soil pollution
As regenerative agriculture gains momentum, report warns of “greenwashing”
“It is scientifically and ethically disingenuous to claim to be regenerating soil while you are using synthetic chemicals."
Editor's note: This story was originally published in The New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group, and is republished here with permission.
Billed as a type of food system that works in harmony with nature, “regenerative” agriculture is gaining popularity in US farm country, garnering praise in books and films and noted as one of the goals of the Make America Healthy Again movement associated with new Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Proponents of regenerative farming say the practice can mitigate harmful climate change, reduce water pollution, and make foods more nutritious as farmers focus on improving the health of soil, water, and ecosystems.
A growing number of farms and ranches around the US are achieving certification to let consumers know their grains, beef, eggs and other products as regeneratively grown. Internationally, the regenerative agriculture market has been forecast to see double-digit growth between 2023 and 2030.
But all that momentum comes with a dirty dark side, according to a new report that highlights what is becoming an increasingly contentious debate over the merits of regenerative agriculture.
The report issued Tuesday asserts that regenerative programs, which generally allow for the use of weedkillers and other chemicals, are being used to “greenwash” routine use of several dangerous pesticides on farm fields.
Corporations that sell such pesticides are entwined with the movement, incentivizing farmers financially to adopt regenerative practices, the report notes.
“With billions of dollars — and the future of our food system — at stake, we must ensure that the practice of regenerative agriculture is robust and is guarded against greenwashing,” states the April 29 report issued by Friends of the Earth (FOE), an environmental advocacy group.
Citing data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), FOE’s report specifically targets corn and soybean production in which farmers do not till their soil to eradicate weeds as has traditionally been common practice. Such “no-till” practices are a hallmark of regenerative agriculture because tillage can have multiple negative environmental impacts, including disrupting soil microorganisms considered essential for plant health.
Corn and soybean no-till acres total more than 100 million acres, according to the FOE report. The “vast majority (93%)” of those acres rely on “toxic pesticides that harm soil health and threaten human health,” the FOE report states.
Roughly one-third of total annual pesticide use in the US can be attributed solely to corn and soy grown in no- and minimum-till systems, according to the FOE analysis of USDA data. An estimated 61% of the use involves pesticides classified as highly hazardous to human health and/or the environment, the report states.
Bayer’s bid for regenerative
The new report takes aim at some of the world’s largest agrochemical companies, including Germany-based Bayer, which bought seed and chemical giant Monsanto in 2018 and calls regenerative agriculture its “vision for the future of farming.”
“Produce More. Restore Nature. Scale Regenerative Agriculture,” the company proclaims on its website.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide products introduced by Monsanto in the 1970s, is the most widely used pesticide in no-till corn and soy production. The herbicide has been classified as a probable human carcinogen by world health experts, and tens of thousands of people have sued Monsanto alleging they developed cancer due to their use of the company’s glyphosate products.
As part of its push for regenerative, Bayer offers growers rewards for engaging in certain practices, including not tilling their soil and for planting “cover” crops as a means to improve soil health. Farmers can receive up to $12 per acre for combining various “regenerative agriculture practices,” Bayer pledges.
To handle weed problems in regenerative fields, Bayer recommends a mix of strategies, including “sustainable use of herbicides.”
That type of recommendation exposes the corporate hypocrisy rooted in regenerative, no-till, practices, according to FOE.
“Pesticide companies like Bayer and Syngenta have capitalized on the growing interest in soil health by promoting conventional no-till — which relies heavily on their pesticides, genetically engineered seeds, and digital agriculture platforms — as regenerative,” the FOE report states.
When asked about the FOE report, Bayer said glyphosate-based products like Roundup are helpful to farmers who are implementing sustainable farming and regenerative practices.
“Tools like Roundup are essential as more and more farmers turn to practices such as planting cover crops to reduce erosion, capture moisture and sequester carbon in the soil,” the company said in a statement. “Products like Roundup also enable farmers to adopt no-till measures that help drastically reduce the amount of carbon released by the soil through tillage.”
Syngenta says that regenerative agriculture “can underpin the transformation of our global food systems,” and that “chemical inputs” can be useful, though in reduced amounts.
In March, Syngenta announced a partnership with PepsiCo to “support and drive” farmers to transition to regenerative agriculture.
