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
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.
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:
The original non-AI generated article follows below:
A question that I get regularly is: “How to communicate effectively with the general public about food and agriculture?” My answer usually surprises the person who asked the question. I guess it is because it sounds simple. Yes, shouldn’t the answer to that question be a complicated one, preferably? Well, what I recommend has worked for me all my professional life, in which I also would include my coming from a butcher’s family and having interactions with customers in the shop or on the market when I was a kid.
My answer is: Start a conversation!
It surprises them, and that in turn always surprises me. Then, the following question I get is: “How do you start a conversation?” My usual answer to this seems to even puzzle them more: “Say hello and see what happens next!” Apparently, this often seems to sound like a scary idea. Don’t ask me why because I do not know. Yes, every good conversation begins with “Hello!”. I will continue with how the conversation can succeed later in this post. First, I would like to quickly review the issue of trust with the general public.
The general public has lost trust but there is hope
The issue of trust is not new, but it certainly has strongly deteriorated over the past decade, mostly because of all the disinformation and the weirdest nonsense that social media have helped to spread. For most people, it has become quite difficult, if not impossible, to sort out what is true and what is not, and who can be trusted and who cannot. The public does not trust anything or anyone anymore, be it politics, industry, business, non-profits, mainstream media and even social media. Let’s face it, they are right to think that way. All those parts of society have done an amazing job of losing credibility on an almost daily basis.
The general public does not trust. In the case of food and agriculture, this applies particularly to entities that they cannot really identify with a person. The public really craves for humanity. Putting a human face on a farm or a business makes a huge difference. If the industry seems to be a faceless “thing”, they will not trust. Dehumanization is a trust killer, and not just in food and agriculture, but in all aspects of daily life.
Even though this sounds gloomy, it is not all lost. The public does not trust but it would love to know. They would really like to find someone who could explain to them how things truly are and whom they could trust. The large majority of the public are interested in hearing how food is produced and why it is produced the way it is. Many people are open to hear about how it is done. What they do not want to hear anymore is all the disinformation, the misinformation and all the communication lies from all sides. The members of the public have their opinions about food and agriculture. They have beliefs, which sometimes are correct and sometimes are incorrect. Beliefs are tricky. Much research has been done on beliefs and why people stick to them. One recurrent conclusion is that beliefs always trump facts and science. If you tell people a story that goes against their beliefs, their natural reaction will be to not believe you, even if what you tell is the truth and their beliefs are false. Beliefs give people structure and values. Taking the beliefs away feels to them like their world collapses, and they cannot have that. Probably, none of us, including me, can have that. So, if beliefs always trump facts, how to convince them of the truth if it is not what they believe?
Facts and science are the favorite approach of food and agriculture communication specialists. And for all my life, I have seen this approach fail over and over again. The reason? What I just wrote about beliefs vs. facts and science. It fails every time and yet, they keep doing it. Sounds absurd? Well, not so much so, because of what I just wrote about beliefs. Communication operatives believe that facts and science are what the public needs to know. You can show the communicators facts that prove that facts and science is the wrong approach, they will not believe you. And here it is: I have come full circle on the topic of beliefs vs. facts. But then, industry communication specialists will ask what they can talk about if they should not talk about facts and science.
The way to do it
The public wants to know but they do not trust anyone. That sounds like an impossible equation to solve. Not really. The fact that they do not trust anyone does not mean that they cannot get information. Actually, information is everywhere, especially with all of today’s tools. What they do, and the way they want to do it, is to search for the truth themselves. They do not want a guide, and that is quite an adventure. They will find all sorts of points of views and their opposites. So how can they choose the right -and truthful- sources?
I like to tell that getting trusted with communication is like dating. Who goes on a first date with a lengthy pack of slides to show all the facts about themselves, such as health records or bank statements? Some people probably do, but it does not seem like the way to go, does it? No, the first contact is just that. If you communicate about your activities, always assume that people are not necessarily interested in knowing everything all at once. Most probably have never heard of you and they want to get acquainted first, before going into details.
Rule #1: Do not be pushy or aggressive! Say hello and see how the conversation goes. The purpose is not to convince or win an argument. The purpose is to create a connection and generate interest. The convincing will come later. Just let the public know you exist, that you are interesting and that you are there if they want to ask you questions. Communication is much more effective when you answer questions. The reason is simple. The questions are precisely about what the public wants to know. If you tell a story without knowing if it is interesting to the audience, there is a good chance that you will not address what they want you to address.
