This groundbreaking scientific article emerges from an inter-university collaboration across Europe, with key contributors including researchers from Aarhus University in Denmark, Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands, and the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE). Their inquiry goes beyond surface-level assessments, delving into structural and systemic reasons behind the agricultural sector’s inertia. The crux of their investigation is a concept known as “lock-ins” — deeply entrenched mechanisms that sustain the status quo despite widespread recognition of the need for reform.

Lock-ins are not merely the result of ignorance or unwillingness. On the contrary, individual actors—ranging from farmers and corporations to consumers and policymakers—often express a genuine desire to shift toward healthier, more sustainable food systems. Yet, these aspirations are boxed in by fragmented policies, rigid market incentives, and prevailing cultural practices. The intricate entanglement of these forces reinforces existing systems, creating a self-perpetuating cycle resistant to change, no matter the evidence or advocacy.

One profound source of this inertia is the disjointed nature of policy frameworks governing Europe’s food production and consumption. Although the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) aims to provide a cohesive approach to agricultural matters, it operates within siloed realms where health, environment, trade, and dietary guidance function independently. This fragmentation not only breeds conflicting incentives but also dilutes the possibility of crafting synergistic solutions. For instance, subsidies prioritizing high output may directly contradict public health campaigns promoting reduced consumption of certain foods, thereby creating policy dissonance that stymies progress.

Complicating matters further are entrenched consumer behaviors and dietary patterns that are notably resistant to change. Much of Europe’s dietary culture remains anchored in high consumption of animal-based and ultra-processed foods, which poses significant challenges to environmental sustainability and public health alike. While consumers may wish to adopt healthier and more climate-friendly habits, altering long-standing food preferences is impeded by factors such as price sensitivity, cultural attachment, limited availability of alternatives, pervasive marketing strategies, and social norms that reinforce certain consumption patterns.

Adding another layer to the challenge is the dominant structural organization of the food economy, which prioritizes efficiency through large-scale production and low costs. This industrial paradigm has succeeded in making food widely affordable and accessible, but in doing so, it has also created rigid supply chains optimized for short-term productivity and economic gain. The consequence is a system ill-equipped to value long-term investments in biodiversity, soil regeneration, and climate resilience—investments critical to sustainable agriculture but often sidelined in favor of immediate returns.

Equally significant is the externalization of environmental costs, a phenomenon where the ecological consequences of food production—such as greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and water pollution—are not effectively internalized in pricing mechanisms. This disconnect between true environmental costs and market prices skews competitiveness, disadvantaging sustainable farming practices and masking the real impact of consumption choices. Without appropriate pricing structures, environmentally destructive practices continue to be economically viable, undermining efforts toward sustainability.

Overlaying these challenges is a growing climate of uncertainty and volatility characterized by frequent crises, from geopolitical shocks to disruptive climate events. This “new normal” of unpredictability exacerbates vulnerabilities in Europe’s agrifood systems, which remain optimized primarily for efficiency rather than resilience. The inability to anticipate and buffer against these shocks jeopardizes food security and further complicates the transformation journey, requiring new paradigms that balance productivity with robustness.

To confront this complex web of challenges, the research team underscores the necessity of interdisciplinary approaches that transcend traditional academic boundaries. The Nature Food article represents a concerted effort involving thirty-four researchers from varied fields including natural sciences, social sciences, and nutrition studies. Their comprehensive assessments span the entire food chain — from soil management and agricultural production to consumption behaviors and regulatory frameworks — providing a holistic picture of Europe’s agrifood landscape.

A distinctive attribute of the study lies in its refusal to seek a singular technical fix. Instead, it advances a set of guiding principles formulated to help policymakers, industry leaders, and civil society stakeholders navigate the multifaceted transformation process. These principles are designed to accommodate Europe’s diverse agricultural systems and socio-cultural contexts, promoting inclusive, transparent, and accountable decision-making processes. Emphasizing collective benefits over individual gains, they represent a paradigm shift in mindset necessary to overcome systemic inertia.

The authors illustrate that change is already underway in pockets of Europe, where innovative agreements and collaborative partnerships are operationalizing these principles. Examples include Denmark’s Green Tripartite Agreement and various initiatives fostering healthier diets alongside localized food systems. These initiatives demonstrate that leadership and holistic perspectives—not just technological advances—are pivotal to unlocking meaningful change in agrifood systems.

Looking ahead, the researchers advocate for coordinated scientific efforts to rigorously test and implement these transformative principles, accompanied by policy reforms that reconcile competing interests and align incentives across agriculture, health, environment, and trade. The path forward demands courage, commitment, and a comprehensive understanding that integrates ecological, economic, and social dimensions—a task as intricate as the problem itself but indispensable for Europe’s agrifood future.

