The debate around consumer‑centric resilient agriculture is accelerating across Europe, and a new report from the EIT Food Consumer Observatory suggests the sector may be communicating its biggest innovations in the wrong language.

As EU policy discussions turn sharply toward food system resilience ahead of Ireland’s Presidency of the Council of the EU, the report — Making Agriculture Matter: Toward consumer‑centric positioning of resilient and regenerative agriculture — highlights a critical disconnect between agricultural ambition and consumer understanding.

The research finds that while consumers broadly support improvements in how food is produced, technical terms such as resilient and regenerative agriculture carry little weight at the point of purchase. Instead, people respond to clear, personal benefits: better flavour, perceived healthiness, fewer chemical inputs, visible links to farmers and trusted certification. In other words, the sector’s most important sustainability tools are not yet its strongest consumer messages.

“Consumers are telling us they want farming to change, but ‘resilient’ and ‘regenerative’ are not the words they shop with,” said Klaus G. Grunert, Professor of marketing at Aarhus University and lead of the EIT Food Consumer Observatory. “When we translate those practices into things people can taste, trust and verify… the interest is there. The opportunity for the sector is to lead with the benefit, not the technique.”

The report also reveals a structural expectation gap. Consumers see resilience — the ability of farming systems to anticipate and adapt to climatic, economic or social shocks — as important, but not as a personal responsibility. They expect governments, farmers and the food system to maintain supply, not to make resilience a deciding factor in their own shopping choices.

Another key insight is the preferred framing of change. Consumers favour farming that draws on traditional values while using modern technology to scale them. A return to “the old ways” alone is seen as unrealistic, but a hybrid model — tradition as philosophy, technology as method — is both credible and appealing.

Messaging tests within the study found that the strongest narrative, “Food that actually nourishes”, resonated most. It linked resilient agriculture to healthier soil, stronger flavour, fewer synthetic inputs and verified claims — particularly effective for processed and manufactured products where healthiness is not assumed.

The report also highlights a persistent trust gap. Consumers trust farmers more than retailers or manufacturers, and are sceptical of brand‑led claims. This mirrors findings from the EIT Food Trust Report 2026, reinforcing that credible communication must connect claims to visible farmers, clear origins and independent verification.

Price remains a major barrier. Many consumers assume better farming means higher costs, and affordability is widely seen as a government responsibility. Lower‑price claims are only credible when intermediaries are removed, such as in farm shops or local distribution.

“Resilient agriculture is one of Europe’s greatest opportunities to strengthen food security while restoring nature,” said Elvira Domingo Varona, director of Resilient Agriculture Thematic Leadership at EIT Food. “By connecting the entire food system, we are creating the conditions for resilient agriculture to deliver lasting environmental, economic and social impact.”

For manufacturers, retailers and policymakers, consumer‑centric resilient agriculture requires translating farming practices into benefits people can taste, trust and afford.