MAHA’s regenerative agriculture should be adopted in Australia

By Professor Ian Brighthope

As a doctor deeply invested in how our food system impacts human health, I’ve come to see regenerative agriculture not just as a farming method, but as a fundamental shift toward healing both the land and the people who depend on it. In my view, regenerative agriculture is a holistic, principles-based approach to farming and land management that actively restores and enhances soil health, biodiversity, water cycles, and overall ecosystem resilience. It works in partnership with nature-leveraging photosynthesis, soil biology, and natural ecological relationships-to rebuild degraded land while producing food that’s more nutrient-dense and sustainable over the long term. Right now, in April 2026, this isn’t just theory; it’s gaining real momentum here in Australia and in the United States through the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative.

The Australian Government (under the Labor administration) does provide real, on-the-ground support for regenerative agriculture – but it’s channelled through climate, carbon, and landcare lenses rather than a bold, dedicated national regenerative agriculture strategy.Through the Climate-Smart Agriculture Program (2024–27), millions in grants are flowing to projects that explicitly name regenerative practices – from Gomeroi grain production using regen methods, to First Nations regenerative alliances, soil rehydration, and multi-species pasture systems. The Carbon Farming Outreach Program, the Emissions Reduction Fund (soil carbon credits), and the recent $2 million boost to Soils for Life further show federal recognition that regen approaches can build drought resilience, sequester carbon, and improve productivity.

In the USA, under Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, working alongside HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the USDA launched a major Regenerative Pilot Program in late 2025. This program commits hundreds of millions-starting with $700 million in the first year, drawn from programs like EQIP and CSP-to support farmers in adopting whole-farm planning that prioritises soil health, water quality, reduced synthetic inputs, and long-term productivity. It’s all about aligning agriculture with the new Dietary Guidelines’ focus on real, nutrient-dense foods as the foundation of health. At its core, regenerative agriculture follows a set of flexible, context-specific principles that I find compelling because they mimic natural ecosystems rather than fighting them:

• Minimise soil disturbance through no-till or low-till methods to preserve soil structure and protect the incredible microbial life underground.
• Keep the soil covered year-round with cover crops, mulch, or residues to prevent erosion, retain moisture, and continuously feed those soil organisms.
• Maintain living roots in the ground as much as possible to nourish microbes, build organic matter, and improve nutrient cycling.
• Increase plant diversity with crop rotations, polycultures, intercropping, or even agroforestry to boost biodiversity and naturally reduce pest pressures.
• Integrate livestock thoughtfully-through rotational or adaptive grazing-to fertilise soils naturally, trample residues into the ground, and distribute nutrients more evenly.
• Reduce reliance on synthetic inputs like chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, favouring natural amendments such as compost to let soil biology do the heavy lifting.

These aren’t rigid rules; they’re adaptable to different farms, regions, and crops. But the overarching goal is regeneration: leaving the land healthier and more productive than we found it. This stands in stark contrast to conventional industrial agriculture, which often prioritises maximum yields through monocultures, heavy tillage, synthetic fertilisers, and widespread use of chemicals like glyphosate in Roundup-ready systems. Over time, that approach depletes soil organic matter, reduces microbial diversity, increases erosion, and diminishes water-holding capacity.

Studies comparing paired farms show regenerative systems building soil organic matter-often by 20% or more-leading to higher soil health scores and better overall ecosystem function. What excites me most as a physician is the impact on nutritional quality. Research, including preliminary comparisons of regenerative and conventional farms, consistently shows that food from regenerative systems tends to be more nutrient-dense. Crops often contain higher levels of key micronutrients like magnesium, calcium, potassium, and zinc; more vitamins such as B vitamins, C, E, and K; and elevated phytochemicals and antioxidants that help combat inflammation and support chronic disease prevention.

Livestock from regenerative grazing practices frequently show improved fatty acid profiles, with better omega-3 balances. Conventional methods, focused on yield at the expense of soil biology, have been linked to declines in nutrient density over decades. Regenerative practices help reverse that by fostering healthier soils that enable plants to uptake more minerals and produce more protective compounds. On chemicals like glyphosate, regenerative agriculture generally seeks to minimise or eliminate them to protect soil biology and, ultimately, human health. Glyphosate can disrupt microbiomes in the soil and potentially in our guts, contributing to inflammation and other issues. True regenerative farmers transition to alternatives—cover crops for weed suppression, diverse rotations, mechanical controls, or biological methods-avoiding long-term dependence on such inputs.

The broader benefits are profound: greater carbon sequestration to help reverse climate contributions, improved water retention and quality, enhanced biodiversity, and economic resilience for farmers through lower input costs and better drought/flood tolerance. For families like those I talk to every day, choosing regenerative-sourced meat, grains, dairy, or produce-whether grass-fed, pasture-raised, or certified regenerative-means accessing truly higher-quality nutrition from systems that heal the planet rather than degrade it.

That said, independent analyses (including 2025 research) point out there’s still no flagship, stand-alone regenerative agriculture policy or broad transition funding in Australia. Support tends to be framed as “nature markets” or climate co-benefits rather than a direct push to scale regenerative systems across the board. Many regen farmers and advocates argue this leaves the heavy lifting to individual producers while conventional systems continue to receive more systemic backing.In short: support exists and is growing, especially when it ticks climate and carbon boxes, but it could be far more ambitious given Australia’s soil degradation and climate challenges. A $500 million dedicated regenerative transition fund (as some groups have called for) would be a game-changer for farmers, biodiversity, and long-term food security.

This movement, accelerated by current U.S. policy, feels like a return to viewing food as medicine, rooted in healthier soils. It’s empowering for all of us who want to nourish our bodies and build resilience for the next generation, but it needs serious government support in Australia.