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.

Presence Marketing’s Bill Weiland Shares ‘Bankable Trends’ at MAHA Institute Launch in D.C.

These comments by Presence Marketing’s founder and CEO were transcribed by Steven Hoffman, of Compass Natural Marketing, for Presence’s June 2025 newsletter.

Bill Weiland, Founder and CEO of Presence Marketing, was called to Washington, D.C., on May 15 to speak as part of a full-day symposium presented by the MAHA Institute, a new organization dedicated to changing and championing federal policies and initiatives related to nutritious food, safe and sustainable agriculture, and health freedom, inspired by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s MAHA movement. Bill spoke on a panel that also featured Bill Moses, founder of Kevita and Flying Embers; Daniel Fabricant, Ph.D., CEO of the Natural Products Association; and Steve Bullock, CEO of PerfectRx.

To view a recording of the full-day MAHA Institute event, visit here. Bill Weiland’s panel presentation begins at the 7:18:48 mark. Here, below, is a complete transcript of Bill’s remarks at the event.

Hello everybody, I’m Bill Weiland. I have been in the natural products industry for 46 years and a CEO for 35 years. My company is Presence Marketing. We represent natural and organic brands to conventional grocery stores and natural foods stores. But we’ve become ultra-influential in the food business, and I’ll give you some great examples.

First of all, to simplify our business, we’re building brands. We’ve built iconic brands for many years like Amy’s Kitchen, Clif Bar, Go Macro, Traditional Medicinals Teas. We work on services like innovation and product optimization. We’re also financiers — we write checks small and large, and we have all kinds of partners: angel investors, banks, venture capital groups, etc., so we raise serious capital for emerging and existing natural and organic brands.

Presence Marketing founder and CEO Bill Weiland at the MAHA Institute launch. (Photo courtesy of MAHA Institute)

I have been doing a report for 11 years I affectionately call “Bankable Trends” (with the Presence Marketing logo I consider the second most popular swoosh in America!). But I promised 11 years ago that I would never call one incorrectly and guess what, I’m batting a thousand. I can tell you what’s going to hit and what’s not. Let’s talk a little bit real quickly about what’s not. Crickets are not the next sushi; crickets are the next bug. Nobody’s eating ‘effin’ bugs, OK? 

I’ll tell you what else people don’t want: lab food. Precision fermentation, no chance. Bio-identical dairy, no way. Cell-based meat? The cell ain’t gonna sell, and I promise you all of that is 100% accurate.

So, 11 years ago I called the collagen and bone broth trend. People are like, Bill, what the ‘H-E-double-hockey-sticks’ are you even talking about? What is this stuff? There was nothing in the channel except Grayslake Gelatin, right? And I said, well look, if you want to build muscle you eat steak, you eat chicken, you eat beans, you eat nuts — those amino acids will rebuild muscle tissue.

But if you want different benefits like bright taut skin, really high-level joint health as you age, great digestion, you need those amino acids around the joint of an animal. You can’t replicate those anywhere in nature. Glutamine, proline, glycine, alanine, arginine — very difficult to get. So, we went then and invested in and built brands like Bonafide Restorative Bone Broth, Vital Proteins, and Ancient Nutrition (we worked with Jordan Rubin and his team).

At the same time, 11 years ago we called ‘grain free.’ We always know the ‘why.’ Grain free — think about it. You capture the gluten free customer, you capture the customer who understands ‘anti-nutrients.’ You know, the phytic acid in grains, the lectins in beans, legumes and other vegetation, and how they bind with nutrients on a molecular level and make them inaccessible in the gut. So, grain free, the biggest percentage of sales is just people who say, ‘Hey, I don’t want a carbohydrate bomb. I want my cracker or tortilla to be calories of consequence.’

