IFPA Takes on Tech

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Welcome to PMA Takes on Tech, the podcast that explores the problems, solutions, people and ideas that are shaping the future of the produce industry. I'm your host Vonnie Estes, Vice President of technology for the Produce Marketing Association. And I've spent years in the ag tech sector, so I can attest, it's hard to navigate this ever changing world and developing and adopting new solutions to industry problems. Thanks for joining us and for allowing us to serve as your guide to the new world of produce and technology. My goal of the podcast is to outline a problem in the produce industry and then discuss several possible solutions that can be deployed today.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Today we hear a rebroadcast of a PMA Virtual Town Hall on the carbon economy. Where is the money for the producers? My guests are Martin Lowenfish, the branch chief of area wide planning at the Natural Resources Conservation Service. In case you don't know, NRCS, formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service, is an agency of the USDA that provides technical assistance to farmers and other private landowners and managers. Martin will give us his view on climate smart agriculture and forestry and the programs he's working on.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Next we hear from two companies who are very active in this space. We have Radhika Moolgavkar from Nori. Nori's goal is to create a platform for anyone to buy carbon credits. Radhika leads the supply and methodology group and is responsible for operationalizing supply into the Nori marketplace and developing new methodologies. And Ben Carson from Granular Corteva, who is a leader of carbon credits, ecosystem services. Corteva, is developing a number of partnerships and working with farmers to get carbon payment from their soil health practices.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
And we hear from Paul Lightfoot, Paul has been deeply involved in food and ag for 20 years, he is using his influence and platform to talk about negative foods. We will hear what he has seen in the system and what consumers think. After the town hall aired, I had a listener that wanted to dig deeper into the question of what is in it for producers. Listen at the end of the podcast to hear where that conversation netted out. I will drop you into the conversation as we jump into these carbon topics.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Good morning, and good afternoon to everyone. Thank you for being part of this call. Like all of you, I'm interested in where we are now with the carbon economy and where this is all headed. From introducing practices to sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gases on farm, to taking a valid soil sample, to analyzing that sample, to monetizing all of this to the farmer. There's a great deal of complexity and unknowns. How is data collected? What is valid data? Who gets to say what valid data is? How does a producer get credit? What part does the government play and what do consumers think? We will try to unpack some of these questions and more today, with my guests. We have a great group of people that really span this whole part of the system of the carbon economy. So let's start with Martin and find out about what's going on with USDA and the government and what you're thinking about. So can you tell us, Martin, what you do and what's going on at the agency?

Martin Lowenfish, NRCS:
Well, thank you, Bonnie, and great to be talking with everyone today. As Paul was just saying I'm the branch chief for area wide planning at NRCS. And so I'll use that term NRCS just to get the acronyms out of the way. Hopefully you're all familiar with that. But for nearly 100 years since the dust bowl NRCS is providing farmers, ranchers and forest landowners with assistance to conserve their agricultural resources. And by extension, the natural resources of the nation. And now we know very much that carbon is part of that equation. And at the highest level NRCS provides farmers, ranchers and forest owners and I'm going to say just farmers for simplicity here, with financial and technical assistance to address the conservation needs on their operations. So that is key for us in that NRCS works with producers on a voluntary basis. So we can provide assistance to farmers who asked us for the help.

Martin Lowenfish, NRCS:
The biggest source of funding we have to meet those needs is the farm bill, which provides about $4 billion annually, mostly to plan and cost share, though it's not technically called cost share anymore. Certain legal niceties, but to provide that financial assistance or cost share for conservation improvements on farmers lands. Significant funding also goes to easement programs.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
So around carbon sequestration and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, what are the programs that NRCS is getting involved with? And what are the programs in those areas that are available?

Martin Lowenfish, NRCS:
Well before I do any sort of deep dive onto the NRCS part, I want to highlight some of the Secretary's agenda here. And the first thing is back in May, the department published the 90 day plan that really highlighted some central principles. And that central to USDA's approach is the concept that to be effective, whatever we do must work for farmers, ranchers, and landowners, and that we must pursue strategies that create new markets, that talks to the purpose of this webinar today, new markets for rural America is to build wealth that stays in rural communities. That's available on the web, easy to find, and I'm sure we can provide some links to this distribution if we want to. I'm not going to read that report to you. It's been read into the record, it's available too you.

Martin Lowenfish, NRCS:
But some of the highlights there that the Secretary has positioned us to prepare USDA to quantify, track and report the benefits of what our buzzword here is climate smart agriculture and forestry practices. So that quantification piece is key to the approach, that we want to leverage existing programs. And also support new and better markets for agriculture and forestry products generated through these climate smart agriculture and forestry practices. Also note that the Secretary Vilsack spoke last week, had a big climate announcement.

Martin Lowenfish, NRCS:
That is available on YouTube, and we can share some links. Key to that and to this group, is that we have a big request for information that's out on the Federal Register right now. As the secretary indicated that he would have existing programs. But he also indicated that there's going to be about another $500 billion available through a new climate smart agriculture and forestry partnership program. And we're taking comments now about how to best shape that program.