By framing the transformation challenge through the lens of lock-ins and interrelated systemic dynamics, this research clarifies why progress has been frustratingly incremental despite consensus on the need for change. It also provides a roadmap that balances ambition with pragmatism, urging stakeholders to adopt a more integrated approach that recognizes the complexity and interconnectedness of food systems. Only by embracing this complexity can Europe hope to forge a resilient, equitable, and sustainable agrifood future in an era marked by uncertainty and urgency.

The implications of these findings resonate well beyond academic circles, offering critical insights for global policymakers, food producers, and consumers grappling with similar pressures. Europe’s experience serves as a case study in the difficulties of steering large, entrenched systems through transformative change—highlighting both the barriers and the opportunities inherent in such an undertaking. As the global community faces mounting challenges in food security, climate mitigation, and public health, the lessons articulated in this research will be indispensable in shaping inclusive and effective pathways forward.

Ultimately, addressing Europe’s food system lock-ins requires more than piecemeal reforms or isolated technical solutions. It necessitates a fundamental reimagining of how society values food, connects actors throughout the food chain, and prioritizes the common good over economic expediency. This research sets a critical foundation for such a paradigm shift, calling for a collective commitment to leadership, innovation, and holistic governance that can unlock the potential of Europe’s agrifood system to meet the demands of the 21st century and beyond.

Subject of Research:
Transformation barriers and guiding principles for the European Union agrifood system, focusing on systemic lock-ins affecting sustainability, health, and economic competitiveness.

Article Title:
Principles for guiding and unlocking transformation of the European Union agrifood system

News Publication Date:
1 June 2026

Web References:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-026-01360-x

References:
Olesen, J. E., de Steenhuijsen Piters, B., Nicklaus, S., et al. (2026). Principles for guiding and unlocking transformation of the European Union agrifood system. Nature Food. DOI: 10.1038/s43016-026-01360-x

Keywords:
European agrifood system, food system transformation, lock-ins, sustainability, climate change, policy coordination, dietary habits, environmental costs, market structures, resilience, interdisciplinary research

The Farm to Fork strategy, launched with the promise of fostering sustainable food systems across the continent, sought to reduce environmental footprints, improve animal welfare, and enhance food safety and nutritional outcomes. Complementing this, the Biodiversity strategy emphasized restoring natural habitats, halting species decline, and promoting ecosystem resilience. Together, they encapsulated a holistic vision for a more sustainable, health-oriented food system that could inspire policy innovation and cooperation across member states. Early reactions from environmentalists, academics, and international bodies suggested these strategies might indeed reflect a post-exceptionalist breakthrough—shifting agri-food policy away from isolated regulatory frameworks typical of earlier periods, towards integrative, cross-sectoral governance approaches.

Post-exceptionalism, conceptually, denotes a transition from narrowly defined, sector-specific policy-making typically dominated by parochial agricultural interests, towards a model that integrates environmental, social, and health concerns more comprehensively. In theory, this transformation entails expanded institutional participation, diversification of policy ideas, and greater pluralism among political actors. In this light, the EU’s nascent sustainability agenda appeared revolutionary. Yet, an empirical examination of practice reveals that while discursive broadening occurred—the range of sustainability issues considered did expand—the material institutional and political bedrock remained largely steadfast, preserving significant elements of traditional exceptionalism.

Candel and Daugbjerg’s systematic assessment highlights four crucial dimensions where post-exceptionalism might manifest: ideas, institutions, interests, and policies. On the level of ideas, the EU debate showcased increased recognition of multifaceted sustainability challenges. Traditional economic productivity imperatives began to coexist, at least rhetorically, with concerns about ecosystem services, climate mitigation, and public health nutrition. This intellectual broadening signals potential conceptual evolution. However, the authors note that such discursive openness, while necessary, is insufficient alone to drive fundamental policy reform without corresponding institutional and interest-based realignments.

Institutionally, the picture is ambivalent. The Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies invited broader stakeholder engagement and signaled an intent to remodel governance arenas to be more inclusive. Nevertheless, the ingrained power structures sculpted by decades of agricultural exceptionalism continue to constrain meaningful institutional transformation. Established bodies representing agricultural producers and agro-industrial sectors retain disproportionate influence. The procedural inclusion of environmental NGOs, consumer organizations, and scientific experts marked progress in form but did not decisively shift the power dynamic. Consequently, new governance arrangements remain layered atop, rather than replacing, traditional agri-food policy institutions.

Interest group dynamics reveal persistent cleavages emblematic of exceptionalism. Key agricultural lobbies and member states with major farming sectors maintain cautious or oppositional stances toward ambitious Green Deal objectives, fearing competitiveness losses, structural disruptions, and socioeconomic fallout in rural regions. The divergent interests complicate consensus-building and policy implementation. Meanwhile, emerging voices advocating for sustainability face uphill battles to sustain political momentum amid backlash and rhetoric framing these reforms as threats to food security and sovereignty. The contentiousness around pesticide use, fertilizer reductions, and land-use regulations exemplifies the fraught nature of contestation in this field.

Policy outcomes remain modest relative to the initial scope and rhetoric of the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies. Though some regulatory proposals and voluntary measures advance sustainability, substantive transformations in production methods, market structures, and consumption patterns lag behind ambitions. The authors emphasize that incrementalism persists, shaped by pragmatic compromises and political expediency that dilute transformative potential. Institutional resilience and vested interests collectively limit the scale and pace of reforms, resulting in policy packages that balance aspirations with entrenched exceptionalist elements.

This state of affairs prompts critical reflection on the trajectory and prospects of EU agri-food policy-making. The paradigmatic shift toward post-exceptionalism, while conceptually appealing and widely advocated, confronts formidable structural barriers embedded in the EU’s multi-level governance and political economy. The consumer-health-environmental nexus that the Green Deal sought to elevate clashes with the deep-rooted economic and social paradigms privileging agricultural productivity and rural livelihoods. The tension between innovation and continuity manifests in recurrent political pushback, stalling reform agendas and stirring polarized debates.

Moreover, the EU’s policy labyrinth is further complicated by geopolitical pressures, trade dynamics, and the ongoing challenge of achieving policy coherence across divergent member state priorities. The block’s regulatory capacity, though robust in many respects, is tested by the expansive and interdisciplinary nature of sustainable food systems governance. As the authors argue, navigating this complexity requires not only rhetorical commitment but profound institutional recalibration and an emancipatory reconfiguration of interest representation.

The Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies can thus be seen as pioneering yet tentative steps toward sustainable transformation that illuminate the constraints of partial reform. Their performance illuminates a critical juncture: the EU faces mounting pressure to move beyond symbolic gestures and patchwork initiatives toward deeper, systemic overhauls that recalibrate power and legitimacy in agri-food policy-making. Without such adjustments, incremental progress risks entrenching a hybrid status quo where sustainability goals are compromised or slowed by enduring exceptionalist legacies.

Policy analysts and scholars following these developments will look closely at subsequent legislative proposals, implementation patterns, and the evolving political economy of EU agri-food governance. Monitoring how institutional reconfigurations unfold and whether interest coalitions realign will provide key indicators of the Green Deal’s transformative potential. Likewise, tracking the translation of policy ambitions into measurable environmental and social outcomes will prove essential to assess whether genuine breakthroughs materialize or aspirations dissipate.

The broader implications of this analysis extend beyond the EU as well. Globally, agri-food systems confront analogous challenges—balancing productivity, environmental stewardship, and social equity amid complex governance arrangements. The EU’s experience serves as a salient case study of the limitations and possibilities inherent in pursuing holistic, sustainability-rooted food system transformations within entrenched political orders. Lessons from this region’s journey toward, or away from, post-exceptionalism could inform strategies elsewhere contending with similar dilemmas.

At its core, the EU Green Deal agenda challenges conventional policy orthodoxy about agricultural exceptionalism by integrating crosscutting sustainability concerns into the regulatory fabric. Yet, realizing this vision demands transcending rhetorical commitments and initiating substantive reforms that recalibrate institutional configurations and interest constellations. As shown in the meticulous work by Candel and Daugbjerg, significant political tensions and resistance persist, underscoring the unfinished nature of the post-exceptionalist project in European agri-food governance.

Ultimately, this analysis calls for sustained attention, strategic policymaking, and inclusive dialogue among a broad array of stakeholders if the ambitious goals of the Green Deal’s food system agenda are to be realized. The path forward will require innovative governance mechanisms that reconcile growth and sustainability imperatives, balance competing interests transparently, and embed science-driven policy at the heart of decision-making processes. Without such shifts, the promise of a healthier and more sustainable EU food system remains aspirational rather than actualized.

For advocates of transformative food policy, this study delivers a sobering reminder that structural change is painstaking and contested. The initial enthusiasm surrounding the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies must be tempered with a nuanced understanding of political realities and institutional entrenchments. This does not diminish the importance of these strategies but rather emphasizes the necessity for deeper engagement, vigilance, and adaptive governance to overcome barriers that threaten the Green Deal’s credibility and impact in shaping future EU agri-food landscapes.

As the EU continues to grapple with conflicting interests and evolving ecological imperatives, the coming years will be critical for determining whether its food system agenda evolves into genuine post-exceptionalism or remains constrained by longstanding exceptionalist frameworks. The stakes of this policy evolution are profound, touching on climate change mitigation, biodiversity preservation, rural sustainability, and public health resilience—not only within Europe but as part of broader global sustainability transitions.

Subject of Research: Analysis of EU agri-food governance transformations, particularly regarding the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies within the Green Deal framework, and their relation to post-exceptionalism in policy-making.

Article Title: EU Green Deal’s food system agenda fails to deliver post-exceptionalist breakthrough.

Article References:
Candel, J., Daugbjerg, C. EU Green Deal’s food system agenda fails to deliver post-exceptionalist breakthrough. Nat Food (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01174-3

Image Credits: AI Generated