Global Food & Agriculture Futurist & Strategist | Keynote speaker | Comprehensive vision for the future of food and agriculture | Accurate foresight | Successful strategies | Thought leadership | No nonsense critical thinking
As we saw in Part 1 of the Value Conundrum, creating and selling successfully added value is far from easy. The key is to have a product that is attractive in value and price, but that is not the whole story. The next challenge is to share the value within the value chain. As we are going to see, this exercise, even when paved with good intentions, is a little minefield of its own.
Congratulations, you succeeded with many efforts in creating a new product for which there is interest in the market. You invested time and resources; you made investments and yet something strange happens: you do not see the financial reward for your efforts. Someone else seems to benefit much more than you do for the efforts and the sacrifices you made and the risks that you took.
Where did that extra money that you were promised ended up going? Welcome to the unfair world of value chains! Although it sounds like humor and irony, this is a reality that many in food and agriculture experience on a regular basis. And it is not funny at all. You increased costs and probably you contracted more debt in order to get the new products out of the ground. What was supposed to be an improvement turns out to be at the very least a major frustration.
Why is that, and why do producers not get the proper share of the added value they created? Well, it is all in the way the chain from farm to consumer plate works.
First, money enters the chain from only one end: the money that the consumers pay for the products they buy. For each unit sold, a bit more money comes in the system. The overall total for the product line is the total pot that the entire value chain has to distribute to all the links of that chain, and that can be a lot of players!
Like everything else with business, it is necessary to start with the end of the chain and go backward. At the point of sale to the consumer, the retailer or the restaurant charges their price, but those sellers also had to buy the product to include it in their offering. That is where things start to get tricky… and unfair. Their purchasing, and the price they pay is always the result of a commercial negotiation. Always! And it is same to their suppliers. Those, too, bought at a price that resulted from another commercial negotiation. Once the revenue money enters the pot, it is also necessary to factor in the respective costs at each part of the chain. The negotiations may appear about prices but they actually about the respective margins of all the suppliers and buyers.
That is the thing: a value chain -although the term sounds really friendly and aimed at fairness- is in reality a sequence of many commercial negotiations, and anyone who had to deal with major buyers knows that such negotiations can really be cutthroat, purely and simply. Commercial negotiations are always about bargaining power. What alternative offers do buyers have that make them demand the price they demand? That is an important question, and why it is so important to know who the competition is. Business is first of all competition, which means that they are many contenders but only a few ones will get the medals. And there will be losers.
Then, the bargaining power brings the next question: how bad do you want -or worse, need- to get that sale? That will set the dynamics of the negotiation. How much concession can you afford? How much compensation for each concession can you get from the buyer? Of course, that has a lot to do with supply and demand. This good old law of economics will determine who has the upper hand in the negotiation and who does not. Quite often, the producer is in the weaker position. For them, it is a matter of how many alternatives they have to sell the product, and what those alternatives are. The key rule here is that you will sell for the worst alternative you have when you do not have other alternatives.
This part of commercial negotiation is critical to get the added value and get most of it. You must have a strong bargaining position. If you don’t, then you are in trouble. A solution that often sounds attractive is to get a bigger market share. First, you need to be able to grow to the desired size. That requires access to some substantial money. But even though you grow your market share, this is no guarantee for a better bargaining position. Supply and demand will always trump market share. Just imagine you are the sole producer. You have a market share of 100%. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Not necessarily. If you produce more than the market can absorb, you will have a problem. You need to move your entire production and buyers cannot take it all. What your choices, then? Well, you can stick to your price and store the unsold volumes. If you are in the business of perishables, as is the case for many food and agriculture products, you will soon be under time pressure. The product is deteriorating. You must sell it. The only way to do that on short notice is to cut your price to what the buyer wants to take that volume. Of course, you can think of freezing the product. That also costs money an gnaw at your margin. There goes the value is someone else’s pocket.
In Part 1, I was mentioning that many food producers are production-driven and look at profitability from a “production costs plus margin” point of view. That is the wrong approach. The right one is to be market-driven, in order to balance supply and demand, to have a solid bargaining position, basically to know the market so that you produce what sells at a profitable price instead of producing and then struggle to figure out who will buy and at what price. The latter is always the fastest path to doom. Yet, it is the path wandered much too often. The old quote of Peter Drucker: “The purpose of a business is to make a customer” should be much more prevalent in food and agriculture than it usually is.
Marketing should be considered at least as important as the technical side of production, especially with farmers. They should be more than “farmers”. They should see themselves primarily as food suppliers, who just happen to have a farm.
Copyright 2026 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.
In many parts of the world, there is a lot of talk about producing more added value. I was recently in South Korea, and how to create higher-value food products was on of the discussion topics. Here, in Canada, there is a newly launched program, “Let’s Grow, Canada!”, which is about making several billions of dollars to help growing production and mostly of finding ways of adding more value. The EU is also trying to push food production in that direction. Africa is also pondering about how to shift from a basic commodity producer to producing added-value products made on the continent. Basically, everyone is talking about it.
Farmers walk through a symbolic money-filled crop field beside a rising prosperity chart.
The longing to adding value to food production is not new. I have heard this my entire professional life. In some cases, policymakers try to develop incentives and offer substantial amounts of money to achieve this objective. Often, added value seems to have become synonym of innovation. It is true to some extent, but innovation alone is not enough, and it would be wise to not throw money in the wrong places. As I explained in a previous post, (261. Boosting the Adoption of Innovation), innovation must solve problems and actually add value, which is far from being always the case.
In most projects aimed at producing added value, I miss one major element in the conversation. It is as if the market would naturally buy into added value. One comment I have heard many times from producers is whether they produce added value or added costs. Often, they are not so sure of the correct answer. This is a very valid question, and making added value profitable is not a given. One cause for approaching value in the wrong way lies in the very nature of food and agriculture. It is first of all a technical activity and most producers still approach it in a production-driven manner. Even many of those who claim to be market-driven are actually still production-driven, but with a little twist: they are marketing-driven. Unfortunately, that is not the same as market-driven.
