On 6 October, Wageningen Social & Economic Research published the eleventh edition of its Agrifoodmonitor, a survey of 3,500 Dutch consumers commissioned by TKI Agri & Food. For the first time since the series began in 2012, one theme sat at its centre: what do people actually think when the tomato on their plate was picked by a system that judged its ripeness, when the cow behind their cheese is monitored by sensors, or when an algorithm decides which stored apples ship first? The short answer: on average, consumers rate the benefits of AI in the food chain higher than the risks. The longer answer is more useful, because the goodwill comes with conditions — and those conditions are things a farm, cooperative or food producer can control.
What did the Agrifoodmonitor 2026 actually measure?
The Agrifoodmonitor is a long-running Dutch survey tracking how society values the agrifood sectors, from arable farming and horticulture to dairy, pigs, poultry, fisheries, the food industry and supermarkets. The 2026 edition polled 3,500 consumers and made AI its central theme.
Two findings frame everything else. First, overall appreciation of the agrifood sectors held nearly stable, with arable farming, horticulture and dairy at the top — and appreciation for dairy and poultry farming at its highest level since the survey began. Second, when asked specifically about AI, consumers did not recoil. Project leader Mariët van Haaster-de Winter summarised it as a cautious green light: there is, in her words, sufficient public goodwill to keep talking about change and innovation.
Do consumers mind AI in their food chain?
On average, no. The monitor found that consumers rate the benefits of AI higher than the risks, and that companies using AI come across as modern and innovative. People expect the technology to help producers perform better, and they can name where it might matter: food security, animal welfare, water use and less food waste. The examples tested were close to daily practice — growers harvesting tomatoes at the right ripeness, dairy farmers keeping an eye on their herd, fruit processors deciding which stored apples should ship first.
The default fear — that admitting to AI makes a product feel industrial — is not what the data shows. What consumers reward is the combination: a recognisable entrepreneur using modern tools for purposes they understand.
Where the hesitation sits
The reservations are specific. Consumers trust the entrepreneur more than they trust the AI mechanism itself. They want transparency about where AI is used. They worry about errors and about the loss of human contact. And the monitor was blunt on one point: AI should remain a tool in the hands of the business owner, not a replacement for them.
The perception gap is real. A portion of consumers sees products made with help from AI as "different", even when their measurable properties are identical. Naturalness weighs heavily in food, and as van Haaster-de Winter put it, what consumers experience can weigh more than the factual reality. Her advice: communicate about the technology you use, and answer questions about the final product rather than hoping nobody asks.
Brussels reached the same conclusion from the other side. At the Commission's first sectoral dialogue on AI in agriculture under the Apply AI Strategy, held in June with around 180 experts from industry, research and farming organisations, the consensus was the same sentence in different words: AI should support farmers' decisions, not replace them. When consumer research and EU policy land on the same principle, treat it as a design requirement.
What this means for a farm, cooperative or food producer
The licence to operate with AI already exists — in the back office, in quality control, in herd and crop monitoring — provided the human stays visibly in charge. A cooperative in Namur using an AI agent to draft quality reports, or a vegetable packer near Mechelen letting a vision system pre-sort produce while staff make the final call, is working with the grain of public opinion, not against it.
Keep a person in the loop, and say so. The strongest trust factor in the monitor is the entrepreneur. "Our grader flags the doubtful crates; our people decide" reassures both a customer and an auditor.
Be transparent on your own terms. The EU AI Act's transparency rules, in force since August 2026, require disclosure when people interact with an AI system or see AI-generated content. They do not force you to label a cheese because software planned the ripening schedule. But the monitor suggests honesty is cheap insurance: a short page explaining how you use the technology pre-empts the "different product" reflex.
Choose your claims carefully. Using AI to cut waste or water use maps onto benefits consumers already believe in. Using it to replace the human face of the business maps onto their biggest fear.
When this isn't the right move
The monitor is one country's snapshot. Dutch consumers are among Europe's most technology-accustomed food buyers; attitudes in France or Wallonia may be more guarded, and the published findings are directional — rankings and averages, not percentages. Stated attitudes are also not purchase behaviour: people who tell a survey they accept AI can still hesitate at the shelf.
And if your brand equity is built almost entirely on handwork and tradition — a farmhouse cheese, a natural wine — leading your story with AI is probably a mistake even where it quietly helps in the background. Let the craft stay the headline. Finally, none of this matters if the basics are missing: a producer without reliable records of batches, yields or orders has a data problem to solve before an AI one.
Frequently asked questions
Does using AI damage how consumers see my brand? The 2026 data says the opposite on average: companies using AI are seen as modern and innovative, and benefits outweigh risks in consumers' minds. The damage comes from hiding it, removing human contact, or letting an algorithm visibly make decisions customers expect a person to make.
Do I legally have to tell customers I use AI? Only in specific cases. Under the EU AI Act's transparency obligations, people must be told when they are chatting with an AI system, and AI-generated content must be identifiable. Internal uses — forecasting, sorting, monitoring, administration — carry no consumer labelling duty.
Is this only relevant in the Netherlands? The survey is Dutch, but the mechanisms — trust in the entrepreneur, the demand for transparency, the "different product" perception — are not national quirks. The Commission's June dialogue on AI in agriculture reached the same support-not-replace conclusion at European level.
Where do agrifood businesses usually start? Away from the consumer's plate: administration, quality documentation, incoming-goods checks, crop or herd monitoring. These uses carry low perception risk and generate the internal evidence you need before putting anything customer-facing behind an algorithm.
Figuring out where AI fits in a food business is partly a technical question and, as this year's Agrifoodmonitor shows, partly a trust question — the two have to be designed together. That is the kind of work we do at Cresly: AI agents, automation and custom software for farms, cooperatives and food producers, with the human owner visibly in charge and EU rules respected by design. If you are weighing where to start, [email protected] is happy to think along.