Search

Digital food systems promise to connect farms, processors, logistics providers, retailers, regulators, and consumers through continuous data exchange. In this vision, production conditions, quality records, traceability events, safety alerts, inventory signals, and sustainability indicators move across the food chain as shared informational infrastructure. Yet the operational reality remains far less integrated, with food data often fragmented across systems that cannot easily communicate. The central problem is that existing debates frequently treat interoperability as a technical matter of software connection, data standards, or platform implementation. Such accounts understate the systemic, organizational, and political conditions that make data exchange difficult even when digital technologies are available. The result is a persistent gap between the promise of farm-to-fork data continuity and the practical experience of disconnection. This article develops a theory of data frictions in digital food systems. Data frictions are conceptualised as points of resistance, incompatibility, and disconnection that interrupt data flow between heterogeneous food system actors. The objective is to explain why interoperability fails across farms, processors, retailers, and regulators despite growing investment in digital agriculture, traceability systems, blockchain platforms, and data governance frameworks. The article adopts a conceptual theory-building approach based on a synthesis of 26 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2017 and 2025. It draws on information systems, food supply chain management, agricultural data governance, platform studies, and organizational theory. The synthesis does not present new empirical data but uses existing evidence to construct a theoretical explanation of interoperability failure. The theory identifies four interrelated categories of data friction: technical, semantic, organizational, and political. These frictions manifest differently across the farm-processor-retailer-regulator nexus but jointly undermine coordination, traceability, accountability, and digital transformation. The article argues that data frictions are not peripheral glitches but structural features of digital food systems, requiring governance innovation, shared standards, and incentive alignment across the chain.

Agricultural data markets are becoming integral to precision farming as data generated by sensors, machinery, remote-sensing systems, farm-management platforms, advisory services, supply chains, and public information infrastructures acquire operational and economic value. However, the expansion of data exchange creates policy challenges that cannot be assessed through innovation, productivity, or monetization potential alone. This article develops an original policy framework that connects agricultural data-market boundaries, actors, data flows, ownership claims, access arrangements, effective control, farmer participation, privacy, competition, platform power, interoperability, fair exchange, accountability, and implementation safeguards. The framework distinguishes data ownership from access, control, portability, consent, and practical farmer agency. It also treats privacy protection as one component of a wider governance architecture that must address platform dependency, market concentration, switching costs, asymmetric information, bargaining-power imbalances, data-intermediary influence, and unclear accountability. Interoperability is conceptualized as a combination of technical, semantic, organizational, and governance conditions rather than as a sufficient guarantee of fair exchange. The framework further identifies policy gaps involving ambiguous rights, fragmented portability, weak consent, opaque value capture, deficient dispute pathways, and limited monitoring capacity. Its principal contribution is a structured policy-analysis model that links risk identification to context-sensitive safeguards, stakeholder feedback, monitoring, and framework updating. The framework supports policy-oriented analysis but does not independently establish legal compliance, guarantee farmer protection, certify market fairness, or demonstrate implementation readiness.