Key ideas: GFI’s strategyLivestock is a major contributor to climate change, responsible for 11-17% of global emissions and 42-65% of food system emissions, primarily from land use change, enteric methane and manure management. Decarbonizing other sectors will not reduce livestock emissions, and emissions are expected to rise with population growth and increased meat consumption in low- and middle-income countries.Land use change from natural habitats to agriculture is the leading driver of global biodiversity loss. Animal agriculture dominates agricultural land use, occupying 80% of farmland while providing only 17% of calories and 38% of protein globally.We think alternative proteins can be a critical lever to reduce habitat loss, protect biodiversity, and reduce food system emissions by reducing meat consumption and mitigating land use change.GFI advocates for alternative proteins to be as tasty, affordable, and accessible as conventional meat by working with scientists, policymakers, and industry. We think its approach of supporting R&D, securing public funding, and creating a clear path to market for alt proteins could reduce demand for conventional meat and lower livestock production and emissions.Alternative Proteins as a Solution to Climate Change The production and consumption of meat and other animal products is a considerable cause of climate change. Livestock emissions represent 11-17% of global emissions and 42-65% of food system emissions.3 Importantly, energy use represents a very low share of these emissions; most food system emissions instead come from land use change, enteric methane, and manure management.4 Therefore, we cannot expect progress in other parts of the economy, such as power grid decarbonization, to lead to material reductions in livestock emissions. The climate impact of livestock farming is expected to increase as the world’s population grows and as low-income countries become wealthier and consume more animal products.5
We think reducing livestock production could be an important lever for driving down emissions and could potentially free up some land for carbon sequestration.6 Our strategy report on reducing food system emissions explains that alt proteins could be a promising intervention for lowering meat consumption.
Alternative Proteins as a Solution to Biodiversity Loss As we describe in our strategy report on reducing biodiversity loss , land use change from natural habitats to (mainly) agriculture is the most dominant driver of global biodiversity loss . Out of all habitable land, nearly half (45%) is used by agriculture, of which 80% is used by animal agriculture, despite accounting for the minority of global calorie and protein supply (17% and 38%, respectively).7 Animal products require much more land per gram of protein and per calorie than plant-based sources of food, driving this imbalance.
Almost all (approximately 95%) of deforestation, an important type of land use change, occurs in the tropics. The main economic driver of deforestation is conversion to cattle pastures—accounting for 41% of all deforestation—followed by oilseed cultivation, including soybeans for animal feed.8
Our strategy report on reducing biodiversity loss explains that achieving plant-rich diets globally is one of the most important levers to prevent additional habitat loss by 2050 . In line with our strategy report on reducing food systems emissions , we think that advocating for alt protein policy and research could be a promising intervention for reducing (animal-based) meat consumption.
GFI’s Strategies GFI has three focus areas: building a scientific ecosystem, advocating for supportive policies, and engaging with the food industry. A description of its focus areas follows:
Science GFI advances open-access research in alt proteins and supports a research and training ecosystem. Specifically, GFI identifies research gaps, publishes white papers and reviews of research gaps, regrants funding to fill research gaps, advocates for open-access research, and convenes scientists to advance R&D. GFI delivers catalytic grants that enable early data collection, which helps scientists outside of GFI apply for subsequent grants and de-risks research areas. Additionally, GFI’s science team provides scientific consultation to other philanthropic and government grantmakers and supports investigators in crafting high-impact proposals. It also helps develop a talent pipeline for alt protein R&D by establishing university courses and providing guidance on forming startups.Policy GFI advocates for fair policies and public research funding for alt proteins. Increasing global government R&D funding for alt proteins is GFI’s main policy priority. Its policy activities include advocating for increased R&D funding for alt proteins, campaigning for fair label laws, challenging cultivated meat bans, and establishing a clear path to market for cultivated meat. It works closely with policy organizations on legislative work, such as strategizing on what to prioritize and when. Industry GFI partners with companies and investors to drive investment and support innovation. Its corporate engagement includes supporting alt protein startups and building relationships with large agri-food companies and investors to encourage them to invest in alt proteins. It also conducts market research to develop reports and white papers that it shares with industry stakeholders to support the alt protein sector as a whole. Additionally, it works with food retailers to grow their alt protein sales and advises restaurants and foodservice distributors on improving plant-based food marketing and menu options.Of these focus areas, GFI spends most of its funding on its science workstream, which includes regranting. Its policy workstream receives the second most funding.
GFI’s Theory of Change We constructed a theory of change that reflects our impression of how GFI’s activities can reduce food system emissions (Figure 1 ). This theory of change focuses on making alt proteins more taste- and price-competitive with conventional meat by supporting alt protein R&D, securing public funding for R&D, and ensuring alt proteins have a clear path to market.9 We believe this approach could help displace some demand for conventional meat and eventually reduce livestock production and its associated emissions. We examine the evidence for how well GFI executes its inputs in the sections below.
Figure 1: Theory of change diagram for climate change mitigationWe also constructed a theory of change that reflects our impression of how GFI’s activities can reduce meat consumption and therefore avoid the expansion of pastures and croplands for animal feed (Figure 2 ). This theory of change is mostly identical to our theory of change for how GFI could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because in both cases, the overall aim is to reduce the global consumption of conventional meat.
Our theory of change for how GFI can address biodiversity loss also includes tackling climate change. Since climate change itself is a mid-level driver of biodiversity loss, we think that GFI’s contributions to decarbonizing the food system is a non-negligible contributor to reduced biodiversity loss.
The biodiversity-relevant theory of change excludes GFI’s work on cultivated seafood . While we have a generally positive view of GFI’s seafood work, we primarily focus on terrestrial biodiversity in this Nonprofit Evaluation. We did not evaluate GFI’s efforts to advance cultivated seafood.
