What is regenerative ag?
Survey says: Consumers don’t know and don’t care when it comes to paying for it.
Purdue University’s Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability (CFDAS) recently surveyed 1,200 consumers across the U.S., diving into food spending, consumer satisfaction and values, trust in information sources, and support of agricultural and food policies.
Findings: Forty-three percent of survey respondents said they were “not at all familiar” with the term “regenerative agriculture”, while 28% said they are “slightly familiar.”
Put simply, 71% of consumers know little to nothing about “regenerative ag.” Yikes.
“Regenerative ag” defined: To date, there isn’t one “official” definition across the agrifood industry. It’s hard to market “regenerative agriculture” if no one knows what that means.
FYI: Purdue’s definition is “farming methods that result in improved soil health, carbon capture, improved biodiversity, and healthy water resources.”
And while consumers say they usually support regenerative ag initiatives, that support plummets when they have to pay for it.
Putting it to the test, 56% of survey respondents said they’d pay more for a snack produced via regenerative ag. But when they had to choose between a $5 bag of conventionally produced or $5.50 for a bag of snacks produced with regenerative ag, 53% chose the lower-priced snacks.
Short Corn Packs a Punch
Dynamite comes in small packages—which can be true with new seed technology. What’s...
Congress to EPA: What’s Your BEEF with Meat Packers?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering new regulations that take aim at meat and poultry processors.
And some members of Congress have a BEEF with the EPA’s proposals.
The proposed rules: In late January, the EPA released the details of its proposed “Clean Water Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point source category.”
Huh?
Basically, the EPA formally published its proposals to combat wastewater contaminants that come from slaughterhouses.
Okay… that makes more sense.
At the heart of the rules proposal is a concern from environmental groups about nitrogen and phosphorus pollutants that originate from slaughterhouses. In some cases, the wastewater goes directly into waterways. In other cases, the water goes to municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
But not everyone is on board with the EPA’s suggestions…
Congress responds: Last week, two U.S. representatives—Eric Burlison (MO) and Ron Estes (KS)—pushed back against the EPA and introduced the “Banning EPA’s Encroachment of Facilities (BEEF) Act.” If passed and signed by President Biden, the law would prohibit the EPA from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the rule.
According to the lawmakers, the proposed rules place undue burden on small processors—costs that can be absorbed by larger companies.
Soundbite: “The… proposed regulation isn’t just an attack on family-run small businesses, it’s an attack on rural communities,” said Burlison. “These meat and poultry processors are the lifeblood of our communities. The BEEF Act… lets these hardworking Americans do what they do best, produce safe, affordable food for our families.”
University of Illinois Makes Big Mooves in Milk Production
Pump it up: Scientists led by Matt Wheeler at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign are...