What if we didn't treat people only when they were sick, but fed them in such a way that they stayed healthy? “Nutrition as a Service” (NaaS) is more than a technological concept. It is an attempt to incorporate nutrition into the infrastructures of the future – not as a cost factor or lifestyle choice, but as a systemically relevant prerequisite for health, resilience, and planetary sustainability. In the discourse on the Planetary Health Diet, the emphasis has often been on the what: plant-based, less meat, local cycles. But the how is at least as important. How do we organize access to healthy food? How do we personalize recommendations without creating new inequalities? And how do we scale quality in a system that has so far been optimized for quantity? This is where NaaS comes in—as a bridge between individual health knowledge and automated implementation. Since the personal chef with strong preventive skills remains a utopia, new business areas for individualized communal catering are opening up at the interface between wearables and other health data. Or, in the private sphere, through the use of Culinary Processing Units as multifunctional kitchen assistants with linked nutritional optimization based on health data provided via a secure cloud. NaaS combines personal health data such as genetics, microbiome, and metabolism with digital intelligence. Platforms analyze this information, calculate personalized nutritional profiles, and forward them to automated kitchens. Robots use this information to prepare individually tailored dishes – precisely, scalably, and with consistent quality. Real-time feedback, for example via sensors in wearables, allows this nutrition to be continuously adjusted. What is good for people is no longer a theoretical assumption, but is implemented in concrete terms. This is one way to overcome the mind-behavior gap. The result is a nutrition system that adapts rather than standardizes, that accompanies rather than prescribes – and that understands health as a dynamic process that must be maintained continuously rather than selectively. NaaS is thus a quiet paradigm shift: away from standardized nutrition for average people – toward individualized health care that begins with food. At the same time, NaaS opens up systemic potential: if nutrition has a preventive effect, it relieves the burden on health and social systems in the long term. If automated processes reduce food waste, the ecological balance is improved at the same time. And if personalized recommendations lead to greater self-efficacy and more enjoyment, a new culture of eating emerges – one that combines responsibility, mindfulness, and joy. The Planetary Health Diet reflects a globally applicable target range for healthy and sustainable nutrition. It is understood as a balance between ecological resilience and human health. However, in order to achieve this balance in practice, systems are needed that reduce complexity, support decision-making, and make it suitable for everyday use. This is where NaaS offers an operational complement: it translates the normative idea of the Planetary Health Diet into concrete, individual proposals for action. It creates a dynamic fit between global orientation knowledge and local, personal implementation. In this way, the Planetary Health Diet can not only exist as a model, but also become effective as an infrastructural practice – scalable, connectable, and adaptive. But what exactly does NaaS communicate? If we look at the term through a systemic lens, it becomes clear that it is not just a technical service, but a new form of self-description of the food system. This system observes itself – and in doing so develops new structures of expectation. It irritates itself. Because NaaS stands on the threshold between functionally differentiated systems: health, economy, science, politics, environment, and technology. Each of these systems operates with its own code—healthy/sick, pay/don't pay, true/false, legal/illegal, preserving/destroying, functional/dysfunctional—and NaaS attempts to temporarily link these codes without abolishing them. This linkage creates tensions. While the healthcare system aims for long-term stability, the economic system depends on short-term willingness to pay. The technological infrastructure promises efficiency, but must legitimize itself in relation to political and ethical standards. Nutrition thus becomes a medium of communication for risks, responsibility, and creative possibilities – but not in a neutral sense, rather always within a specific system that observes its environment. The fact that nutrition is now data-based, personalized, and automated does not change the operational coherence of the systems involved – but it does shift their mutual irritations. Nutrition thus becomes a risk concept: those who eat “wrong” cause costs. Those who eat “right” are acting responsibly. This morality is not an objective truth, but the result of communication – with corresponding consequences for participation, access, and self-interpretation. Nutrition as a Service could therefore be read as an attempt to stabilize communication about nutrition by offering technical infrastructures that operationalize individual decisions as system expectations. The central distinction shifts: no longer healthy/unhealthy, but appropriate/inappropriate for the profile. The body becomes a source of data, nutrition an adaptive response to algorithmically generated difference patterns. This raises the question of whether humans become too much of an object of technical control in such a system. When nutrition is no longer experienced but calculated, there is a danger that individual autonomy will be replaced by algorithmic accuracy. What begins as empowerment through personalization can turn into a subtle form of control – especially when decisions are no longer comprehensible but only appear logical within the system. In addition, the underlying data is highly sensitive. Those who process it gain deep insight into lifestyle, health, needs – and potentially weaknesses. The question of data sovereignty and digital ethics thus becomes a key issue for such an infrastructure. Trust is not created solely through functionality, but through transparency, participation in design, and legally enshrined limitations on access and evaluation. This form of nutrition generates new self-descriptions: humans are no longer thought of as eating bodies, but as controllable variables in the context of digital supply systems. Whether NaaS makes people more independent or creates new dependencies is not determined by the technology itself, but by how we talk about it, use it, and regulate it. A systems theory approach invites us not to make hasty normative judgments. NaaS is neither the solution nor the problem. It is a form of communication that shows how the food system reassures itself – under conditions of functional differentiation, technological dynamics, and ecological limitations. To be truly healthy, it is not enough to be fed. That is the level of feed: calorie provision, energy security, pure supply. But health only arises at the level of food – where food unfolds diversity, taste, textures, and culinary culture. Only nourishment closes the circle: a diet that not only satisfies hunger but also nourishes – physiologically, emotionally, microbially, socially, and sensorially. Enjoyment is not a luxury, but the evolutionary biological translation of “this is good for me.” Enjoyment connects the molecular level (nutrition) – including numerous bioactive substances beyond calories – with the experiential level of eating. While feed merely provides calories, nutrition establishes the functionality of physiological systems. Food as medicine describes its preventive or healing effects, but nourishment goes further: It encompasses the complex, holistic concept of nourishment that intertwines taste, identity, well-being, and regeneration. Perhaps this is precisely where the opportunity lies: thinking of NaaS not as a technological utopia, but as an infrastructural evolution. Not as a substitute for cooking, but as a new form of enabling. Not as a sacrifice, but as an opening. A future in which canteens become places of vitality, in which schools not only teach nutrition, but bring it to life. In which cities, alongside energy and transport networks, understand nutrition as infrastructure – FoodArchitecture. Because perhaps the healing of our system does not begin with medicine, but with a spoon – and the right system behind it. Gisela Hühn and Tilo Hühn