Figure 2: Theory of change diagram for reducing biodiversity loss
Assessment of GFI’s Ability to Execute Its Activities Science: Building a Scientific Ecosystem We have a positive impression of GFI’s ability to catalyze research funding for alt proteins. Since 2019, GFI has awarded 129 grants across 25 countries to support open-access research, totaling over $24 million (USD), with another 12 research projects pending grant agreements.10 Some of its grant funding has also catalyzed follow-on government funding.11
GFI has also been successful in building a talent pipeline for alt protein research. In 2025, thirteen new university groups joined GFI’s Alt Protein Project , which aims to introduce alt protein research to students and faculty.12 In total, GFI’s Alt Protein Project has established student groups in 94 universities, of which 73 are currently active.13 GFI's grants and commissioned research aim to make knowledge about alt proteins freely accessible to everyone, especially when it might otherwise be held as private intellectual property.
We think GFI’s federal policy engagement has helped position alt proteins as a research priority by driving the creation of coordinated U.S. government initiatives and long-term R&D planning. According to GFI, it engaged in policy efforts in 2021 and 2022 to encourage the establishment of an interagency working group that would coordinate and support alt protein R&D throughout the U.S. government.14 The U.S. House Appropriations Committee’s Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee directed the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to establish this interagency working group in its FY23 report.15 The committee gave OSTP the same direction again in FY24 appropriations, signaling to the White House the strength of Congress's will. This support could streamline research and help establish alt proteins as a U.S. research priority. Also, in 2024, GFI’s work contributed to the establishment of alt proteins as one of the seven key themes for CASA-Bio , a federal initiative to advance R&D for the bioeconomy. GFI is collaborating on the design of this initiative’s five-year R&D roadmap for alt proteins.16
We also believe GFI has demonstrated strong partnership-building and resource-leveraging capabilities. In 2024, GFI expanded its research footprint by partnering with the Bezos Earth Fund (BEF) to scope and select global centers for alt protein science and innovation. As part of this process, GFI initially provided 14 universities with funding to draft proposals for becoming alt protein research centers. The Bezos Earth Fund then provided seed funding to three of the universities with $30 million each to develop research centers.17 GFI assisted the selected universities in securing additional funding (a requirement of the BEF grants) and helped several non-selected applicants apply for government funding to open their own centers.
GFI has also played a role in ensuring open-access science. In 2025, GFI acquired the cell lines and serum-free cultivated meat serum formulations of the defunct startup SCiFi Foods. GFI is making these cell lines and formulations available to academia and—in a later stage—to industry.18
Policy: Research, Education, and Networking GFI’s advocacy has helped increase public funding for alt protein R&D, which reached $523 million in 2023 and $510 million in 2024. 19 We think these advocacy wins are likely shared between GFI and many other organizations, although we think GFI has been a key driver and convener. For example, to the best of our knowledge, GFI was the only nonprofit organization that played a role in the states of California and Illinois allocating $5 million each to alt protein research in 2022 and 2024, respectively.20 It was also among the only two nonprofit organizations that assisted with the $5.5 million federal budget allocated to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for alt protein research.21
Furthermore, GFI plays a key role in identifying and socializing research funding opportunities. For example, GFI’s Public Investment and Industry Initiative aims to raise public capital to build the infrastructure required to scale production in the absence of sufficient venture capital. In practice, the initiative shares available grant and loan opportunities with the sector. Of the $125 million that the U.S. government allocated to alt protein R&D and commercialization in 2024, GFI estimates that $20 million was directly due to GFI based on testimonials by alt protein companies.22
In the U.S., GFI has good working relationships with partners across the executive and legislative branches of the government, which we think increases the likelihood of its success. For example, we think GFI’s relationships at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) most likely helped convince the agency to allocate $10 million to Tufts University to develop the world’s first national center for cellular agriculture. We note that GFI’s longtime chief of staff left the organization to serve as the Deputy Undersecretary for the division of USDA that made the grant. Additionally, the center director at Tufts, David Kaplan, credits GFI’s scientific ecosystem building with catalyzing the application, meaning GFI likely played a part both in the center’s application and eventual approval.23
Outside the U.S., GFI has also influenced governments to set alt proteins as priorities in national strategies. 24 Examples include:
Israel: According to GFI, the Israeli government will use GFI Israel’s Alternative Proteins National Policy Plan as a roadmap for its national foodtech policy plan.India: In 2024, GFI was part of the Indian Science Ministry’s sectoral committee on smart proteins, whose proposals led to alt protein being a key focus area for the government's new national Bioeconomy Policy . GFI India staff helped review alt protein scientific research proposals.25 United Kingdom: In 2024, the U.K. government announced a £15 million (GBP) National Alternative Protein Innovation Centre after GFI’s multi-year engagement with the U.K.’s public research funder (UK Research and Innovation).Germany: In 2025, Germany’s Scientific Advisory Board on Agricultural Policy, Nutrition and Consumer Health released a favorable report about the potential of alt proteins, which extensively cited GFI. The 393-page report called for increased research and scaling funding for alt proteins, as well as clear regulatory paths to approval.26 We also believe that GFI has been able to bring attention to alt protein policy on a global stage. In 2023, GFI increased its efforts to promote alt proteins as a climate solution worldwide. For example, GFI collaborated with a coalition of organizations, including major climate funders and nonprofits, with the common objective of highlighting the significance of alt proteins as a climate solution in international discussions. We think these activities are indicative of GFI’s convening power, which we also believe strengthens its policy advocacy.
GFI had a notable presence at the CIGAR/FAO pavilion at COP29 and GFI’s founder has joined the advisory board of the EAT Foundation, which is responsible for the work of the EAT Lancet Commission. We have also heard of the direct influence that GFI has had in encouraging at least one climate nonprofit to start an alt protein workstream.
