil from unnecessary erosion and improve soil health and land stewardship. Today’s announcement encourages these priorities while supporting farmers who choose to transition to regenerative agriculture. The Regenerative Pilot Program also puts farmers first and reduces barriers to entry for conservation programs,” said Secretary Rollins.

Administered by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the new Regenerative Pilot Program is designed to deliver a streamlined, outcome-based conservation model—empowering producers to plan and implement whole-farm regenerative practices through a single application. In FY2026, the Regenerative Pilot Program will focus on whole-farm planning that addresses every major resource concern—soil, water, and natural vitality—under a single conservation framework. USDA said it is dedicating $400 million through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and $300 million through the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) to fund this first year of regenerative agriculture projects. The program is said to be designed for both beginning and advanced producers, ensuring availability for all farmers ready to take the next step in regenerative agriculture.

To support the program, NRCS is establishing a Chief’s Regenerative Agriculture Advisory Council “to keep the Regenerative Pilot Program grounded in practical, producer-led solutions,” USDA said. The Council will meet quarterly, with rotating participants, to advise the Chief of NRCS, review implementation progress, and help guide data and reporting improvements. Its recommendations will shape future USDA conservation delivery and strengthen coordination between the public and private sectors.

USDA also said it is permitting public-private partnerships as part of the Regenerative Agriculture Initiative (RAI), claiming that such partnerships will allow USDA to match private funding, thus stretching taxpayer dollars further, and bringing new capacity to producers interested in adopting regenerative practices.

We asked leaders in regenerative agriculture to weigh in on USDA’s announcement. Here’s what they had to say:

Hannah Tremblay, Policy and Advocacy Manager, Farm Aid
As a strong supporter of regenerative agriculture, Farm Aid welcomes USDA’s funding announcement for regenerative agriculture, but the lack of details about the program's specifics means we're unable to give a full response or analysis. From the few details that have been provided to date, this looks like a streamlining of processes and possible restructuring of existing funding, but does not appear to represent new funding for these programs.

The chronic underfunding and oversubscription of the EQIP and CSP programs – two crucial conservation programs – are ongoing problems that this administration and Congress have not addressed. The recent budget bill passed by Congress makes it easier for large operations to disproportionately use EQIP and CSP dollars by removing payment limits and Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) requirements. Policies like these make these programs less accessible to small and diversified farming operations and do a disservice to family farmers who are trying to enact conservation practices. 

This sudden embrace of regenerative agriculture flies in the face of the other policies we've seen from this administration, including canceling the Climate Smart Commodities Program, EPA's fast tracking of pesticides and cuts to USDA's NRCS staff, who are crucial to helping farmers implement soil health practices.

Matthew Dillon, Co-CEO, Organic Trade Association
There are still many details to come in the implementation of the NRCS regenerative program, but the Organic Trade Association (OTA) is always supportive of programs that help farmers transition to improved management of their natural resources. It would appear that it will give farmers an à la carte menu of practices that they can select and create a less burdensome bundled approach with NRCS. If we can make it easier for farmers to better care for natural resources, that’s a good outcome.

The optimal outcome would be for farmers to have integrated and holistic conservation plans, like those that organic farmers do in their annual Organic System Plan. And ideally, that would include pesticide mitigation plans for those farmers who are conventional. Hopefully for some of these farmers it will be an on-ramp to exploring opportunities in organic markets.

At the end of the day, policy incentives will only go so far in rewarding farmers for ecosystem services – markets and consumers are essential. Organic is the only third party, verified, backed-by-law marketplace that does that. We will work to make sure organic farmers have adequate access and get recognition in these programs.

Ken Cook, Executive Director, Environmental Working Group
Basically, I’m pretty skeptical of the Regenerative Pilot Program. If you look at all of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s big talk during the Trump campaign and then during the transition regarding subsidies, $700 million rebranded from existing programs (with multi-billion-dollar budget baselines that a lot of us built and defended) is hardly the bold action he promised. The emphasis on efficiency and red tape is interesting—whole farm plans that originated in the 1930s and 1940s in the old Soil Conservation Service (SCS) are all about paperwork and red tape, and going back, a lot of us in the conservation world (and reformist elements within NRCS) pushed the agency to focus on practices aimed at priority lands/problems. Reformers in NRCS in the 1980s and after always felt whole-farm plans were make-work that resulted in career advancements (and documents on farmers’ shelves) but not necessarily conservation on the ground.

