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.

Food Inflation in the U.S.: A Strategic Reckoning for Food Sector Leaders

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

By Steven Hoffman

In 2025, food inflation in the United States has transformed from a passing concern into a defining business challenge—and opportunity—for leaders across the food ecosystem. A 3% year-over‑year increase in overall food prices, including 2.4% for groceries and 3.8% for restaurant meals, may seem modest. Yet beneath those figures lie sharper, more disruptive trends: surging prices in staples such as coffee, ground beef, and eggs; strategic responses from consumers and retailers; and structural pressures that demand both resilience and reimagining. Business strategists in the food sector must now lead with insight, not just facts.

A Collision of Climate, Cost, and Policy
Climate volatility continues to drag on food supply and costs. Extreme drought in U.S. cattle belts, heat waves in crop regions, and pest outbreaks such as avian flu have propelled food inflation beyond headline figures. Coffee is up 13.4%, ground beef 10.3%, while eggs have spiked 27.3%, putting extraordinary strain on manufacturers and squeezing household budgets (Axios).

Adding to the upward pressure are sweeping tariffs introduced by the Trump administration, with tariffs on imports from Brazil and India reaching 50%. The tariffs are already working their way into the cost of everything from meat and produce to metals used in cans and packaging (The Washington Post). According to the Yale Budget Lab’s estimates as of August 7, 2025, consumers face an overall average effective tariff rate of 18.6% – the highest since 1933 – and the impact is projected to cost U.S. households an extra $2,400 per year.

Meanwhile, immigration enforcement over the past several months has destabilized farm labor. In California’s Oxnard region, intensified ICE activity has slashed agricultural labor by 20-40%, leading to $3-7 billion in crop losses and driving produce prices up 5% to 12%, according to research published in August 2025 from Cornell University. Simultaneously, cuts in SNAP and other supports have strained both consumer access and farm revenue—especially for smaller producers—plus, grocers in rural communities and elsewhere that depend on SNAP programs feel that impact much harder (Climate and Capital Media).

Beyond cost drivers, the retail margin picture is fraught. Analysis from the White House Council of Economic Advisers showed grocers’ profit margins rising 2 percentage points since before the pandemic—reaching two-decade highs—while “shrinkflation” and package downsizing quietly preserve profitability (Grocery Dive).

FMI—The Food Industry Association’s study released in July 2025, “The Food Retailing Industry Speaks 2025,” reveals an industry struggling to navigate challenging economic conditions, largely due to policies implemented during the Trump administration. According to FMI, about 80% of both retailers and suppliers anticipate that trade policies and tariffs will continue to affect pricing and disrupt supply chains. Most grocers expect operating costs to remain high (Supermarket News).

Consumers Are Stressed About Rising Prices
Recent polling reveals that nearly 90% of U.S. adults are stressed about grocery prices—with half calling it a major stressor. As a result, Americans are responding to these pressures with pragmatic and inventive shifts. Consumers across income levels are tightening the belt, leveraging buy-now-pay-later options, getting creative with savings, and turning to food banks when they must (AInvest).

Shopping behavior reflects this anxiety—and innovation. RDSolutions reports that 86% of consumers now buy private-label products, with price cited as the primary decision factor; 42% opt for cheaper alternatives; while 20% skip items altogether. Data from The Feedback Group shows 61% of supermarket shoppers use sale-driven habits—buying on promotion, eating more at home, and choosing store brands over national names (Progressive Grocer). Meanwhile, many households lean on grocery hacks such as careful list-making, midweek shopping, loyalty programs, and bulk purchases to maximize savings (Times of India).

Even amid tightening budgets, shoppers haven’t completely abandoned pleasure, however. KCI’s “stress index” reveals that consumers crave “affordable luxuries” and product discovery—seeking balance between taste and value. In fact, 68% of consumers surveyed prioritize taste over price, while one-third still prioritize lowest-priced options (Food Dive).

In a fresh produce market reeling from the effects of inflation and immigration enforcement, one consumer trend remains strong: Health continues to drive purchases of fresh fruits and vegetables. According to The Packer Fresh Trends 2025 report, published in August 2025, 72% of shoppers say their primary reason for buying produce is to support a healthy lifestyle. However, price pressures loom larger than ever, with 44% of consumers now saying that cost is the top factor in deciding what to buy, up from 39% last year. As households juggle tighter budgets, they’re opting for familiar staples over experimenting with newer or higher-priced options (Farm Journal).

For lower income individuals and families, higher food prices are resulting in less consumption of healthier food options, with the result that Americans are not eating enough fruits, vegetables, and other nutrient-dense foods. Instead, they are choosing sugary and ultra-processed foods, which tend to be cheaper and last longer.

"There's evidence that inflation continues to shape food choices, particularly for low-income Americans who prioritize price over healthfulness," Constance Brown-Riggs, a registered nurse and nutritionist specializing in diabetes care, told Northwell Health. "These results highlight the disparity in how income influences food priorities," she continued, adding that higher food prices often increase food insecurity. "These shifts increase the risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and obesity."

Even so, there is some opportunity on the horizon. The Packer Fresh Trends 2025 report shared some bright spots, including the fact that Millennials and Gen Z are leading the way on trying new products, exploring organic options, and prioritizing convenience, including prepped veggies and grab-and-go fruit packs. In addition, interest in organic remains strong, with 22% of consumers purchasing organic always or most of the time, particularly among younger and higher-income households.

Grocers, Brands, and Manufacturers Corral Cost Pressures
The reaction from retailers and manufacturers has been tactical and dynamic. Major chains are reevaluating supplier cost increase requests, pushing back aggressively against inflation on branded items. Meanwhile, grocers are ramping up private-label assortments (Investopedia).

