b"Interestingly, 42% of respondents said the government shouldA clear definition of benefits will help clarify who, ultimately, fund regenerative agriculture, while only 6% stated that the costneeds to pay. Depending on the benefits, consumers might be should fall on consumers, even though government fundingunwilling to pay at the grocery check-out counter, but willing to ultimately comes from taxes. This could be because regenera- pay via higher taxes. tive agriculture practices as defined in the survey might seem toWhat I'm paying for in the grocery store is higher quality provide societal benefits like carbon sequestration, rather thanproduct, better tasting product, safer product, more nutritious isolated benefits to any part of the value chain.product, Balagtas said. What I'm paying for in my taxes is It likely also points to societys increasing distance from agri- public goods, cleaner air, cleaner water, et cetera. As we think culture, now that average consumers are multiple generationsabout what these practices are, I think we need to think about away from on-farm understanding.how the benefits of those practices are accrued to different Those of us who work in agriculture, we're in a little bit of apeople along the supply chain or to society.bubble. We talk to each other. We know the language. And it's easy to forget what average Jane or Joe in the grocery storeStep 2: The Case for Transparent, Non-political does or doesnt know, Balagtas said.CommunicationMonaco agreed that open communication is critical. Step 1: Clarify the DefinitionAcross the agriculture industry, we're really good at talk-Monaco said lack of a clear definition of regenerative agricultureing to each other. We love talking to each other, he explained. sets the stage of consumer uncertainty.But we're not great at talking to consumers. And I'm not saying I think the biggest challenge about regenerative agriculturewe need to dictate to them how they should think, because I'm is that there's not one definition that is widely accepted. Thatlargely against that. They want what they want, but I think they creates a sort of gray space where people put their own percep- would be better off understanding what happens in the value tion around what regenerative ag is, he says It can be about thechain: why farmers do what they do.conservation practices that you adopt, like cover crops or no-till,Educating consumers via labels, scannable QR codes and other or it can be [about] outcomes. It can be about water quality, soileducation campaigns doesnt work, Monaco added. Instead, healthwhatever that means, because that means differentagriculture should build on farmers existing position of trust. things to different peopleor it can be about carbon sequestra- There was research that came out recently saying the most tion. When you get into that space, it makes it very complicated,trusted profession in the U.S. is farming. So, leveraging that specifically for consumers, to understand. perception and bringing the information of what is being done at Balagtas said building support for regenerative agriculturethe farm level to consumers is important, he said.should start with the science around specific practices and howMonaco also said conversations need to be two-way. What their benefits accrue on the supply chain.matters to you as a consumer? What part of organic do you As the agronomic science develops and we get a betterreally like or dislike? What about regenerative agriculture do you sense of what practices create improvements and who benefitslike or dislike?from those improvements, then we could start to share thatPerhaps most importantly, the conversation about regen-information with consumers, he says. erative agriculture needs to be about practical, on-farm reality For example, he said, who benefits from no-till? Does thatrather than politics. benefit me as a consumer? Does it make the product better?A practice like no-till cover crops, thats a technical decision Does it make my water quality better? Or does it just help theat the farmer level. Who's going to make a technical decision? farmer? As we define these practices, it'll be important to iden- Is the agronomist or politician? In my mind, there's no need for tify where the costs and benefits are. a political view or political argument as to whether you should adopt a practice or not at your farm, Monaco said.the sooner Who Should Fund Regenerative Agriculture Methods in U.S.?, we take the conversation out of the political realm and bring it Aug. 2024 into the technical realm with data to back it up, the better off we'll be.SWGovernment 42%Food companies/brands 27%Farmers 22%Consumers 6%Other 4% ON THE WEBWHERE 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%Weighted Proportion To listen to Seed World U.S. Editor Aimee Nielsons entire discussion with Purdue Universitys Joeseph Balagtas and Lourival Monaco, visit https://tinyurl.com/seedworldusFEBRUARY 2025SEEDWORLD.COM /41"