PepsiCo–Cargill: regenerative maize or greenwashing?
The Iowa maize programme raises questions about chemical dependence, industrial no-till and evidence of change. We distinguish criticism and hypotheses from verified programme outcomes.
Published: 10 October 2026 · Programme: 2025–2030
The 240,000-acre programme
On 15 July 2025, PepsiCo and Cargill announced regenerative practices across 240,000 Iowa acres by 2030 in their shared maize supply chain. Practical Farmers of Iowa provides technical guidance and incentives. Stated goals include soil health, lower emissions and resilience.
The criticism: chemical dependence
Friends of the Earth’s April 2025 Rethinking No-Till report estimates that at least 93% of US no-till or minimum-till maize and soybean acreage uses synthetic herbicides, most commonly glyphosate. This estimate concerns those US crops generally. It raises a question for corporate programmes: do they change chemical dependence or add a green name?
A hypothesis to investigate
Our specific critical hypothesis is that rewarding reduced tillage and cover while retaining herbicide and synthetic-input dependence could turn a regenerative label into greenwashing. Assessing this requires field-level active ingredients and rates, microbiology changes, rotations and input trends. This is a question for investigation, not a finding that the programme has been legally judged misleading.
Area versus outcomes
NewClimate Institute’s 2024 review distinguished PepsiCo acreage applying practices from acreage reporting quantified environmental improvements, noting ambiguities in assessment, carbon and emissions requirements. This predates the 2025 partnership. The new programme should disclose soil and input changes alongside participating area.
Evaluations evolve
As You Sow’s July 2025 assessment of twenty companies warned of greenwashing where pesticide and fertiliser use remains high. It also ranked PepsiCo among relatively stronger performers on outcome criteria and pesticide reduction. Our scrutiny therefore concerns this programme’s terms, implementation, verified reductions and soil-life restoration.
Our position
Regeneration centres on restoring and maintaining soil life. Programmes should disclose baselines, interventions, repeated measurements and a clear path away from inputs undermining that goal. These are our criteria for following promises and greenwashing allegations.