GFI Europe recently published its 2026 Mid-Year Impact Update, highlighting progress across policy, science, and industry during the first half of the year. The update covers work to generate evidence for policymakers, connect researchers and companies to solve technical bottlenecks, and support businesses as they scale alternative proteins across Europe.
Food biomanufacturing and national security
GFI and the National Defense Industrial Association's Emerging Technologies Institute published a new research brief examining the national security implications of food biomanufacturing. The brief was launched at a Washington, D.C. convening attended by food biomanufacturing companies and representatives from 11 U.S. federal offices, followed by meetings with congressional offices.
The report argues that food biomanufacturing can strengthen domestic supply chains, reduce dependence on vulnerable agricultural inputs, and position alternative proteins within broader U.S. biotechnology and manufacturing priorities.
Open-access roadmap for cultivated seafood research
GFI published Developing Continuous Cell Lines for Cultivated Seafood, a new technical guide to help researchers establish continuous cell lines for fish and crustaceans. Developed with scientists from across the field, the guide brings together practical recommendations and troubleshooting advice in a single open-access resource.
Reliable cell lines remain a key technical bottleneck for cultivated seafood. By making this knowledge openly available, GFI aims to reduce duplicated effort and lower barriers for new researchers entering the field.
First novel mycoprotein authorised in the EU
The European Commission has authorised The Protein Brewery's Fermotein under the EU Novel Food Regulation, making it the first newly authorised mycoprotein that can now be sold across all 27 EU Member States.
This is an important milestone for alternative proteins in Europe and may help establish regulatory precedent for future mycoprotein applications.
Hot off the press: Our 2026 State of the Industry reports:
Our annual deep dive into the rapidly evolving alternative protein landscape is here! GFI has GFI’s 2026 State of the Industry reports provide a global snapshot of the plant-based, fermentation-derived, and cultivated protein landscape—synthesizing product trends, investment and sales data, new scientific advancements, public investment, and regulatory updates to highlight industry progress.
Although it was a challenging year for the sector, with some start ups closing their doors, regulatory hurdles, and ongoing misinformation around ultraprocessed foods, the overall picture is good. Plant-based food sales grew by 3% in 2025, with Europe remaining the biggest market. And government investment in alternative proteins has quadrupled in the last four years, with 33 countries now investing in the sector (up from 16 in 2020).
Calling for alternative proteins to be included in EU plans
Together with 30+ organisations, GFI Europe has signed a joint letter calling for novel foods, including alternative proteins, to be included in new EU legislation on regulatory sandboxes – spaces where regulators and innovators can learn about new technologies together.
Regulatory sandboxes are already used across the EU to accelerate innovation in an evidence-led way. But currently, alternative proteins are excluded from these sandboxes, missing out on an opportunity to accelerate research and improve regulator confidence in alternative proteins. We're asking EU policymakers to change this ahead of upcoming negotiations.
China’s alternative protein opportunity A new report bySystemiq Ltd. models how China's innovation-to-mass-adoption playbook could fundamentally reimagine global meat production over the coming decades.
According to the report, new food security legislation, state investment in fermentation infrastructure, and the emergence of alternative protein clusters indicate that protein innovation is a central strategic priority for the nation's policymakers.
By taking a page from the playbook it used to successfully scale its EV and solar industries and applying that strategy to food, China could go from an "engine of global agricultural demand" to a net protein exporter as soon as 2040.
Dig intoThe Good Food Institute APAC's latest newsletter to learn more.
Our 2025 Year in Review: Celebrating 10 years of GFI
I’m excited to share GFI’s 2025 Year in Review, and this edition is particularly special! As GFI is celebrating its 10th anniversary, it looks back on a decade of progress, from a two-person startup to a global movement that’s transforming how meat is made.
Thanks to our supporters, GFI has provided over $24M in open-access research funding, grown the Alt Protein Project to 70 university chapters worldwide, and made alternative proteins a recognised solution for policymakers and leaders.
Using native crops to develop plant-based products in Brazil
GFI Brazil recently concluded the Biomes Program, a five-year initiative exploring the use of native crops from the Amazon and Cerrado in plant-based products. The program invested R$4.3M across 33 research institutions and worked with 25 local communities to help build supply chains. To end the project, GFI Brazil held an event where researchers shared results and attendees tasted products made from these ingredients, from babaçu burgers to guarana meatballs. GFI Brazil has shown that it is possible to create delicious plant-based proteins from native crops, while supporting local communities and strengthening the case for protecting native ecosystems.
EU bans use of ‘meaty’ terms to describe alternative proteins
EU policymakers have agreed to ban the use of 31 everyday terms to describe plant-based foods. Once the restrictions come into force, words like “steak,” “bacon,” and “chicken” will no longer be allowed on plant-based product labels in the region, or on future cultivated meat products and ingredients.
These restrictions will create unnecessary confusion for consumers and make it more difficult for companies to bring products to market. But we remain positive about the long-term opportunities for alternative proteins in Europe, and we’re already working on next steps to reduce the impact, including hiring a policy representative in France, where policymakers have been among the strongest supporters of these restrictions.
