An official website of the United States government
While the tech sector has seized upon the food system as an area in which it can have a major impact, innovators within the agri-food tech domain are dogged by concerns about public acceptance of technologies that may be controversial or simply not of interest. At the same time, because they operate within an investor-dependent political economy, they must demonstrate that the public will consume the products they are creating. To both secure markets and legitimate their approaches to problem-solving, entrepreneurial innovators draw on three existing imaginaries of consumers, each of which articulates with a particular tendency they have pursued in problem-solving. Reflecting a tendency of solutionism, those promoting technologies that promise minimal processing and/or short or traceable supply chains invoke a health- and eco-conscious consumer. In keeping with technofixes, those promoting technologies of mimicry invoke a complacent consumer. Reflecting the tendency toward scientism in problem-solving and related projections of public knowledge deficits, those promoting potentially controversial technologies invoke a fearful consumer and embrace transparency to inform and assure such consumers. By promising future consumers who will willingly accept emerging technologies, each of these imaginaries seeks to resolve – for investors – potential problems of consumer acceptance generated by the particular approaches to problem-solving innovators have adopted. While STS scholars have shown how public-facing engagement exercises and policy work are often limited by deficit-driven imaginaries of the public, in these investor-facing spaces possible objections are both imagined and overcome without any interaction with actual publics.
more »
« less
Perceptions of high-tech controlled environment agriculture among local food consumers: using interviews to explore sense-making and connections to good food
In recent years, new forms of high-tech controlled environment agriculture (CEA) have received increased attention and investment. These systems integrate a suite of technologies – including automation, LED lighting, vertical plant stacking, and hydroponic fertilization – to allow for greater control of temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and light in an enclosed growing environment. Proponents insist that CEA can produce sustainable, nutritious, and tasty local food, particularly for the cities of the future. At the same time, a variety of critics raise concerns about its environmental impacts and energy use, high startup costs, and consumer accessibility challenges, among other issues. At this stage, however, relatively little research has explored actual consumer knowledge and attitudes related to CEA processes and products. Guided by theories of sense-making, this article draws from structured interviews with local food consumers in New York City to examine what people know and think about high-tech CEA. From there, it explores the extent to which CEA fits into consumer conceptualizations of what makes for “good food.” Key findings emphasize that significant gaps in public understanding of CEA remain, that CEA products’ success will depend on the ability of the industry to deliver on its environmental promises, and that concerns about “unnatural” aspects of CEA will need to be allayed. Given the price premium at which high-tech CEA products are currently sold, the industry’s expansion will depend in large part on its ability to convince value-oriented food consumers that the products meet the triple-bottom-line of economic, social, and environmental sustainability goals.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1739163
- PAR ID:
- 10310291
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Agriculture and human values
- ISSN:
- 1572-8366
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Communities are considering local food production in response to the pressing need to reduce food system greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, local food systems can vary considerably in design and operation, including controlled environment agriculture (CEA), which refers to agricultural production that takes place within an enclosed space where environmental conditions, such as temperature, humidity, and light, are precisely controlled. Such systems require a considerable amount of energy and thus emissions; therefore, this study seeks to quantify these environmental impacts to determine how local CEA systems compare to alternative systems. For this study’s methods, we apply life cycle assessment methodology to quantify the cradle-to-storeshelf GHG emissions and water consumption of four lettuce production systems: local indoor plant factory, local greenhouse, local seasonal soil, and conventional centralized production in California with transportation. Using geographically specific inputs, the study estimates the environmental impact of the different production systems including geospatially resolved growth modeling, emissions intensity, and transportation distances. The results include the major finding that baseline CEA systems always have higher GHG emissions (2.6–7.7 kg CO2e kg−1) than centralized production (0.3–1.0 kg CO2e kg−1), though water consumption is significantly less owing to hydroponic efficiency. In contrast, local seasonal soil production generally has a lower GHG impact than centralized production, though water consumption varies by crop yield and local precipitation during growing seasons. Scenario analyses indicate CEA facilities would need to electrify all systems and utilize low-carbon electricity sources to have equivalent or lower GHG impacts than California centralized production plus transportation. We conclude that these results can inform consumers and policy makers that local seasonal production and conventional supply chains are more sustainable than local CEA production in near-term food-energy-water sustainability nexus decision making.more » « less
-
Local food systems, in which consumers source food from nearby farmers, offer a sustainable alternative to the modern industrial food supply system. However, scaling up local food production to meet consumer demand will require farmers to allocate more land to this purpose. This paper describes an agent-based model that represents commodity-producing Iowa farmers and their decisions about converting some of their acreage to specialty crop production for local consumption. Farmer agents’ land-use decisions are informed by messages passed to them via their social connections with other farmers in their communities and messages from agricultural extension agents. Preliminary experimentation revealed that leveraging extension agents to increase the frequency and strength of messages to farmers in support of local food production has a modest positive impact on adoption. By itself, however, this intervention is unlikely to yield significant improvements to food system sustainability.more » « less
-
Producer and consumer perspectives on supporting and diversifying local food systems in central IowaAbstract The majority of food in the US is distributed through global/national supply chains that exclude locally-produced goods. This situation offers opportunities to increase local food production and consumption and is influenced by constraints that limit the scale of these activities. We conducted a study to assess perspectives of producers and consumers engaged in food systems of a major Midwestern city. We examined producers’ willingness to include/increase cultivation of local foods and consumers’ interest in purchasing/increasing local foods. We used focus groups of producers (two groups of conventional farmers, four local food producers) and consumers (three conventional market participants, two locavores) to pose questions about production/consumption of local foods. We transcribed discussions verbatim and examined text to identify themes, using separate affinity diagrams for producers and consumers. We found producers and consumers are influenced by thestatus quoand real and perceived barriers to local foods. We also learned participants believed increasing production and consumption of local foods would benefit their community and creating better infrastructure could enhance efforts to scale up local food systems. Focus group participants also indicated support from external champions/programs could support expansion of local foods. We learned that diversifying local food production was viewed as a way to support local community, increase access to healthy foods and reduce environmental impacts of conventional production. Our research indicates that encouraging producers and consumers in local food systems will be more successful when support for the local community is emphasized.more » « less
-
Many consumers depend on the contemporaneous growth of their food resources. For example,Tanytarsus gracilentusmidges feed on algae, and because midge generation time is much longer than that of algae, individual midges benefit not just from the standing stock but also from the growth of algae during their lifespans. This implies that an intermediate consumption rate maximizes midge somatic growth: low consumption rates constrain midge growth because they do not fully utilize the available food, whereas high consumption rates suppress algal biomass growth and consequently limit future food availability. An experiment manipulating midge presence and initial algal abundance showed that midges can suppress algal growth, as measured by changes in algal gross primary production (GPP). We also found a positive relationship between GPP and midge growth. A consumer–resource model fit to the experimental data showed a hump‐shaped relationship between midge consumption rates and their somatic growth. In the model, predicted midge somatic growth rates were only positively associated with GPP when their consumption rate was below the value that optimized midge growth. Therefore, midges did not overexploit algae in the experiment. This work highlights the balance that consumers which depend on contemporaneous resource growth might have to strike between short‐term growth and future food availability, and the benefits for consumers when they ‘manage' their resources well.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10261-7