Businesses like Aldi are demonstrating how cost leadership can go viral: A summer discount campaign across 2,550 stores marked down 400 items by up to 33%, estimated to save shoppers $100 million. Fast-food chains are responding with value menu bundles—their way of catering to cash-strapped consumers without sacrificing frequency (The Wall Street Journal).

In the natural channel, retailers such as Natural Grocers are emphasizing value, loyalty programs and sales to draw shoppers. For its 70th anniversary in August, Natural Grocers leveraged deep discounts across its nearly 170 stores in 21 states—up to 60% off on more than 500 products—to tap into consumer demand for affordability and quality. According to AInvest, the campaign “sets a benchmark for value-driven retail” by blending “nostalgia, discounts and loyalty incentives to boost sales and customer retention.”

As demand for better-for-you foods remains strong among health-conscious consumers, Jay Jacobowitz, president and founder of Retail Insights, told Supermarket News that many retailers in the natural and independent space experienced a strengthened second half of 2024 and first quarter of 2025, as less price-sensitive consumers make personal health and wellness a priority. Smaller retailers “are going to have increased (economic) pressure, but it’s not pressure that they’re unfamiliar with dealing with,” he said.

Manufacturers are similarly pressured. They face rising raw material, labor, and energy costs, yet retailers limit how much of that inflation they pass through. Many are resorting to smaller or reformulated packaging, trimming promotions, and optimizing sourcing strategies to protect shelf placement (Columbus CEO).

Yet even in the last few weeks, food makers are succumbing to the need to raise prices as the longer-term effects of tariffs, economic policies, and supply chain disruption kick in. On Aug. 7, 2025, Forager Project co-founders Stephen Williamson and John-Charles Hanley announced the following on Instagram:

“Like many food makers, we’ve been feeling the effects of rising ingredient costs—especially for our beloved cashews (up 52%) and coconuts (up 113%). We’ve held off as long as we could, but to keep making food the right way, a price increase was necessary. What hasn’t changed? Organic ingredients, ethical sourcing, planet-healthy practices.”

At the agricultural level, the disconnect is acute. Farmers receive only about 16 cents back from every retail food dollar spent—and that fraction must cover skyrocketing seed, fertilizer, and machinery costs (Washington Post). Some farmers still support tariffs, believing they will yield long-term trade gains; others see them as a short‑term hit to margins (Investigate Midwest).

Strategy: Adaptation, Advocacy, and Resilience
Current forecasts from the USDA suggest moderate gains: food-at-home prices rising around 2.2% for 2025 and restaurant prices about 4%. But the structural challenges—climate, policy, labor, and pricing power—carry implications far richer and more urgent than those figures alone (Food & Wine).

For food-sector professionals, the directive is clear: Strategies must be multidimensional.

1. Reinvent Pricing & Perceived Value
Offer tiered, smaller, or private-label packaging; highlight affordable luxuries and discovery moments in-store and online. Aldi’s shelf reset, Sprouts Farmers Market’s value-based positioning, and Natural Grocers’ emphasis on savings and its frequent buyer program demonstrate ways to drive loyalty and savings.

2. Strengthen Supply Chain Flexibility
Diversify sourcing, invest in climate-resilient inputs, and forecast for volatility. Manufacturers need contingency plans for both weather and trade disruptions.

3. Align Expectations & Margins
Increase analytics around cost impacts and pass-through capabilities. Supplier–retailer partnerships should define fair margin boundaries and shared value strategies for inflation periods.

4. Advocate for Systemic Support
Engage policymakers to safeguard labor stability—through H-2A visa expansions or by regularizing undocumented workers—and to secure tariff relief for food essentials and farm inputs.

5. Build Resilient Retail Formats
Simplify offerings to reduce shopper anxiety and stock-outs. Grocery models like Aldi or Sprouts’ curated “innovation centers” help drive discovery while managing complexity.

A New Epoch for Food-Business Leadership
Food inflation in 2025 is less an anecdote than a wake-up call. When climate shocks strike, tariffs bite, and labor becomes unstable overnight, businesses that only react are left behind. But those that blend adaptive execution, strategic policymaking, and bold market positioning are building enduring advantage.

Consumers may feel squeezed, but they’re still looking for experiences that feel smart, authentic, and human. Retailers, suppliers, processors, and farmers must each meet them there—delivering value, stability, and insight. Because in this new era, food-sector leadership is not just about pricing; it’s about crafting trust in uncertain times—and reshaping food systems to weather today’s storms and make the most of tomorrow’s opportunities.

Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a strategic communications and brand development agency serving the natural and organic products industry. Learn more at www.compassnatural.com.

EWG Publishes ‘Clean 15’ to Reduce Dietary Pesticide Exposure; Study Shows Glyphosate Still Carcinogenic at Levels Deemed Safe

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

By Steven Hoffman

As public awareness of the connection between food and health continues to grow, so too does concern over pesticide residues in the food we eat every day. This month, two major developments underscore just how crucial it is to pay attention not only to what’s on our plates — but how it got there.

On June 11, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released its 2025 Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce, including the highly anticipated “Clean Fifteen” and “Dirty Dozen” lists. These guides rank popular fruits and vegetables based on pesticide contamination, using data compiled from the USDA and FDA. For nearly two decades, these rankings have helped consumers make more informed decisions about when buying organic matters most.

This year’s “Clean Fifteen” offers some good news: Nearly 60% of the tested samples of the 15 least-contaminated conventional produce items showed no detectable pesticide residues whatsoever. Topping the clean list were avocados, sweet corn, pineapple, onions, and papaya — all relatively safe bets for budget-conscious shoppers looking to reduce pesticide intake without going fully organic.

But the release of EWG’s guide was accompanied by sobering news on another front: The results of a two-year study published in Environmental Health adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that glyphosate — the active ingredient in Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup®, the world’s most widely used herbicide — may cause multiple types of cancer, and at doses considered safe by regulators.