Industry: Corporate Engagement We believe that GFI’s work at the legislative, executive, and judicial levels has helped defeat some of the label laws in the EU and U.S. 27 Policymakers in various countries have introduced bills restricting alt protein producers from labeling their products with meat and dairy terms, protecting the interests of livestock producers and potentially reducing alt proteins’ competitiveness. GFI’s legal wins in 2023 and 2022 include the narrowing of a Louisiana state law prohibiting companies from using meat-related terms on alt proteins and a ruling declaring a similar Arkansas state law as unconstitutional.28 As of late 2025, GFI had helped defeat 12 U.S. state cultivated meat sales bans and has successfully advocated for removing research bans in Florida and Texas in cultivated meat bills, along with coalition partners from the private sector.
We think GFI has also helped clarify the pathway of cultivated meat to market. For example, GFI directly advocated for USDA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to use standard processes applicable to conventional meat products in the existing regulatory system. GFI also promoted the establishment of fair labeling requirements when the agencies were building their regulatory strategy for cultivated meat.29 We think using an existing regulatory framework has helped cultivated meat come to market sooner and could help boost consumer confidence, while giving USDA authority over labeling could help guard against delayed approval due to state-level labeling requirements.30
We think GFI’s work may have helped accelerate approvals of cultivated meat. For example, in November 2022, GFI was featured in substantial media coverage related to the U.S. FDA’s first-ever approval of cultivated meat. We think this media coverage is indicative of the regulatory expertise and advocacy that GFI has brought to the alt protein sector.31 Between 2023 and 2025, more cultivated meat and fish products have been approved for sale in the United States, Singapore, and Australia.32 According to GFI, it also played a substantial role in developing Brazil’s regulatory frameworks for cultivated meat and fermentation-derived alt proteins, which were published in 2023.33
We think GFI’s engagement with large food companies helps scale alt proteins and reduces support from existing meat suppliers. GFI’s strategic support to industry actors was acknowledged by JBS—the largest protein company in the world—when JBS announced its $100 million commitment to cultivated meat.34 In addition to spurring innovation, this commitment could expand cultivated meat production because JBS can produce and distribute more goods at scale than smaller competitors can. Additionally, we think building an alliance with the largest meat producer in the world could decrease industry opposition or concern about the progress of alt proteins.
GFI provided technical presentations to support Islamic religious rulings (fatwas) that cultivated meat can be halal. In 2024, the Islamic Council of Singapore made the first-ever authoritative decision that cultivated meat can be halal.35 According to GFI, this came after over a year of deliberation, during which GFI provided numerous inputs.36 The ruling was announced at an invite-only conference featuring a GFI speaker.37 We think this is indicative of GFI’s role as a trusted contributor to the council’s decision. In 2025, Malaysia’s Islamic authority issued a similar statement after GFI staff provided technical presentations about the science of cultivating meat from animal cells.38
Examining the Assumptions Behind GFI’s Theory of Change Below we discuss and evaluate assumptions related to the GFI theory of change, as well as our take on how its mission of helping alt proteins reach taste and cost parity with conventional meat could reduce emissions. For each of the assumptions, we rank whether we have low , medium , or high certainty about the assumption.39 Importantly, a number of the stages of the theory of change are not amenable to easy measurement or quantification or are expected to occur in the future but have not occurred as of yet. For each assumption, we assess whether the best available evidence, primary or secondary, suggests whether the assumption will plausibly hold.
Replacing conventional meat products with alternative proteins substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions. (high certainty) We have high certainty that directly substituting some alt proteins for their conventional meat counterpart would substantially reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Substituting some conventional meat with alt proteins may reduce emissions by lowering direct emissions from livestock farming and curbing emissions from land use change.40 As shown in Figure 3 , the range of greenhouse gas emissions per kg of product is much lower for plant-based meats than for beef, pork, and most chicken products.41
Figure 3: Emissions for meat and alternatives42How the emissions from cultivated meat compare to conventional meat will depend on its energy source. While cultivated meat requires a substantial amount of energy, its emissions can be reduced by 70% (to ~4.0kg CO2 eq/kg) if manufacturers use renewable energy at their facilities.43 Since cultivated meat is expected to develop alongside a renewable energy transition, we are optimistic that its carbon footprint can be lower than most forms of conventional meat production by the time it reaches significant scale.44
Because alt protein production is still in its early stages, it is impossible to predict with certainty what its future production and GHG emissions will look like. However, it seems highly likely that investing in alt protein R&D will shift alt protein improvements and GHG reductions forward in time relative to the counterfactual. We will continue to monitor developments in alt protein production and will update our thinking with new information.
Directly substituting some alt proteins for their conventional meat counterpart would substantially reduce biodiversity loss. (high certainty) We have high certainty that substituting some conventional meat with alt proteins reduces habitat loss. Plant-based protein sources require substantially less land per unit of protein than animal-based protein sources, especially when compared to lamb, beef, and cheese. Common protein sources in plant-based meat products—such as soy, wheat, and peas—have land footprints that are several units of magnitude less land-intensive than beef (Figure 4 ).45 Since other inputs to creating plant-based meat (e.g., energy and spices) require negligible amounts of land, plant-based alt protein products generally require less land than their conventional counterpart, according to several life cycle analyses (LCAs) highlighted in Figure 5. 46
Figure 4: Land use requirements of different animal-based and plant-based sources of protein per 100 grams of protein47Figure 5: Comparative LCAs of the environmental impacts of plant-based and fermentation-based alt proteins, including the differences in land use in column 448Cultivated meat also has a substantially reduced land requirement relative to beef and other types of meat. Figure 6 is based on a prospective LCA of cultivated meat production in 2030 and only includes the land requirement for croplands for cattle feed. We expect that the actual difference between cultivated meat and beef is even larger, since cultivated meat does not require pastureland, while conventional beef often does.
