Why the Same Food Isn't Always the Same (and the Food Market is Fundamentally Mis-Priced)

On regulations, farming, processing, additives, contaminants, and food economics

I recently had the privilege of speaking at a sustainability and innovation conference in France. Despite my best efforts to "send it," if I'm being honest, I'll always feel a bit one-upped, because the best talk of the event — by far — was a British farmer named Mark.

Mark, his wife Stephanie, and llamas

Mark, whose family has farmed in the Yorkshire region of Northern England for generations, spends most of his days thinking about three things:

1. His land
2. How to run a food business
3. Climate change (and how it's changing his land and business)

One of many interesting comments Mark made is about the modern relationship between regenerative farming, nutrition, and food economics. To paraphrase: one of the benefits of regenerative farming is it creates a better soil environment. This, in turn, produces better, more resilient crops, a fact now being borne out in research:

"Despite small sample sizes, all three crop comparisons show differences in micronutrient and phytochemical concentrations that suggest soil health is an under appreciated influence on nutrient density, particularly for phytochemicals not conventionally considered nutrients but nonetheless relevant to chronic disease prevention"

However, despite the fact that Mark's farming strategy allows him to produce a more nutrient-dense tomato, his corporate purchasers — companies like Unilever, Nestlé, and Mondelez — still price his output in units, weight, or raw calories. They won't pay Mark a cent more for the extra nutrients in his vegetables, despite the fact that, by human health and nutrition standards, it's a premium product.

What food retailers and distributors in the UK, US, and elsewhere generally do pay a premium for is certifications, such as "certified organic" or "certified fair trade". Organic-to-standard price premiums for common produce can range from 190% for bananas to around 25% for oranges, with the grower capturing ~20-30% of that margin.

In theory, an organic food product should present nutrient advantages versus conventional counterparts. However, that isn't always the case. One meta-analysis found 42% of comparisons showed no significant difference between organic and conventional foods. Are consumers paying a premium for effectively nothing? Or, at best, a coin toss?

The one viable claim to organic produce isn't the presence of superior taste, quality, or nutrition value — it's the absence of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides [although this isn't always thoroughly tested and indirect exposure can and does happen from drift and runoff]. Like many things, the quality and profile of the final product varies considerably farm to farm.

Moreover, many otherwise high-quality farms simply refuse to pursue organic certification because of the associated cost and effort, despite the fact that their actual farming practices would qualify if they ponied up the cash.

It seems then, the upper end of the food market is fundamentally mis-priced. If, ultimately, soil health and regenerative farming are better predictors of produce quality and nutrition value than "certified organic" designations and other labels, consumers should be paying for that — except no one is.

Unhealthy soil (left) doesn't retain carbon, helpful bacteria, moisture, or other nutrients

For starters, most food buyers don't know this — let alone recognizing what to look for or how to compare products. Most food brands and grocery stores don't appear to be aware of this either. Finally, even the ones who do aren't particularly effective at messaging in this arena, or using their advertising, product marketing, and packaging touch-points to educate consumers. As the people closest to the land itself, a lot of farmers do understand this, but it's lost in translation up the supply chain.

For the TL;DR version: as a consumer, two of the best (and, unfortunately, only) labels to look for that imply attention to soil health are:

In the first case, glyphosate (more commonly known as RoundUp) is a synthetic pesticide that significantly harms soil health (and human health, by extension). Certified organic food can still be exposed to glyphosate — sometimes indirectly — and it's bad stuff to have in your food supply. Avoid wherever possible.

Similarly, while traditional certifications (including certified organic) largely ignore — and certainly don't test — soil health, some newer, more innovative standards like the Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) standard use soil health as a defined criteria.

This includes steps like requiring farmers and foods to take soil health-promoting steps like:

• Planting cover crops, perennials, and native vegetation
• Rotating crops
• Avoiding significant soil disturbance when tilling
• Rotational livestock grazing (where applicable)
• Using only organic, natural fertilizers

Moving beyond labels and standards, it's also great to try and cultivate a deeper relationship with your food ecosystem. Go to farmer's markets. Talk to the farmers. Try to grow your own food (to the extent you can and have the space). Do what's reasonable within your socioeconomic means and geographic constraints.

One resource I like is the Real Organic Project's search engine, which lets you search soil-healthy farms by location and other criteria, like how to buy their produce.

Finally, consumers should also be aware of geographic and regulatory differences. For example, in 2025 the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) still allows dozens of compounds like carcinogens, dyes, and antibiotics in the food supply that are banned in other regions like Canada and the European Union. Recently, the difference was highlighted in a viral Reddit thread showing the difference between Canadian and American fruit loops. Same brand, same product, markedly different ingredient profile.

Canadian fruit loops use natural dyes for coloring, American fruit loops don't

This in turn brings us to the great challenge in our food supply today. As a society, we need to balance two important — and seemingly opposing — forces:

1. Feed a lot of people cost-effectively

Industrial agriculture: ✅

Regenerative agriculture: 🥵

2. Farm in a way that's resilient to climate change, sustains nature and biodiversity, and produces healthy, nutrient-dense food

Industrial agriculture: 🚷

Regenerative agriculture: ✅

All told, this is not an either-or proposition. Regenerative farming practices can — and should — be scaled up. A much broader, sweeping ban on synthetic pesticides in the U.S. and other countries would be another great start. In some cases, transitional, agriculture subsidies may be necessary (and, to be fair, a lot of subsidies for industrial agribusiness already exist).

Until recently, the UK offered a sustainable farming incentive (SFI) that Mark and many farmers leveraged to offset the costs of purchasing cover crop seeds and forgoing short-term cash crop sales for long-term soil health gains. The decision to pause SFI funding in early 2025 raised major backlash, and the UK government has pledged to reintroduce a new scheme soon.

Like so many things, this is another case of systems change with far-reaching implications for public health, affordability, and natural resource preservation. Across society, opportunities abound:

• With a modicum of effort and investment, consumers and families can become smarter, healthier food purchasers
• Farmers can maintain growing operations that are environmentally and economically sustainable, long-term
• Food brands have a powerful — and largely untapped — opportunity to educate and differentiate on a real consumer point of value that extends beyond price and taste
• Governments can sensibly balance public and economic interests so everyone benefits

How we get there requires change, collaboration, and creative problem-solving. But it starts with accepting one of the most important and trusted first principles: nature knows best.