Rule #2: Be likable! It is a quality that goes along with rule #1, but it is more than that. The success of communication is not about the amount of information but it is about the quality of the interaction. Effective communication is first and foremost about connecting. The public needs to like the communicator, because if they do not, there will be no second date. Then, it is game over. The public will go with someone else. It is interesting to note that industries generally never have any popular celebrity to communicate for them, while activist organizations can pull actors, singers, models and other rich and famous to speak for them. The life background of celebrities often explains why they are on the side of activists. There are usually good reasons and they have nothing directly to do with the issue, but that is another story that I might tell in a future post. Any way, long story short: likable people win the communication war.
Rule #3: Relax! What always strikes me is how Pavlovian communication often is. All it takes is a little attack, a little controversy and immediately, there comes the facts and science stuff again. Stay cool and think first if it is a battle worth being fought. Does it deserve a response? Most stuff on social media has a lifespan shorter than a mayfly. Choose your battles carefully and use your time and energy wisely. Often, silence is the most powerful weapon. Often, rabble rousing is just a way of getting visibility and get trendy by using you to do that very work, thanks to algorithms. Silence is kryptonite to people who crave attention. If a response is necessary, it is most powerful when it is short and concise. Repeating consistently the same message also works well. The message eventually gets through. No need for tangents.
Rule #4: Be confident! You know your stuff and that must be crystal clear for the audience. You are the expert, but always be humble. The public must be the ones who conclude that you are indeed the expert. It is always much more powerful to let the audience conclude than trying to tell them what they should think. Actually, the latter will kill any authority you are trying to build. Haven’t we all had bosses who had to always tell they were the bosses every time there was a disagreement? See the similarity? Remember, you are cool and relaxed. That makes people feel comfortable.
Rule #5: Be respectful, always! First be respectful of the public’s opinions. They have good reasons to think the way they think, even if they are wrong. These are their reasons, not yours. Make clear to the audience that you know their opinions and that you respect them. That will earn you respect, and that is the foundation for trust. In the process of connecting, it is also quite valuable to go through a number of agreements to disagree, all in full respect. It is impossible to agree with everyone all of the time. Just take your time and move one small agreement at a time, and say thank you for the good conversation. Make sure the public will be looking forward to a next conversation. Be human, that will make you likable.
The way not to do it
Error #1: Long technical stories. In this age of short attention span, the shorter the communication the better. So, keep it short! Besides, when it comes to make a point, short is much more powerful than long stories. Ideally, pictures are much more powerful than words. They can carry many subliminal messages. This is why activists use the power of images and of associations so much. Unfortunately, the industry has a tendency to linger on with their facts. Long stories full of facts, science and beautiful busy charts work only when the industry speaks to the industry. That is preaching to the choir. The audience is already an ally. This is not communication with the general public. This kind of communication would work mostly with nerds, but that is not really the general public. Most people are not food and agriculture insiders. They do not have a specialized background in those areas. When flooded with technical information, most people will unplug and do something else. This kind of communication is not likable.
Error #2: The boring school teacher. The important thing to keep in mind about the public, especially younger generations, is the need for a strong dose of entertainment. They love it. Actually, they crave it. Communication and connection must feel like a game. It is learning by playing. It needs to include a playful element. This can be the nature of the dialogue or it can be the medium or platform used to communicate. The entertainment value will strongly impact the quality of the interaction. What does not work well is the opposite of entertainment: the boring lecture. It does not work because it is boring and because it feels like a lecture. It feels like “all work and no play” and that, as the saying goes, is dull. The feeling of lecture is always reminiscent of school. It makes the public members feel like there is a power distance. A sure way to create that distance is to start the conversation with “Did you know…?” For most people, this makes them feel like they are treated as ignorant and as inferior, and that does not create friends. Once again, it makes the communication perceived as not likable. Recently, in a presentation, I told an industry audience that boring technical communication makes them sound like PBS, while the public prefers to watch reality TV. The comparison is rather accurate. PBS is quite interesting if you set your mind on serious educative material. Personally, I always found that PBS had excellent programming, but that is just for a certain public at certain times. Having fun is important in life. The trick is to make educative material fun. That should be priority #1 for communicators.
