In recent years, the global movement toward regenerative and organic agriculture has gained significant momentum. These approaches promise to restore soil health, enhance biodiversity, reduce reliance on synthetic chemicals and create more sustainable and resilient food systems.
Rooted in ecological principles and farmer autonomy, these practices have become vital alternatives to the destructive patterns of industrial agriculture, which has long prioritised short-term yields and profit over environmental integrity and public health.
However, despite their promising potential, these movements face a formidable challenge: the encroachment of big agribusiness corporations seeking to co-opt and distort their core principles. Through aggressive marketing and lobbying and strategic rebranding, corporations are attempting to position genetically modified (GM) soil microbes and other biotech biologicals as sustainable or regenerative solutions.
This effort, cloaked in greenwashing rhetoric, aims to maintain corporate dominance, control over agricultural inputs and influence over public perception and policy.
Adding a layer of complexity and concern is the potential targeting of influential advocates such as Robert F Kennedy Jr (RFK Jr), a prominent voice championing organic and regenerative farming. Critics like Claire Robinson of GMWatch warn that these corporations may seek to co-opt RFK Jr and other respected figures to lend legitimacy to biotech products that fundamentally conflict with the principles of true sustainability.
At their core, regenerative and organic agriculture emphasise working with natural systems rather than against them. These approaches prioritise soil health, water conservation and ecological balance by adhering to agroecological principles. Practices such as cover cropping, crop rotation, reduced tillage, composting and integrated pest management aim to rebuild degraded soils, sequester carbon and foster resilient ecosystems.
Organic agriculture, as defined by certification standards, explicitly prohibits synthetic pesticides, fertilisers, GM organisms and artificial additives. It promotes natural nutrient cycles, biodiversity and animal welfare. Both movements are driven by the recognition that sustainable food systems must prioritise ecological integrity, social equity and long-term resilience.
The rise of these movements reflects growing public concern about the health impacts of chemical-laden foods and environmental degradation. The public increasingly demand transparency, sustainability and food sovereignty: the right of communities to culturally appropriate food and to determine their own food production, distribution and consumption practices, rejecting corporate-dominated models
Corporate greenwashing
Despite the noble principles underpinning regenerative and organic agriculture, the reality is that large agribusiness corporations are actively seeking to co-opt or undermine these movements for their own benefit. Their strategy involves promoting biotech innovations—particularly GM soil microbes and biologicals—as part of a narrative of “sustainable” or “regenerative” solutions.
Genetically engineered soil microbes are marketed as biofertilisers, biopesticides or soil conditioners that can enhance nutrient uptake, improve pest resistance or sequester carbon more effectively. These products are often gene-edited or genetically modified to supposedly outperform native microbes, with claims that they can revolutionise farming practices.
However, these biotech products are fundamentally incompatible with the principles of true regenerative and organic farming. They often rely on proprietary genetic technologies that require farmers to depend on corporate-controlled inputs, perpetuating dependency on chemical and biotech giants. Moreover, the ecological risks of releasing GM microbes into soil ecosystems are largely unassessed, and their long-term impacts on native microbial communities and soil health remain uncertain.
This corporate push is often accompanied by aggressive lobbying that frame GM biologicals as “natural”, “sustainable” or “innovative”, even though they are genetically engineered and may involve synthetic chemicals or proprietary technologies. Such messaging blurs the lines between genuine ecological practices and industrial biotech solutions, deliberately designed to confuse the public and undermine the credibility of authentic organic and regenerative systems.
GM biologicals, particularly soil microbes, are engineered microorganisms designed to supposedly enhance agricultural productivity and soil health through genetic modification techniques. Unlike traditional biological inputs, which rely on naturally occurring microbes, GM biologicals are created by altering the genetic material of microbes to perform specific functions or to introduce new capabilities.
GM biologicals are primarily microorganisms—such as bacteria, fungi or other microbes—that have been genetically engineered to serve specific roles in agriculture. These roles include improving nutrient availability, pest and disease resistance, soil remediation and plant growth promotion. The genetic modifications are made using various biotechnology techniques, including gene editing tools like CRISPR, gene guns or agrobacterium-mediated transformation.
The development of GM biologicals involves inserting, deleting or modifying genes within microbial genomes to produce desired traits. For example, nitrogen-fixing bacteria are engineered to ostensively increase nitrogen availability to plants, reducing the need for synthetic fertilisers. Biocontrol agents can be modified with the aim of producing natural insecticides or antifungal compounds, providing pest and disease control. Engineered soil remediators aim to break down pollutants or xenobiotics in contaminated soils. These microbes are then produced at scale and applied to fields as seed coatings, soil amendments or foliar sprays.
Examples of GM soil microbial products include Pivot Bio’s Proven, a gene-edited nitrogen-fixing bacteria used on millions of acres of corn designed to reduce synthetic fertiliser dependence; BASF’s Poncho/VOTiVO, a seed coating containing GM bacteria that aims to protect against nematodes and enhance nutrient breakdown around roots; and Pivot Bio’s Microbial Inoculants, engineered microbes designed to break down organic matter to release nutrients more efficiently.
Proponents argue that GM biologicals can increase crop yields, reduce chemical fertiliser and pesticide use, improve soil health and resilience and enable more sustainable farming practices.
