For fruit and vegetable producers, exporters and retailers, this shift may prove as important as earlier revolutions in cold chain management, certification or supermarket quality standards. In the next phase of agrifood competition, an apple, berry, tomato or bunch of grapes will not be judged only by appearance, taste, price or shelf life. It may also be judged by the quality, reliability and accessibility of the data attached to it.
The “augmented apple” presented by Prof. Brunori was not simply an apple with a QR code. It represented a much broader concept: a product connected to an entire digital ecosystem of information – origin, production methods, chemical and physical properties, logistics, movements, changes of ownership, environmental indicators and compliance data, writes EastFruit.
In practical terms, this means that food is becoming “queryable”. A retailer, regulator, importer, bank, certification body — or even a consumer — may increasingly expect to access the life story of a product in seconds.
Traceability is moving beyond compliance
Traceability has long been part of the European food safety system. Under the EU General Food Law, food and feed operators must be able to identify at least the immediate supplier and the immediate subsequent recipient of a product — the so-called “one step back, one step forward” principle. The European Commission describes traceability as essential for withdrawing faulty products from the market, informing consumers accurately and protecting food safety across the chain.
For fresh fruit and vegetables, the regulatory baseline is already demanding. EU marketing standards require fresh produce sold to consumers to be of sound, fair and marketable quality, and to indicate the country of origin. Specific EU marketing standards apply to products such as apples, citrus, kiwifruit, peaches and nectarines, pears, strawberries, table grapes, tomatoes and others.
Exporters to Europe are also expected to provide detailed labelling and documentation. According to CBI, trade packages of fresh fruit and vegetables should include information such as packer or dispatcher details, product name and variety, country of origin, class, size and lot number for traceability. The same source notes that many European supermarkets apply requirements that go beyond legal minimums, including stricter residue expectations than the official EU maximum residue limits.
But Prof. Brunori’s presentation pointed to a new stage. Traceability is no longer only about proving where a product came from in case of a recall. It is becoming a system for managing interconnected data across the whole value chain.
From product movement to data movement
The modern food chain generates information at every stage: farm production, input use, treatments, harvest, storage, transport, processing, inspections, distribution, retail handling and consumer communication. Each stage can create a data layer that may influence safety, market access, sustainability claims, logistics efficiency or commercial trust.
This is particularly relevant for fresh produce, where perishability makes information valuable. Temperature history, storage conditions, transport routes, harvest date, batch identity, residue monitoring and shelf-life performance are not abstract data points. They directly affect shrinkage, claims, waste, retailer satisfaction and profitability.
The EU food waste problem shows why this matters. The European Commission estimates that over 58 million tonnes of food waste are generated annually in the EU, with an associated market value of around €132 billion. Food waste also accounts for about 16% of total greenhouse gas emissions from the EU food system. For fresh produce chains, better data can help identify where losses occur and whether they are linked to harvest timing, packaging, logistics, temperature abuse or retail handling.
This is why the “augmented apple” is not just a technological metaphor. It is a business model signal. Data may become an operational tool for reducing losses, defending margins and proving performance.
Sustainability claims will need evidence, not slogans
The shift toward data-rich food is also being accelerated by European policy on sustainability and green claims.
The EU’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation introduced the broader concept of digital product passports for many physical goods, although food and feed are explicitly excluded from the general ESPR scope. This distinction is important: there is no universal EU digital product passport requirement for apples or berries under ESPR. However, the logic behind the digital product passport — structured, accessible, verifiable product information — is already influencing how agrifood businesses think about transparency, compliance and consumer trust.
At the same time, the EU is tightening rules around environmental communication. Directive (EU) 2024/825 on empowering consumers for the green transition targets misleading environmental claims and requires clearer, more verifiable information. Member States must transpose it by 27 March 2026, and the rules apply from 27 September 2026.
The separate Green Claims Directive proposal is more politically uncertain: the European Parliament’s legislative tracker lists the file as blocked, after the Commission announced on 20 June 2025 that it intended to withdraw the proposal and a trilogue scheduled for 23 June 2025 was cancelled. However, the direction of travel remains clear: environmental claims are becoming harder to make without documented evidence.
For producers and exporters, this means that phrases such as “sustainable”, “low impact”, “climate friendly”, “regenerative” or “responsibly produced” will increasingly need to be supported by data. Carbon footprint, water use, biodiversity practices, residue records, soil management and input use may become not only internal agronomic information, but commercial evidence.
The farmer’s notebook becomes a strategic asset
One of the most practical points in Prof. Brunori’s presentation concerned the burden placed on farmers. As he noted, the agrifood system is becoming more complex, but “at the end, it must be very simple.”
This is a critical point. If digital traceability becomes another bureaucratic layer imposed on producers, it will create resistance. If it reduces paperwork, improves decision-making and helps farmers communicate with administrations, consultants, cooperatives, retailers and buyers, it can become a useful business tool.
The EU is already moving in this direction for farm-level records. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/564 requires professional users of plant protection products to keep records electronically in a machine-readable format, including information such as product used, time and dose of application, treated area and crop. A 2025 amendment postponed the transfer of certain records into electronic format, with the digital transition now linked to the 2027 timeline in Member States.
This matters for horticulture because plant protection records, residue control and field operations are among the most sensitive data categories for retailers and regulators. In future, the farm notebook may no longer be just a compliance file. It may become part of the commercial identity of a product.
Prof. Brunori also mentioned emerging tools that make data entry easier for farmers, including applications using artificial intelligence and WhatsApp-style voice input. This is where the real adoption challenge lies. The future of traceability will not depend only on blockchain, sensors or digital platforms. It will depend on whether farmers can collect reliable data without losing time and autonomy.
Who needs the data?
One of the most interesting dimensions of the presentation was the number of actors interested in agricultural data. It is not only the farmer and the buyer. Data is increasingly relevant for consultants, professional organisations, consortia, cooperatives, consumers, public administrations, banks, researchers, machinery producers, contractors and input suppliers.
This changes the role of the producer. A farm is no longer only a production unit. It is also a source of verified information for the whole value chain.
For banks and investors, farm data can support risk assessment, sustainability-linked finance or insurance. For cooperatives and consortia, it can improve coordination, certification and collective branding. For retailers, it can reduce reputational risk and support stronger consumer communication. For public authorities, it can support controls and policy monitoring. For researchers and technology providers, it can help develop better production systems.
However, this also raises a strategic question: who owns the data, who benefits from it and who pays for its collection? This question is especially important for small and medium-sized producers, including many horticultural farms. If data becomes a new currency in agrifood, producers must avoid becoming unpaid data suppliers in systems controlled entirely by downstream actors.
What it means for fresh produce exporters
For exporters of apples, berries, stone fruit, vegetables or grapes, the “augmented apple” concept should be read as a market signal. European buyers increasingly want predictable supply, food safety, residue discipline, origin transparency, social and environmental assurance, and documented compliance.
In the past, a good product could open the door. In the near future, a good product without reliable data may not be enough.
This is particularly relevant for suppliers from countries seeking stronger access to EU retail chains. Digital traceability can help them demonstrate origin, production discipline, storage performance, certification status and sustainability progress. But weak data systems can create bottlenecks: slower audits, weaker negotiating power, higher risk of claims and lower trust from buyers.
For retailers, the benefits are also clear. A data-rich product can support faster recalls, better stock management, more credible sustainability communication and lower reputational risk. In an environment where greenwashing enforcement is tightening and food safety expectations remain high, verified data becomes a form of insurance.
Commenting on the implications for fresh produce producers and exporters, Kateryna Zvierieva, Director of the Ukrainian Horticulture Association and international agrifood expert, noted that the “augmented apple” concept is highly relevant for the sector. “For the fresh produce sector, this shift is both an opportunity and a warning. Better data can create trust, reduce losses, strengthen exports and help producers prove the value of good agricultural practices. At the same time, markets will increasingly penalise companies that cannot provide reliable evidence. In the next generation of agrifood trade, the product and the data will move together. Trust will depend not only on the quality of the fruit, but also on the reliability of the information attached to it. The ‘augmented apple’ is not a futuristic image — it is a symbol of the next competitive frontier: from food as a product to food as proof,” comments Kateryna Zvierieva, Director of the Ukrainian Horticulture Association and international agrifood expert. 
The apple that tells its own story
The power of Prof. Brunori’s “augmented apple” lies in its simplicity. An apple may soon be expected to tell its own story: where it was grown, how it was produced, which inputs were used, how it was stored, how it travelled, what environmental indicators are attached to it and whether the claims made about it can be verified.
The international conference “Food Revolution 2026”, organised by Affidia Srl SB, took place on 11–13 May 2026 in Venice-Mestre, Italy, and was dedicated to the theme “Science-based actions for health and sustainability.” The scale of the discussion was also reflected in the event’s broad partner ecosystem: the conference brought together scientific institutions, technology companies, certification bodies, professional associations, sectoral platforms and specialised media around the key issues of sustainability, innovation and the transformation of agri-food value chains. The conference sponsors included ICGEB and Biolab; Fondazione Agrifood & Bioeconomy FVG, Leyton, Bioagricert, IRCAF and Associazione Clust-ER Agroalimentare; as well as AGROLAB GROUP, Bovaer® | dsm-firmenich and Exponent. The event was held under the patronage of Cluster Agrifood Nazionale CL.A.N., Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Consiglio dell’Ordine Nazionale dei Tecnologi Alimentari, Regione Veneto, ICGEB and ENEA. Among the partners were CRPA, The Protein Project, Affidia Journal, The Good Food Institute Europe, Green Retail, EFFoST, Foodvalley, Wageningen University & Research and ProVeg International. Media support and sectoral coverage were provided, in particular, by Agricultura.it, EconomiaCircolare, AgroNotizie, GreenRetail and Ruminantia.
The use of the site materials is free if there is a direct and open for search engines hyperlink to a specific publication of the East-Fruit.com website.
