Food sits at the heart of interconnected crises, spanning climate change, biodiversity loss, malnutrition, poverty and injustice. There is growing awareness that we urgently need to act to transform our food systems. Yet at the same time, debates about what to do are becoming more intense, divisive and polarised, as different actors bring forward competing visions of a food future.

TABLE explores both the scientific evidence and the underlying values that inform and shape these visions. These values (as well as assumptions, desires and cultural preferences) influence how we interpret the evidence, understand the world around us, judge what is most important in a food system, and think about possible and desirable futures. By mapping both evidence and values in debates, we highlight critical differences and areas of agreement, identify research questions to help resolve uncertainties, and suggest paths forward.

We aim to provide clarity on the substance and parameters of food system debates (where and why do we agree and disagree?); and to offer spaces for nuanced, self-reflective dialogue within the food community.

Our Theory of Change (TOC) is founded on the premise that, in order to reduce polarisation and promote more nuanced and inclusive decision-making for a sustainable and ethical food system, stakeholders need:

• KNOWLEDGE: access to high-quality, clear, accessible, interdisciplinary research knowledge which supports understanding of complex issues; 
• DIALOGUE: opportunities to discuss difficult, policy-relevant decisions and build relationships with those who hold different points of view in ways that enable mutual learning and understanding; and 
• VISIONS: the imaginative capacity to think beyond “what is and what isn’t likely” to imagine “what could be”. 

These different but interlinked conditions for better food systems decision-making are our three ‘intervention levers’ for achieving impact within each of our four areas of focus. These focus areas are: 

1. Meat, dairy and livestock production
2. Land use and farming systems 
3. Sustainable diets, nutrition and culture
4. The politics and economics of food system transformation

We recognize that these four focus areas are intricately connected, and we address them as such. To each topic we address, we bring an approach which looks beneath the surface of controversial issues, unpicking the roles of values and assumptions, concepts and narratives, priorities and relationships, as well as context.

In all the work we do, we apply the cross-cutting lenses of climate change and nature loss; power structures, equity and justice; and human and non-human health and wellbeing.  At times, we also take a thematic approach, exploring questions of scale (what is a good scale for the food system?), power (what is it, who has it, and how should it be rebalanced?) and nature (should food systems be more natural?). The use of these different perspectives can help us see and understand issues and challenges in different ways, sparking new insights and connections.

Through our intervention levers we provide clarity on the substance and parameters of food system debates (where and why is it that we agree and disagree?) to then offer spaces for nuanced, self-reflective dialogue and visioning within the food community. 

TABLE is for everyone with an interest in food. Acting as an interface between the worlds of research and practice, our work reflects and interrogates real and relevant food system debates. We combine intellectual rigour and deep subject expertise, with a commitment to engaging in the ‘real world,’ and an understanding of, and connections with, the change-maker ecosystem. 

We create opportunities for reflection and engagement for those with decision-making authority over what foods are grown, and how they’re produced, traded and eaten. We seek out a diversity of views - particularly from actors with limited power and platform - that can challenge mainstream narratives and our own perspectives. We are in constant dialogue with people working within the food system, including civil society, policy, academia and industry. For more information about our audiences, click here to download our Strategic Outlook 2025-2028.

Originally founded as a collaboration between the University of Oxford, the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and Wageningen University & Research (WUR), the TABLE network has since expanded to include la Universidad de los Andes (Colombia), and la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) under the name of MESA. Over time, we aim to further our multi regional focus and amplify our impact by developing additional collaborations in Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia.

We see our impact in the changes we help bring about in how people understand, discuss and shape food systems decisions, and in the wider relationships and collaborations that make better decision-making possible.

The breadth and complexity of food systems can lead us to oversimplify or caricature the views of others. We might assume that taking a view on one topic (the need for a plant-based transition, for example) implies agreement with another (alternative proteins, say). This can lead to bundled thinking and an overemphasis on opposition. By helping to locate agreements and disagreements more precisely, we aim to enable more constructive, collaborative problem-solving and decision-making.

Good decision-making is grounded in evidence, open to challenge and honest about the values that motivate it. Through nuanced dialogue and collaborative visioning, TABLE works to support these conditions.