However, there are significant risks. These include ecological disruption as GM microbes can share genetic material with native microbes, potentially creating invasive or unintended species. Moreover, the unpredictable spread of these microbes, because they can travel great distances via wind or water, makes containment challenging. And unknown long-term effects on soil ecosystems raise concerns about potential damage to soil biodiversity and ecosystem functions.
The potential for horizontal gene transfer also exists, raising the risk that engineered genes could transfer to non-target organisms, including pathogens or other beneficial microbes. The deployment of GM microbes at scale raises profound ecological concerns. Unlike traditional biological inputs, these engineered organisms can reproduce, spread and potentially disrupt native microbial communities. Once released into the environment, their ecological fate becomes difficult to control or reverse.
There may also be unintended effects on non-target organisms, including beneficial insects, plants and animals and soil health degradation if engineered microbes outcompete or displace native, ecologically balanced microbial populations.
Currently, at least two GM microbial products are used across US farmland, mainly in monoculture corn production. These include nitrogen-fixing bacteria and microbes that aid in nutrient breakdown. Despite their widespread use, there is ongoing debate about their safety, ecological impact and regulation.
Claire Robinson has discussed research indicating that GM biologicals, such as engineered soil microbes, often do not outperform existing natural or conventional microbial models in agricultural contexts. She highlights that despite aggressive corporate claims, many of these GM biological products fail to deliver superior benefits compared to native microbial communities or traditional biological inputs.
Robinson points out that studies and field trials frequently show that these engineered microbes do not consistently improve soil health, nutrient cycling or crop yields beyond what existing, naturally occurring microbes achieve. This challenges the narrative pushed by big agribusiness that GM biologicals are revolutionary solutions for regenerative agriculture. Instead, their efficacy is often overstated, and their ecological risks remain poorly understood.
Her critique emphasises that the promotion of GM biologicals as superior or essential components of regenerative farming is part of a broader corporate strategy to greenwash industrial agriculture and maintain control over farming inputs. By pushing GM microbes, companies attempt to rebrand their products as “natural” or “organic”, despite lacking evidence of clear advantages and raising concerns about ecological disruption.
Robinson’s perspective aligns with a broader critique of how big agribusiness attempts to hijack regenerative and organic agriculture through misleading claims about genetically engineered products.
Despite the risks, regulatory frameworks often lag behind technological developments, allowing biotech companies to release GM microbes with minimal oversight. This regulatory gap exacerbates fears that ecological integrity and public health could be compromised.
Robert F Kennedy Jr has emerged as a prominent advocate for organic and regenerative agriculture, emphasising the importance of reducing chemical inputs, supporting small farmers and restoring ecological balance. Robinson has expressed concern that big agribusiness interests may target RFK Jr as a potential figure to endorse or promote biotech solutions, including GM soil microbes.
The strategy would involve co-opting his reputation to lend legitimacy to products that are fundamentally at odds with organic principles.
This potential targeting is part of a broader pattern where corporations seek to influence or manipulate influential advocates to serve their commercial interests. By framing biotech innovations as essential to “feeding the world”, climate mitigation or soil health, they aim to position themselves as allies of sustainable agriculture, even as their products undermine ecological and social values.
History of deception and disregard
The question of whether big agribusiness corporations can be trusted with the future of agriculture is central here and is not merely a matter of speculation; it is a question steeped in a history of documented transgressions. Reports of creating “hit lists” targeting critics, manipulating scientific research and employing PR companies to discredit dissenting voices are not isolated incidents, but rather indicative of a systemic willingness to prioritise profit and control over transparency, public health and ecological concerns.
These actions have been well-documented over the years, and far from being aberrations, they reveal a calculated strategy to maintain dominance in the face of mounting evidence against their practices.
Historically, some of these corporations have faced persistent accusations of suppressing or distorting scientific findings that contradicted their commercial interests. This manipulation of science, often achieved through funding biased research or discrediting independent studies, has had far-reaching consequences. It undermines evidence-based policymaking, endangers public health and silences those who dare to challenge the prevailing corporate narrative.
The consequences are particularly dire in the context of agriculture, where decisions about pesticide use, GM organisms and farming practices have directly and adversely impacted human health and environmental sustainability.
The vision of global agriculture being advanced by these corporations is one where genetically engineered seeds, soil microbes, data harvesting and drone technology are all employed to entrench corporate control and dependency. This vision actively displaces smallholder farmers and undermines agroecological practices that are essential for food sovereignty and ecological resilience.
The use of PR firms to attack critics and spread misinformation further erodes trust, creating a climate of fear and discouraging open debate about the risks and benefits of agricultural technologies. These tactics often involve character assassination, the spreading of disinformation and the creation of astroturf organisations designed to mimic grassroots movements while actually serving corporate interests (all of this and more is documented at length on the GMWatch website).
Deregulation efforts surrounding new genetic modification techniques are paving the way for the unchecked proliferation of gene-edited GM organisms and engineered microbes, further increasing risks to health, the environment and farmer livelihoods.
Given this well-documented history of deception, manipulation and disregard for public welfare, it is not only reasonable but imperative to approach any claims made by these corporations with a high degree of scepticism. Their involvement in regenerative and organic agriculture should be viewed through a lens of intense scrutiny, with careful attention paid to the potential for greenwashing, the co-optation of sustainable practices and the further entrenchment of corporate control over the global food system.
It is essential to increase transparency and public awareness about the ecological and health risks of GM biologicals while supporting farmer-led, ecologically based practices that prioritise soil health, biodiversity and community resilience without reliance on proprietary biotech.