Let’s talk about seed oils and animal fats, now. So, we got after seed oils 15 years ago. We have a great partner in Boulder Canyon. We kept getting distribution, but their stuff kept getting discontinued when we got further and further away from Boulder. And I said guys, your canola, your safflower, your sunflower — I’ve got an idea. Let’s go with three platforms: coconut, olive, avocado — let’s build under those three higher value oils. Business has exploded and now they’re the number one chip in the country, many hundreds of millions of dollars, untold numbers of jobs and influence, and they’re retrofitting all products, now going completely seed oil free. Bobo’s came and saw me 10 years ago… I said use butter or coconut oil. They chose coconut oil. They were a small little business, cottage industry. Now, headed towards $200 million and killing it.

And let’s talk about how we’re building animal fat. This brand Masa is a proper tortilla chip cooked in beef fat. Incredible. You eat chips, you go to a Mexican restaurant, it’s kind of a gut bomb. I’m eating the plain flavor, scooping ceviche, scooping beef tartar — these are real food calories. You guys gotta try it!

I have another one here — we’re launching the first ancestral protein bar, Prima. This bar has grass fed collagen, grass fed whey, grass fed tallow, organic honey, simple ingredients. You eat one, you feel like Tarzan. We’ve got a brand called Somos, a Mexican food company that came to visit us recently at the affectionately named ‘Billagio,’ where we host meetings in Chicago. I told them if you want to build a big food company, launch refried beans cooked in tallow. Two SKUs are coming; they’ll be here for us to taste in 35 days; we’re going to launch them this calendar year. And then I’ve got a young couple of chefs — one of them is local here, Jesse & Ben’s — doing frozen french fries in either plant oils that are higher value or beef tallow.

Then just a quick primer on regenerative agriculture — my numbers, and I usually make my numbers — always, to be fair — I’m saying 18 years to 10% of all U.S. farmland will be farmed regeneratively. 

That is the path that I see us on right now. Blocking and tackling with a little extra juice.

Also, I just want you to know that we’ve been acquired by a group called Platform. These guys are tremendous. It’s still business as usual for Presence Marketing except it feels like a little ‘Elonesque’ rocket fuel has been injected into us. But we’re gonna fight the good fight here long term, keep putting jobs on the board, keep influencing the quality of products — organic, natural — and I promise you we will have hundreds and hundreds of SKUs in the next three years launched that will be high quality beef and bison tallow based — no vegetable oils — duck fat (schmaltz!) or chicken fat and pork lard. So, we’ll continue doing our jobs. We are grateful to be here and continue to support the mission.

And here’s what I want to say to our friends across the aisle: This is such a layup. Don’t fight us on this one, Democrats. I’ll tell you this, this train is coming and you have two choices. Get on board or get out of the way. Let’s go MAHA.

The Irony of MAHA

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s promises to promote health don’t align with staff cuts & Trump administration actions

This article first appeared in the May 2025 issue of the Nutrition Business Journal

By Steven Hoffman

I met Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. once, in 2001, when he was speaking at a sustainability conference. At the time, I was publisher of the LOHAS Journal, covering the Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability market. At the event, I gave Kennedy a copy of our magazine and expressed my admiration for his work as a leading environmentalist with Riverkeeper, a group that helped clean up the Hudson River, and for being an outspoken advocate for removing toxic chemicals from our food.

Today, Kennedy has built a large following based on these views, with the acronym Make America Healthy Again, or MAHA, as the rallying cry for his base, many of whom are leaders in the natural health movement.

Since my interaction with him in 2001, however, Kennedy has also become synonymous with the anti-vaccine movement. This single voter issue, based in large part on misinformation and mistrust, drove a significant number of natural health advocates to back Kennedy when he declared in 2023 as an independent third-party candidate for president. When he ended his candidacy and endorsed Donald Trump in August, many of these natural health voters went with him in hopes that he could change the food and healthcare system for the better as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the new administration.

Unfortunately, Kennedy’s rhetoric is often profoundly at odds with his actions, and with the actions of the wider Trump administration. To cite just one example, while Kennedy says he seeks to improve Americans’ health by bettering their diet, the administration he serves is gutting programs that provide local and organic produce to schools and low-income residents. Likewise, promises to make Americans “healthy again” is at odds with the administration’s roll-back of regulations designed to limit pollution.

