admin
A groundbreaking new analysis highlights the critical need for a systemic overhaul of global agricultural policies, advocating for five high-level reforms designed to promote regenerative farming practices, incentivize soil health, and establish a more resilient and sustainable foundation for modern agriculture. This call to action, articulated by author and soil scientist David R. Montgomery in his latest work, ReGen: A New Future for Farming, Food, and Health, builds upon decades of research into the historical and contemporary impacts of agricultural practices on soil degradation and societal stability. Montgomery’s proposals offer a coherent and comprehensive framework to move beyond incremental adjustments and harness the transformative potential of regenerative agriculture.
The Historical Imperative: Soil Degradation and Civilizational Decline
The urgency for agricultural reform is not a new concept, but one deeply rooted in human history. Twenty years ago, Montgomery extensively documented this historical trajectory in his seminal work, Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations. His research meticulously traced how agricultural practices that depleted soil fertility and accelerated erosion contributed significantly to the decline and collapse of numerous societies across diverse geographies and eras. From ancient Mesopotamia to the Mayan civilization, and from the Roman Empire to early American settlements, the pattern remained eerily consistent: societies that failed to steward their land effectively ultimately undermined their own foundations.
This historical lens underscores a crucial lesson: the health of a society is inextricably linked to the health of its soil. Modern conventional farming, characterized by intensive tillage, monoculture, and heavy reliance on synthetic chemical inputs, continues to perpetuate many of the same soil-degrading practices that plagued past civilizations. The relentless plowing disrupts soil structure, releases stored carbon into the atmosphere, and exposes topsoil to erosion by wind and water. The routine application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides can diminish microbial life, further impairing soil’s natural regenerative capacity and compromising the intricate ecosystem beneath our feet.
Defining Regenerative Agriculture: Beyond Buzzwords
Montgomery emphasizes that regenerative farming is far more than a fleeting buzzword; it represents a fundamental paradigm shift. It is distinct from both traditional organic farming and no-till agriculture, though it often incorporates elements of both. Organic farming, while eschewing synthetic chemicals, can still rely on routine tillage for weed control, which physically disturbs the soil. Conversely, conventional no-till systems minimize physical disturbance but may heavily depend on herbicides, like glyphosate, for weed management.
True regenerative farming, as defined by its core principles, aims to minimize both physical and chemical disturbance to the soil. Its typical foundations include:
- Minimizing Soil Disturbance: Reducing or eliminating tillage preserves soil structure, fungal networks, and microbial communities.
- Cover Cropping: Planting non-cash crops (cover crops) during fallow periods protects the soil from erosion, adds organic matter, suppresses weeds, and enhances nutrient cycling.
- Diverse Crop Rotations: Rotating a variety of crops breaks pest and disease cycles, improves nutrient utilization, and fosters a more robust soil microbiome.
- Integrating Livestock: Where appropriate, managed grazing can mimic natural ecosystems, enhancing nutrient cycling and soil fertility.
These practices, often referred to as "conservation agriculture" by organizations like the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), represent a powerful synthesis of ancient wisdom and modern ecological understanding. They enable farmers to not only drastically curtail soil erosion and build robust soil health but also realize significant economic benefits, such as reduced outlays for diesel, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides. This combination of ecological restoration and economic viability positions regenerative agriculture as a pragmatic and powerful solution to contemporary challenges.
Current Policy Landscape: Insufficient Incentives and Conflicting Signals
While the recognition of regenerative agriculture’s potential is growing, particularly within governmental circles, current policies often fall short of providing the necessary impetus for widespread adoption. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has begun to acknowledge regenerative agriculture as a viable alternative to conventional farming. For instance, the Trump administration launched a regenerative pilot program in December 2025 and issued an executive order in June 2026, directing federal agencies to advance regenerative practices. These initiatives, while welcome, have been largely voluntary and lacked substantial financial incentives for farmers to transition away from established conventional methods.
Compounding this issue, government policies continue to inadvertently support practices that degrade soil health. Examples include ongoing support for the increased use and production of glyphosate, a ubiquitous herbicide often associated with conventional no-till systems. This contradictory approach — offering a nod to regenerative practices while simultaneously propping up their chemical-intensive counterparts — highlights the urgent need for a more coherent and comprehensive policy framework. The existing system often prioritizes short-term commodity production over long-term ecological sustainability, creating a significant barrier to widespread adoption of soil-building practices.
The Five Pillars of Policy Reform
To genuinely engage the transformative potential of regenerative agriculture, Montgomery proposes five broad, high-level policy recommendations:
1. Reform Agricultural Subsidies to Support Soil Health
For decades, federal agricultural subsidies in the U.S. have been criticized for disproportionately promoting conventional commodity crop production, enriching corporate agribusiness, and contributing to negative environmental and public health outcomes. In 2025, U.S. farmers received over $13 billion annually in federal subsidies for conventionally grown commodity crops, a staggering sum more than seven times that allocated to conservation programs. This imbalance creates a powerful economic disincentive for farmers to adopt practices that prioritize soil health.
A fundamental shift in government financial support is crucial. By redirecting subsidies towards practices that actively build and support soil health — such as no- or low-till systems, cover cropping, and diversified crop rotations — farmers would be incentivized to reduce their reliance on increasingly expensive synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. This reform would not only enhance farm profitability by cutting input costs but also yield broader societal benefits: bolstering local rural economies, fostering a healthier and more nutrient-dense food supply, mitigating off-farm water pollution from nutrient runoff, and sequestering atmospheric carbon in agricultural soils. The economic and ecological dividends of such a reorientation would be substantial and far-reaching.