We know we are making a difference when we see evidence of:

• Deeper and broader understanding: Our audiences develop a more nuanced understanding of food systems, becoming more open to different perspectives and more reflective about their own assumptions and biases.
• More constructive and reflective advocacy: Our audiences engage in more nuanced, reflective and constructive dialogue and advocacy across different perspectives.
• Stronger collaborative futures thinking: Our audiences increasingly imagine desirable food futures collaboratively and explore pathways towards achieving them.
• Increased use and reuse of TABLE resources: Our resources are increasingly used, shared and applied by policymakers, practitioners, researchers and opinion influencers.
• Broader and more diverse engagement: A wider range of actors, including those who might not normally interact, engage in TABLE's research, dialogue and visioning activities.
• Stronger cross-sector relationships and collaborations: Connections fostered through TABLE lead to sustained relationships and greater collaboration across sectors and perspectives.

• Growing external demand for TABLE's expertise: More organisations seek out TABLE's research, dialogue facilitation and visioning expertise.

   

This is how we currently see our place in the ecosystem:

We recognise that many organisations seek to effect food systems change through practical activities, from grassroots projects to policy advocacy. This work is necessary, but approaches are diverse and sometimes contradictory, reflecting different understandings of problems and solutions.

TABLE takes a step back (step 1 of the figure above) to examine this diversity: how do different actors diagnose problems, how do these diagnoses shape the solutions they advocate, and what theories of change underpin their actions?

We examine the evidence (step 2)—empirical and experiential, explicit and implicit—that informs these positions, and the mindsets (step 3)—the underlying beliefs, assumptions and values—that shape how evidence is understood. We then explore how these mindsets shape, and are shaped by, different visions of a ‘good’ food system (step 4).

This attention to the paradigms within which actors—including ourselves—operate is central to TABLE’s approach, and is one that has been influenced by Donella Meadows’ work on systems thinking. By recognising the paradigms we work within, we are able to scrutinise and challenge them, and this in turn becomes a starting point for change. We do not claim to have the answer; rather, we seek to deepen and enrich the work that others do by offering nuance, trustworthiness and big-picture, imaginative thinking. In doing so, we aim to support better-informed, more thoughtful decision-making for food system transformation. 

The roots of the TABLE collaboration lie in the Food Climate Research Network (FCRN), founded in 2005. The FCRN was set up to improve collective understanding of how the food system contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, and of the options for reducing them. However, recognising the entanglement of multiple issues, its remit soon evolved to encompass a wider range of concerns including including health, nutrition and diets, other environmental dimensions such as land use and biodiversity loss, and poverty and inequality. 

In the meantime, the evidence base in relation to the food system’s impacts was mounting, and the number of organisations entering the food systems space grew rapidly. Despite all this evidence and focus, and despite widespread agreement that food system transformation is urgently needed, there was far less agreement about what we need to do - and such changes as we do see today are unequal to the scale of transformation needed.

There are many reasons for this, but one of them is that the food problem is not one that can ‘just’ be solved by greater scientific understanding. While scientific knowledge is essential for understanding food system issues and the implications of different actions, science alone cannot tell us what a good food system looks like, or what to do: making decisions about the future of food involves judgements about what is important. These judgements depend on people’s foundational values that influence their analysis of the situation today, and their visions of what the future could and should be. Nor does scientific knowledge alone resolve or take the heat out of current debates, which can be highly polarised and confrontational. All too often, selective or partial forms of evidence, sometimes in combination with inaccurate assertions, are used to support ideological positions that are founded on simplistic problem diagnoses and that advance simplistic solutions. 

TABLE was founded in response to the reality that, while debate is essential, polarisation is counter-productive and damaging.  What we need instead, are conversations that acknowledge the interplay of values and evidence, and that are constructive, nuanced, open minded and inclusive. Better decision-making requires conversations that encompass the historical context, evidence ‘in the round’ and imaginative exploration of potential future pathways for food systems. 

These are the needs we seek to meet, through an approach that combines analysis and knowledge synthesis, the convening of dialogue among stakeholders, and the co-creation of positive visions for the future of food, and pathways to achieving them. 

Today TABLE is developing an extensive and diverse network of stakeholders, thanks to our partnerships.