There was no emphasis at the press conference announcing the program on reducing pesticides. Nor was there any emphasis on aiming some of the money at organic, the only system out there that does fulfill the MAHA rhetoric from farm to grocery shelf.

And of course, during the Biden administration there was so much emphasis in regenerative circles on climate progress via carbon farming, carbon sequestration, farmers selling carbon credits, and so on, but those words and objectives have been forbidden by USDA. (We always thought the carbon stuff was way oversold—and not needed to justify lots of benefits from mixed crop-livestock farms, longer more diverse rotations, cover crops and other sensible practices that…have also been around and under-deployed by farmers since the 1930s despite BILLIONS spent by taxpayers on free technical assistance and cost-sharing).

Then of course there are the ‘antithesis-of-MAHA’ cuts to vital programs earlier this year to get local food to schools and food banks, the reductions in NRCS staff to do those whole-farm plans, and the massive, multi-billion-dollar subsidies that have been paid in tariff reparations to big commodity operations—whose payment limits have been generously increased to make sure the biggest operations get the most money.

Christopher Gergen, CEO, Regenerative Organic Alliance
The Regenerative Organic Alliance (ROA) welcomes the USDA’s announcement of a new Regenerative Pilot Program as an important signal of federal commitment to advancing healthier soils, more resilient farms, and stronger rural economies. We applaud this growing recognition that agriculture must go beyond extraction toward restoration, a core belief that has guided our work since the creation of the Regenerative Organic Certified® (ROC™) standard.

As USDA begins shaping the program’s criteria and implementation, ROA encourages alignment with the rigorous, holistic principles that define regenerative organic agriculture: improving soil health, ensuring dignified and fair conditions for farm workers, and supporting the humane treatment of animals. These three pillars are foundational to the ROC framework and have proven essential to achieving long-term ecological, economic and community benefits.

We are encouraged that the USDA acknowledges the role of organic systems in regenerative agriculture. ROC builds on USDA Organic as a necessary baseline for eliminating toxic synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, and GMOs — inputs that undermine soil biology, water quality, pollinator health, and farmworker safety. ROC then goes further by requiring additional soil health practices, pasture-based animal welfare, and fair labor conditions.

As decades of peer-reviewed research and field evidence show, regenerative practices alone cannot fully deliver intended environmental outcomes if they allow routine use of synthetic chemicals. The scientific record also shows that organic systems, including those that strategically use tillage for weed control in lieu of herbicides — consistently build soil carbon, increase water retention, reduce erosion, and improve microbial diversity. We encourage USDA to ensure that any regenerative agriculture program reflects this evidence by prioritizing systems that avoid toxic inputs and protect both ecological and human health.

The rapid expansion of regenerative claims creates both opportunity and risk. Without clear definitions, rigorous standards, and third-party verification, the regenerative category is vulnerable to greenwashing and consumer confusion. Independent analysis has shown that some non-organic regenerative labels allow herbicides, GMOs, synthetic fertilizers, and minimal verification, which could undermine public trust and the credibility of the entire regenerative movement.

With the right structure, USDA’s initiative can accelerate the transition to a food and fiber system that heals the land, strengthens rural communities, and ensures a healthier future for all; a vision that drives our mission every day. ROA looks forward to engaging with USDA as this pilot advances and to contributing our expertise, data, and proven frameworks to help shape a regenerative future rooted in integrity, transparency, and meaningful impact.

Jeff Tkach, Executive Director, Rodale Institute
Rodale Institute welcomes the USDA’s announcement of the new Regenerative Pilot Program and views it as an important signal that soil health, farm resilience, and long-term productivity are increasingly central priorities within American agriculture. This moment reflects a growing federal recognition that healthy soil is foundational to a secure food system, climate resilience, and human health.