Ecosystem development in Europe (EA Forum post)
For those interested in how the alternative protein landscape is evolving in Europe, this recent EA Forum post provides an overview of ecosystem growth across research, policy, and industry.
Thanks for your comment, and I completely agree with your framing of the opportunity here. Alternative proteins really do sit at the intersection of animal welfare, climate, and global health in a way that’s quite unique.
One of the biggest barriers to impact right now is funding. Public R&D funding for alternative proteins is increasing, which is really encouraging, but it still represents only a small share of overall food and agriculture funding and is far below what’s needed. Shifting that is one of the highest-leverage opportunities, and a key focus for GFI Europe.
Last year, GFI Europe directly influenced more than $55 million in R&D funding for the alternative protein ecosystem (excluding new government commitments that haven’t yet been spent). And globally, every $1 donated to GFI catalyses roughly $25–30 in follow-on public R&D funding. This multiplier effect is one of the reasons many in the EA community see this as a particularly high-impact area.
For EAs looking to help, one of the most impactful routes is supporting early-stage research and field-building, where philanthropic funding can unlock much larger pools of public funding as the field becomes more established and investment is seen as less risky.
Another way to help is by strengthening talent pathways. Building a pipeline of scientists, entrepreneurs, and policymakers is crucial to scaling the field. Individuals can have a direct impact here, either by pursuing careers in alternative proteins themselves or supporting others to do so. At GFI Europe, for example, we support student-led groups at universities to become hubs for alternative protein research and innovation through our Alt Protein Project, helping to inspire the next generation of leaders shaping the future of food.
Your comparison to AI is really interesting. It shows how quickly a field can scale once it’s treated as a strategic priority. We’re definitely starting to see a shift in the right direction, but accelerating it is the big challenge.
Really appreciate you raising this – it’s exactly the kind of conversation that helps move the field forward.
Animal agriculture is a leading driver of biodiversity loss on land, largely through habitat conversion for livestock and feed crops. Analyses suggest that transitioning toward alternative proteins could reduce the land required for food production by up to 75%, potentially freeing land for ecosystem restoration and rewilding.
Putting alternative proteins on the farming agenda
In January, GFI’s Nutrition Lead Amy Williams spoke at the Oxford Real Farming Conference alongside Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall about the role plant-based meat could play in a healthier and more sustainable food system. The panel helped bring alternative proteins into conversations with farming and environmental stakeholders, including addressing common misconceptions and exploring areas of alignment.
Being part of these wider food system conversations is essential to building the credibility and partnerships we need to succeed in creating a sustainable, secure, and just food system. You can watch Amy in action here or read an overview on our blog.
New economic analysis opens doors with senior policymakers
Since Systemiq launched its GFI-funded economic analysis of alternative proteins in Europe last month, GFI Europe has secured 11 one-to-one meetings with senior UK and EU policymakers to discuss the potential of alternative proteins and how they can be positioned as a policy priority.
Having credible, EU-wide data on the issues policymakers care about most, including jobs, economic growth and competitiveness, was vital to securing these meetings. By equipping policymakers with the evidence they need to make decisions, GFI is helping ensure alternative proteins are part of key policy discussions that will shape long-term systems change.
Mycelium Olympics Thanks to GFI’s Research Grants Program, scientists have tested which species of mushrooms are best suited for growing food, by testing growth speed, protein quality, yield and flavour. You can see the results of what we’re calling the ‘Mycelium Olympics’ in our recent LinkedIn post, it’s a fun one!
This early-stage research is essential for understanding which species are most likely to actually mimic the taste and texture of conventional meat, and by funding this work, GFI is helping build that knowledge base for the whole field.
One of the strengths of alternative proteins is that they have a broad impact on everything from climate and animal welfare to food security and global health. Because of this, GFI naturally attracts supporters who are motivated by very different cause areas.
To your question, no, receiving money from animal-welfare inspired donors does not mean we’ll pass up on opportunities from climate philanthropists. The funding gap for alternative proteins is so large that support from any donor, no matter their motivation for giving, increases our ability to pursue additional opportunities across the ecosystem.
You may have seen in my previous comments on this post that the ClimateWorks Foundation estimates that the world needs about $10.1 billion per year in public funding just for alternative protein R&D and scale-up. In comparison, GFI’s total annual budget is about $40 million across seven organisations, with Europe receiving just under $5 million. So there’s no risk that animal welfare donors will remove the need for climate donors.
You mentioned that there is more funding available in the climate space than in animal welfare. This is true; globally, climate philanthropy is estimated at around $9.3 billion to $15.8 billion per year, compared with around $290 million per year for farmed animal welfare. But, according to the ClimateWorks Foundation, only around 2% of climate philanthropy goes to the food system. And within that, as you can imagine, only a small portion supports alternative proteins.
GFI has been recommended by Giving Green as one of their top climate nonprofits for several years now, and we’re seeing a growing proportion of donors who come to us because of our climate impact. That said, it takes time to build awareness, relationships, and trust in a new philanthropic space; so a significant amount of GFI’s core funding still comes from donors who are more motivated by animal welfare. This support is vital for enabling us to continue and expand our work.
