More than two fifths (43%) of US consumers are ‘not at all familiar’ with the term ‘regenerative agriculture’, while 28% are only ‘slightly familiar’, a new study by Purdue University has found.
According to Purdue University’s Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability(CFDAS), which surveyed 1,200 consumers across the US, this lack of understanding means that regenerative agriculture risks being considered just a ‘buzz phrase’, rather than a valuable tool to bolster biodiversity and sustainability.
Clear communication
The findings of the survey reveal “an opportunity for producers and industry leaders interested in expanding regenerative agriculture practices in their operations to clearly communicate to consumers what regenerative agriculture means to their operations,” commented Joseph Balagtas, professor of agricultural economics at Purdue and CFDAS director, and lead author on the report.
Regenerative agriculture refers to farming practices aimed at enhancing soil health, capturing carbon, increasing biodiversity, and maintaining healthy water resources as part of a sustainable agriculture approach. These methods focus on restoring and regenerating ecosystems, improving the long-term sustainability of agricultural systems.
Level of consumer support
Respondents were presented with a broad definition of regenerative agriculture and then were asked to assess their support for the practice through four hypothetical scenarios.
The first two scenarios focused on US farms and the voluntary adoption of regenerative methods by farmers. The other two scenarios involved industry- or government-led plans that offered financial incentives for adopting these practices, which would result in increased prices or taxes to cover the costs.
“Understandably, food policy is likely to be less popular when it comes at the expense of consumers, who are already dealing with high food prices,” Balagtas added.
Affordability tends to be a higher priority for consumers compared to the environmental benefits of regenerative agriculture, like enhanced soil health or reduced water consumption, according to Balagtas.
The fact that the benefits of regenerative agriculture come at a cost, part of which might be borne by consumers or taxpayers, is likely to meet some degree of friction, he added. Read more here.
