250. Three overlooked consequences of climate change we need to address

Posted on November 6, 2025 by Christophe Pelletier

Listen here to a Chrome AI-generated podcast type playback of the author’s article

The conversation about climate change focuses too much on its causes and not on what we must to do in the future. At least, that is how I feel about it. The whole science behind why climate change is happening is important. I will not argue about that, but tons of CO₂ in the atmosphere or 1.5°C vs. 2°C remain abstract concepts in the minds of most people. It is necessary to translate the change into concrete actions. Of course, a lot of that is already happening but some very basic consequences need to be addressed with more force than has been the case so far. In this article, I will review three of these consequences that I consider as the most pressing, yet too often overlooked, consequences:

Heat stress

Water availability

Diseases

Heat stress

Warming means higher temperature, but looking at average numbers, such as for instance 1.5°C does not indicate the real problem. Certainly, the average temperature matters from a planetary point of view but we all experience temperature swings that are as unpredictable as severe. The swings are definitely not in the range of 1 or 2°C.

For instance, plants may have a great start in the spring and then comes frost that can destroy an entire harvest in orchards within a few hours, or a sudden heat wave fries crops and in particular vegetables. Heat affects farm animals, too. I can remember when I lived and worked in poultry processing in The Netherlands, we always had some episode in the summer of higher temperatures and high humidity that seriously affected the welfare of chickens. Our company always had to plan for lighter average weights in the summer as the chickens would not eat as much and would not grow much, either. The introduction of misting installations definitely alleviated some of the problem. At least, we did not have to deal with overnight deaths by heat suffocation of entire flocks of birds, but we certainly had less tonnage because of the heat. Heat had a cost. Less tonnage meant less revenue but also higher costs as overhead costs per kg would be same regardless of the number of birds.

Research on the cost of heat stress on dairy cows has determined that in 2020, heat had affected milk production by an estimated 50 million tons at a cost of US$ 13 billion, according to IFCN (International Farm Comparison Network). This tonnage represents roughly 5% of the 2024/25 world milk production. Their estimate for 2050 is of a production loss of 90 million tons (9% of today’s world production) for a value of US$ 90 billion.

There is only one species of warm-blooded animals that I can think of that likes to roast in the sun: people. Other species are much smarter and tell us what we will have to do. On a hot sunny day, animals look for shade.

Shade is going to be a very hot (could not help the intended pun here) topic for the future. Actually, it is already getting more and more on everyone’s mind. Many studies have shown that shade reduces the temperature at ground level by substantial numbers. In paved environments, such as cities, the temperature difference varies in the range of 10 to 15°C. On pastures, the numbers seem to be less, but still in a range of at least 5-10°C.

There is already research carried out on the benefit of shade and how to bring more shades to animals. For instance, France’s INRAE (French Institute for Agricultural and Environment Research) is looking at strategies to reintroduce trees on pastures and determine which tree species would be the most effective. Besides trees as a source of shade, there are already some combined cattle or sheep husbandry paired with solar production on grasslands, with some very positive effects. The farm produces cleaner energy and the shade not only improves the animals’ welfare but it also protects the grass from the heat and help providing the animals with feed. In a way, this is a win-win-win. Heat stress is not just affecting feed quantity but its quality as well. There are also farms that produce vegetables under solar panels for the same reason: the panels protect the plants from the hot rays of the sun. Shade is going to b part of the food landscape. Early, I mentioned orchards. I expect many regions, like the one where I live to use shade screens as a standard production method for fruit production.

For the future, heat stress will lead us to rethink production locations, genetics of plants and animals, the type of housing for animals (and for people, too), feeding systems and feeding programs for animals, water management systems and water supply and conservation strategies.

Heat stress and shade are also going to become part of urban landscape. I recently was in Valencia, Spain. Some parts of the cities had some drapes spread on poles to provide shade and they also had misters to cool down the people sitting on some city squares. Those systems were not all that effective if you ask me. The best place was to be in the old river bed, now turned into a park where the trees were offering the best cooling effect in town. Spain is used to heat but it does not make it less of a problem. The most pressing action will be needed in countries that used to be temperate and where cities -and countryside- are not prepared and not equipped to deal with the heat that is likely to hit in the not-so-distant future. Heat is not just about crops and farm animals. It is about people and their pets, too.

Water availability

It does sound corny to say, but it is true: water is life. With climate change, former “predictable” precipitation patterns are disappearing. It looks like there is either too much water falling at once or hardly any at all. Of course, this has an impact, especially when it happens in combination with temperature swings. Droughts have always affected harvest volumes of crops and pasture production. Beef is a good illustration of that about the last couple of years in North America. Although drought is not the only reason, its impact of forage availability has noticeably contributed to the reduction of beef herds, and supply does not meet demand as it used to. The result has been a major increase of the price of beef at consumer level. Here in Canada, the price in the supermarkets of prime cuts has about doubled in a year time, and the price of ground beef has increased by about 50%.

Climate change shows up on the grocery bills and it hurts many households. Beef is an example but consumers can see the impact of climate event on many products, not just meat but fruit and vegetables, too. As such, it is not new. In the course of my life, I have seen unusual weather patterns affect the prices of food, but it just seems that the frequency and the impact is getting higher. We will see, but we need to manage climate events better. Artificial intelligence will likely be a big part of that solution.