“Our study provides solid and independent scientific evidence of the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides,” said lead investigator Daniele Mandrioli of the Ramazzini Institute in Italy.

Glyphosate and the American Diet
Glyphosate has been a mainstay of industrial agriculture since the 1970s, praised for its broad-spectrum weed-killing power. With the rise of genetically modified crops engineered to resist glyphosate, its use exploded in the late 1990s and 2000s. Today, it’s sprayed on millions of acres of GMO corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola. But it doesn’t stop there.

In conventional grain production, glyphosate is also used as a desiccant — sprayed just before harvest to dry out crops like oats, wheat, lentils, and chickpeas. That means it doesn’t just show up in livestock feed. It ends up in our breakfast bowls and lunchboxes: in oatmeal, crackers, tortillas, hummus, and cereal — it can even end up in products marketed as “natural” or “healthy.”

Glyphosate is now so prevalent in our environment that it has been detected in everything from rainwater to breast milk. A 2022 CDC study found glyphosate in the urine of 80% of a representative sample of U.S. children and adults. Just last year, EWG reported that popular oat-based cereals and snack bars still contained detectable glyphosate residues, years after promising to reformulate.

So, how dangerous is it?

A Closer Look at the Science
The new Environmental Health study, published in June 2025, evaluated nearly 2,000 previously published studies to reassess glyphosate’s potential health risks. It concluded that even very low doses — far lower than currently allowed by regulatory agencies — can pose significant risks of cancer, hormone disruption, reproductive harm, and immune suppression. The researchers found that glyphosate can interfere with endocrine signaling pathways at parts-per-billion levels, meaning even tiny exposures could be biologically active.

This follows a 2015 determination by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.” Since then, thousands of lawsuits have been filed against Bayer-Monsanto, many resulting in high-profile jury verdicts linking glyphosate exposure to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Although Bayer continues to deny glyphosate’s carcinogenicity and has spent billions to settle lawsuits, public confidence in the safety of this chemical is eroding.

And now, with researchers warning there may be no safe level of exposure, the need for regulatory reassessment — and consumer action — is more urgent than ever.

What the ‘Clean Fifteen’ Tells Us — and What It Doesn’t
In the midst of all this, EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce offers a valuable, practical resource for consumers trying to navigate the complexity of the modern food system.

EWG analyzed over 47,000 samples of 46 popular fruits and vegetables. The “Clean Fifteen” list identifies produce items that typically have the lowest pesticide levels, even when grown conventionally. This year’s top 15 are:

1. Avocados

2. Sweet corn

3. Pineapple

4. Onions

5. Papaya

6. Frozen sweet peas

7. Asparagus

8. Honeydew melon

9. Kiwi

10. Cabbage

11. Watermelon

12. Mushrooms

13. Mangoes

14. Sweet potatoes

15. Carrots

It’s worth noting that some of these crops, such as papaya and sweet corn, are frequently genetically modified. That means they may be lower in pesticide residues, but still part of the chemical-dependent industrial agriculture model.

In contrast, the “Dirty Dozen” — which includes strawberries, spinach, and kale — are best purchased organic due to their high pesticide loads. For instance, 90% of strawberry samples tested had detectable pesticide residues, and spinach samples had, on average, 1.8 times more pesticide residues by weight than any other crop.

The takeaway: if you can’t afford to buy everything organic, prioritize organic options for items on the Dirty Dozen, and rest a bit easier when purchasing from the Clean Fifteen.

Resources & References

• EWG Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce: https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/

• Glyphosate cancer study summary: https://www.thenewlede.org/2025/06/new-study-adds-to-evidence-that-glyphosate-weed-killer-can-cause-cancer/

Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, a strategic communications and brand development agency serving the natural and organic products industry. Learn more at www.compassnatural.com.

DOGE Days: From Supplements to Organic Farming, Natural Industry Feels Cuts

By Steven Hoffman

As the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, led by billionaire Elon Musk under the administration of President Donald Trump, cuts jobs and funding for programs at U.S. agencies across the board, natural and organic food and dietary supplement producers are feeling the impact of DOGE cuts to FDA, USDA, USAID and others. 

Cuts to FDA have resulted in the resignation of James Jones, FDA’s top official in charge of food safety and nutrition, following what he called “indiscriminate” layoffs of dozens of food safety inspectors. Jones, who joined the agency in 2023, said the cuts would make it “fruitless” to continue 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. News of the resignation was first reported on Feb. 17 by FoodFix.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced plans in mid-February to fire 5,200 probationary employees across its agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The layoffs appeared to focus on employees in the agency’s departments for food, medical devices and tobacco products. It was not clear whether FDA employees who review drugs were exempted. However, Fierce Healthcare reported on Feb. 22 that hundreds of fired FDA probationary workers have received notices from the agency that their terminations were rescinded.

Following news of the DOGE’s layoffs at the FDA, including a number of staff firings at FDA’s office of Dietary Supplement Programs, the Council for Responsible Nutrition expressed concern about the FDA’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 VP of Communications.

USDA Pauses Two Major Organic Programs
At USDA, pauses and cuts 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 at the agriculture agency have exacerbated the high price and limited availability of eggs. (According to USDA data, the price of eggs increased 38.2% since the beginning of 2025, with the cost of a dozen conventionally produced eggs exceeding of $8 in February 2025.)

Federal officials also are withholding funding for two major organic agriculture programs that make payments directly to farmers, jeopardizing millions of dollars in funding just ahead of the 2025 planting season, reported E&E News by Politico on February 6. “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 E&E News reporter Marcia Brown. According to Brown, USDA has yet to release funding for the programs, even though federal courts ordered an end to the across-the-board freeze.

In addition, USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program, is under DOGE scrutiny, plus 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 staple healthy products as organic dairy and plant-based foods that are frequently purchased by SNAP recipients.

