Search

Intelligent farming systems increasingly depend on data generated through sensors, machinery, satellites, digital platforms, advisory tools, farm management software, and artificial intelligence-enabled decision-support systems. These systems promise more precise monitoring, improved resource allocation, and better responsiveness to environmental and operational uncertainty. As farm operations become more data-intensive, farm data shift from being a by-product of agricultural activity to becoming a strategic asset within intelligent farming systems. This transformation creates governance problems that cannot be resolved through technical data management alone. Farm data raise contested questions about ownership, consent, access, interoperability, platform dependence, accountability, and farmer control. These questions are especially important because data generated on farms may be used beyond the original farming context for commercial analytics, platform development, benchmarking, insurance, input recommendation, credit scoring, or supply-chain governance. The objective of this article is to develop a data stewardship framework for intelligent farms. The framework is designed to clarify how ownership, consent, access, interoperability, accountability, and farmer-control mechanisms can be organised in ways that support responsible digital agricultural innovation. It treats data stewardship as a governance function that mediates between innovation, commercial data use, and the protection of farmers’ decision-making authority. The article is based on a governance framework synthesis  peer-reviewed articles published. It does not present new empirical data. Instead, it synthesises literature on digital agriculture, smart farming, agricultural data governance, platformisation, responsible innovation, interoperability, and farmer data rights to construct a practical and conceptual governance framework. The article maps farm data as a governance problem, analyses ownership and consent issues, examines interoperability and platform dependence, and proposes a stewardship framework for intelligent farms. Three tables summarise ownership and control issues, interoperability risks, and the proposed framework. Responsible intelligent farming requires data stewardship arrangements that protect farmer control while enabling trustworthy data sharing and innovation.

The digitalisation of agri-food networks is increasingly presented as a pathway toward more intelligent, efficient, transparent, and resilient food systems. In this narrative, artificial intelligence functions as the analytical brain of the food system, converting dispersed data from farms, supply chains, markets, and consumers into actionable intelligence. This promise has become central to contemporary visions of smart farming, precision logistics, demand forecasting, and waste reduction. Yet the language of food system intelligence often conceals a more troubling political-economic transformation. The infrastructures that collect, process, and monetise agri-food data are frequently controlled by proprietary platforms, agribusiness firms, technology corporations, and data intermediaries. As a result, digitalisation may expand not only analytical capacity but also platform dependency, data concentration, and asymmetrical control over decision-making. This critical review interrogates the tension between food system intelligence and platform dependency in digital agri-food networks. It examines how AI, data infrastructures, and platform governance reshape farmer autonomy, market structure, and public authority. The review draws on critical data studies, political economy, agri-food governance, and platform studies to question the assumption that more data automatically produces more democratic or sustainable food systems. The review concludes that the central policy question is not whether AI should be used in agri-food systems, but who governs it, who benefits from it, and whose knowledge counts within it. Without deliberate governance intervention, digital agri-food networks risk becoming extractive data monopolies rather than intelligent public goods. A more democratic digital food future requires data sovereignty, farmer-centred infrastructures, public-interest governance, and stronger collective control over agri-food data systems.

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.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being embedded in agri-food supply chains through applications such as automated quality grading, risk scoring, demand forecasting, logistics optimisation, pricing analytics, and food safety alerts. These systems promise efficiency, resilience, and improved decision support, but they also reshape how decisions are made and who is affected by them. In food systems, AI governance is not only a technical issue but also a matter of safety, fairness, market access, and public trust. Existing responsible AI principles provide important normative foundations, including fairness, transparency, accountability, human oversight, and social benefit. However, these principles are often framed at a general level and do not fully address the distinctive structure of agri-food supply chains. Food chains are fragmented across farms, processors, logistics providers, retailers, technology platforms, regulators, and consumers, which makes governance more complex than in single-organisation AI deployment. This article develops a domain-specific Responsible AI Governance Framework for agri-food supply chains. The framework integrates four pillars: transparency, accountability, traceability, and human oversight. It argues that responsible AI in food must make algorithmic decisions visible, assign responsibility across distributed actors, preserve auditable records, and ensure meaningful human safeguards for high-risk decisions. The proposed framework specifies transparency requirements for different AI applications, maps accountability responsibilities across supply chain actors, connects traceability systems to auditability, and defines human oversight mechanisms for safety-critical and livelihood-sensitive decisions. Three tables operationalise the framework through transparency requirements, accountability allocation, and integrated governance mechanisms. The article concludes that responsible AI in food requires governance that is as distributed, interconnected, and safety-conscious as the supply chains it seeks to guide.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly used across agriculture and food systems for precision farming, yield prediction, pest detection, supply-chain optimisation, quality control, decision support, and resource management. These applications are often promoted as tools for increasing productivity, reducing uncertainty, improving resource efficiency, and strengthening food-system resilience. As AI becomes embedded in farms, supply chains, laboratories, and food governance infrastructures, its consequences extend beyond technical performance. The central problem is that the benefits of agri-food AI are frequently assessed through accuracy, automation efficiency, profitability, or optimisation metrics, while broader ethical, equity, environmental, and governance implications receive less systematic attention. AI systems may alter farmer autonomy, labour relations, data ownership, market participation, environmental decision-making, and institutional accountability. Treating these consequences as secondary risks understates the degree to which AI changes relationships among people, technologies, land, food, and power. This critical review examines responsible AI in agriculture and food systems through four connected dimensions: ethics, equity, sustainability, and governance. It argues that responsible AI cannot be reduced to technical reliability or model performance because agri-food systems are socially embedded, ecologically consequential, and institutionally fragmented. The article therefore evaluates responsible AI as a socio-technical and governance challenge rather than as a purely computational problem. The article contributes a critical argument that responsible agri-food AI requires accountable design, inclusive access, sustainability-aware evaluation, and multi-level governance. It emphasises that trustworthy AI in agriculture and food systems depends on who controls data, who benefits from automation, who bears environmental and social risks, and who participates in decision-making. Responsible AI is therefore positioned as a core condition for equitable, sustainable, and publicly legitimate agri-food transformation.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly promoted as a tool for improving agricultural productivity, food-system coordination, sustainability monitoring, risk prediction, quality control, and decision support. Across agri-food systems, AI is expected to support more timely decisions, more efficient resource use, and more adaptive responses to climatic, market, and production uncertainty. These expectations have encouraged investment in digital tools, analytics platforms, automated monitoring systems, and predictive applications. Yet the availability of AI tools does not mean that agri-food systems are prepared to use them effectively or responsibly. Readiness depends on the quality of data infrastructure, the strength of institutions, the capabilities of farmers and other users, and the maturity of governance arrangements. When these conditions are weak, AI implementation can deepen inequality, create dependence on opaque platforms, reduce trust, or generate risks that are difficult to identify and manage. This article develops an agri-food AI readiness framework that explains the conditions required for responsible and effective AI implementation. The framework conceptualises readiness as a socio-technical condition produced through the interaction of data infrastructure and digital capacity, institutional capacity and policy support, farmer capability and adoption readiness, and governance maturity and risk management. It emphasises that AI readiness is not a single technical threshold but a combined maturity condition across interconnected system dimensions. The framework contributes a structured way to assess whether agri-food systems are prepared to adopt, adapt, govern, and benefit from AI. It identifies how weaknesses in one dimension can reduce the effectiveness of the others, even where advanced technologies are available. By linking implementation capacity with governance responsibility, the framework supports more inclusive, trustworthy, and context-sensitive pathways for agri-food AI.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in agricultural decision support, farm platforms, automation, sensing, advisory systems, and data-driven management. These systems influence how farms interpret risk, allocate inputs, monitor environments, plan production, and respond to market and ecological uncertainty. As agricultural AI becomes more consequential, its governance must address not only technical performance but also the social conditions under which digital decisions are made, trusted, challenged, and revised. Agricultural AI governance is often framed around technical accuracy, transparency, regulatory compliance, or institutional oversight. While these are necessary, they are insufficient when farmers have limited influence over system design, data practices, model assumptions, recommendation logic, or dispute pathways. Governance weaknesses can produce exclusion, loss of autonomy, data misuse, algorithmic opacity, dependency on platforms, and digital decisions that affected users cannot meaningfully challenge. This article develops a participatory AI governance framework for agriculture centred on farmer voice, local knowledge integration, contestable digital decisions, and accountability safeguards. The framework treats governance as a socio-technical practice that connects design, deployment, monitoring, revision, and redress. It argues that responsible agricultural AI requires institutional mechanisms through which farmers and other affected actors can shape, interpret, evaluate, contest, and improve digital systems. The framework contributes to agricultural AI governance by showing how participation can strengthen legitimacy, trust, accountability, and contextual fit. It positions farmer voice as a condition of decision legitimacy, local knowledge as a condition of contextual accuracy, contestability as a condition of procedural fairness, and accountability safeguards as a condition of responsible institutional performance. Participatory governance is therefore presented as a practical foundation for agricultural AI that is more locally grounded, explainable, responsive, and accountable.

Agri-food systems increasingly operate under compound crises in which climate shocks, supply disruptions, market instability, ecological stress, and social vulnerability interact. These crises do not affect production, distribution, livelihoods, and food access in isolation. They move through connected risk pathways that can destabilise farms, supply chains, public institutions, and households at the same time. Artificial intelligence can support prediction, monitoring, early warning, and decision support in these contexts. However, technical forecasting alone does not constitute resilience when risks cascade across multiple domains. Agri-food resilience requires that predictive information be translated into adaptive decisions, coordinated response, and food security protection. This article develops a conceptual model of AI-supported agri-food resilience under compound crises. The model links climate shocks, supply disruptions, farmer adaptation, and food security governance as interacting domains. It treats AI as a decision-support function embedded within social, institutional, ecological, and market systems rather than as a stand-alone technological solution. The model identifies resilience mechanisms that connect risk detection, signal integration, uncertainty communication, adaptive decision support, institutional coordination, feedback learning, and accountability. It also clarifies boundary conditions that determine whether AI strengthens or weakens resilience. These include data quality, interpretability, local relevance, farmer participation, institutional response capacity, equity, and governance accountability. The article contributes a structured conceptual model for understanding how AI can support agri-food resilience when analytics are aligned with adaptation needs and food security objectives. It argues that resilient agri-food AI systems must connect prediction with human judgement, local knowledge, public action, and accountable coordination. The proposed model offers a basis for future empirical testing, policy design, and responsible innovation in crisis-sensitive food systems.

Smart farming is increasingly promoted as a pathway for improving agricultural productivity, resource efficiency, climate responsiveness, and data-driven decision-making. Its core technologies include sensors, digital platforms, machine learning, remote sensing, robotics, automation, and decision-support systems. These tools are often presented as mechanisms for making agriculture more precise, predictable, and adaptive. However, smart farming is not only a technical shift in agricultural tools. It also changes how knowledge is produced, how decisions are justified, how risks are distributed, and how farmers interact with platforms, advisers, suppliers, regulators, and markets. A critical review perspective is therefore needed to examine the social, institutional, political, and ecological consequences of agricultural digitalization. This article critically reviews smart farming as a socio-technical transformation rather than a purely technical modernization process. It examines how datafication, digital governance, farmer adoption, platform dependency, power asymmetry, and sustainability tensions shape the meaning and consequences of smart farming. The central argument is that smart farming should be evaluated through its effects on data control, farmer agency, institutional accountability, and ecological responsibility. The review synthesizes scholarship on digital agriculture, precision agriculture, smart farming, data governance, adoption barriers, farmer-centered challenges, sustainability claims, and responsible innovation. It does not treat technology adoption as a simple matter of farmer willingness or technical readiness. Instead, it situates adoption within broader arrangements of infrastructure, affordability, trust, knowledge, governance, and market pressure. The article contributes a critical synthesis of smart farming evidence and develops a forward-looking agenda for research and governance. It argues that smart farming futures should be designed around transparency, participation, interoperability, accountable digital systems, social equity, and ecological care. The review therefore reframes smart farming as a contested transformation whose benefits depend on how digital systems are governed, adopted, and made accountable.

Smart farming increasingly depends on data generated by sensors, machinery, farm management systems, remote monitoring tools, digital platforms, and decision-support applications. These data flows support agronomic decision-making, resource efficiency, traceability, automation, advisory services, and supply-chain coordination. As farm operations become more data-intensive, farm data becomes a strategic resource rather than a neutral technical by-product. Farm data creates governance challenges because its production, interpretation, exchange, and reuse are distributed across multiple actors and technical systems. Farmers, technology providers, platform operators, agribusiness firms, advisors, researchers, regulators, and supply-chain actors may each hold different forms of access, control, and responsibility. This creates ambiguity around ownership claims, interoperability obligations, privacy safeguards, consent practices, accountability pathways, and farmer agency. This article develops a layered conceptual framework for farm data governance in smart farming ecosystems. The framework conceptualizes farm data governance as an interaction among data production, technical interoperability, ownership and control, privacy and consent, accountability mechanisms, platform governance, institutional oversight, and farmer agency. It argues that these layers must be analysed together because weaknesses in one layer can undermine governance capacity across the ecosystem. The article synthesizes scholarship on digital agriculture, smart farming, data ownership, interoperability, privacy, accountability, platform governance, farmer agency, and responsible innovation. Rather than treating farm data governance as a purely legal or technical matter, it develops a socio-technical model of how data flows, governance responsibilities, and institutional safeguards interact. This approach supports a more integrated understanding of responsible data governance in smart farming. The proposed framework explains how farm data governance can be organized across technical, organizational, legal, ethical, platform, and institutional layers. It highlights the need for interoperable systems, transparent contracts, meaningful consent, privacy-sensitive data practices, accountable platforms, institutional oversight, and farmer participation. The article contributes a farmer-centered governance model for smart farming ecosystems that are data-driven, trustworthy, and accountable.

Smart farming increasingly operates through digital platforms that connect farm machinery, sensors, remote-sensing services, advisory systems, agricultural inputs, data analytics, and decision-support applications. Although these arrangements may improve coordination and service integration, their governance implications cannot be evaluated through technological functionality or productivity expectations alone. This article develops an original conceptual model for examining platform governance in smart farming as a socio-technical problem involving data power, platform dependency, value creation, value capture, farmer autonomy, and accountability. The model begins with platform ecosystem mapping, actor identification, and agricultural data-flow analysis. It then assesses how data access, control, portability, interoperability, asymmetry, algorithmic influence, switching costs, and service bundling may shape dependency relationships. A parallel value pathway distinguishes ecosystem value creation from value capture and distribution among farmers, platform operators, technology providers, advisers, suppliers, complementors, cooperatives, and public institutions. Farmer autonomy is examined through decision rights, informed participation, practical agency, human oversight, trust, digital inclusion, and access to contestation and remedy. The model further links identified risks to governance mechanisms such as data stewardship, transparency, auditability, interoperability requirements, participatory governance, farmer representation, accountability structures, and dispute resolution. Its main contribution is a structured framework for evaluating smart farming platforms through power, dependency, distribution, and agency rather than platform performance alone. The model supports conceptual analysis and research design but requires contextual implementation and empirical validation.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in precision agriculture through sensing, remote observation, predictive modelling, automated classification, and decision-support applications. Technical performance alone, however, is insufficient for determining whether these systems are responsibly designed or appropriately used. This article proposes an original governance framework that connects agricultural context definition, farm-data governance, transparency, explainability, accountability, sustainability assessment, farmer participation, human oversight, risk safeguards, implementation-readiness review, monitoring, and adaptive feedback. The framework treats transparency as a requirement for documenting data provenance, data quality, model assumptions, system limitations, and decision pathways, while explainability is positioned as a task-specific means of supporting interpretation rather than proof of model validity. Accountability is structured through explicit allocation of responsibilities among developers, platform providers, data stewards, advisors, farmers, and oversight actors. Environmental, social, and economic sustainability are assessed alongside digital inclusion, usability, local relevance, farmer autonomy, and trust-building conditions. The framework also addresses algorithmic opacity, bias, model drift, poor local calibration, data misuse, cybersecurity, automation dependence, accountability gaps, and implementation overclaiming. Its principal contribution is a layered, adaptive governance model for responsible agricultural decision support. The framework supports governance planning and research design but does not establish empirical validity, legal compliance, policy acceptance, farmer approval, sustainability performance, trust, certification, or deployment readiness.

Foundation models are becoming relevant to precision agriculture because they can connect sensing, remote sensing interpretation, multimodal data integration, knowledge retrieval, advisory communication, and farm decision-support workflows. Their broad capability, however, does not establish agronomic validity, trustworthy performance, operational safety, or deployment readiness. This article develops an original governance and technical safeguard framework for responsible agricultural foundation models. The framework treats these models as potential components of decision infrastructure and integrates trustworthy artificial intelligence requirements with data governance, validation, human oversight, farmer participation, monitoring, and explicit claim boundaries. It identifies requirements concerning data quality, provenance, documentation, transparency, explainability, interpretability, uncertainty communication, robustness, generalization, bias, fairness, privacy, cybersecurity, accountability, auditability, and traceability. It also maps risks arising from opaque pretraining data, uncertain data control, hallucination, factual error, agronomic invalidity, platform dependency, model drift, data drift, and unclear responsibility. Technical safeguards include data screening, domain-adaptation assessment, external and local validation, robustness testing, bias and fairness review, factual and agronomic checking, human-in-the-loop review, and continuing monitoring. Responsible deployment principles add purpose limitation, context sensitivity, incident response, withdrawal planning, and non-autonomy boundaries. The contribution is a structured conceptual framework that connects governance questions with technical evidence and accountable actors without claiming legal compliance, guaranteed trustworthiness, farmer approval, or deployment readiness.