There is what we can do about production systems and with the kind of technologies we will have in our toolbox, but there is also what we cannot influence. For this very reason, it is clear that water availability is going to redraw the world food map. Certain productions will disappear from some regions and reappear somewhere else. For example, the Bordeaux wine region in France seem to be at risk of not being able to produce the great wines it used to produce. On the other hand, it seems that England might have some ideal climatic conditions to produce excellent wines. Another example can be the Midwest region of the US which is a major crop producer, corn and soybeans in particular. The region depends heavily on the Ogallala aquifer for irrigation, but this aquifer gets depleted much faster that it can replenish. Water management has become a hot topic and a number of farmers, in particular in the State of Kansas, have switched to sorghum as an alternative to corn for animal feed, as it requires less water than corn.

The politics of water are another aspect of water availability that we rarely hear. Yet, we should pay attention. For instance, in central western France, there are hefty -and violent- conflicts about water management. Farmers wanted to have a number of water basins build so that they could keep producing their regular crops by using that water for irrigation. The basins would be filed by the river system in the winter. This project has faced strong opposition and many clashes have taken place between demonstrators and the police. Another example of water conflict is the dam that Ethiopia is building on the Nile River, which is causing great concern and reaction from Egypt and Sudan that see a risk for their water supply abilities for the future. And let’s not forget that the populations of these three countries are expected to increase strongly in the coming decades. Another example is what happened between India and Pakistan during the 2025 conflict in the Kashmir region. India threatened to stop its rivers from flowing into Pakistan. As you can see, as it becomes scarce, competition for water will become fierce. Water is going to be a major strategic and geopolitical resource with the potential to create major crises and possibly wars.

Cities also need to have sensible water supply and water use plans in place. A few years ago, Cape Town had dire water supply issues. Mexico City also got some worries. Considering the regions where population is expected to grow the fastest, water is going to be a major cause for concern. The number of megacities that are forecast to be built in Asia and Africa should keep many people awake at night. New cities with multimillion inhabitants are going to have to rely -and to depend- on mostly local water sources and the question is whether they will be able to succeed. This will require major investment and astute planning for the future.

Diseases

As climate changes, so do the local environmental conditions for living organisms. Some regions that were inhospitable for some species might become better suited in the future and we can expect to see a change of ecosystems as a consequence. This can happen for all sorts of species, large or small to very small. I will give here a few examples to show the variety and the complexity of the impact of climate change on the possible spread of diseases.

In cattle, two different problems have appeared recently. One is in France. A number of cow herds have been infected with the lumpy skin disease, which is a disease propagated by flies and mosquitoes. It is a disease that was until now limited to Africa. Now, it is in the French Alps near Switzerland and other cases have been detected in the Pyrenees, not far from the French-Spanish border. There is no cure available and the infected herds are being culled. Just imagine if the disease spreads further what the consequences can be for perhaps all of Europe. The second example with cattle is in Mexico and the US. Cases of Mexican cows infected with the New World screwworm have been identified and immediately, the US closed its borders to Mexican beef. Although there might be some politico-commercial aspects at play, fact is that the screwworm is an ugly disease vector. It basically eats the flesh of the cattle, but it could do the same to people. Texas got rid of that pest in the past with some difficulties and they do not want to see it reappearing, for good reasons.

I just mentioned vectors, and vectors we need to closely monitor. Avian flu, also known as HPAI or H5N1, is very contagious and is carried by wild birds. Monitoring of migrating birds and their routes is essential to identify where the disease could be present and take proper action to protect avian farms. Climate affects the migration routes and old patterns are probably already obsolete. There are already some systems in place, but I believe that more is going to be needed. Here too, artificial intelligence might be a big part of the solution. That will require sensors in bird houses, on farms, in the vicinity of farms and everywhere possible on the likely migration routes. It will need to be a 24/7 alert system. The problem -and the solutions- are similar when it comes to the increase of the population of wild boars in many parts of the world. Full monitoring will be essential in the fight against ASF (African Swine Fever). It also will be essential to understand the ecology of diseases if we want to stay ahead of the game.

In the world of small and very small, just look at the spread of tiger mosquitoes in Europe. A large part of France has been colonized and it will not stop there. Tiger mosquitoes carry “traditionally” tropical diseases such as dengue fever, yellow fever, chikungunya or even zika. Climate will contribute to the spread of many new diseases, be they plant, animal or human diseases.

The name of the game for the future of health is PREVENTION, and that needs to be imprinted in everyone’s mind in big bold capital letters. Protecting the immune system of our plants and animals as well as ours will be on top of the priority list. Let’s hope that politics will not stand in the way. We need to protect all we can. Once that is done, we will have time to discuss if we like it or not. It will be just like with the oxygen mask in planes. Put it on yourself first and then help others. We will have to develop new vaccines and new medication. For agricultural purposes, the use of gene technology will also help make some of our crops and animals resistant to diseases. Monitoring, which I mentioned earlier will also be key to protect ourselves and our food production. A major component of prevention is anticipation. We have the technologies to be able to monitor, to run scenarios and to develop solutions. We must use them to their full potential. We need cures, because massive culling or production losses will not be an option with two billion more people on Earth in the coming 25 years. Remember, 25 years is only one generation.