Figure 6: Land use requirement per kg of cultivated meat (CM) and various conventional animal products49Our strategy report on reducing biodiversity loss describes in more detail how plant-rich diets are an important lever to prevent the future expansion of croplands and its associated habitat loss.
One important nuance is that the average land requirements of alt proteins do not account for where land use change is prevented. To maximize biodiversity benefits, we should especially reduce land use change in biodiversity hotspots, such as wetlands and rainforests. The vast majority (71%) of deforestation-related carbon emissions come from food consumed in the country where it was produced.50 Therefore, to tackle deforestation in the tropics, an important lever could be to reduce meat consumption in tropical countries consuming high quantities of beef. Trade models list countries that produce high quantities of beef and soy—such as Brazil and Indonesia—among the countries with the highest per capita CO2 emissions from deforestation, alongside high-income countries such as Luxembourg, Taiwan, Belgium, and the Netherlands.51
We believe that GFI addresses the trade-relevant aspects of deforestation and land-use change appropriately for three reasons:
GFI focuses most of its corporate engagement on high-income countries. Since high-income countries have—when accounting for trade—some of the highest food-related deforestation rates per capita, addressing meat consumption in these countries is most important on the margin. GFI’s corporate engagement includes work in high-income countries in North America and Europe.A large part of GFI’s budget is dedicated to science and technology. GFI’s theory of change focuses in part on accelerating alt protein R&D to improve the taste, price, and convenience of alt protein products. This work has potential for a global spillover, including to biodiversity hotspots like Brazil and Southeast Asia.GFI has affiliate organizations in Brazil and the Asia-Pacific region. GFI Brazil and GFI Asia-Pacific work on, among other strategies, the adoption of alt proteins and supportive policies in tropical regions. Making alt proteins more taste- and price-competitive with conventional proteins will displace some demand for conventional proteins. (medium certainty) We have medium certainty that making alt proteins more competitive with conventional proteins on taste and price will displace some demand for conventional proteins. Studies have found that taste and price are the two main drivers of consumer food choices, adding that nutrition and texture were also important factors.52 Therefore, we think improving alt proteins so they are similar to conventional meat in price and taste will likely lead to increased demand. We think the historical growth of the alt protein market from $2.2 billion in 2019 to $15 billion in 2023 was plausibly in large part due to such improvements, but could also be in part because they were at the peak of a hype cycle and consumers were interested in their novelty.53
We think alt proteins still have a wide scope for improvement and that more R&D support increases the likelihood that alt proteins will shift diets and livestock production in the future. We have not been overly worried about the decline in U.S. retail plant-based meat sales that took place in 2022 because we think these products can further improve.54 Our concern would grow if we saw a reduction in research funding for alt proteins, which might indicate a slowdown in innovation. However, that does not appear to be happening, and we note that GFI’s top global goal is to accelerate research focused on closing the price and taste gap.
We also think that making alt proteins cheaper can increase demand. There is empirical evidence showing that price can influence the demand for alt proteins in the right contexts. When the German supermarket Lidl brought its plant-based products to price parity with animal-origin products, sales of the plant-based products increased by over 30%.55 We think Europe is especially open to adopting plant-based products, with meat consumption per capita now decreasing in some European countries, and we are uncertain if this result is replicable globally.56
According to one report, improvements to the taste and price of alt proteins would currently be insufficient to lead to significant meat reduction.57 Our understanding is that outside of taste and price, various social and cultural dynamics also influence the number of people open to trying alt proteins. Examples include trends of alt proteins being perceived as unnatural, right-wing opposition to cultivated meat in the U.S., and meat as a symbol of social status, which can all lead to fewer people being open to consuming alt proteins.58 Alongside taste and price improvements, supportive regulation, positive health perceptions, and a favorable social environment have also been cited as factors needed for alt proteins to be able to obtain a large market share.59
We acknowledge that our understanding of the drivers of consumer choices is likely incomplete. GFI’s work on consumer insights addresses some of these knowledge gaps, including consumer motivations for trying alt proteins, how alt protein adoption can be accelerated, and consumer perceptions of alt proteins.60
However, further gaps still affect our certainty of alt proteins’ ability to displace meat. We are interested in additional studies that measure conventional meat displacement as a result of increased alt protein sales, compare alt proteins to other methods of reducing meat consumption, and conduct taste tests to track improvements in alt proteins.61
Increased demand for alt proteins will lower livestock production. (high certainty) We have high certainty that increased demand for alt proteins will lower livestock production. Global meat consumption will likely increase in the future, and it is unclear to us how much alt proteins will affect this trajectory.62 Our take is that increased alt protein production will likely lower livestock production because (1) market friction can make it difficult and expensive to export meat around the world, and (2) it is unlikely that an individual’s decreased meat consumption would cause an equivalent increase in meat consumption elsewhere. However, we have some concerns that alt proteins will not reduce demand for livestock products but will instead make demand for conventional meat more responsive to changes in price. In this case, people would purchase more conventional meat when it is cheap and less when it is expensive, and reducing livestock production at equilibrium would require additional measures (e.g., education and advocacy to reduce demand, regulation, and policies to increase cost). Thus far, we are only familiar with one model that estimates the impact of plant-based meat on cattle production. The model estimates that every 10% reduction in cost for plant-based ground beef alternatives decreases U.S. cattle production by 0.15%.63 This effect translates to a reduction in emissions by about 1% when including land use change. The study’s authors note this outcome is not static and that alt proteins could have a greater impact in the future as they improve and if consumer preferences evolve. Ultimately, we believe more research is needed, given the little real-world data on how consumers substitute alt proteins for conventional meat within the U.S. and abroad.
