We constructed a theory of change that reflects our understanding 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 $27 million USD.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. Since 2025, 28 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 109 universities, of which 78 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 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.14 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, which typically cost millions of dollars to develop, of the defunct startup SCiFi Foods.15 GFI is making these cell lines and formulations available to academia and—in a later stage—to industry.16 In 2026, GFI acquired three new cell lines and is exploring a pipeline of deals with other companies that are ceasing operations to build out its acquisition portfolio.
Policy: Agenda-Setting and R&D Funding GFI’s advocacy has helped increase public funding for alt protein R&D. Government funding for alt protein R&D reached $510 million in 2024. Since then, governments have supported alt protein innovation largely through broader biotech programs and blended finance.17 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.18 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.19
We think GFI’s U.S. federal policy engagement has helped elevate alt proteins as a research priority by driving the creation of coordinated U.S. government initiatives and long-term R&D planning. GFI was involved in the creation of an interagency working group to coordinate alt protein R&D through the U.S. government.20 It also contributed to the establishment of alt proteins as one of the seven key themes for CASA-Bio, a federal bioeconomy R&D initiative.21 Although the executive order that prompted CASA-Bio was revoked in March 2025, we think that GFI could continue to advance R&D vehicles in the future pending a more favorable policy environment.
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. GFI estimates that, since 2024, this work has influenced $59.7 million in funding to alt protein companies, 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 food and bioeconomy 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 Europe’s multi-year engagement with the U.K.’s public research funder (UK Research and Innovation). GFI Europe also claims to have played an important role in the post-Brexit regulatory sandbox for novel foods, which helps draw investment and streamline regulatory approval.26 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 and called for increased research and scaling funding for alt proteins, as well as clear regulatory paths to approval.27 In 2026, the country’s biotechnology roadmap included plans for a national innovation hub for cultivated meat and precision fermentation as well as several plans to streamline the path to market.28 Brazil: In 2026, Brazil’s Ministry of Finance included alt proteins for the first time in a program offering up to R$7.5 billion BRL ($1.46 billion USD) to commercialize Brazilian research.29 GFI Brazil claims that it secured the sector’s inclusion and works to connect companies to this opportunity.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 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research / Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. (CGIAR/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.
Policy: Regulatory Approval and Labeling Laws 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.30 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.31 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.32 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.33
We think GFI’s work 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.34 Between 2023 and 2025, more cultivated meat and fish products have been approved for sale in the United States, Singapore, and Australia.35 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 2023.36 GFI is also the only alt protein-focused official observer in the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), a U.N. food standards body. It contributed technical input on assessing the safety of cultivated meat media ingredients. The CAC’s food additives committee has not yet reached a decision on this topic, so we will continue monitoring GFI’s impact as part of the working group formed to refine the proposal.37
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.38 According to GFI, this came after over a year of deliberation, during which GFI provided numerous inputs.39 The ruling was announced at an invite-only conference featuring a GFI speaker.40 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.41
Industry: Corporate Engagement 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.42 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 is also developing new vehicles to stimulate institutional demand and an open-access platform to train predictive AI models for taste and texture optimization.
Because corporate engagement is a minor part of GFI’s work and our strategy report on alternative proteins primarily focuses on science and policy, we did not assess GFI’s corporate engagement efforts in depth.
Examining the Assumptions Behind GFI’s Theory of Change Below, we evaluate the main assumptions behind our understanding of GFI’s theory of change and rate our certainty in each as low , medium , or high .43 Our ratings rest on primary and secondary evidence and our general impression of each assumption’s plausibility. Importantly, many stages of GFI’s theory of change are difficult to measure, lack a robust evidence base, or have not yet occurred.
