Integrating nutritional and geopolitical considerations into transformative science, technology, and innovation policies: the case of vertical farming

Published on September 24th, 2024

Novel technological developments (1) in vertical farming systems (VFS) are highly relevant to policymakers who concern themselves with the future of the food supply. VFS are multilayered indoor crop production systems that use specialized substrates and artificial light to grow produce, mainly leafy greens and herbs. VFS play an important role in tackling malnutrition, particularly in urbanized areas. In addition to human health concerns, innovation policies should promote VFS development from the perspectives of planetary health and geopolitical dynamics that impact food security. However, current policy debates regarding these issues often take place independently from one another. To address the grand challenges of our time, it is essential that policymakers integrate these considerations into coherent and comprehensive science, technology, and innovation (STI) policies geared toward transformative change in food provisioning. VFS offer an opportunity to do so.

Vertical farming and public health: addressing the double burden of malnutrition

The controlled growth conditions in VFS allow for standardized plant production, regardless of location or outdoor conditions (2). VFS, therefore, have been hailed (3) as a promising road toward complementing or replacing existing crop supply chains, thereby reducing emissions from food transport. Another reason to incorporate indoor crop farming in STI policies is public health concerns. By investing in VFS-related research, we would address the ‘double burden of malnutrition’ (4), which refers to the co-existence in an individual of undernutrition and being overweight. The changing consumption patterns we observe globally imply a shift from infectious diseases to noncommunicable diseases, for which a diet that is rich in vegetables may serve as part of the solution. VFS can play a role in promoting such diet choices, e.g., by abating the development of so-called food deserts in urban areas, that is, neighborhoods where residents lack sufficient access to fresh produce. Research shows that, for consumers, proximity to shops providing vegetables is important, while store quality and product freshness also influence shopping and diet patterns (5).

Planetary health and VFS: a mixed but evolving picture

Despite the above considerations, vertical farming remains an “underexplored component of the sustainable food portfolio” (6). The mixed performance of indoor agricultural production in terms of environmental sustainability is one of the reasons for its slow uptake. The closed nature of VFS enables optimum fertilizer use and eliminates the need for pesticides. Furthermore, it allows for the near total recycling of transpired water. The latter can also be achieved in closed, water-saving greenhouses, but VFS do better in terms of light pollution. However, high energy demands of VFS present a major challenge. Next to the need to provide the plants with sufficient light (photosynthetically active radiation), heating, cooling, and ventilation, as well as a farm’s IT infrastructure, all need electricity. In the absence of green energy-based solutions (7), VFS crops have a climate footprint that exceeds that of conventional agricultural produce. Rising energy prices make vertical indoor farms unable to compete with open-field crop production and greenhouse farming and have contributed to a recent wave of bankruptcies among vertical farming startups (8). Therefore, the technological innovations modeled by Kaiser et al. (1) in their Frontiers in Science lead article are highly relevant. Their findings show that dynamic climate control strategies based on novel sensor technology enable light intensity patterns to respond to changes in electricity prices. This saves energy costs without reducing biomass yields.

Toward transformative STI policies

The possible roles of VFS in combating food deserts and malnutrition may be reasons to prioritize efforts at further reducing the carbon footprint of indoor farming production units with innovative policies. However, STI policies that zoom in on controlled-environment agriculture merely to increase the cost-efficiency and profitability of VFS are poorly informed. They overlook the complex relationship between innovation and sustainability in the agri-food system (9) and ignore broader discussions about what counts as meaningful innovation toward transformative societal change (10) (including ‘ex-novation’: de-investing in certain technological and infrastructural directions). As an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) working group recently posited, the disconnect between traditional innovation funding programs and wider societal and policy debates on the potentiality and need for fundamental change renders current STI policies “ill-equipped to handle the challenges of the present era (11).” Our understanding of the complex challenges confronting humanity and the planet as a result of climate change, resource depletion, and ongoing global inequalities in wealth and health has deepened significantly in recent years. There is a need to translate these insights into research and innovation policies. Horizon Europe, the European Union’s key funding program for research and innovation, for example, is investing heavily in policies supporting food systems approaches to drive transformative change in food provisioning, demand, and waste management (12).

Appreciating VFS from a systems perspective in STI policy

We need to ask ourselves whether VFS can and/or should play a role in future food provisioning when taking a broader perspective on transformative solutions to our societal and planetary challenges. One could argue that stimulating controlled-environment agriculture by investing in VFS energy efficiency presents a mere technical fix to our socioecological crisis, if not the next step toward the over-industrialization of our food system. For technology to serve as a solution to agri-food-system-related crises, it cannot be viewed in isolation. From a systems perspective on STI, innovation policy needs to question assumptions underlying investment decisions that seem self-evident in present-day food supply systems. Given the increasing geopolitical risks, these include assumptions regarding multinational cooperation and smooth global trade flows that inform expectations about competitiveness and linear economic growth. Armed conflicts across the world, notably the Ukraine-Russia war, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing changes in our global climate, have exposed the weaknesses in global energy and food supply chains (13). Viewed in this light, I see two distinct roles for VFS that are worth considering in STI policymaking. VFS can counterbalance a reduction in biomass production from much-needed policies toward extensification of soil-based agriculture and a rewilding of large areas of territory. Furthermore, and relatedly, in view of policies toward strategic autonomy and food sovereignty (14), VFS offer potential solutions to reducing dependencies on international food supply chains if indoor crop production is scaled up to an economically feasible level (15).

References 

1. Kaiser E, Kusuma P, Vialet-Chabrand S, Folta K, Liu Y, Poorter H, et al. Vertical farming goes dynamic: optimizing resource use efficiency, product quality, and energy costs. Front Sci (2024) 2:1411259. doi: 10.3389/fsci.2024.1411259

2. van Delden SH, SharathKumar M, Butturini M, Graamans LJA, Heuvelink E, Kacira M, et al. Current status and future challenges in implementing and upscaling vertical farming systems. Nat Food (2021) 2:944–56. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00402-w

3. Santos N, Monzini Taccone di Sitizano J, Pedersen E, Borgomeo E. Investing in carbon neutrality – utopia or the new green wave? Challenges and opportunities for agrifood systems. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (2022). doi: 10.4060/cc0011en

4. Food and Agriculture Organization, International Fund for Agricultural Development, United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, World Food Programme, World Health Organization. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2024 – financing to end hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in all its forms. Rome: FAO (2024). doi: 10.4060/cd1254en

5. Karpyn AE, Riser D, Tracy T, Wang R, Shen YE. The changing landscape of food deserts. In: United Nations Standing Committee on Nutrition. UNSCN Nutrition. Food environments: where people meet the food system (2019). 44:46. Available at: https://www.unscn.org/uploads/web/news/UNSCN-Nutrition44-WEB-21aug.pdf

6. Moghimi F, Asiabanpour B. Economics of vertical farming in the competitive market. Clean Techn Environ Policy (2023) 25:1837–55. doi: 10.1007/s10098-023-02473-8

7. Ahamed MS, Sultan M, Monfet D, Rahman MS, Zhang Y, Zahid A, et al. A critical review on efficient thermal environment controls in indoor vertical farming. J Clean Prod (2023) 425:138923. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138923

8. Guthman J, Fairbairn M. Speculating on collapse: unrealized socioecological fixes of agri-food tech. Environ Plan A (2024). doi: 10.1177/0308518X241265283

9. El Bilali H. Relation between innovation and sustainability in the agro-food system. Ital J Food Sci (2018) 30(2):200–25 . doi: 10.14674/IJFS-1096

10. Schot J, Steinmueller WE. Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Res Policy (2018) 47(9):1554–67. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011

11. Business at OECD. Transforming science, technology and innovation policy for transitions. Business at OECD Discussion Paper on science, technology, and innovation priorities for the 2024 OECD Science and Technology Policy Ministerial. Business at OECD (2024). Available at: https://www.businessatoecd.org/hubfs/2024-04%20Transforming%20Science%2C%20Technology%20and%20Innovation%20Policy%20for%20Transitions.pdf

12. European Commission Directorate-General for research and innovation, Achterbosch TJ, Getz Escudero A, Dengerink JD, van Berkum S. Synthesis of existing food systems studies and research projects in Europe – independent expert report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union (2019). doi: 10.2777/004919

13. Qin M, Su CW, Umar M, Lobonţ OR, Manta AG. Are climate and geopolitics the challenges to sustainable development? Novel evidence from the global supply chain, Econ Anal Policy (2023) 77:748–63. doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2023.01.002

14. Van den Abeele É. Towards a new paradigm in open strategic autonomy? Brussels: European Trade Union Institute (2021). Available at: https://www.etui.org/publications/towards-new-paradigm-open-strategic-autonomy#:~:text=The%20aim%20of%20this%20research,may%20have%20for%20EU%20action

15. Zhuang Y, Lu N, Shimamura S, Maruyama A, Kikuchi M, Takagaki M. Economies of scale in constructing plant factories with artificial lighting and the economic viability of crop production. Front Plant Sci (2022) 13:992194. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.992194

Copyright: © 2024 [author(s)]. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in Frontiers Policy Labs is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.