Do not worry. This is not a post about guilt. That is not my style. The post is about vulnerability.
As the holiday season is right around the corner, this is perhaps a good time to reflect on all the great work that food producers and distributors perform to provide us with food all year round. For all of us who are fortunate to be able to satisfy our hunger every day, we must make sure to not forget how fragile food security can be.
In the recent past, there have been more volatility and uncertainty about food production. The price of foods that we were used to find easily and quite affordable have shown some sever fluctuation. Food inflation is here and it hurts many households. The reasons vary.
It can be because of climatic events. The surge of the price of beef is an example of the result of drought in a number of regions that forced farmers to reduce production. Another example is what I saw in 2021 in British Columbia when an atmospheric river washed out many highways in mountain areas that had isolated Vancouver and seriously disrupted supplies to stores in most parts of the province. Shelves were empty, in particular for meat, eggs and dairy. There was a weird feeling in the stores and quantities were rationed per customers. The rationing still is in place for some of those products. Consumers are informed that they are not allowed to buy more than two pounds of butter or more than two trays of meat, for instance. Perhaps, this is a wise philosophy. At least, it has stopped some absurd and incredibly selfish hoarding behavior by some shoppers who would fill their carts and leave nothing for other customers.
It can be because of geopolitics and policies. Think here about how the conflict in Ukraine had affected the price of vegetable oils and grains. By then, many restaurants had stopped selling French fries and other deep-fried products to keep their meals affordable. EU policies are another example that affects the profitability and the type of productions that farmers are encouraged or mostly discouraged to produce.
It can be about diseases. Avian flu has affected availability and price of eggs and poultry meat. Remember that it even mobilized the US president to act on the price of eggs. The issue is still not resolved, far from that. It is not just animal diseases. Just remember how Covid affected trade and logistics. Shortages of flour, pasta and rice were common and took very long to be fixed. A lot of supplies were affected quite negatively. Store shelves were often empty or close to it. Diseases also affected plants, the most significant example was probably the Xylella fastidiosa bacterium that decimated olive trees in Europe a couple of years ago, resulting in a huge price increase of olive oil, and some fraud as well.
As you can see, it does not take much to disrupt food production and food availability. This is why we must be considerate about food production. This is not a warning to consumers only, although we are all consumers. This may sound surprising, but often, food producers seem to refer of consumers as if they were a totally different group from producers. This, as such, is also another sign of disconnection that we should eliminate. No, this warning is also for food producers who sometimes have a tendency to stunt nicely with statements about their products that can affect food security. Pushing for production systems that are inaccurately considered to “save the planet” can lead to negative results. Perhaps, some of you will start to believe that I have a fixation with EU food and agriculture policies, as I have mentioned it a few times lately. It is not a fixation. It is a reality and I am very concerned with EU food security down the road if they do not change their tune. There might be some signs that they are putting some water in their wine, though. Just let’s hope that they will put pragmatism before dogma. Perhaps, their change of mind about the 2035 mandate on electric cars is a sign. But it is not just the EU institutions that have influence. EU retailers, too, seem quite eager to profile themselves as virtuous by throwing all sorts of trendy buzzwords and making all sorts of statements to give themselves an aura of morality. It all sounds great but I suspect that it is more about marketing and to align themselves with the “flavor-of-the-month”-policies more than being actually effective decisions. If retailers truly cared about the planet and health, they probably should remove at least 80% of the items they sell.
Food production is very complex but it is not an intellectual exercise. It is about meeting the population’s needs for food, clothing and energy. That is quite practical and concrete. If we fail in achieving this goal, the only result will be chaos. Food security is all the difference between prosperity and unrest, between peace and war and eventually between life and death. That is why food security must be the #1 priority of any government. They make the policies that decide whether we use our resources wisely or inconsiderately. In another recent article on this blog, I discussed -playfully, yet seriously- whether Earth is maxed out or whether we can live in a world of plenty. It was an eye opener. In the end, the results of these policies and our future will be just of the same quality as our leaders. Just think about that when you choose your next leaders.
In the meantime, enjoy the holiday meals! And when you have time, just reflect on the title of this article.
I will be back in 2026.
Copyright 2025 – 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 shelf life 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
The concept of family farm plays an important role in the perception of agriculture. Consumers definitely like the idea of a small family-run farm. It gives them a feeling of things well-cared for, and they relate better with such operations because they feel it still has the human scale they feel has disappeared in all sectors of life. Governments and industry are also rather adamant to maintain the family status of farms, as it resonates with the general public. With the many changes ahead, what future will family farms face?