By focusing on technical aspects of production, food and agriculture looks primarily at the cost aspect. The main purpose is to find ways of lowering costs all the time. Understand me well, this is essential indeed, but it is only half the equation. The other half, beyond just revenue, is at least as important: the profit margin. To me, a sales department is not about moving volume, it is about generating margin. The role of sales is to pull the entire business on the path of better profitability. We all know that margin discussions can be a source of tension between sales and production. If the two departments look at their respective primary activities, it is only logical. Sales want to move product and keep customers happy, and production wants to keep costs low. By initiating change, the numbers change and both sides try first to stick to their priorities. Truly adding value requires a different mindset. It is about the overall business performance. As I have often said, it is like a ballgame. It does not matter so much who scores the goals. What matters is that the team wins. To add value, it is necessary to start with a solid understanding of market opportunities and determine indeed if the added costs are going to be more than compensated by a higher margin. That is what market-driven is about: finding the right customers that generate higher margin. Producers who are marketing-driven often fail because they try to make a basic product look like some sort of specialty by adding some marketing gimmick. Such an approach usually is short-lived and often, the margin is not there.
Value is tricky, and so is product pricing. Producers, being focused on production costs have a very rational and objective approach. They calculate the cost and then add what they need to determine the price that they want and need. Opposite to that, the consumer market follows very different rules. First of all, consumers’ purchasing decisions are often subjective. Food is loaded with emotions and consumers’ decisions are not rational. Despite not being rational, they follow a remarkably strong logic, which in most cases is an entirely different logic than the producer’s one. For consumers, the value of food lies in many areas. You name it! It can be nutritional value, but it can be quality, flavor, packaging, convenience reputation. It can be what the children like or not. Value from a consumer’s point of view is not only subjective, it is relative, too. That is where the price plays a role. If the perceived value is higher than the price, people buy the product. If it is lower, they don’t. Consumers will switch their shopping from one product to another. The bargain this week is different than last week. Competition is an essential part of that game. Which one is the savviest? Is the market for added-value over or undersupplied? Are the added costs -and therefore the “added” price- good value for money? Does everyone rushes in the same niche and commoditizes it?
This is why endless discussions about whether price matters or not are futile. Yes, price matters. Always. Even if you think that you have the best product in the world. Producers determine the price they ask, and consumers determine the value they accept to pay. Sales results will depend greatly on whether your product matches the value they think it has.
Market knowledge is where adding value starts, and that changes the rhetoric down the road.
Last week, on September 9th 2026, I have had the great pleasure and honor to speak at the Global CEO Summit 2026 in Gyeongju, South Korea.
The theme of the conference was about the development of new technologies and how it will support industries in the Gyeongju region. My role was to participate in two sessions. One session was “Future Agriculture: Unlocking Future Industries with AgriTech” and the second one was “Shaping Gyeonbuk’s Future: CEO Roundtable”.
Here is a link of the entire conference as broadcasted on YouTube.
The entire conference was quite energetic and enthusiastic. The discussions were quite productive with many astute remarks and suggestions that will undoubtedly be very useful for further action. I found this conference quite stimulating and informative. It has been a great experience.
As it was my very first time in South Korea, I had decided to extend my stay and spend more time in the country. I spend several more days in Gyeongju and a few more in Busan. Of course, discovering Korean food was one of the most important goals of this stay, and it did not disappoint. The many restaurants and cafés have been a real treat all along.
Gyeongju is a lovely mid-size town with a rich cultural heritage. I really enjoyed the quaint and relaxed atmosphere. I have had a great time there. Korean history is everywhere in town. I knew very little about the history of Korea and Gyeongju was the ideal place to learn about it. The many museums, the tombs of rulers from the Silla dynasty and heritage building have all been a great opportunity to discover the rich past of the region and of the country.
Busan had a different vibe. It is a major urban center and the pace there is different than in Gyeongju. I was staying near the seaside and clearly, that part of Busan is very much focused on tourism. As far as I am concerned, Gyeongju was about learning and Busan was more about entertainment.
Traveling across the country also made a few things clear for me. First, it is quite a mountainous country and there are not many places for farming and for urban development. Clearly, there has to be competition between the two of them. With such a limited space, it is obvious that every piece of land that can be put into food production is utilized for that purpose. The density of agriculture is high. Just as urban development has to go vertical, so does agriculture and that will be part of the future.
Another aspect that definitely will affect future agriculture is climate change. South Korea, just like many other regions in the world has had to deal with very hot temperatures this year. Climate change will undoubtedly play a pivotal role in not only how food production will be set up but also which productions will have a future and which ones will probably struggle. This is where technology can play a role but technology alone is never enough. Leadership and long-term vision are just as important. From my experience during the Gyeongju Summit, I believe that the leadership and the vision are strong. This will be quite valuable. Of course, execution and collaboration will be key, as usual.
Another thing that came up clearly to me during the event is the collective spirit. Clearly, the purpose here goes beyond just the business. It is about the group, be it the value chain, the community, the region and the country. This is something that was very obvious for me in Gyeongju. It is something that I feel much less present in similar events in North America and Europe. I like the spirit that I found in South Korea.
Of course, like with all conferences, time is limited and there is only so much that one can discuss. There certainly are many questions that have remained unanswered. Because of that, I would like to indicate here a few avenues that I believe are useful for further steps.
Food is a dynamic business and it is in constant evolution. On the consumer ends, demographics change and it will affect how people consume and what markets will trend up, and also which ones will trend down. I see the future demographic situation of South Korea as an important factor, first of all in terms of market size. From a population of 52 million in 2025, it is expected to drop to 47 million in 2050 and even to 22 million in 2100, according to UN forecasting. The country is aging. In such a situation, I see two major groups influencing food consumption.
Gen Z and the rising Gen Alpha will consume and buy quite differently that the previous generations. Trends will move fast. Today, like in many countries, protein is fashionable. Fiber will be the next one. Although in Western countries, ultra processed foods are under serious scrutiny, I did not have the impression that it was quite the case in South Korea, as many products that would be considered ultra processed foods seem quite popular with young people. Of course, I did not carry out a market survey and I stayed here just a week. Other aspects that will have an influence are the desire for new flavors and experiences. Another aspect that will shape food consumption -and other consumer goods- are values. Younger generations do not just buy a product, a brand or from a company. They buy values. They expect producers to be faithful to the values they claim and to stick to them. Failure to do so will be punished immediately. Older generations tended to be more loyal to a brand or to a company. That is not the case with younger people, probably also thanks to social media. Their loyalty goes to values, and they will buy from those who present the values that they look for. Too bad for the brand or the company if they disappoint.
The other group that will have influence are the seniors. Their eating habits are different and so are their nutritional needs. They will be somehow more traditional and less fickle in their choices. That also present opportunities, just of a different kind.
