Food Systems Technologies: Sustainability Benefits and Risks

7/15/20241 min read

woman in pink long sleeve shirt wearing black sunglasses
woman in pink long sleeve shirt wearing black sunglasses

Every human and non-human animal is a stakeholder in the food system. Food systems technologies (“FSTs”) are generally adopted with a view toward strengthening human health as well as food system sustainability and security. As with any nascent technology, especially in the case of food, it would be prudent to consider these with balance and caution.

Benefits of FSTs

Productivity and efficiency – A common commendation of FSTs are that they improve production in terms of productivity and efficiency. Genetically modified (“GM”) crops have been noted to be enjoy a relatively high rate of acceptance by commercial and smallholder farms in South Africa, for example, by reason of their high yields, resistance to disease, and tolerance to herbicides (Adenle, Morris, and Parayil (2013). Artificial intelligence (“AI”) technologies have been associated with greater efficiency by the automatization of tasks through learning and decision-making (Alexander, Yarborough, and Smith 2024:149). Similarly, vertical farming (“VF”) has been lauded as a resource-efficient and economically beneficial mode of facilitating food safety, with the capacity to promote food system resilience (Bunge et al 2022). Specifically, VF-based vegetable cultivation has been observed to be more efficient in terms of yield, water use, and land use, when compared to on-field and greenhouse agriculture (Bunge et al 2022).

More/better/faster data – New FSTs have gained prominence in the arena of data collection, mining, and application in policy and practice. For instance, technologies such as satellite sensors and hyperspectral image processing could theoretically offer ecosystem and supply-chain information at a finer scale and greater concurrency compared to existing tools, thereby potentially aiding economic planning and decision-making (Moran et al 2020).

Environmental impacts – Where FSTs emphasize environment outcomes, some appear to have succeeded in providing food substitutes at a lower environmental cost. A case in point is plant-based alternatives (“PBAs”), which are considered to generate less environmental impact than animal-based food products (Bunge et al 2022).

Risks

Trade-offs – The large-scale implementation of any measure is likely to be fraught with differing sustainability outcomes whether negative or positive, with some sustainability goals being achieved at the expense of the progress of others. For example, there is evidence that VF augments greenhouse gas emissions and that VF practices, relative to open-field cultivation, consume more energy (Bunge et al 2022). A source of apprehension surrounding FSTs concerns the apparent prioritisation of climatic and environmental factors over other sustainability issues, as well as a all-round dearth of examination of the trade-offs between sustainability development goals (Bunge et al 2022).

Integration – The operationalisation of FSTs ought to be undertaken with multi-scalar consultation and cooperation. In the case of Nigeria, it could be argued that top-down imposition of GM crops, and the lack of local involvement and expertise, led to stakeholder concern about the complexity of incorporating GM crops into local systems and food chains (Adenle, Morris, and Parayil 2013).

Uncertainty – New technologies, FSTs included, warrant engagement and education of the general public, in the absence of which there would not only be a limited market for the product, but also reuced legitimacy and acceptance. Public opinion on AI appears to be mixed but negative across the board – on one hand, there are fears of overestimation of its capabilities, and on the other, concerns abound over AI being so effective and efficient as to, amongst others, render human workers superfluous (Alexander, Yarborough, and Smith 2024). AI adoption could also be complicated by the contradicting and interwoven ethical framework of AI at present, in which “standards, ethical principles, and interests of researchers, funders, and food system partners may be not only misaligned but incompatible and in conflict with one another” (Alexander, Yarborough, and Smith 2024:149). The landscape of AI development is said to suffer from a paucity of supervision and answerability, with a skewed focus on magnitude and speed rather than quality and soundness (Alexander, Yarborough, and Smith 2024).

Perpetuating injustices – There is a view that the relatively higher cost of PBAs in comparison with their animal-based counterparts may lead to the former being considered an indulgence, and by extension, contribute to social inequality (Bunge et al 2022). Some critics of AI hold the view that AI - as with any technology - will simply reproduce existing inequalities and imbalances if its sole role is to accelerate processes within existing systems and structures (Alexander, Yarborough, and Smith 2024).

Conclusion

If food technologies are to be employed with the intention of enhancing food security, then the focal point should be not only on higher production rates (Alexander, Yarborough, and Smith 2024) but also greater access to and distribution of safe and nutritive food (Adenle, Morris, and Parayil 2013).

Ultimately, however, to avoid an overly technocentric and neoliberalist approach toward sustainability, one could pose the question as to whether FSTs are capable, in and of themselves, of addressing the underlying systemic processes and structures underpinning inequality, and the resulting lack of sustainability, in all their incarnations.

References:

  • Adenle, A.A., Morris, E.J., and G. Parayil. (2013). ‘Status of development, regulation and adoption of GM agriculture in Africa: views and positions of stakeholder groups’. Food Policy 43 2013, pp.159–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.006

  • Alexander, C.S., Yarborough, M. & Smith, A. (2024). ‘Who is responsible for ‘responsible AI’?: Navigating challenges to build trust in AI agriculture and food system technology’. Precision Agric 25, 146–185 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-023-10063-3

  • Bunge, A.C., Wood, A., Halloran, A., Gordon, L. (2022). ‘A systematic scoping review of the sustainability of vertical farming, plant-based alternatives, food delivery services and blockchain in food systems’. Nature Food volume 3, pages933–941 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00622-8

  • Moran, D., S. Giljum, Kanemoto, K., and Godar, J. (2020). ‘From satellite to supply chain: new approaches connect earth observation to economic decisions’. One Earth 3(1) 2020, pp.5–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.06.007