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.
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.
Join Robyn O'Brien and Pam Shepherd on Compass Coffee Talk, June 16, 2021, 11:30am EDT
Financing the Transition to Regenerative Agriculture
Food Industry Icon Robyn O’Brien and Finance Expert Pam Shepherd Discuss the Future of Organic and Regenerative Farming on the Next Compass Coffee Talk™, Wed., June 16, 2021
Wednesday, June 16, 11:30am - Noon EDT
Zoom, Admission is Free
Robyn O'Brien (Left) and Pam Shepherd (Right)
Get the latest dirt on why soil is the future and hear from rePlant Capital’s Co-founder and Managing Director Robyn O’Brien, alongside finance expert Pam Shepherd, Managing Director, Manna Tree Partners.
Robyn O’Brien has been called “food’s Erin Brockovich” by the media and is globally recognized for her voice in the industry. At rePlant Capital, O’Brien diligently works to reverse climate change through the deployment of a series of proprietary funds focused on U.S. farmers. On Compass Coffee Talk, she will share her perspective on the future of organic farming and how financing plays a part in transitioning American farmland to regenerative and organic agriculture.
Also joining Compass Coffee Talk is Pam Shepherd, who brings 18 years of financial, transactional, and operational expertise to Manna Tree Partners, an investment firm dedicated to improving human health through nutrition with forward-thinking strategies that make a global impact.
About Robyn O’Brien
Internationally acclaimed by the New York Times and Bloomberg, Robyn O’Brien was recently recognized by Forbes Magazine on its Impact 50 List for her work in food and agriculture. O’Brien’s TEDx talk (based on her book, The Unhealthy Truth, Random House) exposes the shortcomings in the food system. It has been watched by millions, translated into dozens of languages, and influenced policy, legislation, and product formulation in the food industry.
Prior to founding rePlant Capital, Robyn advised CEOs and executives at multinational CPG companies, startups, and farm organizations and worked on a team managing $20 billion in assets.
About Pam Shepherd
Pam Shepherd, Managing Director, Manna Tree Partners, spent eight years in investment finance, on the buy-side as a Vice President at Greenmont Capital Partners, working with healthy living companies like Eco-Products, Madhava, and EcoSmart. She also worked on the sell-side at St. Charles Capital, where she closed over $300 million in total transaction value. Most recently, Pam served as the COO and CFO of The Boppy Company for six years, a global consumer products company supporting mothers.
As a former operator, Pam has a deep understanding of the challenges faced by growth-stage companies. In addition, as a former investor, she understands how to best drive and support shareholder value creation for Manna Tree investors.
About Compass Coffee Talk™
Take a 30-minute virtual coffee break with Compass Coffee Talk™. Hosted by natural industry veterans Bill Capsalis and Steve Hoffman, Coffee Talk features lively interactive conversations with industry leaders and experts designed to help guide entrepreneurs and businesses of any size succeed in the market for natural, organic, regenerative, hemp-derived and other eco-friendly products.
Compass Coffee Talk™ is produced by Compass Natural Marketing, a leading PR, branding and business development agency serving the natural and organic products industry. Learn more.