Traditionally, the law is a system that ensures order, protects existing institutions, and guarantees social stability. This conservative role has its purpose: it enables predictability, trust, and protection against arbitrary intervention. Especially in uncertain times, a stable legal framework appears to be an anchor in times of change. But this very strength can become a weakness if it prevents necessary change. Innovations that challenge existing practices, business models, or values encounter not only economic resistance but also normative barriers. The law protects the status quo—and thus risks blocking the future. But law can be more than preservation. It can also enable transformation. When new technologies bring not only technical but also social innovations, new products are created, but also new value systems. At such moments, a dual movement takes place: existing values are devalued – this process of devaluation affects not only material resources but also symbolic orders, legitimacy, and institutional authorities. At the same time, a revaluation takes place – new practices and norms gain in importance, are classified as sustainable or ethically superior, and receive social recognition or legal support. This transition is never neutral. It is negotiated – or enforced. Often, it is economically powerful actors who try to either prevent the devaluation of the old or influence the revaluation of the new in their favor. Lobbying, regulatory design, market monopolization, and strategic communication campaigns are means of exerting this influence. In this area of tension, the law is under pressure: Should it remain neutral, merely reflecting change? Or can—indeed, must—it take action itself and influence what will be considered valuable in the future by setting frameworks, standardizing, and shaping participation? This tension is particularly evident in food systems. The debate about meat alternatives, ecological and regenerative agriculture, and digital transparency systems in the value chain shows that those who determine what constitutes healthy, sustainable, ethical nutrition are not only negotiating taste or health, but also economic interests, cultural identities, and political power. If the law limits itself to a purely technocratic role here, it runs the risk of becoming a pawn of particular interests. If, on the other hand, it promotes new practices or restricts old ones without public negotiation, it risks losing its democratic legitimacy. The law therefore needs a new role: not as a static authority, but also not as a mere enforcer of market logic or technological narratives. We propose understanding this change as a process of regulated metasynthesis. By this we mean the conscious combination of devaluation and revaluation under active legal design, whereby the law not only protects or permits, but actively creates spaces in which new values can emerge and be legitimized. Such a legal system would not be reactive, but adaptive. It would not only regulate, but also continuously evolve. It would respond to technological developments as well as to social discourses, cultural practices, and ecological necessities. It would be open to uncertainty without becoming arbitrary—stable in its principles, but flexible in its application. Such an approach requires a new way of dealing with risks. Until now, regulation has often only been activated once damage has already occurred – whether in the financial system, data protection, or environmental law. However, it is clear that missed opportunities can be just as consequential as damage that has already occurred. If new food technologies are blocked for too long because old standards are not adapted, it is not only industry that loses out, but society as a whole. And when legal uncertainty prevents more sustainable practices from scaling up more quickly, the environment—and thus all of us—end up paying the price. That is why risk must be redefined in the context of metasynthesis: not as a mere threat, but as a tension between missed progress and hasty devaluation. In this sense, the legal structuring of devaluation and revaluation is a social negotiation process. Whoever decides what is considered valuable decides on participation, resource distribution, and shaping the future. This process must not be technocratic or exclusive. It requires democratic participation, transparency, and institutional independence. Meta-synthesis can only succeed if regulatory authorities can act independently, if legislative processes are open and transparent, and if public debates on value systems are permitted and encouraged. Our experience in working with food systems shows that new technologies are only accepted if they are not only efficient but also embedded in a narrative. People orient themselves by stories, by meanings, by cultural references. Law that ignores these dimensions runs the risk of losing its own impact. A learning legal system must therefore also be culturally adaptable—sensitive to narratives, compatible with everyday practices, and open to change. What we need is not a revolution in law, but its evolutionary opening. A legal system that does not remain stuck in the past, but has the courage to help shape the future – cautiously, reflectively, but resolutely. In a time of planetary crises and exponential developments, the future lies not in static standardization, but in the ability to continuously update. Only in this way can the law achieve what is expected of it: not only to regulate, but to create spaces in which the future becomes possible. Planetary health requires more than new products—it demands a cultural, legal, and economic meta-synthesis. Transformation begins in the mind—and culminates in the law. Gisela and Tilo Hühn

From the earliest days of farming, societies have relied on photosynthesis, sunlight, soil, and water to grow the food that sustains us. This reliance on nature has created a food production system that is both fragile and resource-intensive. What if we could break free from this dependence? Enter metasynthesis, a revolutionary process that bypasses the traditional biological systems of food production, allowing us to create food in entirely new ways. Through technologies such as CO₂-based protein production, fermentation powered by renewable energy, and the use of microbial processes, metasynthesis offers a glimpse into a future where food is synthesized rather than grown. Companies like Solar Foods and Calysta are already demonstrating the viability of these technologies, promising a more sustainable and resilient food system. Today’s global food system is heavily reliant on traditional agricultural practices, which come with significant environmental costs. Agriculture is responsible for approximately 26% of global greenhouse gas emissions and is a leading cause of deforestation, water depletion, and 70% of biodiversity loss. Industrial farming practices, driven by the need to feed a growing global population, have led to the degradation of soils, contamination of water sources, and the loss of ecosystems. Moreover, the system is increasingly vulnerable to climate change. Rising temperatures, unpredictable weather patterns, and droughts threaten crop yields and food security, particularly in regions that depend on subsistence farming. As the global population is expected to reach nearly 10 billion by 2050, these pressures will only intensify. Metasynthesis, by bypassing the natural processes of agriculture, offers an opportunity to not only decrease the environmental footprint of food production but also increase resilience in the face of climate change. One of the most promising examples of metasynthesis in food production comes from Solar Foods, a Finnish company that has developed a process to create a protein-rich product called Solein. Solein is made through a process that uses CO₂ captured from the air, water, and renewable electricity to grow microbes in a bioreactor. The microbes convert the CO₂ into protein through fermentation, much like how yeast ferments sugar into alcohol. What makes Solein so revolutionary is that it can be produced independent of agricultural land, sunlight, or weather conditions. In other words, it can be made anywhere in the world, regardless of the local climate or soil quality. According to Solar Foods, Solein has the potential to be produced with 100 times less water and significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions than traditional animal farming. This technology could prove especially beneficial in regions where agriculture is difficult, such as deserts or urban environments. Calysta, another key player in this space, is working on a similar process that uses methane-metabolizing bacteria to produce protein. Their product, FeedKind, is primarily designed as an alternative feed for aquaculture and livestock, but the underlying technology could also be adapted to produce protein for human consumption. A key advantage of metasynthesis is its ability to deterritorialize food production, effectively breaking the dependence on land and natural ecosystems. Traditional agriculture requires vast amounts of arable land, often leading to deforestation and habitat destruction to make way for crops and livestock. This process of land-use change has devastating consequences for biodiversity and contributes significantly to climate change through the release of carbon stored in forests and soils. By shifting food production into controlled environments like bioreactors, metasynthesis allows us to rethink the relationship between food and land. This opens the door for renaturation—the restoration of ecosystems that have been degraded by farming. If we no longer need to clear forests for farmland or overgraze pastures with livestock, we can allow nature to reclaim these spaces, creating new opportunities for biodiversity and carbon sequestration. The potential for renaturation is particularly significant in regions where agricultural expansion has driven significant deforestation, such as the Amazon rainforest. By removing the need for land-intensive cattle ranching or soy farming, metasynthesis could help slow deforestation and allow degraded ecosystems to recover. This shift represents a profound rethinking of food production’s environmental impact and could be one of the most significant ways metasynthesis contributes to sustainability. Despite its potential, metasynthesis in food production faces several valid criticisms and challenges. While these technologies offer exciting possibilities, they are still in their infancy, and there are questions about whether they can be scaled up to meet the demands of a global population. Technological Feasibility and Energy Intensity: Producing food through metasynthesis, particularly in bioreactors powered by renewable electricity, is currently energy-intensive. Critics argue that while this process may reduce land and water use, it could place additional strain on the energy grid. As the world moves toward decarbonizing its energy system, there is concern that using renewable electricity to grow food could compete with other critical uses, such as powering homes or electric vehicles. Additionally, while companies like Solar Foods and Calysta have demonstrated proof-of-concept, scaling these systems to produce food at a global level will require massive investments in infrastructure. The development of cost-effective and energy-efficient bioreactors is essential if metasynthesis is to become a mainstream solution to food security. Economic Viability: The high cost of developing and maintaining metasynthetic food production systems is another concern. While traditional agriculture has benefited from centuries of refinement and investment, metasynthesis is a new and relatively untested field. It remains to be seen whether these technologies can become cost-competitive with traditional farming, especially in regions with limited access to advanced technology. Public Perception and Acceptance: One of the more subtle challenges facing metasynthesis is public perception. For many people, the idea of food grown in a lab or bioreactor may be unappealing, particularly when compared to the deeply ingrained cultural and emotional associations with traditional farming. Convincing consumers to embrace products like Solein or FeedKind will require public education and a shift in the way we think about food. Additionally, concerns about the safety and regulation of lab-grown food products could slow the adoption of metasynthetic foods. Governments will need to develop robust regulatory frameworks to ensure that these new food products are safe, nutritious, and accessible to all. Potential Monopolization of Food Systems: Another concern is the potential for corporate monopolization of metasynthetic food systems. If the production of food shifts from decentralized, local farms to a few large bioreactor facilities run by major corporations, there is a risk that control over food resources could become concentrated in the hands of a few. This could exacerbate global inequality and create new forms of food insecurity in regions that do not have access to these technologies. Metasynthesis raises important ethical questions about the future of food production. If we move away from traditional farming and toward synthesized food, what does this mean for rural communities, farming cultures, and the relationship between humans and nature? Agriculture has shaped human societies for thousands of years, and a shift toward metasynthesis could fundamentally alter the way we live and interact with the environment. Moreover, the deterritorialization of food production could have both positive and negative impacts on the global economy. On the one hand, it could reduce the pressure on ecosystems, allowing for renaturation and the restoration of biodiversity. On the other hand, it could displace millions of farmers and agricultural workers, particularly in developing countries that rely on farming for their livelihoods. As we move toward a world where metasynthesis plays a larger role in food production, it will be critical to ensure that the benefits of these technologies are shared equitably. This will require thoughtful regulation, public engagement, and a commitment to making these innovations accessible to all. Gisela und Tilo Hühn

There are moments in history when the familiar no longer holds true. Then systems that were once considered unshakeable fall apart. What seemed certain yesterday—the baker's bread, the cow's milk, the meat on our plates—loses its self-evident nature overnight. Disruption through destruction is not just a technological or economic dynamic. It is an epistemic upheaval. A radical metamorphosis of what we eat, how we produce it, and what stories we tell about it. But destruction alone does not work, or at least not as desired. After the fire, ashes remain, but no forest. The real question is: How do we create a synthesis of what was and what could be? When food withdraws: Let's imagine a world in which cows disappear. Not because of a disease or a disaster, but because consumers want it that way. Plant-based alternatives such as oat, soy, and nut drinks are replacing cow's milk. Some people no longer drink animal milk, and what has been a symbol of food, culture, and identity for thousands of years may suddenly become a marginal phenomenon at some point. Cows are being stylized as both a problem and a victim due to their greenhouse gas emissions. But the revolution is stalling. Former pioneers of this movement are struggling financially. Traditional dairies are impressed, but far from defeated. New technologies are being anticipated. While many consumers are switching to plant-based alternatives, others are consciously reaching for a glass of whole milk again. The structural disruption is obvious: plant-based and biotechnological alternatives are changing markets, production methods, and consumption patterns. Nevertheless, it is clear that the change is not linear. A complete replacement of traditional products seems unlikely. Instead, hybrid solutions are emerging in which animal and plant-based products merge. Meat-like products can consist entirely or partially of plant-based ingredients, while milk is produced not only from oats but also through precision fermentation. The deconstruction of the linear food system opens up a new possibility: a circular metasynthesis in which waste, side streams, and by-products become resources and value chains are reorganized as value networks. But how is this change perceived? Does it generate acceptance—or resistance? The diet of the new present is becoming not only more ecological, but also more functional. Food is being rethought in biotechnology laboratories. The longevity trend shows that food no longer serves only to satisfy hunger, but is also used as a targeted intervention against the aging process. Polyphenols from plants, fermented adaptogens, or microbiome-optimized foods are not only intended to nourish, but also to ensure vitality and even extend life. At the same time, an epistemic tension arises between nature and technology. Algorithmically optimized food increasingly complements sensory experiences. Naturalness is being redefined – no longer as what has grown, but as what has been optimally composed from a biochemical perspective. The question of identity becomes unavoidable: nutrition is not only becoming a political decision between sustainability and tradition, but also a cultural conflict between high-tech food and culinary heritage. This raises the question of whether there is a limit to the extent to which we are allowed to synthesize food. Can we create a food system that is both optimized and remains sensually experiential? The impending change is also an epistemological disruption. For a long time, food was a space for experience, a knowledge that was consolidated over generations. It was grown, harvested, and processed—in a physical, tangible cycle that depended on the annual and vegetation cycles. Currently, it is increasingly becoming the product of algorithmic calculations, biotechnological processes, and synthetic optimization. Deciphering the molecular message of food and designing food composition not only nutritionally but also sensorially is part of modern food process and product development. The collision of these two knowledge systems raises fundamental questions. Is cell-cultured meat “natural” or does it represent a break with everything we know about food? Does the disappearance of agricultural land and animal production in favor of precision fermentation mean the loss of cultural memory? Will future generations no longer understand nutrition as a lived practice, but as a mathematically optimized supply? This change is not just a technological development, but a transformation of the way we construct part of our reality. We ingest food and metabolize it. Enjoyment plays a significant role in this process. Food is no longer just a substance, but a concept. The question of naturalness can no longer be answered in material terms, but becomes a social construct. Nutrition is becoming autopoietic, generating its own counter-narratives: while biohackers are committed to total optimization, a counter-movement is forming that focuses on wild game hunting, permaculture, and the renaissance of craftsmanship. This tension raises the question of who will shape the future of food—algorithms, corporations, producers, consumers, or all of them together? But how do we build a future that is not only sustainable but also tangible? Various approaches compete with each other. Vertical farming, aquaponics, and closed cycles offer a technological answer to the food question by producing food in highly controlled environments, independent of climate and soil. At the same time, regenerative agriculture is experiencing a renaissance. Soils are being made fertile again and cultivation methods are being adapted to natural cycles. In between, there is a third option: the world of synthetic biology. Food no longer grows in fields or gardens, but is produced in bioreactors. Precision fermentation makes it possible to directly synthesize proteins, including enzymes—which in turn enable targeted metabolism—fats, and other nutrients. These three systems exist in parallel, overlapping and contradicting each other at the same time. Some swear by the technological future, others by the biological heritage. But if we do not want to remain stuck in an endless battle over “right” or “wrong,” a metasynthesis must emerge—a fusion of apparent opposites. A food system in which all streams flow into the mainstream and waste or side streams no longer arise, in which biological traditions and biotechnological innovations are not seen as contradictions but as symbiotic forces. The never-ending food revolution The future of food will not be determined by a single technology or a single company. It will emerge from a dynamic interplay of innovation, tradition, resistance, and acceptance. But the real question is not only what products we will eat in the future, but what epistemic reality lies behind our food. The transformation of the food industry is taking place on three levels. At the first level, the material structure of production is changing: new technologies are shifting markets, value chains, and consumption habits. At the second level, this change is being reflected upon: acceptance and resistance, the collision between tradition and technology, between sensory experience and algorithmic precision. But at the third level, it is no longer just products or methods that are being discussed, but the conditions under which we can even think about food. The biggest decision will not be what we eat – but how we think about food and what perceptions and feelings we allow ourselves to have. But this future will not be determined solely by corporations or algorithms. It will be shaped in the fields, in the bioreactors, in the markets, in the kitchens, at the tables, and on the go—by the people who eat and, in doing so, perceive, think, and communicate. The new present of food is not only being invented. It is being remembered. Gisela and Tilo Hühn

Technology alone will not be enough to save us – awareness, education, behavioural changes and the power of civil society will all be needed if we are to increase the resilience of our food system. The combination of traditional agricultural knowledge and modern technologies could provide the key to developing regenerative and more robust food systems. How might merging digital innovation with regenerative agriculture shape the food systems of tomorrow? Observation begins in a space in which virtual reality and real-time data provide us with a direct insight into arable land across the globe. Intelligent sensors and deep learning structures provide us with a platform to immerse ourselves in the “moment.” This insight is enhanced by a flow of information from sensors that record everything from soil pH values and moisture levels to the microbiome (the community of microorganisms in the soil that are essential for both nutrient cycling and soil health). The backbone of this digital ecosystem is formed by a data infrastructure that monitors every aspect of the agricultural cycle and supplements the weather forecast with the condition of the top metre of fertile soil. The aim is not only to harvest crops, but rather to also simultaneously collect data that can be used to optimise processes from a resilience-enhancing perspective. This data is used to promote regenerative agricultural practices that aim to restore the soil, boost biodiversity and stabilise the local climate. Plants are not only viewed as a source of food, but also as key players in the carbon cycle. They are a part of this cycle and, together with microorganisms, microbes and the entire fauna, exert a major influence on the macrobiome (community of macroscopic – visible – organisms in an ecosystem or environment). New crops that are better adapted to climate change are identified and promoted. The transition from batch processing to continuous processing is revolutionising food production. Real-time data detection systems are making it possible to optimise every processing step. From adjusting machine parameters based on deviations in the composition of the raw materials to the integration of client feedback through the analysis of social media – a great deal is controlled in real time. The diversity in the composition of raw materials is no longer being countered with a system of selection and rejection. Instead, process variations allow for inclusion and customised utilisation with the highest level of quality. The end result is food that is not only more nutritious, but also more sustainable. By placing a focus on regenerative processes, products are created that have a positive impact on both the planet and people. We are creating an exponential food system by reducing food waste, optimising our supply networks and monitoring food security. An exponential food system utilises a data-driven approach that enhances the efficiency and sustainability of food production through continuous processes that are optimised in real time. In doing so, it makes use of technologies such as machine learning and real-time analytics. Access to fresh, high-quality food in urban areas represents an enormous challenge. Urban farming and aquaponics have the potential to make a contribution here. These approaches not only make it possible to cultivate food in urban environments, but also promote the local economy and reduce the associated environmental footprint by reducing the need for transport and storage. Aquaponics is a system that combines the cultivation of plants and the farming of fish. While the waste products of the fish are used as a source of nutrients to feed the plants, the plants in turn filter the water. These closed-loop systems may prove particularly valuable in areas where water is a scarce resource. Although genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a topic of controversy, they can boost the resilience of plants to diseases, pests and extreme weather conditions. Scientific studies and responsible regulation are essential here in ensuring both food security and environmental integrity. Algae, bacteria and fungi are all inconspicuous helpers in food production. Algae cultures are able to produce highly efficient, protein-rich nutritional raw materials in seawater tanks and bioreactors. Specialised microorganisms can produce food from waste products. Mycelium cultures not only offer benefits from a nutritional and physiological standpoint, but can also be used as a meat substitute. Using modified microorganisms, it is possible to produce nutrients as a basis for food in bioreactors. The media for this come from the agricultural sector, and this will remain necessary for a very long time to come. Cell cultures can likewise make a significant contribution to the decentralised production of food. While initial products are being launched on the market and consumed in various places around the world, these novel foods still have to prove their consumer safety in Europe. In particular, the challenges here lie with animal cell cultures and the production costs caused by the media and culture conditions. These hurdles are not quite so high in the case of fish and plant cells. For these culture techniques too, the culture media used to feed the cells come from primary agricultural production. Alongside urban agricultural innovations, exponential food technology is also highlighting the importance of efficiency, sustainability and health in the area of food production. Conventional food production, which is characterised by batch processes, is being revolutionised by continuous and self-optimising processes. The main elements of this technology comprise intelligent sensors, real-time feedback loops, predictive maintenance, the integration of client feedback, process redesign, supply network optimisation, sustainability metrics and AI-driven research and development. Switching from rigid, batch-based processes to dynamic, adaptable systems reduces food waste and improves process efficiency. Meat alternatives are becoming ever more important in our modern diet. While traditional meat consumption raises environmental concerns, plant proteins such as lentils, chickpeas and tofu as well as innovative meat alternatives produced using mushrooms, algae and insects offer more sustainable options that are healthier as part of a balanced diet. The aim here is to replace the protein powder extracted from plants by using complex, less processed raw materials from entire plant parts wherever possible, thus reducing the sometimes high degree of processing. Modern solutions are often more robust and, if implemented correctly, can facilitate a more stable supply chain. The key idea is already incorporating redundancy and diversity in the system at the planning stage (by design) as well as during construction (build in), which means that a single technological failure will not result in the paralysis of the system as a whole. Otherwise, the food system would become even more vulnerable than it already is today. The combination of urban farming and exponential food technology paints a picture of a future in which food production is decentralised, efficient and regenerative. Here, we are talking about a resilient food system in which everything revolves around plants, processes and products – optimised by pixels, the data that underpins intelligent systems. This might prove to be the way to achieve the necessary “environmental turn.” The vision is clear: a world in which food production adapts to constantly changing requirements, counters climate change and, at the same time, ensures that as few people as possible go hungry and biodiversity is maintained. Education will be key to realising this vision of the future. An informed population that adjusts its dietary behaviour, understands the technology and exploits the potential it offers together with global cooperation will ensure that this vision comes to pass. It will be a revolutionary journey, and it has already begun. Gisela und Tilo Hühn