In mature markets, consumption often shifts from volume growth to value. After all, a stomach can only absorb so much. In such markets, niches play an increasingly important role. The key of a niche is to produce added value. The drawback is that the volume of a niche is limited, per definition. To succeed with added-value products, the key is to understand what presents value to the consumer, and that can be difficult to define and to spot. This problem is everywhere. It is not just a South Korean industry issue. Actually, Canadian food producers struggle with the same dilemma. The industry and the government try to push producers to get in that direction, but consumers also have their say. Adding value requires a strong understanding of what truly matters to consumers, and what trends on social media is often different than what really is on top of the consumer’s mind. Further, unlike what many marketing consultants claim, price does matter but it matters relatively to the perceived value. As long as a product seems to have great value for money, it sells well. If not, then it does not sell. The problem for many food producers is that they often still think from a production-driven perspective, not from a market-oriented one. They think costs plus. Consumers look at it differently. They compare all the options they have and they pick the ones that offer the best perceived value for their money. The problem here is that perceived value changes all the time. All it takes is a new good-value-for-money product to change the dynamics of a market. Value is relative and subjective. Costs and prices are rational and economic in nature. Success with added-value products depends on how the two match or not.
This has consequences when food producers address issues that are considered of importance, such as health, nutrition, environmental impact or animal welfare. I have seen so many surveys claiming that consumers say they would be willing to pay more for “better” production methods, and yet consumers showed a very different behavior when in the store. They do not perceive the value for the additional price and they stick to the “lesser” production systems.
What really matters from a producer stand point is profitability. Regardless of all marketing aspects, the reality is that prices are always the result of negotiations and the outcome of commercial negotiations always depends on the supply and demand situation. To balance supply and demand, it is essential to do some solid forecasting in terms of volumes but also in terms of who the competitors are and what their respective cost structure is.
An interesting example for balancing supply and demand is the Canadian supply management system, which really comes down to a quota system. The industry forecasts what the domestic market can absorb and adjust production quotas accordingly. Of course, that also requires to limit outside competitors to access the market. Actually, that system is not bad. However, it requires that the country can already supply itself and is competitive enough. Canadian farmers in these value chains make a very decent income. What I see a bit of a weakness, is that this “protected” situation may sometimes be an impediment to innovation, particularly in marketing. Also, such a system is not aimed at conquering export markets. Everything has advantages and disadvantages.
This trip has been very informative and helped me look at many aspects of food production and consumption from a new angle. This has been quite refreshing.
Copyright 2026 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.
Today’s world instability is on everyone’s mind, but doesn’t it take more prominence than it should? After all, disruptions are nothing new. There are several reasons why this time seems to cause more anxiety.
A lot has to do with control, or lack of it. It seems that there is another crisis every day and they come from all corners. There is a compounding effect between the present crises and trauma caused by those that occurred in the recent past, like Covid for instance. Even though part of the anxiety is very much human-generated, it is real. Considering the number of media platforms and the continuous avalanche of information, this is not surprising. We can hardly get any rest. What’s next? Where does it end? These are common questions nowadays. Next to that, we seem to have more and more difficulties to cope with adversity, and tend to consider any setback as unfair. Maybe it is, but problems are for us to find solutions. The show must go on, and when needed, we must improvise. Improvising does not mean being unprepared. Quite on the contrary, (good) improvisation is about using all the tools from the toolbox.
The level of preparedness and our ability to get ready has a lot to do with what we can control, and what we cannot. For the first group, the solutions are mostly in our own hands. Action is ours. For the second group, our influence may be limited but that does not mean that we are defenseless.
Which issues to address? Just ask yourself what the top 5 issues are that would hurt your business the most. In my experience, thinking in terms of vulnerabilities rather than weaknesses works better. Vulnerability does not sound as negative as weakness does.
What if such events happen? How much is within your control and how much is not? Doing this exercise before “bad luck” happens is quite valuable. If you don’t and the bad news hits, it means that you are too late, and that is on you. This is the lesson I learned from the practice of jiu-jitsu. By anticipating, you can nip the danger in the bud, while lack of anticipation will lead to damage that is more difficult to manage. That does not happen by accident. It is the result of mastering techniques (the toolbox) and specific practice for all sorts of situations. That is how effective improvisation works. It is a skill that comes from training.
Anticipation is paramount to stay safe, and so is collaboration. An important part of the top 5 issues is about identifying which stakeholders and partners will make the solutions to your problems work. There is no future without collaboration.
This combination of anticipation and preparedness is the cornerstone of resilience. That is of importance when we look at the future. Indeed, there are many worrying uncertainties. How much of a problem is it? A good way to assess that is to ask yourself a simple question: What do you think is the probability of fixing current problems by year 2050, or even 2035? Envision the world in these years and see what has a future and what does not! Then, think of what you can do to adapt timely and be among those who will prevail.
This must be a pragmatic exercise. Dogma and ideology are liabilities. They have the tendency to set goals in the realm of rigid wishful thinking. They usually generate division and resistance more than anything else. Instead, we need realism and attainable objectives on which to build momentum. It is better to have more modest objectives and achieve them, than aiming high and underachieve, or even realize that it was not possible. The wrong approach makes us waste precious time.
What actions to take to protect yourself from future problems? This is a great brainstorming exercise. Of course, business people will immediately think about how much the adaptative measures will cost. Thinking about money has this annoying tendency to freeze our mind, instead of freeing it.
Just leave the money out of the equation for now and review all the solutions that come to mind. Their economic assessment will come later. Considering the nature of the challenges we face, it is not just about the cost of a solution, but just as much about the cost of not doing it.
First, just focus on all the practical aspects of possible scenarios, keep an open mind, and enjoy the drill! Be assured that regardless of the outcome, this process will be beneficial to you
Copyright 2026 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.
If you follow the news, you will definitely will have heard of some worrying developments in AI. OpenAI and Anthropic have seen their AI systems start to take action on their own and hack companies’ systems. AI has been able to get into some government systems by developing its own strategy and methods after a group of hackers linked to China instructed it to do so. As far as I know, the government in question has not been disclosed. In this latter case, what is remarkable is that AI followed the original instructions but the way it figured out how to achieve the objectives without any further human input. It acted autonomously.
The risk of malicious use of AI is something that I have been mentioning to my clients for quite some time. Actually, I hinted about it for the first time in a presentation I did in 2014, about the risk of having data falling in the wrong hands. Since then, and even more so with the dazzling progress of AI technology, I have pointed toward the risk of severe cybercrime using AI.