According to Georgie Lee Smith, who blogs under the moniker Farmer Georgie, the loss of scientists and researchers at USDA agencies including the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will have a long-term negative effect on the ability of U.S. agriculture to respond to issues and opportunities, and maintain its position as one of the world’s leading food producers. 

Beginning in mid-February, “DOGE took aim at the United States Department of Agriculture, aka the USDA, firing ‘probationary’ employees in what has been described as a ‘blood bath’ of terminations. To be clear, probationary periods can run from one year to three, depending upon the job, and apply even to long-time USDA employees who have recently taken a job promotion. Translation — it’s a lot of folks, many with significant dollars invested into their training,” Smith wrote.

“The researchers and scientists at ARS are on the frontline of nutrition, food safety and quality, livestock and crop production, natural resources and sustainable agricultural systems. Along with our land grant university systems, ARS researchers are often the first area of investment into solving critical food and agricultural issues, whether that’s preventing food-borne illness outbreaks to breeding more climate-resilient crops and livestock to new ways to combat pests and diseases impacting food production,” she wrote. Smith also pointed to the risks associated with cutting staff at APHIS, USDA’s agency responsible for combatting the escalating avian flu crisis.

“Many farmers and ranchers are still holding onto hope that the funding freezes that have their grants and cost-share monies tied up are only a bump in the road. Perhaps these USDA terminations will be the same. But I’m afraid that is not the case,” Smith wrote on February 16. “Secretary (of Agriculture) Brooke Rollins issued a press release … that DOGE had terminated 78 USDA contracts totaling more than $132 million, with more than 1,000 contracts still under review. And DOGE tweeted they had eliminated an $8.2 million USDA contract to implement programs administered under Biden’s climate-smart initiative, which had funneled $3 billion in grant funds to agricultural producers, marketing organizations and forest landowners nationwide to support the adoption of climate-smart practices. Again, I can’t help but point out that the large majority of the climate-smart grants specifically supported the same ‘soil health/regenerative ag’ mantra that RFK Jr. is purporting. I feel like we just cut off our noses to spite our faces,” Smith commented.

Dismantling of USAID Impacts U.S. Farmers
For the U.S. agriculture economy, 40% of government food assistance comes from American farms through programs including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which purchased $2 billion in food from American farmers in 2024. As such, the dismantling of USAID, along with its Food for Peace program, has eliminated a valuable market for farmers. It also has resulted in nearly $500 million worth of donated food sitting unused or rotting on docks and in warehouses, according to a report issued on February 10 by the Inspector General of USAID.

“Should parts of USAID be reformed or revisited? Certainly. But shutting down the entire agency in less than two weeks is not the way to do it,” wrote Erin Sikorsky, Director of the Center for Climate and Security and former aide to Wisconsin Congressman Ron Kind, in the Feb. 17, 2025, edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

“I know Wisconsinites are proud of the role our farm industry plays in supporting food security and preventing starvation worldwide. The Wisconsin Congressional delegation has consistently stood up for Wisconsin farmers, and they must do the same today by opposing this reckless destruction of these life-saving and economically important food aid programs. This action is a reversal of decades of bipartisan support for programs that provide global food aid and prevent starvation, precisely because such programs help American farmers, help those most in need, and prevent conflict and instability that threatens our national security,” Sikorsky wrote.

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.

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.

A Toxic Combination: Forever Chemicals Are Adding to the Health Risks of Pesticides

This article first appeared in the August 2024 issue of Presence Marketing’s newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

Two recent studies, one conducted by Consumer Reports and published in May 2024, and another published in Environmental Health Perspectives in July 2024, suggest that exposure to toxic synthetic pesticides continues to be a serious issue and a growing threat to human, animal and environmental health.

Now, add forever chemicals into the mix, as environmental advocacy groups found that 66 active ingredients currently approved for use in pesticides qualify as PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals.” 

In addition, according to the study, “Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment,” eight approved “inert” ingredients – added to pesticides to help chemicals disperse and stick to the plants, for example – also qualify as PFAS. The research was conducted by the Center for Biological Diversity, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Environmental Working Group, and was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

Most Comprehensive Pesticide Review Ever
According to the Consumer Reports study published in May, the advocacy group conducted “our most comprehensive review ever of pesticides in food,” looking at 59 common fruits and vegetables (fresh versions, and in some cases, also canned, dried and frozen fruits and vegetables) and analyzing seven years of data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA annually tests a selection of conventional and organic produce grown in or imported to the U.S. for pesticide residues.

“Our new results continue to raise red flags,” said Catherine Roberts on behalf of Consumer Reports. “Pesticides posed significant risks in 20% of the foods we examined, including popular choices such as bell peppers, blueberries, green beans, potatoes, and strawberries. One food, green beans, had residues of a pesticide that hasn’t been allowed to be used on the vegetable in the U.S. for over a decade. And imported produce, especially some from Mexico, was particularly likely to carry risky levels of pesticide residues.”

Added Roberts, “When it comes to healthy eating, fruits and vegetables reign supreme. But along with all their vitamins, minerals and other nutrients can come something else: an unhealthy dose of dangerous pesticides.” Science has strongly linked pesticide exposure to increased risks of cancer, diabetes, neurological and childhood development issues, and many other health problems.

PFAS: Compounding the Concern
Compounding the concern of pesticide pollution is the discovery that PFAS chemicals are being used in many of the toxic, synthetic pesticide formulations approved for use on farms across the U.S., raising questions about the long-term consequences of such pernicious substances enduring for decades in our soil and water. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, these chemicals “break down very slowly and can build up in people, animals, and the environment over time.” 

PFAS have been linked to cancer, reproductive issues and developmental delays in children, among other adverse health effects. To make matters worse, the researchers who published the Environmental Health Perspectives report found that a process called fluorination, which can create PFAS chemicals, is being used increasingly in the manufacture of pesticides to make them stick around for longer, Civil Eats reported.

