Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fixing food with a limited menu: on (digital) solutionism in the agri-food tech sector

  • SYMPOSIUM/SPECIAL ISSUE
  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Silicon Valley and its innovation center counterparts have come upon food and agriculture as the next frontier for their unique style of innovation and impact. But what exactly can the tech sector, with expertise in information and communication technologies, bring to a domain in which the biophysical materiality of soil, plants, animals and human bodies have most challenged farmers and food companies? Based on a detailed analysis of all of the companies that have pitched their products at events sponsored by the Silicon Valley-based convener, Foodbytes!, we show that a large proportion of tech-driven solutions are digital technologies transferred from other domains. These technologies at best inform decision-making on the ecological processes of food and farming, but do not provide tools to treat them, and otherwise provide business solutions not even aimed at major challenges in food and farming. Drawing on a small set of interview data, we additionally suggest that tech entrepreneurs migrate to food and agriculture because it seems purposeful, exciting, or lucrative, but sometimes lack a clear understanding of the problems they might solve with their digital technologies. In making our case about the mismatch of problem and solution, we bring into conversation recent critiques of digital solutionism with abiding concerns in agrarian political economy and critical food studies regarding the role of the biological in both challenging food production and spurring technological intervention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AgFunder. 2022. Agfunder agrifoodtech investment report. https://agfunder.com/research/2022-agfunder-agrifoodtech-investment-report/. Accessed 19 Dec 2022.

  • Belasco, W. 2006. Meals to come: A history of the future of food. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S.E., A. Hullinger, and L. Brislen. 2015. Manipulated masculinities: Agribusiness, deskilling, and the rise of the businessman-farmer in the united states. Rural Sociology 80 (3): 285–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biltekoff, C., and J. Guthman. 2022. Conscious, complacent, fearful: Agri-food tech’s market-making public imaginaries. Science as Culture. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2090914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broad, G.M. 2020. Know your indoor farmer: Square roots, techno-local food, and transparency as publicity. American Behavioral Scientist 64 (11): 1588–1606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronson, K. 2019. Looking through a responsible innovation lens at uneven engagements with digital farming. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90–91: 100294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronson, K., and I. Knezevic. 2016. Big data in food and agriculture. Big Data & Society 3 (1): 2053951716648174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L., W.B. Lacy, J. Burkhardt, and L.R. Lacy. 1991. Plants, power, and profit. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F.H., and L. Busch. 1988. The public agricultural research system at the crossroads. Agricultural History 62 (2): 303–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M. 2018. ‘Smart’ farming techniques as political ontology: Access, sovereignty and the performance of neoliberal and not-so-neoliberal worlds. Sociologia Ruralis 58 (4): 745–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D. 2021. Social entrepreneurship’s solutionism problem. Journal of Management Studies 58 (5): 1363–1370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, W.W. 1979. The development of American agriculture: A historical analysis. Minneapolis, MI: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, E., A. Glaros, D.Z. Ross, and E. Nost. 2021. New but for whom? Discourses of innovation in precision agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 38: 1181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, E. 2007. Escherichia coli, corporate discipline and the failure of the sewer state. Space and Polity 11 (1): 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn, M., and Z. Kish. 2022a. A poverty of data?: Exporting the digital revolution to farmers in the global south. In The nature of data: Infrastructures environments politics, ed. Jenny Goldstein and Eric Nost. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn, M., Z. Kish, and J. Guthman. 2022b. Pitching agri-food tech: Performativity and non-disruptive disruption in Silicon Valley. Journal of Cultural Economy 15 (5): 652–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielke, S., K. Bronson, M. Carolan, C. Eastwood, V. Higgins, E. Jakku, L. Klerkx, R. Nettle, Á. Regan, D.C. Rose, L.C. Townsend, and S.A. Wolf. 2022. A call to expand disciplinary boundaries so that social scientific imagination and practice are central to quests for ‘responsible’ digital agri-food innovation. Sociologia Ruralis 62 (2): 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, B. 1994. Towards a political economy of food. Review of International Political Economy 1 (3): 519–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FitzSimmons, M., and D. Goodman. 1998. Incorporating nature: Environmental narratives and the reproduction of food. In Remaking reality: Nature at the millenium, ed. Bruce Braun and Noel Castree, 194–220. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, A. 2019. Land grab/data grab: Precision agriculture and its new horizons. The Journal of Peasant Studies 46 (5): 893–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, A. 2022. You can’t eat data’?: Moving beyond the misconfigured innovations of smart farming. Journal of Rural Studies 91: 200–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gianella, E. 2015. Morality and the idea of progress in Silicon Valley. Berkeley Journal of Sociology. http://berkeleyjournal.org/2015/01/morality-and-the-idea-of-progress-in-silicon-valley/. Accessed 12 Oct 2020.