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.44 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.45
Figure 3: Emissions for meat and alternatives [46]How 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 e per kg) if manufacturers use renewable energy at their facilities.47 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.48
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 ).49 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 5.50
Figure 4: Land use requirements of different animal-based and plant-based sources of protein per 100 grams of protein [51]
Figure 5: Comparative LCAs of the environmental impacts of plant-based and fermentation-based alt proteins, including the differences in land use in column 4 [52]Cultivated 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 products [53]Our 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.54 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.55
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) Studies find that taste and price are the two main drivers of consumer food choices, with nutrition and texture playing an important role.56 Barriers differ by the type of alt protein: U.S. survey data suggest price weighs more heavily for plant-based meat, while perceived unnaturalness, wanting to support farmers, and lack of understanding are more prominent for novel alt proteins.57 They also differ by geography. For example, survey participants in India and China reported significantly higher acceptance for alt proteins in general than those in the U.S., though higher familiarity predicted higher acceptance across all countries.58
In U.S. surveys across plant-based meat, cultivated dairy, cultivated meat, and mycoprotein, consumers cited taste and texture as the primary barrier to adoption for every category except cultivated meat, where it was perceived unnatural-ness.59 We think the surveys on novel proteins likely underweight price, and that revealed preferences would show greater price sensitivity, especially for recurring purchases. This is because a) food choices are generally highly price-sensitive, b) the question was framed as a one-time try or buy rather than a repeat behavior, and c) it was posed only to those already unlikely to try novel proteins, who plausibly hold stronger ideological objections than more open consumers.
Empirical evidence shows price can shift alt protein demand in the right contexts. When the German supermarket Lidl brought its plant-based range to price parity, sales rose by over 30%.60 We think Europe is especially open to adopting plant-based products, with meat consumption per capita now decreasing in some European countries, so we are uncertain if this result is replicable globally.61 Across four U.S. consumer trials, cutting the price of plant-based burgers raised selection by 3 percentage points among regular meat eaters and 6 points among those on alternative diets.62 However, at price parity consumers still chose meat more often, and on average were willing to pay $1.11 more for a beef meal than a plant-based one.63 We are unsure how this would change if the products were also at taste-parity.
Outside of taste and price, various social and cultural dynamics also influence the number of people open to trying alt proteins. For example, trends of alt proteins being perceived as unnatural or unhealthy, right-wing opposition to cultivated meat in the U.S., and meat as a symbol of social status, can all lead to fewer people being open to eating alt proteins.64 Alongside taste and price, supportive regulation, positive health perceptions, and a favorable social environment have been cited as conditions for alt proteins to reach large market share.65
Our current conclusions are that:
Taste and price are two of the most important factors influencing consumer protein choices. Taste and price improvements can increase alt protein demand on the margin, but reaching parity is unlikely to be sufficient for a substantial share of consumers. Motivations vary substantially across markets, geographies, and alt protein types. There are several other factors that influence consumer protein choices, and we are not sure how much of a barrier they will present, should alt proteins reach taste- and price-parity.
Because of the uncertainty in the current evidence-base, we will continue to monitor this space to update our views. In particular, the global evidence base is still relatively sparse. We also note that the evidence base for taste-parity is less certain than price-parity, since there is an insufficient availability and range of products on the market for it to be empirically assessed.
More demand for alt proteins will lead to less demand for meat (medium certainty) We are unsure whether increased demand for alt protein actually displaces meat, since consumers may choose to consume both alt proteins and meat. For example, a study on alt protein buying patterns found that ~86% of alt protein buyers also buy meat, though they spent ~13% less on meat than their non-alt protein buying counterparts.66 Another study on the effect of promoting plant-based products in supermarkets found that although this led to greater sales of plant-based products, there was no corresponding reduction in meat sales.67 Different meats have also been shown to have different sensitivities to substitution. For example, reducing the price of Beyond Meat was shown to have a greater reduction in chicken consumption than beef consumption.68
Our conclusion from these studies is that alt proteins substitute for some animal products, but are not a one-to-one substitute. We think that substitution rates will be higher for products that more closely mimic animal products, such as cultivated meat, compared to plant-based meat. We will continue to monitor the evidence-base to update our views.