For more than 78 years, Rodale Institute has led the science and practice of regenerative organic agriculture, long before “regenerative” entered the policy lexicon. Through the longest-running side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional farming systems in North America, Rodale Institute has demonstrated that regenerative organic agricultural practices can improve soil health, enhance water quality, increase resilience to extreme weather, and support farm profitability.

With a national network of research hubs, education initiatives and farmer training programs, Rodale Institute has helped producers across regions and production systems transition to regenerative organic practices rooted in measurable outcomes and continuous improvement. This experience, coupled with our leadership as a founding member of the Regenerative Organic Alliance, positions Rodale Institute as a critical partner in ensuring that regenerative initiatives are clearly defined, science-based, and deliver real, lasting benefits for farmers, communities, and the environment.

As the USDA advances this pilot program, Rodale Institute stands ready to contribute its decades of research, farmer-centered expertise, and leadership to help guide its success. By keeping soil health at the center of agricultural policy and practice, we can continue building a food system that supports productive farms, nourishing food, and healthy people, now and for future generations.

Paige Mitchum, Executive Director, Regen Circle
This Regenerative Agriculture Pilot Program is not new. It is a carve-out from the existing Farm Bill’s conservation funds using the same forms, rankings and field offices. The key difference is that they were processing proposals differently. Under the Climate Smart Commodities Program the process went USDA ↔ big project ↔ farmer. This pilot now routes money through individual NCRS contracts so the process flows as NRCS ↔ farmer. This sounds cleaner unless the agency in the middle just lost 20% of its staff, as is the case with the NRCS. 

By doing away with the big projects intermediaries you lose the support provided by states, tribes and NGOs whose role was to recruit farmers, do measurement verification and reporting, provide technical assistance and handle smaller payments. Without this the NRCS will need significantly more bandwidth to handle a direct to farmer approach. But they aren’t staffing up; the FY2026 plan indicated further personnel reductions, leaving me to draw only one conclusion: The regenerative pilot program will be woefully under resourced, forcing them to accept applications from large well-resourced operations leaving small and vitally important producers on their own. 

In a nine‑day window in December, the administration: backed pesticide maker Bayer in court, poured billions into the most glyphosate‑dependent crop systems, and then unveiled a sub‑billion-dollar regenerative agriculture pilot program as its health‑and‑soil solution. Once again this administration has brilliantly cut social infrastructure and meaningful programs that were supporting small farmers in regenerative transition, shielded a flagship herbicide company from liability, bailed out large monocultures, and in exchange handed us a small carve-out of existing programs with zero new infrastructure or any credible way of executing said program. As such, this reads more as a marketing scheme than it does meaningful policy work, and I hope that the private sector can step up and support the small holder farmers at the heart of the regenerative movement.

They took away the mountain we were slowly, imperfectly but intentionally building, they took a shovel and put a small mound of dirt aside and said, take this and enjoy the view.

Read Page’s full article here.

André Leu, D.Sc., BA Com., Grad Dip Ed., International Director, Regeneration International
In theory, this is a great initiative. Improving soil health through regenerative practices has been long overdue. Most farmers, including many organic farmers, need to adopt these methods. In reality, it will depend on who is selected to sit on the  Chief’s Regenerative Agriculture Advisory Council. If it is composed of regenerative and organic farmers, it will be credible. If they repeat the NOSB (National Organic Standards Board) model, it will be hijacked by academics, NGOs and agribusiness. It will be an exercise in greenwashing, promoting no-till Roundup-ready GMOs and other degenerative practices. I don't have confidence that, given the USDA's history with the organic sector, they will choose the credible option.

Alexis Baden-Mayer, Political Director, Organic Consumers Association
I've been looking into where the money's coming from for the Regenerative Agriculture Pilot Program and how much has been allocated versus taken away. This is money Congress appropriated for two regenerative agriculture programs (the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program) with a total annual budget of $4.515 billion. So, if $700 million is going to regenerative, that means $3.815 billion (84%) of EQIP and CSP funds will be going to factory farms and pesticide-drenched genetically modified field crops. Admittedly, Trump's USDA isn't the first to misappropriate these funds this way, but it is the first to celebrate it.

