Reimagining Food and Agriculture Governance: Law, Markets, Technology, and the Future of Food Systems at the 2026 SEALS Annual Conference
It was a pleasure to moderate the discussion group “Reimagining Food and Agriculture Governance: Farmers, Animals, Trade, Technology, and Climate Resilience” during the 2026 Southeastern Association of Law Schools (SEALS) Annual Conference.
Among the many strengths of the SEALS Annual Conference, the discussion-group format remains one of the most intellectually rewarding. Rather than organizing a sequence of formal presentations, it encourages genuine scholarly dialogue. Participants arrive from different legal fields, institutions, and methodological traditions, not to defend completed papers, but to think collectively about questions that increasingly resist disciplinary boundaries.
That collaborative spirit shaped our conversation from the very beginning.
The full post is available at https://paolofarah.wordpress.com/2026/08/06/reimagining-food-and-agriculture-governance-law-markets-technology-and-the-future-of-food-systems-at-the-2026-southeastern-association-of-law-schools-seals-annual-conference/
From Agricultural Law to the Governance of Food Systems
I opened the discussion by suggesting that food and agriculture should no longer be viewed as specialized areas of legal regulation. Instead, they have become one of the principal arenas in which many of the defining challenges of contemporary governance intersect.
Climate change, biodiversity loss, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, international trade, geopolitical instability, public health, corporate concentration, digital platforms, and global value chains are simultaneously transforming the conditions under which food is produced, distributed, regulated, and consumed.
The discussion therefore began with a deceptively simple question:
What should be the principal objective of agricultural law and policy?
Should legal systems prioritize productivity?
Food security?
Food sovereignty?
Environmental sustainability?
Climate resilience?
Animal welfare?
Rural development?
Technological innovation?
Or should they attempt to reconcile all of these objectives simultaneously?
Almost immediately, participants recognized that modern agricultural governance is defined precisely by the impossibility of maximizing every objective at once. Law increasingly operates not by choosing one goal over another, but by managing unavoidable tradeoffs among competing public values.
An example captured this challenge particularly well – policy resembles a blanket that can never fully cover every objective at the same time. Protecting one interest often leaves another partially exposed. That image became an informal metaphor for much of the conversation that followed.
Food Systems as Systems of Power
As the discussion evolved, attention quickly shifted away from food production itself toward the distribution of power within food systems.
Participants repeatedly returned to questions that are increasingly central to legal scholarship:
Who controls agricultural innovation?
Who owns agricultural data generated by increasingly digital farms?
Who determines access to seeds, genetic resources, fertilizers, and agricultural technologies?
Who ultimately shapes the rules governing global food systems?
Rather than viewing agriculture exclusively through the lens of farming, the conversation increasingly examined governance itself.
Governments, multinational agribusinesses, international organizations, retailers, financial markets, technology companies, certification bodies, and consumers all emerged as actors exercising different forms of regulatory influence.
The result was a discussion less about agriculture in the traditional sense than about the institutional architecture through which food systems are governed.
Corporate Concentration as a Recurring Theme
One of the strongest themes running throughout the discussion concerned the growing concentration of economic power across global food chains.
Participants discussed consolidation in seed markets, fertilizer production, meat processing, grocery retail, and food distribution, asking whether competition law and corporate governance have adequately responded to these structural changes.
Rather than treating concentration as simply an antitrust problem, the discussion explored its broader consequences.
How does concentration affect farmers’ bargaining power?
How does it influence food prices?
Does it increase vulnerability to supply-chain disruptions?
Can highly concentrated markets remain resilient during periods of geopolitical instability, climate shocks, or pandemics?
Several participants emphasized that resilience itself has become an increasingly important legal objective, particularly after recent disruptions exposed the fragility of highly centralized production systems.
The discussion therefore linked competition policy, corporate governance, international trade, and food security in ways that rarely occur within traditional disciplinary boundaries.
Technology: Opportunity and Governance Challenge
Artificial intelligence and emerging technologies formed another major thread throughout the session.
Participants explored precision agriculture, robotics, biotechnology, automated decision-making, digital platforms, and agricultural data as powerful tools capable of increasing efficiency, reducing resource use, improving irrigation, monitoring crop health, and strengthening climate adaptation.
Yet the discussion repeatedly returned to a broader governance question.
Technology does not determine outcomes by itself.
Its social and economic consequences depend upon the legal and institutional frameworks within which it operates.
Who owns agricultural data?
Who controls AI systems used in farming?
Will technological innovation democratize agricultural production or reinforce existing concentrations of market power?
Rather than treating AI as simply another technological innovation, participants increasingly viewed it as reshaping relationships between farmers, corporations, governments, consumers, and regulators.
Consumers, Markets, and Information
Another particularly engaging portion of the discussion focused on consumer behavior.
Participants debated whether consumers genuinely drive food markets through individual choices or whether purchasing decisions are substantially shaped by pricing structures, information asymmetries, marketing strategies, and corporate organization.
Examples ranging from grocery retail to food labeling, affordability, and dietary choices illustrated how consumer autonomy is often constrained by broader market conditions.
The discussion naturally expanded into behavioral economics, information disclosure, transparency, and the relationship between consumer protection and public health.
One recurring observation was that food which satisfies existing legal definitions of safety may nevertheless contribute to long-term public-health challenges.
This distinction between food safety, nutrition, and health generated particularly thoughtful exchanges concerning the objectives of contemporary food regulation.
Comparative Perspectives and Scientific Uncertainty
The conversation also developed into an illuminating comparative discussion concerning regulatory philosophy.
Participants compared approaches commonly associated with the European Union and the United States, particularly regarding precaution, biotechnology, genetically modified organisms, food safety regulation, and environmental protection.
Rather than presenting these models as mutually exclusive, participants explored the institutional choices underlying different approaches to scientific uncertainty.
Should regulation intervene before significant risks materialize?
Or should innovation proceed until measurable harm can be demonstrated?
These questions resonated far beyond agriculture, touching upon broader debates concerning administrative law, risk regulation, environmental governance, and evidence-based policymaking.
Beyond Agriculture
As often happens during successful interdisciplinary discussions, the conversation ultimately became much broader than its original subject matter.
Participants connected food governance with constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, international economic law, corporate governance, behavioral economics, competition law, public health, technology governance, sustainability, and global governance.
Agriculture emerged less as an isolated sector than as a laboratory through which larger questions about law and governance could be examined.
How should democratic institutions govern increasingly complex technological systems?
How should legal systems distribute the costs of ecological transition?
How can innovation be reconciled with justice?
How should responsibilities be allocated among governments, corporations, international organizations, local communities, and consumers?
These questions repeatedly transcended traditional doctrinal boundaries.
The Value of Conversation
Perhaps the most rewarding aspect of the session was not reaching consensus but witnessing the conversation itself evolve.
One question generated another.
One participant’s example prompted new comparisons.
Individual disciplinary perspectives gradually merged into a broader discussion about governance, institutional design, and the future of food systems.
That intellectual progression illustrates precisely why the SEALS discussion-group format is so valuable.
Rather than producing isolated presentations, it creates space for genuine scholarly collaboration.
The discussion confirmed something that has become increasingly evident across many areas of legal scholarship:
Food governance is no longer simply about agriculture.
It has become a conversation about how societies govern technological change, environmental sustainability, economic concentration, public health, international trade, biodiversity, and democratic accountability simultaneously.
For that reason, agriculture may now be one of the most revealing windows through which to understand the broader transformation of law itself.
I am deeply grateful to all the colleagues whose thoughtful questions, examples, disagreements, and comparative perspectives made this one of the most engaging and intellectually stimulating discussions of the conference. Their contributions transformed the session from a discussion about agricultural law into a much richer conversation about governance in an increasingly interconnected world.
Selected Bibliography and Related Research
The themes explored during this discussion group, including food governance, international trade, sustainability, climate resilience, biotechnology, intellectual property, artificial intelligence, global governance, and the relationship between science and law, draw on research that I have developed over many years. Readers interested in these questions may find the following publications useful.
Food, Agriculture, Farmers’ Rights, and Sustainable Development
Science, Technology, Policy and International Law. Routledge, 2024.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4590213
This volume examines how scientific and technological innovation increasingly shapes international law and public policy, including questions of food governance, biotechnology, environmental protection, and sustainable development.
Climate Justice in the Anthropocene and Its Relationship with Science and Technology: The Importance of Ethics of Responsibility. Connecticut Law Review 55 (2023): 819.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4350886
This article explores how climate governance requires balancing scientific uncertainty, technological innovation, intergenerational responsibility, and environmental justice—issues that increasingly influence agricultural policy and food systems.
International Trade, Global Governance, and Sustainable Agriculture
Global Governance and Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Information Society. In Handbook of Global Science, Technology, and Innovation. Wiley, 2015.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4042956
This chapter considers how global governance institutions interact with cultural diversity, local knowledge, and sustainable development, themes closely related to Indigenous knowledge and community-based agricultural systems.
Numerous earlier publications on:
- WTO Law
- International Trade Law
- Sustainable Development
- Environmental Goods and Services
- Climate Governance
- Food Security
- Intellectual Property
- Traditional Knowledge
- Farmers’ Rights
- Biodiversity Governance
develop many of the questions discussed during this session concerning trade, food sovereignty, technology transfer, environmental protection, and international regulatory cooperation.
Science, Technology, and Agricultural Innovation
Science, Technology, Society and Law. In Science, Technology, Policy and International Law. Routledge, 2024.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4590213
Examines how scientific knowledge, technological innovation, and legal institutions interact in addressing complex global challenges, including agriculture, biotechnology, environmental governance, and sustainability.
The Intersections Among Science, Technology, Policy and Law: In Between Truth and Justice. Routledge, 2024.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4590214
Explores the institutional relationship between science, technological expertise, policymaking, and legal decision-making.
The Interlinkages Science–Technology–Law: Information Society, Knowledge Economy and the Rule of Law. Routledge, 2024.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4590217
Analyzes how technological transformation reshapes legal institutions, governance structures, and public decision-making.
Artificial Intelligence, Digital Agriculture, and Governance
Although today’s discussion focused on food systems, many questions concerning precision agriculture, agricultural data, artificial intelligence, digital platforms, and governance connect directly with my broader research on AI governance.
AI Is Not Just a Technology—It Is a Governance Challenge (Series)
This series explores how AI transforms governance, institutional capacity, public administration, accountability, and the rule of law—questions that increasingly extend to agriculture, food systems, precision farming, and digital technologies.
Related publications include:
- Artificial Intelligence, Governance and Sustainable Development: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions (Routledge, 2026)
- Framing AI’s Role in Achieving SDG 16 (2026)
- Rethinking the Rule of Law for Sustainable Development in the Age of AI (2026)
Public Administration, Institutions, and Governance
Public Administration in the Age of Globalization and Emerging Technologies.
UMKC Law Review 88 (2019): 397.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3610427
This article examines how globalization and emerging technologies reshape institutional governance, regulatory capacity, and public administration—issues increasingly relevant to food governance and agricultural transitions.
Current Research
Epistemic Governance https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6487038
My current research explores how law structures the production, validation, and institutional authority of knowledge. Many questions raised during this discussion—including scientific expertise, food safety, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, climate science, and environmental regulation—ultimately concern who has authority to define knowledge within legal systems and how institutions allocate epistemic responsibility.
The full post is available at https://paolofarah.wordpress.com/2026/08/06/reimagining-food-and-agriculture-governance-law-markets-technology-and-the-future-of-food-systems-at-the-2026-southeastern-association-of-law-schools-seals-annual-conference/
Paolo Farah, Paolo Davide Farah