Alt protein-related legislation will continue to pass under a more conservative U.S. government (medium certainty) Because the U.S. is currently a leader in alt proteins and because most of GFI’s work is focused on the U.S., we think it is important to consider whether GFI can continue to achieve policy wins in the U.S.
We have medium certainty that alt protein legislation will continue to pass under a more conservative U.S. government.69 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.70
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.71 GFI works to position alt proteins as a national security issue, having collaborated with the National Defense Industrial Association on a research brief on the benefits of alt proteins for security and supply chain resilience.72 The book Meat by GFI president Bruce Friedrich contains a chapter on the importance of U.S. leadership in alternative proteins and its Republican support, which was covered by Foreign Policy.73 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. We think GFI’s explicit focus on bipartisan support increases the probability of pro-alt protein legislation being introduced and passed under conservative governments.
Since GFI has 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.
-----
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 "$27M+ in open-access research support, 141 grants awarded since 2019, 26 countries where GFI has funded research." The Good Food Institute, “Alternative protein research grants ” n.d., as of October 2026
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. , as of October 2026.
14 “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
15 “By making them widely available, they can rescue years of efforts and millions of dollars’ worth of R&D, which would otherwise be lost after company closures. SciFI Foods is a prime example. The firm raised over $40M to develop a hybrid burger featuring 10% cultivated meat” Green Queen, 2026 ; “Currently, each cultivated meat startup has to spend a significant portion of their funding and time on cell line development, which is estimated to cost between $2-10 million per startup.” GFI, 2025
16 “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
17 “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 (previous report)
“Companies in the sector are now receiving government-backed loans, loan guarantees, blended finance, and direct investments in addition to direct grant funding; new research often cuts across multiple technology sectors and product categories; and large commitments to build out biotechnology leadership and biomanufacturing capacity often highlight food production without specifying the exact amount of investment in it.” GFI, 2026 (current report)
18 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
19 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 .
20 GFI engages in policy efforts only to the extent that is permitted by the IRS for 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations.
21 “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
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. This estimate includes just over $5 million that have not yet been paid out by the U.S. government.
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 “Max Jamilly, co-founder of Hoxton Farms, which makes lab-grown pig fat, said the UK regulatory approvals process had improved beyond recognition since Brexit. “It’s the envy of other EU countries who come to visit us to learn how to ‘sandbox’,” he added.“ FT, 2026 “The new funding will enable the FSA [Food Standards Agency] and FSS [Food Standards Scotland] to make informed decisions about product safety and guide companies on how they can effectively demonstrate that their products and processes are safe, in line with the UK’s existing novel foods regulatory framework.” GFI, 2026
27 “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)
28 “Meilensteintitel: Erste bzw. weitere in Deutschland entwickelte Produkte für biotechnologische Lebensmittel aus Präzisionsfermentation oder Zellkultivierung (z. B. Alternativen zu traditionellen Käse-, Ei-, Fleisch- oder Fischprodukten) auf dem Weltmarkt eingeführt.” [Milestone title: First or additional German-developed biotech food products based on precision fermentation or cell cultivation (e.g., alternatives to traditional cheese, egg, meat, or fish products) launched on the global market.] Hightech Agenda Deutschland, 2026
29 “Alternative Proteins: Development, scaling and industrialisation of alternative proteins and functional ingredients through biotechnology, precision fermentation and plant-based platforms” Tesouro Nacional, 2026 , p. 12
30 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.
31 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 .
32 “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.
33 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 .
34 “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 .
35 “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
36 “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
37 “In 2025, the Singapore and China Codex delegations brought a new work proposal to CCFA for the development of guidelines for the food safety assessment of cell culture media components in cell-based food production. [...] GFI joined a working group formed to refine the proposal.” GFI, 2025 “On [cell culture media components], the Committee determined that further consideration is needed and agreed to establish an EWG chaired by Singapore and co-chaired by China and the Republic of Korea, to review the scope of such a guideline, and determine areas where joint FAO/WHO scientific advice would be required to support the work.” CAC, 2026
38 “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
39 “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
40 “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
41 “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
42 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
43 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 = 0-60%, medium = 60-80%, high = 80-100%
44 “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
45 “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
46 Figure: Vox, 2021 ; Data: Poore and Nemecek, 2018 and Santo et al, 2020
47 Sinke et al, 2023
48 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.
49 Our World in Data, based on Poore and Nemecek, 2018
50 Derived from the overview of the environmental impacts of alternative proteins on the GFI website .
51 Our World in Data, n.d.
52 Several sources, compiled by GFI (n.d.)
53 Sinke et al., 2023
54 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.
55 Our World in Data, 2024 , based on Pendrill et al. (2019)
56 Figure: ‘Why did lapsed plant-based meat eaters (who ate previously but not in 2024) stop eating plant-based meat?’ GFI, 2025 ; 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
57 Figure: ‘Why did lapsed plant-based meat eaters (who ate previously but not in 2024) stop eating plant-based meat?’ GFI, 2025 ; Figure: ‘For Americans who aren’t open to precision-fermented dairy or eggs: what are their barriers?’ GFI, 2025 ; Figure: ‘For Americans who aren’t open to cultivated meat: what are their barriers?’ GFI, 2025 ; Figure: ‘For Americans who aren’t open to mycoprotein-based meat: what are their barriers?’ GFI, 2025
58 “We found significantly higher acceptance of clean and plant-based meat in India and China compared to the USA.”; “higher familiarity predicted higher acceptance of plant-based and clean meat across all countries.” Bryant et al., 2019
59 Figure: ‘Why did lapsed plant-based meat eaters (who ate previously but not in 2024) stop eating plant-based meat?’ GFI, 2025 ; Figure: ‘For Americans who aren’t open to precision-fermented dairy or eggs: what are their barriers?’ GFI, 2025 ; Figure: ‘For Americans who aren’t open to cultivated meat: what are their barriers?’ GFI, 2025 ; Figure: ‘For Americans who aren’t open to mycoprotein-based meat: what are their barriers?’ GFI, 2025
60 “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
61 “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
62 “If both Beyond Beef and Impossible Burger were available for $1/lb less, the combined plant-based share for regular meat consumers would increase from 2% to nearly 5%. Those declaring an alternative diet would have a larger combined plant-based selection rate of 31% (vs. a base of 25%).” Tonsor, Lusk & Schroeder, 2022
63 “Going further, the median WTP of $7.74 for a Beyond Meat Burger meal indicates the typical person would pay $1.11 more for a beef burger meal.” Tonsor, Lusk & Schroeder, 2022
64 “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
65 “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
66 “About 2.79% of households only purchased PBMAs [plant-based meat alternatives]. About 86% of PBMA buyers also bought ground meat; however, PBMA buyers spent about 13% less on ground meat.” Neuhofer & Lusk, 2022
67 “Results suggest that increasing visibility, accessibility, affordability and availability of plant-based products led to increased sales, with evidence of lasting effects. No significant changes in meat sales were observed.” Trewern et al., 2022
68 “If Beyond Meat was available for $1/lb less, regular meat consumers would slightly increase (3% vs. 1%), their rate of selection with this increase coming more at the expense of Chicken Breast than any other item” Tonsor, Lusk, and Schoeder, 2022
69 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.
70 “...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.
71 GFI, 2022 .
72 Food Biomanufacturing for National Security . GFI, 2026
73 “A geopolitical case for meat made without livestock may sound improbable. It isn’t.” Friedrich in Foreign Policy , 2026
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
%20(1).webp)
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
.png)
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
.jpeg)
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
%20(1).png)
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