Earlier this year, the USDA refused to disburse $6.062 billion appropriated by Congress for family famers adopting regenerative agriculture practices and serving local markets. Now we're now supposed to be happy because the USDA is earmarking $700 million for regenerative agriculture? I feel like they're trying to convince us two pennies is more than a dollar bill because two is more than one.

Max Goldberg, Founder, Editor and Publisher of Organic Insider
The USDA's announcement of about $700 million dedicated to regenerative agriculture puts the spotlight on the importance of soil health at a critical time and is extremely welcome. Yet, whether this program can actually deliver tangible results to America's farmland remains a serious uncertainty, and there are two questions that must be answered. 

First, does the USDA have adequate on-the-ground technical staff to assist farmers in executing regenerative practices while also measuring soil health improvements? Second, will this program actually lead to a reduction in pesticide use? Only time will tell, but the level of skepticism is very high that the funds will be spent in an efficient manner and this will result in meaningful progress.

Dan Kane, Lead Scientist, MAD Agriculture
The Regenerative Agriculture Initiative (RAI), also called the Regenerative Pilot Program (RPP), is a program announced by Secretary Rollins on Dec. 10, 2025. The press release from USDA describes it as a $700 million pilot program for FY2026 focused on helping farmers transition to regenerative practices. 

The RAI is not a new program but instead a repackaging of existing USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Nor does the RAI designate new funding towards either of these programs and the practices they target. It will likely function as a priority national funding pool producers can apply to with some minor modifications to requirements and the application process. Efforts by the prior administration to increase funding to key regenerative practices and the regenerative agriculture community more broadly through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) would have provided greater funding overall in FY2026 and beyond.

The IRA added approximately $19.5 billion into USDA conservation programs above and beyond 2018 Farm Bill funding levels over a period of four fiscal years (FY2023-FY2028). EQIP would’ve been expanded by $8.45 billion over that period, with about $3.45 billion of that coming in FY 2026 for a combined total of $5.5 billion in FY2026. CSP would’ve received $3.25 billion over that period with $1.5 billion coming in FY2026 for a combined total of $2.5 billion in FY2026.

Given all the shifts in funding, and the reallocation of IRA funds to CSP and EQIP baseline spending enacted through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), RAI is effectively funded through the reallocation of IRA funds. But, considering the reduction in total funding, it’s still not net new spending compared to what would’ve happened had IRA stayed in place. Although the OBBB increased baseline EQIP and CSP funding over a longer time period, the Congressional Budget Office still estimates that the rescission and reallocation of IRA funds will result in a net decrease of approximately $2 billion in actual conservation spending through FY2034.

While some of the changes included in this program (bundling applications, whole farm planning, soil testing) are good ideas, they’re ideas that NRCS has already applied through other programs. Major reductions in NRCS staff and proposed changes to how the NRCS is structured are likely to limit total capacity and reduce agency efficiency and function. Last, the elimination of income eligibility caps and the potential integration of public/private partnerships into the program raise concerns that this program and USDA conservation programs writ large will end up primarily serving very large farmers and agribusiness interests.

Any USDA programming focused on regenerative agriculture is a welcome addition to the financial stack for producers. No doubt we at Mad Agriculture will keep this program in mind as a potential option for the producers with whom we work. But this is a small win in comparison to the huge loss that came through the rescission/reallocation of IRA funds.

Read MAD Agriculture’s full analysis of USDA’s Regenerative Agriculture Initiative here.

Charles "Chuck" Benbrook, Ph.D., Founder, Benbrook Consulting Services
Chuck Benbrook is the former Chief Science Officer of The Organic Center; former Research Professor, Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Washington State University; and former Director, National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture

As someone who has been deeply involved in soil conservation policy, I was excited to see this announcement from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). With $700 million committed in the next fiscal year, it's a pretty substantial investment in regenerative agriculture. The hope is that it will go on with continued, and hopefully increased, funding.

