The problems people are bringing

Over the last year, the same questions have kept surfacing from two directions at once: the people buying food, and the people producing it. Different worlds. Same pressure.

Consumers want clarity and better health. Farmers want fair payment for outcomes they already deliver. Right now, the system turns both into a guessing game.

🤠 For consumers: how do I buy food I can trust?

People are already doing the work of “verification” with their thumbs. Scanning labels. Comparing products. Changing habits.

Yuka alone claims 77 million users scanning products. That is not a niche behaviour, it is a demand signal. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?hl=en_CA&id=io.yuka.android

The problem is the signal is disconnected from the farm gate. Consumers can spot the issue, but they cannot reliably trace quality back to the source, and they cannot reward the producers who are actually doing it right.

🤠 For consumers: how do I use AI for my health without giving away my sovereignty?

People are feeding medical history into AI tools and getting pattern recognition they never got in a 7 minute appointment.

So the question is not “will AI touch health.” It already has.The question is: can it be done with privacy, consent, and control, so the consumer owns the benefit and the data, not the platform.

🐮 For farmers: how do I build competitive advantage that actually pays?

Nutrient density, soil function, verified practices, quality assurance. More of this is becoming measurable and auditable.

But measurement alone does not pay the bills.

Farmers do not have clean access to the buyers who will pay for verified quality.Buyers do not have clean access to producers who can consistently deliver verified outcomes at scale.

So we keep talking about “premium” while trading on stories.

🐮For farmers: is there a real business model for on-farm data?

Soil health. Nutrient density. carbon outcomes. biodiversity. water.

Everyone wants the data. Most systems capture it. Very few share value back to the operator.

If the data is valuable, the producer should share in that value. Simple.

🌎 The bridge problem: proving outcomes and paying for them

This is where it gets painfully clear.

A NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water report found

90% of surveyed farmers are undertaking some carbon-farming activities,

while only 3% are enrolled in carbon market programs. https://www.energy.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-12/NSW-2025-Ground-Truths.pdf

Read that again:

Most farmers are already doing the work.Almost none are being paid for it.

That is not a motivation problem. That is a market design problem.

🌱 Where Grow fits

Grow is built to connect the two sides properly, without asking either side to “just trust the system.”

👉For farmers: verify what you are already doing and make that proof portable, so you can trade on outcomes, not just commodities.

👉For consumers and buyers: see the proof, trace it, and reward it with real purchasing power.

👉For everyone: keep data sovereignty at the centre, so value does not get captured by a platform in the middle.

Grow exists to turn unrecognised stewardship into recognised value, and to make trust something you can verify, not something you have to believe.

Two questions for the room

Farmers: if your stewardship was verified and portable, who should pay first: the buyer, the lender, the insurer, or government programmes?
Consumers: if you could verify where your food came from and what outcomes it created, what would you change in your basket this week?

1 comment