Alt protein-related legislation will continue to pass under a more conservative U.S. government. (medium certainty) We have medium certainty that alt protein legislation will continue to pass under a more conservative U.S. government. 64 Our impression is that alt proteins receive more political support from the left than from the right. Despite this, we are cautiously optimistic that alt-protein-related federal legislation will continue to pass under a conservative U.S. government. Our thinking is based on the fact that alt-protein-related bills have previously been introduced with bipartisan support, and the regulatory framework to approve cultivated meat for sale was developed under a Republican presidential administration.65 Indeed, in December 2022, a bipartisan group of lawmakers reached an agreement to appropriate $5.5 million for USDA alt protein research.66 GFI is explicitly focused on building bipartisan support; for example, GFI’s principal policy factsheet for legislators includes a pull quote from former Georgia governor and Trump agriculture secretary Sonny Perdue.67 Additionally, GFI engages with state-level and executive-branch policymakers (e.g., at the Departments of Agriculture and Energy and the National Science Foundation), offering other avenues for getting alt protein policies passed and research funded.
Although meat consumption is connected to the culture wars in the U.S.—and we believe political support for alt proteins could become more polarized in the future—we note that there are also opportunities for shoring up more bipartisan support for alt proteins.68 For example, a joint report between GFI and the Breakthrough Institute describes policy support for alt protein R&D as an opportunity to “foster economic development and job growth in the face of growing international competition.”69 GFI also commissioned and worked closely with the Center for Strategic and International Studies on a report that calls for government funding for alt proteins, comparing the industry’s potential to biopharmaceuticals and advanced chips for artificial intelligence.70 We believe this framing could appeal to conservative policymakers.71 We also believe GFI's focus on consumer choices, innovation, and market-based approaches could be tractable under governments across the political spectrum. Since GFI is an international organization with affiliate offices in six other regions, we think it would continue to make progress in other countries regardless of whether the U.S. policy environment is favorable to alt proteins.
-----
3 “In short, livestock production appears to contribute about 11%–17% of global greenhouse gas emissions” The Breakthrough Institute, 2023 ; total agricultural emissions: “Food production accounts for over a quarter (26%) of global greenhouse gas emissions.” Our World in Data, n.d. Calculation: 11/26 = 42% and 17/26 = 65%, hence 42-65% of agricultural emissions
4 On-farm energy use is a small amount of total food system emissions in Table 1 Tubiello et al., 2021 ; largest sources of food system emissions: Figure by Our World In Data, 2019 based on data from Poore and Nemecek, 2018
5 “...demand for animal-based foods, coupled with the rapid urbanization in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia and the income growth in low and mid-income countries, is projected to increase by nearly 70 percent.” FAO, 2023
6 Sources of livestock emissions: Sources include land conversion to accommodate animal grazing and crop production, methane emissions from ruminants (e.g., cattle), and manure management. Importantly, cattle production is a major driver of deforestation, which releases stored carbon into the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration: “Here we quantify the total carbon opportunity cost of animal agricultural production to be 152.5 (94.2–207.1) gigatons of carbon (GtC) in living plant biomass across all continents and biomes. We approximated the potential for CO2 removal in soil and litter as an additional 63GtC” Hayek et al 2020 .
7 Figure 1, Ritchie & Roser, 2023
8 We base this on a summary by Ritchie (2021 ) of Pendrill et al. (2019 ).
9 Although GFI focuses on improving the taste and price of alt proteins, we believe that funding R&D can also improve alt proteins’ nutritional value, and efforts that support the private sector can improve convenience.
10 "$24M+ in open-access research support, 129 grants awarded since 2019, 25 countries where GFI has funded research." The Good Food Institute, “Alternative protein research grants ” n.d.Figure for grants agreements under negotiation supplied by GFI via email.
11 “Dr. Amy Rowat is one of several GFI grantees who secured follow-on government funding after initial grant support from GFI. Of those who received both, GFI’s $1.8 million in grant dollars led to $16.9 million in government support, a nine-fold multiplying effect.” The Good Food Institute, “2022 Mid-Year Impact Report"
12 “Thirteen new university groups join GFI’s Alt Protein Project, a global community of student leaders reimagining our food system.” GFI, 2025
13 GFI, n.d.
14 GFI engages in policy efforts only to the extent that is permitted by the IRS for 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations.
15 GFI’s advocacy for an interagency group: Giving Green correspondence with the Good Food Institute, 2022-07-09. Development of interagency group: “Accordingly, the Committee directs OSTP to establish an interagency group under the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to provide recommendations on coordination and support of alternative protein research and development throughout the Federal Government.” U.S. Government Publishing Office, “House Report 117-395" 2022.