Error #3: Denial. An important mistake not to make, that the industry makes time and time over, is to rush into denial. Don’t, especially if the issue is a complex one! It is much better to acknowledge that the issue is indeed one that floats around and that you are aware of it. The difference with upfront denial is that it does not sound defensive. Just that acknowledgment already defuses tension, which is important when you want to have a fruitful conversation. Tension kills a conversation because, when tense, people do not listen. They shift into Pavlovian mode. One word and there is the trigger for confrontation, instead of connection. Most of the fights around food and agriculture, or any industry or even opinions, is that nothing is really black and white. A lot of the differences of opinions are in the grey areas, in the nuance. Unfortunately, polarization does not like grey because grey and nuance undermine polarization. Yet, the debate needs nuance badly, and most of the general public knows that. The key for effective communication is to avoid the trap of polarization and shift into nuance, but well thought-out and solid nuance, that is.
Error #4: Being self-centered. Avoid, the tendency to talk about yourself or about only about your industry or company when dealing with controversy. When communicating, the most important person is the recipient. If you are a communicator, communication is never and never must be about you. Communication is a sales process. The public is the customer. The communicator sells a point of view, an opinion, an angle. For this very reason, communication must be market-oriented. Usually, communicators do not think nor act that way. Instead, they have a production-oriented approach. It does not work well. It is much more effective to communicate to the public about what the public is interested in than trying to push a message that does not align with their curiosity. This is why, just like a skilled salesperson does with a buyer, it is essential to start with hello and ask questions about what the “customer” is looking for. Do not talk about you, your company or your industry because that is not what the public wants to hear. Instead, find out what is important to them and come with an answer that meets their needs and show them why your point of view is valuable to them. Start by looking at the world from their perspective and then, let them see the world from yours. This creates empathy and mutual understanding. Take the time it deserves. Forcing the process will only work against you. Trust me, this approach is very likable and will deliver many dividends.
Error #5: The sound of PR. This is lethal for communication. Keep in mind that everybody knows how public relations sounds. They hear it all the time from businesses, from industries or from politicians. The sound of PR, with its techniques to twist facts, to say half truths and to spin reality is well-known. The sound of PR is what has destroyed trust in everything, as I mentioned at the beginning of this article. The public knows it and the public loathes it. So. forget the mechanics and the techniques that make you sound like a predictable robot. There is a chance that you are more transparent than you think. To be likable, use the very opposite of the technical stuff: humanity and authenticity. You will not believe how much you can achieve with them.
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.
Copyright 2025 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.
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.
Copyright 2025 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.
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.
Copyright 2025 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.
Listen here to a Chrome AI-generated podcast type playback of the original article
With this post, I am going to start a new format on this blog. Since a growing number of people now prefer videos or audio to reading, I will post here the videos that I shoot, accompanied by the transcript of the video. I will try to make the videos relatively short, so that they can fit within the current level of attention span of most readers and viewers. You will tell me if this has been a good idea. My videos will also take a slightly more opiniated tone that my previous works. You can see all of my past videos on my YouTube channel.
To launch this new format, here is a topic that I have presented at conferences before, and that has been well received. I explain why emotions come first when communicating with the public. I also explain that beliefs always trump facts and science and why it is essential to focus first on the emotions of consumers to have an effective connection and gaining the public’s trust.
You know in agriculture there is one topic that comes back regularly in the conversation and it is how to connect and how can we really get the consumers listen to us and every time.
I’ve been involved in those conversations and I met the same problem.
The problem is that the industry of course is basically production-driven. It’s a technical activity and they always go back to the science and to the facts. I always tell them: you know beliefs always trump facts; beliefs always trump science. If the facts you present, even if they’re totally true, but it goes against the beliefs of the people who listen to you, they will say: Nah, I don’t believe that and that’s it. And then, you do not succeed.
So, how can you really get the message across? And what I say all the time is you have to connect you must not focus only on communicating; you must connect. Not connecting like it is on social media, I follow you and you follow me. That’s not connecting just teenage dreams.
To me, connecting means that you have to really get at the same level; and when we deal with issues, especially resistance in agriculture, we basically deal with emotional issues. That’s always the thing: people are all emotions but [we bring up] “the science says” or “the facts are”
The problem is that when you deal with emotions, you cannot talk about science and facts; you cannot bring the discussion at a rational level as long as you have not basically helped the other person process their emotions as long as you have not connected at that emotional level.
There is one thing that I’ve written in my second book and I give an example. I say imagine you have a child who has a nightmare and he’s screaming. The parents are coming in the bedroom and say: ok, what’s going on? and the child is all screaming and he say: there is a green monster under my bed and he wants to eat me.