“This is truly frightening news, because pesticides are some of the most widely dispersed pollutants in the world,” said Nathan Donley, Environmental Health Science Director for the Center for Biological Diversity and one of the study’s authors. “Lacing pesticides with forever chemicals is likely burdening the next generation with more chronic diseases and impossible cleanup responsibilities. The Environmental Protection Agency needs to get a grasp on this fast-emerging threat right away.” 

“Toxic PFAS have no place in our food, water or homes, posing a serious threat to our health and environment,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., Deputy Director of Investigations and a Senior Scientist with the Environmental Working Group, a co-author of the study. “The increasing use of PFAS pesticides will lead to increasing levels of PFAS in the environment. PFAS not only endanger agricultural workers and communities but also jeopardize downstream water sources, where pesticide runoff can contaminate drinking supplies. From home gardens to pet care, the use of these pesticide products further illustrates why we must end all non-essential uses of these persistent forever chemicals,” Andrews added.

Choose Organic
Based on Consumer Reports’ research, the largest risks of dietary exposure to pesticide residues are caused by just a few pesticides concentrated in a handful of fruits and vegetables. Their findings also indicated that nearly all of the organically produced fruits and vegetables tested presented little to no risk.

To help educate consumers, Consumer Reports produced a printable guide showing the risk in produce from pesticides in both their conventional and organically produced counterparts, as well as whether they are grown domestically or imported.

Consumer Reports advised, “A proven way to reduce pesticide exposure is to eat organic fruits and vegetables, especially for the highest-risk foods. We had information about organically grown versions for 45 of the 59 foods in our analysis. Nearly all had low or very low pesticide risk, and only two domestically grown varieties—fresh spinach and potatoes—posed even a moderate risk. Organic foods’ low-risk ratings indicate that the USDA’s organic certification program, for the most part, is working,” Consumer Reports said.

“Less pesticide on food means less in our bodies: Multiple studies have shown that switching to an organic diet quickly reduces dietary exposure. Organic farming protects health in other ways, too, especially for farmworkers and rural residents, because pesticides are less likely to drift into the areas where they live or to contaminate drinking water,” Consumer Reports added.

However, of concern to advocates of organic agriculture, the report also showed that imported organic green beans had a very high pesticide risk – “the exact same rating as imported conventional green beans,” said Max Goldberg, Publisher of Organic Insider, in commenting on the study. Additionally, Consumer Reports findings indicated that U.S. grown organic spinach presented a “moderate” pesticide risk – “the exact same rating as both U.S.-grown and imported conventional Spinach,” Goldberg noted. U.S.-grown organic potatoes also presented a moderate risk, as did imported organic kale, according to USDA data analyzed by Consumer Reports.

While organic agriculture does allow for certain pesticides to be used, they are low-risk and derived from natural mineral or biological sources that have been approved by the USDA’s National Organic Program, said Goldberg, a renowned advocate for organic food and agriculture. Additionally, he noted, chemicals linked to human health and environmental issues, such as glyphosate or neonicotinoids, are prohibited in organic.

“The organic system is not fool-proof, and organic farmers may have persistent pesticides in their soil that have not degraded after the three-year transition period. Or, they may be the victim of pesticide drift from neighboring conventional farms. That being said, any fruit or vegetable that has a moderate, high or very high pesticide risk is a very serious red flag and should call for an immediate investigation. The fact that Consumer Reports looked at nearly 30,000 fruit and vegetable samples would invalidate an ‘isolated incident’ excuse,” Goldberg asserted.

“One of the primary reasons that we are paying extra to buy organic is specifically to avoid these chemicals. And yet, not only do imported organic green beans pose a very high pesticide risk, but they, along with U.S.-grown organic spinach, pose the exact same pesticide risk as their conventional counterparts,” he said.

“In the interim, retailers and brands must demand that their suppliers conduct third-party pesticide testing for all organic fruits and vegetables, or at a bare minimum, for all imported organic green beans and organic kale, and U.S.-grown organic spinach and organic potatoes. This will help identify who the bad actors are, so they can be removed from the system. We have no choice but to be unrelenting when it comes to pesticide contamination of organic fruits and vegetables,” said Goldberg.

Learn More
Download a printable version of Consumer Reports’ guide to pesticides in produce here. 

Learn more about “Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment” here.

Follow and subscribe to Organic Insider here.

World-Renowned Agricultural Experts to Gather for ‘Focus on the Farmer’ Symposium in Denver

Event will educate farmers and producers on all aspects of navigating the organic certification process

BOULDER, Colo. (Oct. 24, 2023) — Farmers, agriculturists, producers and others interested in best practices for transitioning to organic are invited to attend the Focus on the Farmer Live educational and networking symposium in Denver on Nov. 9. 

This free, daylong event is presented by Boulder, Colorado-based communications agency Compass Natural in partnership with the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA), Colorado State University (CSU) and the USDA’s Transition to Organic Partnership Program (TOPP). The symposium will bring together world-renowned experts in organic agriculture to share must-have information and resources with anyone on the journey of transitioning to organic production.

Focus on the Farmer Live, which will be held from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 9 at the new, state-of-the-art CSU Spur Campus at the National Western Center in Denver, is the culmination of the four-part Focus on the Farmer series presented in 2023 by Compass Natural and TOPP. 

“We’re honored to have been selected as one of the partners working with TOPP in the Plains States, and are thrilled to be working closely with the CDA’s organic program and leading researchers and educators at CSU to deliver a content-dense Focus educational program,” said Steven Hoffman, founder of Compass Natural.  

Focus on the Farmer Live will feature keynote speaker Dr. Gene Kelly, professor of pedology at CSU and director of the U.S. National Committee for Soil Sciences. Panelists include CDA inspector Brad Spelts, Colorado manager of the New Agrarian Program Taylor Muglia, CDA soil and health expert Kristen Boysen, Bish Enterprises owner Andrew Bish, Rocky Mountain Hemp President Ryan Loflin and experts from Rodale, FSA, the Savory Institute and other top agencies.