As I read the announcement for the Regenerative Pilot Program, it seems to be a clear recognition by the USDA that soil health and what is needed to enhance the biological integrity and health of the soil has to be a very high priority. In fact, on par with controlling physical erosion. And I think that's the right direction. That's how we're going to lower the cost of production. That's how we're going to clean up water and start dealing with all these rural areas with ridiculously high levels of nitrate in everybody's drinking water. It's how we're going to deal with resistant weeds. Dealing with soil biology at this point is the most important and lowest hanging fruit for healing what ails us.

I think there are two aspects to the significance of USDA's announcement. One, it recognizes farmers anywhere along the continuum, from conventional, chemical-dependent farmers to regenerative organic producers. Wherever you are along the continuum, if you want to move toward a more diversified, resilient, less chemical-dependent system, you have to make multiple changes simultaneously and timed correctly to succeed.

I also think the NRCS approach of entering into customized contracts with growers that start from where they're at and finance the next round of changes in their farming systems, which could include changes in rotations, tillage, cover crop management and water management, is a good one.

It's also a positive that it's a streamlined administrative process where the farmer basically comes in with a proposal and works with the local NRCS and farm services agency staff to come up with how much the cashier payment will be next year and presumably for subsequent years for the practices that are adopted. Of course, one of the big concerns that people have is how progress is going to be monitored and quantified in a convincing way. Also, like everyone, I'm curious to see the details of how NRCS is going to structure the contracts.

My wish with this program is that smaller producers will have as much access as larger operators, however the fact is, those big commodity farmers tend to get favored when it comes to grants. Yet, I didn't see anything in the announcement to suggest that the NRCS is going to take into account the size of the farm in allocating the available funds. But let's face it, the larger, more sophisticated, often multi-owner, farms are going to be in the door first with well thought out proposals.

Regarding the appointment of an Advisory Council to help oversee the Regenerative Pilot Program, I think (USDA) Secretary Rollins has had a constructive series of conversations with people that come out of the organic and regenerative community. I also think she'll insist that a few folks from that world are on this advisory committee. But, you know, if past is prologue, the soybean growers will have a rep, the cotton council will have a rep and the pesticide industry will have a couple of reps. And it might not be somebody that's working actively for a pesticide manufacturer today, but it could be someone who has deep roots in that community. They may be an academic now. They may work for a consulting firm, but you know, the politics inside these federal agencies is really brutal.

The NRCS regenerative program has great potential to be the fulcrum to start the transition towards more diversified, sustainable regenerative systems, but for it to work in a meaningful way at scale, it has to be combined with a similar negotiated change in how commodity program subsidies and crop insurance subsidies are currently supporting agriculture. And that's the core idea behind what we're working on now called the Farm Economic Viability and Renewal Act, or FEVER Act, to help spark discussion among agriculture community leaders and policymakers of the systemic reforms in policy needed to avoid ever-larger bailouts in the not-too-distant future.

The large sums of taxpayer money at play — over $40 billion in farm support in 2025, and likely even more in 2026 — heighten the urgency of reaching agreement on substantive policy changes. The pressing challenge is to not invest taxpayer dollars during 2026 and beyond in bigger and better band aids, but instead in support of the deeper, systemic changes in farming systems that most farmers, advocates for healthier rural communities, scientists, and policy wonks know are needed.

Companies interested in partnering with USDA NRCS in the Regenerative Pilot Program can email regenerative@usda.gov for more information. Farmers and ranchers interested in regenerative agriculture are encouraged to apply through their local NRCS Service Center by their state’s ranking dates for consideration in FY2026 funding. Applications for both EQIP and CSP can now be submitted under the new single regenerative application process.

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.

Non-UPF Verified Sets a New Standard for Ultra-Processed Foods

This article first appeared in the December 2025 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

In mid-November, an international team of 43 scientists released a landmark series of papers in The Lancet concluding that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) now pose a “clear global threat” to public health. Drawing on more than 100 long-term studies, Reuters reported that the series links higher UPF intake to increased risk of obesity, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, depression, and all-cause mortality.

Coverage in outlets from The Guardian and ABC News to NPR underscores the gravity of the findings. One analysis noted that UPFs are associated with harm to every major organ system in the body, and that these products are rapidly displacing fresh and minimally processed foods worldwide. University of North Carolina nutrition researcher and Lancet series coauthor Barry Popkin told NPR, “We can say now that truly ultra-processed food represents a clear global threat to our health—not only our physical health but also mental health in terms of its impacts on depression.”