249. Is the Earth maxed out or is it a world of plenty?

Posted on November 4, 2025 by Christophe Pelletier

Listen here to a Chrome AI-generated podcast type playback of the author’s article

In my previous blog article, I was mentioning the growing population. This topic has been keeping many people busy for a long time. By the end of the 18^th century-early 19^th century, Thomas Malthus predicted that the human population would exceed the amount of food it can produce to feed itself. By then, the world population was less than one billion people. His views, so far, have proven wrong, although there indeed could be a maximum number of people that is viable. What is this number? Nobody knows for sure but there are many opinions out there.

A quick exercise I did recently as part of a presentation about the future of food production and consumption was to make people think about how we use agricultural land. My purpose was to take distance from all the usual narratives and provoke some thoughts in a playful manner. It is not so much about some hard numbers, as it is about thinking differently and looking at the world and the future from a different angle. I brought up a few topics.

Technical performance

There is a debate about extensive and intensive agriculture. In my opinion, this is the wrong debate in the sense that these are just two qualitative adjectives. They are not quantitative, so everyone can use them as they please. They do not tell what the acceptable limit of intensification is.

I prefer to speak of efficiency. Many people, even in academia, seem to confuse intensification with efficiency. That is a serious mistake. The key is to find the particular point of the maximum intensification that does not compromise sustainability. I discuss that in one of my YouTube videos, which I also have a shorter version just focusing on what I think sustainable intensification means.

To make a long story short, and from a perspective of sustainable intensification, better yields mean less land necessary. Same thing with animal farming: higher productive animals need less feed per kg of final animal product relatively because the energy needs for maintenance are lower, therefore less land. And from a perspective of the so popular cow burps as they are called nowadays, let’s take a simple example. Let’s compare one cow producing 9,000 liters of milk vs. three cows producing 3,000 liters each. It is rather obvious that the one cow will burp less than three cows combined, therefore less methane, therefore better from an environmental point of view.

The main lesson from this is simple: genetics play a critical role for sustainability.

Biofuels

An interesting study by the Institut für Energie und Umweltforschung (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research) from Heidelberg, Germany has been published in 2023. In their conclusion, the authors determined that the farm area used in the European Union for crops destined to the production of biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) represented an area the size of the entire island of Ireland and could feed a population of about 120 million people. This is interesting, especially considering that the EU strives to go full electric on vehicles. Obviously, this could free major volumes land and therefore of food to feed the future. Just keep this number in your mind as an indicator but be careful to not extrapolate too quickly for the rest of my story because not all agricultural lands are as good as those used for crops in the EU and not all climates are as favorable.

Another similar comparison to make is to take a look at the USA. There, it is estimated that about 40% of the corn is used for the production of ethanol as a biofuel. If you take 40% of the area planted in corn, you get the size of two Irelands. Somehow ironically, this is also the size of the State of Iowa which is the top corn US state, and also for soybeans, 49% of which are used for biofuels. In the US, the ethanol mandate plays an important role for corn farmers. This is especially true since the US and China had a little disagreement during the first Trump administration, which resulted in China nearly buying no corn or soybean any longer from the US. This is still the case in 2025. The recent agreement on soybeans between China and the US might alleviate some of the pain but considering what a roller coaster this relationship is, let’s wait and see. US farmers cheered as the US recently increased volumes for the ethanol mandate. This is understandable, as US corn volumes have been quite high with about zero alternative market. It is actually to the point that the US is coming close to have a shortage of storage space for grain. Clearly, ethanol is not going to go away, unless the Midwest farmers decide to produce entirely different crops in the future. For water reasons, some have switched to sorghum as an alternative to corn for animal feed, but that goes only so far. Clearly, there will be little incentive to push too hard for electric vehicles as this would affect the domestic ethanol market. Without the ethanol market, it is not unreasonable to say that US crop farmers would all go bankrupt in a heartbeat. Even with the mandate, they are already in rough shape. This is the cost of losing your best customer. The old rule of thumb saying that it costs between 10 and 20 times more to lose a customer than to make some compromise sounds like it is still very relevant.

Of course, the EU and the US are not the only biofuel producers. There is more, like sugar cane ethanol in Brazil or even India making fast strides with bioethanol, but I will not include them in the calculation.

Anyway: about 2 Irelands with US corn ethanol.

Food waste

It is well known that about a third of all food produced is lost or wasted in some way. It is also true that most of the wasted food consists of crops. In developing countries, crops rot in the fields or in poor warehousing, or are eaten by vermin. In developed countries, the top two wasted products are bread and produce, both groups from plant origin, too. So, just for argument’s sake, let’s just consider that the food waste is just from arable land. Let’s forget the grasslands in this calculation. According to the UN FAO, the world arable land area is of about 1.38 billion hectares. A third of that is 460 million hectares, which is slightly more than the area of the EU as a whole, or slightly more than half the size of China or the US.

