Eating elephants

Old riddle: How do you eat an elephant? Answer: One bite at a time.

If I had a penny for every time someone has told me that the food system is just too complex to change. How wrong they are. Going to the moon is complex, the food sector is not. It is, however, multi-dimensional and there is A LOT of it. That is where the confusion comes in.

And a lot of frustration. For my part based on the lack of sorely needed massive change. Lately I have been thinking increasingly about this lack of progress. While we see new food tech companies popping up left and right, we also see a fundamental lack of progress when it comes to the underlying stories and policies that frame the food system. I have started to believe this to a great deal is based on the misunderstanding that we deal with complexity.

It is something of a hard turn since I have been one of the acolytes of the need for systemic change in the food sector, with the words “systemic change” per definition implying complexity. 

When we perceive things as being complex we start acting in complex ways. We gather at international conferences, we talk about complexity and start building a framework of complexity; multi-layered and with a lot of vested interest in the complexity overhead itself. Such we stifle change, in the web of an artificial construct. Perhaps that is why we hear so much about the problems, when what we really need to hear about are the new stories, frameworks and policies that will guide our next gen food system? That should have arrived yesterday, by the way. 

Back to complexity. Think of the food system; so many varieties of food, farmers, producers, restaurants, transportation, cold, frozen, freeze-dried, cans, yeast, fermentation, cooking techniques, kitchen gadgets, celebrities, trade policy, health, carbon emissions, education, big finance, fast food, mega plants, green houses, land, Amazonas, over-fishing, diets, drinks, wine, social, aid, culture, etc. 

Can food be anything but a very, very complex system? For sure it is an enormous behemoth that runs the planet and everyone on it, but it is not one system, rather many thousands if not millions. Sometimes these systems touch one another but If you break them down you will find components that look pretty much the same. These components (and some can be super complex in their own rights, such as massive logistics operations) interact with each other according to the prevailing models of the day – the stories, policies and frameworks we adhere to. 

Or to put it more bluntly. If any of the systems in the moon rocket fails, the entire venture risks falling apart. But if you do not have potatoes to go with your chicken you can always substitute with rice. 

It might be interesting from the intellectual perspective to ponder how all these components connect and how all dominoes will fall, but at the same time it is futile. The old system must go and a new one rise from the ashes. It is far more interesting – and rewarding – to discuss how that happens. And there is a clear answer to that question: massive innovation. 

This is troublesome, mostly because we see so little of it compared to what we need. Especially when it comes to the new stories, frameworks and policies that we need. 

Can it be thanks to perceived complexity and the fig leaf the lack of a perfectly described food system gives to inaction? If so, we are to be sorry. If we need to know, understand and plan everything beforehand it will be hard to reach the target of a healthy and sustainable food system before we have burned ourselves to ashes. 

There is of course nothing wrong with knowledge or understanding, the question is how you get it. Were all the aspects of the French revolution known beforehand? Of course not. Frustration built up and suddenly it happened, with a lot of unknown unknowns in tow, you know, the stuff we don't know we don't know. And that stuff is pretty hard to predict and factor in. 

What you need to do in such turbulent situations is to roll with it. If you are unused to development and radical innovation the notion of change can foster consternation, resistance and an all-out war against new ideas. But innovation is not all that complex and does not need to be treated as threat. Innovation is rather a path you tread. It leads you somewhere and if you allow yourself to walk the path together with others with the same intentions and values, with good guides and reasonably good maps you will find unknowns and turn them into knowns, and, in the process, create lots of value. 

Which brings us to the meta value of innovation. Innovation is not just good for those who embrace it in their organizations, but also for the general understanding on how to create the future. In fact, innovation informs the understanding of in which directions and how fast we can travel to reach a better food system way more than complexity discussions do. 

So, please, put less effort on talking about how complex the food sector is and instead realize that we through massive innovation, not the least in the form of new stories, policies and frameworks, can eat this elephant very fast together, in increasingly large bites. 

If you are worried that things might go wrong and therefore resist change; rest assured, that has already happened. The only way out of this mess is forward. Fast. Through innovation.  

Johan Jorgensen

Partner, Sweden Foodtech