Then, I say, here is exactly what you must do and what you must not do. What good parents would do is, well, they take the child in their arms. They would try to comfort him; they try to make him feel safe, bring a feeling that, you know, we’re here for you, don’t worry. If the monster comes, then we’re going to deal with the monster and then you basically ask the kid: ok what happened exactly? Now where is the monster? where is the monster? and says it is under my bed.
OK, and then, bit by bit, through questions you help the child to get the story out, and then you’re going to go and have a look under the bed. First, you can say: OK I’m going to have a look under the bed, you stay here you’re safe here let me have a look!
And then you can say: OK, I don’t see anything. You can take a stick, you know, a broomstick and under the bed and the child will see that the broomstick passes through and through under the bed and there is nothing probably and then, bit by bit, you’re going to be able to bring the child. Even, if you want. you say OK let’s have a look together under the bed and then that’s how you bring basically that very high emotional situation into a more rational one, bit by bit and then the child is going to realize there is no green monster under the bed. Then he’s going to feel safer, but it’s very possible that he doesn’t want to go in in the bed, or you can say: OK we’re going to leave the light on, or okay you come and sleep with us tonight. And tomorrow, we’ll have a good look at that and we’ll make sure that you know there is no monster at all. That’s the right way to do things. It’s connecting at the emotional level and, bit by bit, know making the child realize that it was just mostly in his in his head and it’s not real.
What unfortunately in my opinion the industry in food agriculture but all industries do is basically say to the child: “well, science has demonstrated that there are no such thing as green monsters living under children’s beds and eating them, so go back to bed because there is no reason for you to worry!”
But when you do that well what’s going to happen well your child is going of course he’s going to scream and to not trust you anymore. What do you expect? If you treat the emotions of a child that way, he is not going to trust you anymore. Unfortunately, because it’s not just about children having nightmares, in the industry if we want to really connect with consumers, if we really want to regain that trust, we have to connect first at that emotional level and only once we have done that, and bit by bit brought the conversation bit by bit, bit by bit, back to more a rational level, then we will be able to pass our message.
But, if we want to fight emotions with science and with facts, [if it is about] the message of the industry versus the emotions of the public, you will never win, so forget it! Don’t spend your money on PR on communication if that’s what you want to do. No, you have to have a little bit of empathy and you have to really help the consumers understand what you’re doing. You have to basically take the fear away but you have to do it bit by bit, both at emotional level and at the rational level.
Copyright 2024 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – the Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.
It is just a month away from the 15th anniversary of The Food Futurist. In the course of these years, it has become increasingly clear to me that some areas need more attention and effective action for the food and agriculture sector to remain successful. Indeed, the future of food and agriculture is not just about what cute robots will do in the future and what funky foods scientists will figure out. It is much broader than that. It is about making the right things happen. In the end, it is not just about producing foods, but it is to produce them in ways that have a future, and also to sell them to increasingly critical and discerning consumers. This milestone anniversary seems like just the perfect opportunity for me to reflect and reshuffle my services to some extent. By doing this exercise, I have decided to introduce two new areas of services by May 1st 2024. These are areas where many organizations miss opportunities. These are also two areas in which I am quite qualified, for having delivered strong performance in my professional career.
The first one is centered on Regaining Trust
It is no secret that trust is eroding in many areas. It happens with politics, with traditional media and even with some social media outlets, and it happens with food producers, especially the larger companies. One of the challenges that many food and agriculture organizations have been facing for decades is the loss of trust from consumers. The reasons why are many. Some are justified and some are not. Regardless of that, the loss of trust is a challenge that is becoming more and more difficult to overcome. In my career, I have had to deal with this problem in many occasions, but I always found ways of breaking the vicious circle of mistrust. In my opinion, the difficulty for organizations is not so much that people distrust some food producers, as it is to find the right way of addressing the issue and of truly creating a connection for a further conversation. PR does not work all that much anymore, simply because about everyone knows how it sounds and spot the communication exercise in action, which further erodes trust. Also, the timing is too often wrong and it makes the connection much more difficult. As a practitioner of martial arts for many years, I also see attempts to regain trust much more as an exercise in strength as one in flexibility and agility, and that is usually a losing tactic.