We find ourselves at the cusp of an era in which food production is not only set to become faster and more efficient, but also smarter and more environmentally friendly. The basis for this revolution will be formed by a combination of advanced processing technologies, data analytics and artificial intelligence. For this to become a reality, however, we need a change in awareness, a change in our mindsets and nothing short of the reinvention of our food system. Exponential food technology is not only about increasing production capacities, but also improving quality and protecting our environment. It is ushering in a new era in which food is not only produced, but also created smartly in a manner that is tailored to meeting the needs and wishes of consumers and preserving our planet. Exponential food technology is an interdisciplinary, data-driven approach that draws on existing and new processing technologies with developments in the fields of machine learning, real-time analytics and sensor technologies in order to move from a standardised to a categorised food production system. A standardised system leads to exclusion if the required parameters are not fulfilled. The product can then only be used as animal feed or biogas or ends up as food waste. With categorisation, on the other hand, processing parameters and the formulation of the end product can be adjusted within certain limits, which means that the product can still be used as food for people. This innovative and more flexible framework paves the way for a transition from rigid recipes to dynamic compositions that are based on real-time data analyses and customer preferences. By replacing traditional batch processing (a recipe that is processed discontinuously) with continuous processing methods, this technology boosts efficiency (e.g. time, yield, space, labour) exponentially, reduces waste and improves the content of valuable ingredients (through the avoidance of time, temperature and oxidation stresses for sensitive substances). Thanks to these improvements in synergy, the technology represents an adaptable, self-optimising network that is able to gear food production towards changing consumer wishes and sustainability objectives while at the same time allowing for non-linear, disproportionate advances in terms of speed, quality, capacity, simplification and cost. The system can be adapted in line with regional differences and trends as well as to the availability of raw materials, a factor subject to increasing fluctuations in light of climate change. Our research team is applying this technology to the food sector for the first time ever as part of cocoa processing. Performing the extraction procedure at relatively low temperatures ensures that more of the primary aroma is preserved, the very quality that represents the specific characteristics of cocoa beans such as the variety, region and vintage of the raw material. Only physical processes are used here, with no solvents other than water being utilised. By using water, the concentration of acetic acid and other undesirable volatile acids is reduced markedly. Bitters and tannins can be removed and modified in a manner that means the composition of the end product can be adapted to the specific target group, allowing them to enjoy it and savour the sensation of harmony it delivers with little added sugar. Four essential elements are produced in this process: cocoa butter, flavouring, cocoa powder and dry cocoa extract. These components can also be processed in various configurations to produce a variety of foodstuffs and functional foods. The extraction procedure also allows for additional added value to be created by promoting the wider acceptance and utilisation of all of the products produced. This is achieved, in particular, by saving monomeric polyphenols, which are partially thermally destroyed during the conventional process and play an important role in the health benefits offered by cocoa and the products that contain it. We refer to the place where these innovative applications are implemented as a “labtory,” a fusion of the terms “laboratory” (a place of experimentation and innovation) and “factory” (a place of production). A “labtory” is thus a place of scientific discovery and technological development as well as a place of efficient production and manufacturing. A place where exponential food technologies are not only developed and tested, but are also used for large-scale food production. By combining these two concepts, the word “labtory” implies an integrated approach to food production that drives the development of exponential food technology forward. Plant cell cultures represent a further exponential process. Research conducted into energy production and conversion in cellular organisms has given rise to the innovative paradigm of “delegated photosynthesis.” Plants initially perform photosynthesis to produce a specialised complex nutrient medium. This medium then serves as the basis in a bioreactor in which plant cell cultures (e.g. cocoa or avocado) carry out further molecular upcycling. Interestingly, this process is refined in both stages, whereby the territorially bound plants from the field deliver primary photosynthetic products and the subsequent cell cultures improve the nutrient composition for human consumption. Current findings underscore the potential offered by “delegated photosynthesis” in terms of overcoming global nutritional problems and present a model that could serve to revolutionise human nutrition. The procedures developed for media production and the propagation of plant cell cultures are fully compatible with continuous processing. Exponential food technology is more than simply a new method – it represents a paradigm shift that will take us on a journey where every step, innovation and refinement is part of a bigger picture, creating a resilient, sustainable and healthy food system for our planet and its inhabitants. Gisela und Tilo Hühn

What are the implications for a culture in its function as an expression of a society increasingly characterised by automated processes? How will society respond to the growing influence of automation and artificial intelligence? Various aspects of our recent history, including the impact of computer technology, can be observed in terms of the pattern their development has taken. How might our world change if we were to explore the ongoing evolution of paradigm shifts? And what path might emerge if we were to trace developments from the Copernican Revolution (Kant) right through to the universal turn that may soon be upon us? By investigating the historical effects of these paradigm shifts, we can learn how it might be possible to create a more inclusive and ethical future for mankind, other life forms and machines on Earth. We acknowledge that there are many risks and dangers that will require effective decisions to be taken in order to save humanity from a dystopian future in which machines control us and threaten our very existence. It is our collective duty to draw attention to the difficulties, challenges and opportunities presented by machine intelligence and to highlight the potential consequences at an environmental, governance and administrative level as well as in terms of international security. Throughout history, dramatic changes in the way mankind has approached the challenges it faces have helped to pave the way for a better future – at least for most of us in the Western world. These radical changes have played a key role in several parts of the world as we have become a more tolerant and inclusive society. As we move towards the emerging universal turn, which is being driven by advances in artificial intelligence and the convergence of new technologies, we have the opportunity to broaden our understanding of reality and promote the use of more inclusive and ethical approaches in the area of technological development. By recognising the interconnectedness of people, other life forms and machines, we can work together to create a future in which different perspectives, experiences and knowledge are drawn on and appreciation is shown. This articles provides a rough outline of the turning points in our history to date and looks at the fate that may await us in the future. The Copernican Revolution was marked by a significant paradigm shift in the way in which we understand the universe, with the Copernican heliocentric model replacing its geocentric Ptolemaic predecessor (T. S. Kuhn, 1957). This shift laid the foundation for modern scientific research and underlined the importance of observation, experimentation and evidence-based reasoning. The Copernican Revolution demonstrated that our understanding of reality can be fundamentally changed if we question prevailing assumptions and adopt new perspectives. The linguistic turn refers to a shift in focus away from metaphysical questions towards questions of language and meaning. This paradigm shift examined the way in which language influences our understanding of the world and highlighted the importance of semantics, pragmatics and discourse in shaping human thought and communication. R. Rorty (1967) spoke of the linguistic turn, which contributed to the development of various disciplines, including philosophy, linguistics and cognitive science. A spotlight was shone on the intertwining of language, thought and reality. The digital turn, which is characterised by the emergence of digital technologies and the information age, has had a profound impact on human society (M. Castells, 2010). As information and communication technologies have become ubiquitous, they have allowed for new forms of social organisation, economic activity and cultural expression. The digital turn has also thrown up new ethical and societal challenges, for example questions regarding data protection, surveillance and overcoming the digital divide in terms of human capabilities (Brynjolfsson, E ; McAfee, A. 2016). The transition from chiselled, handwritten and finally printed tables to interactive spreadsheets has been followed by the automated processing of small and large volumes and data. This development has not been without significant implications. The universal turn is characterised by the increasing importance of artificial intelligence (AI) and other advanced technologies in shaping our understanding of reality and our relationships with one another, with other life forms and with machines (M. Tegmark, 2017). As AI systems evolve further and become ever more integrated into various aspects of human life, the universal turn underscores the importance of promoting inclusive, ethical and sustainable technological development that allows all forms of life on Earth to prosper. The environmental turn represents a paradigm shift in the way in which society and industry deal with the natural environment and environmental systems. This turn emphasises the necessity to prioritise sustainability, conservation and regeneration in order to tackle climate change, the loss of biodiversity and the depletion of our natural resources. The environmental turn promotes a holistic understanding of how human activities and our natural environment are intertwined, leading to the development of new strategies, practices and technologies that aim to reduce any negative impacts while enhancing health in all living spaces. A prerequisite for this was an understanding of the complex interrelationships that are only made possible by the digital turn. The most important