A turn of generations
In most parts of the world, farmers are getting old, in their high 50’s. In many countries, the current generation of farmers is expected to retire within a decade. A number that is often mentioned is that about 50% of farmers will reach retirement age in 10 years from now, in 2035. Here in Canada, I have even read the number of 40% within 5 years.
Of course, this presents a major challenge. Replacement is needed. The question is who will and who can take over the farms. Perhaps, the most difficult challenge for new farmers is to be able to buy a farm. Agricultural land prices have increased strongly over the past two decades and farms have become unaffordable to many farming candidates. One of the reasons behind the price increase is that agricultural land is now seen as an investment by people who have no connection or activity in agriculture. Aspiring farmers cannot compete with Big Money. Then, what is left to them?
Of course, one must buy only what one can afford. This could mean that new farmers might have to settle for less land, but can it be economically viable? The type of ownership -and owner- might also bring a new type of farming structure. There will be land owners who farm. Others will not farm the land themselves. The ones working the land might not be owners, but rent the land. It is easy to imagine all sorts of constructions between ownership and actual physical farming depending on how the money flows. As such, this is not new. In all times, there have been large land owners who would not do much of the actual work. There also always have been people farming the land based on a lease contract, or remunerated on what they produce from the land they work. The difference now is that the turn of generations also comes together with the end of the farming family that established the farm.
For very long, farms have been transmitted from parents to children. This is not going to be quite the case in the future. Many farmers’ children have chosen different career paths. They are simply not attracted by the farming life, for various reasons. They have decided to leave agriculture and have a life somewhere else. In many cases, this leaves the parents with no successor. On the other hand, a substantial number of aspiring farmers are not from farming families. They come from the cities, but they want to get into agriculture, also for various reasons. The question that comes now is: how to organize the succession? And that is not an easy process, especially from a psychological point of view.
A difficult transition?
For farmers, especially those who come from families who have owned the farm for generations, this feels like an end. Often, the idea of accepting to pass the farm on to a total stranger is not easy. From numbers I have seen in Canada, it appears that initiating a succession process is something that the men rarely do. The farmers’ wives are the ones who generally start the process. Let’s face it, letting go of a farm is a heavily emotionally loaded moment. For potential buyers, the main problem is of a different nature. The most important for them is to have a solid project. That is not easy, either.
Depending on all the different situations, many outcomes are possible for how farm ownership will look like in the future. What will the new farmers be looking for? They can choose for a smaller size and focus on niche high-margin productions. But they also can choose for large efficient commodity farms if they can finance the purchase, unless they would do that as tenants paying a rent to the non-farming owner. Everything is possible. What matters the most for the future is that farmers make a decent living out of agriculture. That has always been a challenge everywhere in the world, and it has always been a challenge at any time in history. Economic viability will determine what the farms of the future will look like and what they will produce. Future business models will be key. Of course, another question that may arise is whether all the farmland that is to change hands will find a farmer. If not, what happens to the land, and what happens to production volumes?
What is a family farm and its future?
The discussion of the farm size is going to happen, one way or another. Just for illustration, here are some statistics from the USDA / National Agricultural Statistics Service: in 2022, family farms represented 95% of all US farms. Small family farms made up 85 % of all farms. They represented 39 % of the farmland and accounted for only 14 % of the value of agricultural products sold. Midsize family farms represented 6 % of farms and produced 16 % of total agricultural value. Large-scale family farms, though only 4 % of the total, generated 51 % of the value of all agricultural products.
Non-family farms represented just 5% of all farms but accounted for 19% of the value of agricultural products, so more than all 85% small family farms together. This shows another reality of agriculture, which is that the lion’s share of agricultural production comes from a minority of farms. If farms become too expensive for individuals, could it mean that the share of non-family farms will increase in the future, as being on a payroll would be an attractive alternative for aspiring farmers?
The general public may love the idea of small family farms but to feed the world, large farms play an essential role. My point is not to say whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. Reality is just reality. If we want to solve challenges for a successful future, we must not delude ourselves in a romanticized idea of agriculture, but we must make sure that agriculture does a proper work to keep doing what it is supposed to do. I have a video on YouTube in which I discuss whether the farm size matters or not. In my opinion, size does not matter, and neither should the type of ownership. What truly matters is that, regardless of size or ownership, farmers do a good job. Skills and ongoing training are essential. Of course that includes quantitative aspects (volumes, yields, etc.) but also qualitative aspects, such as minimal environmental impact (all human activities have an impact) and sustainability.
Further, what is a family farm really? As I mentioned in the introduction, everybody is a strong supporter of family-owned farms, but the reality is a bit more complex than just who owns the land and the buildings. Family-owned does not necessarily mean independent. It is not the same thing. I know that this is a sensitive topic, especially considering the difference in size between farms and their business partners. It feels like David vs. Goliath. The romantic idea of the farmer holding an ear of wheat in his mouth, happily living off the land without pressures from the rest of the world is a nice one but, once again, reality is different. A farm cannot be isolated from the production and supply chains. These chains are quite sophisticated in their organization to ensure that products find their way to the consumers because, well, that is the purpose.
The farm may be owned by the farmer but it also says nothing about all the contractual relationships that exist between the farmers and the other players in that chain. This might become even more prevalent in the future, as some agribusiness companies are already looking at helping young farmers to get in the saddle. Making sure that there will be farmers in the future is quite essential for the rest of the value chain partners. Without farmers, they do not have a business. That said, the help will not be without conditions. Future farmers who can get in the business will likely be bound contractually with the company that provided the support in the first place. it would be unlikely that businesses would bring financial support to see those farmers go to a competitor.
What the future will bring for family farms will depend greatly on government policies. What will be their idea of their respective agricultures? How do they see the future of their rural areas? What role will they want for their agricultures to play in their economies and in geopolitics, or just politics? These are some of the many questions that will have to receive answers and the place of family farms will depend on the answers.
Next week: Animal-plant hybrid products: compromise or demise?
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
Of all new technologies being developed, I can see three main ones that will dominate the food and agriculture (and most other sectors as well) scene in the years to come. As usual, I will not make a catalogue of technologies, companies or investment amounts. If you are interested, just ask any AI to produce a full report and you will get it in less than a minute. This is not what really matters. What matters is which technologies will get traction, which ones will be adopted and which ones will actually solve problems (see my previous post). The three areas of interest I have in mind are: artificial intelligence, robotics and gene technologies, and I will add a bonus fourth category at the end of the article. The latter is often overlooked, yet so important.
Artificial intelligence
Well, this one is not really original but AI is here. It is evolving and it is here to stay. It will bring many changes. Some will be good, others maybe not so much, but we are going to have to live with it. So, I will not be listing all the areas where AI will be used. Once again, use AI to give a full report. You can also do a search on this website to find all my articles about AI or look at my YouTube playlist about AI, too.
Instead, let’s review areas that are important to improve. AI was, perhaps still is, the missing link in digital food and agriculture. In my first book, published in 2010, I was already presenting the possibilities of having farming equipment units that would interact together. I foresaw this age of automation as being about building a nervous system. Until recently, the nervous system was still the human operator’s, because the previous age of mechanization was about giving the operator additional muscle, mostly in the form of mechanical horse power. It was replacing the legs and arms, if you wish. The digital age is giving the operator additional information processing abilities, and changing the relative functions of human and machines completely. All the data-collecting devices, such as drones, sensors, satellites and so on, would be extensions of senses. They can see, they can hear, they can smell, they can “feel” and be sure they can taste, too. But the one thing was missing with these devices, even from an IoT perspective were the synapses. That is what AI is. It makes data and information flow back and forth between all the devices, and the operator. It all sounds exciting, indeed. To quote the late French neurobiologist Henri Laborit, the purpose of a nervous system is not to think, it is there to act. I believe this is quite true for AI, too.
Yet, let’s not forget one thing: AI is not intelligent as such. It follows a mechanical structure. It looks like intelligence because it is so fast, actually faster than a human being, that it seems “alive”. That is a mistake we should not make. At least today. Let’s use AI for what it is today: an amazing assistant. As an assistant, it will do wonders. Like a speaker said in a presentation I was attending earlier this year: “AI is like having Einstein tied up in your basement”. That is quite a good comparison. The speaker in question is Steve Lerch. If you need someone to present you practical aspects of AI in an enticing manner and how it will help you add value to you customers, he is the person to have. The key is indeed to add value. It benefits your customers, and as a result it benefits you, too. To get there, it is necessary to know what to do with AI. This is where we need to move further.
First of all, proper training of operators is essential. I always say that new technologies and new tools need to come with a user’s manual. Of course, it can be fun to experiment to try to find out what you can do with the new toy, but that can be rather time consuming and the costs of mistakes along the way can end up being rather high. A well-prepared and well-structured training is an absolute requirement. Not only will it speed up the learning process but the quality of the training is where you can increase the desire to adopt and use the new technology. Playing with the toy is fun but just as it is always the case with toys, boredom or frustration happen fast and the toy is abandoned just a few days after Christmas, if you see what I mean.
Other area of improvement is the user friendliness. Systems like ChatGPT require prompting, and that part can be where the difficulties arise. Prompting still is challenging for many users and that can lead to frustration. Prompting needs to be more like instructions the user would ask another person (the assistant feel). And just like a human assistant, AI needs to ask questions if the instructions are too vague or unclear. Interactive is the key for an effective AI assistant, and for good results. It should be voice-activated and not just a typing exercise, people are less comfortable with the latter. Further, routine AI activities should be shaped as a menu with just buttons to push. Only then, it will become attractive.
A third area of work that is needed for AI is trust. It is a powerful tool and perhaps a little too much so. It can serve for good but it can also serve to mislead, deceive, destabilize or for criminal activities. AI needs to support critical thinking, which of course requires that users dispose of some themselves.
Beyond those issues, a number of other challenges will arise from the use of AI. One of them is to sort out who owns the data, who can use it and who cannot, or just even who can access the data and who cannot. Another challenge, which I mentioned above is crime. What happens is someone hacks the data and either takes it hostage, deletes it or even alters it? What would happen if food producers are suddenly unable to make decisions or even perform any work because of a malafide intrusion? We need to think quite seriously about this because the consequences could be rather devastating. I wish I heard more about the issue of criminal interference with AI than I do. Another, major, issue to address for the future is the current levels of energy and water use that AI requires. Can we afford AI altogether, or will it have to be “rationed”? What will be its impact on the environment and essential resources and what is the plan forward? Do we want some eccentric billionaires to own and run nuclear plants for their own AI platforms? A study from the University of Bonn, Germany had shown that all the data collected and used for crop productions and all the stakeholders of the value chain were stored by three companies: Microsoft, Google and Amazon. This shows the potential vulnerability and dependence of the entire food chain. How will we deal with that, too?
In the end, let’s not forget that technologies are not living creatures, although some like to think so or wish they were. Technologies are here to serve humans. We need a clear purpose, show some serious leadership about technology and not forget that competence and critical thinking will never be liabilities. They are the assets that will feed success.
Robotics
AI is the “backbone” of the new nervous system. It is part of an evolution, even though it is referred to as a revolution. Just like in biological evolution, any change, any mutation also brings a modification of the organism. The muscle I was mentioning earlier will just change. It is a “natural” consequence. This new nervous system is going to come along with the apparitions of new “organisms”. From that perspective, it is obvious that robotics are a natural extension of AI. We are starting to see this already. The recent plans of Amazon to eliminate 75% of its workforce by 2033, meaning elimination 600,000 US jobs show that AI and robotics will affect very strongly how businesses are run. There is no doubt in my mind that food and agriculture will also use more and more robots in the future, thanks to AI.
For agriculture, it might be as much of a new business model as it will be about the necessity to replace an increasingly difficult to find workforce. The causes may be many. Season work relies a lot on immigration and policies are making this more difficult. The number of farmers that are going to retire within a decade is actually rather scary and someone -or something- is going to have to do the job to feed the population.
So, how will robotics fit in? We can look at it from different angles. First, an improving AI will make robots more efficient and more cost-effective than now. The cost of robots and their payback time have been a disadvantage for the adoption of robotics in many areas of food and agriculture. If the economics change, expect to see the sector of robotics to make some serious progress. Secondly, the Amazon “effect” of going AI and robots will stimulate other sectors to look at their respective futures. Assuming that Amazon is successful, it will serve as examples in other industries. You can count on that. Thirdly, and also thanks to AI, the design of robots is going to change and I expect that future robots will be more nimble and easier to operate, and at a lower cost, too.
Gene technologies
Gene technologies certainly offer very interesting possibilities but the perception from the general public can be difficult. Genes are a sensitive topic and it does not take much to have fear blurry the conversation. Most of it has to do with the early beginnings of genetically modified organisms (GMO), in particular transferring a gene from one species to another. It did not need much to have GMOs associated with the idea of Frankenstein. In the food sector, the concept of Frankenfoods was born. Then came the Roundup-ready crops and the Bt-resistant crops which became major issues and still are today. The problem was not just about technical aspects of GMOs. The main player, Monsanto, just happened to be a terrible ambassador for genetic engineering. There is no need to pretend the contrary.