Expressed in Irelands, a third of the world arable land represents about 65 Irelands.

Warmer climate in Russia and Canada

Now, this is the fun part of the exercise. It is fun because 1) it is very speculative and 2) the result will blow your mind. Here is what I calculated: imagine a narrow strip of land of a width of 50 km across both Russia and Canada, which are both 9,000 km long from East to West. As summer are warming, it is not inconceivable that another 50 km to the North could be put in production for crops. These 50 km multiplied by two times 9,000 km is 900,000 km2 or 90 million hectares.

That narrow strips is roughly 20% of the EU area, or 13 Irelands.

Others

I will let you dig further where there is potential. Of course, there are challenges ahead. Climate change will also put yields under pressure. As I indicated, my purpose is mostly to make you think about whether the Earth is maxed out or whether we can still create of world of plenty. The answer will depend greatly on us and on our leaders. Do we want to cultivate the Earth for success or are we going to make pricey mistakes? That was the purpose of We Will Reap what We Sow, my second book, by the way.

Conclusion

This is a lot of Irelands!

248. The future is not for the timid. Winners will be bold, ambitious, determined fighters!

Posted on October 29, 2025 by Christophe Pelletier

Listen here to a Chrome AI-generated podcast type playback of the author’s article article

As the population keeps increasing, so does the strategic role of agriculture. In particular, geopolitical strategy will become even more prevalent in the future than it is today. Trade and influence will shape the future. In this environment, competition is going to be fierce. Like with any competition, there will be winners and there will be losers. For the future, the winners will be the conquerors!

The question, before considering who the winners might be, is really about to identify what will make some countries, industries and companies fare better than others. So, let’s review which components will play a role for future success.

Have a clear vision

To succeed, it is essential to know what the game is, what the rules are and how to navigate them. It all starts (or ends) with leadership. It is equally essential to have a very clear idea of what one wants to achieve and of how to thrive in a competitive environment because, like it or not, life is competition. Different people aim for the same goal, but only a select few will win it.

Money

As Cicero wrote “Money, endless money, is the sinews of war”. There is no doubt that the winners will be the ones who can fund their ambitions. They will be the ones who give themselves all the means they can find to succeed. To win, one has to think big and prepare accordingly. Those who think small will only obtain only even less than their goal. This is the role of the vision I was mentioning earlier. Being timid with funding for the future will only lead to defeat. I would compare it as preparing for the Olympics. Even the best athlete in the world would fail if not having the proper support.

Resourcefulness

I believe it was Anthony Robbins, the famous motivational speaker, who said something like it is not necessarily the ones who have access to the most resources who succeed, but the ones who are the most resourceful. This is true. Many successful entrepreneurs often started with hardly any money and had to gamble all of their meager savings and even their family stability. Yet, they found ways of generating interest and cash flow in order to keep going. On the other end, there is no shortage of startups that were (over)abundantly funded and yet failed. The difference was in the character of the entrepreneur.

Strong sense of identity

Those with a clear idea of who they are, what they represent and what role they can play in tomorrow’s world will be at a great advantage. Identity sets their values. It also boosts confidence and helps overcome setbacks. Thanks to identity, they will never take no for an answer and pursue their goals until completion. This does not mean that they will be the nicest ones or the best choice around, but a strong sense of identity will make them winners. If you have any doubt, just look around and you will see that all those who do not have a clear identity are on the decline.

Policies for success

Of course, one could argue about the definition of success but that does not serve anyone well in a competition in which the contenders all have their very own. In my recent article about whether the EU might become a museum, I address the necessity of making a clear choice. Do policies support farmers to succeed or are they undermining their chances of success in the global competition? To elaborate on my previous example about athletes in the Olympics, the metaphor would be about whether the policies are providing athletes with everything they need to express their full potential and go for gold, or does the “coach” tie their shoelaces together, leading the athletes to trip and hit the ground probably even before the game has started.

Spirit

Like with any competition, it is never over until it is over. The difference between champions and the rest is that champions never give up. They might suffer as much as the rest but the difference is in the spirit. It is about mental fortitude. It is about never giving up the fight. There always are ups and downs. This is life, once again like it or not. Winning the future starts with attitude. Never doubt when you face headwinds because everybody else does, but also never get cocky when things go well because complacency or mental superiority complex are deadly poisons. Never lose your sight of the objective.

Agility

Keeping the course is good, but sometimes the itinerary needs to change. Once in a while, life likes to create some detours. The winners of the future are also the ones who know that nothing goes in a straight line. Changes and adjustments are always necessary. The difference between the winners and the others is that winners are swift to adapt, yet not lose track of where the end line is. On the contrary, those who get distracted by setbacks will end up like the proverbial headless chicken. In that regard agility and spirit go hand in hand.

Not being too nice

In the geopolitical environment, it is clear that not all contenders play fair. Let’s face it, quite a number of them are actually nasty. This is a fact of life (yes once again, like it or not). To be among the winners, especially with that kind of competitors, it is clear that it is necessary to show some teeth once in a while. Be subservient and you will be bullied out of the game. It is just that simple. The answer of course is not necessarily to become one of them, either. It is possible to stick to proper values, but any way you might choose, there will be a fight. There also will be low blows and all sorts of dirty fighting going on. Just be prepared and train to be strong and to deal with that. Also build your own little arsenal to strike back and stun the bullies. You will need it.

