1. Introduction

With the global population set to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 (UN, 2019), the pressure on agrifood systems to nourish the world (FAO, 2018) has never been higher, while at the same time staying within planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2020). With less than a decade remaining to achieve the 2030 Agenda (UN, 2015), the transformation of agrifood systems remains central to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, the environments within which food suppliers, producers, manufacturers and retailers operate within the agrifood systems are changing at an ever increasing rate. The global agrifood system is a complex space with numerous interdependent and interconnected features comprising many actors, relationships and processes as well as difficult to predict events. As these complex links between the farm-to-fork continuum and various environmental and socioeconomic factors become increasingly more evident, agrifood systems are being asked to evolve rapidly in response. This rapid evolution rests on the ability of agrifood systems to sufficiently anticipate, absorb and adapt to perturbations within and around the systems as well as to minimize the perturbations generated by the agrifood systems themselves on other systems. All of these complexities in turn affect the long-term needs of the current and future populations for sufficient, affordable, safe and nutritious food.

Throughout the world, in simple terms, food is kept safe by the collective efforts of all the relevant actors in the food supply chain: national authorities by establishing relevant guidelines and standards, food producers by adopting good practices, business operators by complying with regulations, and the consumers by being aware of safe food handling practices. This shared responsibility forms the basis of the slogan adopted for the annual World Food Safety Day, “Food safety is everyone’s business” (FAO and WHO, 2021). As agrifood systems evolve and respond to various challenges – climate change, globalization, resource depletion, growing inequalities, geopolitical instabilities, e-commerce, amongst many others – food safety needs to keep pace with these changes. Policies, guidelines, standards and regulations related to food safety need to be kept up to date or further developed to reflect the changing needs within the current system. Managing critical food safety deficiencies will foster the efficiency and resilience of agrifood systems and ultimately help achieve food security while ensuring global public health.

To keep pace with the changing dynamics, a shift from a reactive to a proactive approach is needed in food safety management. A structured, futures-thinking approach like foresight can be used to provide a better understanding of the various drivers and trends, under the evolving global context, to promote preparedness for future challenges or showcase avenues for optimizing opportunities (Box 1).

What is foresight?

While there are various definitions of foresight in published literature (see Table 1 for some examples), in simple terms it involves taking a systematic, medium- to long-term view of the future to appropriately guide present-day decisions.

Table 1. Different definitions of foresight

The fundamental thought-process behind the foresight concept involves acknowledging that the roots of multiple plausible future scenarios exist today in the form of weak and early signs that signal potential change. Monitoring these signs through systematic gathering of intelligence increases the likelihood of being prepared for emerging opportunities or challenges. Therefore, foresight recognizes that even though the future remains fundamentally unpredictable, it may be possible to actively influence and shape it, to some extent, to pre-empt undesirable scenarios.

Several factors both inside and outside the agrifood systems can either have a direct or indirect influence on the emergence of potential food safety hazards. Therefore, it is important to identify these issues at an early stage to mount timely intervention and perhaps even prevent their occurrence, i.e. marking a shift from reactionary to anticipatory approaches. Traditional monitoring and surveillance approaches, on the other hand, are only effective in identifying immediate hazards and risks in the food safety landscape; therefore, there is also a need to identify important medium- to long-term issues to facilitate preparedness for effective actions.

It is not only risks or challenges that need our attention from a foresight perspective. Keeping an eye on emerging trends and innovations that can have positive impacts on the food safety arena will ensure that there is ample time to weigh the pros and cons and therefore be better placed to take advantage of them as they materialize in the mainstream.

It is important to differentiate the role of foresight versus early warning systems in food safety. The latter are often geared toward responding rapidly to outbreaks, and sometimes even go as far as predicting when or where outbreaks may occur, based on climatic conditions, and known vector habitat distribution, among other conditions that tend to occur on a seasonal or annual basis (FAO, 2014). Foresight, on the other hand, allows us to ask what may be coming in the medium- to long-term time frame, how it might affect us and what can be done in advance to facilitate prioritization of resources and development of relevant strategies to bring about favourable outcomes in response to future threats or opportunities.

© Shutterstock/Foxys Forest Manufacture

What are the various foresight approaches?

Foresight is not a singular technique but a comprehensive set of different approaches that can cover a range of timespans and, depending on the nature of the issue at hand, can draw in participants from a wide range of relevant stakeholder groups, such as the scientific community, governmental and nongovernmental organizations, and private industry (FAO, 2014).

Foresight approaches generally focus on two major thematic outcomes: understanding trends and uncertainties, and guiding (inspiring, driving, informing) decision-making processes towards achievement of desired goals. The commonly used methodologies vary in terms of their qualitative, quantitative or semi-quantitative nature (Figure 2) (Popper, 2009):

• Qualitative methods can be used to interpret events and perceptions. Such interpretations tend to be based on subjectivity or creativity (e.g. interviews or brainstorming). These methods include horizon scanning, expert panels, conferences, workshops, surveys and so on.
• Quantitative methods measure variables and apply algorithms by using reliable statistical data (e.g. socioeconomic indicators) and generating quantitative projections. These methods include benchmarking, modelling, trend extrapolation and so on.
• Semi-quantitative methods can be used to quantify subjectivity, rational judgements and viewpoints of experts and commentators (i.e. weighting opinions or probabilities) by applying mathematical principles. These methods include Delphi analysis, road mapping, stakeholder analysis and others.

