Many regenerative agriculture initiatives fail because they focus on what the system rejects instead of how the system performs.

A conversation at home that reframed everything

There is a conversation I often have with my wife, Lívia, regarding our kids, and it usually starts the same way. Phones. Internet. Screen time. New technologies. Access. More recently, AI tools have also entered the discussion.

The question is always framed around risk. Should we allow it? How early is too early? What happens if we say no?

At first glance, banning technology feels safer. If children don’t have access, they can’t misuse it. No exposure, no damage. But every time we take the conversation further, we reach the same conclusion. The problem is not the technology itself. The problem is how it is used, how often, and whether there is education, context, and accountability around it.

A phone without limits can be harmful. A phone with guidance, boundaries, and supervision becomes a tool. More importantly, avoiding technology entirely does not prepare children for the world they will inevitably face. It only postpones the risk and makes it harder to manage later.

That logic feels obvious at home. In agriculture, somehow, it becomes controversial.

The double standard we apply to farming

In most sectors of society, progress is assumed. Cars became safer, not slower. Medicine became more precise, not more primitive. Technology became smarter, not forbidden. We did not ban tools; we learned how to use them better.

In agriculture, particularly in regenerative debates, this logic is often reversed. Pesticides are framed as fundamentally incompatible with regeneration. Their presence is treated as a moral failure rather than a technical decision. The discussion stops being about outcomes and quietly turns into a conversation about purity.

This is where regenerative agriculture drifts away from science and into ideology. And once that happens, strategic thinking usually follows the same path.

Pesticides are tools, not philosophies

No serious system is defined by what it bans. It is defined by what it delivers.

Pesticides are not an identity or a belief system. They are tools, just like fertilizers, machinery, genetics, data, and irrigation. The relevant question is not whether pesticides exist in regenerative systems, but how they are used, how frequently, under what agronomic logic, and with what level of knowledge and control.

Blanket rejection is intellectually simple. Designing systems that use inputs more intelligently is far more complex. It requires agronomy, data, monitoring, and accountability. But complexity is precisely what makes systems resilient at scale.

Productivity is not the enemy of the environment

This is where the conversation becomes uncomfortable. Low productivity is often framed as environmentally virtuous, while high productivity is treated with suspicion. Reality is far less romantic.

Lower yields do not make demand disappear. They displace production. When productivity drops without a corresponding reduction in demand, land pressure increases elsewhere, deforestation risk rises, food prices go up, and social vulnerability grows. Environmental impact is not eliminated; it is relocated.

Productivity, when achieved intelligently, is an environmental strategy. Producing more with fewer inputs per unit, minimizing land expansion, and reducing systemic pressure on ecosystems is not the opposite of regeneration. In many cases, it is a prerequisite for it.

Precision beats prohibition

Returning to the conversation with Lívia, we don’t give our children unlimited screen time and hope for the best. We set rules, explain why, monitor behavior, and adjust when necessary. The focus is not on pretending technology does not exist, but on teaching how to use it responsibly.

Regenerative agriculture should follow the same logic. Precision application, targeted interventions, integrated pest management, biologicals combined with chemistry, and data-driven decisions all aim at reducing excess, not denying reality. This approach does not represent a step backward. It is an evolution toward more intelligent systems.

Banning inputs is easy. Designing systems that manage them well is not. Only one of these approaches scales.

The hidden risk of pesticide absolutism

The rejection of pesticides is often justified as risk reduction. In practice, it frequently introduces new risks that are rarely acknowledged. Yield variability increases, labor intensity rises, costs shift upstream, food affordability is affected, and supply reliability weakens.

When tools are removed without viable alternatives, risk does not disappear. It moves. And it usually moves to producers, consumers, and regions least able to absorb it. This is not a theoretical concern. It is already visible in multiple production systems shaped more by ideology than by agronomic reality.

Regenerative agriculture is a system, not a stance

Many regenerative agriculture initiatives fail because they focus on what the system rejects instead of how the system performs. True regeneration is not defined by purity, but by outcomes over time: soil function, yield stability, resilience, economic viability, and environmental performance.

Pesticides, when used irresponsibly, absolutely undermine these goals. When used strategically, sparingly, and with technical rigor, they can support them. Rejecting tools does not make a system regenerative. Designing better systems does.

The uncomfortable question executives must face

This is not a debate for social media. It is a strategic decision for executives, procurement leaders, and supply chain architects.

Are you building regenerative systems that educate producers, control tool use, optimize inputs, and protect productivity and supply stability? Or are you defending simplified bans that collapse when exposed to scale, climate volatility, and real-world economics?

Just like with children and technology, avoiding the conversation does not eliminate risk. It guarantees it will return later, larger and harder to manage.

From belief to assessment

Regenerative agriculture will not succeed on conviction alone. It will succeed when treated as a system design challenge grounded in science, innovation, and execution.

If you want to pressure-test whether your regenerative strategy is built on evidence or belief, there is a simple starting point. And do you know why regenerative practises is not the strategy you think it is? Click here!

See also that AI in agriculture is no longer a futuristic concept — it’s already reshaping agriculture worldwide. AI is helping farmers grow more food with fewer resources, paving the way for a smarter, greener, and more sustainable future. Click here to know more about it!

Click here to receive Farmnews studies via WhatsApp!

About the Author

Fabricio is a strategic advisor for food and agri-input companies sourcing from Latin America. With over 20 years of experience in agribusiness, sustainability, and international trade, he helps companies transform supply chain risk into trust, compliance and market advantage. Based in Switzerland and deeply connected to the agricultural realities of Brazil, he offers a pragmatic, forward-thinking view of sustainable sourcing.  To stay ahead with insights on resilient sourcing, sustainable food systems and agribusiness strategy, subscribe to Fabricio’s newsletter: *Beyond Harvest*.