Every year, GFI’s global team identifies the most impactful work needed to improve the taste and reduce the price of alternative proteins, so that we’re able to reach mass adoption as quickly as possible. Meeting our fundraising goals directly affects how fast we get there.
So we’re really grateful for any and all support. And by having a diverse donor base, GFI is more financially stable and resilient as an organisation, which in turn makes us better equipped to carry out our mission.
Thanks again for your question. I hope this response is helpful.
We think it’s great news that AIM is working to bring more talent and capacity into the alternative protein space. Unlocking scale-up funding is a highly neglected but critical challenge, and it’s great to see other organisations considering how best to attract funding for this.
To ensure the maximum impact and coordinate resources, GFI would be really excited to collaborate closely with any new charity. We’d gladly share our expertise, data, and relationships so that the new charity can build on what already exists rather than starting from scratch.
As I mentioned in the post, GFI Europe already has two full-time staff working specifically on scale-up (one focused on policy in Brussels and one focused on the private sector), and all of our country-level leads in the UK, Spain, Germany, and the Nordics have securing scale-up funding as one of their core goals. But even with this capacity, there are far more opportunities than we can currently pursue, so a new charity could definitely add value.
One promising approach would be for the new organisation to focus on high-potential geographies where GFI does not yet have a presence. That would increase total coverage and avoid the risk of both organisations knocking on the same government doors.
There are also clear research gaps that someone needs to fill. For example, an assessment of existing infrastructure capacity and retrofitting potential across European regions. These kinds of insights can make a strong, credible case to policymakers, and GFI would love to see them developed, whether by us or by another actor in the space.
In short, we’re enthusiastic about more capacity entering this field, and we’d be keen to collaborate to ensure the new charity’s work is complementary, strategic, and maximally impactful.
Thanks for your comment. We’re always happy to answer questions about our impact!
It’s difficult to make a direct comparison between the impact of GFI’s work in alternative proteins and that of other animal advocacy organisations because the theory of change is so different. Advocacy campaigns can generate short-term wins for animals, but they don’t address the root causes of factory farming. GFI’s focus is on long-term, systemic change, transforming the entire food system by finding an alternative to conventional animal products that can feed the world with a fraction of the harm. This kind of change inevitably takes longer, but the potential scale of impact is much greater. GFI’s role is basically to make this transition faster and achieve this impact more quickly.
You shared an article comparing the impact of donating to The Humane League with investing in alternative proteins, but flagged that you think it’s likely that supporting GFI is more effective than investing in individual companies, and therefore, this would be a better comparison of impact. We agree. Investing in alternative proteins by directly funding a pilot plant or factory can help one company scale faster, but it doesn’t solve the barriers holding back the sector, like missing infrastructure, unclear regulations, or limited public funding.
Philanthropic support for GFI fills that gap. We help governments recognise alternative proteins as a strategic priority, direct investors toward opportunities, and support companies with the data, insights, and regulatory clarity they need to scale sustainably. Without this work, alternative proteins wouldn’t be seen as a credible or fundable opportunity by governments or investors, meaning every donated euro or dollar can have an outsized catalytic effect.
It’s also worth saying that GFI has a broad base of supporters, with 80% of our donors giving between $1 and $1,000 each year. Collectively, those gifts have a much bigger impact than they could alone, giving us the flexibility to move quickly when new opportunities arise and to direct funding where it will have the most impact.
In terms of scale, GFI’s total annual budget is about $40 million across seven organisations, with Europe receiving just under $5 million. That European funding supports work across 44 countries in science, policy, and industry, which amounts to just over a hundred thousand dollars per country, weighted towards our priority countries.
With this budget, we have significant impact. In 2025 so far, GFI Europe has directly influenced more than $55 million in R&D funding for the alternative protein ecosystem, excluding new government commitments that haven’t yet been spent. And globally, every $1 donated to GFI catalyses roughly $25–30 in follow-on public R&D funding.
For context, the ClimateWorks Foundation estimates that the world needs about $10.1 billion per year in public funding just for alternative protein R&D and scale-up. While GFI isn’t the recipient of that funding, our role is to help make those investments happen, so our budget and fundraising goals correspond with the size of the opportunity and need.
Finally, you asked why GFI is not recommended by ACE. GFI was reviewed and recommended by ACE for several years, and we remain appreciative of their important work in the space, but in recent years, we’ve chosen not to participate in the formal evaluation process. The main reason is capacity; it’s an intensive process that requires significant input from staff across all seven of our independent organisations. Because of our size and structure, the process is substantially more involved for GFI than for many other charities ACE evaluates. We’ve instead prioritised dedicating that time to programmatic work and strategy development. GFI is still closely aligned with ACE’s mission, and it has continued to reference GFI’s work positively in broader landscape analyses.
We’ve also been recommended by Giving Green, which evaluates climate impact, as one of their top climate nonprofits for 2025-2026, for the fourth year running. They conduct a thorough analysis of an organisation’s theory of change, assumptions, capacity to create systems change, and room for funding so that climate funders can make informed decisions about the most high-impact philanthropic opportunities in the sector. In addition, FarmKind uses Giving Green’s figures to estimate our animal welfare impact, and GFI performs strongly there as well.
