Regenerative agriculture—agroecology without politics?

the company has made a commitment to advance RA on 1 million acres by 2030. GMI has pioneered in partnering with farmers (also known as “Regen Ag Pilots”) to create an enabling environment for RA adoption through (a) Education, (b) 1-on-1 Coaching, (c) Build Community, and (d) Monitor Soil-Wildlife-Profit. Additionally, they are exploring (e) Ecosystem Service Markets in the Southern Plains. In the case of large corporations, whether “green-washing” occurs or not is difficult to judge from terms such as “alternative food systems (regenerative, agroecology, organic, sustainable)” as used in the companies’ websites. The large and multiple definitions of RA allow for space to market business activities. A key agronomic practice that is recurrently mentioned are cover crops and the “power of roots.” This inherits from ConservationAgricultureandislargelybasedonagroecologicalfarmerinnovations.Tosomeextent,theneedforcorporationstofreshentheirpublic image is understandable. However, agroecology advocates often argue that the mis-placed use of “regenerative” ideas, or co-optation, without real system transformation is “green-washing.” In short, plain practice without politics, can be considered merely a business-as-usual scheme that omits social justice considerations but plays the card of caring for the environment. Grasping the subtleties in the use of “regenerative agriculture” from a diversity of food system actors seems an appropriate trade-off to embrace.