Regenerative v. organic
The report comes amid growing rancor between some in the established organic industry and the burgeoning regenerative movement, as leaders on each side say their respective models are best for providing healthy food and protecting environmental and human health.
In contrast with the relatively young regenerative movement, the organic industry operates within a framework established more than 30 years ago with oversight through a national organic program within the USDA, with rules that generally prohibit synthetic pesticides and other chemicals.
Organic supporters echo the FOE report, saying that certifying some farm products and brands as regenerative is deceptive because farmers practicing regenerative can, and often do, use chemical weed killers that are harmful to the soil, people and the environment.
They say that describing products as regenerative if they’re grown with chemicals gives consumers a false sense of comfort in the agricultural practices used to produce food. And they say because regenerative agriculture has no government oversight or official standards, private certification can be easily corrupted.
“The proponents of non-organic ‘regenerative’ labels are in fact greenwashing conventional ag and its use of toxic persistent pesticides as well as synthetic nitrogen fertilizers,” said Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Organic Voices, an advocacy group for the organic industry.
“It is scientifically and ethically disingenuous to claim to be regenerating soil while you are using synthetic chemicals, which harm soil microorganisms, and it is well-established science that no-till systems actually require more, not less, chemical fertilizers and pesticides,” Hirshberg said.
In contrast, academics and those pursuing growth of regenerative practices say soil health is at the root, literally, of planetary health, and even if pesticides are used, they can be used at levels much reduced from conventional farming.
They say organic farmers often till their fields to address weeds, and that practice is worse than using herbicides.
“The science is very clear on this: there is a greater net benefit to using an herbicide to enable no-till … than to avoid it altogether ifthat means resorting to tillage,” said Andrew Margenot, associate director of the Agroecosystems Sustainability Center at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
Proponents of regenerative practices see them as a series of steps that may begin with no-till and use of weedkillers and other pesticides, but eventually expand to include a range of tactics, such as using “cover crops” to increase soil organic matter and limit pest outbreaks and incorporating livestock and animal manure into soil improvement efforts.
Using all the regenerative practices can eventually eliminate the need for chemicals or sharply reduce the need, proponents say.
Regenerative farming involves much more than not tilling the soil, said Gabe Brown, a North Dakota farmer, who authored a book on the benefits of regenerative and founded a certification company called Regenified to guide farmers and ranchers in the practices.
Though Brown said he is a consumer of organic foods, he believes that organic farmers who don’t use chemicals but do disrupt their soils through tilling are also harming the environment.
“One cannot claim that no-tilling alone will make a farm regenerative just like one cannot say that organic, alone, is regenerative,” Brown said. “If an organic producer tills too often it can be highly degrading. If a no-tiller uses too many synthetics, it can be degrading.”
Brown said the organic movement has “floundered” as achieving organic certification can be challenging and costly for many producers.
“The amount of interest in regenerative agriculture is truly making a difference … it’s exciting,” Brown said.
Seeking more funds for organic
Not tilling the soil is a core principle of regenerative practices, but the FOE report asserts that the impacts of tillage are not always harmful and that routine use of pesticides has greater disruptive effects on soil health than does routine tillage.
Looking just at conventional no-till corn and soy, the FOE report finds that “CO2-equivalent emissions” associated with the pesticides and synthetic fertilizers used to grow those crops are comparable to emissions from 11.4 million cars.
The FOE report recommends that instead of incentivizing no-till agriculture that allows pesticide use, Congress should increase funding for organic programs, and state, local and federal governments should allot more resources to research into technologies that can eradicate weeds without chemical weedkillers.
FOE also calls for:
- Any regenerative agriculture definitions promulgated by federal, state, or local governments, private or public regenerative certifications, or other regenerative initiatives to explicitly center and prioritize agrochemical reduction if they are going to meet their stated goals.
- Food manufacturers and retailers to set time-bound, measurable goals to phase out toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers and transition toward ecological, least toxic approaches along their entire food and beverage supply chains.
- The USDA to increase incentives for farms that deeply reduce or eliminate the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and increase technical assistance to spur the adoption of practices that reduce agrochemical inputs.
“Given the urgency of the public health, biodiversity, and climate crises we face, the growing interest in regenerative agriculture must be harnessed in service of robust approaches that truly increase soil health and carbon sequestration, improve air and water quality, bolster farmers’ resilience, and protect biodiversity and human well-being,” the report states.