This robust educational program will cover the following topics:

~ Navigating the Certification Process 
~ Tech Innovation
~ Soil & Crop Health
~ Resiliency & Climate Change
~ Alternative Crops
~ Livestock & Plains Agriculture
~ Financial Resources

Lunch provided by the Organic Sandwich Company and tours of the Spur TERRA building will be available. The event will conclude with happy hour at the Sundown Saloon. Livestream will be available for participants who would like to join virtually.

Read more about Focus on the Farmer Live and register for free here.

About Compass Natural
Based in Boulder, Colorado, Compass Natural is a communications agency serving the market for organic food and agriculture, as well as businesses and brands providing natural, socially responsible, eco-friendly and other healthy lifestyles products and services. Founded in 2001 and driven by a commitment to create a better world through business, Compass Natural is a leader in the Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS) market.

About TOPP
The Transition to Organic Partnership Program (TOPP) is part of the USDA Organic Transition Initiative and is administered by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) National Organic Program (NOP). The $100 million, five-year TOPP initiative is designed to foster organic agriculture and make much-needed technical assistance available to transitioning and existing organic farmers.

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

Is Cell Cultured Meat Safe for Humans and the Environment?

This article first appeared in Presence Marketing’s September 2023 newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

Now that two California-based companies, Upside Foods and Good Meat, have received approval by the FDA and USDA to sell their lab-grown chicken products in restaurants before going full retail, the U.S. joins two other countries, Singapore and Israel, as the first to allow commercialization of cell cultured meat products.

What do natural channel industry members need to know about this new and controversial technology?

One thing seems certain: cell cultured meat, derived from and produced with biological materials sourced from animals, is not vegan. Few think it’s natural and many question whether it’s humane or safe for consumers to eat, at least in its present iteration. Despite being touted by such chefs as José Andrés, some experts question whether lab-grown chicken is even chicken. The ability to scale, along with potentially significant environmental impacts and production costs, are also top concerns for industry and consumers alike.

“We know that one company is using genetic engineering to create and immortalize chicken fibroblast and/or myoblast cell lines. They select for cells that they can bulk up in a suspension culture. However, growth factors used in the suspension culture may come from sera sourced from bovine, pig or other animal sources,” Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Senior Scientist with Consumer Reports, told Presence News.

“If you’re buying chicken, you need to know if it was made with bovine or pork materials. How will consumers and those that follow special diets know if it’s not labeled?” Hansen asked. “Restaurants do not have to label.”

Countering cruelty free claims made by marketers of cell cultured meat, Hansen added, “The notion that this is cruelty free? They’re using fetal bovine serum derived from slaughtered cattle. They are, in fact, using a lot of material from animals. Let me be straight up clear: they are not cruelty free.”

In addition, Hansen raised concerns about the nutritional quality of the meat produced using cell culture technology. “Nutritionally, normal cholesterol levels in ground chicken average 45.4 mg/dL. However, cholesterol levels were reported five to 10 times higher in lab-grown, cell cultured chicken products,” he pointed out.

Safety, too, is a major point of concern for Hansen, who has been sharing his scientific expertise with Consumer Reports for more than 20 years. “People haven’t eaten these kinds of things before. We don’t know the downside and there have been no adequate health or safety studies conducted, to date.”

Josh Tetrick, CEO of Eat Just and Cofounder of Good Meat, feels differently about the safety of his cell cultured chicken product.

“So how do we do it?” Tetrick explained in an April 2022 interview with The Venture podcast. “We start with a cell. And we can get that cell from an egg, from a fresh piece of meat, or from a biopsy of an animal, so we don’t need billions of farmed animals anymore. Then we identify nutrients to feed the cell, since we need our own version of feed. And it’s not that different. It’s amino acids, vitamins, and minerals—stuff that enables our cell to grow. And then we scale up and manufacture it in a stainless-steel vessel called a bioreactor that looks like something you’d see in a microbrewery.

“And that’s how we make meat. That’s the process we used to make meat that’s served in Singapore today. That’s the process that we’ll be using as we build out larger facilities in North America, Singapore, and elsewhere. It’s cleaner, so there is little to no risk of salmonella, E. coli, fecal contamination, or other zoonotic diseases. Ultimately, we think it will be more efficient. The goal is to get below the cost of conventionally produced chicken,” Tetrick told The Venture.

“Because as proud as I am about launching with a handful of restaurants, that’s not the point. The point is to get to a world where the vast majority of meat consumed doesn’t require the need to slaughter an animal, cut down a tree, use antibiotics, or accelerate zoonotic disease. We’ve got to get to that world. And we’re only going to get to that world when we figure out a way to manufacture at scale. And we’re only going to get to scale when we figure out how to engineer this unprecedented bioreactor. And that’s why we’re putting so much energy into figuring it out,” Tetrick added.

“Yes, but what’s in the feed stock for the nutrient medium in which such products are grown?” natural products industry veteran and retail specialist Errol Schweizer asked.

“Billions of dollars of speculative investment have flowed into this space. The volumes of cell cultured meat needed to turn a profit for investors will necessitate millions of pounds or gallons of nutrient mix annually,” Schweizer said. “Will the feed stock be derived from cheap, plentiful but chemical-laden by-products of GMO agriculture, particularly soy and corn?

“And what are the environmental and health impacts of these feedstock raw materials? The industry will need to figure out how to dispose of the biological waste as a result of this process, as well. And because a lot of companies don’t want regulatory scrutiny beyond what already exists in the food industry, it’s going to take a lot of public pressure to get stronger labeling and federal oversight measures in place,” Schweizer told Presence News.