Martin Lowenfish, NRCS:
Otherwise that's all the future and the broad plans. But like I said, we do provide that voluntary assistance to address natural resource concerns on your operation, in plain language, that's conservation issues like soil erosion, loss of nutrients to surface or groundwater and air quality issues among many there. And often, those conservation systems that address those other needs, also result in carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reductions. And I think that's the biggest part that we can play supporting these climate smart agriculture and forestry practices on working operations.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Great, thanks. So the best way for people to getting engaged and see what's going on is to go to the website, and there's links there for them to get their questions answered.

Martin Lowenfish, NRCS:
Yeah, well, no, absolutely. And engaging with NRCS, certainly there's the website. But one of the most valuable tools on our website is the office finder where you can get information about contacting your local office. So NRCS has nearly 3,000 offices around the country, where we have planners and program folks out there who are working with individual producers, farmers to develop solutions for their operations. So look to find your state's NRCS website, look to find your local office, look to find your state conservationist who's the lead for NRCS in each state.

Martin Lowenfish, NRCS:
And we can talk about that some more, but really, we are, we are a locally led agency. And we have staff and partner staff all across the country for you to engage with.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Great. All right, thank you. We'll circle back around and talk more about your involvement. But for right now let's move on to two of the companies who are very involved in this space and are working with producers and figuring out how to capture, model, measure and monetize. I will have you both introduce yourselves and then we will ask questions. So first Radhika please tell us about Nori and your role.

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
Yeah, thanks Vonnie for having me, and I'm really happy to be here. As was mentioned, my name is Radhika, I work for a company called Nori. We're based in Seattle, and we're a voluntary carbon marketplace. So some people might have heard of registries like Verra, Gold Standard. We are sort of like them in that we have developed our own methodology for creating carbon credits for US cropland producers. But we also take it one step further, in that we create the carbon credit, which is called an NRT, or a Nori Carbon Removal Tonne, we sell it, and we sell it on our marketplace. So we have both suppliers who create the credit and demand, which are the buyers who purchase our carbon credits. So that's us in a nutshell.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
All right, Ben, you work with farmers who are changing their practices and getting credits. And you started with Granular which is now Corteva. And there's some other programs that could have is working on so tell us about what you're doing and what your role is.

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
Yeah, thanks Vonnie. Corteva is one of the largest pure play agriculture companies in the United States and beyond, a large footprint in row crops and specialty. And you really think about that footprint, we really see our role in this space, as focusing on the farmer and providing access to those programs. And really focusing in on where we can play best, which is really we have significant sales and support outreach, so that we can actually help farmers with the practice change, not just a program. We have digital tools to help simplify the tracking and the quantification.

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
And then we work across multiple programs with folks like Nori, and others, Indigo and ESMC, to provide farmers access to these programs. So we don't build marketplaces, we don't do our own quantification, we really focus on a lot of that support that we can provide and simplicity and trying to drive to scale in this space. Because a lot of folks call it the Wild West, we're trying to change that from a simplicity standpoint. And not trying to do everything in the space and just really, really focus on the farm.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
So Ben the farmer is your customer, your that's who you're interacting with anyway, with all your other inputs and all the other things that Corteva does. And so what so when you go and you talk to a producer about the carbon economy and potential carbon credits, what's the conversation? Are you selling them something or like, what's the interaction there?

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
Some would say I'm a really lazy salesperson. So I'm trying to sell a check, or revenue. But before we even get to that, the first things we talk about are agronomy, agronomy, agronomy, then let's talk about carbon. Payments today don't justify a lot of these practice transitions by themselves. And so these things have to make sense holistically. And even if you look at the climate accounting, yield still matters, land use changes. And farmers are here to run a big business.

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
And so really, for us, it's how do we look at the whole system's level view, not just about our products or what we're doing? Is this the right choice for an operation? And then where can a carbon program de-risk or accelerate a practice change? Now, when you combine things with USDA programs, the NRCS has been doing this a long time. Other programs that exist I think we'll be able to expand it so more and more folks, the business case will make sense, both economically and economically. But today, it's really that focus on those that have some interest in these practices today, and then we help to kind of tip the scale on the business case, so they can move either faster, or with a little less risk.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Great, thanks. And Radhika, from what you said, it sounds like both people are your customers. So explain kind of how your business model works and kind of what your product is and how you interact on both sides of the chain.

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
Yeah, so we also work directly with some farmers. Not in the same way that Ben's company does, obviously, we work with them to bring their data, which is where we work with the Cortevas of the world to bring their data into our system. We model that data through a tool called soil metrics, which then creates the incremental carbon change due to that practice change. And that is the value that we monetize or quantify, as Ben mentioned. And that's what I mentioned earlier than NRT are the Nori carbon removal tonne. That represents one tonne of carbon dioxide sequestered in the soil for 10 years.

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
And that is what we then sell to our buyers. One of Nori's goals is to always ensure that all levels of both farmer and buyer can participate in our marketplace, which has sometimes been a barrier in previous iterations of these registries. So our real goal is to make sure that even the smallest buyer and the smallest supplier can participate as I mentioned. And so we list them on our marketplace and we have individuals buying like one NRT or whatever they think their carbon footprint for the year might be.

