The Age of Foodtech: Optimizing the Agri-Food Chain with Digital Technologies

  • Andrea RendaEmail author


FoodTech, intended as the use of disruptive digital technologies along the agri-food chain, features an outstanding potential to contribute to the SDGs, and in particular to help combat and eradicate hunger without a massive increase in food production. The chapter reviewed emerging applications of technologies like the Internet of Things, distributed ledger technologies and Artificial Intelligence at various phases of the agri-food chain, focusing in particular on smart and precision farming, value chain integrity, personalized nutrition and the reduction and prevention of food waste. The paper shows that it is important that the focus is not limited to one single technology, but to the whole “technology stack”, including sensing, big data analytics, 5G, blockchain and Artificial Intelligence. Moreover, weaker players such as small farmers and consumers are often unable to make the most of these technological developments, and this requires dedicated action in terms of training and education. Furthermore, blockchain and Artificial Intelligence can massively contribute to improving the agri-food chain: however, they feature important governance challenges, which can lead to undesirable re-intermediation effects (in the case of blockchain); and loss of user self-determination and agency, as well as privacy and integrity (in the case of Artificial Intelligence). Finally, any solution that relies on digital technologies will need to be inclusive, otherwise the risk will be to widen the digital divide: more generally, FoodTech needs to develop in way that is compatible with all SDGs, not only those related to the agri-food sector.


Digital technologies Blockchain DLTs Artificial intelligence IoT Agri-food Sustainable development goals 


  1. Balsari, P., Böttinger, S., Cavallo, E., Gavioli, G., Hawken, K., Kishida, Y., Pickel, P., Savary, A., Schueller, J., & Yang, M. (2018). Report of the Study Group 3, Ethics of the future agricultural mechanization development Group members/contributors. Club of Bologna.Google Scholar
  2. Bonanno, A., & Busch, L. (2015). Handbook of the international political economy of agriculture and food. Northampton: Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, New Series, 4(16), 386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Craglia, M. (Ed.). (2018). Artificial intelligence: A European perspective. Ispra: European Commission, Joint Research Centre.Google Scholar
  5. European Commission. (2019). High-Level Expert Group on AI (2019), Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  6. Ge, L., Brewster, C., Spek, J., Smeenk, A., & Top, J. (2017). Blockchain for agriculture and food; findings from the pilot study. Wageningen. Wageningen Economic Research, Report, 2017-112.Google Scholar
  7. Herranz, L., Min, W., & Jiang, S. (2018).
  8. IFAD. (2017). Remote sensing for index insurance findings and lessons learned for smallholder agriculture. Retrieved from
  9. IHS Markit. (2018). The internet of things. A movement, not a market.
  10. Klasson, M., Zhang, C., & Kjellström, H. (2018). A hierarchical grocery store image dataset with visual and semantic labels. Retrieved from
  11. Liakos, K. G., Busato, P., Moshou, D., Pearson, S., & Bochtis, D. (2018). Machine learning in agriculture: A review. Sensors, 18, 2674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lianos, I., & Katalevsky, D. (2018). Merger activity in the factors of production segments of the food value chain: A critical assessment of the Bayer/Monsanto merger. Centre for Law, Economics and Society (CLES), University College London (UCL), Policy Paper Series: 1/2017, ISBN 978-1-910801-13-0.Google Scholar
  13. McKinsey Global Institute. (2017). A future that works: Automation, employment and productivity. McKinsey&CompanyGoogle Scholar
  14. Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Retrieved from
  15. Purdy, M., & Dougherty, P. (2017). Why artificial intelligence is the future of growth, accenture/frontier economics report. Retrieved from
  16. PWC. (2018). The macroeconomic impact of artificial intelligence. Retrieved from
  17. Renda, A. (2018). The trolley problem and self-driving cars: A crime-scene investigation into the ethics of algorithms. CEPS Policy paper.Google Scholar
  18. Renda, A. (2019). Artificial intelligence: Ethics, governance and policy challenges. Report of a CEPS Task Force, Brussels.Google Scholar
  19. Sanderson, J., Wiseman, L., & Poncini, S. (2018). What’s behind the Ag-data logo? An examination of voluntary agricultural data codes of practice. International Journal of Rural Law and Policy., (1).
  20. Sarig, Y., Clarke, L., De Alencar Nääs, I., Hegg, R., Munack, A., & Singh, G. (2001). Code of ethics for the agricultural machinery - manufacturing sector. Club of Bologna.Google Scholar
  21. Verma, M., Hontecillas, R., Tubau-Juni, N., Abedi, V., & Bassaganya-Riera, J. (2018). Challenges in personalized nutrition and health. Frontiers in Nutrition, 5, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. World Economic Forum (2018). Harnessing artificial intelligence for the Earth.
  23. Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Doré, T., Francis, C., Vallod, D., & David, C. (2009). Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29, 503–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yiannas, F. (2018). A new era of food transparency powered by blockchain. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 12(1-2), 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEPSBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.College of EuropeBrugesBelgium

Personalised recommendations