We know what is broken in the food system. Recent research reports that we need ‘A great transformation’ (Rockström et al., 2025). However, it seems that we have landed in a continuation of a business-as-usualattitude, or, as some say, even come to a stop (Brunori et al., 2024). Thus, one may ask, are we no longer working in meaningful ways toward the change we need to see happen? While we are receiving numbers and insights on the (mal?)function of supply chains, the degradation of soils and devastations of biodiversity, and the injustices based in (in)access to food and inclusion in the processes working towards transformation, I wonder whether we could, or should, approach the underlying processes of the food system differently. The problem is maybe not just what we are studying, but how we are studying it. Are we (too often) studying the food system based on questions and tools that limit our knowing, and hence our actions? Other ways to insights seem needed. With slow pace of change, maybe it is worth opening up the researchers’ toolbox, to explore freely and creatively outside the more established ways?
With this blog I want to argue that such exploration is essential. If transformation is not happening (to the degrees called for) despite our extensive knowledge, then we need to think and approach the problems differently.
If we consider the everyday realities of food production, we can imagine a baker who determines the dough’s readiness through touch, a farmer that understands soil health through its texture and smell, and the pollinators signaling ecosystem vitality through their buzzing. Such sensory, embodied, and multispecies dimensions fundamentally shape how food systems function. But conventional research methods often pass these aspects entirely. We count actors in the supply chains and measure crop yields, but miss the acoustic signatures of healthy soil, or meanings of sounds when we as eaters consume the food on our plates (cf., Gershon, 2019; Pink, 2015). What happens if we listen to ‘the way of milk’ – from the soils and the grass eaten by cows, to the milking machines and transport to the dairy? We could reflect on otherwise unheard aspects, talk of the processes, and hear our food. Sensory ethnography, including for example not only sonic, but also tactile, olfactory, and gustatory approaches, offers entry points into these otherwise ’invisible’ dimensions of knowing.
Thus, attending to what we have been missing might reveal not just hidden aspects of the food system, but also reveal pathways toward the transformation we seek. It could help reconnect us to the socio-ecological issues of our time (Moreira et al., 2026). Sound and soundscape (Schafer, 1977), in particular, offers a powerful entry point into these otherwise invisible dimensions of knowing.
by Daniel Lövgren
References
Brunori, G., Carzedda, M., Iliopoulos, C., D’Haese, M., Lanfranchi, M., Lerro, M., Martino, G., Pettenella, D., Van Passel, S., & Troiano, S. (2024). Has transformation of food systems reached an impasse? Considerations on the role of agri-food research. Agricultural and Food Economics, 12, 26. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-024-00308-8
Gershon, W. S. (2019). Sonic ethnography in theory and practice. In G. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.547
Moreira, T., Meesters, M. E., Kok, K. P., Legun, K., Ditzler, L., & Klerkx, L. (2026). Designing with Non-Humans: Leveraging Interdisciplinary Insights to Enhance Agricultural Systems Design’s Transformative Potential. Agricultural systems, 104512.
Pink, S. (2015). Doing sensory ethnography. Sage Publications.
Rockström, J., Thilsted, S. H., Willett, W. C., Gordon, L. J., Herrero, M., Hicks, C. C., Mason-D’Croz, D., Rao, N., Springmann, M., & Wright, E. C. (2025). The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy, sustainable, and just food systems. The Lancet.
Schafer, R. M. (1977). The Soundscape: Our Sonic Environment and the Tuning of the World. Knopf.