aspects of the environmental turn include: Ecosystem-based management: This approach recognises how important it is to preserve the health and integrity of entire ecosystems instead of focussing on individual species or resources. (Costanza et al., 2014) Circular economy: The concept of the circular economy aims to minimise waste and pollution, extend product life cycles and promote recycling and the reuse of materials in order to create closed loop systems (K. Raworth, 2017). Renewable energies: The transition to renewable energies such as solar power, wind power and hydropower is a key aspect of the environmental turn, i.e. for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainable agriculture: This approach involves the introduction of regenerative cultivation methods that promote soil health, biodiversity and the preservation of resources while also minimising environmental impacts. It fosters the development of an understanding of the role played by food production, moving away from the concept of a value chain towards the notion of a value network (Holmgren, 2002). Regenerative food production: This approach endeavours to avoid side streams and food waste by recycling as many streams as possible so that they can be used for human consumption. This is achieved by utilising renewable energies and ensuring the conscientious use of resources and materials. Efforts are also made to avoid or reduce emissions and to respect social values at all production and marketing stages. The integration of urban farming and cellular agriculture for regional production and molecular upcycling is a further component of this approach. Climate change mitigation and adaptation: The environmental turn necessitates the development of strategies that allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change, including rising sea levels, extreme weather events and ecosystem changes. A significant focus is placed on the preservation of biodiversity. L. Margulis and D. Sagan (1995) refer to the symbiotic turn as a paradigm shift that emphasises the interrelationships and interdependencies that exist between all living organisms, including people and their environment. This turn acknowledges that the well-being and survival of individual species, ecosystems and human societies are inextricably linked and that cooperative relationships that are beneficial for all sides need to be fostered if we are to ensure a sustainable future. According to D. J. Haraway (2016), the symbiotic turn promotes a more holistic understanding of our role within the biosphere and encourages cooperation, coexistence and the assumption of shared responsibility. The most important aspects of the symbiotic turn: Biomimicry: This approach described by J. M. Benyus (1997) is about learning from and emulating nature’s strategies and designs with the aim of creating sustainable solutions to human challenges. Ecosystem services: Here, F. Capra and P.L. Luisi (2014) describe how important it is to recognise, value and preserve the essential services performed by ecosystems, including water purification, the pollination of flowers and carbon sequestration. One health: This interdisciplinary approach recognises the interconnectedness of human, animal and environmental health and aims to promote collaborations across sector boundaries in order to improve general well-being (Steffen et al., 2015). Planetary health: The symbiotic turn underscores the need to address both the health of human civilisation and the natural systems on which it depends. It recognises the inextricable links between human and environmental health (Rockström et al., 2009). Transhumanism: This movement advocates the enhancement of the physical, cognitive and emotional human condition through the use of technologies, thereby increasing our ability to adapt to changing living conditions. Fusion may provide us with an opportunity to conceive new forms of coexistence between humans and machines as an evolutionary step (Kurzweil, R., 2005 , Bostrom, N., 2014). After listing the various paradigm shifts, we will now return to the initial question: How might our world change if we were to explore the ongoing evolution of paradigm shifts? What lessons can we learn from doing so? By investigating the historical contributions made by these paradigm shifts, we can learn how it might be possible to create a more inclusive and ethical future for mankind, machines and other life forms on Earth. The universal turn provides us with the chance to reflect on our shared history and to draw on the lessons learned from past paradigm shifts in order to address the complex challenges and opportunities presented by AI and advanced technologies. By promoting interdisciplinary collaboration, prioritising ethical development and supporting the sustainable use of resources, we can work towards a future that values the well-being and dignity of all living beings on our planet. We present three possible future scenarios below. If we are to achieve a positive utopia, we need to confront the significant dangers that threaten all of humanity (Bostrom, N., 2014). Unemployment and inequality: AI and automation could lead to massive job losses. This isn’t only true for low-skilled workers, but also for administrators and programmers, to name just two professions. This could result in increased income inequality, social unrest and economic instability (Tegmark, M., 2017). Surveillance and data protection: The widespread use of AI in surveillance systems could lead to a loss of privacy, as AI-powered facial recognition and tracking technologies become ubiquitous. This may well lead to an Orwellian society in which individuals are constantly monitored and our actions are controlled by an all-knowing and omnipresent entity. AI armament: The development of AI-controlled autonomous weapons could give rise to new forms of warfare in which machines make life-and-death decisions without any human intervention. This could have unforeseeable and devastating consequences. AI bias and discrimination: AI systems that have been trained on the basis of biased data may perpetuate or even exacerbate existing social prejudices, leading to the unfair treatment of marginalised groups. Loss of human agency: With the increasing integration of AI systems into our daily lives, there is a risk that people may become overly dependent on machines and lose important skills, such as the ability to think critically (Harari, Y.N., 2018). The importance of interdisciplinary cooperation: Past paradigm shifts have demonstrated just how important interdisciplinary cooperation will be if we are to generate new knowledge and move forwards (Floridi & Cowls, 2019). By bringing together experts from various disciplines, people can gain a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of complex problems, allowing them to develop innovative solutions to the challenges presented by AI and other new technologies. Ethical implications of technological progress: As we move towards the universal turn, it will be crucial to consider the ethical implications of AI and other advanced technologies (Mittelstadt et al., 2016). By learning from the ethical challenges posed by past paradigm shifts, we can develop frameworks and strategies with which we can try to ensure that AI systems are developed and used in a way that promotes fairness, responsibility, transparency and respect for human rights. Sustainable development: Finally, the lessons learned from past paradigm shifts underscore the importance of sustainable development and the responsible use of resources in connection with AI and other advanced technologies (Russell, 2019). If we prioritise environmental aspects when developing and using AI systems, we can contribute to ensuring that all living beings on Earth can look forward to a more sustainable and just future. Education and public understanding: Debating the role played by education and public understanding in facilitating or preventing these paradigm shifts (Scheuermann & Taylor, 2019) could shed light on how societies adapt to transformative ideas and technologies. By equipping the public with the necessary skills and abilities to engage with AI, educational institutions can empower individuals to think critically, thus allowing them to play a role in shaping the universal turn and contribute to ensuring a more inclusive future. Lessons for governance and regulation: Based on the experience of past paradigm shifts, we could discuss lessons for governance and regulations, especially in the context of AI and other advanced technologies (Cave et al., 2018). These lessons may include the necessity for international cooperation, the need to update legislative frameworks and the importance of developing strategies that promote innovation while mitigating any potential risks. Challenges and controversies: Addressing the challenges and controversies that emerged during the individual paradigm shifts can help us to contextualise the problems we are currently facing against the backdrop of the universal turn (Bostrom et al., 2014). This could include discussing any resistance to change that was encountered, competing theories or models and any unintended consequences of the technological progress. The most likely future lies somewhere between the utopian environmental future and the dystopian scenario. The extent to which we will be able to tap into the potential of AI for good will depend on several factors: Effective regulation: Governments and international organisations need to develop regulations and guidelines that ensure AI technologies are developed and used in a responsible manner. It is also vital that issues such as data protection, security and fairness are addressed. Ethical AI development: AI developers should prioritise ethical considerations and develop AI systems that are transparent, accountable and unbiased. Education and retraining: Society needs to invest in educational and retraining programmes in order to make it easier for employees to adapt to the changing labour market and ensure