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 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
A recurrent complaint I hear in the agricultural sector is how slow and difficult it seems to have farmers embrace new technologies. Most of the time, it sounds more like a reproach than anything else, as if there was something wrong with farmers to be so reluctant. I do not agree with that thinking. To me, the main reason why some technologies have a hard time gaining the support of farmers is simply because they do not meet their needs.
I was recently viewing an old video from Steve Jobs. Basically, what he said was that if you want people to adopt a new product, you must first look at the customer’s experience and then work backwards to build the right product for them. He was also lamenting that too often, tech companies think because they have a product that is a technological beauty, the world should just adopt it. Of course it does not work this way, and certainly not in the agriculture sector. I believe a lot of technology developers should find inspiration in Steve Jobs’s statement.
In my work, I get contacted from time to time by venture capital firms who would like me to invest. Usually, with three to five questions, I know whether it is an interesting proposal. Sometimes, I already know after my first question. So far, none of the companies offered to me have survived. Some lasted a couple of years, but all failed for the exact same reasons as I will describe further in this article. This is the reason why I offer my “Second Opinion” in my services.
I recently had the opportunity (or the misfortune I should say) to attend a rather painful presentation from a venture capital operative, supposedly expert in agtech and in artificial intelligence of lately, as many claim to be. Of course, he was to complain about how slow the agriculture sector is to adopt new technologies with the same kind of criticism about farmers as I have mentioned above. The irony here was that he did a terrible job at demonstrating any added value. If this is the way the tech sector tries to sell itself to farmers, it should be no surprise that adoption will be slow.
Farmers do adopt new technologies. They do. A lot. Anyone who has actively worked in the agricultural sector with farmers and visited farms over the past decades will tell you how many things have changed on farms. Just think of GPS, satellite imagery, sensors, drones, computer vision, robots, unmanned vehicles and so on.The transformation has been amazing. They will tell you how many new tools and new technologies they have adopted and integrated in their daily work. Farmers adopt novelties, but not because it is trendy or fashionable. No, they adopt the tools that actually add value to them. Farmers are quite keen on technology. They are just not keen on snake oil. They are busy people. They have a gazillion things to take care of and their time is precious, just as well as their money. Unlike many people gravitating around agriculture, they do not have the luxury to waste time with something that is not ready.
Farmers are the perfect illustration of what Steve Jobs said. If you want farmers to adopt a product or a technology, you’d better make sure it answers an actual need and that what you offer is foolproof. Farming is a business and as such a tool must make the business better. Better can mean faster, it can mean physically easier or it can mean making better decisions and many other things depending of what the tool is about. In the end better is about having better technical and financial results without additional headaches on top of those that Nature and markets send on a regular basis. To adopt a new tool, farmers want it to save them time, otherwise what is the point? They want it to be cost-effective, otherwise what would be the point of replacing an existing trusted and reliable tool. And thirdly, farmers want peace of mind. They do not want to end up spending time to figure out how the tool works or to have to call customer support for troubleshooting all the time.
So yes, the customer experience comes first. And that is what I always insist on, and have done so since I started The Food Futurist. Innovation must be market-driven. I can imagine that in the early stages, the tech geeks need to build prototypes but then, and as soon as possible, they must team up with users to review what is useful and what is not and develop a product that meets exactly their needs. A great frustration of mine is that farmers are not involved enough in the early stages. As Steve Jobs said, the tech people build something exciting but too often try to push it. If it does not fit, there is only one result: slow adoption or just plain rejection.
There is a picture I like to show to describe what market-driven and results-oriented innovation is. It is one of these kids toys with shapes that have to pass through holes of various shapes. With innovation, it is the same game. If the farmer has a square problem, trying to push a triangular solution, even it is the most beautiful triangle ever, just does not work. Actually, it creates only frustration. If the farmer has a square problem, the solution must be square, too. That is the only way it will fit and that the farmer will adopt it.
I also see an important role for the agriculture sector: they have to say out loud what kind of problems they have and what solutions they need. If it is square, say you want a square solution. If it is star-shaped, say you want a star-shaped solution. That way, the tech geeks, who really love to build things, will also know early enough on what they must work. It will save time and money. It will strongly increase the chances of adoption, which is a win-win for both farmers and tech companies, and it will help improve agriculture faster and better.
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
When I started The Food Futurist blog in May 2009, I just wanted to present my thoughts on the future of food and agriculture, as I was far from convinced by the narratives of let’s say official and influent sources. I also wanted to refocus my activities on food and agriculture, but had no clear and definite idea of what it should be, by then.
What an amazing journey this has been! Fifteen years of being invited to share my thoughts and bring a vision to many clients. I am proud of these fifteen years of accurate predictions, spot-on foresight and effective strategies
Thank you to all of you who have hired me during these years! I am very grateful for the opportunities you gave me and for the lasting relationships that have come from our collaboration.
However, this anniversary is only just that, an anniversary. Life goes on and all the challenges and possibilities that are emerging on our road to the future are confirmation that the material I produce is just as relevant and necessary as ever.
Full of energy and determination, I am looking forward to the next fifteen years of collaboration with you to develop more practical solutions that work and help you build a prosper and thriving future of food and agriculture.
Here is a short video I posted on my YouTube Channel, in which I talk a bit further on the next 15 years.
Listen here to a Chrome AI-generated podcast type playback of the original article
Recently, I accidentally came across someone’s self-description as a techno-utopian. Although it sounds cute, this concept does not really appeal to me. It lacks something I always look for in tech and what my clients always appraciate in my work: the essential stuff. Nonetheless, I felt compelled to look up the definition of utopia in the dictionary.
Utopia: an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.
Then, right away it put things into place. “Imagined” is fine with me. Probably because as anyone who knows me would tell you that I have no shortage of imagination, and often just a little too much of it. The way I look at it, there cannot be enough of it. After all, imagination would not be imagination if we gave it boundaries and limits. The very core of imagination is that we can think of anything. In my work, I have been asked many times to brainstorm about how to use something new and what applications, even silly ones, it can offer.
The second part of the definition is a bit more of a problem. “Perfect” can simply not be defined. Nobody knows what it means. Being a perfectionist comes down to chase an illusion. In the meantime, some things need to actually happen. I understand and love excellence and the drive to always improve. I don’t care all that much for perfect. Clearly, I am not and never will be a utopian of any sort. I tried to think and find anything utopian that ever became reality… and I could not find anything. On the other hand, dystopia… Utopian thinking sounds great. Who wouldn’t want a perfect world, whatever that might mean? What’s not to like about utopian thinking? It sounds great, it doesn’t challenge anyone or hurt their feelings. It is totally risk-free and makes you look really nice, but more in a Miss Universe pageant sort of way, after a while. At some point, it’s time to come down teh cloud and start to actually solve real problems. When it comes to the future of food and agriculture, we better focus on adapting and improving, and certainly technology has an important role to play, but there is a time to dream and there is a time to achieve actual progress. During my professional life, I have heard time and time over about the many silver bullets that were going to fix all the problems. After almost 40 years of working in the food and agriculture sector, I am still waiting for any of such bullets. Actually, I still hear about the same problems. Yet, there have been many changes, many innovations and many ideas. Lots of things have happened and yet, I believe that we all can agree that despite all of that, our world is in more dire situation today than it was 40 years ago. If technology is the panacea, why don’t we succeed to solve problems, might you ask?
A large part of the answer lies in the fact that solutions are not solely of a technical or technological nature. That’s the mistake number 1 made by the tech people, and the techno-utopians. There is no shortage of technical and technological solutions, and there have never been. Actually, we have had all the necessary technologies available to fix our problems for quite some time. Of course, there is always room for better ones. We always can and must improve, as I mentioned earlier. So, what’s stopping us?
Well, it’s not technology or innovation. The dreamers and the visionaries have done quite well. No, what is stopping us is something I have discovered early in my professional life. Here is a quick flashback. When I started my career, if there was a hard-nosed all-rational science and tech believer and aficionado, that would have been me. I love the hard and cold facts of exactness. Subjective and more emotional stuff would not even be on my radar screen. It’s simply was not factual. Then, my career moved in the direction of sales and management. Then, I discovered that actually nothing happens unless it aligns with the subjective and emotional stuff. Facts, science and technology don’t make it if there don’t align with beliefs, values and the personal interests (usually those of a financial nature) of the users. Ha! There is the main hurdle!
The thing is, tech is more comfortable that jobs require dealing with people. Things don’t disagree. they don’t show anger and don’t challenge you. In tech, you’re in control. It feels rather safe. When dealing with people, you have to deal with differences of opinions, pushback, personal issues, negative emotions, even aggression and fights. It’s a lot more challenging and personal. Most people prefer the tech bubble to the real world. I understand why.
The limitation to solving problems is not technological. It actually plays at two main levels. The first one is the systemic level. If we don’t change the systems, actually meaning changing the way we think, technology is not going to break through. The second level is money, pure and simple. The numbers need to add up to succeed. As I said, technologically speaking we have all the tools we need. The problem is that often, it is not economically viable. It is not viable for several reasons. One is that it is indeed not economical. Another reason is that the math does not include externalities (the long-term costs and/or benefits) and the math is skewed, but nonetheless, the numbers do not look attractive on the short-term. Another reason is that the perceived value of the solution does not match its price tag.
Here is where my self-description in the title of this post comes to life. I focus on the essential stuff, not just the “beauty” of technologies and innovations. In 2015, I wrote a post on this blog about why technology is much more that just the technical part. My second book, We Will Reap What We Sow, focuses specifically on human nature and how it can influence how our future will look like. I always take the human dimension in my analysis, simply because if people don’t buy the story, it does not happen. They don’t adopt the technology, don’t see the point of changing the ways of the present, and the system stays the same in its main lines. Same thing with the money. If there is no financial advantage, they do not adopt the new technology. This is particularly important when it comes to business-to-business. I like to categorize technologies into two groups: tools and gadgets. In a business-to-business environment, tech has to be a tool, meaning the tool user must have an advantage in using the technology. It either saves time or saves money, and ideally both. If not, even the most wonderful utopian tool in the world will end in the “museum of great ideas that never succeeded”. Next to the tools, there are the gadgets. Those are different. It is not as much about savings as it is about emotional aspects. Money is less important. From what I just described, to me agtech are tools. Foodtech could be tools, but most are really gadgets, especially when it comes to consumer products. Many novel foods do not come close to have the same nutritional qualities as the existing category of foods that they aim to replace. And then, they are surprised that the hype is short-lived, because there is a little something that tech people overlook: consumers are not completely stupid and the large majority can tell when they see nonsense.
I guess you might tell me that I am wrong when I say that tech people neglect the financial side. Well, yes and no. There are two groups involved in tech.
One group consists of let’s say the tech geeks who want to build a business. They are totally focused on the technical aspects. They neglect the human side of the business and overlook the need to get to profitability. Often, they have about zero understanding of business management and of marketing. They assume that because they develop something that looks great in their eyes, it should succeed. Unfortunately, not everyone looks at things through the same lens. Further, they tend to not think beyond their little bubble and have no idea of what possible problems they might create, but that’s the tech modus operandi: “Promise anything to get funding, think of consequences later”.
The other group consists of the investors. Those are really focused on the money. Their understanding of technology varies greatly, which is why they sometimes invest in total dogs. The weakness of the investing community is that they love money so much, they expect high and fast return. Food and especially agriculture do not show that kind of dynamics. Usually, it is a long slow process and the returns are often modest. Of course, there are sometimes lucrative niches but they are rare and once the niche is full, the potential for further growth is rather limited, and they get stuck. I guess the investing community must have come to that realization, as the level of investments in agtech and foodtech is dropping, as showed in these graphs I found on Agfunder. They speak for themselves. And it is not just agtech and food tech. Wall Street has started ditching ESG investments, too. Obviously, utopians don’t generate value, and the real world eventually focuses on the essential stuff.
Of course, raising interest rates play a role, as suddenly free money is no longer available.
Yes, utopia is still a long way away, but that is the very nature of utopia. Cute fairy tales populated with unicorns (as you probably know, a term used for successful start-ups) are nice but they are just that: fairy tales. Saying the you believe that technology is going to solve all the problems does not necessarily make it so. Beliefs and reality are two very different things. To me, the techno-utopian discourse sounds too much like what sect members very diligently like to tell around without exerting hardly any critical thinking. Realistic aspects seem to be optional in this approach. Many see themselves as evangelists (see the connection with pseudo-religion now?). It is so lame, it is actually ineffective, except for the select few (“the sect leaders”) who fill their bank accounts by using the gullible and the naive who relay their message. But that’s what the influencer concept is all about, and it works. In a way, I see techno-utopians as followers, and techno-realists as precursors. In psychology, it is known that two basic needs of human beings are attachment and authenticity, and these two needs tend to go against each other. The balance between the two is difficult to find and failing to do so has psychological consequences. Followers give the preference to attachment . Precursors choose for authenticity and attachment comes from the authentic self. I can find myself in this description.
Understand me well, I like making money. In my professional life, I have turned around business operations in six countries, so you can trust me for being financially quite sharp. I also know that it did not happen by telly cute fairy tales or wishful thinking. It happened with stark business realism.
The techno-realist in me is totally insensitive to fairy tales and hypes of all sorts. I guess I still have that hard-facts no-nonsense part of me inside, but paired with my sense for human nature and financial rigor, I used both my cerebral hemispheres, not just half. I can spot what has potential to work and what doesn’t. And I have in the past. Very quickly, I will list the most significant cases of where I did not share the utopian naivety here, and for which history proved me right.
Vertical farming. I always saw more potential for low-tech vertical farming. I have never been impressed with tech vertical farming for a few simple reasons. The fixed costs are so high, it can work only for specific niches with high-end restaurants for fancy greens. Problem is only a small share of consumers eat in high-end restaurants, and that the world can not be fed on arugula and basil only. There have been enough bankruptcies in the sector for me to rest my case.
Blockchain. I have never seen blockchain as taking over the way the tech world was trying to convince us. Frankly, the benefits were rather marginal, all the more so that many businesses still don’t have a clear idea of what traceability and transparency really mean for consumers, despite what they think. But the development of artificial intelligence could revert the situation by providing a much more dynamic and practical tool. AI can definitely boost the development of very useful super-ledgers.
Tech plant-based fake meat imitations. To me, everything has been wrong with that stuff since day 1, and probably even before. OK, I’ll admit the Silicon Valley billionaires have done excellent PR to create the hype, but as the saying goes “you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time”, and as I said, consumers are not completely stupid. That has been one of the main mistakes, but I cannot think of anything that those companies may have done right. It has been such a demonstration of incompetence in all areas, I won’t comment any further. Substitutes for meat have potential, but the ones that succeed are mostly low-tech local businesses run by humble people, and that makes a world of difference.
Lab meat. Although I have always considered it can have some potential for certain applications, I still don’t think it will be near the kind of volumes they think and I have always doubted their timelines. When I was writing my first book, Future Harvests, in 2009, I had a conversation with some of the Dutch pioneers. By then, I was told that lab burgers would hit the store shelves in five years. We are now 15 years later and not any noticeable volume of lab burger in sight in the stores. Recently, I heard the claim that it will be in the stores in 10 years from now. I’ll be waiting to see. Further, still the same story about the cost reduction coming soon. It is always “soon”. “Soon” is a euphemism for “no commitment on when” and for buying time and keeping on living on the investors’ money. And time passes by. I also love the term “parity”. What does it even mean? Parity with which product? If they want to price it at parity with meat, just have them do so. Change the price and see if it sells. Further, stories like Upside Foods and their chicken lab meat just contribute to undermine any credibility that is left. No wonder, the money does not flow all that much anymore in that category.
Although still in development, precision fermentation is another sector that creates some buzz. It is the current flavor of the month, taking over from plant-based and lab meat in the spotlight, as interest has faded in these two catgories. “Precision” sounds good, doesn’t it? Actually, the term is PR, something the lab/cell/cultured meat still has not been able to find, yet. As such, precision fermentation is not even particularly new. I find people in that sector rather frustrating. As everybody else who promotes alternative protein, they are obsessed with the claim to replace animal farming, and farming altogether. For starters, animal products are not just protein, they are so much more. Yet, even the animal farming sector prefers to reduce itself to protein, as they are terrified at the idea of having t talk about fat, while with the right choice of feed ingredients they could provide top notch essential fatty acids profiles in their products. The foodtech sector doesn’t even know what the production volumes of dairy, meats and eggs are. They have no clue of how much production capacity would be required to replace animal farming and how much it would cost to build. If they did, the fairy tales would collapse in no time. Considering the level of funding they already need for rather minor volumes, they are in for a surprise. Other source of frustration for me is that I never get straight answer to simple questions, such as “are you profitable?”, “what is your cost compared with the animal product you claim to replace” how much can you produce per year with your current production unit?” Sorry but “several thousands of tonnes” is not an answer. Is it 3,000 tons or is it 30,000 tons? I don’t know. Apparently, neither do they. Perhaps, I have not met the right people. About the claim tech proteins require hardly any land, they finally very reluctantly admit that to feed the microorganisms, they need sugar and lots of it, and just as reluctantly they finally admit that it is not all that sustainable. Yep, that sugar has to come from intensive specialized agriculture. ironical, isn’t it? Anyway, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, but it does not sound all that utopian after all. One problem they will face is the fact that they produce only molecules. For liquid products such as milk or eggs, the challenge is easier. There is no particular need to texture the protein. Nonetheless, albumin is not egg. You have to add the yoke. Using an old cooking test with a New York City fancy 3-star Michelin restaurant as a reference is not the best way to appeal to the overwhelming majority of the population who can’t afford to go in such a restaurant. Limiting themselves to albumin and telling there is cholesterol in the yoke as a reason why people should eat only egg white is not going to work with consumers. Try to live without any cholesterol at all and then let me know how that worked out! Once again, consumers are not stupid and they know if the novelty is comparable with the original thing or not. Same thing with milk proteins (casein, beta-lactoglobulin and lactoferrin). They are not milk. Milk contains and provides many other nutrients. Those who claim eggs and milk will be replaced are just following the same path as the plant-based meat imitations. That said, I see a lot more potential for these molecules as ingredients. Nothing new here. It has already been happening in dairy and with egg products for quite some time. There is also good potential, from a profitability point of view, in the sectors of health and wellness. Those are more niche markets but with good volumes and good prices. But trying to go after low price commodities like eggs in the shell and generic milk and cheese, will prove much more challenging. There is probably also some serious potential as a source of protein for animal feed, especially with an eye on essential amino acids profiles. Also, I see some possibilities in the fish feed sector. That’s the irony of protein alternatives. They have more chances of success in the animal feed sector to produce animal products, and that is fine. Every shift is useful.
Insects. That’s another development for which I saw much better prospects as animal feed ingredient than for human consumption, especially in Western countries. Anyway, I wrote about that on this blog years ago.
GMO herbicides and weed resistance. I was describing 15 years ago in Future Harvests, that mono-usage of the likes of Roundup Ready GMOs were going to end with massive issues of weed resistance. That’s exactly what happened. Anyone with basics in biology and understanding of how organisms mutate and adapt to their environment could have figured out that one. If you want to follow the matter, just check what the same groups of people who produced that mess are now working on in the area of biological herbicides with all the (should I say utopian) promises that goes with the need for funding. I don’t expect a smooth process.
So, as you can see a bit of a long story, why techno-utopian may sound nice but it works as long as it is talk. Although imagining new options and alternative is absolutely necessary, it is even more necessary to give it a serious reality check in the real world. That’s why I will never stop at imagining a future, I want to confront it with realism because that is where the action really is. Recently, I posted a video on my YouTube channel in which I answer questions about technology from viewers. The three questions are:
whether technology the solution for the future
which technologies will solve our problems
if I agree with the people who say that food tech is a distraction that does not solve any problem
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!
The Food Futurist - Anticipate, Adapt, Succeed 