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
All the way up to big corporations who are interested in partnering with us to purchase buyers. Our sweet spot is sort of that small and medium sized business who really is interested in their carbon footprint and how to do a better job, how to be sustainable, often working within local communities. And our product to them is easy. They understand what it is, and they don't have to do a lot of due diligence to feel like they are making an impact.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Great. Yeah, there's so many different questions that go on with this. But one I did want to ask is I get confused and just looking at different marketplaces. So is there a set price of carbon. Where are we on pricing of carbon? And either one of you can answer that one.

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
I would say no, there's no set price of carbon as been I'm sure as well aware working with Indigo and ESMC. On Nori's marketplace right now we're selling for $15 and that's the set price the farmer set. So in our marketplace, a farmer determines the price they want to pay for carbon, or they want people to pay them for carbon. So it's $15 we take a transaction fee on top of that we charge the buyer so they get all of that 15. If we really want to go down the rabbit hole, but we probably don't have time we're also a cryptocurrency company. So we're launching Nori, which is a cryptocurrency token which we hope will drive true price discovery around carbon because I think we can all agree that the current pricing in the US particularly is way too low for the type of change we want to drive.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
And Ben you probably don't get that involved in the price then if you're kind of... You're working with the farmer, but then you're working through your partnership networks that are setting the price more, is that right?

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
Yeah, so we have to some extent. A farmer is not going to just sign up without understanding what their forward pricing is going to look like. So the way that we structure our contracts is we want to be on the same side of the table as the farmer. So we guarantee now and in the future and simple both English and legalese that you know 75% of the credit value is going to go to the farmer and then we have a $15 a tonne price minimum. Really that's because we see carbon credit pricing significantly increasing. You can look at the Bank of America, JP Morgan, everyone and their dog has a projection out there. And really we want to make sure that our farmers are able to capture that upside and we're not artificially locking them in, so they can hold us accountable to now have aligned incentives but to re-earn the business.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
And Radhika on the cryptocurrency, I know one of the problems around carbon credits is that they get resold or there's no way to really trace them. So is the cryptocurrency a way to... So are you setting that up so that you can kind of track them and it can't be corrupted that they can be resold the credits?

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
Yeah, actually, you totally hit the nail on the head Vonnie. I didn't mention it but our... We have actually two crypto assets. We have the NRT which I mentioned and the Nori token which we haven't launched. The NRT is also written to the blockchain and so when it is sold, it gets retired and can never be resold again. Then the question becomes well what's the commodity that's trading and the commodity that we want to trade eventually is the Nori. Which represents the carbon credit but every time it's used a new NRT would be retired and sold. So more carbon is constantly being drawn down but the Nori can be recycled within the economics community. So yes, that is our hope that this will be a solution to some of the carbon accounting problems out there.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
So to both of you again, what do you think is missing in the technology of sampling data analysis and reporting. There's that whole layer of how do we sample and then how do we model and how accurate are the models and how is the data analyzed and that piece to me, because I'm looking at the technology of all this, is really exciting. But where are we there? And do we have a long ways to go before we feel really confident in that and how good is good enough?

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
Yeah, I guess I would say you need to start with what the buyers need and start with the money. And really, it comes down to what type of asset are you generating. So there's obviously a Nori asset that Radhika has described, but then there are just offsets from registries or scope three emissions reductions. And all of them have different requirements. And so I think the biggest thing that's missing, at least from my seat in the house, is a little bit of standardization. There's no number two yellow carbon out there.

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
There's not the same grading you'd see. And especially if you look at a lot of the folks who are PMA members it's going to really come down to what is the claim that either a company is trying to make or they're trying to influence the consumer. Because that's going to directly dictate the measurement uncertainty that you're willing to tolerate, and which is then going to dictate what the underlying technology that we need is.

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
Yeah, I would agree with Ben. And I would add that I think it is very early days in soil carbon. And there's a lot of excitement which generates, I think a lot of new ideas and visions. But at the same time, it has to be tempered with the reality that even the science of soil, even if you're measuring it, there's not a... It's not clear always about the incremental carbon, the amount of carbon being stored, the long term storage.

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
And so I feel like we are making great progress. And all of this work actually only helps develop the models, helps develop soil sampling and testing that is both cost effective, and practical, because that's one of the things we struggle with at Nori is how do you roll out something that both a farmer can afford to do or a third party and potentially, and also doesn't disrupt the way they farm and is also academically meaningful.