Then there are Kennedy’s ideas about vaccines.

Vaccines and vitamins
About the time I met Kennedy, it was reported that the U.S. had eliminated measles due to widespread vaccination efforts. Since then, the anti-vax movement has picked up steam, encouraged in part by Kennedy’s anti-vaccine comments over the years. Now, in 2025, under his watch as head of HHS, the disease has reappeared in the U.S., spreading from a community in Texas to more than 700 cases throughout the U.S. and two reported deaths. Moreover, Kennedy was an anti-vax advocate during a deadly measles outbreak in Samoa in 2019, which killed 83 people in a population of 200,000. 

Frankly, no amount of vitamin A—a nutrient Kennedy touted in a March 4 interview on Fox News as a treatment for measles—will stop its spread. Yet, a week after the interview, when he touted the “very good” results of treating measles with vitamin A-rich cod liver oil, demand for the product skyrocketed in Texas, Yahoo News reported. Now, a number of measles patients in Texas are showing signs of vitamin A toxicity, according to the New York Times, which noted that children being treated for measles at Covenant Children’s Hospital in Lubbock, Texas, included “a handful of unvaccinated children who were given so much vitamin A that they had signs of liver damage.”

Kennedy’s conflation of anti-vaccine messaging and unsubstantiated claims about using nutritional supplements as a cure for highly infectious diseases does a major disservice to the dietary supplement industry, the health care industry—and to consumers. 

In fact, the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) was so concerned about how the credibility of nutritional supplements might be affected that it issued a statement on March 26: “While vitamin A is an essential nutrient that plays a critical role in supporting vision, growth, reproduction and immune function, it is not a substitute for vaccination. While vitamin A plays an important role in supporting overall immune function, research hasn’t established its effectiveness in preventing measles infection.”

Andrea Wong, senior vice president, scientific and regulatory affairs for CRN, said, “Measles is a serious and highly contagious viral disease that can lead to severe health complications. Treatment and care for measles should always be conducted under the guidance of a qualified healthcare practitioner. Consumers must make informed decisions and consult qualified health professionals before giving supplements to children—especially in large doses.”

Citing that it was becoming difficult to work with the new HHS secretary, the FDA’s top vaccine official, Dr. Peter Marks, submitted his resignation on March 29, saying he was willing to address Kennedy’s concerns about the safety of vaccines but concluded that it was not possible. “It has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies,” Marks wrote in his resignation letter. Marks oversaw the FDA’s rapid review and approval of COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic and is credited with coining the name and concept for “Operation Warp Speed” under President Trump’s first administration.

Office exodus
The same day, Kennedy announced he was cutting an additional 10,000 jobs from the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees several agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The latest cuts come after the departure of roughly 10,000 employees over the past few months as a result of the drive by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut jobs throughout the federal government. In total, the cuts amounted to approximately 25% of HHS’s total workforce being eliminated.

The job cuts, allegedly designed to improve efficiency, may well end up costing the government money. “There’s this narrative being spun that somehow by eliminating jobs and functions that taxpayer dollars are going to be saved or that programs will be more efficient,” a staffer with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services who asked for anonymity told Politico. “The reality is the exact opposite.”

Previous cuts to the FDA by DOGE, led by billionaire Elon Musk, resulted in the resignation in February of James Jones, FDA’s Deputy Commissioner in charge of food safety and nutrition, including dietary supplements, following what he called “indiscriminate” layoffs of dozens of food safety inspectors. Jones said the cuts would make it “fruitless” to continue in his role. “I was looking forward to working to pursue the department’s agenda of improving the health of Americans by reducing diet-related chronic disease and risks from chemicals in food,” Jones wrote.

Following news of DOGE’s February cuts at the FDA, which included a number of staff firings at the FDA’s office of Dietary Supplement Programs, CRN expressed concern about the federal agency’s ability to effectively oversee dietary supplements and food safety. “As the FDA deputy commissioner steps down, it’s critical that the agency maintains adequate staffing and expertise to uphold consumer confidence in the food supply,” CRN said in a statement.