Max Goldberg, Founder of Organic Insider, questions the environmental benefits of cell cultured meat. “This is a very risky, unproven and highly processed food technology, and research published in May from the University of California at Davis shows that cultivated meat could emit up to 25 times more carbon dioxide equivalents than conventional beef. Yet, is anyone the least bit surprised? This is the classic playbook from the GMO industry – sell the public and investors on a great story but fail to deliver on the promises. Furthermore, no one has any idea of the possible unintended side effects of consuming this novel food product,” he told Presence News.

At the end of the day, will consumers accept such products? According to an international research group led by Ashkan Pakseresht from Novia University of Applied Sciences in Finland, consumer studies indicated at least seven factors affecting consumer acceptance of culture meat products: public awareness, risk-benefit perception, ethical and environmental concerns, emotions, personal factors, product properties, and availability of meat alternatives.

“Like any new food, the ultimate success of cultured meat depends on consumer acceptance,” the researchers said. “Environmental and ethical concerns stimulate a desire to preserve the environment and encourage consumers to accept more sustainable food production systems. However, it was surprising to learn that ethical and environmental concerns prompted consumers to be willing to pay a premium price for purchasing meat substitute (e.g., plant-based substitutes), but not necessarily cultured meat. The results indicated that the environmental advantages alone do not seem to be a strong motivation to compensate for perceived risks (or disgust impulse) of this novel technology,” Pakseresht told Food Navigator.

How will these products be presented to the public? According to Food Republic, a major hurdle has been determining how to label lab-grown meat in a way that would be transparent for consumers. “After a long process that has included debate and public feedback, the USDA has ruled that the lab-grown chicken will be labeled “cell-cultivated,” the magazine reported in June 2023.

“The USDA’s approval of our label marks a major step forward towards our goal of creating a more humane and sustainable food system,” said Dr. Uma Valeti, CEO and Founder of Upside Foods, in a press release about the decision.

At the end of the day, will grocers, distributors and others dedicated to the healthy lifestyles market and the natural retail channel be willing to sell cell cultured meat? As Bill Weiland, Co-founder of Presence Marketing, puts it, “We prefer to sell plant-based meat, not meat made in a plant.”

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. Compass Natural serves in PR and programming for NoCo Hemp Expo and Southern Hemp Expo, and Hoffman serves as Editor of the weekly Let’s Talk Hemp Newsletter, published by We Are for Better Alternatives. Contact steve@compassnaturalmarketing.com.

‘From Tractors to Drones’ – Latest Webinar in Educational Series Focuses on State-of-the-Art Technology for Farmers Transitioning to Organic

BOULDER, Colo. (Oct. 16, 2023) – The third free webinar in the Focus on the Farmer series, hosted by Compass Natural as part of USDA’s Transition to Organic Partnership Program (TOPP), will be held Oct. 26. All farmers transitioning to organic are welcome and encouraged to attend.

The free webinar will gather top experts in organic agriculture to discuss cutting-edge tools, production methods and technological innovations that can support farmers making the transition to organic.

Webinar: ‘From Tractors to Drones’
Date: Thursday, Oct. 26, 2023, 10:30 am - 12 pm MDT
Register: Register for free here. All registrants will receive a copy of the speaker presentations and a link to the Zoom video recording.

Panelists:

Sarah Hinkley, CEO and Co-Founder, Barn Owl Precision Agriculture
As CEO and co-founder of Barn Owl Precision Agriculture (BOPA) in La Junta, Colorado, Sarah Hinkley and her team help small to midsize farmers — and in particular farmers seeking to transition to organic and regenerative agriculture — with information technology equipment and services to help more closely monitor crops and fields. Working with organic farmers, hemp farmers and other producers, BOPA utilizes autonomous micro-tractors, drones and other on-farm robotics to compile and analyze on-field data, helping to create savings in inputs, labor and time.

Haley Nagle, Lead Outreach & Education Specialist, Comet Farm, a Project of USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service and CSU
Haley Nagle conducts lead outreach for COMET Farm, a tool developed by Colorado State University and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Using detailed, location-specific data on climate and soil conditions, COMET Farm helps farmers estimate the carbon footprint for all or part of a farm/ranch operation, allowing operators to evaluate options for reducing GHG emissions and sequestering carbon in the soil.

Andrew Bish, COO, Bish Enterprises
Andrew Bish is COO of family-owned Bish Enterprises, based in Giltner, Nebraska. The company is a leading manufacturer of equipment and accessories for tractors and combines, from custom “Bish Built” row crop headers to corn reels to products for harvesting industrial hemp. Andrew’s expertise spans a range of crops, from commodities such as sorghum, soybeans and cereal grains to specialty crops including hops, wild rice, hemp and seed grasses. He also brings a passion for organic production to this webinar.

From left: Sarah Hinkley, Haley Nagle and Andrew Bish

“We are thrilled with the interest our Focus on the Farmer series has generated," says Steven Hoffman, founder of Compass Natural. ”We’re all dependent on technology today to help run our businesses, and that goes for agriculture too. Our panelists will share about state-of-the-art technology that is specifically focused on helping farmers succeed in the transition to organic and beyond."

About Compass Natural
Based in Boulder, Colorado, Compass Natural is a communications agency serving the market for organic food and agriculture, as well as businesses and brands providing natural, socially responsible, eco-friendly and other healthy lifestyles products and services. Founded in 2001 and driven by a commitment to create a better world through business, Compass Natural is a leader in the Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS) market.

The Focus on the Farmer educational series is produced by Compass Natural in partnership with USDA’s Transition to Organic Partnership Program (TOPP) in the Plains States region. TOPP is designed to foster organic agriculture and make much-needed technical assistance available to transitioning and existing organic farmers.

About TOPP
The Transition to Organic Partnership Program (TOPP) is a program of the USDA Organic Transition Initiative and is administered by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) National Organic Program (NOP).