At the same time, a growing body of consumer and market research points to a widening trust gap. Many shoppers want to avoid UPFs but say they can’t easily tell what qualifies. A recent New York Times Well column explored why ultra-processed products are so hard to resist and so ubiquitous in modern diets, and highlighted the way industrial formulations can override normal satiety signals and blur the line between “food” and “edible product.”

Against this backdrop, the Non-GMO Project’s new Non-UPF Verified Standard lands at a pivotal moment for CPG brands, retailers, and the entire natural and organic products ecosystem.

From GMOs to UPFs: The Non-GMO Project widens its lens
On Nov. 12, the Non-GMO Project formally announced Version 1.0 of its Non-UPF Verified Standard, described as “the nation’s first comprehensive framework” for defining and verifying foods that are not ultra-processed, and called it the “first Non-UPF Verified standard to address the ultra-processed foods crisis.”

The new certification builds on the Non-GMO Project’s 18-year record of third-party verification and its iconic butterfly seal, now found on more than 63,000 products that represent an estimated $50 billion in annual sales.

“Around the world, more people are waking up to the realization that much of what fills our grocery carts is no longer truly food,” said Megan Westgate, founder and CEO of the Non-GMO Project and Non-UPF Verified, at a recent webinar unveiling the new standard. “Doctors and researchers increasingly describe these products as ‘processed edible substances’—industrial formulations engineered for palatability and shelf life rather than nutrition.”

Westgate is careful to say this is not an attack on processing per se. As she told Food Business News: “Processing itself isn’t the enemy. It’s how and why it’s done that matters. The Non-UPF Standard defines a middle ground where convenience and nourishment can genuinely coexist.”

In practice, that “middle ground” is defined by a rigorous ingredient and processing criteria, which are detailed in the Non-UPF Verified Standard v1.0.

Why ultra-processed foods are under fire
The Lancet series and surrounding news coverage sharpen a distinction many in the natural channel have understood for decades: It’s not just what’s in food, but also how it’s made.

The Guardian’s coverage of the Lancet research noted that more than half of the average diet in the U.S. and U.K. now consists of UPFs, with some low-income and younger populations getting up to 80% of their calories from these products. Citing CDC data, ABC News reported that Americans on average consume over half of their daily calories from UPFs.

The Lancet authors point to several mechanisms by which UPFs drive harm:

• Disrupted food structure and “hyper-palatability” that encourage overeating and rapid absorption of refined starches and sugars.

• High levels of added sugar, sodium, and unhealthy fats.

• Widespread use of cosmetic additives and ultra-refined ingredients, some of which may alter gut microbiota or expose consumers to contaminants such as phthalates.

• Aggressive marketing and product design that exploit biological reward pathways, particularly in children (MAHA Commission).

In the NPR report, Lancet series coauthor Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition and food studies at NYU and author of “Food Politics,” drew a direct line between the science and the need for policy and marketplace action. She noted that some countries, including Chile, have already shown that warning labels, marketing restrictions, and school food reforms can curb UPF intake. “It’s time to take on the industry,” Nestle said. “They’ve got to stop.”

The Lancet series and recent media reporting all make the point: Ultra-processed foods are not just one more dietary risk factor. They are a structural driver of global chronic disease—and the food system will not change without clear definitions, strong incentives, and credible labels.

‘Disconnected’: What consumers are telling us
In October, the Non-GMO Project released a consumer research report titled “Disconnected,” which summarized the attitudes of U.S. shoppers toward UPFs and the modern food system. Some of the topline numbers from “Disconnected” and related research are striking:

• A 2024 Non-GMO Project survey found that 85% of Americans want to avoid ultra-processed foods, but most say they feel overwhelmed and unsupported in trying to do so.

• Internal research from the Non-GMO Project’s Food Integrity Collective showed that 68% of shoppers actively try to avoid UPFs, and 70% say they need clearer labeling or third-party verification.

• New Hope Network reported that 72% of Americans say they are trying to avoid ultra-processed foods, signaling a powerful demand across mainstream and natural retail.