“While staffing changes can occur during any presidential transition, it is critical that the FDA maintains the resources, expertise and staffing levels necessary to ensure effective dietary supplement oversight that undergirds consumer confidence in the supplement market,” said Jeff Ventura, CRN’s vice president of communications.

Growing problems
Meanwhile, at USDA, pauses and cuts to funding for school lunch programs, supplemental nutrition assistance programs and organic farming initiatives run counter to MAHA’s avowed efforts to improve public health. Pauses in funding for organic transition and soil conservation programs are leaving farmers on the hook for millions of dollars they invested on the promise of  reimbursement, while “accidental” firings of bird flu researchers have raised concerns that the beginnings of a new pandemic may go undetected.

According to reporting by E&E News by Politico in February, federal officials have been withholding funding for two major organic agriculture programs that make payments directly to farmers, jeopardizing millions of dollars in funding ahead of the 2025 planting season. “The pause on the $85 million Organic Market Development Grant program and the $100 million Transition to the Organic Partnership Program has jolted farmers, nonprofits and businesses struggling to make planting and hiring decisions. Even if the pause on funding is lifted, it could put farmers out of business,” wrote reporter Marcia Brown, who noted that the USDA has yet to release funding for the programs, even though federal courts ordered an end to the across-the-board freeze.

USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program, is under DOGE scrutiny, while the House of Representatives budget plan seeks to cut up to $230 billion from SNAP. Such funding cuts would affect sales for natural and organic food producers, including for such healthy staples as organic dairy and plant-based foods that are frequently purchased by SNAP recipients.

On March 10, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the cancellation of $1 billion in federal funding that gave schools and food banks money to purchase food from local farms and ranchers. According to Kevin Hardy, a reporter with Stateline, the funding boosted business for more than 8,000 farmers, providing local food to food banks and schools. “The Trump administration is killing the programs, despite HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign against processed food, which he says is poisoning Americans,” Hardy wrote.

When it comes to our food system, we are all for getting the chemicals out of food, and the FDA’s announcement in January that it would ban Red Dye No. 3 from food products is to be celebrated. Now, if only Kennedy and the Trump administration could start focusing on the other 9,999 questionable chemicals allowed in commercial food production.

Overall, it is difficult to square Kennedy’s rhetoric with the on-the-ground actions of the administration he serves. And that, to me, is the painful irony of MAHA.

Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural, providing public relations, brand marketing, social media and strategic business development services to natural, organic, regenerative and sustainable products businesses. Contact steve@compassnaturalmarketing.com.

Presence MarketWatch 2025

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

By Steven Hoffman

With the Trump administration returning to the White House and the GOP controlling both the Senate and House of Representatives by narrow margins, the year 2025 is sure to bring significant change to regulatory policy, business and the economy, not just for the U.S. but also the world. To help leaders in the natural channel navigate the opportunities and challenges ahead, Presence Marketing will track and report on these issues over the course of the year ahead. Read on for a snapshot of some of the major issues that will impact the natural, organic and nutritional products market over the coming year.

Tariffs and Food Prices
President-elect Donald Trump ran on a campaign to lower grocery prices, which rose 23% since the onset of the Covid pandemic in Spring 2020. Food inflation has slowed over the past year, according to NBC News, and is now less than 2% as energy prices and supply chains have stabilized. Yet, experts caution that a combination of tariffs and mass deportations could have a further destabilizing effect on agriculture, food production and grocery prices. Trump has threatened to impose tariffs up to 60% on goods from China, and a 25% tariff on products from Mexico and Canada – all countries that are significant exporters of food and other products to the U.S. market.

In a Time Magazine interview in December 2024, Trump acknowledged it may be difficult to bring down grocery prices, saying, “Look, they got them up. I’d like to bring them down. It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up.” According to a study from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Trump’s proposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada would have the biggest impact on prices for autos, vegetables, fuel, prepared food and animal products, reported CNN Business. The U.S. relies on Mexico for 89% of its imported avocados and 91% of foreign-grown tomatoes. “Higher tariffs on Mexico and Canada will … put upward pressure on U.S. food prices,” the Peterson Institute said. While it’s too soon to determine whether Trump will actually impose tariffs or if trade agreements can be reached to prevent them, “The only certainty is that new tariffs will be costly for the United States,” said the Peterson Institute study’s authors.

