837. Regenerative farming focuses on improving the health of the soil. How does this translate into improved human health? It’s a bit more complex than you might think.
837. Regenerative farming focuses on improving the health of the soil. How does this translate into improved human health? It’s a bit more complex than you might think.
Resources:
Regenerative Farmers of America
Find regenerative farms near you
References:
Changes in USDA food composition data for 43 garden crops, 1950 to 1999 - PubMed
Declining Fruit and Vegetable Nutrient Composition: What Is the Evidence? - HortScience
Episodes mentioned in this episode:
506 - Can eating organic reduce cancer?
58 - Aren’t organic foods healthier?
751 - How to reduce your exposure to pesticides
238 - Have we bred the nutrition out of foods?
727 - Are Fruits and Vegetables Getting Less Nutritious?
Find a full transcript here.
Regenerative farming is all about building healthier soil. But does healthier soil really make our food more nutritious—and, by extension, make us healthier? The answer turns out to be a bit more complicated than you might think.
Hello! I’m Monica Reinagel and this is the Nutrition Diva podcast, a show where we take a closer look at nutrition news, research, and trends so that you can make more informed decisions about what you eat.
I recently had the opportunity to attend a conference on regenerative agriculture, hosted by the Soil Health Academy, a nonprofit organization that educates and helps farmers and ranchers in adopting regenerative practices. It was held on Kinloch Farms, a family-owned farm in the beautiful, rolling hills of Northern Virginia, not far from Washington DC.
Kinloch is committed to conserving and restoring the land, water, and native habitat, while at the same time running a cattle operation that is humane, environmentally responsible, and profitable. No small challenge but one they are meeting quite admirably! (I have never known a farm to have a full-time conservationist on staff!)
Needless to say, I came away inspired. I’ve already started experimenting with some of these practices in my own itty-bitty city vegetable plot, and I’ve identified regenerative farmers in my area so that I can support this movement with my grocery dollars, as well. (Shout out to Hidden Waters Farm in Pikesville MD!) Because if we believe in the value of this approach, then we need to make regenerative agriculture financially feasible for those who are trying to better steward the environment.
One of the themes that was woven through the conference was the importance of context. Because regenerative agriculture isn’t about following a rigid set of rules—it’s about applying a set of principles thoughtfully, in the context of each unique farm and ecosystem. Ray Archuleta, one of the patron saints of this movement, expresses it this way: “Information is essential. But knowledge is information in context, which allows us to connect all the dots accurately and effectively in any given situation.”
And so, it was a bit ironic that when it came to talking about the impacts of regenerative farming on the nutrient composition of foods, or on human health, I felt that the information being shared was sometimes missing important context. And I am not trying to point fingers here. The people promoting regenerative agriculture are swimming upstream against powerful economic and cultural currents. They’re trying to make the strongest case they can for a movement that I also want to see succeed. My concern is that people may end up repeating information that is somewhat distorted or misleading. And that relying on talking points that are easy to refute or dismiss might ultimately undermine the cause.
So today, I want to look at a few key questions about the impact of different types of farming practices on the nutrient quality of food–and add a bit more context. Again, my goal is not to weaken the case for regenerative farming but to make it even stronger.
One of the data points that you may have come across before is that the fruits and vegetables in our supermarkets today are dramatically less nutritious than they were a few decades ago. And there is some truth to this. Analyses of food composition tables from the 1950s through the 1990s do show declines in certain nutrients. For example, calcium, iron, and phosphorus appear to have dropped by about 10 to 20 percent in some garden crops. Riboflavin—one of the B vitamins—was down by nearly 40 percent. Protein content has also dipped slightly. But some nutrients actually increased in certain foods over that same period. So, we need to be careful not to oversimplify the story.
In fact, it seems likely that these changes in nutrient density have been driven primarily by changes in the varieties that we grow these days, and not soil depletion. When breeders select for higher yields—bigger ears of corn, faster-growing wheat, larger heads of broccoli—the concentration of minerals and protein tends to go down. (This has been referred to as the “dilution effect”).
