It is not a risk of the future: decisions about the circulation and access to food are increasingly taken by systems that people cannot easily question or circumvent.
Supermarket shelves can feel full, even when the food systems that support them are under pressure. The fruit may be neatly stacked, the chilled meat may be in place. It appears that supply chains are working well. But appearances are deceiving.
Today, food moves through supply chains because it is recognized by databases, platforms and automated approval systems. If a digital system cannot confirm a shipment, food cannot be legally released, secured, sold or distributed. In practice, foods that cannot be “seen” digitally become unusable.
This is affecting the resilience of the UK food system and is increasingly identified as a critical vulnerability. Just look at the consequences, for example, when recent cyberattacks on supermarket networks and food distribution have disrupted operations at several large US food retail chains. This led to the unavailability of online orders and other digital systems and delayed deliveries, despite physical stocks being available.
Part of the problem is that key decisions are made by automated or opaque systems that cannot be easily explained or challenged. Manual safeguards are also being eliminated in the name of efficiency.
This digital transition is happening all over the world, both in supermarkets and in agriculture, and has brought efficiency gains, but also intensified structural pressures on logistics and transportespecially in supply chains organized for last-minute deliveries.
AI and data-driven systems today shape decisions across agriculture and food distribution. They are used to forecast demand, optimize planting, prioritize shipments and manage inventories. Official reviews of the use of AI in production, processing and distribution show that these tools are already integrated into most stages of the UK food system. But there are risks.
When food allocation decisions cannot be explained or reviewed, authority moves away from human judgment and toward software rules. In simple terms, companies are opting for automation over people to save time and reduce costs. As a result, Decisions about the circulation and access to food are increasingly made by systems that people cannot easily question or circumvent.
This has already started to happen. During the 2021 JBS Foods ransomware attack, meat processing plants suspended operations despite having animals, workers and infrastructure available. Although some Australian farmers were able to bypass the systems, there were serious problems. More recently, disruptions affecting large distributors have shown how system failures can disrupt deliveries to stores even when goods are available.
Eliminate the human factor
A significant problem is the reduction in the number of people managing these situations, as well as staff training. Manual procedures are classified as expensive and gradually abandoned. Workers no longer receive training for contingency procedures that they supposedly will never have to carry out. When a failure occurs, the skills needed to intervene may no longer exist.
This vulnerability is compounded by persistent labor and skills shortages, which affect transportation, storage and public health inspection. Even when digital systems recover, human capacity to reestablish flows may be limited.
The risk is not only that systems fail, but also that, when they do fail, the disruption propagates quickly. This can be understood as a stress test, not a prediction. Authorization systems may freeze. The trucks are loaded, but the release codes fail. Drivers wait. Food exists, but its circulation is not authorized.
Based on previous incidents, within days digital records and physical reality may begin to diverge. Inventory systems no longer match what’s on the shelves. After approximately 72 hours, manual intervention becomes necessary. However, paper procedures have often been eliminated, and workers are not prepared to use them.
These patterns are consistent with findings from vulnerability analyzes of the UK food system, which highlight that Resilience failures are often organizational, not agricultural.
Food security is often framed as a supply issue. But there is also a question of authorization. If a digital manifest is corrupt, shipments may not be released.
This is especially relevant in a country like the UK, which relies heavily on imports and complex logistics. Resilience depends not only on trade flows, but also on data governance and decision-making in food systems, as food security research suggests.
AI can enhance food safety. Precision agriculture (using data to decide, for example, when to plant or water) and early warning systems have helped reduce losses and improve productivity. The question is not whether AI should be used, but who oversees it and who manages it.