2. Revise Crop Insurance to Reward Soil-Building
The federal crop insurance program, established in 1938 and substantially subsidized by taxpayers, is designed to protect farmers from crop failures due to natural disasters or market fluctuations. In 2025, this program cost taxpayers more than $10 billion, with over three-quarters of the payouts supporting four commoditized crops: corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton. Critically, crop insurance often proves difficult to obtain for the very fruits and vegetables that nutritionists recommend, further distorting market dynamics.
The current structure inadvertently stifles innovation and undermines incentives for adopting soil-building practices. By guaranteeing payouts for failed conventional crops, the system effectively subsidizes risk and privatizes rewards, leaving farms less resilient and more dependent on government support. Reforming crop insurance to provide comprehensive coverage that explicitly incentivizes and rewards farmers for implementing soil-building regenerative practices would represent a significant policy lever. This approach would shift the focus from subsidizing risk after the fact to rewarding risk avoidance through proactive soil stewardship, ultimately reducing the long-term need for ongoing government assistance and fostering greater agricultural resilience.
3. Reframe Policies and Programs to Support Small, Diversified Farms
Current agricultural subsidy structures predominantly favor large farms, particularly those engaged in monoculture commodity production. The largest 10 percent of American farms, for instance, receive half of all crop insurance subsidies. Commodity price support programs, ostensibly aimed at stabilizing farm income, similarly benefit large-scale operations focused on a limited range of crops like corn and soybeans. This bias overlooks the profound contributions of small, highly productive farms, which not only cultivate a greater diversity of crops and support richer biodiversity but also produce more food per acre.
Regenerative farming is adaptable to farms of all sizes, albeit with varying methods. However, recent trends have seen significant cuts to grants and programs that traditionally support small farms and local and regional food systems, despite broad bipartisan support for these initiatives. A reframing of policies is needed to actively support small, diversified farms, empowering and enabling them to cultivate a broader array of fruits, vegetables, and other essential crops. Such policies would not only enhance food security and nutritional diversity but also strengthen local economies and create more resilient food webs.
4. Expand Research on Regenerative Practices
While the overarching principles of regenerative farming are universal, their specific application must be meticulously tailored to diverse regions, unique crop systems, and individual farm contexts. There is no one-size-fits-all "easy button." Unfortunately, USDA research has historically tended to focus on incremental adjustments to conventional, high-disturbance, agrochemical-intensive farming systems. This often means developing new varieties or chemical applications rather than exploring holistic, low-input, soil-building systems that prioritize ecological principles.
Montgomery’s call, echoing his earlier advocacy in 2010 for a "moon-shot-like global research program focused on soil health," emphasizes the urgent need to accelerate research into soil-building practices and their optimal implementation across varied agroecological zones. While the new federal pilot programs are a step in the right direction, a major, coordinated effort to transition conventional farming to regenerative systems remains one of the most important — and regrettably, most neglected — environmental infrastructure projects of this century. This research should focus on developing regionally specific guidelines, understanding complex soil microbiome interactions, and quantifying the long-term economic and ecological benefits of regenerative transitions.
5. Treat Agricultural Policy as Public Health Policy
A growing body of scientific evidence unequivocally demonstrates that consuming a variety of nutrient-dense whole foods, particularly those grown in healthy, biologically active soil, profoundly benefits human health. If agricultural policy were reframed as an integral component of public healthcare policy, it would fundamentally alter the cost-benefit analysis of agricultural investments. Rather than continuing to pour resources into commodity grains primarily used for cheap, ultra-processed foods that contribute to chronic diseases and leave populations overfed yet undernourished, policies should support farmers in cultivating a greater diversity of regeneratively raised, nutrient-rich foods.
Concerns are mounting over the declining nutrient density of crops, exacerbated by rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Restoring soil health offers a powerful countermeasure, enhancing crop nutrient density and facilitating carbon sequestration back into agricultural soils. While further research is needed to fully delineate the precise mechanisms by which farming practices influence crop nutrition, adopting a "preventive medicine" approach to agriculture would radically reframe policy priorities. The ongoing societal costs of conventional, degenerative agricultural practices are staggering, encompassing not only significant adverse impacts on human health but also severe damage to agricultural resilience, water quality, biodiversity, and global climate stability.
A Win-Win for the Planet and People
These comprehensive policy changes, aimed at scaling up and mainstreaming regenerative, soil-building farming practices, possess the inherent potential to garner broad bipartisan support. They offer a compelling "win-win" scenario: boosting farm profitability through reduced input costs and increased resilience, fostering healthy rural communities, and substantially reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint.
While the transition to regenerative agriculture undoubtedly challenges aspects of conventional wisdom and established interests, the opportunity to reverse centuries of soil degradation is immediate and tangible. Recognizing that what is beneficial for the land is equally beneficial for humanity is the critical first step. By incentivizing a truly green agricultural revolution centered on regenerating healthy soil, societies can secure a more resilient, prosperous, and healthier future for generations to come. This is not merely an environmental endeavor; it is an essential investment in human well-being and long-term civilizational stability.
