What a world we live in today! Recently,  one of my family members proudly proclaimed to me that she “never ever goes to the grocery store!” I could tell by her excitement level that to her – this was a great thing! I, on the other hand,  was saddened by the thought. I am literally in love with food and always want to seek new brands, and experience the beauty of food. To me,  never going to the grocery store feels isolating. I could immediately see how our busy lifestyles are creating even more opportunities for us to be disconnected from our food. However, busy American parents who are running kids to and from all of the things have a great appreciation for items that can be multitasked and done on their phones. Modern society is calling for this type of service.

Online delivery services, meal kits, grocery deliveries, and Amazon have all made a trip to the grocery store less necessary in this day and age. Databases and technology make it easier and easier for us to search for an item. We can apply filters that match our priorities, like cost, size, dietary categories, allergens, and of course, certifications – all in the name of aligning our choices to our values. That and of course, convenience.

In one way we can view this process as a simplification since we no longer have to physically get in a car and go to the store. In another way, all of this technology can create a LOT of options to consider with each and every food purchase. Without being in person and engaging our senses to make the choice in the store, we rely on online images, words, and descriptions alone.

Consumer values around food can vary greatly. Inexpensive food (from a price tag standpoint) has become commonplace in our country as our definition of “food” keeps expanding  beyond what’s simply raised in our yards, at a farm, or on a ranch. Processed food has allowed for lower price points.  But it’s becoming evident that this lowered price comes with a different cost – namely our health and the health of our planet. As such, consumers are now seeking easily referenced third party certifiers that can create a level of trust in the foods they are consuming, whether it’s less toxins, avoiding genetic modification, organic practices or even just ingredient or dietary specifications like gluten free or keto. The idea is if you see a certain “symbol” you can trust it more.

I find myself reflecting on the fact that thus far, even though I have an appreciation for what certifications can indicate, our collective food system has yet to experience system-wide consumer purchasing shifts based on certifications alone. One could also argue that adding more labels could create even more confusion for consumers at purchase point. In consumer data reports I’ve seen this called “certification fatigue.”

Personally, I’m a conscious, label reading natural shopper. Honestly, I do rely on a lot of the certifications. I appreciate the work and efforts that entities take to provide a level of safety and trust in our food. And yet, I also see them emerging from a system that hasn’t been focused on living systems thinking or the health of our planet as a whole. Most of them exist with the goal of excluding something in our food;  like excessive chemical toxins,  laboratory altered genes or the latest ingredient that someone has deemed detrimental. 

Within reNourish, we observe various paradigms of business. This need for certifications typically comes from the paradigm Carol Sanford calls  “arrest disorder” – meaning it is meant to put a stop to something nefarious. For example, the NonGMO project has created certifications that indicate to consumers that their purchase is GMO free. Because there are very few transparencies around food manipulation, toxicity, scientific manipulation and vitality,  I greatly appreciate the NonGMO butterfly! Without some of these certifications, there is no other way for us to trust. Hence, they do serve an important purpose.

When we step back and look at higher orders of value in business, like that of a regenerate life paradigm, we can see how an arrest disorder approach is not providing the greatest opportunity to support all of life. Does it create awareness and an informed choice? Yes, and how can we elevate our thinking to experience an even greater value?

When we trust in arrest disorder certifications alone,  are we focusing on something that we desire to avoid but not necessarily seeing the whole from a living systems standpoint?  If our aim is to feed the world through a system that supports all of life, competing certifications will continue to keep us focused on what’s wrong  or better than as opposed to moving towards the potential of a life supporting paradigm.

The rise in certifications and verifications is indicative of a rising mistrust in our food system. We’re running through a scarcity, fear filled, capitalism first, solutions based system, forgetting the possibilities in living systems. By checking certification boxes and trying to prove one is better than another, we’re missing an opportunity to seek  a greater unified aim.

Let’s reflect on the popular certification of USDA Organic. If organics have only achieved a 5-6% market share since its inception 30 years ago, we must seriously consider why. We must observe the conditions that have prevented organic certification from creating a higher order of value in the food system.

I recently observed a highly competitive field around certifications at Expo West 2024. The new buzz word around quality agriculture is regenerative, and at the show, it became widely apparent that the trust factor in quantifying this term is very low. Broadly represented at the show were the Regenerative Organic Certifications and the Real Organic Project, both designed to add requirements on top of the existing USDA Organic certification process.  Both have come into existence for well intentioned reasons. Both are still a series of check boxes designed to prove a level of quality – or arguably vitality.  When we design certifications based upon current day issues, problems  or concerns in an effort to prevent greenwashing or some other “less than” practice, we just may be missing the whole point of the word regeneration. 

Might it be counter productive to create regenerative certifications that are built upon an already complex and financially intensive set of organic standards? If only 6% of producers are willing to invest in current organic certifications, what might that say about those willing to add on to those requirements in order to boast the regenerative claims? The math doesn’t add up that these new levels of certifications would have a greater effect on the system.

If we can see regeneration as an ongoing process instead of a mechanized certification, imagine how we could continue to improve this system for generations to come. Any modern day certification that creates a set of rules around regeneration could quite literally extinguish any possibility of regenerating the definition as a practice. As the system evolves, we must continue to learn and reevaluate. We can allow for a higher order of value to emerge if we allow our system to be regenerative by nature and not a definition to be held to a set of standards.