We completely agree that the movement could benefit from more cost–benefit analyses across different intervention types. It’s something we’re very open to and would be happy to contribute to.
Thanks again for your comment. I’ll keep an eye out for your post.
Thank you so much for this insightful comment. I really appreciate how much time and effort you put into sharing these reflections, and it’s encouraging to hear from someone with significant scale-up experience who’s thinking about these challenges so thoroughly.
I’ve shared your comment with our scale-up team in Europe, and they found your perspective incredibly valuable. A lot of what you mentioned really resonates with how we’re approaching things at the moment. For example, we’re already working with the School for Moral Ambition as part of their fellowship program, and in other capacities too.
If you have the time, our team would love to chat with you directly to discuss your insights above. You can reach us at [email protected], and we’ll make sure the right person gets in touch.
Thanks again for engaging so thoughtfully. It’s fantastic to see people from adjacent fields taking an interest in helping alternative proteins scale successfully.
Thanks so much for your comment, and for your support of GFI! We really appreciate you taking the time to engage so thoughtfully with our post.
Regarding your first question about whether alternative protein products are ready for large-scale production, we believe the answer is yes. There are at least 370 European companies known to have reached a stage where they’ve successfully produced at pilot scale, with a proven technology, industrial validation, and a product ready for commercialisation. Most plant-based and biomass-fermented protein products are technically ready for large-scale production, but companies lack access to sufficient food-grade commercial facilities. While precision fermentation-made and cultivated proteins show strong progress at pilot scale, but still face technical, infrastructure and cost barriers to scaling.
And it’s not just about the companies that are ready now; we also need to prepare for those that will reach this stage soon. If we don’t start building the infrastructure today, we risk creating a bottleneck down the line. We see this as a major systemic risk for alternative proteins, and one that affects the whole ecosystem as well as the future of our climate, animal welfare, and food security.
There are definitely other challenges facing alternative proteins. Misinformation about “ultra-processed” plant-based foods has influenced public opinion, which is why GFI Europe recently partnered with the Physicians Association for Nutrition to publish one of the most comprehensive, evidence-based guides on plant-based foods and health. It helps dispel myths about processing and highlights the real nutritional and environmental benefits of plant-based meat, providing decision-makers with reliable evidence to work from rather than relying on misinformation.
Misconceptions around ultra-processed foods are particularly strong in the UK (and to some extent the US), but in countries like Germany, the debate is already more nuanced and plant-based sales there are continuing to grow. That’s promising, and it reinforces how important it is to bring facts and context into the conversation.
Regarding consumer demand, we’re actually seeing promising signs that slightly contradict those mentioned in Jacob Peacock’s analysis. Our recent survey in the UK and Germany found that 54% of adults want to reduce their meat and dairy consumption or eat more plant-based foods. Health was the top motivation, despite the negative narratives around processing. We’ve shared these insights with retailers, and we’re already seeing positive impact: Tesco and Sainsbury’s (major retailers in the UK) are using this data to improve pricing, placement, and messaging to better reach flexitarian shoppers and expand the market for alternative proteins.
And beyond plant-based, we’re working to make sure cultivated meat and fermentation can succeed too. You mentioned that you are feeling less optimistic about the future of cultivated meat, and I agree that there are real challenges. But the positive news is that we aren’t just passive observers of the industry; at GFI, we’re actively trying to shape the trajectory of the field. We’re helping secure billions in public funding for open-access R&D, pushing back against overregulation, and keeping alternative proteins in key policy conversations about climate, food security, and economic resilience. And while it’s still early days, even a small shift towards cultivated meat and other alternatives could spare huge numbers of animals and cut climate emissions significantly.
So in short, you’re absolutely right, scale-up isn’t the only bottleneck, and GFI isn’t treating it as such. Advances in the science of alternative proteins and addressing the cultural and societal elements you mention are critical too, and GFI continues to direct a lot of resource to these areas. It is testament to the progress made in these areas that we’re now at the exciting point where the sector and GFI are ready to dive into addressing the challenge of scaling up. But it is one of the most funding-intensive and underfunded challenges, and without solving it, even the best-tasting, most affordable products can’t reach the market at scale.
Thanks again for engaging in some healthy discussion. I hope this helps!
The Good Food Institute Organisation Updates:
GFI Europe Mid-Year Impact Update
GFI Europe recently published its 2026 Mid-Year Impact Update, highlighting progress across policy, science, and industry during the first half of the year. The update covers work to generate evidence for policymakers, connect researchers and companies to solve technical bottlenecks, and support businesses as they scale alternative proteins across Europe.
Food biomanufacturing and national security
GFI and the National Defense Industrial Association's Emerging Technologies Institute published a new research brief examining the national security implications of food biomanufacturing. The brief was launched at a Washington, D.C. convening attended by food biomanufacturing companies and representatives from 11 U.S. federal offices, followed by meetings with congressional offices.
