The US government has launched a $700m pilot to provide federal support to regenerative farming – but packaged food companies are asking whether the scheme will have any practical implications for their businesses. The answer is not yet – but, in the longer term, it could support the efforts of those committed to investing in the area.
Last month, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) unveiled the Regenerative Agriculture Pilot Program. Cover crops, rotational grazing, reduced tillage and other soil-health practices are at the centre of the initiative. According to the two agencies, the goal is straightforward – improve soil, link farming to public health and give farmers incentives to rethink how they grow crops and raise livestock. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service will administer the programme.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Access deeper industry intelligence
Experience unmatched clarity with a single platform that combines unique data, AI, and human expertise.
For packaged food companies, the natural question is whether this changes anything for them. My take: not much, at least not immediately. The programme is designed for farms, not factories. Its impact on day-to-day operations, supply chains or product portfolios of food companies is minimal in the near term. That said, the programme does signal a federal commitment to regenerative agriculture practices and how companies choose to respond could shape longer-term opportunities and risks.
What the new programme does – and doesn’t
The USDA/HHS pilot consolidates the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) under a single application, provides technical assistance and establishes a federal advisory council with private sector representation. It’s fairly ambitious, yes, but, at this stage, it remains largely a framework for farm-level action.
Farmers will receive incentives, guidance and support to implement soil-health practices. Food companies, by contrast, are mostly observers unless they decide to invest strategically. The programme doesn’t automatically shift commodity flows, change ingredient pricing or give immediate marketing claims. Its influence on packaged food companies will depend entirely on how those companies choose to engage, either by supporting farmers directly – like General Mills, PepsiCo and some others are already doing – or building partnerships that integrate regenerative practices into sourcing strategies.
It’s important to emphasise that regenerative agriculture practices themselves are meaningful. Improving soil health, conserving water, enhancing biodiversity and maintaining nutrient balance are critical for productive, resilient farms. Healthy soil not only supports higher yields over time but also reduces erosion, improves water retention and helps farms adapt to climate variability. These benefits are fundamental to farming, conservation and the long-term stability of food production, even if the federal programme’s immediate effects on packaged food companies are limited.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataSupply chain implications
Could regenerative practices affect supply chains? Potentially but the impact is likely gradual. Cover crops, rotational grazing, reduced tillage, diversified crop rotations and nutrient and water management can improve soil structure and long-term yield stability. These changes typically occur over multiple growing seasons, meaning that ingredient availability or quality is unlikely to shift dramatically in the first year or two of the programme.
Some commodities could see effects sooner. Grains and oilseeds grown under regenerative practices may experience modest yield variability during the transition period. Dairy and livestock feed could be influenced by changes in pasture management, such as rotational grazing, which may temporarily affect feed supply and quality. Even so, these shifts are usually modest unless companies actively support the transition through technical assistance, dedicated sourcing agreements or financial incentives for participating farmers.
Influence in this space is optional, not automatic. Companies that fund adoption – by providing technical support, participating in pilot projects or offering longer-term contracts to farmers – can shape ingredient quality, reliability and supply chain resilience. Without food company engagement, the programme will proceed quietly at the farm level, producing benefits over time but without directly affecting packaged-food supply chains.
Documented practices may eventually provide valuable data for traceable regenerative sourcing, giving companies a foundation for credible claims in the future. Yet this advantage will only materialise for companies willing to invest time, money and resources in connecting with farms.
Marketing and claims
Marketing interest in regenerative agriculture is already significant. Many food companies have placed “regenerative” or “regenerative agriculture/farming” on product labels in recent years. The USDA programme, however, does not validate these claims or establish official labelling standards. Benefits accrue slowly and simply referencing the programme without verification could lead to consumer confusion or accusations of greenwashing.
Traceability is essential for any credible marketing effort. Companies that engage directly with participating farmers can ensure that regenerative practices are documented and verifiable, providing a strong foundation for marketing and sustainability claims. Achieving this requires investments in farm partnerships, technical guidance and supply chain agreements. Without this effort, labelling claims may have limited credibility in the marketplace.
In addition, companies should consider how these efforts intersect with other sustainability commitments, ESG reporting and broader environmental goals.
Policy and competitive dynamics
The new programme is linked to the broader MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement, connecting soil health to nutrition, public health and potentially even SNAP or procurement guidance. While immediate regulatory effects on packaged-food companies are limited, the alignment with federal priorities could create downstream incentives in the medium term. For example, procurement programmes may favour ingredients grown under verified regenerative practices, or dietary guidance could highlight foods produced with soil-health improvements.
The USDA/HHS programme provides a federal framework but meaningful outcomes will depend on private-sector initiatives
Companies that invest early in regenerative sourcing may gain advantages over competitors, including stronger supplier relationships, improved ingredient quality and early positioning in emerging policy-driven markets. Those that remain passive might see slower adoption, with fewer opportunities to shape supply chains or influence the market narrative around regenerative agriculture.
Several companies have already experimented with regenerative sourcing through pilot programmes. Early investments have yielded stronger farm relationships, a better quality of ingredients and stronger data for reporting. The USDA/HHS programme provides a federal framework but meaningful outcomes will depend on private-sector initiatives.
Industry perspective
The USDA/HHS Regenerative Agriculture Pilot Program is new and its effects will unfold over time. At this stage, there is no direct, operational impact on packaged-food companies. What matters now is that the programme establishes a federal framework for supporting regenerative practices, giving companies an opportunity to consider how they might participate or support adoption in ways that align with their business goals.
Credible data and metrics will be critical for any future claims about soil health, biodiversity or sustainability. NGOs are already making plans to monitor documentation practices to ensure transparency and prevent unverified marketing claims. Companies that prepare now by investing in measurement systems or supplier partnerships may gain an advantage as the programme develops.
For packaged-food companies, the takeaway is straightforward: the programme alone will not change supply chains or product portfolios but engagement can help shape credible sourcing practices, strengthen long-term resilience and position a company as a sustainability leader.
What this means for food companies
The programme is a framework, not a directive. Its immediate effect on packaged-food companies will be limited and federal support alone will not alter supply chains or product portfolios. What matters is whether companies see value in supporting regenerative practices and consider how investment could influence ingredient quality, supply stability and long-term sustainability.
For companies that choose to invest strategically, there is real potential to build credible regenerative sourcing, enhance supply chain resilience and strengthen sustainability credentials. For industry executives, the question is not simply whether the programme exists – it is whether your company can thoughtfully influence the adoption of regenerative practices in ways that support both environmental goals and business objectives.
