Search

Generative artificial intelligence is rapidly entering the food sector as a family of technologies capable of producing text, images, formulations, molecular structures, process scenarios, and synthetic training data. Its relevance to food manufacturing and product development lies in its capacity to accelerate experimentation, support creativity, and extend data-driven decision-making beyond conventional prediction. Yet the evidence base remains early, fragmented, and unevenly validated. This rapid evidence review maps the emerging literature on Generative AI in food manufacturing and product development from 2017 to 2025. The objective is to identify where applications are being explored, what opportunities are being claimed, and which risks and governance needs are becoming visible. The review focuses on Generative AI as a food system technology rather than as a general digital innovation. A rapid evidence review approach was used to synthesise 29 peer-reviewed articles relevant to Generative AI, food manufacturing, food quality control, product design, reformulation, digitalisation, food safety, and rapid review methodology. The review does not present new empirical data. Instead, it offers an accelerated mapping of a fast-moving field to inform research, practice, and policy. The evidence indicates that Generative AI is most visible in synthetic image generation, large language model support for food knowledge extraction, recipe and formulation assistance, hyperspectral data augmentation, and broader Industry 4.0 food manufacturing contexts. However, much of the literature remains conceptual, proof-of-concept, or adjacent to Generative AI rather than demonstrating mature industrial deployment. Risks are concentrated around validation, hallucinated outputs, safety claims, intellectual property, biological plausibility, and weak governance alignment. The review concludes that Generative AI has significant transformative potential in food manufacturing and product development, but this potential is conditional on rigorous validation and anticipatory governance. Without domain-specific standards, human oversight, transparent documentation, and regulatory engagement, Generative AI could amplify uncertainty rather than improve food system performance. A proactive research and practice agenda is therefore essential.

Foundation models and multimodal artificial intelligence are beginning to reshape agricultural AI by enabling systems that can integrate images, text, sensor streams, remote-sensing data, environmental records, and management information. These approaches differ from earlier narrow models because they can reuse learned representations across related tasks and support richer forms of agricultural interpretation. Their potential relevance spans crop monitoring, disease detection, advisory services, automation, forecasting, and agri-food decision support. Despite this promise, the transfer of large-scale AI systems into agriculture remains complex. Agricultural environments are biologically variable, spatially heterogeneous, seasonally dynamic, and shaped by management decisions that are often poorly captured in available datasets. As a result, questions remain about data quality, annotation adequacy, domain adaptation, validation, explainability, governance, and deployment risk. This scoping review maps emerging applications, data requirements, and deployment risks associated with foundation models and multimodal AI in agriculture and agri-food systems. It focuses on how the reviewed literature frames model architectures, data modalities, application domains, validation needs, and governance concerns. The purpose is not to estimate pooled effectiveness but to chart the evidence landscape and clarify where knowledge is advancing or remains unsettled. The review uses a scoping approach to organise literature around key concepts, model types, data inputs, agricultural tasks, implementation settings, and responsible deployment concerns. It charts relationships among remote-sensing foundation models, vision-language systems, large language models, generative AI, multimodal data fusion, benchmark datasets, and agricultural decision-support systems. It also identifies gaps in field validation, interoperability, low-resource contexts, participatory governance, and trustworthy deployment. The review contributes a structured synthesis of how foundation models and multimodal AI may extend agricultural sensing, prediction, automation, and decision support. It highlights that technical capability alone is insufficient for responsible agricultural use. Robust data infrastructures, context-aware adaptation, transparent validation, and accountable governance will be central to whether these systems support sustainable and equitable agri-food transformation.

Generative artificial intelligence is emerging as a potentially important component of precision agriculture through its capacity to create synthetic data, generate agricultural imagery, retrieve and reformulate knowledge, support conversational advisory interfaces, and assist decision-support workflows. However, evidence of technical feasibility is developing faster than evidence of agronomic validity, reliability, farmer-centred usefulness, and responsible deployment. This critical review evaluates generative AI as a distinct agricultural technology class, with particular attention to generative adversarial networks, diffusion models, variational autoencoders, large language models, vision-language models, foundation models, fine-tuning, prompting, domain adaptation, and retrieval-augmented generation. It critically examines the proposed use of synthetic crop, disease, weed, pest, and remote-sensing data for augmentation, class-imbalance mitigation, and label-scarcity support, while emphasizing image realism, biological plausibility, source-data quality, and synthetic-real domain gaps. The review also assesses generative decision support and advisory systems, distinguishing accessible language generation and knowledge retrieval from agronomically validated recommendations. Reliability concerns include hallucination, factual inaccuracy, uncertainty underreporting, poor local adaptation, robustness limitations, benchmark insufficiency, and failures of human oversight. Responsible deployment further requires data governance, privacy protection, accountability, transparency, explainability, farmer trust, digital inclusion, risk monitoring, and assessment of computational and sustainability costs. The review contributes an integrated opportunity-risk interpretation and identifies priorities for domain-specific benchmarks, synthetic-data validation, hallucination measurement, uncertainty-aware assistance, human-in-the-loop evaluation, farmer-centred design, governance documentation, and cautious field-readiness assessment.

Generative artificial intelligence is creating new possibilities for conversational access to agricultural information, farm data, and decision-support resources. However, fluent interaction does not establish factual accuracy, agronomic validity, farmer trust, or operational safety. This article proposes an original conceptual architecture for generative AI-enabled farm advisory systems in precision agriculture. The architecture treats conversational decision support as a governed socio-technical process rather than a standalone chatbot function. It connects farm advisory use-case definition, farmer query interpretation, heterogeneous agricultural data inputs, curated knowledge retrieval, generative model layers, response grounding, advisory-output controls, uncertainty communication, human oversight, expert escalation, farmer feedback, monitoring, and controlled system updating. Sensor observations, remote-sensing products, weather information, soil and crop data, farm-management records, and textual agricultural knowledge are positioned behind data-quality, provenance, documentation, and access-control requirements. Foundation models, large language models, vision-language models, multimodal models, prompting, domain adaptation, and retrieval-augmented generation are treated as optional architectural components whose appropriateness depends on the bounded advisory task. The architecture further distinguishes factual checking from agronomic validity review and separates farmer-facing explanations from advisor-facing evidence assessment. Safety and trust requirements include risk classification, hallucination monitoring, privacy, cybersecurity, auditability, farmer autonomy, explicit advisory boundaries, and escalation pathways. The principal contribution is a structured framework for designing and evaluating conversational farm advisory systems without implying autonomous decision authority, validated agronomic advice, guaranteed trust, operational safety, or deployment readiness.

Generative artificial intelligence is expanding the conversational and interpretive functions available within precision-farming decision support, yet fluent responses may contain factual inaccuracies, unsupported claims, fabricated evidence, agronomically invalid interpretations, local-context mismatches, or understated uncertainty. This article develops a conceptual artificial-intelligence safety framework for managing these risks in generative agricultural decision-support systems. The framework treats hallucination risk as a socio-technical safety problem rather than solely as a language-model defect. It links agricultural use-case definition, advisory-output classification, farm-level consequence assessment, data and knowledge provenance, retrieval and response grounding, hallucination screening, factual verification, agronomic-validity review, uncertainty communication, human oversight, expert escalation, farmer feedback, traceability, accountability, monitoring, and controlled updating. Generative outputs are differentiated according to whether they provide information, interpretation, scenario explanation, or recommendation-like content, because the evidentiary and review requirements increase with potential consequence. Validation is similarly separated into factual checking, external evaluation, local-context assessment, agronomic review, and future field-validation planning. The framework establishes decision boundaries against unsupported agronomic advice, autonomous farm action, hallucination-elimination claims, safety guarantees, and deployment-readiness claims. It also allocates responsibilities among developers, platform providers, data stewards, knowledge-base curators, agricultural reviewers, and farmers while preserving farmer autonomy. The main contribution is an integrated safety model for structuring how hallucination-prone generative outputs may be interpreted, reviewed, restricted, escalated, recorded, and updated within precision-farming decision support. The framework is conceptual and does not independently establish advisory correctness, operational safety, legal compliance, or deployment readiness.