Food, Farm Workers and Mass Deportation
California’s Monterey County is the fourth-largest crop-producing county in the nation, with the agriculture industry there contributing $4.4 billion to the economy, and with an estimated 55,000 farm workers, including many who are undocumented. As such, the area’s growers have expressed concern that much of their workforce could disappear as a result of potential mass deportations once the Trump administration takes office. In an interview on Dec. 19, 2024, with NBC Bay Area News, Monterey County Farm Bureau CEO Norm Groot said, “It will absolutely impact food prices at the consumer level. If it impacts local and nationwide supplies, that will have a price increase.” NBC reported the farm bureau is teaming up with county officials and other stakeholders to create a task force in addressing local concerns around mass deportations, including concerns around family and child separation. "It's interesting that four years ago during the pandemic, they were essential," Groot said. "And now all of a sudden we’re looking at it from a different perspective and trying to understand how that dynamic has changed." 

And it’s not just Monterey County – while it’s estimated that undocumented workers make up only 5% of the total U.S. workforce, the share of undocumented workers across the nation’s food supply chain is at least 16%, reported Successful Farming. In some industries this number is higher – the Idaho Dairymen’s Association estimated that nearly 90% of the state’s dairy workers were born outside of the U.S. According to a September 2024 study by the Peterson Institute, mass deportation could lead to a 10% increase in food prices. Between higher food prices that could come with proposed tariffs – and potential government bailouts funded by U.S. taxpayers to provide assistance to farmers affected by deportations – Americans could potentially get “double-whammied” by the higher costs and supply chain disruptions these proposed policies could bring.

RFK, FDA and the Nation’s Health
MAHA has become a rallying cry for many in the natural health and nutritional supplements industry as Congress weighs the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Kennedy, a lawyer, environmentalist and controversial health advocate, is Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a Cabinet-level position that oversees the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and others.

On one hand, RFK’s team is weighing a rewrite to the FDA’s rules overseeing food additives and taking a hard look at the harmful chemicals and pesticides used in food production. On the other hand, RFK’s top lawyer Aaron Siri stirred controversy when it was reported in December 2024 by CNN and others that he had petitioned the FDA to revoke approval of the polio vaccine. The World Health Organization declared that polio was eradicated in 2019 but warned it could re-emerge if vaccination coverage declines. According to a Dec. 4, 2024, article in Forbes, Kennedy criticized the FDA in a post on X (formerly Twitter) for “suppressing” a wide range of items, including “psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals, and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.”

Kennedy will have an ally in Martin Makary, M.D., a surgeon, public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University and a member of the National Academy of Medicine, and President-elect Trump’s choice to serve as FDA Commissioner. In September 2024, Makary joined RFK at a round table in Congress on health and nutrition, where he criticized how food in the U.S. is grown and processed. "We have poisoned our food supply, engineered highly addictive chemicals that we put into our food. We spray it with pesticides that kill pests. What do you think they do to our gut lining in our microbiome?" Makary said. In related news, Trump’s pick for Surgeon General, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, a family medicine doctor who runs a chain of urgent care clinics in New York, was a regular Fox News contributor and is an advocate for nutritional supplements, marketing her own brand of dietary supplements called BC Boost, containing vitamins C, B-12, D and Zinc.

Brooke Rollins Nominated to Lead USDA
President-elect Trump in November nominated Brooke Rollins, President and CEO of the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank based in Texas, to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “As our next Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke will spearhead the effort to protect American farmers, who are truly the backbone of our country,” Trump said in a statement. Rollins is a graduate of Texas A&M University, with an undergraduate degree in agriculture development. “From her upbringing in the small and agriculture-centered town of Glen Rose, Texas, to her years of leadership involvement with Future Farmers of America and 4H, to her generational family farming background, to guiding her four kids in their show cattle careers, Brooke has a practitioner’s experience, along with deep policy credentials in both nonprofit and government leadership at the state and national levels,” the statement said.