As a teaser, here are the pillars that we will use to build the tailor-made programs. You need to Relate
R: Respect
E: Empathy
L: Listening
A: Authenticity
T: Truth/Transparency
E: Exchange
Trust is essential for an organization in order to have a solid future. In this respect, I believe that it fits very well with the activities of The Food Futurist.
The second area of service will be Second Opinion
From what I have seen during my professional life, I believe that this is the kind of service that most organizations need. The number of strategic errors or implementation planning missteps that happen every day is there to prove that getting a second opinion is not a luxury, but in fact can prevent many costly mistakes.
Sometimes, it is about getting things done in some rush to meet a deadline. Sometimes it is about an excess of optimism and self-confidence. Sometimes it is the lack of a new eye. You name it. There are many reasons why an organization overlooks some details, or is becoming somehow blind out of habit, or is too eager to jump an anything that looks like a trend out of fear of missing out. An independent and objective second opinion can save many headaches.
I see this service quite useful for established businesses, but also for young companies, and also for investors who might benefit from a second opinion before risking their money in the wrong concept.
This service, too, deals with the future and as such fits quite well with the activities of The Food Futurist. The format and scope of this service will be adaptable and tailor-made for the specific needs of the client.
Copyright 2024 – Christophe Pelletier – The Food Futurist – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.
Although I never really had made a specific logo for The Food Futurist, it seemed that the time had come for something that illustrates what I do and who I am in this occupation. I used some help from an artificial intelligence design program. It took many trials before I found this logo, which made me click.
So, here I proudly present you the new logo!
What does the logo show, you might ask? Several important aspects, actually:
From all the feedback I have received in the course of my life, it would appear that I have a brain that works rather well, fast and rationally.
It also appears that I have an unusual and amazing ability to connect the dots quickly and accurately.
It is simple and straightforward, as I am.
Thanks to the above, I set clear, realistic and workable visions of the future and I always look forward and challenge traditional thinking and opinions.
The logo emphasizes my “sixth sense” for foresight and the colors reinforce confidence as your trusted futurist, Advisor and strategist”.
Further, developing this logo made me think about the style and the content that I want to offer in the future and I believe that it will appear clearly rather soon. As the slogan mentions, I have devoted myself to the future of food and agriculture since 2009. Not only am I very proud of the products and services that I have provided during this period, I am also very proud of their lasting relevance, in particular of my books and blog. I am looking forward to keep delivering this same quality in the years to come.
You will find me in the real, the solid and the useful, not in the fantasies, the path of least resistance or the hype.
Looking forward to the future!
Yours truly, your humble servant.
Copyright 2021 – Christophe Pelletier – The Happy Future Group Consulting Ltd.
After so many COP conferences, it was not particularly difficult to predict the outcomes, the process and the reactions before, during and after. Below, I embedded a thread of tweets about my take on what I expected to happen. I guess I was not too far off with my facetious messages.
But more seriously, I think the main reason why progress is so difficult and so slow is just that nobody tells us what the world after (the beautiful sustainable and livable future) is supposed to look like. The so-called fear of change has never been about change as much as it is about fear of loss. By focusing only on what must stop, and indeed many things need to be halted and replaced by better alternatives, the message that comes across is mostly a message of loss. That, of course, is the best recipe to trigger resistance and opposition at all levels, from individuals to businesses and governments.
So, how does the world after look like? Is it indeed better? Can the COP leadership sell us a vision that eliminates this fear of change, simply by bringing us hope instead of fear. Clearly, fear does not cut it. It has very little impact at this stage. So, please, leaders of the world, show us (not on metavers, although this might be the refuge of the future for many) what you think life will be if we accept the sacrifices you ask, and most of all show us a world that has appeal! If the goal is to save life and Nature, make it look natural and alive!
Here's my take on COP26
Act 1 Delegates gather in grim atmosphere for this last chance, stakes never been so high Act 2 Discussions very difficult, differences seem irreconcilable, we're in an impasse omg omg
Act 3 (half a day before end of conference) Wait! Delegates have agreed for extension through the night and next morning for what might be our last hope Act 4 Yes, gimmer of hope! A document is now in review. Could be the breakthrough
Act 5 Indeed agreement at very last moment. Delegates accepted a diluted non binding way forward. This document will be the basis for decisions that will be made at COP27. Tears of joy and hugs among Delegates
Act 6 Comments. Governments and industry cheer despite conceding more than planned Environment organizations very disappointed, this agreement doesn't go far enough, we're doomed Greta gives an angry speech: I hate you, bastards!