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
That being said, all this data that we're providing to the models through our system, we think is improving the models. And it's just, with the different programs that the USDA is thinking of rolling out, you can see all sorts of opportunities to make it better and smarter and more efficient.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Yeah, I think this is a really interesting time, early stage of any kind of business opportunity or technology. In that we could measure every tiny little micron on the soil, and we could make it really complicated and super costly and get all the information eventually. But like you said, We need something that you can roll out that is cost effective, and people can actually use. And so trying to find that sweet spot of what is really going to work to give us the information that we need and not make it so cumbersome, just because we can get the data.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
So I think it's a really interesting time to figure out that balance. So we'll come back to you guys, but I'm going to move down the supply chain and talk to Paul. And before I get started with Paul, to the audience, we are going to open it to audience questions, as Scott said in the beginning, so start thinking about your questions. And I'll be reading them as you type them in. Because we want to get everybody involved in this conversation.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
I have tons of questions. But I know other people do too, because this is such a new area. So moving to Paul. So, Paul, we've talked a number of times, and I've been really excited about your long history in Food and Ag and now you're using your insight and your voice and your platform, you have a newsletter called negative foods newsletter that discusses how a food system based on carbon negative foods can be leveraged to reverse climate change. And you've been making a lot of noise about this. And it's great to have a voice out there. So let's just jump in. And can you tell us what you mean when you say negative foods and talk a little bit about your newsletter and kind of what your orientation is right now?

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
Yeah, I'd love to. Thanks for having me. And thanks for that fun question. So I think just super high level, that the food system is responsible for, let's say, a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Some people say more, some people say less, but let's start with that. And which means it's just as important as transportation and energy and lots of other things as well.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
Food, though, is different than those other things. It's unique in a couple ways. One is that we have to eat constantly. Every person has to keep eating every day to survive. So we're making personal choices that directly impact our personal carbon footprints in a way that's a little bit different often with transportation and energy. But it's also unique in that some foods can have carbon negative footprints. And that's what I mean by negative foods. Foods with let's say neutral or negative carbon footprints.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
And what I mean by that is that some food can be produced in a way that doesn't release carbon, but draws carbon from the atmosphere. And so if we can eat food that draws down carbon on a net basis, the food system could be a lever to reverse climate change. We may get to renewable energy in the United States, like it is in a place like Iceland, let's say, and then you're getting to neutral or flat. But with food, we could imagine a future world where large parts of the food system aren't neutral or flat but are actually a lever to pull carbon from the atmosphere.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
That's great. And can you give some examples? I've seen several examples in your newsletter but just give some examples of types of foods or companies that you've seen that are going this direction?

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
Yeah, I think maybe the one that's starkest and maybe most important and a little bit easiest to understand because it's been studied a lot is beef. And I'll start with that because industrial beef is probably the worst offending actor in the climate space. And I say that recognizing a lot of people might not like that. But that's the reality. If you're eating you industrial beef, you are cranking a lever that's releasing a ton of greenhouse gas emissions, both from the way that the cows are fed. They're eating grains that are produced with fertilizer that's produced with natural gas.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
They're often grown in places where deforestation released thousands of years of stored carbon. And the animals themselves are releasing a lot of methane. It's a catastrophe for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But if you're growing beef in what we'll call a regenerative way, and I won't go into details on that. There's lots of people more expert, including it at the NRCS, than I am on that. But if you're going to be for generatively, which takes a lot more space, which can be more expensive to do in some cases, you can actually have beef that's being produced in a way that's removing carbon from the atmosphere.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
A couple of companies recently have talked about LCAs that they've had done. One is White Oaks Pasture, and another is Bell Campo. And there's a couple other companies out there like Hickory Nut Gap that are starting to market their beef as regenerative. Meaning it's climate positive, where it's, as I say, a negative food. So that's an example where I think consumers could see themselves shifting their food choices from one of the worst actors on a climate scale to one of the best actors. And it's the easiest example I think people understand.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Yeah, there was an article in The Economist recently about is beef, the next coal. Because it does have a huge effect. And there's ways to mitigate that. It doesn't mean that everyone has to stop eating beef. So what role... Where to consumers come in on this? And what do consumers know now? And is there going to be a poll by consumers? Is that how this whole thing is going to get funded and move forward by consumer pull? And how does that happen?

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
Yeah, well, I agree with what Radhika said earlier that it's early days. And so we can pull out our crystal balls, it's very hard to see what the future is going to store. A lot of smart people don't think it will be consumers changing things. I happen to think that consumers will be a driving force. I think we're already seeing that consumers are increasingly choosing foods with improved carbon footprints. And I think next year, when you see big food companies like Unilever start voluntarily putting carbon labels on their products, I think you're going to see consumer demand favoring food and that's going to create a virtuous cycle that makes this a bit of a race to the top.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
But consumers already perceive to some degree correctly, that negative foods are better for the planet, because they reverse climate change. They're starting to see that in many cases, it's also better for their health. Generally, healthy soil will lead to more nutrition and food. So there's this beautiful correlation between food that's good for the planet, and food that's good for your human health. And consumers, in my opinion, will pay more for such foods, and will choose negative foods over other foods, meaning negative foods will increasingly capture greater market share.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
And when this happens, you're going to see market forces guiding farmers and food companies toward more practices that are regenerative and store carbon. And I'm not the guy that talks about the best practices of no till and animal integration and cover crops and things like that. I'm the one that's out there talking about how when consumers choose these sorts of food, food startups and big food companies will increasingly offer these sorts of foods. And those market forces will incentivize the farming industry to transform itself to be more regenerative.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
And I think over the next five years, you're going to see what I call a cheerful tidal wave of carbon negative foods to the market. And that rise in market share of negative foods is going to be one of the factors that draws carbon from the atmosphere, and helps us as a society, reverse climate change in the future.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
How will consumers know? What's the best way to communicate with them do you think? That they'll know... Say it's something like produce where there's not a lot of labeling? How will we communicate with consumers to let them know this is a food that is grown in a certain way?