“We congratulate Brooke Rollins on her nomination as Secretary of Agriculture. This is an important moment for U.S. agriculture, and we are optimistic about the opportunities her leadership will bring to rural America,” Amy France, chairwoman of the National Sorghum Producers in Scott City, KS, told Successful Farming. "Sorghum farmers are at the forefront of innovation, contributing to domestic biofuels and heart-healthy, nutritious, ancient grain foods. We are eager to work with her to advance policies that strengthen the sorghum industry and benefit growers nationwide.”

“The Department of Agriculture plays a pivotal role in safeguarding our food supply, addressing food insecurity, managing our forests, as well as supporting America’s farmers and rural communities who are on the frontlines of the climate crisis,” said Rebecca Riley, Managing Director, Food and Agriculture, for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “Rollins needs to invest in America’s farmers – from small family farms to larger-scale operations – and to work toward a resilient and equitable food system that puts healthy food on the table, restores our soil, protects the climate, and safeguards the health of our communities … now is not the time to undermine climate-smart farming practices, favor industrial agriculture at the expense of small producers and consumers, or gut the nutrition programs that many Americans rely on,” Riley said.  

California’s AB 660 Sets Landmark Food Date Labeling Standards
California Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2024 signed into law the nation's first mandatory food date labeling reform bill. California Assembly Bill 660 (AB 660) standardizes the use of “Best If Used By” and “Use By” dates on food labels, and prohibits the use of “Sell By” dates. The new law requires manufacturers to use the same phrase for date labels across their products, reported Food Safety. Beginning July 1, 2026, companies selling food products in California must only use “Best If Used By” to indicate the date by which a product will reach its peak quality, and “Use By” to indicate the date by which a product’s safety can no longer be guaranteed. The use of consumer-facing “Sell By” dates will be prohibited to reduce the chances of consumers confusing “Sell By” dates with quality or safety dates.

“On grocery store shelves today, there are more than 50 differently phrased date labels on packaged food. Some phrases are used to communicate peak freshness of a product or when a product is no longer safe to eat. Others, like ‘Sell By,’ are used only to inform stock rotation in stores but mislead some consumers into thinking the product is no longer safe to eat. AB 660 will close this gap by requiring manufacturers to use the same phrase for date labels across their products,” NRDC said in a statement. 

Of course, as goes California, so goes the country. “AB 660 is game changing, not just for California, but for the country. It will be the first law of its kind to end the ridiculous confusion that causes consumers to throw out almost $15 billion of perfectly good food nationwide. It will also help reduce the significant toll that wasting food has on our planet,” Dana Gunders, President of reFED, told BioCycle Magazine. “Having to wonder whether our food is still good is an issue that we all have struggled with. Today’s signing of AB 660 is a monumental step to keep money in the pockets of consumers while helping the environment and the planet,” said Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, author of the bill.

Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural, providing public relations, brand marketing, social media and strategic business development services to natural, organic, sustainable and hemp/CBD products businesses. Contact steve@compassnaturalmarketing.com.

Annual Gathering of Socially Responsible Investors

For Immediate Release:

Contact:

Steven Hoffman, Compass Natural Marketing, tel 303.807.1042, steve@compassnatural.com

Patrick Mitchell, for First Affirmative, tel 703.276.3266, pmitchell@hastingsgroup.com

Deepak Chopra, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus Headline Nation's Largest Annual Gathering of Socially Responsible Investors

Colorado Springs, CO (July 10, 2012) – Natural, organic and sustainable business-sector leaders have a unique opportunity to learn about the growing market for green investing at the 23rd Annual SRI Conference to be held October 2-4, 2012, at the Mohegan Sun Conference Center in Connecticut.

The SRI Conference on Sustainable, Responsible, Impact Investing is the nation's leading gathering of fund managers, investment bankers, investment advisors and other professionals in the socially responsible "conscious investor" market with an estimated $3 trillion under asset management.

