During the 2026 Food Policy Conference, I attended a session called Coping with Climate Change and Policy Change, which explored how farmers are adapting to an increasingly uncertain and rapidly shifting policy landscape. Panelists, including farmers, researchers, and policy experts, shared firsthand experiences navigating rising input costs, environmental pressures, and changes in federal support programs. The conversation moved across topics like climate resilience, risk management, and the future of sustainable agriculture, highlighting just how complex today’s food system has become. Yet despite the range of issues discussed, one statement cut through the noise: “the food system is not broken, it is doing exactly what it was designed to do.”
At first, that statement felt almost wrong. We often describe the food system as failing: farmers struggle to stay afloat, environmental pressures intensify, and food insecurity persists across communities. But as the discussion unfolded, it became clear that these outcomes are not accidental. They are the result of decades of policies and incentives that have shaped what the food system prioritizes.
Panelists highlighted how these incentives directly influence what and how farmers produce. One example that stood out was that farmers often receive less than ten cents of every food dollar. Despite being central to the system, they operate within an economic structure that captures very little of the value they create. At the same time, policies designed to reduce financial risk, like crop insurance, can unintentionally disadvantage farmers who invest in more sustainable practices. When risk is removed from certain forms of production, the system tends to reward efficiency and scale over long-term resilience.
The conversation also revealed a deeper tension between food policy and agricultural policy. Food policy discussions often center on nutrition, sustainability, and feeding communities, while agricultural policy frequently prioritizes commodity production, global markets, and profitability. When these priorities do not align, the system reflects those competing goals. As one panelist noted, the issue is not a lack of food, we already produce more than enough to feed the world, but rather how policy shapes where that food goes and who benefits from it.
What I found most compelling about this perspective is how it reframes the idea of change. If the food system is producing exactly what it was designed to produce, then improving it requires more than individual consumer choices. It requires rethinking the policies and incentives that structure the system itself. Listening to this discussion shifted how I understand responsibility within the food system: building a more equitable and resilient food system ultimately begins with redefining what, and who, our policies are designed to support.