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
So you're asking the hardest question, or the part of the puzzle, that's the least solved right now. Consumers don't have good information right now. And that's, in my opinion, a catastrophe. If consumers could see clear information on the carbon footprint of their foods, I think you would see shifts happening that dramatically faster rates than we're seeing now. So I do think that carbon labeling is the super biggest, most important missing thing in the marketplace.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
I think that governments in the United States are very far from implementing any sort of standardization. I think you're actually going to see big food companies doing it first. And I mentioned example of Unilever, there's a lot of European companies that are even further along in the EU and the UK. And I think that when you do see effective carbon labeling, I mean effective meaning it gives knowledge to consumers that they can trust, and they can act on, that's when you're going to start really seeing the flywheel start to spin. But for now, by the way, it's a mess.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
So that kind of leads to a question, I want to open it back up to everybody and just ask each of you, what do you see is needed for this total system to work. And I think, by total system we're trying to mitigate climate change and reverse climate change. And then we're also trying to... There's kind of two things, we're trying to set up this carbon credit system, that gets people to start using these different kinds of systems and make healthier soil. So what do each of you think is missing from where you sit? And it sounds like Paul, let's start with you. It sounds like you think really communicating with the consumers is probably the thing that's missing. Is that would you say-

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
Since already said that a lot, I'll add one more thing.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Okay, add another one.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
There's a few things that are happening right now that are amazing and amazingly good. And one of them is that the world's biggest investors, like the LPS, and all the funds, these are the sovereign wealth funds, these are the endowments, these are the big foundations, offices. They're all putting these sort of ESG mandates on the asset managers that are putting the money into the marketplace. And a lot of these mandates are focused on reversing climate change.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
And because there aren't that many places for it to happen, there is pressure funneling toward food. One of our problems, putting aside carbon labeling, which I think is one of the biggest problems is that there's not a good definition of what regenerative is, let's say. And I think we're running the risk as a society of regenerative being green washed or being made a little bit meaningless sort of naturally as a label right now. So I think that getting to a point where regenerative is defined in a way that the world's biggest and most serious investors could believe in, I think that would end up shifting more capital towards solving these problems.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Martin, you want to jump in on that one?

Martin Lowenfish, NRCS:
Well as USDA, or at least my part of USDA, we don't have a lot to say about the consumer side, but I'd like to sort of pick up something that Ben mentioned. And that as producers adopt these new production practices, ones that can be regenerative, sequester carbon, and otherwise build soil health, there's not a small amount of risk. And even though they can recognize that for their own broadly that there's production benefits, as well as these broader goods that are being produced for them. There is an adoption curve. And that's something where NRCS can help both with the payments and the technical assistance, as well as the market. So there's a basket of tools here in producers to use as they shift their production methods. That even though they are broadly beneficial, and can be beneficial to their options, it's still a learning curve. And it's a big decision that a producer has to make each year.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Great, thanks, Ben or Radhika any idea on what's needed for the total system to work?

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
I would just kind of lean towards that a little bit more on standardization. I think we're seeing tremendous increases in technologies to measure whether it's nitric oxide or other greenhouse gases, as well as soil carbon, often supported by the government and public private partnerships. But when we really get down to it, if we still don't have simple incentives, or simple ways to at least quantify the accuracy of how we measure. And as soon as we're able to connect the financial incentives with the scientific incentives, we're going to be able to build programs and the market itself will drive simplicity.

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
Today, there's just a little too much complexity. And there's a lot of zero sum thinking in agriculture. And so a lot of us probably just need to get over ourselves a little bit and realize we're not going to own the whole value chain. And now we need to partner with all players.

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
Yeah, I would say I think a lot about transparency and connections, I think that there, we really do still lack a lot of transparency, from what Paul mentioned around what consumers think they're purchasing versus what it really means. All the way up to the supply chain. We lack transparency within the accounting of these carbon credits and how you generate that. And I think as Ben was saying, that requires partnerships and connections and a role of like the government is probably standardizing things as well as the private sector in working together to figure these big picture questions out.

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
Because when I take a step back, as a consumer, I'm always confused. And I would like to do what's right, but I don't know what's right. And so I feel like all parts of the supply chain play a role in this and the voluntary carbon markets do as well.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Great. I'm starting to get some questions from the audience, and please keep those coming. So I'm going to shift to some of these. So anyone can answer this. But Paul's kind of been the one that's been touching on this. Is there any evidence that consumers would be willing to pay more for carbon friendlier products?

