Regenerative agriculture less popular ‘when it comes at the expense of consumers,’ says new report from Purdue

Roughly 71% of consumers have little to no familiarity with the term “regenerative agriculture” or its practices, says Purdue University’s monthly Consumer Food Insights Report. Those that do know the concept may not be willing to help pay for it via higher food prices, regardless of the associated environmental benefits.

The report, which surveyed US consumers from around the country, comes courtesy of Purdue’s Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability (CFDAS), and assesses food spending, consumer satisfaction and values, support of agricultural and food policies, and trust in information sources.

Nearly half (43%) of those surveyed said they are “not at all familiar” with regenerative agriculture; another 28% said they are only “slightly familiar” with the term and concept.

The reports authors frame this gap as an opportunity for producers to communicate with consumers about what regen ag means for their specific operation.

“A key challenge with this is that it can be hard to differentiate your product to consumers if they do not know what it means,” Purdue professor of agribusiness management Brenna Ellison recently wrote.

“For producers or agribusinesses that want to use the term in their communications with consumers, it is critical to be transparent about what regenerative agriculture means to their business.”

The issue remains that “regenerative agriculture” has no official shared definition across the agrifood industry. Purdue defines it as “farming methods that result in improved soil health, carbon capture, improved biodiversity and healthy water resources.”

Those consumers surveyed were asked to describe it in a few words. The most common included “soil,” which appeared 393 times, as well as “health,” “land,” and “agriculture,” each of which appeared more than 100 times.

Consumers support regen ag — when the price is right

Even when they are aware of the term and its practices, consumers may or may not pay more for products grown using “regenerative” methods, according to survey data. 

“While consumers say they generally support regenerative agriculture initiatives, the level of support goes down when given additional information about the cost,” says the report’s lead author, Joseph Balagtas, professor of agricultural economics at Purdue and CFDAS director.

“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,” he added.

Startups, agrifood corporates and investors alike are currently working to “de-risk” regenerative agriculture and transition more acreage to its practices. Nonetheless, amongst consumers, support for regenerative agriculture is lower when the cost is passed on to them, either in the form of higher prices or taxes.

For those answering “no” to the question of paying more for regenerative foods, more than 88% said their decision was due to “the higher price point” compared to conventional food at grocery stores.

For those that said they were willing to pay, roughly 45% said they support regenerative agriculture and “are willing to incur the extra cost.” However, “20% signal that their response indicates their support for regenerative agriculture more so than a willingness to pay more for it.”

Roughly 42% of consumers think the government should fund regenerative agriculture farming methods in the US. Few (just 6%), think the cost burden should be passed onto consumers. As the report notes, “This reveals an interesting dissonance given that government funds come from consumers in the form of tax dollars.”

Overall, maintaining food prices was the most important attribute regenerative foods should have, said respondents, ahead of environmental benefits like soil health and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Farmer profitability ranked in the middle, while maintaining biodiversity and reducing greenhouse gas emissions ranked lowest.