Media Contact
Steven Hoffman, Compass Natural, steve@compassnatural.com, 303.807.1042

Cracking Down on Fraud: USDA Organic Enforcement Rules Take Full Effect in March 2024

This article first appeared in Presence Marketing’s September 2023 newsletter.

By Steven Hoffman

Organic food is big business in the U.S. – sales of organic products topped $61 billion in 2022 – and the certified organic label fetches a premium price for producers. So much so that fraud from both domestic and imported sources had become a major concern among organic industry business owners, investors and advocates.

That’s why such leading organizations as the Organic Trade Association (OTA) and others applauded the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) when, earlier this year, the agency announced the Strengthening Organic Enforcement (SOE) final rule, which is set to be fully implemented and enforced in March 2024.

Representing the biggest change to organic regulations since the passage of the Organic Food Production Act in 1990, the SOE Rule was created to crack down on organic fraud. The new rule provides “a significant increase in oversight and enforcement authority to reinforce the trust of consumers, farmers, and those transitioning to organic production. This success is another demonstration that USDA fully stands behind the organic brand,” Jenny Lester Moffitt, USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, said in a statement.

“The rule closes gaps in current organic regulations and builds consistent certification practices to prevent fraud and improve the transparency and traceability of organic products. Fraud in the organic system – wherever it occurs – harms the entire organic sector and shakes the trust of consumers in organic. This regulation will have significant and far-reaching impacts on the organic sector and will do much to deter and detect organic fraud and protect organic integrity throughout the supply chain,” OTA said in support of the new rule.

Liz Figueredo, quality and regulatory director at organic certifier Quality Assurance International (QAI), based in San Diego, California, told Nutritional Outlook in July 2023 that the new SOE Rule closes supply chain loopholes that existed in previous regulations. The new rule requires organic certification for all parts of the supply chain, including handlers and suppliers who were previously exempt, she said.

“This means that certifiers can no longer depend on documentation from uncertified handlers, which was often lacking, to verify the organic status of products. The rule also includes fraud-reduction techniques, such as requiring an Import Certificate for any organic ingredients or products imported into the U.S., which provides the total volume or weight of the imported products,” Figueredo said.

Who Is Affected by the New SOE Rule?
According to USDA, the SOE Rule may affect USDA-accredited certifying agencies; organic inspectors; certified organic operations; handlers of organic products; operations considering organic certification; businesses that import or trade organic products; retailers that sell organic products; and organic supply chain participants who are not currently certified organic. 

Exemptions are limited to a few low-risk activities such as very small operations; certain retail establishments that do not process; storage and warehouse facilities that only handle products in sealed, tamper-proof containers or packages; distributors that only handle final retail-packaged products; and customs and logistics brokers that do not take ownership or physical possession of organic products. 

However, exempt operations must still follow all other applicable portions of organic regulations, including co-mingling and contamination prevention, labeling requirements and record keeping. Transporters that only move organic products between certified operations, or transload between modes of transportation, do not need to be individually certified, but are the responsibility of the certified operation that loads or receives the product.

To see if your business is affected and for more information, visit the full text of USDA’s SOE Rule in the Federal Register. OTA, too, has a resource page with extensive information regarding preparing for full compliance with the SOE Rule, along with exclusive training materials for association members. OTA also offers a questionnaire for businesses that may not be sure if they need certification.

What Does the SOE Rule Do?
According to USDA, “SOE protects organic integrity and bolsters farmer and consumer confidence in the USDA organic seal by supporting strong organic control systems, improving farm to market traceability, increasing import oversight authority, and providing robust enforcement of the organic regulations.” 

Key updates include:

• Requiring certification of more of the businesses, like brokers and traders, at critical links in organic supply chains.

• Requiring NOP Import Certificates for all organic imports.

• Requiring organic identification on non-retail containers.

• Increasing authority for more rigorous on-site inspections of certified operations.

• Requiring uniform qualification and training standards for organic inspectors and certifying agent personnel.

• Requires standardized certificates of organic operation.

• Requires additional and more frequent reporting of data on certified operations.

• Creates authority for more robust recordkeeping, traceability practices, and fraud prevention procedures.

• Specify certification requirements for producer groups.

“SOE complements and supports the many actions that USDA takes to protect the organic label, including the registration of the USDA organic seal trademark with the USPTO. The registered trademark provides authority to deter uncertified entities from falsely using the seal, which together with this new rule provides additional layers of protection to the USDA organic seal,” USDA said.

For producers wanting to learn more about navigating and adhering to these new requirements, the Western Growers Association in partnership with the Organic Produce Network will host a session at its upcoming Organic Grower Summit, Nov. 29-30, 2023, in Monterey, California, entitled “The SOE Deadline Looms–Are You Ready?” The seminar is designed to help growers better understand the upcoming rule changes, which will affect producers, distributors, handlers and importers.

In addition, organic industry and policy veterans Gwendolyn Wyard and Kim Dietz recently founded Strengthening Organic Systems, an advisory firm focused on helping businesses with organic fraud prevention, supply chain investigations and compliance with USDA’s organic anti-fraud regulations.

Read More
How Will USDA’s Organic Regulation Changes Affect the Food and Nutraceutical Industries?  – Nutritional Outlook

USDA Launches Organic Integrity Database Module – Organic Insider

Tighter Rules Now in Effect for USDA Organic Seal of Approval – Cosmetics and Toiletries News

Strengthening Organic Enforcement USDA Rule – California Certified Organic Farmers

USDA Bolsters Consumer Confidence in Certified Organic Products with New Enforcement Rule – New Hope Network 

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. Compass Natural serves in PR and programming for NoCo Hemp Expo and Southern Hemp Expo, and Hoffman serves as Editor of the weekly Let’s Talk Hemp Newsletter, published by We are for Better Alternatives. Contact steve@compassnaturalmarketing.com.