In my previous Foodlog article, New Proteins Need a Familiar Story, I discussed the high-tech side of the food transition. Mycoprotein, precision fermentation and cultivated meat promise a great deal: less dependence on weather, geopolitics and scarce agricultural land. But consumers do not want an abstract technology promise. They want to know what will be on their plate, how it tastes, whether it is safe and why they should buy it.

This article is the second part of that same discussion, but from the other side. Not high-tech food production, but farming that returns to improving the soil, increasing biodiversity, strengthening cycles, local origin and encouraging craftsmanship. Regenerative agriculture is often presented as the natural answer to an agricultural system that has become too industrial. But here too, the same applies: the consumer does not eat agricultural philosophy.

The wizard and the prophet on the shelf

In his book The Wizard and the Prophet, Charles C. Mann describes two fundamental ways of looking at the future of food, water, energy and climate. The “wizard”, following the agricultural scientist Norman Borlaug, trusts in science, technology and higher productivity: innovate, and everyone wins. The “prophet”, following the ecologist William Vogt, warns that humanity must learn to live within planetary boundaries: moderate ourselves, or we all lose.

That contrast is more relevant than ever when we look at what is happening in agriculture. Biotechnology, precision fermentation, genetic breeding and indoor farming are typical wizard solutions. Regenerative agriculture, soil restoration, fewer chemical inputs and working with natural processes fit the prophet’s view. One approach says: make production smarter. The other says: bring agriculture back within the limits of nature and landscape.

What is attractive about Mann’s book is that he does not force the reader to choose. Our food system needs both. Without technology, the challenge becomes too great. Without ecological boundaries, technology loses direction. So the question is not whether the future will be high-tech or natural, but how both approaches can become meaningful to people doing their grocery shopping.

Consumers feel that agriculture needs to change

Our latest report, Making Agriculture Matter, for EIT Food’s Consumer Observatory paints a clear picture. Many European consumers have little concrete knowledge about where their food comes from or how it is produced. At the same time, there is a growing sense that agriculture has become unbalanced: too industrial, too focused on scale and margins, too dependent on chemical inputs and too far removed from the farmer and the land.

That is why regenerative agriculture appeals intuitively. Consumers recognise in it something of the way their grandparents grew food: crop rotation, compost, care for the soil, following the seasons, less artificial. It feels ‘as it should be’ and therefore quickly feels healthier. But that is exactly where the vulnerability arises. Once the story becomes too nostalgic, people start to doubt its feasibility. Can this work at scale? Will it not become much more expensive? Is it not mainly something for small farms, idealists and consumers with deep pockets?

In the research, we tested several narratives. The most appealing story turned out not to be “back to the past”, but “old wisdom, new tools”. Traditional principles provide the philosophy; modern technology makes it credible. Not the horse and plough, but better machines, smart monitoring, careful breeding, data and short supply chains that truly add value. Consumers long for nature, but they do not want food production to become naïve.

‘Resilience’ does not sell

What is striking is that the principle of agriculture that can withstand external shocks, such as climate change and geopolitics, barely stimulates purchase intent. Consumers do understand that food security is important. But they believe that farmers, governments and companies should take care of that, not consumers themselves. Resilience sounds like crisis preparation: potatoes, grains, carrots, pantry cupboards. Important, but not attractive.

That is comparable to the lesson from biotech. There too, it does not work to sell consumers a system solution. Less land use, greater food security and less dependence on global supply chains are socially relevant, but on the shelf they rarely beat taste, health, convenience, price and trust.

The language of soil must become the language of food

Regenerative agriculture therefore needs translation. Not: soil microbiology, climate-adaptive breeding or carbon sequestration. But: more flavour, fewer synthetic inputs, a farmer you can see, and food for which independent parties verify what is being promised.

The report shows that taste in particular is a powerful hook. Consumers recognise the idea that supermarket vegetables may look perfect but taste watery. The claim that healthy soil leads to more nutritious food is more abstract on its own. Combined with taste, it becomes easier to understand. For fresh produce, the promise therefore lies above all in better flavour. And alongside that, in making origin visible, because if you do not know which apple tastes better and contains more nutrients, you cannot buy it either.

In that respect, regenerative agriculture differs less from biotech than it might seem at first glance. One sector must avoid its products being seen as “lab food”; the other must avoid getting stuck in “idealistic sustainable agriculture language”. Both need to make the shift from process to product.

Beware of the premium reflex

There is another pitfall. The more attractive the story about origin, farmer, landscape and care for the soil, the more expensive consumers expect the product to be. Transparency creates trust, but it is also translated into premium. That is risky if regenerative agriculture is to become more than a niche for motivated buyers.

That is why the sector must be very precise about what it promises. Lower prices are only credible if the business model explains them, for example through shorter supply chains or direct sales. Health claims require measurement and independent verification. Fewer synthetic inputs must be clearly explained and demonstrated. And “regenerative” must not become a loose marketing term without a recognisable standard or control.

No need to choose between lab and land

Anyone who reduces the options for the food transition to a choice between high-tech and a return to nature misses the point. The challenge is too great for one ideology. We need wizard solutions that produce more efficiently with less pressure on land, water and animals. We need prophet solutions that reconnect agriculture with soil, landscape and ecological boundaries.

But both movements face the same problem once they enter the market. They still speak the language of experts, policymakers and investors. Consumers speak a different language. They want food that tastes good, feels safe and trustworthy, sounds healthy, remains affordable and whose claims are confirmed by more than the seller alone.

The future of food therefore requires not only better technology or better agriculture. It requires better translation. Biotech should not be sold as biotech, but as familiar food made in a new way. Regenerative agriculture should not be sold as agricultural theory, but as food with more flavour, fewer unnecessary chemicals and an origin you can understand.

And then wizard and prophet can strengthen each other. Not as camps in a debate, but as two complementary and necessary answers to the same question: how do we make healthy food that fits within planetary boundaries and is actually bought, cooked and eaten by people?

This article is based on the EIT Food Consumer Observatory report Making Agriculture Matter: Toward consumer-centric positioning of resilient and regenerative agriculture and follows on from the earlier Foodlog article The consumer does not eat biotechnology. The reference to wizard and prophet is taken from The Wizard and the Prophet by Charles C. Mann.