• The study examines seven key narratives: food sovereignty, agroecology, One Health, more-than-human, multifunctional landscapes, market-based frameworks, and regenerative food systems, revealing both varying levels of overlap and divergence. All identify the current ‘industrial food system’ as fundamentally flawed, but propose different understandings of why it is flawed and what appropriate responses would be.
• Biodiversity is rarely a central theme in food system narratives; it is usually framed indirectly as biodiversity loss or as an instrumental environmental factor. Its complexity is insufficiently explored, often subsumed under the broader sustainability agenda without deeper engagement with values, dependencies, risks, and opportunities.
• Most narratives adopt an anthropocentric perspective, except for More-Than-Human, and they differ across key dialectics such as top-down versus bottom-up, radical versus reformist, and techno-optimism versus techno-pessimism.
• Common blind spots and biases exist across narratives, including limited attention to strategies for phasing out existing harmful practices or engaging with dominant actors in the current ‘flawed’ food system. There is also a tendency to frame biodiversity primarily in instrumental terms, overlooking its intrinsic and relational values.
• Engagement with stakeholders reveals the subtle role of emotions and discomfort in narrative dialogue. Personal values often align with narratives other than the professional narratives.
• Narratives can be leveraged based on pragmatic, strategic or moral principles. • Working with narratives can make hidden values, opposing worldviews, and blind spots visible and encourage self-reflection. By recognising the context and diversity of narratives, they can transform from invisible barriers to bridges for connection, learning, and inclusive dialogue.
• Dialogue sessions generated findings, and they reflected: raising individual awareness of diverse narratives, raising awareness between personal and professional lenses, raising awareness about the power dynamics between dominant and marginalised perspectives, and simultaneously fostering collective awareness in a more open, exploratory exchange space.

The combination of individual reflection and collective dialogue creates a unique and mutually reinforcing effect.