The Arla Bovaer case highlights a new frontier for agrifoodtech: combatting misinformation

Tom Shields is a partner at AgFunder, the parent company of AgFunderNews. 

Innovation in food and agriculture has never been more critical. From addressing climate change to improving food security, new technologies are stepping up to solve pressing global challenges. But as recent events show, these advancements are facing a surprising and growing risk: the viral spread of misinformation.

Earlier this month, Arla Foods, a Danish-Swedish company that owns the UK’s biggest dairy cooperative, announced plans to test a new dairy cow feed additive, Bovaer, which promises to reduce cow methane emissions by as much as 45%.

Despite its approval by UK regulators and multiyear testing by its manufacturer DSM-Firmenich, a viral misinformation campaign online argued it was not safe for consumption and even part of a “depopulation” plot with links to the increasingly unpopular tech billionaire Bill Gates. This conspiracy theory lacked any evidence for these claims and left Arla and Bovaer maker DSM-Firmenich scrambling to defend their products and reputations.

This backlash highlights a new frontier in the challenges for food and ag startups. And it is not isolated to one product or company — it’s a growing problem for the entire industry.

Why are new technologies a target?

New technologies, particularly in food, ag, and climate, are uniquely vulnerable to misinformation. They operate in areas that are critical to public health and the environment, two topics that naturally provoke strong emotions and reactions. Add to that a general lack of public understanding of these technologies — and these industries, especially agriculture — and you have a perfect storm for sensationalist claims.

Take, for example, the controversies around genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and specifically Golden Rice, a crop designed to combat vitamin A deficiency that opponents say causes blindness and death in millions of children each year.

Decades of research have shown that GMOs, including Golden Rice, are safe for consumption and offer tremendous benefits, from increased crop yields to improved nutrition. Yet misinformation and public fear have led to bans and protests fueled by unfounded claims, slowing progress on global food security and costing countless lives.

A similar dynamic is playing out in the fight against climate change. Wind energy, one of the cleanest and most cost-effective renewable energy sources, has been the target of misinformation campaigns that falsely claim it causes health problems like “wind turbine syndrome” or devastating ecological harm. These unsubstantiated claims have been used to fuel local opposition to wind farms, making it difficult to secure approvals for new projects. 

These examples illustrate the broad vulnerability of transformative technologies to misinformation. While the narratives differ, the themes are consistent: emotionally charged claims, a lack of scientific literacy, and viral stories that take on a life of their own.

The problem of proving a negative

One of the most challenging aspects of combating misinformation is the difficulty of proving a negative — that is, definitively showing that something does not cause harm. Even with robust scientific evidence, conspiracy theorists can cherry-pick data, misrepresent studies, or raise baseless “what if” questions. This uncertainty is often enough to plant doubt in the public’s mind.

Moreover, conspiracy theorists thrive on attention. The more people engage with their content — whether to debunk it or debate it — the more visibility it gains, fueling the cycle further. For companies, this means that even engaging with misinformation can inadvertently amplify it.

No silver bullet to combat misinformation

There’s no silver bullet for combating misinformation. Proactive steps like building trust through transparency, collaborating with trusted experts, and educating journalists and the public about the benefits and safety of technology can help establish credibility and preempt fear. However, these efforts are time-consuming, expensive, and provide no guarantees of protection.

Despite best efforts, misinformation may still be inevitable. When it arises, transparency and strong, evidence-based communication remain essential, even if they’re not always enough to counter the immediate damage. The process of rebuilding trust can take weeks, months, or even years — time during which public opinion may shift, consumer confidence may erode, and investments may falter.

Looking ahead

Managing misinformation is not just a PR challenge; it’s a critical business risk that innovators and investors must factor into their strategies. As an industry, we need to acknowledge and prepare for this new reality. It’s no longer enough to develop groundbreaking technologies — we must also build robust strategies to communicate their benefits and counter misinformation effectively.

This isn’t just about protecting individual companies. It’s about ensuring that vital innovations in food, ag, and climate have the opportunity to succeed and make the impact they’re designed for.

The cases of Golden Rice, wind power, and now Bovaer show us that this challenge isn’t going away. The next wave of innovation will require not only scientific and technical expertise but also a proactive approach to public engagement. The stakes are too high to ignore the power of misinformation.