Technology is amazing. That said, I always insist on the fact that technology is only as good as who uses it. By that, I look at two avenues. One is training. We get the most out of technology with training users properly. The other is human nature. The majority of people have good intentions. Their performance with technology depends on their level of skills, which is my point above. Unfortunately, there are evil people out there, too. Be assured that we will use any tool available to pursue their goals, and AI is a tool above all the previous ones. Tool is the key word here, and a tool is just a means to perform a job. Of course, everyone wants the best tool possible. This is where AI fits in really well. It is faster and more powerful than anything we have created before. It opens doors that were difficult to open before, and that is the main problem. Malicious users will get in and protecting digital online systems is going to be challenge number one for all existing systems.
There is a whole range of rogue actors out there. Of course, there are the criminals. Usually, their main goal is about getting money out of their victims. There are the vandals, too. Their main goal is to cause havoc just the sake of it. Of course, damage can be substantial, and even more so with AI. Then, we have the geopolitical actors, with or without the “geo”. AI will bring all the destabilizing actions to a whole new level. AI is going the ideal weapon for future warfare on all sorts of fronts. A few days ago, Donald Trump issued an order allowing US companies to hack overseas groups under certain conditions, allowing them to be the modern version of the privateers who were active from the 16th to the 19th century. Of course, if the US goes that road, other countries will do the same and, let’s face it, it is already happening. Privateers have often been considered as the “good” pirates because they were working for a king, but the difference ends here. Pirates and privateers do the same kind of work, so we can be sure that AI is going to be very popular with pirates.
For all these groups, food and agriculture can be an attractive target. It can be used for extorsion and blackmail as food security and food safety are sensitive areas. It can be used to destabilize countries, to cause social unrest and overthrow governments. It can be used to create dependency of countries to their Ai masters. When it comes to rogue behavior against food and agriculture, AI opens new skies as the limit.
Then, the big question becomes how to safeguard food production and distribution. It is about physical food, but it is about data and the entire production and supply chain that the data support and steers, too. Malicious use of AI can alter all the data and all the systems. All the concerns about geopolitics that have arisen with the ongoing commercial war will be amplified to a whole new level. If you liked rogue tariffs policies, you will love AI mayhem. The problem with evil minds is that they always are one (at least) step ahead of decent people. They are incredibly innovation and technology savvy and oriented. They also understand better than anyone else the importance of performance, as usually their lives depend on it.
So… are we prepared?
Copyright 2026 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.
There seems to be a persistent impression that food and agriculture is slow with the adoption of innovation, in particular of new technologies. At least, I hear this comment regularly, but is it really the case?
Personally, I do not share that negative sentiment, although I can understand both the frustration of innovators and the resistance from the sector. Food and agriculture are often perceived as being conservative and slow to change. In my opinion, this is not quite a correct assessment. Food production has undergone major and profound transformations over the years. In that regard, the sector has proven that it is far from opposed to change. Today’s food production is quite different than it was 40, 25, 10 or even just 5 years ago.
Consumer demand, natural conditions, government policies and the tools available to producers have all changed dramatically. The complexity and the challenges have strongly increased and the food industry has adapted accordingly and successfully. Unfortunately, the sector has been too timid in its communication about progress. It should showcase its evolution much more blatantly. The general public would benefit greatly from knowing how agriculture has been able to be at the forefront of innovation, while keeping its values rooted in common sense. The latter is probably why the sector is considered conservative. It is so to some extent, but the real reason is that food producers, and farmers in particular, do not jump on every hype. They observe and think first. Before everything else, they need to be convinced, and that is the main challenge for innovators who often would like to skip that step.
The main mistake innovators make is to have a push production-driven approach while they should be more market-oriented. A few simple factors greatly improve the chances of the adoption of innovation.
The first one is to make sure to solve the problem. I insist here on use “the” and not “a”. The solution that an innovation offers must be quite specific to the problem for the user. Solving a problem might do just that, but it might not be the problem that needs to be solved. Then, the result is a mismatch. That is the drawback of developing an innovation first and then try to push it in the market. It might not meet as much interest as expected.
The second factor depends directly on the first one. A solution that solves the problem of the users means that it does add value to them. The value can be of an economic, financial, time saving or organizational nature. In a B2B environment, value is often about objective and measurable parameters. It is rational and usually easily supported with numbers and calculations. These are essential to move the customer from indecision to a frank “Yes”. My personal experience has always been to put myself in the customer’s shoes and find out what added value truly means. In other words, what does the innovation have that existing options don’t? Once you show the numbers that mean an advantage for the customer, adoption is much easier and natural. For consumer products, value is much more of a subjective nature and demonstrating it is quite a different exercise. It is a topic of its own, perhaps for another column.
A third essential factor to boost the adoption of innovation, and especially of new technologies, is to make sure it is user friendly and reliable. Food producers, especially farmers, will not go for a long, complicated and uncertain learning curve. They want something that can be implemented quickly and effectively, and that will not need regular troubleshooting. Since technology is only as good as the user, training is essential. No new technology should be brought on the market without a user’s manual and proper testing. The customer must never be the quality control or the guinea pig, unless they agree to be.
Creating the best conditions possible is essential for the adoption of innovation. Without customers, innovation remains just a nice idea, and a business just remains a hobby. It is never too early to start marketing activities and place the customer at the centre of innovation.
Copyright 2026 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.
As you are quite aware, conversations about food and agriculture are loaded with disagreements, controversies and endless arguments. One of the main reasons fueling this is the one nobody ever hardly mentions. Yet, it is at the core of much of all the excitement. It is something I emphasize in many of my presentations because it can help bring back serenity and especially more empathy. Of course, there are groups on both end of the spectrum that are not interested in mutual understanding. For them, it is all about “my way or the highway”. It keeps people busy, but it is not helpful to prepare for the future.
What does cause the conflicts? You guessed it from the title of this post: definitions. All the conversations -and discussions- always hit the same problem. Not only are we all subjective to some extent, and here are many reasons why we look at the world in different manners, we often end up in such arguments because we assume that we talk about the same thing. That is a big mistake. As the famous joke says: “when you assume you make an ass of you and me”. (If you did not know this quote or do not get it, here is a hint: ass-u-me). What puzzles me is that artificial intelligence seems to show signs of subjectivity and to run on assumptions, too.
When I speak about topics that cause a rift between food producers and the public, I always like to make the audience wonder if they all have the same definition of particular words. I always like to remind professional audiences that, even in the same room, there is a good chance that not everybody has quite the same definition of such words. I am also not shy to tell them that there is a good chance that I do not have the same definition, either. And I conclude by making them aware that the general public, which does not have the technical background, is even more likely to have a totally different idea of what some of those word mean to them.
To illustrate my point, here are a number of examples of words and concepts that about everybody uses or hears countless times on a daily basis, for which the lack of clarity about what they actually mean for those saying or hearing them is a major source of conflict.
Let’s start with an old one: genetically modified organisms, the scary GMOs that used to be referred to as Frankenfoods, as a reference to the story of Dr. Frankenstein (actually, nowadays, the technology closest to that story regarding the use of living tissues to produce food would probably be cellular meat). Of course, the early attempts of inserting genes from fish into tomatoes were cause for concern, but that was a long time ago. Yet, the stigma on GMOs is still very vivid today. The thing is that genetic engineering has substantially evolved since then. Today’s genetic engineering covers a multitude of applications and painting all of the applications with the same brush is rather pointless. If people want to debate about GMOs, they need to be quite specific about which applications they are talking about, and discuss it on a case-by-case basis. Generalising will only lead to arguments and nobody will even be able to understand what the other side is saying. Definitions matter.
Sustainability is another of such concepts that have about as many meanings as there are people. It all depends on what you consider needs to be included in sustainability or not. This is fertile ground for many disappointments and accusations of greenwashing. Sustainability lives in the realm of subjectivity, and attempts to make it more objective is a delicate task. But the term of sustainability seems to have now become less ubiquitous. Probably, this is because another, sexier, term has arisen: regenerative agriculture. It sounds more practical and somehow less abstract, therefore less subject to criticism. Or is it? I ask the question because it seems that a non-negligeable part about the talk of regenerative agriculture is that nobody seems to be able to give a clear definition of the term, that different actors use different aspects of food production to promote themselves, but it seems that nobody can really demonstrate if the claims are really regenerative or not. So, we fall back in the same situation as with sustainability. The truth is in the eye of the beholder.
Another common concept is quality. What is quality? This is a question that I have heard all my life, both as a student and as a food and agriculture professional. Everybody claims to produce quality (I have never heard of anyone bragging that they sold crap). Yet, customers have very different opinions about whether a product is a quality one or not. It is just because quality is a very subjective concept. What some people consider quality, others would consider garbage, and they both might be right. To be able to agree, a definition, based on objective criteria, is an absolute requirement. Yet, this is difficult to put in place.
Among the currently ubiquitous buzzwords, here is another one that needs to be defined properly: ultra processed foods (UPFs). What does it mean exactly? There are attempts to define UPFs, but those are contested. Clearly, there is not even a consensus about how to define them. The problem is that, just like GMOs, foods called UPFs are a very diverse group and it is about impossible to give a definition that applies to all of them. Just like I said about GMOs, these products need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Generalizing will lead nowhere, except endless conflicts and arguments. Just for starters, where is even the line between processed and ultra processed? What does make a food product cross that line? There again, it might be possible to define it and assess it on an individual basis. What we really need to focus on is whether a food product is detrimental to health and also under which conditions. How much, how often do people need to eat them to get sick? Is there a problem if you eat it once a year? Once a month? Once a day? Many lines to draw, really.
The same thing can be said for much more mundane products. What is good bread and not? What is good meat and not? What is good cheese and not? What are good strawberries and not? And so on, and so on. Similarly, what does natural really mean? What is authentic?
I mentioned meat. Let’s talk protein! If there is a popular topic these days, that probably would be it. Today, many people, not least in the animal products industries, use the term protein instead of meat. Yet, meat is not just protein. Actually, the main component is water, about 60% of the raw product. Depending on the type of meat and the cut, meat can also contain a substantial amount of fat. Ah, fat, the f-word everybody loves to hate, which is why it is tempting to reduce meat to protein only. The problem with this is that hushing about fat does not make it disappear. But is fat a problem at all? On that point, too, opinions vary. Of course, they vary because it all depends on how much you eat and what the quality of the fat is. The thing is, and I am frustrated time and time over to see that many people in animal productions do not seem to know that the fatty acids profile in the animal product can be influenced by the fatty acids profile of the feed that the animals eat. They are missing a great opportunity. Of course, fat sources in animal feed vary in price and quality. The only industry that really focus on that profile is the salmon farming, and for a simple reason. They have to compete against wild salmon, which is rich in omega-3 fatty acids. They have to find feed ingredients that can help match the omega-3 content of wild salmon. If not, it would affect the image of the product.
Since I am talking about fatty acids profile, I should talk about the amino acids profile, and in particular the essential amino acids profile. Protein is popular, but not all proteins are equal. From a nutritional point of view, we need to get enough of all the essential amino acids every day. So, it is not just a matter of having them all, it is also a matter of enough and balance. That, unfortunately, is not always the case. Clearly, a clear definition of protein is important. Some protein sources are of high quality, and some are not. Make sure that you look beyond the word protein to make your choice. To give so extreme examples about what bad or useless protein could be, I would mention hair and finger nails which are made of keratin, a protein, but which have zero nutritional value, so forget about biting your nails as a supplement. The other example would be prions, which are also part of the protein family. The problem with prions is that they are the cause of diseases, the most famous of which is the “mad cow” disease, as well as its human equivalent of the Creutzfeld-Jacob disease.
So, you see, we use many words in a general sense while they often cover many different situations, and if we are not clear about what they mean exactly to us, we end up talking about different things and cannot agree on anything, and as a result we do not really make well=thought decisions. When we skip the definition part of the conversation, we are just debating assumptions and perceptions. It is not a genuine dialog. If you look at it, that is pretty much politics. It certainly is not what we need the most: collaboration.
As you see, if we truly are working on solving problems and building a better future, we need to make sure that we are on the same wave length as early as possible in the conversation. Only then, do we really know what we are debating and when we do that, we can make progress better and faster. And if the outcome is that we should agree to disagree, at least by doing so we do not create bad blood. That, in turn, allows the conversation to resume and to continue. Isn’t it what we need most?
Copyright 2026 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.
In business, as in life in general, anticipation is key to successfully overcoming problems and even to survival. For as important as it is, I have always been surprised by how little organizations work on anticipating.
As you may have noticed, “anticipate” is the first word of the motto I have added on this website. In this article, we will review why anticipation is such an essential asset, why traditional analysis always comes short of what is needed, and how to use anticipation as a strategic tool for a successful future.
Anticipation is essential
It is actually easy to understand the importance of anticipation. Here are just a few examples that illustrate what difference anticipation really makes.
Anyone who spends time on the road will know the importance of anticipating. It really is all about paying attention at what happens all around. Anticipating other road users’ behavior can mean the difference between having an accident or not. The trick here is to understand that road safety is not just about you as a driver. Accidents happen to good drivers, too. All it takes for things to go wrong is just a moment of distraction. Reacting can help but there is a major difference between reacting and anticipating: anticipation is about acting timely to prevent the accident, while reacting is about action after the situation changed. In other words, reacting is about acting late and anticipation is about acting early. Once, a professional chauffeur told me that they always look two cars ahead, while most drivers only focus on the car just in front of them. The reason is that they can anticipate and have that one car buffer in-between, and of course its reaction time. That way, the professional will adapt timely and smoothly, thus leaving their customers unaware of what might have been a potentially dangerous situation.
Another shining example of the importance of anticipation is the game of chess. The very essence of the game, beyond strategy, is to foresee what will happen in the coming moves, not just your own moves but also envision what the other player’s moves are going to be and process all of these possibilities in scenarios and decide accordingly which move to choose, not only to attack or defend but also to deceive and bring the other player to make a mistake. The better players are the ones who can see the greatest number of moves ahead.
Another great school for anticipation is the practice of martial arts. I have always enjoyed that practice. The one thing I have learned, in particular with jiu-jitsu, is exactly what I wrote above about the difference between anticipating and reacting. In a fight, it is essential to “read” opponents and to counter before their moves gather any momentum. Once they have momentum, it is about impossible to stop the strike and it certainly costs a lot more energy to manage it than if you “nip it in the bud”. Another lesson from martial art is that when the momentum has passed its peak, that is the time to regain the initiative and use that slowing momentum against your adversary. All that requires that “sixth sense” and the feeling for when to act. I always have had a knack for anticipation, but the practice of martial arts truly changed me for the better. Within a couple of weeks after beginning the practice of judo when I was 13, I had gained self-confidence and the ability to manage all sorts of situations that I would not have been able to do before that, and that has stayed with me until this day.
These examples are great illustrations that can be used for business. In business, there are the things you can control and the things that you cannot control. For the latter group, businesses that are good at anticipating will do much better than those that are not. This is also true for the former group but the difference is that, since it is about what you can control, there is a bit more time to act than when events are totally out of your control. The food and agriculture sector is particularly exposed to parameters they cannot control. Just think at climate events, diseases or geopolitics.
The shortcomings of traditional analysis
Being myself quite an analytical individual, I am all for analysis, but I am not a fan of the work of most analysts. I suspect that the reason for that is my ability to anticipate. For me, most analyses come short of what is needed to move forward.
When I worked in the corporate world, I was always impressed by the ability of business analysts to process the information and present it in visual charts. Yet, I always felt that something was missing. I still have the same frustration today when I see reports from analysts. It is good quality work but what to do with it beyond the very short term? They write history and a bit of the present, and sometimes venture in the very near future by extrapolating ahead but I always miss the bigger picture. They do not make history, but I suspect that they do not see that as their job as analysts.
What moves will the other chess players make? That appears very rarely in the analysts’ work. And, then, what is the strategy to counter or deal with the next moves and how to successfully execute them? That is about never to be found in their analyses.
Another weakness that I find with that kind of work has to do with the short-term orientation of our business world. The present comes before the future, and the short term comes before the long term. Of course, it is essential for a proper analysis to follow current affairs and new trends, but there is a difference between doing exactly that and choosing to jump on any news or trend just because of the fear of missing out or the fear of not appearing to be on top of the latest hype. The problem with that is that analyses become rather shallow, tend to just parrot what the buzz of the day is and lose track of the bigger picture. If it were not enough of a shortcoming as such, just add a blind trust in artificial intelligence and then, we have got a mash of short-term stories, often incomplete if not inaccurate, becoming the official discourse.
I am not confident in such an approach of analysis. When it comes to trends and the future, I always like to make the distinction between what I call the white caps on the surface of the ocean and the deep undercurrents. The latter are really what will shape the long term. Deep undercurrents are not affected by white caps and neither are they by all the boaters floating around on the surface. All it takes for the white caps to change is for the wind to turn, to die down or to become stronger. By chasing white caps, we turn into chickens with no heads. The result of that headless state is that we do not really build a future. At best, we build a few businesses, most of which will fail within a decade. If I look back at all the “futures of food” that I heard of and that were supposed to revolutionized food and agriculture and totally changed the world of food in my 17 years of The Food Futurist, I just smile. I can do that because most of them have been failures for the very reasons that I explained in many of my writings and keynote addresses.
To me, the FOMO (fear of missing out), that seems so important to the consultants and analysts who are just in search of new assignments or customers, is just a major symptom of incompetence and eventually leads to a waste of time, money and energy. To build a future that is actually better, competent professionals do not experience FOMO. They do not get distracted by nonsense from social media. Although they notice all that short-term noise, they just stay focused on the real and important stuff.
How to get better at anticipation?
Perhaps, the best way to sum it up is to put it in terms of the game of chess: look at the entire board, not just at your king or queen. All the pawns and pieces can and will play a role in the end. The entire board is a good analogy for the big picture. In my example of road traffic, the same is true. Look at all the other road users and their behavior. The example of martial arts is also quite valid. Do not just focus on the fists or the feet. Watch the entire body language, see what the opponents are preparing, how they move, in which direction they place their body.
To get better at anticipation, look at the entire picture and connect the dots. I am always surprised to see how often organizations are oblivious to their “outside world”. That is the drama of silo thinking, and it is more common than most will admit. I have lost the count of how many times I have insisted on the importance of being curious, of paying attention to what happens in other businesses, in other industries or in other places, and to know what has happened in the past and the lessons learned. I cannot emphasize enough how essential being curious is, not only to be able to anticipate but also to be able to find solutions that work, to adapt and to succeed.
For these reasons, I always shape my presentations around the big picture and connecting dots. My audiences love that and I like the way they react when they realize that I opened their eyes, even when sometimes they would prefer that I did not mention what trigger the click in their heads. This is also the reason why I offer my program of 360 vision for organizations that want to have a look at the entire board to build a better future.
Copyright 2026 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.
As usual, listen here to a Chrome AI-generated podcast-type playback of this article:
Surely, you have heard the following statement many times: “the food system is broken”. It is a nice slogan, especially for activists. The reality is that this statement is rather meaningless. Criticism about modern agriculture is not new, far from that. Some time after my graduation from the agricultural university, I had bought a book titled “Le Krach Alimentaire – Nous redeviendrons paysans” (“The Food Crash – We will become peasants again“). This book, published in 1988, was written by Philippe Desbrosse who worked as an expert with the Commission and Parliament of the European Union of then. The book is a gloomy criticism of modern agriculture, making claims that world agriculture is on the verge of complete bankruptcy and the author wondered whether there still would be farmers and even bread by year 2000. He saw organic agriculture as the only possible and viable option for the future. Well, we know the answers to his questions and the solutions that have been developed during this period. Although his predictions did not come true, he did addressed a number of valid points that are still relevant today, such us the depletion of soils. His solution was just not realistic. Nothing is black and white. Nobody has it all right and nobody has it all wrong. Excessive alarmism never really helps, and neither does denial.
