Horizon scanning and review of the impact of five food and food production models for the global food system in 2050

There is recognition that a reduction of consumer demand for foods that have large environmental footprints is necessary. Recent innovations in food production technologies (“food frontiers”) claim to offer gains in ecological sustainability and global food security, thereby transitioning our food system toward a more sustainable future. Yet, scientific evidence to support these claims has not been critically reviewed for several high-profile innovations. In this paper, we undertake a critical review of the literature on five food frontiers: cellular agriculture, climate-driven northern agricultural expansion (NAE), controlled environment agriculture (CEA), entomophagy, and seaweed aquaculture. We estimate the feasibility of each frontier’s widespread implementation by 2050 and their potential positive impacts on food system sustainability. We highlight uncertainty regarding ecological tradeoffs and future production potential in the literature, research gaps, and policy pathways that may maximize the benefits of these food frontiers. Entomophagy, cellular agriculture, CEA, and seaweed aquaculture have similar positive impact values. Yet, CEA appears to be the most feasible technology to implement at scale. The mixed potential impacts of NAE suggest that such expansion poses multiple risks to the global food system. Standardized approaches to modeling environmental parameters in life cycle analyses are required, so that predicted impacts can be reasonably compared within and among these bodies of literature. Further critical social scientific engagement is needed to better understand the political and institutional frameworks in which these food frontiers will be implemented. •Foresight review exercise for five food frontiers.•Controlled Environment Agriculture highlighted as most feasible.•Climate-driven Northern agriculture expansion likely to have ecological tradeoffs.•Frontiers require place-specific evaluations for feasibility and impact.•Need further analysis of political and institutional implications.