On April 17th, 2025, the Berkeley Food Institute (BFI) hosted a critical conversation on the future of food between Dr. Tim Bowles, Associate Professor of Agroecology and Sustainable Agricultural Systems, and journalist and author Michael Grunwald—the evening moderated by New York Times National Food Correspondent, Kim Severson. The event was co-sponsored by the Berkeley School of Journalism, Casa Sanchez, Nell Neman Foundation, and the TomKat Ranch Education Foundation. It brought together journalists, food system leaders, students, and researchers to address ideas about food scarcity and the role of industrial farming systems. 

During Earth Month, a time when we widely appreciate our planet for its natural beauty, it’s important to recognize the extractive impacts of conventional farming and envision a future with a just and sustainable food system that does not cause further harm to our Earth. This event aimed to help food system leaders envision what that future could look like. 

Currently, most of the world is locked in a system of industrial agriculture, which is the leading driver of water pollution and shortages, deforestation, and biodiversity loss. It generates one-fourth of the greenhouse gases that heat the planet. But, are there merits to this system? Can it be reformed? That is what Michael Grunwald argued in his recent piece in the New York Times and in his forthcoming book, that the “greening” factory farms should be the future of food. The idea of reformed factory farms is at odds with BFI’s vision of a food system rooted in rural and urban agroecology, good food access, fair and healthy jobs, and racial equity. 

While there were many areas of agreement about the harms of the industrial agricultural system during the April 17th conversation, a main point of disagreement was how to achieve a more resilient food system. 

Feeding 10 billion—fact or fiction on the scarcity of food

Michael Grunwald is primarily concerned with “feeding the world without frying the world.” As the global population heads toward 10 billion by 2050, he calls for a responsible intensification of factory farming to produce 50% more calories per acre to feed a growing population that’s hungry for meat and biofuels—a task he deems impossible with the “kinder and gentler” approach of regenerative agriculture. 

But if the goal is to feed 10 billion people, we should ask the fundamental question: what should we feed them? And at what cost to their health, their communities, and our planet’s resilience? 

Are sustainable and healthy food systems that conserve natural resources and support thriving rural communities a pipe dream or a necessary radical shift? What is the role of the government in securing a healthy and sustainable food system? 

Dr. Bowles critiqued industrial agriculture for providing the illusion of cheap calories while driving soil degradation, crop failures, and persistent malnutrition worldwide. The current industrial agricultural system produces more calories than required to feed the global population, but all this food is not meeting our nutritional needs. We currently overproduce grains, fats, and sugars while underproducing fruits, vegetables, and proteins. This mismatch exacerbates malnutrition, obesity, and diet-related diseases globally. 

The agroecological alternative redefines “feeding the world” by prioritizing nutrient density, equity, and ecological balance. Agroecology integrates biodiversity, soil health, and traditional knowledge to create resilient systems that produce diverse, culturally appropriate foods without expanding agriculture’s land footprint. 

Dr. Bowles critiqued Mr. Grunwald’s yield-centric approach, noting that industrial agriculture’s “efficiency” relies on policies favoring monocultures, fossil fuel inputs, and corporate consolidation, not true productivity. He challenged the notion that doubling down on industrial agriculture is the solution, arguing instead that this approach is a sunk cost fallacy perpetuated by entrenched policy choices and powerful industry lobbying. Dr. Bowles emphasized that agroecology can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, minimize pesticide use for the benefit of farmworker health and ecosystems, and provide nutritious food for people on the existing land base.

Land sparing: fact or fiction of industrial ag systems protecting wild lands

Michael Grunwald argued that industrial agriculture, by maximizing yields on limited land, can “spare” forests and natural ecosystems from being converted to farmland. This is a modern iteration of Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution ethos with a modern twist: the threat of climate change necessitates the further increase of yields on even less land, only achievable with factory farming. This would theoretically spare our forests, which would act as a critical carbon sink. Yet, mounting evidence challenges this narrative.

Dr. Bowles pushed back on the assumption that higher yields automatically lead to land conservation, pointing out that increased profitability incentivizes further land conversion. He also critiqued the framing of industrial agriculture as a necessity to “feed the world,” arguing that the consumer demand for resource-intensive products like beef is manufactured by corporate marketing, not nutritional need. 

Reducing beef consumption by 30%, Dr. Bowles noted, could eliminate the need for land expansion.

There is no simple relationship between increasing yields and reducing cropland area. In fact, intensification often leads to more, not less, agricultural expansion, especially in regions with weak governance or high demand for export crops. For example, in countries like Brazil and Indonesia, yield increases in profitable crops such as soy and palm oil have gone hand-in-hand with rapid deforestation, as higher profits incentivize further land conversion rather than conservation.

Moreover, the land-sparing framework ignores the social and political realities that shape land use. Smallholder farmers often lose out to large agribusinesses, not because of efficiency alone, but due to market and policy structures that create an uneven playing field and drive land grabs. For example, old-growth forests are often targeted for conversion because market and policy incentives make it easier for corporations to acquire the land. Intensification can also undermine rural livelihoods and health while failing to guarantee that “spared” land is actually protected or restored for biodiversity.

The role of government in supporting transitions in the U.S. and globally  

The April 17th discussion revealed sharply different perspectives on the role of government, public investment, and policy reform in shaping the future of food and ensuring a just transition. Mr. Grunwald advocated for narrowly targeted investments in industrial agriculture reforms—such as methane reduction in rice paddies or manure management—arguing that these “measurable” interventions offer clear climate benefits without upending existing systems. 

Dr. Bowles, however, critiqued this as incrementalism. He asserted that policies like crop insurance and input subsidies perpetuate reliance on monocultures and chemical-intensive practices by shielding farmers from the risks inherent in conventional farming systems. This discourages innovation and the adoption of more resilient and diversified agroecological approaches. Dr. Bowles advocated for redirecting public funds toward practices that build agricultural resilience, such as cover cropping and diversified crop rotations, and emphasized the need for a just transition that centers equity and the voices of smallholder farmers. On the issue of crop insurance, this was one of several issues where the speakers found some agreement. The call for reform especially from two differing viewpoints underscores the need to overhaul the system.

The influence of government policy on agricultural transitions is clearly illustrated by Sri Lanka’s experience with its 2021 fertilizer and pesticide ban, highlighting the consequences of poorly designed policy. In 2021, Sri Lanka abruptly banned synthetic fertilizers without providing farmers training, organic alternatives, or financial safety nets, leading to a 20% drop in rice yields. However, this was not a failure of organic agriculture but of governance: the government neglected to implement a phased, decade-long transition and offered no agroecological training or support to rebuild soil health. 

Conversely, India’s Zero Budget Natural Farming program in the state of Andhra Pradesh demonstrates how state-backed transitions can succeed. Over a five year period, 800,000 farmers received subsidies for microbial inoculants, training in diversified cropping, and access to peer networks. As a result, the program achieved yield parity with conventional systems while slashing input costs by 90%.

Ultimately, the Sri Lanka-India dichotomy reveals a central truth: agroecology thrives under democratic, farmer-centered policies but falters under top-down mandates. As Dr. Bowles argued, the future of food depends on redirecting power and public funds toward practices that heal both land and livelihoods.

Mr. Grunwald’s skepticism of soil carbon sequestration and preference for industrial efficiency overlooked the evidence that agroecological systems, when adequately supported, can simultaneously boost yields and resilience. For example, in Kenya, push-pull pest management doubled maize yields without chemicals, while California’s climate-smart school programs feed 1.6 million children using diversified farms.

The challenge lies not in yields, but in dismantling those policies that favor corporate consolidation at the expense of farmer sovereignty.

The future of food 

The Berkeley Food Institute holds strong to our commitment of grounding debates about the future of food in the latest science and real-world practice. We thank Michael Grunwald and Kim Severson for joining us and contributing their perspectives to this urgent dialogue. At BFI, our research, policy, and education programs—spanning the Center for Diversified Farming Systems, policy partnerships, and hands-on student training—demonstrate that the solutions to our climate and nutrition crises require a shift toward agroecology and diversified farming systems. 

The evidence is clear: agroecological approaches can feed people with healthy, nutrient-dense food while also supporting thriving, just, and resilient communities and farms. We remain a resource for journalists, policymakers, and all those seeking to understand how the latest science and on-the-ground experience point the way to food systems that nourish both people and the planet.