16 “GFI’s SciTech team played a key role in CASA-Bio synthesis meetings, collaborating with federal R&D agencies to identify mutual interests for a U.S. bioeconomy roadmap. CASA-Bio is a National Science Foundation-led initiative advancing the U.S. bioeconomy through collaborative research and development across federal and non-federal Organizations.[...] GFI will work with CASA-Bio to orchestrate workshops to draft five-year R&D roadmaps for several areas” GFI, 2024
17 “In 2024, a $90 million investment from the Earth Fund enabled three of those centers to successfully launch, with $30 million each for the new Bezos Centers of Sustainable Protein at North Carolina State University, Imperial College London, and National University Singapore.” Bezos Earth Fund, 2024
18 “Developing new cell lines takes time and money, two things the cultivated meat space sorely lacks, says The Good Food Institute (GFI), which has acquired cell lines and serum-free media formulations from defunct startup SCiFi Foods to make them available first to academia and later, the wider industry.” AFN, 2025
19 “Altogether, GFI estimates that newly announced global public funding for alternative proteins amounted to $523 million in 2023” GFI, 2024 (previous report)“We estimated that governments around the world announced about $510 million in new committed support for alternative proteins, including increases in R&D. This brings the all-time cumulative commitment from governments to around $2.1 billion.” GFI, 2025 (current report)
20 Illinois funding: “The sum of $5,000,000… to the University of Illinois for costs associated with the expansion of the Integrated Bioprocessing Research Laboratory’s and other related infrastructure improvements.” Illinois General Assembly, 2024
21 California funding for alt proteins: “Of the funds appropriated in this item, $5,000,000 shall be available on a one-time basis for the Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Davis campuses to support research and development of plant-based and cultivated meats.” University of California, Los Angeles, 2022 . Appropriations: “Following months of GFI engagement and just days before the end of the 117th Congress in December, a bipartisan group of lawmakers reached an appropriations agreement that includes $5.5 million for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct alternative protein research. Building on past appropriations, this publicly funded research will help fill knowledge gaps, optimize input crops, and improve production processes.” GFI, 2022 .
22 We rely on data submitted to us by GFI. Its overview of U.S. government resources for alternative protein companies and its regularly updated list of open U.S. government opportunities for alternative protein commercialization and scale-up are publicly available.
23 “USDA awarded the grant as a part of a $146 million investment in sustainable agricultural research projects announced by USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack on October 6. This investment is being made by USDA-NIFA’s Agriculture and Food Research Initiative’s (AFRI) Sustainable Agricultural Systems program — the nation’s leading and largest competitive grants program for agricultural sciences.” GFI, 2021
24 “The selection criteria for the list of 14, determined by the council, evaluated factors such as Israel’s comparative advantages in certain sectors, its strategic needs as a developed country, its strength in R&D and position as a global innovation hub, and whether the specific sector needs government support and has a scientific component. The Ministry of Innovation, Science, and Technology will promote national programs in the prioritized areas and distribute some NIS 180 million ($52.4 million) a year in research grants with significant emphasis on these fields.” (Times of Israel, 2022 )
25 “On Saturday, India announced a biotechnology policy focused on the economy and climate, with smart proteins and functional foods – as well as climate-resilient agriculture – among six pillars of the strategy.” Green Queen, 2024 ; “GFI India is an integral part of the Science Ministry's sectorial committee on smart proteins whose meetings and proposals led to this outcome.” GFI, 2024
26 “A report by the Scientific Advisory Board on Agricultural Policy, Nutrition and Consumer Health (WBAE) at the German Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Regional Identity (BMLEH) calls for an ideology-free dialogue around plant-based, fermentation-based foods, and cultivated meat. It states that these foods have a place at the ‘common table’ alongside traditional plant-based foods and conventional animal-based products.” GFI Europe, 2025 .“Against the backdrop of this differentiated but overall positive assessment of alternative products, recommendations for a policy on ‘More choice at the table with alternative products to animal-based foods as a contribution to a more sustainable diet’ are presented below” WBAE, 2025 (translated from German)
27 European Union: “The Good Food Institute Europe, a nonprofit working to accelerate plant-based and cultivated proteins, called on national leaders on the Council of the EU to “clear up this mess” and reject restrictions on plant-based dairy products.” GFI Europe, 2020 . 2020. U.S.: “Representing Tofurky, The Good Food Institute, the ACLU of Arkansas, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund challenged Arkansas’s label censorship law, asserting that the statute violates the First Amendment.” GFI, n.d.
28 Louisiana: “The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a Louisiana state law prohibiting meat terminology on food not derived from animal carcasses can be enforced, but it only applies to companies that are intentionally trying to deceive consumers. Lead plaintiff Tofurky and its co-plaintiffs the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Good Food Institute said Thursday the ruling is a win for their side because it narrows the law to companies that are overtly seeking to mislead consumers. In an email, Louisiana Commissioner of Agriculture and Forestry Mike Strain said his office is pleased with the decision.” Food Dive, 2023 . Arkansas: “The Arkansas state law prohibiting plant-based meat companies from using meat terminology on their product labels and marketing is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled late last month. The state cannot enforce the law, which has been on the books since 2019, and had been on pause while courts considered this lawsuit from Tofurky, the Good Food Institute, the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union.” Food Dive, 2023 .
29 “USDA and FDA held a joint public meeting on to advance the conversation around clean meat regulation. GFI advocated firmly for a fair regulatory path to market under the existing regulatory structures. Our friends at JUST, Finless Foods, BlueNalu, UPSIDE Foods, and many others joined the conversation as well.” GFI, 2018, plus further correspondence.
30 Consumer confidence: “If people don’t believe that cell-based meat products are safe, regulated, and healthy, then they’ll stick with slaughtered meat… That’s how the cell-based meat industry ended up actively working to convince the US government to step in and exercise its regulatory authority — and that’s why they were encouraged by the government’s announcement.” Vox, 2019 . Override state standards: “The USDA’s labelling authority overrides that of the states — states are not allowed to impose labelling requirements incompatible with the standards that the USDA puts forward.” Vox, 2019 .
31 “Alongside our advocacy for public investment in alternative protein research, GFI has been working toward regulatory approval for cultivated meat since our founding. In a defining moment for the future of our food system, in November of 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officially gave the green light to a cultivated meat product for the very first time. UPSIDE Foods completed FDA’s rigorous review for its cultivated chicken as part of the agency’s pre-market review process, laying the groundwork for cultivated products to be sold in the United States. GFI was featured in media coverage of this historic milestone in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, TIME, The Washington Post, NPR, and more.” GFI, 2022 .