Figure 2. Various foresight methodologies

Source: Adapted from Popper, 2009, The Handbook of Technology – Concepts and Practice, reproduced with permission of Edward Elgar Publishing Limited through PLSclear.

Ultimately, the methods used in foresight exercises depend on the particular context and nature of the issue being examined, available resources for execution, as well as the desired outcome. Sometimes it is a combination of methods that is better suited to the particular purpose.

How does the food safety foresight approach work?

At the technical level of our food safety work, the foresight approach that best suited our purpose and limited resources was based on horizon scanning, defined as “…the systematic examination of potential hazards, opportunities and likely future developments which are at the margins of current thinking and planning” as well as being an approach that “may explore novel and unexpected issues, as well as persistent problems and trends” (DEFRA, 2002).

Our horizon scanning methodology consists of an exploratory approach where information is scanned and assembled from a wide variety of data sources, followed by prioritization, analyses and distribution of the scanned information. In short, our approach consists of three major steps (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Overview of the horizon scanning methodology followed

The first step involves regular monitoring and identification of relevant issues, changes, trends and developments, from a variety of different sources, such as scientific articles, media reports, published documents from various organizations (both UN and non-UN) of interest, and social media. Horizon scanning allows us to focus on areas of interest that not only fall within the traditional food safety information bubble (emerging contaminants, changes to regulatory frameworks, among others) but also pertain to areas – population dynamics, changing consumer diets, and sustainability and circular economy – that are external to the field and may have varied degrees of influence on the conventional food safety topics, thus developing an “outside-in” way of thinking.

© Shutterstock/Foxys Forest Manufacture

An important source of information is the diverse technical expertise within FAO that spans the spectrum of various areas representative of agrifood systems. In addition, FAO’s unique position (Figure 4) allows for exclusive avenues to collect and analyse information through engagement with a variety of sources on all aspects of the agrifood systems. These sources include national and regional food safety authorities, private sector stakeholders, and academia. Another key source, and at the same time receiver of information, is the Codex system through its various technical committees as well as the Regional Coordinating Committees. The latter draw attention to the countries’ needs and highlight emerging food safety issues arising from their respective regions, as part of their mandate.

Figure 4. FAO’s intelligence network

© Shutterstock/Foxys Forest Manufacture

An in-house repository served as a convenient collection point for the information gathered from the various sources.

The second step consists of assessing and interpreting the information collected using a range of criteria, such as novelty, likelihood and impact (Figure 5), through regular discussions within the food safety team. This prioritization of issues is based on several areas that have relevance to FAO’s food safety work. The results of the “filtered” information are then further analysed to pinpoint areas of interest that will need to be monitored for future work of food safety in particular, and FAO in general. These discussions eventually led to the streamlining of the scanning process with subsequent emergence of certain trends and drivers, which are discussed below.

Figure 5. Prioritization of emerging issues

The third step of the process is about effectively communicating the results from the process so far to a heterogeneous audience that can benefit from the information. Properly disseminated, this information transfer can allow us to collectively adapt to changing environments through the development of well-informed, actionable policies, and even build further collaborations and partnerships. The applications of our foresight approach include:

• informing internal FAO network to plan and facilitate relevant work;
• providing opportunities for collaboration with external partners; and
• communicating to a larger audience through publications and reports.

© Shutterstock/Foxys Forest Manufacture

Drivers of agrifood systems and related trends

Drivers are macro-level factors that derive from a broad spectrum of areas: societal, environmental, technological, political and economic. Drivers can be slow to form, but once in place cause changes with obvious wide-reaching impacts across a range of sectors, spanning different geographic areas and over varying time frames. The Corporate Strategic Foresight Exercise (CSFE) identified 18 major current and emerging interconnected socioeconomic and environmental drivers, which are shown in Table 2. The global agrifood systems both contribute to and are impacted by these drivers.

Table 2. The 18 key drivers identified by FAO's Corporate Strategic Foresight Exercise

Source: FAO Strategic Framework 2022–31 (FAO, 2021).

Identification and evaluation of drivers can be considered the foundational aspect of foresight analysis. In our effort to narrow down the multitude of drivers to those considered most relevant to our area of interest, i.e. food safety, we focused on a few key drivers in this report. They include climate change, resource depletion and scarcity, population dynamics (migration, population growth, aging population), innovations and technological advances, globalization, and changes in consumer behaviour.

Trends are recognizable manifestations of drivers. A single driver can also be referred to as a trend and can be intended as the pattern followed by the driver in an observable past, and by extension in a projected future. Multiple drivers can concurrently cause or affect a trend (Figure 6). Similarly, multiple trends can be traced back to a single driver. Analysing trends over a period of time can yield important insights into the future transformations in a particular field. For instance, by evaluating the different benefits and challenges associated with edible insects (Figure 6), which is an emerging issue linked to a growing trend of new food sources, the global agrifood systems can be better positioned to sustainably integrate this new food source.¹

Figure 6. Exploring the relationship between drivers and trends, as used in this publication, through the example of edible insects

The various opportunities and challenges associated with some of the drivers and related trends under consideration are discussed in the subsequent chapters