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
So I'm going to make an analogy that I think is responsive. It's debatable about whether the organic movement has fulfilled its promise. When organics became a mainstream, the hope is that it would reduce the use of pesticides in this country and sort of be better for the environment. As I think everyone on the call knows, like almost none of American farmland is organic. And the use of pesticides, and synthetic fertilizers has increased a lot in the last 20 years.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
So in some ways, organic hasn't met its promises, that might be controversial. But one thing it's shown for sure, I don't think this is debatable, is that consumers will pay more for the perceived benefits of food that's better for the environment, and better for their health. And I think that we can take to the bank. To the degree that consumers see food that's produced with better carbon footprints. Let's say that's got a regenerative supply chain, I'm absolutely certain they'll pay more for it based on what we've seen in last 20 years with organics.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
So I think the answer is a resounding yes. And right now, people don't really get this connection that I hope will become better known, which is the connection between soil health and human health. If a food is better for the climate, it's almost certainly going to be better for your nutrition as well. And I hope that the science and the standardization catches up on that as well, because that will even goose the demand for consumers to pay more, even higher.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Great thanks, does Corteva and or Nori work internationally, especially Guatemala. We just started a carbon program, but technology and information are very hard to get or find.

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
We do not unfortunately, at this point. We're us croplands focused only but we're a small little startup, we're growing, we definitely want to move into Latin America. We have some partners who really want us to move into Latin America. So I do believe it'll be happening in the future. I just can't tell you when in the future.

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
Yeah, and not a small little startup. But a somewhat similar story, and probably for a lot of the similar reasons. One of the big things and I know I'm a broken record here, but how do we quantify? And do we have the data to make sure that we're actually measuring real outcomes. That's really the big barrier, whether it's new geographies, or new cropping systems, which is a big thing. I think in produce, especially when you have crops that have smaller acreage footprints, maybe not as much of research behind them, or in specific geos where it's similar, all of a sudden the uncertainties of how we measure our increase in the error bars are higher than even what the payments might be.

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
And so I think there's a scientific element of that, and then there's just a normal business element. But I think there's a lot of folks, both public and private, including us, they're working on international expansion. And expansion to new model domains like new crops.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Here's a question I don't know that we'll have the answer to but it's interesting. At one time, food miles was presented as a reliable decision basis to benefit the environment. It was then largely discredited. What is the current thinking on food miles? Does anyone have a view on that, or how it's looked at?

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
I feel like I champion to local produce company for a long time and still do. So maybe I should be on the defensive on that question. I actually, I don't think it ever was a broad brush rule. Being local was only better when it was better. So products that stored and shipped very cheaply like grains, I don't think were likely to be better for the environment when they were growing locally, if the circumstances weren't better for growing.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
I don't think that was different 20 years ago, than 10 years ago, or 10 weeks ago. At BrightFarms we thought that decentralized salads produced in the same communities was better. So I don't think anything has changed necessarily. I still think it's a matter of the actual footprint of the production methods and the way that it's shipped. And that's, by the way, something that should be able to be done somewhat mathematically.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Is there a danger that environmental activist groups will use negative publicity such as the Dirty Dozen list to highlight ag commodities with a big carbon footprint?

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
If commodities have high carbon footprints I hope they get negative publicity, bring it.

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
I guess all I was going to say is I think there is a real opportunity to get in front of this and to provide a better story than what could be out there. I think nobody disputes those facts is just what's your response to those facts. And I think that's where these opportunities will lie. And the better we do in being transparent, the better we will be with our story to the environmental activists and the rest.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
I think from a PMA perspective, we certainly highlight member stories and like our sustainability cases, and I think around this area, with the carbon economy, we're right now just trying to help our members understand what the opportunities are. And we will continue to highlight success stories and communicate this as we're all trying to kind of understand it.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
And Vonnie, with respect to PMA, it's probably worth remembering that whole fruits and vegetables are almost certainly on the good actor, end of the spectrum compared to most of our food system. So they're in a hell of a good starting place.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
What do you think about how reducing food loss the amount of food not sold left in the field or otherwise culled out during farm operations, would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Greater sell through of product grown, may increase income for farmers or gets surplus food to people in need? Is there a role for the carbon economy to stimulate these benefits?

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
I'd just say if you look at the World Resource Institute and other organizations that spent a lot of time thinking about this, it's one of the biggest levers that's identified out there. I think the big question as it relates to carbon programs is what's the right... We don't want these programs to be one size fits all, because then they get incredibly overly complex. And so it's just finding what's the right benefit from the combination of incentives and kind of environmental and economic. Usually, there's pretty significant economic incentives to do that already. And so it's where do you need the environmental incentive to maybe push things over the top?

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
A product like mushrooms grows in natural composted agricultural materials, and after harvest, there is nitrogen rich compost that can be reused? Can it be considered a carbon negative food? Or would you need to evaluate many other aspects to determine?

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
So I'm not the outcome measurement expert. And maybe Radhika could weigh in on this as well. I'll peg you as the expert, but it sounds pretty good to me. I mean, if you're growing on compost, your inputs, presumably don't have emissions associated with them. And then it depends on what other parts of your operations you're dealing with, like packaging and transportation. If you can find a way to offset that with agroforestry or other activities I think you're probably well on the way. I think Radhika would be interested if you had an opinion on that. It's an interesting question.