32 “A total of seven companies [...] have received regulatory clearance to sell multiple different cultivated meat products: GOOD Meat: cultivated chicken (Singapore and U.S.); UPSIDE Foods: cultivated chicken (U.S.); Vow: cultivated quail (Singapore and Australia); Wildtype: cultivated salmon (U.S.); Mission Barns: cultivated pork fat (U.S.); Believer Meats: cultivated chicken (U.S.); PARIMA: cultivated chicken (Singapore)” GFI, 2025
33 “In 2023, our cultivated meat and fermentation-derived frameworks were officially published by the Brazilian government, signaling an important step toward adoption and implementation.” GFI, 2024
34 JBS’ support for cultivated meat: “The deal signals the company’s entry into the cultivated protein market, which consists of producing food from animal cells and includes investment in building a new production plant in Spain to scale up production. Along with the acquisition, JBS is also announcing the setting up of Brazil’s first cultivated protein research & development (R&D) center. In all, JBS will channel US$ 100 million to the two projects.” JBS, 2021 . GFI’s support: “JBS' entry into the cultivated protein market had the strategic support of The Good Food Institute, an entity that promotes plant and cell-based alternatives to animal products.” JBS, 2021
35 “The Fatwa Committee of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) announced last week that after conducting extensive deliberations for a year, they have determined that cultivated meat consumption can be considered halal “under specific conditions.” Vegconomist, 2024
36 “This critical decision came after more than a year of deliberations by the Islamic council, during which GFI APAC scientists and policy experts provided numerous technical presentations about the process of cultivating meat from animal cells.” GFI, 2024
37 “MUIS, the only authorized entity in Singapore to issue halal certificates, announced its ruling at an invite-only Fatwa Conference that featured, among other experts, Ph.D. Maanasa Ravikumar, a cultivated meat scientist at the Good Food Institute APAC.” Vegconomist, 2024
38 “According to JAKIM’s fatwa, cultivated meat can be deemed permissible if the source cells are obtained from an animal slaughtered according to Shariah, and if the growth medium and all biological components are derived from halal sources (e.g. no blood serum or other haram substances). [...] “GFI APAC experts have played a supporting role in this deliberative process by providing technical presentations to regional authorities about the science of cultivating meat from animal cells—most recently at the Halal International Seminar in September.” GFI APAC, 2025
39 We describe our certainty as low/medium/high to increase readability and avoid false precision. Since these terms can be interpreted differently, we use rough heuristics to define them as percentage likelihoods the assumption is, on average, correct. Low = 0-70%, medium = 70-90%, high = 90-100%.
40 “Animal products—including animal emissions, feed, changes in land use and energy-intensive global supply chains—account for almost 60 percent of food-related emissions (including methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide), for a total of 14.5–20 percent of global emissions… novel ASF [animal source food] alternatives already show strong potential for reduced environmental impacts compared to many conventional animal products.” “life cycle assessment (LCAs) suggest that, compared to conventional beef, they could use 30–50 per cent less energy whilst offering reductions of 86–97 per cent in land use and 67–89 per cent in GHG emissions.” UNEP, 2023
41 “Even the lowest-emitting beef from dedicated beef herds (34 kg carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO2e) and lower-emitting beef from dairy cow herds (15 kg CO2e) came in far above the highest-emitting tofu (4 kg CO2e) and plant-based meat (7 kg). Chicken and pork production emit far less CO2 equivalent than beef. And while there is some overlap (the lowest-emitting chicken [3.2 kg CO2e] and pork [6 kg CO2e] rival the emissions of the highest-emitting plant-based meat), the average emissions of tofu and plant-based meats are still lower than the average emissions of both chicken and pork.” Vox, 2021
42 Figure: Vox, 2021 ; Data: Poore and Nemecek, 2018 and Santo et al, 2020
43 Sinke et al, 2023
44 One study suggests the long term warming of cultivated meat could be higher than conventional beef production in some scenarios due to the length of time CO2, remains in the atmosphere compared to methane (Lynch and Pierrehumbert, 2019 ). GFI, in response, highlights that it is unlikely that cultivated meat’s energy source in the future will be derived from fossil fuels (GFI, 2019 ). We agree with GFI’s line of reasoning.
45 Our World in Data, based on Poore and Nemecek, 2018
46 Derived from the overview of the environmental impacts of alternative proteins on the GFI website .
47 Our World in Data , n.d.
48 Several sources, compiled by GFI (n.d.)
49 Sinke et al, 2023
50 Our World in Data, 2024 , based on Pendrill et al. (2019) We think that deforestation-related CO2 emissions are a good proxy for the amount of (tropical) habitat loss.
51 Our World in Data, 2024 , based on Pendrill et al. (2019)
52 Figure: ‘Why have you not tried plant-based meat products again?’ GFI, 2024 ; Figure: ‘Barriers to alt-meat adoption’, Sorrells, 2022 . “Among Plant-Based Decreasers that were asked what would make them more likely to consume plant-based, 64% say lower pricing and/or more frequent sales and coupons, and 58% say better taste and/or texture.” Figure 6: ‘Reasons why shoppers are decreasing animal-based food consumption in favor of plant-based foods” Plant-based Foods Institute, 2022 ; “Of these factors, studies from different countries have consistently identified taste, price, healthiness, and convenience as dominating food choices [...] While some differences have been found in how people prioritise these factors, taste is typically ranked as most important, with the other factors varying in their relative subsequent positions” Dana et al, 2021 .; Figure 2 Valli et al., 2022
53 Market growth: “Currently, the market base for alternative protein is approximately $2.2 billion” McKinsey & Company, 2019 ; “The global alternative protein market size was USD 15.38 billion in 2023” Precedence Research, 2024 ; Taste and price improvements: “In order to became competitive, the product price should be decreased. In the past few years, several plant-based meat substitute producers have been able to lower their prices and move closer to price parity” Szenderák, Fróna, and Rákos, 2022 ; “consumers who buy PBA meat believe its taste has improved dramatically in recent years (73%) and that it is more environmentally sustainable (65%).” Deloitte, 2024
54 “Plant-based meat dollar sales decreased 1% and unit sales declined 8%.” The Good Food Institute, 2022
55 “Lidl freut sich über eine positive Resonanz der Kunden, die mit einem Anstieg der verkauften veganen Artikel um über 30 Prozent seit der Preisanpassung vor einem halben Jahr einhergeht.” Translation: Lidl is pleased with the positive response from customers, which has been accompanied by an increase in the number of vegan items sold by over 30 percent since the price adjustment six months ago. Lidl, 2024
56 “The average German ate 52 kilograms of meat last year, down around 4.2 kilograms from 2021 levels and the lowest since the government started tracking meat consumption in 1989.” Just Food, 2023 ;“People in the UK consumed less meat last year than at any point since records began in the 1970s, in a trend driven by the cost of living crisis, the continued impact of Covid and broader lifestyle changes.” The Guardian, 2023 ; "Furthermore, concerns over the environment and climate change will result in consumers paying further attention to the production process and products’ origin. Consumers habits will also be driven by health considerations as well as convenience. Overall, EU meat per capita consumption is expected to drop from 69.8kg in 2018 to 67kg by 2031." European Commission, 2021
57 Rethink Priorities report: Rethink Priorities, "Price-, taste-, and convenience-competitive plant-based meat would not currently replace meat" 2023.
58 “Concern that plant-based meat is ‘ultra-processed’ is widespread” Chapman, 2023 ; “How lab-grown meat became part of America’s culture wars” The Economist, 2024 ; “Thus, from various perspectives, meat is symbolic of status.” Chan and Zlatevska, 2019
59 “In countries with high meat consumption, altering social norms is also important” and “The food industry should make sure that plant-based meat alternatives are of similar nutritional value to meat; otherwise, there might be a backlash against highly processed plant-based meat alternatives due to their lack of healthiness” Siegrist and Hartmann, 2023 ; “Furthermore, incomplete safety assessments and a lack of clear regulatory guidelines confuse the food industry and hamper progress.” Malila et al, 2024 “In general, the following drivers of acceptance consistently show to be relevant for the acceptance of various alternative proteins: motives of taste and health, familiarity, attitudes, food neophobia, disgust, and social norms.” Onwezen et al., 2021
60 Sections: ‘Motivations’, ‘Adoption’, ‘Perceptions’ GFI, n.d.
61 “There is insufficient empirical evidence to more precisely estimate or optimize the current (or future) impacts of plant-based meat. To rectify this, consider funding: Research measuring the effects of plant-based meat sales on displacement of animal-based meat. Research comparing the effects of plant-based meats with other interventions to reduce animal-based meat usage. Informed (non-blinded) taste tests to benchmark current plant-based meats and enable measurements of taste improvement over time.” Rethink Priorities, 2023
62 Our World in Data, “Global meat consumption, World, 1961 to 2050" n.d.
63 “For every 10% reduction in price or increase in demand for PBM, we estimate U.S. cattle production falls approximately 0.15%... For every 10% reduction in the price of PBM alternatives, we estimate that the global reduction in emissions is equivalent to 0.34% of U.S. emissions from beef production and 1.14% when including reduced land-use change emissions.” Lusk et al, 2022.
64 We focus on the U.S. because we are less familiar with the politics of alt proteins in the other countries that GFI works in.
65 “...on April 30, 2021, Representative Dan Wolgamott (DFL-St. Cloud) and Senator Carrie Ruud (R-Breezy Point) introduced legislation (SF 2483 and HF 2583) that, if enacted into law, will invest in research and development to advance the plant-based food industry in Minnesota.” GFI, 2021 ; regulatory framework: “In 2019, FSIS and FDA established a formal agreement on how we would use our regulatory tools to help ensure that foods comprising or containing cultured animal cells entering the U.S. market are safe and properly labeled.” USDA, n.d.
66 “Following months of GFI engagement and just days before the end of the 117th Congress in December, a bipartisan group of lawmakers reached an appropriations agreement that includes $5.5 million for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct alternative protein research.” GFI, 2022 .
67 GFI, 2022 .
68 “Increasingly, America’s meat-eating ways are being subsumed into our culture wars. It’s yet another sign of how polarized our country is and how hard this polarization makes tackling a catastrophic threat like climate change.” Vox, 2021 .
69 “How the federal government decides to act on alternative protein policy may well dictate the role that the United States can play in the future of protein production. An expansive and ambitious policy platform that can nurture a domestic alternative protein industry will foster economic development and job growth in the face of international competition while aligning with the longer-term aim of promoting climate-smart agricultural production.” Ron & Smith, 2022
70 “Domestic policy that enhances economic competitiveness is already paying dividends for pharmaceuticals, clean energy technology, and advanced chips for artificial intelligence. Food production and supply chain technology would benefit from similar treatment. The potential rewards of prioritizing investment in alt-protein research and development are clear. By creating a nutritious food system that mitigates global threats and enhances U.S. strategic competitiveness, alt-proteins can help shape a safer and more sustainable future.” CSIS, 2023
71 “An expansive and ambitious policy platform that can nurture a domestic alternative protein industry will foster economic development and job growth in the face of international competition while aligning with the longer-term aim of promoting climate-smart agricultural production.” The Breakthrough Institute, 2022 .
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