The SRI Conference provides a unique bridge into the conscious investing market and how natural and organic products businesses are creating positive change and achieving profitability as they work to solve real social, environmental and health challenges. 

SRI investing in the United States continues to grow at a faster pace than the total universe of investment assets under professional management, according to the 2010 edition of the Social Investment Forum Foundation’s Report on Socially Responsible Investing Trends in the United States. Growth in SRI-related investments has increased more than 34 percent since 2007, while the broader universe of professionally managed assets has increased only 3 percent.

The 2012 SRI Conference (formerly known as SRI in the Rockies) is produced by First Affirmative Financial Network, and this year's event is the first to be held near major financial and business centers in New York and Boston. Visit www.SRIconference.com.

Plenary Speakers Include:

Deepak Chopra, Renowned Author and Pioneer in Mind-Body Medicine

Deepak Chopra, M.D., is a world-renowned author of more than 64 books and founder of the non-profit Chopra Foundation, with the mission to advance the cause of mind/body spiritual healing, education and research. Chopra is a fellow of the American College of Physicians, a member of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, adjunct professor of Executive Programs at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, and senior scientist with The Gallup Organization.

Muhammad Yunus, the Father of Microcredit, to Speak Opening Night

Nobel Laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus, who is widely regarded as the father of microcredit and also is the founder of Grameen Bank, will be the keynote speaker on October 2nd, the opening night of the SRI Conference. In March 2012, Fortune Magazinenamed Yunus “one of the 12 greatest entrepreneurs of our time.” In 2006, Professor Yunus and Grameen Bank were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Professor Yunus began providing collateral free loans to the poor in his country of origin, Bangladesh. Originally called the Grameen Bank Project, it later became a full-fledged bank providing loans to the poor, mostly women, in rural Bangladesh. Today Grameen Bank has 8.4 million borrowers, 97 percent of whom are women, and disburses $1.5 billion each year. His microcredit idea hasspread across the world, including the industrialized countries of the West.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Takes on Sustainable Waste Recovery Challenges

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., president of the Waterkeeper Alliance and senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), will join Kim Jeffery, CEO of Nestlé Waters North America, the largest bottled water company in North America, to discuss corporate responsibility and sustainable waste recovery challenges. Their presentations will focus on the urgency of advancing more comprehensive waste recovery systems in the U.S., bottom line implications for companies, and how shareholder advocates are influencing corporations to mitigate shareholder risk.

From Chief Executives to Tribal Chiefs: Women Leaders Spotlighted at Conference

The 2012 SRI Conference features a number of women business and financial leaders, including Chief Lynn Malerba, the first female chief of the Mohegan Tribe; Barbara Krumsiek, CEO of Calvert Investments, one of the nation's leading SRI management companies with $12 billion under asset management; and Mindy Lubber, J.D., President of Ceres, the leading U.S. coalition of investors and environmental leaders working to improve corporate ESG practices, and director of the Investor Network on Climate Risk.

About the SRI Conference

The SRI Conference (www.SRIconference.com) is the leading forum for the Sustainable, Responsible, Impact (SRI) investing industry in the North America. For its 23rd year, The SRI Conference will be held at the Mohegan Sun Convention Center in southeastern Connecticut, Oct. 2–4, 2012. For more information about the agenda, speaking, or sponsorship, or for media inquiries, contact Krystala Kalil, tel 888.774.2663, krystala@SRIconference.com; or contact Steven Hoffman, tel 303.807.1042, steve@compassnatural.com. Register online atwww.SRIconference.com/register.

About First Affirmative Financial Network

First Affirmative Financial Network, LLC (www.FirstAffirmative.com) is an independent fee- only Registered Investment Advisor (SEC File #801-56587) offering investment consulting and asset management services through a nationwide network of investment professionals who specialize in serving socially conscious investors. First Affirmative produces the annual SRI Conference, the premier gathering of investors and investment professionals focused on sustainable, responsible, impact investing in North America (www.SRIconference.com).