And breeders aren’t always prioritizing yield; sometimes it’s about pursuing flavor profiles that consumers will like. They’re selecting for sweeter fruit or less bitter vegetables. But the very compounds that make a vegetable bitter often also provide health benefits. So when we’re selecting for flavor, we may sometimes be sacrificing some of the nutritional value. But I would argue that low nutrient intakes in our population have less to do with the fact that our produce is lower in nutrients and far more to do with the fact that we eat too few fruits and vegetables.
And finally, some of the most dramatic data points are a lot less incriminating once you have more context. For example, one frequently cited study found a 76% decrease in copper levels in some vegetables between the 1940s and the 1990s. Many interpreted that as evidence of soil depletion. But in reality, most of that decline is explained by the fact that farmers used to apply copper-based pesticides much more widely. When those fell out of favor, copper levels in crops naturally dropped. That’s not really about soil fertility—it’s about farm practices changing.
So yes, nutrient concentrations have shifted over time, but the story is far more nuanced than “our soils are depleted and our food is empty.”
//
The next question I want to examine is how various growing practices impact nutrient density of the produce that’s being grown today–because this is another area where the information is not always provided with enough context to transform it into useful knowledge. But first, let’s define our terms.
Conventional farming—which represents the vast majority of food production in the U.S.—often relies on large-scale monocultures, growing a single crop over vast acreage. Fields are typically tilled to prepare the soil, and fertility is maintained primarily with synthetic fertilizers that supply nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, but don’t do much to build organic matter. Pesticides and herbicides are used routinely to control pests and weeds. In livestock systems, animals are often raised in concentrated operations, with feed brought in from elsewhere and manure disposed of as a waste product. This approach—whether for crops or animals—can be very efficient in terms of yield, but it can also lead to soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, contamination of waterways, and reduced resilience to pests, drought, and other weather extremes.
Organic farming represents an important step forward. By restricting synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, it reduces some of the environmental and chemical burdens of conventional agriculture. Organic standards also restrict the use of antibiotics and growth-promoting hormones in livestock. But organic regulations aren’t as focused on how the soil is managed. For instance, organic farmers often rely on frequent tilling to control weeds, since herbicides are off the table. Ironically, tilling can damage soil structure and microbial life—unintended consequences that may not have been fully understood until more recently. And livestock may still be raised separately from crops, which means the potential synergies between the two aren’t always realized.
Regenerative agriculture takes things a big step further. Instead of focusing on what chemicals you can or can’t use, regenerative practices prioritize minimizing soil disturbance, maintaining living roots in the ground year-round, encouraging biodiversity, and integrating livestock. The aim is to restore soil health and fertility, improve water retention, sequester carbon, and support long-term ecological balance.
To give you an idea of the relative scale, organic accounts for about six percent of all food sales in the U.S., and we have a federally regulated certification program, which enhances the visibility and consumer awareness of organic products. Regenerative agriculture, by contrast, is a lot smaller and also lacks a widely adopted certification, which sometimes makes it harder to recognize in the marketplace. (In the show notes, I’ve included some resources to help you find regenerative growers near you.)
So, if conventional agriculture is Goliath and organic is little Davy, regenerative is more like an ant crawling next to Davy’s shoe—tiny by comparison, but hopefully poised to play a much bigger role in the future.
Now that we’ve defined our terms, let’s take a look at how organic and regenerative farming affect the nutritional quality of the food that they produce. Because it’s commonly claimed that food grown using these more integrated and holistic practices is more nutritious–and, intuitively, it seems obvious that this would be true. But the truth is more complex.
Big systematic reviews have generally found that organic produce isn’t consistently higher in nutrients than conventional. Some studies show more antioxidants in organic crops. Others report slightly higher phosphorus or differences in acidity. But the results are inconsistent and the differences are often modest. It’s also really hard to control for all the other factors that play a role in nutrient density, such as the specific variety or cultivar, where it was grown, the weather that season, how ripe the produce was at harvest, how (and how long) it was stored, and so on. Each of these factors may actually have a bigger impact on measured nutrient levels than whether it is organic or not.
There’s less research to go on for regenerative farming–but a couple of small, well-designed studies have found that crops from regenerative farms have higher levels of certain vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals compared with produce from nearby conventional farms. Healthier soil may make soil-based nutrients more available to the plants, translating into more nutritious crops. But even when nutrient differences are documented, this may not always translate into a meaningful impact on human health.