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
I think you kind of very well synopsized.t and Ben made these similar... Said something about how in other countries we lacked the modeling or the research or the... That is the barrier, oftentimes to bringing crops, at least into our system is that if there's not the scientific research behind it, we can't really tell you how much incremental carbon is being stored. Because it's just not there to tell us. So again, we know a lot of produce providers, suppliers who are doing all the right things, orchards. And right now the science isn't there within our model to help them come to the carbon marketplaces, which is unfortunate, and definitely seems like something that's eminently solvable with the right resources and right funding.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
I guess I would ask-

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
That is one area, Vonnie, that the government can help. There's so much research to be done. And those are areas that I know you might have asked that at some point Vonnie. I generally believe in markets not government interventions. But that research is certainly needed.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Yeah, so Martin do you see, I think as we look at the produce industry, it is so different than row crops and just doing cover crops, and no till, those systems probably aren't going to work as well. And so are there specific things that you think that the government can help the produce industry with? Or does it just fit into the different programs that you have broadly?

Martin Lowenfish, NRCS:
Well, I'll have to answer somewhat broadly. And then so one in again, the Secretary's vision research is one of the elements. There's a seven point plan for the climate, smart agriculture and forestry and research is one of those pieces. I'll note also that at NRCS, we've been part of a consortium that's developed the comet tool that really works mostly on cropland. And that is something that's not proprietary. It's available on the website. And I know it's incorporated into a number of private industry partners and other partners.

Martin Lowenfish, NRCS:
So we've been contributing to that research and provide information to producers as to the conservation systems and production systems that they've got in place. We can be a resource, or there's web resources for them to use that comet data. But like you were saying, I don't think it covers mushrooms or some of the other specialty crops right now. But certainly a focus on research for the broader climate smart agenda.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Yeah, I think, as in a lot of these early types of things having some pre-competitive technology that gets done is a really great idea. And I think that's a great role of government is to have some of this pre-competitive technology density so we don't have a bunch of startups that are all doing the same thing. And we're diffusing the amount of capital that can be spent and invested in those types of things. And so that's where I love seeing these different programs where people can get funded, or we've got labs that are funded to do some of the pre-competitive work. Does a farmer who has been practicing good growing practices needs to demonstrate a delta in carbon capture in order to participate in the carbon market? It's a hot button. Ben, we'll let you start.

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
In most of the programs, yes, today. There are obviously some exceptions of how assets have been defined. I really think it comes down to what's the right asset for the right purpose. If we're talking offsets, that I think it's pretty no question. We need to make sure that there is that very hard and fast additionality.

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
I think there's a really big question that's still open in terms of, are there alternative assets where either because of consumer pull, financial pull, the things that Paul talked about, where a low carbon producer can get rewarded in another way, but maybe it's not going to be a carbon program. I come from North Dakota, my family, almost my whole team, like has family that are early adopters. We catch a lot of guff for it and I think it comes down to start with the money. Where it's coming from. Who is the buyer, whether that is the government down the road, or if it's just the end consumer, that's going to determine who's eligible. And so as Corteva we're not in the protocol writing business for it. Our job is to provide access, because we probably don't want input companies doing that in all reality. So I'd just say, start with the mind.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
Radhika, I'm sure you get this question all the time.

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
Yeah, and my answer would be very similar to Ben's. And we sincerely wish we could bring in producers who have been doing this for 20, 30, 40 years, because we know they've been doing the right thing for a long time. But we don't have people who want to purchase those carbon credits, unfortunately. The bottom line is people are interested in quote unquote, new carbon. And so we want to make sure we provide a product that is sellable, because if you're going to do all the work to put it into our system, we want to make sure you get the financial reward. Again, a place where potentially the federal government can play a role or other types of marketplaces can play a role but not a carbon removal marketplace, at least at this time.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
So do you all see this turning into a global market? I mean, it sounds like right now from what we're all talking about is more kind of US-based. But I know like Australia's really up in front on this and Europe's doing a lot of work on it. So do you think that it'll be a global market or that countries will kind of do their own thing for a while anyway.

Radhika Moolgavkar, Nori:
Certainly, Nori's hope is a global market. That's kind of what we are, we are pushing towards and have, like I said, partners and investors who want us and want this to become a true global commodities market for carbon removal. It'll be an interesting next five years, as you look to the regulatory space to see how these different countries choose to regulate these different spaces and how you can then create a brand new commodities market in that system, but I think it's doable, and definitely should be the ultimate goal. Carbon doesn't know borders. So nor should the marketplace.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
I think some of those Australian projects have been bought by American companies. So it seems like it's already a global marketplace. I just think that our market is behind a lot of the world.