The report argues that food biomanufacturing can strengthen domestic supply chains, reduce dependence on vulnerable agricultural inputs, and position alternative proteins within broader U.S. biotechnology and manufacturing priorities.
Open-access roadmap for cultivated seafood research
GFI published Developing Continuous Cell Lines for Cultivated Seafood, a new technical guide to help researchers establish continuous cell lines for fish and crustaceans. Developed with scientists from across the field, the guide brings together practical recommendations and troubleshooting advice in a single open-access resource.
Reliable cell lines remain a key technical bottleneck for cultivated seafood. By making this knowledge openly available, GFI aims to reduce duplicated effort and lower barriers for new researchers entering the field.
First novel mycoprotein authorised in the EU
The European Commission has authorised The Protein Brewery's Fermotein under the EU Novel Food Regulation, making it the first newly authorised mycoprotein that can now be sold across all 27 EU Member States.
This is an important milestone for alternative proteins in Europe and may help establish regulatory precedent for future mycoprotein applications.
We’re hiring:
Lead SciTech Specialist, GFI APAC (Remote - Korea) – Apply by 19 July 2026
Sector Development Strategist, GFI APAC (APAC Region) – No deadline – applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis.
Thanks for reading.
The Good Food Institute Organisation Updates:
Hot off the press: Our 2026 State of the Industry reports:
Our annual deep dive into the rapidly evolving alternative protein landscape is here! GFI has GFI’s 2026 State of the Industry reports provide a global snapshot of the plant-based, fermentation-derived, and cultivated protein landscape—synthesizing product trends, investment and sales data, new scientific advancements, public investment, and regulatory updates to highlight industry progress.
Although it was a challenging year for the sector, with some start ups closing their doors, regulatory hurdles, and ongoing misinformation around ultraprocessed foods, the overall picture is good. Plant-based food sales grew by 3% in 2025, with Europe remaining the biggest market. And government investment in alternative proteins has quadrupled in the last four years, with 33 countries now investing in the sector (up from 16 in 2020).
Calling for alternative proteins to be included in EU plans
Together with 30+ organisations, GFI Europe has signed a joint letter calling for novel foods, including alternative proteins, to be included in new EU legislation on regulatory sandboxes – spaces where regulators and innovators can learn about new technologies together.
Regulatory sandboxes are already used across the EU to accelerate innovation in an evidence-led way. But currently, alternative proteins are excluded from these sandboxes, missing out on an opportunity to accelerate research and improve regulator confidence in alternative proteins. We're asking EU policymakers to change this ahead of upcoming negotiations.
China’s alternative protein opportunity
A new report by Systemiq Ltd. models how China's innovation-to-mass-adoption playbook could fundamentally reimagine global meat production over the coming decades.
According to the report, new food security legislation, state investment in fermentation infrastructure, and the emergence of alternative protein clusters indicate that protein innovation is a central strategic priority for the nation's policymakers.
By taking a page from the playbook it used to successfully scale its EV and solar industries and applying that strategy to food, China could go from an "engine of global agricultural demand" to a net protein exporter as soon as 2040. Dig into The Good Food Institute APAC's latest newsletter to learn more.
We’re hiring:
Vice President of Operations - Remote (US) – Apply by 19 May 2026
Investor Engagement Manager - Remote US – Apply by 19 May 2026
Thank you for reading!
The Good Food Institute Organisation Updates:
Our 2025 Year in Review: Celebrating 10 years of GFI
I’m excited to share GFI’s 2025 Year in Review, and this edition is particularly special! As GFI is celebrating its 10th anniversary, it looks back on a decade of progress, from a two-person startup to a global movement that’s transforming how meat is made.
Thanks to our supporters, GFI has provided over $24M in open-access research funding, grown the Alt Protein Project to 70 university chapters worldwide, and made alternative proteins a recognised solution for policymakers and leaders.
Using native crops to develop plant-based products in Brazil
GFI Brazil recently concluded the Biomes Program, a five-year initiative exploring the use of native crops from the Amazon and Cerrado in plant-based products. The program invested R$4.3M across 33 research institutions and worked with 25 local communities to help build supply chains. To end the project, GFI Brazil held an event where researchers shared results and attendees tasted products made from these ingredients, from babaçu burgers to guarana meatballs. GFI Brazil has shown that it is possible to create delicious plant-based proteins from native crops, while supporting local communities and strengthening the case for protecting native ecosystems.
EU bans use of ‘meaty’ terms to describe alternative proteins
EU policymakers have agreed to ban the use of 31 everyday terms to describe plant-based foods. Once the restrictions come into force, words like “steak,” “bacon,” and “chicken” will no longer be allowed on plant-based product labels in the region, or on future cultivated meat products and ingredients.
These restrictions will create unnecessary confusion for consumers and make it more difficult for companies to bring products to market. But we remain positive about the long-term opportunities for alternative proteins in Europe, and we’re already working on next steps to reduce the impact, including hiring a policy representative in France, where policymakers have been among the strongest supporters of these restrictions.
