Agroecology can be described as a science, a set of farming practices, a social process or a broader movement for food-system change. Natural farming, regenerative agriculture, organic farming and permaculture add further layers to an already diverse landscape of approaches. Rather than treating this diversity as a weakness, Anshuman Das argues that it reflects the ecological, social and economic complexity of food systems themselves.

Drawing particularly on debates in India, the article examines how competing definitions can become problematic when one approach is presented as universally applicable. Soils, climates, markets, cultures and farmers’ priorities vary considerably between territories, while policy and research frameworks often favour solutions that can be clearly defined, measured and scaled. According to the author, this can encourage simplified narratives and obscure the trade-offs involved in real-world food-system decisions.

The article therefore makes a case for greater attention to context, plural pathways and the questions that shape agricultural research, funding and policy. Rather than seeking a single dominant definition or model, it suggests that food-system transformation may require space for different approaches to coexist and evolve according to local conditions. The perspective provides a useful contribution to ongoing discussions on how agroecology is understood and translated from principles into policy and practice.