Opinion: Trump-era science cuts opens the door wide to industry-fueled pollution
The Trump administration’s move to gut EPA science programs could let polluting industries rewrite the rules on cancer-causing chemicals, writes Jennifer Sass for Scientific American.
In short:
- The Trump administration plans to eliminate the EPA’s independent research office, removing over 1,000 scientists whose work underpins clean air, water, and chemical safety laws.
- With industry lobbyists rewriting the rules and public science on the chopping block, environmental protections will increasingly rely on biased, polluter-funded research.
- Texas provides a cautionary tale: After EPA scientists found a strong link between ethylene oxide and breast cancer, Texas regulators pushed a weaker, industry-sponsored report that would allow thousands of times more pollution.
Key quote:
“Eliminating scientists from the EPA is kneecapping environmental safeguards. Every major environmental statute — the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Superfund law governing cleanup requirements — relies on EPA scientists to calculate how hazardous chemicals are, how people and wildlife may be exposed and what health and ecological harms may occur.”
— Jennifer Sass, senior scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council
Why this matters:
If successful, this move would give polluting industries a bigger voice in writing the rules, while pushing the people who actually study cancer risk and chemical safety out of the room. When science is sidelined, health risks skyrocket. If polluters get to define what’s “safe,” communities face higher chances of cancer, asthma, and long-term illness. Without that science, the system tilts even further in favor of corporations, while people are left breathing the consequences.
Read more:
Plants are struggling to breathe in a world full of plastic and smoke
Photosynthesis — the ancient process that feeds us and cools the planet — is under pressure from pollution, plastic, and climate change.
In short:
- Scientists warn that microplastics are disrupting photosynthesis in plants, potentially threatening global food production and accelerating climate change.
- While crops and young trees have helped absorb more CO₂ over the past 50 years, that carbon uptake is slowing due to nutrient-poor soils, drought, and other climate-related stresses.
- Researchers are now exploring how to "hack" photosynthesis — through genetic tools and insights from ancient organisms — to help plants become more efficient in a hotter, more volatile world.
Key quote:
“Microplastics are hindering photosynthesis… This threatens massive losses in crop and seafood production over the coming decades that could mean food shortages for hundreds of millions of people.”
— Denis J. Murphy, emeritus professor of biotechnology, University of South Wales
Why this matters:
Crops and wild plants that once gulped carbon like a sponge are now struggling, thanks to drought, degraded soils, and the lingering effects of fossil fuel addiction. As a result, researchers are turning to some radical ideas — genetically “tuning” photosynthesis, borrowing tricks from bacteria, even rewriting how plants handle sunlight. The hope is to create a more efficient engine for life in a climate-altered world. Because if Earth’s lungs fail, it’s not just the trees that go down with them.
Read more: From making it to managing it, plastic is a major contributor to climate change
Uranium exploration near Alaska Native village sparks public health concerns
A remote Iñupiat community in northwestern Alaska is protesting a planned uranium mining project near its land, warning it could contaminate waters central to their health, food, and way of life.
In short:
- Panther Minerals plans to begin uranium exploration this summer near the Tubuktulik River, close to Elim, an Iñupiat village that relies on the area’s fish and game for food.
- Elim residents have fought the project since 2024, citing concerns about radioactive contamination, health risks, and lack of consultation by Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources.
- The Trump administration’s push to expand domestic mining has encouraged such projects, reversing Biden-era protections and putting Alaska’s Native communities on a collision course with industry interests.
Key quote:
“If [the river] becomes contaminated, it will have an impact on the whole Bering Sea. That’s the way I see it.”
— Johnny Jemewouk, resident of Elim
Why this matters:
In the windswept tundra of western Alaska, the village of Elim finds itself at the center of a growing national debate: How far should the U.S. go to secure so-called “critical minerals,” and at what cost? Residents fear that proposed uranium exploration could scar the land in ways that echo the deep wounds left on Navajo Nation lands decades earlier, where radioactive dust settled into homes, tailings seeped into water sources, and a spike in cancer cases followed. Elim, a predominantly Iñupiat community, depends on the region’s healthy fish populations for subsistence and cultural continuity. But with uranium mines known to produce toxic runoff and long-lived radioactive waste, many worry the local fishery — and the entire ecosystem — could be jeopardized.
