Are Big Tech and Industrial Agriculture Secretly Reshaping What the World Eats?
Leading food security experts are sounding the alarm, warning that major tech companies and industrial agriculture giants are essentially “playing with the food system.” They're leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) and sophisticated algorithms to influence not only what crops get planted but also how they're grown, potentially undermining farmers' autonomy and dictating global food choices.
The players involved are household names: Think Google, Microsoft, Amazon, IBM, and Alibaba. These tech titans are collaborating with industrial agriculture firms, and a recent report from the thinktank International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) highlights how this partnership is steering agricultural practices. The outcome, according to these experts, is a “top-down” farming model where colossal corporations dictate to farmers what to cultivate, often prioritizing crops that are most productive and profitable.
But here's where it gets controversial... Pat Mooney, a renowned Canadian author and agriculture expert who contributed to the report, bluntly states, “Companies are playing with the food system, and we can’t afford to have that played with.” He points out that these companies tend to focus on a narrow range of five staple crops: corn, rice, wheat, soya beans, and potatoes.
Mooney elaborates with a striking example: “Their advice is going to be: ‘Well, we don’t know about your using [the grain] teff in Ethiopia – we never heard about teff – but we do know about how to use corn in Ethiopia, so we’ll advise you on the ways you can use corn, and we know how to link corn to pesticides, because that’s our expertise’.”
This creates a significant risk for farmers. Instead of nurturing the locally adapted crops they’ve cultivated for generations, they might be forced into a globalized system. This system compels them to purchase seeds from industrial manufacturers, often bundled with machinery and chemical inputs sourced from distant parts of the world. Mooney emphasizes that this globalized food system has already demonstrated its fragility, especially in the face of challenges like the climate crisis or geopolitical conflicts such as the war in Ukraine.
“The more global the system is, the harder it is to guarantee that you’re actually going to have it work, and food security is something which really needs to be as local as possible,” Mooney argues. He poses a critical question: “Don’t lock yourself into a global system which is broken and can’t be repaired. Why would we make it even more globalized than before and more dependent upon multinational companies that are operating out of Silicon Valley?”
These tech companies gather vast amounts of data from farmers, as well as from satellite and drone sensors that monitor crucial environmental factors like climate conditions and soil health. This information is then fed into their AI models and algorithms. The insights generated are used to advise farmers on planting decisions, perhaps by suggesting a specific seed variety is perfectly suited to the current soil moisture levels in their region.
And this is the part most people miss... Mooney cautions that these AI-driven suggestions are likely to be heavily biased towards crops in which the companies have a vested interest. This, in turn, would necessitate farmers purchasing proprietary seeds, specialized equipment, and chemical inputs, creating a cycle of dependency.
The report also highlights a concerning trend: these digital farming tools are often presented as cutting-edge innovations, effortlessly capturing the attention of policymakers and investors. This means that even if farmers are skeptical about adopting the tech companies' advice, their governments might actively promote it as the definitive path forward.
The market for digital farming tools is substantial, valued at $30 billion (£22 billion) last year and projected to soar to $84 billion by 2034, according to Fortune Business Insights. Furthermore, the World Bank has already financed $1.15 billion in loans for digital agriculture projects, and the EU has allocated €200 million for research in this domain.
Lim Li Ching, co-chair of IPES-Food, firmly states that “farming by algorithm” is not what farmers desire. She advocates for a bottom-up approach that truly prioritizes farmers' knowledge and needs. “Innovation that actually works for people has to be grounded in their realities… [It should support them] as guardians and stewards of agricultural biodiversity,” Lim explains. She calls for innovations that genuinely foster sustainability, empower farmers, are governed locally, and strengthen agroecological practices, rather than entrenching industrial agriculture, monocultures, or chemically intensive farming.
Inspiring examples of this farmer-centric approach already exist. Farming communities in Peru are safeguarding hundreds of potato varieties, farmers in China are diligently conserving seeds, and in Tanzania, farmers are using social media to share vital information about weather patterns and market prices.
Mooney concludes by urging policymakers to shift their focus. Instead of funding corporate tech solutions, he suggests investing in research that supports these local farmers and champions their innovations. “Food security is something which really needs to be as local as possible, which is the advantage of agroecology: you don’t lock yourself into a global system which is broken and can’t be repaired.”
Google, Microsoft, Amazon, IBM, and Alibaba were contacted for comment on these findings.
What are your thoughts? Do you believe big tech's involvement in agriculture is a necessary step towards feeding the world, or does it pose a genuine threat to farmer autonomy and food diversity? Share your opinions below!