  • Giles, D.B., and V. Stead. 2022. Big data won’t feed the world: Global agribusiness, digital imperialism, and the contested promises of a new green revolution. Dialectical Anthropology 46 (1): 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenna, L.L., W.B. Lacy, R. Welsh, and D. Biscotti. 2007. University administrators, agricultural biotechnology, and academic capitalism: Defining the public good to promote university–industry relationships. Sociological Quarterly 48 (1): 141–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. 2018. Planetary improvement: Cleantech entrepreneurship and the contradictions of green capitalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D., and M. Redclift. 1994. Constructing a political economy of food. Review of International Political Economy 1 (3): 547–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D., B. Sorj, and J. Wilkinson. 1987. From farming to biotechnology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gugganig, M. and K. Bronson. 2022. Perspective: Digital agriculture. Food Studies: Matter, Meaning, Movement.

  • Guthman, J. 2019. Wilted: Pathogens, chemicals, and the fragile future of the Strawberry Industry. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J., and C. Biltekoff. 2021. Magical disruption? Alternative protein and the promise of de-materialization. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 4 (4): 1583–1600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J., and C. Biltekoff. 2022. Agri-food tech’s building block: Narrating protein, agnostic of source, in the face of crisis. BioSocieties. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-022-00287-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henke, C.R. 2008. Cultivating science, harvesting power. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P.H. 2016. Concentration and power in the food system: Who controls what we eat? London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P.H., F. Ajena, M. Yamaoka, and A. Clarke. 2021. “Protein” industry convergence and its implications for resilient and equitable food systems. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.684181/full.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huesemann, M., and J. Huesemann. 2011. Techno-fix: Why technology won’t save us or the environment. Gabriola: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jönsson, E., T. Linné, and A. McCrow-Young. 2019. Many meats and many milks? The ontological politics of a proposed post-animal revolution. Science as Culture 28 (1): 70–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kautsky, K. 1988. The agrarian question. London: Zwan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkendall, R.S. 1986. The agricultural colleges: Between tradition and modernization. Agricultural History 60 (2): 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L., E. Jakku, and P. Labarthe. 2019. A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90: 100315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie-O’Malley, A., K. Bronson, S. van der Burg, and L. Klerkx. 2020. The future(s) of digital agriculture and sustainable food systems: An analysis of high-level policy documents. Ecosystem Services 45: 101183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landecker, H. 2015. Antibiotic resistance and the biology of history. Body & Society 22 (4): 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, T., and M. Heasman. 2015. Food wars: The global battle for mouths, minds and markets. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levenstein, H.A. 1993. Paradox of plenty: A social history of eating in modern America. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, T.M. 2007. The will to improve: Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liederbach, K. 2017. Pheronym: Pesticide-free food for the world. In Pheronym: Pesticide-free food for the world: IndieBio. http://indiebio.co/pheronym-pesticide-free-food-world/#primary.

