Within this need to define regeneration, I sensed an ever present tension in the world of natural food products, as brands and organizations all appeared to be  defining  “regenerative” as a checkbox , a stamp, a mechanized approach designed to validate or elevate a process. In essence, the industry seems to be trying to create a definition that indicates a better way of producing food.  Everyone had their opinions and I suspect that most hadn’t been exposed to a developmental way of exploring regeneration through a lens of living systems thinking. I witnessed many panelists on stage attempting to prove or defend their own adopted approach to quality.

In one session I experienced one moderator dismiss a long standing certification as overly confusing to consumers. It was curious because his comments seemed to disregard the fact that this certification is embedded within a different certification he was touting as better. The tension was palpable as the team from the “confusing certification” sat in the audience in support of the talk. In his efforts to separate the value of the two certifications, he created a chasm where I suspect there could easily be a shared direction.

Reflecting back on that moment I saw myself judging the moderator, feeling the need to carry the very same defensive state of being that he was demonstrating.  I had a human reaction to something that felt “unfair” or dismissive of something I believed in.

Within reNourish  Studio we rely heavily on our own capacity to self reflect and externally consider. It’s a powerful (and not always easy) way to seek a potentially aligned direction where we may be assuming a competitive threat. We learn to notice our own reactions to situations. We recognize that we all carry biases based upon our personal experiences and we work hard to notice how they may be preventing us from seeing something even better emerge. I had to step out of my reactionary state to seek a new perspective.

I cannot know what was in the mind of the moderator, but upon deeper reflection, I can consider that his words mattered to him in that moment. His statements could have been based on tensions in other sessions, the opinions of his clients in the panel, his own biases, or any/none of  the above. Whatever it was, he had his reasons for making those statements. In fact, there was probably even a level of truth in his statement that was lost on me through the way he presented the material..  Although I could clearly sense a potential alignment between the two certifications he discussed, he likely held value in presenting them as opposing. 

As an industry, our attachment to good, better and best is thus far not affecting positive systemic change, but instead becoming a battleground of competition. Imagine if instead of proving which certification is best, that we realized a much greater potential for systemic change through a shared direction.

We’re not often taught to see our businesses through a broader lens. Yes, we can carry a sense of purpose or a mission. However, without understanding the whole that we are a part of, we can get stuck in our own thinking. By believing we have a better solution to a collective problem, the impetus to compete can outweigh the effectiveness of the change we’re seeking.

The desire, energy, impetus and urgency around a change in the food system is undeniable. It exists. It’s palpable. Many can sense it’s calling. The invitation is for us to see this need as something bigger than our currently held beliefs. There’s an opportunity to bring together this potential  and reveal a higher order of value. Imagine the effect we can have if we check our reactivity, become deeply and openly curious about other perspectives and in the process, reveal a powerful unified direction that neither entity has considered. Suddenly, our competitors become our allies, and energies are aligned for effective change.