We lost the thread between field and plate
A few decades ago, the origin of food was rarely a question. The market gardener had a name, a face, a land that everyone knew.
Today, we scan a barcode that often just says 'Origin EU/non-EU'. That's it.
A large majority of consumers no longer trust labels. And we completely understand them.
The real problem is what can't be verified
We often oppose local and imported, short circuits and globalization. These debates make sense — for climate, for local employment, for territorial resilience.
But there's an even more fundamental problem: the impossibility of concretely verifying what has been done. The product we know almost nothing about — whether it comes from 50 km or 5,000 km away.
A Moroccan argan oil producer who documents every step of her work deserves exactly the same consideration as a market gardener from the Loire Valley.
Preferring local is often an excellent choice. But a local product can be opaque and a distant product can be exemplary. What is never defensible is the impossibility of verifying.
Those who do well pay for those who cheat
George Akerlof received the Nobel Prize in Economics for demonstrating a simple and destructive mechanism: when the buyer cannot distinguish real quality, the price tends toward that of the most mediocre product. The good ones end up discouraged or leaving the market.
The producer who respects their soil, who pays their seasonal workers fairly, who documents their practices is paid at the same level as one who takes shortcuts. Because the consumer, lacking reliable information, cannot see the difference.
"Depending on the sector, producers often capture only 25 to 35% of the final product value."
The rest disappears into a chain of intermediaries they don't even know. They don't know where their products end up. They don't know at what price they're resold. We've turned farmers into anonymous suppliers.
What the market doesn't yet pay for
A committed producer doesn't just make food. They also produce landscape and biodiversity, employment and rural vitality, territorial food resilience, social bonds in the countryside.
Economists call these 'positive externalities': real value that the market doesn't pay for (or pays very poorly).
Traceability doesn't solve everything. But it makes visible what was invisible. And what becomes visible can — finally — begin to be valued.
Putting the producer at the center
Traceability is too often presented as a tool to reassure consumers.
We believe it should first serve to better pay producers who act responsibly and transparently.
Those who can concretely demonstrate their practices should be able to capture a fairer share of the value created. Not through charity. Not through subsidies. Through simple economic justice.
The producer is not an interchangeable link in the logistics chain. They're the one who creates the value. It's time they capture their fair share.
What we're building
Not another label — the proliferation of logos has drowned out the signal. Not a certification based on unverified declarations. A registry of verifiable and immutable proofs.
- Who produced — not a batch number, a face (when the producer wishes)
- How it's made — sensors, objective readings, not just forms
- Where it passed through — every link, every documented step
- What real level of traceability — a progressive and transparent score, not a simple 'yes/no' badge
And yes, we use blockchain. Not because it's trendy, but because it's the tool that meets the need: guaranteeing that data recorded at a precise moment can no longer be modified afterwards — not by us, not by a distributor, not by an administration.
Blockchain is not an end in itself. It's a neutral, verifiable registry that no one controls alone. A tool serving producers and consumers.
A structurally richer economy
In an economy where real quality is visible and verifiable: transaction costs decrease, specialization increases, real effort is rewarded rather than marketing storytelling.
What was technically impossible twenty years ago is now achievable at near-zero marginal cost: capturing, storing, and making accessible fine and reliable information about origin and practices.
We have the tools. The infrastructure was missing.
Our position
Anti-opacity, not anti-import.
Ethiopian coffee traced directly to the cooperative has its place. Moroccan argan oil documented down to the harvesters has its place. Provence tomatoes with a high score have their place.
What no longer has a place is the anonymous product, the opaque chain, the 'origin EU/non-EU' label that tells nothing.
We can debate globalization. Opacity is never defensible.
What we won't do
- ✗Tell people what they should buy
- ✗Systematically moralize about local vs import
- ✗Demand perfection from day one
We make information accessible and verifiable. Everyone remains free to make their own choices.
A producer at 50% traceability who displays it honestly is infinitely better than one claiming 100% without any proof.
We value honest progress, not displayed perfection.
The time has come
The European Digital Product Passport becomes mandatory from 2027. Traceability will shift from marketing option to regulatory obligation for many sectors.
The question is no longer 'do we trace?', but: who builds the infrastructure? How is governance organized? Where does the created value go?
We can leave that to American or Chinese tech giants. Or we can build a European response, open, where most of the value returns to those who actually produce and document.
The time is now.
VeraTrace is not a traceability startup. It's a trust infrastructure designed to enable the market to recognize and pay — finally — those who do things right, and everything they bring to the territory they shape.
References
- • George Akerlof — 'The Market for Lemons' (1970) — Nobel Prize in Economics 2001
- • Ronald Coase — Transaction cost theory
- • Elinor Ostrom — Governance of the commons — Nobel Prize in Economics 2009
- • Hernando de Soto — Informal capital and institutional trust