Let me give you an example: Grass-fed or regeneratively raised beef can have up to ten times more calcium than conventional beef—but a serving still only provides about two percent of your daily calcium needs.
Similarly, regeneratively produced milk, meat, and eggs appear to be higher in many phytonutrients than their conventional counterparts–presumably because the animals are exposed to a wider range of more nutritious forage plants. (Eating a wide range of nutritious plants will increase the phytonutrient content of your muscles, too!) But even if the phytonutrient levels are higher than in conventional, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are high.
If you’re interested in increasing your phytonutrient intake, eating more plants is going to get you there a lot quicker than eating beef from cows who ate more plants. (If, on the other hand, you’re looking fo high-quality protein, iron, or B12, then beef is going to be a lot more efficient than plants.
We should also talk about how having access to pasture impacts the fat profile of beef, as this is also a frequently repeated talking point: Grass finished beef is almost three times higher in omega-3 fatty acids than conventional beef. That’s a true fact. But here’s the context that’s often missing: You’d get more omega-3 from a single walnut than you would from a 6-ounce grass-fed steak (and that is technically 2 servings!)
So the takeaway is this: Both organic and regenerative systems can absolutely shift the nutrient profile of foods. In particular, it seems clear that livestock raised in regenerative operations are eating a higher quality and more nutrient-dense diet. But the impact of this on our total nutrient intakes is probably modest.
Finally, I’ve noticed that people are often convinced that eating organic or regeneratively farmed foods will reduce the risk of various diseases, either because they are more nutritious or because they may be lower in pesticides and other chemical residues. And this is another place where I want to add a bit more context–even though it may not be what you want to hear. Several large studies have found that eating organic does not significantly reduce the incidence of disease. In other words, eating more produce (and other nutritious whole foods) appears to reduce disease risk, regardless of how it is produced.
So, does all this mean that regenerative agriculture is a waste of time and effort, or that buying regeneratively produced food is a waste of money? Not at all!
In my opinion, the real promise of regenerative farming lies not just in what ends up on our plate but in what happens beneath our feet. Studies comparing regenerative and conventional farms have found that regenerative systems can triple scores on various soil health tests within just a few years. That living soil is better at cycling nutrients and retaining water, which saves farmers money and labor and makes our air and water cleaner. And crops and livestock grown in a balanced ecosystem are more resistant to drought, disease, and pests, which ultimately shores up the security of our food system.
To me, there’s little question that regenerative practices are a big win for the environment, wildlife, animal welfare, farmers, communities, and ultimately for us as eaters. We haven’t really talked about taste (which, after all, is somewhat subjective), but many people find that the flavor of fresh eggs, milk, meat, and vegetables from your local regenerative farmer cannot be beat. And there’s an awful lot to be said for having an opportunity to personally thank the person who is growing your food!
If you’d like to get involved, the Soil Health Academy and Regenerative Farmers of America offer tons of resources for farmers and growers interested in learning more or getting started. One of the things I appreciate about the regenerative movement is that it’s not a binary equation, where you’re either in the club or you’re not. You’re encouraged to simply start where you are and identify what might be possible in your context. And the idea is that no matter where you are starting from, or how far you end up traveling, every step along this path is a step worth taking.
If you’re a consumer, there’s an interactive Regenerative Farm Map that help you find producers near you. You’ll find links to those, along with links to some related Nutrition Diva episodes in the shownotes. And if you’re a backyard or urban gardener like me, look for books on regenerative gardening and landscaping at your library or bookstore—there’s plenty you can do on your own plot.
If you have a question or topic you’d like me to tackle on the podcast, you can email me at nutrition@quickanddirtytips.com. And if you’d like to find out about having me speak at your next in person or virtual event, you can learn more at wellnessworkshere.com
Nutrition Diva is a Quick and Dirty Tips podcast. Holly Hutchings is our Director of Podcasts. Steve Riekeberg is our audio engineer, Morgan Christianson heads up Podcast Operations & Advertising, and Rebekah Sebastian, is our Manager of Marketing and Publicity and Nat Hoopes is our Marketing and Operations Assistant. Thanks to all of them and thanks to you for listening!