  • Lioutas, E.D., and C. Charatsari. 2020. Big data in agriculture: Does the new oil lead to sustainability? Geoforum 109: 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, S.A. 1990. Agrarian capitalism in theory and practice. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marelli, L., K. Kieslich, and S. Geiger. 2022. Covid-19 and techno-solutionism: Responsibilization without contextualization? Critical Public Health 32 (1): 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, G.R. 2001. Land grant universities and extension into the 21st century: Renegotiating or abandoning a social contract. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf, J. 2013. Meet shmeat: Food system ethics, biotechnology and re-worlding technoscience. Parallax 19 (1): 74–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milan, S. 2020. Techno-solutionism and the standard human in the making of the covid-19 pandemic. Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720966781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, C., and N. Smith. 2016. What grows in Silicon Valley? The emerging ideology of food technology. In The ecopolitics of consumption: The food trade, ed. Karyn Pilgrim, H. Louise Davis, and Madhu Sina, 119–138. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morozov, E. 2013. To save everything, click here: Technology, solutionism, and the urge to fix problems that don’t exist. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestle, M. 2002. Food politics: How the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponte, S. 2009. From fishery to fork: Food safety and sustainability in the ‘virtual’ knowledge-based bio-economy (kbbe). Science as Culture 18 (4): 483–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prause, L., S. Hackfort, and M. Lindgren. 2021. Digitalization and the third food regime. Agriculture and Human Values 38 (3): 641–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisman, E. 2021. Sanitizing agri-food tech: Covid-19 and the politics of expectation. The Journal of Peasant Studies 48 (5): 910–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudy, A.P., D. Coppin, J. Konefal, B.T. Shaw, T.V. Eyck, C. Harris, and L. Busch. 2007. Universities in the age of corporate science: The UC Berkeley-Novartis controversy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D., and R. Nelson. 2008. Three rules for technological fixes. Nature 456 (7224): 871–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scrinis, G. 2016. Reformulation, fortification and functionalization: Big food corporations’ nutritional engineering and marketing strategies. Journal of Peasant Studies 43 (1): 17–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scrinis, G., and C.A. Monteiro. 2018. Ultra-processed foods and the limits of product reformulation. Public Health Nutrition 21 (1): 247–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segal, H.P. 2017. Practical utopias: America as techno-fix nation. Utopian Studies 28 (2): 231–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton, A.E., T. Garnett, and J. Lorimer. 2019. Framing the future of food: The contested promises of alternative proteins. Environment and Planning e: Nature and Space 2 (1): 47–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonka, S., and Y.-T. Cheng. 2015. Precision agriculture: Not the same as big data but. Farmdoc Daily 5: 70–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, N., L. Di Silvio, I. Dunsford, M. Ellis, A. Glencross, and A. Sexton. 2018. Bringing cultured meat to market: Technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends in Food Science & Technology 78: 155–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser, O., S.R. Sippel, and L. Thiemann. 2021. Imprecision farming? Examining the (in)accuracy and risks of digital agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies 86: 623–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S.A., and F.H. Buttel. 1996. The political economy of precision farming. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78 (5): 1269–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S.A., and S.D. Wood. 1997. Precision farming: Environmental legitimation, commodification of information, and industrial coordination. Rural Sociology 62 (2): 180–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfert, S., L. Ge, C. Verdouw, and M.-J. Bogaardt. 2017. Big data in smart farming—a review. Agricultural Systems 153: 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are truly grateful for the comments of AFTeR Project team members Charlotte Biltekoff, Madeleine Fairbairn, Zenia Kish, Emily Reisman, and Summer Sullivan, participants in the STS Food and Agriculture (STSFAN) workshop of the paper, and three anonymous reviewers, all of whom contributed substantially to the intellectual development of this paper. We thank Benjamin Tinlin for analytical support and Karly Burch for shepherding the manuscript.

Funding

Research reported herein was funded by the National Science Foundation (Award # 1749184).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Community Studies Program, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA

    Julie Guthman

  2. Department of Sociology, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA

    Michaelanne Butler

Authors
  1. Julie Guthman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michaelanne Butler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Guthman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in the conduct of this research.

Human and/or animal participate

Research reported herein involving human subjects was conducted in accordance with the protocol approved by the University of California, Santa Cruz Institutional Review Board.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guthman, J., Butler, M. Fixing food with a limited menu: on (digital) solutionism in the agri-food tech sector. Agric Hum Values 40, 835–848 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10416-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10416-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation