The progress of civilisation has led to an increasingly global dimension in agri-food systems as well, with implications that are not all positive.
Defining an agri-food system is now more complex than ever, involving a range of factors and elements – including food processing – that are interrelated in ways that are difficult to control and predict.
Resilience is cited by many as an emergent property of the system – a direct consequence, I would say, of the increasing number of adverse events the system faces. Climate change is undoubtedly one of the main factors destabilising the system, but geopolitical relations take precedence, defining, governing, influencing and, unfortunately, also disrupting the stability of agri-food supply chains. Resilience is part of human nature, and conflicts have always stimulated (and funded) research and innovation, including in our sector, accelerating the achievement of results which, I am sure, would have been achieved in any case. Perhaps the process of commercial sterilisation would never have been developed by Nicolas Appert had Bonaparte not offered a prize to anyone who could find a way to supply preserved and safe food to the French troops engaged in the Napoleonic campaigns?
In fact, given the strategic importance of the invention, the process was kept secret until, in 1810, the scientist was able to choose between a patent and a cash prize. Perhaps the dehydrated food industry would not have developed had it not been for the world wars and the need to supply soldiers with food that was both lightweight and had a long shelf life? Perhaps local raw materials would not have been utilised or discovered to replace those that were no longer available or had become prohibitively expensive? Can we therefore attribute any merit to these conflicts?
All conflicts inevitably exacerbate food crises. We have seen this clearly with the Russia-Ukraine conflict and its effects on sunflower oil, barley, maize and wheat. We are seeing it with the conflict in the Middle East. Even if it were to be resolved by the time this editorial is published, its catastrophic global effects on the availability, accessibility and affordability of food will not be resolved. With the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, some countries have reverted to diverting crops intended exclusively for food to energy production as oil substitutes. In addition to oil, around a third of the world’s fertiliser trade passes through that strait. For the uninitiated, it is difficult to imagine the consequences this will have on crops and food security, even far removed from the locations and times of the conflict.
A 2025 research paper, published in a high-impact international journal, analyses the effects of geopolitical risks on global supply chains, with particular reference to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Among their conclusions, the authors argue that governments should maintain peace and strengthen cooperation. Countries and companies should develop resilient supply chain ecosystems capable of responding and adapting quickly to risks. Importers should diversify their suppliers of essential goods, whilst exporters should safeguard production and logistics. Multilateral cooperation should be strengthened rather than protectionism.