247. The Key to Successful Tech in Agriculture: Meet Farmers’ Needs

Posted on October 23, 2025 by Christophe Pelletier

Listen here to a Chrome AI-generated podcast type playback of the author’s article

A recurrent complaint I hear in the agricultural sector is how slow and difficult it seems to have farmers embrace new technologies. Most of the time, it sounds more like a reproach than anything else, as if there was something wrong with farmers to be so reluctant. I do not agree with that thinking. To me, the main reason why some technologies have a hard time gaining the support of farmers is simply because they do not meet their needs.

I was recently viewing an old video from Steve Jobs. Basically, what he said was that if you want people to adopt a new product, you must first look at the customer’s experience and then work backwards to build the right product for them. He was also lamenting that too often, tech companies think because they have a product that is a technological beauty, the world should just adopt it. Of course it does not work this way, and certainly not in the agriculture sector. I believe a lot of technology developers should find inspiration in Steve Jobs’s statement.

In my work, I get contacted from time to time by venture capital firms who would like me to invest. Usually, with three to five questions, I know whether it is an interesting proposal. Sometimes, I already know after my first question. So far, none of the companies offered to me have survived. Some lasted a couple of years, but all failed for the exact same reasons as I will describe further in this article. This is the reason why I offer my “Second Opinion” in my services.

I recently had the opportunity (or the misfortune I should say) to attend a rather painful presentation from a venture capital operative, supposedly expert in agtech and in artificial intelligence of lately, as many claim to be. Of course, he was to complain about how slow the agriculture sector is to adopt new technologies with the same kind of criticism about farmers as I have mentioned above. The irony here was that he did a terrible job at demonstrating any added value. If this is the way the tech sector tries to sell itself to farmers, it should be no surprise that adoption will be slow.

Farmers do adopt new technologies. They do. A lot. Anyone who has actively worked in the agricultural sector with farmers and visited farms over the past decades will tell you how many things have changed on farms. Just think of GPS, satellite imagery, sensors, drones, computer vision, robots, unmanned vehicles and so on.The transformation has been amazing. They will tell you how many new tools and new technologies they have adopted and integrated in their daily work. Farmers adopt novelties, but not because it is trendy or fashionable. No, they adopt the tools that actually add value to them. Farmers are quite keen on technology. They are just not keen on snake oil. They are busy people. They have a gazillion things to take care of and their time is precious, just as well as their money. Unlike many people gravitating around agriculture, they do not have the luxury to waste time with something that is not ready.

Farmers are the perfect illustration of what Steve Jobs said. If you want farmers to adopt a product or a technology, you’d better make sure it answers an actual need and that what you offer is foolproof. Farming is a business and as such a tool must make the business better. Better can mean faster, it can mean physically easier or it can mean making better decisions and many other things depending of what the tool is about. In the end better is about having better technical and financial results without additional headaches on top of those that Nature and markets send on a regular basis. To adopt a new tool, farmers want it to save them time, otherwise what is the point? They want it to be cost-effective, otherwise what would be the point of replacing an existing trusted and reliable tool. And thirdly, farmers want peace of mind. They do not want to end up spending time to figure out how the tool works or to have to call customer support for troubleshooting all the time.

So yes, the customer experience comes first. And that is what I always insist on, and have done so since I started The Food Futurist. Innovation must be market-driven. I can imagine that in the early stages, the tech geeks need to build prototypes but then, and as soon as possible, they must team up with users to review what is useful and what is not and develop a product that meets exactly their needs. A great frustration of mine is that farmers are not involved enough in the early stages. As Steve Jobs said, the tech people build something exciting but too often try to push it. If it does not fit, there is only one result: slow adoption or just plain rejection.

There is a picture I like to show to describe what market-driven and results-oriented innovation is. It is one of these kids toys with shapes that have to pass through holes of various shapes. With innovation, it is the same game. If the farmer has a square problem, trying to push a triangular solution, even it is the most beautiful triangle ever, just does not work. Actually, it creates only frustration. If the farmer has a square problem, the solution must be square, too. That is the only way it will fit and that the farmer will adopt it.

I also see an important role for the agriculture sector: they have to say out loud what kind of problems they have and what solutions they need. If it is square, say you want a square solution. If it is star-shaped, say you want a star-shaped solution. That way, the tech geeks, who really love to build things, will also know early enough on what they must work. It will save time and money. It will strongly increase the chances of adoption, which is a win-win for both farmers and tech companies, and it will help improve agriculture faster and better.

246. How AI Will Transform the Role of Advisors in the Future

Posted on October 20, 2025 by Christophe Pelletier

Listen here to a Chrome AI-generated podcast type playback of the author’s article

Over the past year, artificial intelligence has made tremendous progress. I remember sharing my frustrations about a year ago, but today, not only am I a regular user of AI, but I have to admit that the quality of the work it does is top notch.

So, how do I see AI impacting the work of advisors in the future? Well, I can see a number of areas where AI is going to be a game changer with profound consequences on the work of advisors, consultants or extension services.

First of all, why should clients pay advisors and consultants when they can have the same quality delivered by AI for a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the time? I often read posts and articles warning you that if you do not use AI, you will be replaced by people who do. That is true, but in reality, the shift goes beyond the competitors. If you do not use AI, you certainly will be at a disadvantage, but that is not the worst that can happen. The true concern is not so much competitors as the clients using AI for tasks that they used to outsource to you. If advisors use AI for some parts of their assignments, clients can do it just as well. Let’s face it, learning how to prompt is not that difficult. If an advisor can do it, be assured that so can the client. The client becomes the competitor for some tasks. It is not even about competition; it is about a market that will not longer exist, simply because it has no longer any reason to exist.

What will be the activities that advisors and consultants used to provide that will soon be obsolete? Everything that has to do with compiling information, conceptualization, knowledge and data will be the first to go. The bulk of reports, surveys and research will shift to AI. I used to see many similar reports that were passed to different clients and sold at retail price, thanks to word processing. This is going to be history very soon.

– Competence –

So, if advisors are not needed anymore to do their “traditional” work, what will be left for them to do? This is where the views about AI of a couple of years ago will change dramatically. I remember by then, a report from Harvard University showing that highly skilled consultants were showing less improvement by using AI than the less talented ones. That sounded like consultants would use AI and, miracle, even the mediocre ones could fool the rest and seem like high performers. I never bought that sort of thinking. To me, that already sounded like AI had the potential to simply replace them. Period. And that is what will happen. Using AI to try to look good is a weak strategy. Everyone can see that everyday on LinkedIn. There, the number of posts obviously generated with AI published everyday is amazing. But since it is AI, the natural question is to wonder whether the person publishing the post truly has the competences they claim to have, or is AI actually the one with the competences? When you start wondering about that, you are already questioning the real level of expertise of that person. This is where the top quality of the advisor of the future appears: competence! In the future, only talented advisors wil survive. Keep aside posts that have not been proofread while showing obvious errors, which is a reputation killer right away, it is interesting to look at comments. Competence (or lack hereof) appears right there. Can (or does) the person answer the questions asked or reply intelligently to comments or not? Then, you have your answer. Personally, I like to comment on posts, sometimes because I want to know more, and sometimes because I like to challenge a bit.

– Adding value –

Competence is one thing, but the advisor of the future will need to show more than just that. The key to survive as an advisor in a future with AI, is going to be able to deliver added value, and to demonstrate what it is and how much it is, in a tangible manner. The future role of advisors will not be anymore knowledge transfer (although that will always be an asset), but the core of the advice of the future will be in the know-how.

Farewell theoretical concepts alone! Welcome practical ability for execution!

This has been my philosophy since Day 1, so I like this idea. I would even go as far as to see the remuneration of advisors shift from flat fees for a project to a two-part system. A base fee, and a variable “bonus” linked to the actual performance improvement that the advisor will generate.

Adding value requires to understand the business of the client and especially what the specific needs for improvement are. It is truly a market-driven business-to-business approach. Successful advisors will be those who can “embed” themselves in the client’s operations, understand what works and what does not, and understand what should be happening but does not. AI is not just about technology. It is about having a tool to better help clients. It is a tool to support the human side of a business. Of course, some advisors are actually in that position. They are already doing quite well, and will keep doing so, as long as they do what is needed to stay sharp.

245. Is EU food and agriculture about to become a museum?

Posted on September 29, 2025 by Christophe Pelletier

Listen here to a Chrome AI-generated podcast type playback of the author’s article

I was speaking recently at an event in Spain and by the end of my presentation, I had a slide on which I indicated which regions I saw as the winners of the future. The title and subtitle of the slide were:

“Winners: Conquerors

Bold, ambitious and determined fighters”

Being in Spain with many Europeans in the audience, I got the question of why I did not mention the EU among the winners. Fair question, and by the way, Canada, my second country of citizenship, did not appear among the winners, either.

About the case of the EU, I shared my concerns about EU policies which I find counterproductive. Although I find the idea of a Green Deal to make agriculture more sustainable a good idea full of good intentions, I do not have the same enthusiasm about the policies and means used to achieve improvements. I find the policies too much into the ideological and dogmatic and not enough into the practical and realistic, as I mentioned some time ago in one of my YouTube videos on the subject.

As the conversation was progressing with the audience, I lamented that the future would not be for the timid and that in particular that the EU does not seem to know how to stand up to the Putins and Trumps of this world. The EU has a leadership problem. Everyone can see that every day. I went as far as to say that if the EU does not wake up soon, it will end up being a museum. Apparently, this statement had impact. It obviously created a shock, and from a few one-on-one conversations I had later, it sounded like it was a useful shock. The argument of the quality of foods from the EU and their heritage was raised and I confirmed that I, for one, always appreciate these traditional products. Since we were in Spain, I mentioned one of my all-time favorites which is the Jamón Ibérico (I truly am a total fan). Every time I am in Europe I certainly love to go shopping on markets and I love the quality of the foods that I find.