that they are in a position to benefit from AI-driven economic growth. Public-private partnerships: Cooperation between governments, the private sector and the scientific world will be essential for ensuring that AI innovation benefits everyone and any potential risks can be mitigated. Inclusive AI development: Various stakeholders, including representatives of marginalised groups, should be involved in the development of AI so as to ensure that it benefits all members of society and does not exacerbate existing inequalities. Ultimately, the future of AI will rest on how successful we are in overcoming the challenges this new technology presents and ensuring that its development is underpinned by ethical principals, inclusive decision-making processes and a commitment to both social and environmental sustainability. At present, it looks like our societies are still thinking about what can be done to create an inclusive future. We are not being digitised. Content needs to be corrected, as the data sets used to train AI are an incomplete reflection of our collective consciousness and often include daunting and inhumane elements. As machines currently lack consciousness, these aspects can only be partially automated. Automated thinking does not (yet) have the ability to cast doubt. Cooperating across disciplinary boundaries, prioritising ethical development, promoting the sustainable use of resources and addressing the challenges and controversies of every paradigm shift will help us to navigate the complex landscape of AI and advanced technologies. Doing so will enable us to work towards a future that promotes the well-being and dignity of all living beings on our planet. The transformation of our society is facing pivotal challenges. Tilo Hühn

We have to act – and there is no time to waste. We need to get out of our own bubble. After all, resigning ourselves to the fact that we are powerless and unable to change things while blaming others and excusing our own actions will in most cases achieve nothing. How can we move away from an attitude of “I am happy as I am and don’t want my life to change” to a situation in which people think more along the lines of “let’s see what I can become and what I can contribute”? It is time to get out of our comfort zone and embrace our new realities. In Switzerland, a majority of the electorate have decided to commit to a path of climate neutrality. Before casting their vote at the ballot box, responsible voters require a minimum of information and the chance to debate the issues at hand. To a certain extent, it is also about raising their awareness of the topics of debate. Such majority decisions also form the basis for later, sometimes drastic measures initiated by the electorate's chosen representatives, which have to be taken in the interest of the common good. In crisis situations, the chance for people to determine for themselves what is reasonable provides them with the courage to change. Where we draw the line at what we consider reasonable is influenced by the level of indignation expressed by those around us. The collective unfurling of anger on social media or at demonstrations promotes the formation of bubbles in which ideologically entrenched views and polarising rhetoric provide a breeding ground for division in situations in which discourse and common solutions would actually be more appropriate. While some of our contemporaries might think the time is nigh for action and ask what are we actually waiting for, others may emphasise the ineffectiveness of their own actions and resolve to carry on as before. This sense of fatalism in the discussion about climate change is fuelled in part by the complex nature of the planet’s biological systems. Significant influencing factors are often overlooked as they appear to be of relatively minor significance at first glance. However, found in the right concentration and accompanied by other factors, they can have a major impact. This might be the case, for example, when certain tipping points are reached. What happens if the seemingly simple solution of sequestering CO 2 in our soils proves harder to achieve than thought because these soils have already heated up more than we assume? What if the Gulf Stream has already changed its path and plunges Northern Europe into an interglacial period? The first scenario would initially have to be confirmed by scientific research. Its impact in terms of our failure to mitigate climate change would be dramatic. Those living in Northern Europe would quickly feel the effects of the second scenario if it were to come to pass. People have clearly developed coping strategies that allow them to face challenges in different ways. Blocking out what is going on around us and pushing issues down the road to a time after we have departed this world are by no means popular options and are therefore rarely expressed as somebody’s preferred course of action. Nevertheless, people are certainly free to adopt such stances. However, this does not represent a solution for people who expect further impacts to be felt during their own lifetime or who want to leave behind a planet to future generations that is at least some way intact. Despair about the speed at which things are progressing and the expected impact on our own life often gives rise to dystopian images of the future. These visions can manifest themselves in the form of depression and/or aggressive behaviour and therefore do nothing to move us forwards from our current situation. What is needed to turn the tide towards a regenerative society is a utopia in which we thrive in coexistence with the other forms of life and the resources found on our planet. While it is clear that exploring the Moon or Mars is very important for improving our understanding of the universe, these places are unfortunately much more hostile to life than Earth. Knowing this, it probably makes more sense to be sparing in how we consume our resources so as to ensure that life on Earth can continue to thrive. As things currently stand, we are on the verge of various tipping points where action is urgently needed and waiting is no longer an option. How do we succeed not only in developing a vision for regenerating our planet with as many people as possible, but also in implementing it in reality? There is fortunately a growing level of awareness as regards just how urgent the situation is. On the other side of the coin, however, there are also defensive attitudes when it comes to having to make changes at a personal level. Perhaps there is a need for unifying figures who move away from the mutual indignation they once felt at each others’ views and actions and now encourage civil society to play its part and effect change that means we leave behind a world that is fit for generations to come. Could rescue organisations like the voluntary fire brigade serve as a role model for saving lives not only within our own community, but across the entire planet? Could volunteering help us to bring together different interests, share knowledge that will allow us to address planetary challenges and get this knowledge out into the heart of our communities, thus enabling us to heal intergenerational wounds that break open all too often when different sides point the finger at one another? Voluntary fire brigades were set up to avert dangers to life, limb and property. In some parts of Europe, this movement has existed for centuries. Commons, i.e. common land, end where the next community begins. Nevertheless, people come together to help each other across local boundaries when threats emerge. Can we succeed in broadening our horizon to include the planet as a whole and work together to take the necessary steps that ensure we are not confronted by the expected consequences on our own doorstep? The Club of Rome provided a simple formula here: “Think globally, act locally.” We are now all called upon to put this into action. Gisela and Tilo Hühn

When we come into this world, we do not sign terms and conditions to which we are bound. Nor do we receive an instruction manual on how to behave properly with guidance on how to consume environmental resources. Much of how we conduct ourselves is a question of the circumstances with which we are faced and the process of socialisation. The effect of finger pointing, bans or going without certain things remains limited when trying to ensure people act appropriately. When consumers become customers, the extent to which they identify with the product or service in question increases. As a member of society, the individual gives up personal rights in exchange for a sense of belonging and security. What if we were to extend this concept of belonging to the world’s population as a whole, applying it to the challenge of planetary health with all living beings? While this vision may seem very utopian, it could simultaneously be essential for the survival of our species and thus also the continued existence of others. The indescribable complexity and lack of order known as chaos can trigger a sense of powerlessness in many people. Any attempt to overcome this feeling with rational actions alone will fail. Scientific findings, especially when viewed as isolated facts, are for the most part only valid on a provisional basis. The measurement of the world culminated in disciplinary fragmentation in line with Descartes’ thinking and the Taylorisation of production processes in the form of a static division of labour. A system of strong regimentation threatens to end in rigidity. Automated thinking and the targeted emphasising of apparently observed interrelations create a simulation that both facilitates insights while limiting them at the same time. It is this construct that determines effectiveness. Targeted information sent to individuals by opinion-makers ensures that expected messages (I want to hear what fits my world view) are subtly reinforced, with our thinking and actions being programmed by social media. Critical thinking and reflection are threatened here, as many facts are generated to