When Surplus Becomes Scarcity: How Agrinet Turns Food Waste Into Food Security
- the Institute
- 22 hours ago
- 10 min read
In medieval England, grain merchants faced strict laws against "forestalling" and "engrossing"—buying up grain in anticipation of price rises or monopolizing markets. These laws existed because everyone understood a basic truth: when middlemen control food distribution, they profit from scarcity while farmers watch crops rot in fields and the poor go hungry. Despite five centuries of these regulations, the patterns persisted. Markets worked efficiently for those with capital and power. Everyone else starved during bad years, even when warehouses held grain.
Today, the mathematics of this failure have gone global. In 2022, households worldwide wasted over 1 billion meals every single day—approximately 1.05 billion tonnes of food—while 783 million people faced hunger and a third of humanity experienced food insecurity. This isn't a production problem. The world produces enough food to nourish every person on the planet. It's a distribution problem, a market architecture problem, an infrastructure problem—the same categories of failure that starved medieval peasants.
The costs compound at every level. Food loss and waste generates 8-10% of global greenhouse gas emissions—almost five times the aviation sector's total emissions—and wastes resources on nearly a third of the world's agricultural land. The economic toll reaches roughly $1 trillion annually. But these numbers obscure the human geography of waste. In developing countries, most food loss happens at harvest time—poor storage facilities lead to pest infestations and mold, while lack of access to markets means farmers watch crops rot in fields as the labor and financial investment required to harvest them remains unavailable. In wealthy nations, food waste concentrates in kitchens and retail stores, where abundance enables carelessness.
Between these two patterns lies an architectural choice embedded in how markets work—or fail to work—for those who grow food.
The Architecture of Medieval Markets, Modern Platforms
Medieval grain markets operated through a web of local exchanges. A farmer in Sussex brought wheat to the nearest market town. Merchants there connected to regional networks, which connected to London or ports for international trade. The system worked when roads stayed passable, when storage prevented spoilage, when information about prices traveled faster than grain itself. It failed catastrophically when weather disrupted harvests, when warfare blocked trade routes, when merchants hoarded supplies anticipating higher prices.
The failures weren't random. Markets operated to benefit those with resources, leverage, and power. Wealthy landowners could store grain through bad years and sell when prices peaked. Merchants with capital bought low from desperate farmers and sold high to desperate consumers. The poor sold their labor for wages that couldn't keep pace with food prices. During the Great Famine of 1315-1317—likely more extreme than any European crisis except the 19th-century Irish famine—grain prices spiked while wages collapsed, and laws targeting "regraters" (small-scale traders buying grain to resell) often punished poor people barely able to afford food rather than wealthy hoarders.
Fast-forward seven centuries. Replace "grain merchants" with "agricultural conglomerates." Replace "market towns" with "commodity exchanges." Replace "storage facilities" with "cold chain logistics." The architecture remains fundamentally the same: centralized intermediaries control information flow, price discovery, and distribution networks. Today, four companies control grain price data, selling access back to farmers whose harvest information created the data in the first place.
This creates predictable consequences. Farmers in Kenya grow surplus tomatoes but lack connections to urban markets, so produce rots in fields. Restaurants in Nairobi order tomatoes shipped from Europe because their procurement systems plug into global supply chains, not local farms. The inefficiency generates waste, carbon emissions, and economic extraction—value flowing from producers to platform operators, from rural areas to corporate headquarters, from the Global South to the Global North.
The pattern holds across crops, across continents, across decades. Not because food production fails, but because market architecture directs surplus toward waste instead of need.
Broadcasting Surplus in Real Time
The Agrinet protocol approaches surplus management the way pre-industrial communities approached party lines: everyone broadcasts to everyone, creating transparent market information without central control.
Here's how it works in practice:
A farmer in Tamil Nadu harvests 500 kilograms of tomatoes—more than her family can eat, can preserve, or can sell through traditional channels. She opens the Agrinet interface on her phone. She posts: "Tomatoes, 500kg, organic, harvested today, GPS coordinates, available tomorrow." The post broadcasts to everyone within a defined radius—initially 50 kilometers, expandable as networks mature. Nearby restaurants, food cooperatives, and households receive the notification. A restaurant 12 kilometers away responds: "We'll take 100kg at market rate." A food bank 8 kilometers away: "Donate 50kg? We'll send transport." A neighbor running a produce stand: "I'll buy 200kg to resell."
The transactions happen through the protocol, recorded on blockchain, transparent and permanent. No intermediary takes 30% fees. No agricultural conglomerate controls price information. No cold chain logistics company requires minimum volumes. The farmer gets paid. The food gets eaten. Surplus becomes security instead of waste.
Now multiply this across tens of thousands of farming operations. The protocol doesn't just connect individual transactions—it creates visible surplus patterns. When mango season peaks in Maharashtra, every farming node broadcasts availability simultaneously. Buyers across the network see real-time supply. Processors preserving mango pulp know exactly where to source raw materials. Food banks coordinate pickups. Small-scale traders identify arbitrage opportunities between rural surplus and urban demand.