My point about the EU turning into a museum was not that I do not consider the EU as a future winner because of its quality of foods. My point was because of the policies, EU farmers and producers are less competitive and will not be able to grow. The EU market share and influence will decrease because of such policies.

And this is a huge pity because European farmers are at the top when it comes to efficiency, high technical performance, low waste and, yes, product quality. European farmers and the associated industry are actually incredibly innovative and resourceful. Unfortunately, they often do not have access to the same amount of resources or of political support as in some other regions of the world. Personally, it really hurts my feelings when I see such top farmers being bought out and leave agriculture mostly for dogmatic reasons. Just imagine a company where the Human Resource Department would systematically get rid of its top performers for reasons that have nothing to do with performance. It would be stupid, wouldn’t it? Well, truth is that such idiotic actions actually happen in some companies, but that is another story. What is the result down the road? It is a leveling down of the sector, which follows by a weakened competitive position, a loss of market share, of presence and eventually of viability. And that is exactly what I fear is going to happen to EU food and agriculture.

The original European food and agriculture policies were about food security, which made a lot of sense after the harsh time of World War II. It is a good philosophy. It must never be removed for the top priority of the EU, or of any country that wants to play an influential role. I have been thinking of whether there ever was an economic powerhouse that did not have food security, and I cannot think of any. Often, it feels like the critics of food and agriculture take food for granted and do not even understand what it takes to bring it onto tables. My advice here is simple: do not ever take food for granted and make sure that those producing it can keep doing so!

For these reasons and to be among the winners, the EU must have bold, ambitious and determined food and agriculture policies. The food and agriculture sector must be vocal about this and must force every EU politician to answer a simple question: do they want to support their farmers or do they want to set them up to fail? It is either one. I cannot be both or neither. Just that simple. Further, the EU should also distantiate itself from the UN FAO goals of all sorts, most of which are more anchored in wishful thinking and ideology than they are in pragmatic reality. Fact is that most of them are lagging and will not be met on time. It is good to have goals, but when they are not realistic or attainable, they should see it as a duty to amend them and readjust goals and timelines. Just a look at the state of the European automobile industry is enough to see the damage that wrong policies, as I describe above, can generate. That nonsense simply must not happen to EU food and agriculture.

So, how to make the EU among the winners and avoid it to become a museum? Well, a couple of principles must be applied:

The EU must produce the quantity (and quality) of food that the EU consumers need, so that there is less need for imports. A market-driven approach is key. Unfortunately, all food and agriculture policies always seem built from a production-driven angle.
EU farmers and producers must be supported by their politicians, so that they are at least as competitive as their counterparts from third countries, which would make it easier for EU buyers to choose EU products first. Saying “choose EU” or “EU has the best food in the world” has about no impact with buyers. In the end, price always plays a major role and often is the major parameter. When it comes to competition, things are very simple: those who do not have a strong competitive position will lose. Like it or not, that is the way it is. And it is even more so with undifferentiated commodities for markets such as foodservice and processing industry for which the product is only an ingredient. For niches such as traditional products or regional specialties, it is possible for producers to protect their turf better, but such niches are not the lion’s share of consumption. Such niches will make a great museum, but what about the bulk of the EU market?

Nonetheless, there might be a silver lining about some of the policies. For example, The Netherlands have struggled with their nitrogen emissions reduction policies. After spending a few years persisting in error and wasting several billions of Euros with no result by buying out farmers and for those who could continue trying to force them into a rigid frame of rules telling them what is allowed and what is not, policymakers are rethinking the approach. Of course, anyone who understands farming knows that such rigid frames based on dos and don’ts simply do not work because agriculture is the opposite of rigid. It constantly faces changes, fluctuations and unexpected events. The Dutch farmers knew that. They wanted a more pragmatic and feasible approach, and opposed the policies but to no avail. Personally, I find essential to involve farmers to work on solutions fir a better agriculture. That was the topic of another video of mine. Farmers know the work. They know what works and what does not. Yet and too often, policymakers do not seem al that interested in listening to their input. That is a mistake.

In The Netherlands, the approach is now changing. Instead of imposing a script, the government now wants to focus on goals of nitrogen emissions reduction and leave it up to farmers to decide how they want to achieve the goals in the most effective manner. They will have to show progress and depending on the results might have to take corrective action if needed. To me, this makes sense. It is about results and that is all that matters. The how is secondary. Now, the thing is that elections are coming next month in The Netherlands and, depending on who wins, the new policies might be abandoned. We will see.

The trust challenge

Posted on August 6, 2025 by Christophe Pelletier

Lately, the topic of trust seems to receive more attention. In my opinion, it is a good thing, as I personally consider it one of the biggest challenges the food and agriculture sector is going to have to face in the future. Actually, trust is not going to be an issue for food and agriculture only. It will for about all areas of society. Trust is eroding in about everything, from businesses to politics, non-profit sector, media and even social media and technology such as artificial intelligence. I have addressed it in a number of conferences in the course of this year already.

Today’s world is filled with anxiety and considering all the environmental, societal and geopolitical pressures, it is only natural to expect this anxiety to only increase over time. I thought I would share some thoughts, and some ideas to restore some trust, on my YouTube channel. Here are two videos that I have made recently. I hope you will enjoy them.