First, there is no such thing as the food system. There are many food systems because there are many different natural conditions, many different types of consumers and many different kinds of governments with different objectives and policies. A farmer selling directly to consumers operates in a system that is totally different than one who sells commodities on the world market. Different markets have different sizes in volumes sold and very different economics as well. The second error about the slogan is to say that “the system is broken”. It is not broken. It actually still works rather well, as it has been able to provide foods to an increasing world population. Not only does agriculture produce enough food, but when you factor in 1) the huge amount of food waste caused by either lack of proper infrastructure and market access or because of negligent behavior from consumers, retailers and food service operators and 2) the large amount of crop production used for biofuels (just in the US 40% of corn and 47% of soybeans), as I described in a previous article (maxed out or a planet of plenty?)
Since the publication of Desbrosse’s book, the world population has increased by 3 billion people! Food production systems are in constant evolution, as they constantly need to meet new challenges and new demands. Today’s farms and agriculture are rather different than they were 50 years ago. They are quite different than they were ten, even five years ago. Only people with little insight in food and agriculture think that food systems are frozen in time. Perhaps, they should visit farms and talk to farmers more often than they do, to realize the ongoing transformation of agriculture.
Food systems are the way they are for good reasons. They are not designed on a whim. There is a strong logic behind them. Although they are not broken, they are not perfect, either. Here, it should be a case of he who has never sinned cast the first stone. Personally, I do not know of any human activity that is perfect. All occupations have their flaws. Perfection does not exist. It is a hard truth to accept for perfectionists who usually are also born critics. What matters is not perfection but excellence. Everything has room for improvement. So do food and agriculture systems. It is work in progress. When you look at it from that angle, the future looks brighter. It means that there is hope. We just need to make work of it, which is much better than criticizing without offering any viable and practical solution or throw soup on Mona Lisa.
Food systems are about viable economics, not intellectual exercises
How food is produced and brought to consumers does not happen per accident. Although food systems are quite complex and are influenced by a myriad of dimensions (see a previous article on this blog: Why changing food systems is a challenge), their success -or failure- always come down to one thing and one thing only: their economic viability. It is about money. I know this is a boring topic that irritates some people but fact is that money plays a role in everything in our lives. Denying it does not change that fact.
There can be as many “intellectuals” assessing, criticizing or conceptualizing food systems as we want, food systems will have to pass the economics acid test. In a way, that economic check up is where the term food system meets its limitations, and where the concept of value chain is a lot more relevant. Indeed, the economics of the food system determine whether it creates value and how it distributes that value from the field to the plate.
It is important to emphasize that food systems need to produce what consumers are willing to buy. It may sound obvious. Yet, this part is often overlooked. If people do not buy a product, it means the end of that product and of its production system. The key criterion for people to buy or not to buy is value. If consumers find that a product has value, they show interest. If they do not see any value in the product, they ignore it and it dies. Then, comes the second part of value: does the price align with the perceived value or not? If consumers think that they get good value for money, they buy. If they think the product is too expensive for what it is, they do not buy. It is that simple.
The result of consumer interest is that the product -and its production system- has potential. But this is not the entire story, yet. The consumer end is only one part of the total equation and this is where the concept of value chain is quite important. All the steps before the point of sale to the consumer need to also find value in participating. All the links of the chain must have an economic interest in producing for the consumers.
The essential point of a value chain is that money enters that chain only from one end: the price that the consumer pays. That amount of money goes into the value chain pot, if you wish. Then, the trick is to make sure that all the links of the chain can get a share of what is in the pot so that they can continue to produce and participate. For each of the partners in the value chain, the share of the money pot that they get must cover their individual costs. No business can survive if they get less money than they spend to produce. The pot that I am mentioning is going to have to be shared through a cascade of commercial negotiations between all the links of the chain. They are all one-on-one negotiations and they do not take into account their impact on the other chain participants. As usual, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and that plays a critical role in the strength and the viability of the entire system.
Of course, they are many aspects that influence costs. Just to name a few, it is obvious that market size (volumes), government regulations, quality standards, infrastructure (logistics), relative bargaining positions (commercial negotiations) and training producers to have the proper skills for the new system strongly influence the total cost from producers to consumers. Every change in these criteria affects the total costs and how the money pot can be shared. These are major factors from the down-and-dirty business reality. These factors are never considered by the “food systems theoreticians” I pointed at earlier in this article. There are two main reasons for that. The first one is that this reality is very far away from the thinking of the theoreticians. The second one is that, they tend to perceive day-to-day business activities as not being part of the intellectual conceptualization. They fly at higher altitude. In other words, it is not their problem. Except that, with that very attitude, those who attempt to design the new, beautiful and ideal(istic) food systems often set food producers for failure.
A few examples for illustration
To explain what kind of consequences changing food systems causes, there is nothing like a few examples. I will try to be as concise as possible.
The rise of supermarkets. They have changed food distribution dramatically. Their success and growth are strongly related to cars and mobility. They have strongly influenced infrastructure and logistics. Their professional procurement approach has also changed dramatically the availability, the standards, the origin and the prices of the foods they sell. Their dominant position has also forced food producers to offer larger volumes and also to get bigger to rebalance the bargaining position. This has led to consolidation and much larger food corporations.
Role of government policies. A good example is the European Union. Its history of subsidies has shaped its post WW2 agriculture. It has deeply transformed the size and the purpose of farms. That in turn has also had profound consequences on the social fabric of rural areas. EU standards on quality, animal welfare and the ban on GMOs have also had a strong impact on the cost structure of foods and on the competitive position of European agriculture compared with other agriculture behemoths like the US or Brazil. Their policies will also have huge consequences on future European agriculture production volumes and trade.
Dogmatic policies ignoring market reality. Perhaps the most “beautiful” example would be the mandate from the French government to impose a target of 20% of organic dairy production a few years ago. They offered financial support to farmers to carry out the transition. Only problem has been that there are not enough consumers willing to pay the extra price for organic milk and organic dairy farmers had no market for their products. The result has been a massive crisis leading to many of the farmers who switched to organic to abandon organic production at great cost to them. Consumers did not perceive much of a value difference and would not pay for it. No real market research had been carried out but just dogmatic objectives. Result: financial disaster and major hangover.
Market-driven dairy success story. In Senegal, there is a dairy company called Laiterie du Berger. Their main product is yoghurt that they sell to urban population in the country. It has been a market-driven approach lead by France’s Credit Agricole (banking), Danone (one of the world’s leading dairy companies) and several NGOs. They started from the market end and partnered with local dairy farmers, most of whom were Fula people with small herds and low technical support. Laiterie du Berger has organized milk collection and as the business was growing and making progress, the Fula farmers are now getting technical support for their operations and better genetic material for their livestock. The result is that the farmers produce more milk per cow, produced the quality needed by the dairy company and have now better living standards. The production system has changed and many benefit from it, from farmers to consumers. Similar projects to improve dairy production are also underway in other countries. For instance, Nigeria is partnering with Danish organizations to improve the genetic level of their herds. Indonesia has plans to import more than 1 million cows to produce more milk for their population and one of their targets is to offer milk in schools. These are examples that show how a market-driven approach leads to 1) changes in production systems and 2) improve life quality. These are pragmatic and economic approaches not based on utopian dreams.
Developing new products without thinking from a solid market potential perspective. Current champions in this category would be investor-driven start-ups, usually based on inflated ego, and some weird messianic complex in some cases, more than on solid market research and understanding. Beyond Meat and other fake meat tech foods have been superb examples of how not to do things. The insect farming sector is another major flop. Insect farming companies are literally dropping like flies, going bankrupt one after another. They did not do proper market research. First, they got misled by FAO hype on insects. Secondly, they deluded themselves in their own green washing while reality proved rather different and had no idea of supply challenges. Similarly, tech vertical farms have been failures. The main reason has been that they serve very small markets. The world does not and cannot feed itself on expensive basil and arugula. Inevitably, the results are high costs that sales prices cannot cover and few consumers who care for the value of such systems compared with traditional ones. However, early big investors who knew when to exit and to cash in have sometimes done quite well, but perhaps that was their only real goal after all… shhh… Start-ups need to master business basics before making bold statements about saving the planet or revolutionizing food and agriculture. Actually, such megalomaniac claims should be red flags right away.
And I could give quite a few personal examples of business sectors in which I have been involved changes I have led in marketing and production. From my personal experiences, I would say that any change of system goes along with serious changes of economics. Often, costs and prices do not move in parallel and the new system fails for purely economic reasons. In particular, beware of those market surveys that pop up once in a while, stating that a “large” percentage of the population would be willing to pay “more” for a product if it were to be produced “better”. Such market research is usually set up more as a New Year’s resolution wish list than a true research. The intention sounds good but usually when in the store, the consumers look at the price tags and make very different decisions than the ones mentioned in these surveys.
New systems also require serious investments both from financial and skills training point of view. They often require mental changes that either people are not prepare to accept or that will cause resistance that will lead to some compromises. Anyway, the key is to do a lot of thorough number crunching, as the changes are far from simple to work out.
Conclusions
#1 Always be market-driven. Not doing so spells trouble. It is always much better to produce what consumers need and want than to produce and then struggle to figure out who will buy and for what price. Usually that price is significantly lower than what the theoreticians plan for. Market-driven is less risky, has higher rates of success, costs less and is also less difficult to manage. That is a non-negligible advantage. Building a production system for which the market and the entire chain are not buying in is doomed to fail.
#2 Food systems have consequences in terms of market size and costs. Changing a component of the system changes the cost of production and therefore has an impact on consumer prices and profitability. This in turn has an effect on how many people are willing to buy the products from the “new” system and therefore the size of that market. Nothing is worse for producers than a market that is oversupplied, except for a drop in demand because of a price change.
#3 Don’t be an idealist, at least not for too long. Most of the people presenting themselves as food system experts, be it from NGOs, academia or supranational organizations (such as UN agencies, and the EU, just to name a couple), very often seem to follow a particular bias. There are many of those around. Some themes are appealing. In particular small-scale farming and family farms. Unfortunately, such ideological and dogmatic approaches rarely deliver because they overlook the economic realities of all levels from farm to plate. Actually, it would be interesting to know how many of them have really had all that much of a positive impact, if any. At best, those that succeeded remained limited in small niches. Business people are usually more pragmatic and they focus on what works. They usually implement change when it becomes necessary. The food and agriculture industry is actually quite good and finding new ways. Their only problem is that they tend to wait too long and act only under an existential threat. The reason is mostly to not increase costs, but that often tends to be a rather short-term thinking mistake. The idealism part of building better production systems is commendable but it needs to go hand-in-hand with a solid dose of realism. Those who make that move on time will succeed. Those who stick to unrealistic goals will achieve nothing.
Copyright 2026 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.
Since I have created my company, there has hardly been any day when I have not been rethinking my business. I find this a healthy habit. In a world in ongoing evolution, one must not think that what works today will do so forever. This year is no exception. This is why I have chosen for a different approach, which I explain in the following video.
You may have noticed that I have added a “motto” in the header of this website:
“Anticipate-Adapt-Succeed“
With it, I want to make quite clear at the first contact what The Food Futurist is about and what my goal is for you. In the video, I explain that the underlying force for the future will be about rethinking how we do things. Here, I do not mean rethinking in the sense of “reinventing” or “revolutionizing” food and agriculture. Lots of people love to make that claim but I have not seen any concrete example of such revolution. Instead, I see it more as evolution. I use rethinking in the way we will change how we think and how it can translate in the way we use all the new tools that technology is bringing us, and also how we see the place of humans in this new world. It is not a new idea for me, as it has been a recurrent theme in my work and also as I stated at the end of my first book, Future Harvests – The Next Agricultural Revolution, “the next revolution will be about the way we think”.
One of the consequences of this new approach is that I am now presenting my services differently. So far I had used categories of services, such as “Advisory Services”, “Speaking Engagements”, “Futures Scenarios & Strategic Foresight”, “Business Seminars” or “Futures & Strategy Interviews”. Instead, I have now created areas of services that I believe will make my services even more relevant and to the point to my clients. Of course, the previous services formats will still be available and it will be to the clients to decide which one fits their needs best.
Here are the six areas (with their location on the following video timeline) on which I will concentrate my activities:
00:51 Food and agriculture 360 Vision
01:32 Market-driven Value Creation
02:19 Leading the Future
02:57 Communication: Finding the Right Wave Length
03:53 Be prepared for the Unexpected
04:40 Second opinion
Last but not least, here are my prediction for the topics that I expect to play a prevalent role in 2026:
Happy and Prosperous 2026!
Copyright 2026 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.