This is the architectural inversion that matters: instead of information flowing up to centralized platforms and back down as proprietary market intelligence, information broadcasts horizontally across the network. Everyone sees what everyone else sees. Transparency replaces information asymmetry. Cooperation replaces extraction.
The technology isn't complicated—it's network theory applied to the oldest human challenge: making sure everyone eats.
The Feature Phone Advantage
Here's where the architectural choice becomes most consequential: 40% of people in India own feature phones rather than smartphones, and 35% don't own mobile devices at all. In Nigeria, 44% own feature phones; in Indonesia, 28%. These percentages represent billions of people—farmers, small traders, food bank operators, community organizers—who get excluded from digital platforms requiring smartphone apps, reliable internet, and technical literacy.
The Agrinet protocol runs on feature phones. Not simplified versions. Not "basic" functionality. Full protocol participation—posting produce, browsing network availability, completing transactions, providing LBTAS ratings—through SMS and basic data channels accessible on the simplest phones. This design decision matters enormously in regions where food insecurity concentrates.
Consider the transmission structure:
key1_[key]/key2_[key]/ui_string/user_data/
dmpst/item=tomatoes/qty=500kg/u=kg/
loc=geoLat_12.9716,geoLong_77.5946/
avail=2024-11-15/price=40/
over
A feature phone sends this string via SMS. The network parses, validates, and broadcasts to nearby nodes. Responses come back as text messages. The transaction completes through the same channel. Total data usage: negligible. Technical requirements: literacy and basic phone operation. Barriers to entry: essentially none.
This SMS-based architecture means Agrinet can operate everywhere mobile networks exist—which is nearly everywhere. Globally, 86% of adults own mobile phones. In Sub-Saharan Africa, where formal savings increased by 12 percentage points through mobile money platforms, the infrastructure already exists for Agrinet to broadcast surplus, coordinate pickups, and complete transactions.
The protocol meets farmers where they are, with technology they already own, through interfaces they already understand. No smartphone required. No app store access needed. No reliable internet connection necessary. Just a phone, a farming operation, and surplus that currently rots in fields because existing market architecture can't efficiently connect small producers to nearby consumers.
From Medieval Famines to Digital Abundance
The comparison to medieval grain markets isn't metaphorical. It's diagnostic. Medieval and early modern European famines resulted from failures in storage, distribution, and market access—not from agricultural output falling to zero. Grain existed. People starved anyway. Markets that worked efficiently for wealthy merchants failed catastrophically for subsistence farmers and urban poor.
The Great Famine of 1315-1317 killed millions despite grain supplies that could have prevented starvation if distributed differently. Institutional structures—who controlled storage facilities, who set prices, who accessed credit, who could afford transportation—determined who ate and who starved. The weather triggered the crisis. Market architecture determined who survived.
We're recreating these patterns at planetary scale. Each person wastes an average of 79 kilograms of food annually—equivalent to 1.3 meals every day for everyone in the world impacted by hunger. The food exists. The hungry people exist. The infrastructure connecting them doesn't, because market architecture optimizes for extraction, not distribution.
Agrinet changes the optimization function. Instead of markets designed to maximize profit for intermediaries, networks designed to minimize waste by broadcasting surplus to everyone simultaneously. Instead of centralized platforms that charge rent on every transaction, distributed protocols where farmers and consumers transact directly. Instead of proprietary price information sold back to producers, transparent market data accessible to all network participants.
The technical implementation matters less than the architectural choice: building food systems that assume everyone deserves to see the same information at the same time, that surplus should flow toward need rather than accumulate in corporate warehouses, that farmers who grow food shouldn't have to pay intermediaries 30% to reach consumers ten kilometers away.
This is what network theory offers: not utopian transformation, but practical application of patterns we already understand. Party-line telephone systems connected rural communities before AT&T monopolized telecommunications. Community mesh networks kept Red Hook, Brooklyn connected when Hurricane Sandy knocked out corporate cellular towers. Cooperative grain elevators gave farmers leverage against railroad monopolies in the 1920s.
Agrinet updates these patterns for 21st-century food systems: broadcast protocols instead of party lines, SMS instead of copper wire, blockchain verification instead of cooperative membership ledgers. The principle remains constant: transparency enables cooperation, cooperation enables distribution, distribution prevents waste.
The Carbon Benefit
Food miles reduction: Every local transaction that replaces long-distance shipping generates measurable emissions avoidance. A restaurant buying tomatoes 12 kilometers away instead of importing from Europe avoids roughly 180 kg CO₂ per tonne of produce.
Waste diversion: Food that would have rotted in fields instead gets consumed. Diverted organic waste prevents methane emissions from decomposition. Ten tonnes of annual food waste diverted generates approximately 10,500 kg CO₂ equivalent in avoided emissions.
Urban carbon sinks: Small-scale farming operations tracked through the protocol—gardens, small plots, urban agriculture—sequester carbon in soil and biomass. A 100-square-meter garden with 300 kg annual yield sequesters approximately 242 kg CO₂ equivalent per year.
These aren't hypothetical calculations. The protocol's PING update system—periodic reports with geolocation and photo documentation—creates an auditable trail. Every harvest report, every transaction, every waste diversion service gets recorded on blockchain with timestamps and GPS coordinates. The native LBTAS rating extension lets community members verify environmental claims while network validators conduct spot-checks.