Seven qualities for a prosperous future

Posted on January 31, 2025 by Christophe Pelletier

In this video, I present 7 qualities that I truly consider essential for a successful and prosperous future for food and agriculture, as they are effective weapons to overcome the many challenges that humanity faces. If the video does not appear, click on this link

The 7 qualities that I review are:

Curiosity
Critical Thinking
Pragmatism
Flexibility/Adaptability
Collaboration
Realism
Humility

#Future #food #agriculture #success #futureoffood #futureoffarming

Just passed 50 videos on my YouTube Channel

Posted on January 10, 2025 by Christophe Pelletier

Here is a list of the videos that I have published on my YouTube Channel over the past 14 months. They covered a wide array of topics. I have also created five playlist in which I have regrouped similar topics:

Opinions
Communication about food and agriculture
Q&A with viewers
The Food Divide
Business tips

Please feel free to browse, as you might find some of interest to you.

Five main communication mistakes when explaining to the public https://youtu.be/j7OJ0dUpi14

Three major mistakes alternative protein producers are making https://youtu.be/wgwmDUKLDjA

The main mistake the animal product industry is making https://youtu.be/xytUvEzLW1o

The food and agriculture sectors need to be more proactive than reactive https://youtu.be/_A0TG_2Nwh8

A year after my first video about AI in food and agriculture https://youtu.be/7yAJ6rlqVec

The Food Divide Part 2: Are we biological entities or legal entities? Which one is it? https://youtu.be/c9y-XU92GOw

The Food Divide Part 1: opposed perceptions that have their roots beyond food and agriculture https://youtu.be/c95QhZmD9MQ

When you look at it, artificial intelligence is like cooking: quality is paramount https://youtu.be/0pWldTqcJP8

EU Green Deal: good intentions, nasty side effects https://youtu.be/AiLyM0_M5mA

For a successful future of agriculture, we must involve farmers a lot more than we do https://youtu.be/agZ_CVb8QOA

Let’s plan production to meet the world’s future needs https://youtu.be/-jbtn-w-uYA

My rant about COP29 https://youtu.be/GBCj21QWImM

When looking at the future, we need to mention the world population growth and its impact more often https://youtu.be/HRuQ87bti-s

Like it or not, emotions come first when connecting with the public and consumers! https://youtu.be/5nrTyqIpWas

15 Years of The Food Futurist https://youtu.be/fiFLtwjDX5o

Q&A with The Food Futurist – Episode 10: Three questions about technology https://youtu.be/V0KfrENYiCM

Q&A with The Food Futurist – Episode 9: What does The Food Futurist eat? https://youtu.be/2Lx3NKQuX3U

Q&A with The Food Futurist – Episode 8: Can regenerative agriculture succeed? https://youtu.be/AXMDUh962wk

AI in the future of food value chains | A quick review of where changes will take place https://youtu.be/YucqCGcU6To

Mon humble hommage aux Agriculteurs https://youtu.be/ybVwtIQaMKg

Q&A with The Food Futurist – Episode 7: Protein alternatives and alternative proteins https://youtu.be/nS0VMyaYEFI

Q&A with The Food Futurist – Episode 6: Three frustrations, three satisfactions, three wishes https://youtu.be/Gk-EvHkrGow

Q&A with The Food Futurist – Episode 5: Which of my books do I prefer? https://youtu.be/ruPJyLHQBhU

Q&A with The Food Futurist – Episode 4: Should we eat less meat in the future? Start by taking a look at your diet! https://youtu.be/xc2ATdpzLHk

Happy Holidays from The Food Futurist https://youtu.be/-cQbiN1tphU

Q&A with The Food Futurist – Episode 3: Can we have guilt-free foods? https://youtu.be/Du4hBGmpqRc

Q&A with The Food Futurist – Episode 2: Can we feed the world in the future? https://youtu.be/V-McXzhI8V8

Q&A with The Food Futurist – Episode 1: Optimistic or pessimistic about the future? https://youtu.be/LrPQKviJz0Y

Clips sample https://youtu.be/j-wBkx5jS0s

Future food consumption regions and diets https://youtu.be/ppiM7LJOA6o

Future technological innovation in agriculture https://youtu.be/FFZaaLpPHGQ

The Food Futurist | Bloopers https://youtu.be/fSVC5gDoVWQ

Introducing The Food Futurist https://youtu.be/45gRgztUVk8

My take on cows… and people https://youtu.be/9x6yEuq72Y8

The importance of closing back the loops https://youtu.be/vu2Q-x1OOPA

Efficiency vs Intensification https://youtu.be/GEX4PQN0iog

Food fights are good. Really. https://youtu.be/Ft7OCYZTbE0

The food waste problem is not going away https://youtu.be/9vKQWBueTCc

The future of food and agriculture has roots in the past https://youtu.be/t8Sy3qcu9pM

My Top 5 hot items for 2025

Posted on December 19, 2024 by Christophe Pelletier

As the next year is around the corner, it is a good time for me to present in a video what I see as my top five hot items that will keep the food and agriculture world busy for 2025.

To help you go directly to one particular item, here are the video timelines for the five topics: