Breakthroughs and Adaptations
This is a transcript of Episode #147 of the Eat For The Planet Podcast. Listen to the audio below.
On this episode I share a new model I have been exploring that tries to make sense of current debates and approaches to fixing our food system and how to spot opportunities for growth.
When I used to think about the future of food and the possible ways we can reshape our food system, I envisioned a transformation, led by breakthroughs that would push us past current patterns into better ones. But as time passed, I’ve grown to realize that this thinking was predicated on the assumption that the only way forward was to make giant leaps in how we produce, distribute and consume food. This required breakthroughs from a technological, structural and to a lesser extent, cultural (or consumer) standpoint to take our food system from where it is today (emitting a third of global greenhouse gas emissions) to one that drains less of our natural resources and hopefully contributes significantly less to the climate crisis.
TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGHS
Let’s examine technological breakthroughs first. Plant-based and cultured meat, dairy and egg alternatives or vertical farming fall neatly into this category. But the food system isn’t like computer technology or the internet. It is a complex, interconnected system that has evolved over centuries and is deeply woven into the fabric of not only our economic systems, but also human culture, and the way we nourish ourselves and ensure our very survival on this planet. In other words, it is an essential system performing a critical planetary function at all levels of civilization.
But technological breakthroughs don’t come easily. And even if they do, they take years, sometimes decades to truly transform into the norm from farm to what you get in the grocery store and what ultimately ends up in your refrigerator, pantry, and plate. This probably explains why after a decade of growth and billions in venture funding meat alternatives make up only 1.5% of total meat sales while traditional meat sales continue to rise. Milk alternatives have fared much better, making up 15% of the retail milk market, but the dairy industry shows no signs of slowing down its grasp on the food system. That’s why some experts argue that the time frames required for such breakthroughs to capture sizable market share and actually lead to a decline in production and consumption of animal protein are too long, while factory farming continues to ravage the planet and the climate crisis escalates.
STRUCTURAL BREAKTHROUGHS
And here’s where another approach comes in. Let’s categorize it under structural breakthroughs. According to some, one of the biggest breakthroughs we can make is to get rid of corporate control of the global food system and go back to eating and farming the way we did prior to industrialization. Another clarion call of many in this camp goes something like this…”Why are we spending billions to create fake tech foods? Let’s just eat real food!” In other words, we don’t need technological breakthroughs, but actually need to use policy and regulations to catalyze a dismantling of the current system. They believe that by focusing on structural breakthroughs alone, we can not only make the food system more sustainable, but also more equitable. I’m oversimplifying here, because this isn’t a cohesive movement and there are several layers to it. For example, some approach it only from a health and nutrition lens while others only from an equity lens, which often leads to a multitude of conflicting opinions. However, the notion that the general approach of structural change or going back to how we did things can be the panacea is equally, if not more naive when compared to technological breakthroughs. I say this because proponents of this approach often fail to recognize economic realities, and the lack of financial or political incentives at a global scale that could make this possible. Besides not being pragmatic, it fails to provide a clear path forward with tangible solutions and specific time horizons to achieve this transformation.
All this being said, we should not dismiss the structural breakthrough approach entirely because it is full of great ideas. Critics of technological breakthroughs favor solutions like agroecology, regenerative farming, localized or regional supply chains, co-operative ownership structures, land reform, and workers rights, to name a few.
CAN THESE APPROACHES COEXIST?
Generally speaking, while concepts like agroecology, regenerative farming, localized or regional supply chains, co-operative ownership structures, land reform, and worker rights are not necessarily scalable ideas that can attract venture funding, I see absolutely no reason why they cannot be incorporated into new systems being built by breakthrough technologies that tend to attract the bulk of available private funding in food. After all, whether it is plant based or fermentation or cell-cultured foods, they all are dependent on farming and people to varying degrees. In other words, we need to focus on how tech and structural breakthroughs can hybridize and develop a synergistic interdependence to achieve the best outcomes. And we need to find ways to fund and propel those solutions forward.
ADAPTATIONS
But what rarely gets talked about is what’s missing from both the discussion around tech breakthroughs and structural breakthroughs. And this is the real elephant in the room. Not only is climate change and its devastating impacts here already, there is also a very real threat to the health of our soil and our oceans, just to name two examples of damaged and depleting resources that are essential building blocks of our current food system. We need a push for transformation at every node of this interconnected system so we are not only leaping forward (as fast as we practically can), but also adapting by preserving and optimizing all the critical building blocks we rely on for the system to even survive what’s ahead of us.
This requires thinking that goes far beyond criticizing the right and wrong breakthroughs or the right or wrong adaptations. Or whether breakthroughs matter more than the adaptations. Or whether purely structural breakthroughs that favor dismantling current power structures is a feasible solution at all.
Once again, just for clarity, what I mean by a tech breakthrough could be something like cell-based meat or plant-based meats that replicate the taste and texture of animal protein. What I categorize as a structural breakthrough are policy approaches to imposing regulations on big food conglomerates to minimize their control and influence over the food system and ushering in more regional food systems built on principles of agroecology, food sovereignty and food security.
Adaptations on the other hand could be policy driven or technologically driven, like new technology to optimize soil health or minimize methane emissions from ruminant livestock. Adaptations largely operate under the assumption that we need to make the current system marginally better and less destructive given the scarcity of resources and the impact on planetary boundaries. Adaptations tend to have incremental impact that’s linear and additive while breakthroughs can have an exponential impact, but require longer time horizons.
SO HOW DO WE BUILD THE FUTURE?
It’s no longer a matter of which of these solutions are better. It’s a question of what helps us adapt, while we break through. And there’s one thing that is true for both tech and structural breakthroughs as well as adaptations. They have to fit within existing market dynamics, and in the case of consumer goods, actually appeal to consumer interests and tastes. So real cultural breakthroughs are only possible if we successfully deploy technology, policy, and market forces to create the right conditions for cultural change to blossom.
Of course, we’re all entitled to our preferred approaches from the cornucopia of available breakthroughs and adaptations, but to deny the fact that we need it all to happen risks slowing down the actual pace of transformation that we desperately need in the food system.
And while I may have favored technological breakthroughs over the past decade, I realize now that without incorporating structural concepts and adaptability, we run the risk of inflicting irreparable damage that will inadvertently prevent my beloved tech breakthroughs from achieving their true potential.
I’ll close with this. I think It’s time to move past asking what are the right ways to fix the food system or how we can future proof it. Instead we need to start asking how we are going to create more interoperability between leading solutions at a local and global scale so that we can maximize their collective funding potential and accelerate the pace of change.
Here’s to the best breakthroughs and adaptations and focusing on whatever gets us to a better place.