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
I think it's going to come down to the type of asset. I think you already see... In the offsets, you see it being more global, but more things will be tied to commodities. In some cases, it will be global. Look at the American Soybean Association, their sustainability protocol and that's driven a lot of sales to Europe or you have a more conscious consumer there. I think you'll see something similar and especially for your membership, I think it'll just kind of depend on the footprints that they're looking at. And again, who that end buyer is. Is it a big oil company or something like that, who's trying to buy an offset? Or are you tying it to the commodity or the end product itself to make a brand claim, or a carbon label claim to drive increased sales or meet a social commitment?

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
What do you tell the American consumer and companies who say, why should we pay for reducing carbon emissions when China emits so much more and then competes with us in the marketplace? Getting into politics here. Anyone want to grab that one?

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
Well, if nobody wants to I will. I mean, I always recommend people read Bill Gates's book, How to Avoid climate disaster, he lays out the fact that we emit as a society 51 billion tons a year. And it's like a bathtub filling up, we need to stop filling up the bathtub. We can only stop our part if they stop their part over there. So I think that the logic behind the question is flawed, in my opinion. Everybody has to stop, certainly, the US being behind a lot of developed world isn't helping the rest of the world move along faster.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
If we were ahead of them, I think it would help the rest of the world move along faster. And if we collaborated, that would be good as well. One of the things that not it's not talked about a lot is that I think poverty is a lot of the problem. You see farmers in other countries, engaging in destructive practices like burning rainforest, partly because they don't have better options, and they're living in poverty. Solving some of the world's poverty might be a helpful thing as well if we're talking about politics.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
There are 500 to 600 million acres of farmland and the same in forests and woodlands. Is specialty agriculture at a few million acres too small to make a significant contribution. Comparing the number of acres of grapes to the number of acres of corn.

Ben Gordon, Corteva Agriscience:
I mean, I'd say there's two areas where specially I can perform in an outsized manner. One is their cropping systems related to certain specialty crops that can accrue a lot more on a per acre basis than broadacre row crops, especially where you have orchards, or similar systems. The second piece is you're a heck of a lot closer to the consumer than a soybean farmer. And so leading the charge on what Paul's talking about, I think is important for the broader industry. And if you look at organic as an example of driving change that has flowed to other sectors, it's important. So if impacts what you're looking for I don't think I have a significant concern if I was in your membership's shoes.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
That's a great answer. Thank you. Anyone else?

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
Can I offer an another answer, Vonnie. This one comes from a different angle, I think. I was in Iceland a couple months ago, and I visited a greenhouse farm, that all of its heat was from geothermal and all its electricity was hydro dam. There's just no fossil fuels involved with their production at all. And half the cars being sold their electric already. And so they are producing food in a controlled environment renewably without a carbon footprint.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
It seems to me that it's inexorable will be that way in the United States, we will find a way to electrify everything, we will find a way to make all of electricity, renewable. And there is a case where you can take some of the farmland in California, that's growing fruits and vegetables, move some of that to controlled environments in areas of the country where the soil isn't so uniquely fabulous and the climate isn't so great. And repurpose that for producing food in a carbon negative way.

Paul Lightfoot, BrightFarms:
Maybe some more pasture land for regenerative beef, maybe some perennials, like olives or something. And then you've got a chance to repurpose parts of that farmland, your questioner asked about, to be levers pulling carbon out of the atmosphere. So I think that... And by the way a couple million is a small percentage of a couple 100 million. But we got to get all of it taken care of. And we got to start from the beginning. One at a time. What do they say about the starfish, you throw back in the ocean, it mattered to this one.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
All right, I actually think that is an excellent place to stop. And I really appreciate your views. And you all sit in different parts of this whole system. And I'm excited that conversations like these are happening and that we're... We're trying to change the system here. And I think a lot of people who are working in carbon, think of it as a tool or a technology, but we really are trying to change the big system. And we need all these different pieces of it for it to work. So thank you for your engagement and thank you for the work that you do.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
I loved how this conversation spanned the system where change needs to happen from government involvement through technology development, and business model development to consumer demand. I said in the beginning of the podcast, I had a listener that still had the question what in it for the produce industry. How does this fit into what we are doing? That listeners Greg Johnson from the Produce Blue Book, I really appreciated that he followed up on this after the webinar and continued to try to break it down for his readers.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
I suggest you Google his article and read all of it. But his basic summary of why the produce industry should care about the carbon economy are three major points. One, consumers are asking for it. Just like consumers have started to place a priority on wanting to know food companies sustainability levels, interest in carbon impact is also on the rise. Two carbon reduction fits in well with sustainability efforts and improves growing practices. So these practices will improve soils and profitability in the long run. Three, growers can make money by removing carbon. Numerous programs are being developed through the government and private enterprise to compensate growers for storing carbon. All of this is new and it's really complex. But the carbon economy is certainly something the produce industry will be involved in. Stay tuned.

Vonnie Estes, PMA:
That's it for this episode of PMA Takes on Tech. Thanks for allowing us to serve as your guide to the new world of producing technology. Be sure to check out all our episodes@pma.com and wherever you get your podcasts. Please subscribe and I would love to get any comments or suggestions of what you might want me to take on for now. Stay safe, eat your fruits and vegetables and we will see you next time.