Regenerative agriculture can be a friend in the field but a foe in the market. Gunnar Rundgren is broadly sympathetic to regen practices, but he’s also clear eyed about the hype, the lack of definition, and how easily “regen” becomes a marketing umbrella that can mean almost anything, especially when big brands get involved.

What I found most useful is the EARA “compass” framing and Gunnar’s critique of outcome only regen. If “what works, works” includes routine herbicide use, or reduces regeneration to a single metric like soil carbon, then the term gets hollowed out. His wider point matters too.

Farming systems don’t exist outside economics and power, so without a deeper analysis, regen risks becoming the next version of “sustainable”, embraced by everyone and therefore meaning very little.