As President Trump’s administration pushes hard for domestic mineral production in the name of national security and economic growth, Alaskan communities like Elim are raising alarm bells about insufficient federal protections, inadequate environmental oversight, and a disregard for Indigenous consent.
Related EHN coverage: Years after mining stops, uranium's legacy lingers on Native land
China restored the world’s most eroded land—but not without challenges
China’s Loess Plateau, once considered the most eroded place on Earth, underwent a massive restoration effort that transformed barren land into thriving forests and farmland, though concerns remain over water use and long-term sustainability.
In short:
- The Chinese government launched the Grain to Green project in 1999 to combat severe erosion on the Loess Plateau, banning overgrazing, tree-cutting, and hillside farming while providing subsidies for sustainable practices.
- By 2016, China had converted over 11,500 square miles of cropland into forest or grassland, improving soil stability and biodiversity but also raising concerns about reduced water availability.
- While the project boosted local employment and reduced dust storms, some farmers resisted the changes, fearing loss of food production, and experts warn that the revegetation may now be affecting regional water balance.
Key quote:
“When the environment improved, all the birds returned. The forest has developed its ecological system naturally.”
— Yan Rufeng, forestry worker
Why this matters:
Massive land restoration efforts can reverse decades of environmental degradation, but they also present complex trade-offs. China’s success in regreening the Loess Plateau showcases the power of large-scale conservation, yet it also highlights the need for careful planning to avoid unintended consequences like water shortages. As climate change accelerates desertification and extreme weather patterns, nations worldwide are looking to similar projects as potential models. But China’s experience makes clear that land restoration must be paired with long-term water management strategies. The challenge going forward will be ensuring that these well-intentioned efforts do not come at the cost of other critical resources.
Learn more: Nations tackle worsening drought and desertification in global summit
Shell faces legal battle in London over oil pollution in Nigeria
A Nigerian king has taken oil giant Shell to court in London, arguing that decades of spills have poisoned his community’s water and land, while the company denies responsibility.
In short:
- King Godwin Bebe Okpabi, leader of the Ogale community in Nigeria’s Niger Delta, is suing Shell over chronic oil pollution, which he says has caused widespread illness and environmental destruction.
- A 2011 UN report found severe contamination in the region, including benzene levels in drinking water 900 times higher than World Health Organization guidelines, with recent tests showing even worse conditions.
- Shell argues it is not liable for spills linked to oil theft and illegal refining, while the case will be decided under Nigerian law in a full trial set for 2026.
Key quote:
“This is poison, and they are spending millions of dollars to pay the best lawyers in the world so that they will not clean my land.”
— King Godwin Bebe Okpabi
Why this matters:
The oil spills in Nigeria’s Niger Delta have left behind a trail of environmental and human suffering. For decades, leaking pipelines and blowouts have drenched the region in crude oil, poisoning waterways, farmlands, and the air itself. The health toll has been just as devastating. Cancer rates in affected communities are climbing, birth defects are on the rise, and respiratory illnesses are common. Many residents are forced to drink from polluted water sources, their options dwindling as cleanup efforts stall. Despite legal victories ordering oil giants like Shell to take responsibility, progress has been sluggish.
Now, Shell faces a landmark case that could reshape how multinational corporations are held accountable for environmental disasters. If successful, the case could pave the way for stricter enforcement and greater financial liability, but for many in the Niger Delta, the damage is already done.
Learn more: Nigeria considers restarting oil production in polluted delta region
Trump administration closes environmental offices, reshaping federal policy
The Trump administration is swiftly shutting down environmental initiatives, placing dozens of employees on leave and dismantling key offices within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Justice Department.
Maxine Joselow and Amudalat Ajasa report for The Washington Post.
In short:
- The EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, which addresses pollution in marginalized communities, is being closed, with 168 employees placed on leave.
- The Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division has eliminated its environmental justice office and frozen pending litigation, raising concerns about the politicization of environmental enforcement.
- The administration’s moves align with broader efforts to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion policies, with former officials warning the closures will lead to increased pollution in vulnerable communities.
Key quote:
“Shuttering the environmental justice office will mean more toxic contaminants, dangerous air and unsafe water in communities across the nation that have been most harmed by pollution in the past.”
— Matthew Tejada, former EPA environmental justice official
Why this matters:
Eliminating environmental justice programs could mean more exposure to toxic chemicals, worsening health disparities and loss of legal safeguards for communities already bearing the brunt of industrial pollution.
Read more: