Search

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.

Food system transparency has become a defining demand of contemporary food governance as consumers, regulators, producers, retailers, and civil society seek clearer information about food safety, sustainability, provenance, and accountability. Yet transparency is still frequently reduced to traceability, understood as the capacity to follow a product through production, processing, distribution, and retail. Traceability remains essential because it can support food safety, provenance verification, recall management, and supply-chain visibility. However, it offers only a partial view of the decisions, data practices, and governance arrangements that increasingly shape food systems. The central problem is that traceability can show where food has been without explaining why food-system decisions are made, who benefits from data use, how algorithmic judgements are produced, or how affected stakeholders can question decisions. As artificial intelligence, digital platforms, automated decision support, blockchain systems, and data-intensive infrastructures become more embedded in food systems, transparency must include decision logic as well as product movement. A narrow traceability model may increase visibility while leaving power asymmetries, accountability gaps, and ethical risks unresolved. Transparency therefore needs to be reframed as a broader socio-technical condition. This Perspective Article argues that food system transparency must move beyond conventional traceability toward explainable, participatory, and ethics-centred AI. Explainable AI can make algorithmic decisions more understandable to producers, regulators, firms, consumers, and affected communities. Participatory design can ensure that transparency systems reflect stakeholder needs, rights, and lived realities rather than only institutional or commercial priorities. Ethics-centred governance can connect technical transparency with fairness, accountability, privacy, contestability, and public trust. The article contributes a conceptual framework for reimagining food system transparency as understandable, contestable, inclusive, accountable, and sustainability-oriented. It positions AI not merely as a tool for monitoring food supply chains but also as a governance object that must itself be explained, scrutinised, and democratically shaped. The proposed perspective highlights practical implications for food businesses, technology developers, policymakers, regulators, and civil society organisations. It concludes that transparent AI can support more trustworthy food systems only when traceability is integrated with explanation, participation, ethical responsibility, and accountable decision-making.

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.