• “Disconnected” emphasized that consumers feel the food system is “out of their hands” — dominated by large corporations using engineered ingredients that are disconnected from natural food sources.

In other words, shoppers are ahead of policy. They are already looking for ways to opt out of UPFs, but they lack tools they can trust. That, more than anything, is the market gap the Non-UPF Verified Standard aims to fill.

The architecture of the Non-UPF Verified Standard
The Non-UPF Verified Standard approaches ultra-processing through two essential frameworks: ingredient integrity and formulation, and processing limits.

1. Ingredient integrity and formulation

The standard targets ingredients that are either emblematic of ultra-processed formulations or under scientific scrutiny for metabolic, neurological, or gut impacts. Collectively, these criteria are designed to protect what the standard calls structural integrity, nourishment, and transparency, steering innovation away from “cosmetic” ingredients and toward minimally processed building blocks: 

• Non-nutritive and bio-transformed sweeteners (such as aspartame, sucralose, stevia extracts, erythritol, and other sugar alcohols) are prohibited as sugar substitutes. Minimally processed stevia leaf preparations may be allowed only at flavor-level use, not as a core sweetener.

• Added sugars are capped by category, typically ranging from low single-digit percentages (by dry weight) for soups, sauces, snack foods, and proteins, to stricter limits for beverages and breakfast foods, and up to roughly 20% for desserts and 40% for some confectionery categories.

• Gums, thickeners, hydrocolloids, and texturizers produced via industrial degradation or fermentation—such as carrageenan, microcrystalline cellulose, polysorbates, polydextrose, xanthan gum, and maltodextrin— are largely prohibited.

• Artificial colors and certain processed oils are excluded.

• Natural flavors are confined to use cases where the corresponding “real” ingredient is present and may not be used to mask the absence of whole foods.

2. Processing limits and food structure

Not all processing is equal. The Non-UPF Verified Standard distinguishes among permissible, conditional, and prohibited methods and requires that:

• At least 70% of a product’s weight (or dry weight, for certain categories) must be minimally or moderately processed using permissible methods that preserve the food matrix.

• Up to 30% may be “conditionally processed”—for example, certain protein isolates or powders—if they meet specific criteria.

• High-impact chemical, structural, thermal, or biological modifications are not allowed, including synthetic biology and 3D-printed ingredients.

The intent is to address the very features UPF critics highlight: extensive fractionation and recombination of ingredients, aggressive “engineering” of texture and flavor, and techniques that break down food structure to the point where the body no longer recognizes the substance as food.

As the standard notes, UPF is as much about the degree and purpose of processing as about individual ingredients. The Non-UPF framework is one of the first to operationalize that insight in a way that is auditable at the product level.

The full standard is publicly posted at NonUltraProcessed.org. The Project has signaled that it will update its prohibited ingredient list annually based on emerging science and pilot feedback.

Pilot brands, early adopters and the reformulation challenge
If Non-UPF Verified is to matter, it has to show up on shelves. The early signs are promising. 

A pilot cohort of 16 brands—including both mission-driven emerging companies and established names—has been working with the Non-GMO Project and independent technical administrators to test the Non-UPF verification model across nearly every aisle. In addition, New Hope Network reported that 200 brands are already on the wait list, and that the Non-UPF Verified seal is expected to begin appearing on packages in 2026.

In Douglas Brown’s New Hope Network feature, “Non-UPF Verified: Must-Knows for Natural Brands,” Westgate characterized the program as “a movement, not just a mark,” and noted that reformulation will be essential in categories dependent on gums, stabilizers, and added sugars. “We have some cleaning up to do in this industry,” she said. “Reformulations are needed. We need less sugars and gums. It’s going to be a process. But it does seem like brands are really paying attention.”

For many natural and organic manufacturers, the reformulation challenge may feel familiar. Non-GMO and organic standards forced reevaluation of supply chains and ingredient decks; Non-UPF now pushes deeper into how those ingredients are combined and processed.