back up the desired opinion, serving to create resonance and defend positions. Where humans have set out to become creators themselves through artificial intelligence and abolish doubt with respect to the application of rulebooks, individuality, uniqueness and self-determination prevail. Otherwise, there is a danger that machines will assume control and we will end up in a dystopia. A utopia, on the other hand, can evolve on the basis of foundations laid by overcoming the power to define hierarchies that were characterised by submissiveness, obedience and ritualism. Biological systems have always been complex. People try to deconstruct the connections that exist within them. In doing so, they run the risk of losing sight of the big picture. Seeking out these connections before observing, describing and examining them in their overall context is the challenge of our time. Nevertheless, respecting and taking account of the whole is perhaps postmodernism's last chance to better understand the challenges it is faced with, reverse the underlying issues and, where possible, initiate a process of regeneration. Seeing the big picture is a prerequisite for assuming responsibility as part of this. Establishing value networks with diverse and inclusive procurement and processing structures promotes transparency, generates resilience and thus forms the basis for winning back trust. The shift in food production from producers to consumers, its reintegration in the form of prosumers, the increasing gentrification and the role played by tourism and both digital and media networking are all essential factors in the creation of value networks. Consumers are increasingly experiencing and recognising the interrelationships between biological systems through their own food production. This is evident in the renaissance of strategies for the preservation of food through fermentation. They thus become designers within the value networks. This doer movement is gathering experience and developing skills that allow people to produce food themselves and make qualified consumption decisions. Linked to this is an interest in better understanding how food is produced and questioning the often superficial nature of brand messages. Informed consumers who produce their own food thus become knowledgeable prosumers. With the return of neighbourhood gardens in cities and urban farming projects, the desire to retake control of how our food is produced is now being addressed. After all, in the opinion of many, there is nothing more valuable than what comes from their “own garden.” Regionality and seasonality, along with ethical requirements for food, have become very important criteria. In those areas where prosumers are not directly involved or able to look in, they expect reliable information. If the horizon can be broadened and the impact of human actions can be made tangible at an individual level, this may form the basis for promoting more responsible behaviour from the citizens of our planet. The problem will continue to grow as long as we point the finger at others and in doing so give them the blame for the negative effects of food production. The environment and biodiversity should be viewed as inalienable common property. After all, what doesn't belong to anyone has no value, and what can be sold is subject to market forces. Life on our planet should not be left at the mercy of being in such a situation. Trading in environmental certificates shows just how dysfunctional the exchanging of anonymised emission quantities that cannot be assigned to individual products or manufacturing steps can be. An approach based on responsibility could work if we were to stop delegating it and compensating for it by transferring money. It would be more effective and meaningful to share this responsibility and assume it in the interest of as many as possible. The possibility of replacing blame with responsibility will only exist if we succeed in creating transparency in a value network. Producing food responsibly for people and the environment will only be possible if the systems that have already been polluted or even destroyed are regenerated. In the agricultural sector, corresponding efforts are already underway to avoid or absorb climate-impacting factors and to take measures aimed at controlling water use and increasing biodiversity. Material cycles need to be investigated and understood before sustainable regeneration can take place. As effective as global initiatives may be, regenerative actions must also begin at a local level and generate an impact gradually. Focussing too narrowly on primary production is a misguided approach. Regenerative concepts for processing and producing food must be identified decentrally and implemented in the sense of networks. Gisela and Tilo Hühn

When enjoying a beer with friends after work, hardly anybody stops to think about the malt residue produced during the brewing process. Despite the valuable components contained within this by-product, which is referred to as spent grain, it has so far at best been used to produce biogas or animal feed. Increasingly, however, upcycling is taking place. In order to make use of the nutritionally valuable components found in the spent grain, which include dietary fibres, proteins and minerals, it is also being used to produce bread, pasta, biscuits and bars. Until now, the processing of these so-called side streams to foodstuffs had frequently been considered uninteresting. The reasons for this were that the process was both too energy-intensive and costly. This is because these by-products often have to be thermally preserved or otherwise processed before they can be made into food. As with spent grain, completely new strategies are therefore required in order to transform supposedly inferior by-products directly into valuable main products that allow for people to be fed and the environment to be protected. This will necessitate effective, regenerating and self-sustaining closed-loop systems. Nature provides examples of such systems: in a living biological system, there is a continuous exchange of substances that allows for growth, utilisation, decay or regeneration, adaptation and development. A circular exchange of substances makes it possible to regenerate molecules and components, thus preserving the entire system. A characteristic feature of regenerative systems is that they are embedded as sub-systems within other systems. The “forest” ecosystem is a particularly good illustration of this: trees absorb carbon dioxide from the air and release oxygen, while at the same time extracting water and nutrients from the soil. The process of photosynthesis allows trees to grow, regenerate, adapt and develop. The oxygen produced during photosynthesis enables other living beings to exist. The leaves and branches that die and fall from the trees feed the soil with organic material that serves as a source of food for microorganisms and insects. These organisms in turn decompose the organic matter and release nutrients into the soil that can be taken up and utilised by the trees and other plants. Ultimately, there is a circular exchange of substances between the trees, the soil, the microorganisms and the air that allows for the entire ecosystem to be maintained. The “forest” ecosystem, for its part, is a sub-system of the larger system of the earth’s biosphere. Regenerative food production should also function in the same way as these biological systems: the cycle begins with the sustainable agricultural production of raw materials. During the processing of these raw materials and the creation of value from all streams, the focus is then placed on direct utilisation for human nutrition as well as on preventing food waste and reducing the consumption of energy and other resources – which should of course also come from regenerative sources. The business model should be long term in nature, circular and thus future-friendly. In concrete terms, it could look something like this: Regenerative agricultural processes actively promote the microbiome in the soil, for example by employing various outdoor cultivation measures such as the rotation of crops on different production areas. Soil life, in turn, is key for increasing healthy yields and boosting biodiversity. Cell cultures that can be used specifically for the production of food are a further conceivable measure here. The cells for proliferation are taken from the plants’ original tissue, using the cocoa bean for example – and are transferred to a stock culture without undergoing genetic modification. The cultures are then proliferated in a special tank that allows the environmental conditions to be adjusted. The temperature, gas content, mechanical movement, light and other factors can all be precisely monitored and controlled in this system. The nutrient sources for these cultures come from local agriculture. The production process is much more controllable than is the case in systems in which pesticide and fertiliser use are the rule and weather influences are unpredictable. This enables more of the goodness of the plant to be made available for human consumption while reducing the consumption of resources. Production errors coupled with food waste and side streams are then the exception – all the streams become main streams. In addition, the cells could be cultivated close to where refinement takes place. Ultimately, regenerative food production will also require new business models and cooperations. One-time rivals could become partners at a joint production site. In such a scenario, one of the business partners would then, for example, process the liquid main stream into plant-based drinks, while the other business partner would process the solid main stream into plant-based meat alternatives or baked and pasta products. Those meeting for a beer with friends after work are then able to savour the brewery pizza containing healthy ingredients from the spent grain. Regenerative food production ensures that food can be enjoyed with a clear conscience. Gisela and Tilo Hühn