Ecosystem development in Europe (EA Forum post)
For those interested in how the alternative protein landscape is evolving in Europe, this recent EA Forum post provides an overview of ecosystem growth across research, policy, and industry.
We’re hiring:
Public Investment and Industry Fellow - Remote (US) – Apply by 13 April 2026
Policy Officer – Brussels – Apply by 27 April 2026
Thank you!
Hi Denis,
Thanks for your comment, and I completely agree with your framing of the opportunity here. Alternative proteins really do sit at the intersection of animal welfare, climate, and global health in a way that’s quite unique.
One of the biggest barriers to impact right now is funding. Public R&D funding for alternative proteins is increasing, which is really encouraging, but it still represents only a small share of overall food and agriculture funding and is far below what’s needed. Shifting that is one of the highest-leverage opportunities, and a key focus for GFI Europe.
Last year, GFI Europe directly influenced more than $55 million in R&D funding for the alternative protein ecosystem (excluding new government commitments that haven’t yet been spent). And globally, every $1 donated to GFI catalyses roughly $25–30 in follow-on public R&D funding. This multiplier effect is one of the reasons many in the EA community see this as a particularly high-impact area.
For EAs looking to help, one of the most impactful routes is supporting early-stage research and field-building, where philanthropic funding can unlock much larger pools of public funding as the field becomes more established and investment is seen as less risky.
Another way to help is by strengthening talent pathways. Building a pipeline of scientists, entrepreneurs, and policymakers is crucial to scaling the field. Individuals can have a direct impact here, either by pursuing careers in alternative proteins themselves or supporting others to do so. At GFI Europe, for example, we support student-led groups at universities to become hubs for alternative protein research and innovation through our Alt Protein Project, helping to inspire the next generation of leaders shaping the future of food.
Your comparison to AI is really interesting. It shows how quickly a field can scale once it’s treated as a strategic priority. We’re definitely starting to see a shift in the right direction, but accelerating it is the big challenge.
Really appreciate you raising this – it’s exactly the kind of conversation that helps move the field forward.
Alex
Updates from the Good Food Institute:
Giving Green Biodiversity recommendation
Giving Green, recently released its first nonprofit recommendations focused on biodiversity protection. GFI was selected as one of two Top Nonprofit Organisations where additional funding could have an outsized impact on biodiversity loss.
Animal agriculture is a leading driver of biodiversity loss on land, largely through habitat conversion for livestock and feed crops. Analyses suggest that transitioning toward alternative proteins could reduce the land required for food production by up to 75%, potentially freeing land for ecosystem restoration and rewilding.
Putting alternative proteins on the farming agenda
In January, GFI’s Nutrition Lead Amy Williams spoke at the Oxford Real Farming Conference alongside Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall about the role plant-based meat could play in a healthier and more sustainable food system. The panel helped bring alternative proteins into conversations with farming and environmental stakeholders, including addressing common misconceptions and exploring areas of alignment.
Being part of these wider food system conversations is essential to building the credibility and partnerships we need to succeed in creating a sustainable, secure, and just food system. You can watch Amy in action here or read an overview on our blog.
New economic analysis opens doors with senior policymakers
Since Systemiq launched its GFI-funded economic analysis of alternative proteins in Europe last month, GFI Europe has secured 11 one-to-one meetings with senior UK and EU policymakers to discuss the potential of alternative proteins and how they can be positioned as a policy priority.
Having credible, EU-wide data on the issues policymakers care about most, including jobs, economic growth and competitiveness, was vital to securing these meetings. By equipping policymakers with the evidence they need to make decisions, GFI is helping ensure alternative proteins are part of key policy discussions that will shape long-term systems change.
Mycelium Olympics
Thanks to GFI’s Research Grants Program, scientists have tested which species of mushrooms are best suited for growing food, by testing growth speed, protein quality, yield and flavour. You can see the results of what we’re calling the ‘Mycelium Olympics’ in our recent LinkedIn post, it’s a fun one! This early-stage research is essential for understanding which species are most likely to actually mimic the taste and texture of conventional meat, and by funding this work, GFI is helping build that knowledge base for the whole field.
We’re hiring:
Hi Felix,
Great question, thanks for asking!
One of the strengths of alternative proteins is that they have a broad impact on everything from climate and animal welfare to food security and global health. Because of this, GFI naturally attracts supporters who are motivated by very different cause areas.
To your question, no, receiving money from animal-welfare inspired donors does not mean we’ll pass up on opportunities from climate philanthropists. The funding gap for alternative proteins is so large that support from any donor, no matter their motivation for giving, increases our ability to pursue additional opportunities across the ecosystem.
You may have seen in my previous comments on this post that the ClimateWorks Foundation estimates that the world needs about $10.1 billion per year in public funding just for alternative protein R&D and scale-up. In comparison, GFI’s total annual budget is about $40 million across seven organisations, with Europe receiving just under $5 million. So there’s no risk that animal welfare donors will remove the need for climate donors.
You mentioned that there is more funding available in the climate space than in animal welfare. This is true; globally, climate philanthropy is estimated at around $9.3 billion to $15.8 billion per year, compared with around $290 million per year for farmed animal welfare. But, according to the ClimateWorks Foundation, only around 2% of climate philanthropy goes to the food system. And within that, as you can imagine, only a small portion supports alternative proteins.
GFI has been recommended by Giving Green as one of their top climate nonprofits for several years now, and we’re seeing a growing proportion of donors who come to us because of our climate impact. That said, it takes time to build awareness, relationships, and trust in a new philanthropic space; so a significant amount of GFI’s core funding still comes from donors who are more motivated by animal welfare. This support is vital for enabling us to continue and expand our work.
Every year, GFI’s global team identifies the most impactful work needed to improve the taste and reduce the price of alternative proteins, so that we’re able to reach mass adoption as quickly as possible. Meeting our fundraising goals directly affects how fast we get there.
So we’re really grateful for any and all support. And by having a diverse donor base, GFI is more financially stable and resilient as an organisation, which in turn makes us better equipped to carry out our mission.
Thanks again for your question. I hope this response is helpful.
Alex
Hi Jacco,
Appreciate you flagging the AIM piece.
We think it’s great news that AIM is working to bring more talent and capacity into the alternative protein space. Unlocking scale-up funding is a highly neglected but critical challenge, and it’s great to see other organisations considering how best to attract funding for this.
To ensure the maximum impact and coordinate resources, GFI would be really excited to collaborate closely with any new charity. We’d gladly share our expertise, data, and relationships so that the new charity can build on what already exists rather than starting from scratch.
As I mentioned in the post, GFI Europe already has two full-time staff working specifically on scale-up (one focused on policy in Brussels and one focused on the private sector), and all of our country-level leads in the UK, Spain, Germany, and the Nordics have securing scale-up funding as one of their core goals. But even with this capacity, there are far more opportunities than we can currently pursue, so a new charity could definitely add value.
One promising approach would be for the new organisation to focus on high-potential geographies where GFI does not yet have a presence. That would increase total coverage and avoid the risk of both organisations knocking on the same government doors.
There are also clear research gaps that someone needs to fill. For example, an assessment of existing infrastructure capacity and retrofitting potential across European regions. These kinds of insights can make a strong, credible case to policymakers, and GFI would love to see them developed, whether by us or by another actor in the space.
In short, we’re enthusiastic about more capacity entering this field, and we’d be keen to collaborate to ensure the new charity’s work is complementary, strategic, and maximally impactful.
All the best,
Alex
Hey Pablo,
Thanks for your comment. We’re always happy to answer questions about our impact!
It’s difficult to make a direct comparison between the impact of GFI’s work in alternative proteins and that of other animal advocacy organisations because the theory of change is so different. Advocacy campaigns can generate short-term wins for animals, but they don’t address the root causes of factory farming. GFI’s focus is on long-term, systemic change, transforming the entire food system by finding an alternative to conventional animal products that can feed the world with a fraction of the harm. This kind of change inevitably takes longer, but the potential scale of impact is much greater. GFI’s role is basically to make this transition faster and achieve this impact more quickly.
You shared an article comparing the impact of donating to The Humane League with investing in alternative proteins, but flagged that you think it’s likely that supporting GFI is more effective than investing in individual companies, and therefore, this would be a better comparison of impact. We agree. Investing in alternative proteins by directly funding a pilot plant or factory can help one company scale faster, but it doesn’t solve the barriers holding back the sector, like missing infrastructure, unclear regulations, or limited public funding.
Philanthropic support for GFI fills that gap. We help governments recognise alternative proteins as a strategic priority, direct investors toward opportunities, and support companies with the data, insights, and regulatory clarity they need to scale sustainably. Without this work, alternative proteins wouldn’t be seen as a credible or fundable opportunity by governments or investors, meaning every donated euro or dollar can have an outsized catalytic effect.
It’s also worth saying that GFI has a broad base of supporters, with 80% of our donors giving between $1 and $1,000 each year. Collectively, those gifts have a much bigger impact than they could alone, giving us the flexibility to move quickly when new opportunities arise and to direct funding where it will have the most impact.
In terms of scale, GFI’s total annual budget is about $40 million across seven organisations, with Europe receiving just under $5 million. That European funding supports work across 44 countries in science, policy, and industry, which amounts to just over a hundred thousand dollars per country, weighted towards our priority countries.
With this budget, we have significant impact. In 2025 so far, GFI Europe has directly influenced more than $55 million in R&D funding for the alternative protein ecosystem, excluding new government commitments that haven’t yet been spent. And globally, every $1 donated to GFI catalyses roughly $25–30 in follow-on public R&D funding.
For context, the ClimateWorks Foundation estimates that the world needs about $10.1 billion per year in public funding just for alternative protein R&D and scale-up. While GFI isn’t the recipient of that funding, our role is to help make those investments happen, so our budget and fundraising goals correspond with the size of the opportunity and need.
Finally, you asked why GFI is not recommended by ACE. GFI was reviewed and recommended by ACE for several years, and we remain appreciative of their important work in the space, but in recent years, we’ve chosen not to participate in the formal evaluation process. The main reason is capacity; it’s an intensive process that requires significant input from staff across all seven of our independent organisations. Because of our size and structure, the process is substantially more involved for GFI than for many other charities ACE evaluates. We’ve instead prioritised dedicating that time to programmatic work and strategy development. GFI is still closely aligned with ACE’s mission, and it has continued to reference GFI’s work positively in broader landscape analyses.
We’ve also been recommended by Giving Green, which evaluates climate impact, as one of their top climate nonprofits for 2025-2026, for the fourth year running. They conduct a thorough analysis of an organisation’s theory of change, assumptions, capacity to create systems change, and room for funding so that climate funders can make informed decisions about the most high-impact philanthropic opportunities in the sector. In addition, FarmKind uses Giving Green’s figures to estimate our animal welfare impact, and GFI performs strongly there as well.
We completely agree that the movement could benefit from more cost–benefit analyses across different intervention types. It’s something we’re very open to and would be happy to contribute to.
Thanks again for your comment. I’ll keep an eye out for your post.
Alex
Hi Denis,
Thank you so much for this insightful comment. I really appreciate how much time and effort you put into sharing these reflections, and it’s encouraging to hear from someone with significant scale-up experience who’s thinking about these challenges so thoroughly.
I’ve shared your comment with our scale-up team in Europe, and they found your perspective incredibly valuable. A lot of what you mentioned really resonates with how we’re approaching things at the moment. For example, we’re already working with the School for Moral Ambition as part of their fellowship program, and in other capacities too.
If you have the time, our team would love to chat with you directly to discuss your insights above. You can reach us at [email protected], and we’ll make sure the right person gets in touch.
Thanks again for engaging so thoughtfully. It’s fantastic to see people from adjacent fields taking an interest in helping alternative proteins scale successfully.
All the best,
Alex
Thanks so much for your comment, and for your support of GFI! We really appreciate you taking the time to engage so thoughtfully with our post.
Regarding your first question about whether alternative protein products are ready for large-scale production, we believe the answer is yes. There are at least 370 European companies known to have reached a stage where they’ve successfully produced at pilot scale, with a proven technology, industrial validation, and a product ready for commercialisation. Most plant-based and biomass-fermented protein products are technically ready for large-scale production, but companies lack access to sufficient food-grade commercial facilities. While precision fermentation-made and cultivated proteins show strong progress at pilot scale, but still face technical, infrastructure and cost barriers to scaling.
And it’s not just about the companies that are ready now; we also need to prepare for those that will reach this stage soon. If we don’t start building the infrastructure today, we risk creating a bottleneck down the line. We see this as a major systemic risk for alternative proteins, and one that affects the whole ecosystem as well as the future of our climate, animal welfare, and food security.
There are definitely other challenges facing alternative proteins. Misinformation about “ultra-processed” plant-based foods has influenced public opinion, which is why GFI Europe recently partnered with the Physicians Association for Nutrition to publish one of the most comprehensive, evidence-based guides on plant-based foods and health. It helps dispel myths about processing and highlights the real nutritional and environmental benefits of plant-based meat, providing decision-makers with reliable evidence to work from rather than relying on misinformation.
Misconceptions around ultra-processed foods are particularly strong in the UK (and to some extent the US), but in countries like Germany, the debate is already more nuanced and plant-based sales there are continuing to grow. That’s promising, and it reinforces how important it is to bring facts and context into the conversation.
Regarding consumer demand, we’re actually seeing promising signs that slightly contradict those mentioned in Jacob Peacock’s analysis. Our recent survey in the UK and Germany found that 54% of adults want to reduce their meat and dairy consumption or eat more plant-based foods. Health was the top motivation, despite the negative narratives around processing. We’ve shared these insights with retailers, and we’re already seeing positive impact: Tesco and Sainsbury’s (major retailers in the UK) are using this data to improve pricing, placement, and messaging to better reach flexitarian shoppers and expand the market for alternative proteins.
And beyond plant-based, we’re working to make sure cultivated meat and fermentation can succeed too. You mentioned that you are feeling less optimistic about the future of cultivated meat, and I agree that there are real challenges. But the positive news is that we aren’t just passive observers of the industry; at GFI, we’re actively trying to shape the trajectory of the field. We’re helping secure billions in public funding for open-access R&D, pushing back against overregulation, and keeping alternative proteins in key policy conversations about climate, food security, and economic resilience. And while it’s still early days, even a small shift towards cultivated meat and other alternatives could spare huge numbers of animals and cut climate emissions significantly.
So in short, you’re absolutely right, scale-up isn’t the only bottleneck, and GFI isn’t treating it as such. Advances in the science of alternative proteins and addressing the cultural and societal elements you mention are critical too, and GFI continues to direct a lot of resource to these areas. It is testament to the progress made in these areas that we’re now at the exciting point where the sector and GFI are ready to dive into addressing the challenge of scaling up. But it is one of the most funding-intensive and underfunded challenges, and without solving it, even the best-tasting, most affordable products can’t reach the market at scale.
Thanks again for engaging in some healthy discussion. I hope this helps!