ROA and Edacious put numbers behind regenerative organic food in first ROC nutrition report
First ROC nutrition report: ground beef tested 124% to 388% above the USDA omega-3 reference across 46 published products from 13 brands.
The Regenerative Organic Alliance and the food testing company Edacious published the first Regenerative Organic nutrition report on 8 October 2026, with a Sacramento, California dateline. It covers the first year of a four-year collaboration, in which more than 50 Regenerative Organic Certified products were analysed through the Edacious Food Lab. Thirteen brands agreed to publish their results, covering 46 products. AgFunderNews, which reported the release the same day, puts the number of brands that tested at least one product at 17.
The published set spans ground meat, beans and legumes, and the legume, seed and oil portfolio of the brand SIMPLi. On fats, ROC ground beef from three brands tested 124 per cent to 388 per cent higher in total omega-3 than the USDA reference value. Across the ROC ground meat tested, the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 ran from 1.06 to 1 up to 2.29 to 1, against roughly 8.3 to 1 reported for conventional grain-fed ribeye.
On minerals and fibre, all ten SIMPLi beans and legumes tested higher in phosphorus than their USDA reference. Eight of the ten qualified as a rich source of fibre and the other two as a good source. Several ROC legumes came out as a rich source of selenium where the USDA reference shows only a trace, with one serving of SIMPLi black lentils providing 113 per cent of the Daily Value. The report notes that selenium in plants tracks the soil the plant grew in, so the partnership intends to keep watching that pattern. On contaminants, every product in the SIMPLi legume, seed and oil portfolio tested below the limit of quantification for heavy metals.
The stated aim is more than 200 ROC products by the end of the four years, including comparisons against conventional, organic and regenerative non-organic foods. Christopher Gergen, chief executive of the Regenerative Organic Alliance, framed the exercise as backing what farmers have long believed with measurable data. “Verified data adds the next layer of trust: measuring what ends up in the food,” said Eric J. Smith, founder and chief executive of Edacious. Mike Salguero, chief executive of ButcherBox, is also quoted in the release. Brands named in the published set include Niman Ranch, Patagonia Provisions, Lundberg and Charcutnuvo alongside SIMPLi. Neither the release nor the AgFunderNews report states that the findings have been peer reviewed or published in a journal.
Why it matters for AgTech founders: regenerative agriculture has spent years looking for a buyer who will pay, and soil carbon never became that buyer at scale. Nutrient density is the next candidate, because the payer is a retail shopper rather than a voluntary carbon market, and a claim on a pack can be priced. Three things in this dataset deserve a cold read before anyone builds on them. First, the comparator is a USDA reference value, which is a national average and not a matched conventional sample grown in the same season on a neighbouring field. Effect sizes this large usually shrink once somebody runs the paired version, so a founder quoting 388 per cent in a pitch should expect that question. Second, publication was voluntary: 13 of the brands that tested chose to publish, which means the public set is selected by the people it flatters. Third, the selenium finding cuts both ways. If the mineral in the plant tracks the soil, the claim varies field by field, and a number that varies field by field cannot sit on a national label without per-lot testing behind it. That last point is where the business actually is. The asset being built here is not the report, it is a per-lot testing dataset tied to a certification mark, which is defensible if a retail buyer will pay for the claim and a pure cost centre if not. Anyone selling measurement into food should price that distinction into the model before pricing the lab.
ROA and Edacious put numbers behind regenerative organic food in first ROC nutrition report
Year one of a four-year testing programme covers more than 50 Regenerative Organic Certified products. Thirteen brands agreed to publish 46 of them, and the comparator is the USDA reference value rather than a matched conventional sample.
The Regenerative Organic Alliance and the food testing company Edacious published the first Regenerative Organic nutrition report on 8 October 2026, with a Sacramento, California dateline. It covers the first year of a four-year collaboration, in which more than 50 Regenerative Organic Certified products were analysed through the Edacious Food Lab. Thirteen brands agreed to publish their results, covering 46 products. AgFunderNews, which reported the release the same day, puts the number of brands that tested at least one product at 17.
The published set spans ground meat, beans and legumes, and the legume, seed and oil portfolio of the brand SIMPLi. On fats, ROC ground beef from three brands tested 124 per cent to 388 per cent higher in total omega-3 than the USDA reference value. Across the ROC ground meat tested, the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 ran from 1.06 to 1 up to 2.29 to 1, against roughly 8.3 to 1 reported for conventional grain-fed ribeye.
On minerals and fibre, all ten SIMPLi beans and legumes tested higher in phosphorus than their USDA reference. Eight of the ten qualified as a rich source of fibre and the other two as a good source. Several ROC legumes came out as a rich source of selenium where the USDA reference shows only a trace, with one serving of SIMPLi black lentils providing 113 per cent of the Daily Value. The report notes that selenium in plants tracks the soil the plant grew in, so the partnership intends to keep watching that pattern. On contaminants, every product in the SIMPLi legume, seed and oil portfolio tested below the limit of quantification for heavy metals.
The stated aim is more than 200 ROC products by the end of the four years, including comparisons against conventional, organic and regenerative non-organic foods. Christopher Gergen, chief executive of the Regenerative Organic Alliance, framed the exercise as backing what farmers have long believed with measurable data. “Verified data adds the next layer of trust: measuring what ends up in the food,” said Eric J. Smith, founder and chief executive of Edacious. Mike Salguero, chief executive of ButcherBox, is also quoted in the release. Brands named in the published set include Niman Ranch, Patagonia Provisions, Lundberg and Charcutnuvo alongside SIMPLi. Neither the release nor the AgFunderNews report states that the findings have been peer reviewed or published in a journal.
Why it matters for AgTech founders: regenerative agriculture has spent years looking for a buyer who will pay, and soil carbon never became that buyer at scale. Nutrient density is the next candidate, because the payer is a retail shopper rather than a voluntary carbon market, and a claim on a pack can be priced. Three things in this dataset deserve a cold read before anyone builds on them. First, the comparator is a USDA reference value, which is a national average and not a matched conventional sample grown in the same season on a neighbouring field. Effect sizes this large usually shrink once somebody runs the paired version, so a founder quoting 388 per cent in a pitch should expect that question. Second, publication was voluntary: 13 of the brands that tested chose to publish, which means the public set is selected by the people it flatters. Third, the selenium finding cuts both ways. If the mineral in the plant tracks the soil, the claim varies field by field, and a number that varies field by field cannot sit on a national label without per-lot testing behind it. That last point is where the business actually is. The asset being built here is not the report, it is a per-lot testing dataset tied to a certification mark, which is defensible if a retail buyer will pay for the claim and a pure cost centre if not. Anyone selling measurement into food should price that distinction into the model before pricing the lab.