Anyway. the world has moved on, and so has genetic engineering. Just like I said about AI, if you want a catalogue of applications, just ask AI to provide you with a full report. Here I just want to browse through the scope of possible applications.
Since the beginning of selection of plants and animals by farmers, the focus was always to select the best performing individuals in a particular context. With biology, everything is relative. Some varieties or breeds may do well in certain environmental conditions and poorly in others. That was true in the early days of genetics and it still is true today.
Genetics are still a key part of selection and development of better plants and animals, as well as many other forms of life, such as microorganisms, but genetics is only half the equation. They are about genetic potential. The trick is to work in conditions that allow that potential to express itself to its maximum, if possible. Of course, there are many factors that can influence the outcome. Sometimes, conditions are positive, sometimes they are negative. Today, the challenge is also to at least minimize the impact of negative conditions so that the performance still stays acceptable even if Nature throws sticks in the farmers’ spokes, so to speak.
This is where gene technologies can help. They can help avoiding the expression of unfavorable genes, or allow some genes to express themselves against adverse conditions. It is what gene editing is about. There are many areas of work. Just think at the possibility of having plants that are more rustic to face difficult growing conditions such has drought or heat. It can be the possibility of having genes that offer resistance to diseases. This not just about financial aspects. It is also about animal welfare, as sick animals suffer. It is also about the environment as all yield losses from crops or sick animals are an inefficient use of resources.
For instance, the recent development of the PRRS-resistant pig (Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome), a disease that has serious economic and animal welfare impact is interesting. The gene-edited pig production has now been authorized by the US FDA. Of course, such a novelty meets resistance and criticism. That is the way change goes. Considering the risk of diseases, as I was mentioning them in a previous post, any progress that can be made to prevent infection by plants, and humans deserves to be considered. The same thing is true for new medications and new vaccines. The reality is that new ways of protecting us will be needed in the future. Gene editing is a tool that we will need, and not just in agriculture. Actually, many of future applications will have a use in human medicine just as much. We must not give scientists a blank cheque about innovation, but we must also be open minded to new ways. Of course, this leads to discussions and all aspects must be considered, and that includes ethics as well.
An example of such discussions, with an unexpected outcome, is the use of gene editing of hens that produce only females. From a technical point of view, this eliminates the issue of chick sexing, as there is no male chick. Male chicks have been an issue in egg production as they would not be useful. The industry used to cull the males but that was cause for ethical issues. So, back to the gene-edited hens. The fact that they produce only females means that, statistically, to produce the same number of females, only half of the mothers are required. This means less feed needed, therefore freeing arable land, therefore less environmental impact. Of course, the ethics of gene technology would be questioned. Surprisingly, the company producing these hens got support from the Compassion in World Farming, which is no small feat. The CIWF is a vocal critic of intensive animal husbandry. The fact that they see an advantage in this application of gene editing is rather interesting and shows that pragmatism is needed if we want to improve for the future.
Bonus number 4: farmers’ ingenuity
If I can think of a profession of people having resilience, adaptability and resourceful beyond the imaginable, I immediately think of farmers. Their work is not just about producing; it is mostly about solving and fixing unexpected problems. Just take a look at what they can do with a roll of duct tape and you know farmers are not your average person. You also know that they innovate with a cost-effective mindset. They perform miracles every day. Here is a device installed by Rose Acre Farms, the second largest egg producer, to deter migrating bird to get close to the hen houses and thus to reduce the risk of contamination with avian flu.
In my previous post in which I discussed the risks of diseases and that AI could be a great help, this shows how ingenuous farmers can be and that innovation is not only about high-tech. I hope for them that this simple device will work. Unfortunately. most consumers do not even realize that and what it takes to produce food. Farmers need more recognition. Even if they sometimes take their time to adopt new methods and technologies, they are definitely always looking at improving their operations and meet the demands from the public and from governments with a dedication that you will not find in many other professions. I regularly lament that farmers are not involved enough in the proper development of innovations. I also lament the fact that farmers are rarely involved and invited in conferences about the future of food and farming. Their practical experience, their knowledge of what works and what does not, of what is possible and what is not are essential contributions for a prosperous future. The world cannot miss their ingenuity.
Next week’s article: The Future of Family Farms: Navigating Generational Changes
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
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
The Food Futurist - Anticipate, Adapt, Succeed 