For mission-driven brands backed by retailers that cater to ingredient-savvy shoppers, the upside could be substantial:

• Differentiation in crowded categories such as ready-to-eat meals, plant-based meats, beverages, and snacks, where formulations can drift toward UPF territory even in “natural” sets.

• Alignment with policy trends, as HHS, USDA, and FDA explore definitions and potential regulatory approaches to UPFs.

• Deeper consumer trust, particularly among shoppers who already use Non-GMO Project and organic seals as navigational tools in the aisle.

For contract manufacturers and ingredient suppliers, however, this is more than a marketing play—it’s a roadmap for where formulation business is likely headed.

Industry response: Caution, criticism, and opportunity
The Non-UPF standard does not exist in a vacuum. Trade groups and conventional food manufacturers are watching closely and some are pushing back.

Food Business News noted that while states such as California have begun to legislate around certain additives and ultra-processed foods, groups like the Grain Foods Foundation argue that some UPFs can fit into healthy dietary patterns, especially when fortified or reformulated.

More broadly, many industry stakeholders have urged federal agencies to avoid definitions that hinge on processing intensity, arguing that frameworks like the NOVA classification system paint with too broad a brush and risk demonizing shelf-stable, affordable foods.

Westgate and her team acknowledge these debates. In FoodNavigator-USA’s report on the standard, she described the NOVA system as foundational but “not built to solve at the product level,” and emphasized that Non-UPF Verified is designed to be auditable, enforceable, and feasible within current food system realities.

At the same time, the Lancet series and global media coverage are shifting the terms of the debate. ABC News quoted experts who warn that global UPF proliferation is a major public health threat and that voluntary, incremental steps are unlikely to be enough.

In that context, voluntary third-party standards such as Non-UPF Verified may serve a dual role as a pre-regulatory signal to policymakers that industry is capable of responding to the science, and as a competitive differentiator for brands and retailers.

What it means for natural & organic CPG leadership
For marketers in the natural and organic products community, the Non-UPF Verified Standard is not just another badge on the front of the pack. It is a concrete response to three converging forces:

• Escalating science: The Lancet series, joined by years of epidemiology, clinical research, and meta-analyses, makes a compelling case that UPFs are a unique risk category and that their impact is global.

• Consumer anxiety and demand for coherence: Shoppers are hungry for standards that make sense of conflicting information and give them real agency.

• Regulatory and reputational risk: As HHS and USDA gather input on UPF definitions, and as advocacy groups press for action, companies that stay tethered to hyper-processed formulations may find themselves on the wrong side of both policy and public opinion.

For natural and organic brands—many of which built their identity on getting ahead of GMO, pesticide, and synthetic additive concerns—Non-UPF Verified is an invitation to lead again. That leadership could take several forms:

• Portfolio mapping: Assess where current SKUs fall on the processing spectrum, and identify quick wins for reformulation versus long-term R&D projects.

• Supplier engagement: Challenge ingredient partners to develop minimally processed alternatives to emulsifiers, texturizers, and refined oils that violate the Non-UPF criteria.

• Retailer collaboration: Work with retailers to pilot Non-UPF assortments, shelf tags, and consumer education in key categories.

• Storytelling and transparency: Use packaging, digital channels, PR, and in-store activations to explain how Non-UPF Verified complements existing organic, non-GMO, regenerative and other claims.

A call to action
The publication of the Non-UPF Verified Standard is not the final word on ultra-processed foods; however, it is the opening of a new chapter. Science will continue to evolve. Policymakers will debate definitions and regulatory levers. Industry groups will push back, negotiate, and in some cases innovate.

But the direction is clear. When The Lancet, The New York Times, The Guardian, NPR, ABC News, and the natural products trade press all make the same point—that ultra-processed foods are undermining global health and consumer trust—the question for our industry is not whether to respond, but how quickly.

For brands that built their business on “better for you,” Non-UPF Verified offers a unique opportunity to help redefine what “better” means at the level of processing itself, and to align product portfolios with a future in which real food—and the integrity of how it’s made—once again takes center stage.

For more information on the standard, please refer to the full Non-UPF Verified Standard v1.0, the Non-GMO Project’s launch announcement, and the Disconnected research report, available via the Non-UPF team’s Google Drive link.

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.