Carbon credit markets currently can't efficiently aggregate thousands of small emissions reductions. Transaction costs exceed credit value. Agrinet solves this by building verification into the protocol itself. The same infrastructure that broadcasts surplus availability also quantifies carbon impact, verifies claims through community ratings, and aggregates credits automatically.
This creates a secondary incentive structure: farmers don't just sell produce through Agrinet—they could generate carbon credits that increase income by 15-30%. Composting services don't just divert waste—they earn verified carbon credits. Consumers choosing local produce don't just reduce emissions—they participate in a transparent carbon accounting system.
Carbon accounting doesn't have to be separate from surplus management. It can be embedded in the same protocol, recorded in the same blockchain, verified through the same community mechanisms. This integration makes what was previously too expensive to measure—distributed emissions reductions across thousands of small operations—suddenly economically viable.
The Accessibility Imperative
Return to the feature phone architecture. In India, where developer communities grew at 28% annually between 2020 and 2024, technical capacity exists to build sophisticated platforms. But 90% of technical documentation remains in English, and smartphone penetration reaches only 35%. An agricultural protocol requiring smartphones and internet access excludes precisely the farmers who most need efficient market access.
Agrinet's SMS-based transmission system solves this by operating through the lowest common denominator: basic mobile phones on 2G networks. The protocol doesn't degrade gracefully to feature phone capability—it begins with feature phone capability as core architecture. SMS transmissions, structured data formats, and server-side processing mean the full protocol works on a $15 phone from 2010.
This design choice determines global viability. In Sub-Saharan Africa, where 35% of adults now save in financial accounts—a 12-percentage point increase through mobile money platforms—the infrastructure exists to broadcast agricultural surplus through the same channels. Farmers already send mobile money transfers via SMS. They already check prices via text message. Agrinet builds on existing literacy and existing infrastructure rather than requiring new phones, new skills, or new technical capacity.
The protocol becomes accessible exactly where food insecurity concentrates, where surplus management fails most catastrophically, where existing platforms exclude farmers who lack smartphones. Feature phone architecture isn't a compromise. It's the foundational requirement for global food security applications.
Building What Should Have Existed
Medieval market regulations failed to prevent famine because laws couldn't change the architecture of centralized grain trading. Contemporary food waste prevention programs fail for similar reasons—they address symptoms (consumer behavior, refrigeration, packaging) without restructuring the market architecture that creates surplus and waste simultaneously in different locations.
Agrinet doesn't convince people to waste less food. It makes surplus visible to everyone in real time, creating transparent market information that enables efficient distribution. The protocol doesn't lecture farmers about storage techniques. It connects them directly to buyers, making harvest profitable instead of wasteful. It doesn't shame consumers for wasting food. It shows them local produce available for purchase today, making fresh food accessible instead of expensive.
This is infrastructure work, not behavior change campaigns. Build the broadcasting protocol. Enable feature phone access. Record transactions transparently. Verify through community ratings. Aggregate carbon credits automatically. Let network effects handle the rest.
When farmers can broadcast surplus to nearby buyers without intermediaries taking 30% fees, they broadcast. When restaurants can source locally at lower cost with better freshness, they source locally. When food banks can coordinate donations through transparent protocols, they coordinate. When consumers can see exactly where food comes from and what it costs farmers to produce, they make different purchasing decisions.
The network architecture creates incentives that align individual benefit with collective surplus management. Not through regulation, not through subsidy, not through moral persuasion—through transparent information flow and direct connections between producers and consumers.
This is what the internet enables when we build protocols instead of platforms, when we broadcast data instead of hoarding it, when we optimize for distribution rather than extraction. The technology for turning surplus into security already exists. We just have to build systems that use it correctly.
Learn More
Food Waste and Hunger:
Medieval Market History:
Mobile Technology and Development:
Agrinet Technical Documentation:
The Agrinet protocol won't build itself, and feature phone accessibility won't happen unless developers prioritize SMS-based transmission from the start. This requires technical capacity—engineers who understand distributed protocols, developers who can optimize for low-bandwidth networks, researchers who can verify carbon accounting methodologies at scale. If you understand why broadcasting surplus beats extracting rent, if you see how network architecture determines who eats and who starves, if you recognize that feature phone access matters more than smartphone polish—join the development work. Join NTARI's Slack workspace where protocol specifications get written, SMS transmission formats get debugged, and agricultural networks get built: https://join.slack.com/t/ntari/shared_invite/zt-39injdzvr-a7jY2FVU00fYPopG7gyP4w
Or support the mission financially. NTARI operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, which means the organization answers to its mission—building cooperative internet infrastructure—not to shareholders demanding returns. The Agrinet protocol requires research funding, development resources, and sustained organizational capacity. Every dollar funds protocol development, carbon accounting verification, and network deployment in regions where food insecurity concentrates. If this vision of transparent food networks and feature phone accessibility resonates with you, support the work at https://ntari.org/#give. Build the infrastructure that makes surplus management work for everyone who grows food and everyone who needs to eat.
Comments