This community is in archive. Visit community.xprize.org for the current XPRIZE Community.
Factors Enabling the Success of Alternative Protein Products
NickOttens
Posts: 899 admin
in Key Issues
What are the biggest enabling factors of the success of alternative protein products?
0
Comments
[Note: Although we can seek an efficient process, we also have to be mindful of the fact that on a finite planet there is a limit to the size of population it can support (for a given quality of life). So initiatives that consider issues around population growth and quality of life are also helpful to the big long term picture, e.g. Population Matters.]
[Perhaps a solar powered fresh food factory will replace the refrigerator in the kitchen.]
Equally, as we have seen, it is possible that businesses cut corners and deliver processed foods of lower quality; or employ dubious processes and chemicals.
The solution to this might be relevant education, adequate regulation, quality certification, and transparency.
The quality of the solution might have a significant impact on the consumers' health and safety (real and perceived). With such a radical approach it is vital that we get this right, if the approach is to be successful.
An appealing appearance, texture and taste are important factors when we choose which foods we will eat. It should be possible to use the cell based foods in 3D printers to replicate the look of traditional foods; and to produce new innovative designs that excite and delight.
What do you see as the biggest challenges to the success of cell based protein products? What are the biggest enabling factors?
Similarly, what do you see as the greatest opportunity for the future of plant-based protein products when addressing a growing population’s consumption demands?
Yes government should have a role. The existing organisations should be able to deal with this new food type, e.g. health bodies, food standards agency, and environment agency. They might have to modify existing regulations and/or create new ones; but overall a similar approach to that of today might be adequate. Although society might want additional assurances, and clearer information.
We are now designing a prize competition to increase access to nutritious alternative protein products, which is a direct outcome of the Alternative Proteins discussions we had in the Future of Food Impact Roadmap. What do you see as the main factors potentially driving the success of alternative protein products? Do you agree with @akb's list? Would you add or change anything?
Also, per @cnatan's question, what do you think governments can and should do about this?
Challenges such as regulatory hurdles, high production costs and low consumer awareness or acceptance. Each factor has to be addressed parallelly and the key is not to treat it as a race.
People eat meat as it is culturally ingrained despite how it’s produced; people are not eating meat because of how it’s produced.
Not one organization will spark a movement globally in plant-based or clean meat-eating. Governments and businesses have to work together to foster change for the greater good of the public and environmental health.
When grain sprouts, phytase (an enzyme that chews up phytic acid) is produced, freeing up the bound iron and zinc. B12... maybe someone else can answer this one?
Nutrition is a function of whole diets rather than specific food types. Thus, the presence of meat as a source of vitamin B12 may be critical for a malnourished person in a low‑income country with a very poor diet, but of little consequence for someone with a more varied diet.
In the case of iron, beef and cultured beef provide roughly the same amounts of iron, more than chicken and pork.
Regarding the, joint public‑private investments and new platforms for innovation acceleration and market development, similar to the renewables industry was “pump‑primed” by
some key governments in the 1990s and 2000s, with a global public good benefit in mind.
In particular, investments in technology and production methods that can be scaled in
ways that maximize sustainability is critical, and may not be delivered purely by the market. There is, therefore, a substantial opportunity for a smart public‑private intervention to help shape and accelerate a new protein economy.
Also, government regulatory authorities should come with a strong spirit of co‑creation to identify and adopt the best ideas that address environmental and societal challenges to new markets.
This was why we at CAS had so many issues when we explored funding/advancing independent, natural science R&D years ago (and there weren't even that many companies at the time!). We would start a project with an academic that we had confidence was not duplicative and would have results that would push things forward, but ultimately felt this was no match for the way industry could advance innovation. I have many thoughts on this, mainly from failed experiences and really thinking how CAS could help push things forward in the most productive way. Lmk if it would be helpful to expand upon "why the industry can often times be better suited than independent, natural science research to push cell-ag forward".
The state of academic, natural science research prohibits us from a
committed engagement because...
1) Its effectiveness towards accelerating cell-ag products to market is unproven and according to commercial
partners of ours, “unlikely to be significant”
2) Due to the bureaucratic nature of academia, it can be too slow and a project that a company can complete overnight
can take a semester or more in academia
3) Projects are carried out by those still in the learning process and amateur work like this simply takes longer as
students have multiple responsibilities in academic life, not to mention the work is likely subject to more mistakes
4) Funding can be inconsistent, sometimes difficult to use once attained, and generally of lesser quantity
6) IP can get caught up in universities through the use of their labs
7) **Perhaps most importantly, the research is isolated and academics are unaware of the current advancements going on in the industry (not their fault, simply due to trade secrets). They are, therefore, not keen to the up-to-date science/research achieved and only aware of what is advancing in their academic circles.
With that said, there is still worthwhile research that can be explored that is productive and efficient in accelerating cellular agriculture globally. We just find discovering the nature of this needed-research is quite a difficult venture and have had experiences where it changes quickly. For instance, the first research fellow at CAS carried through a project that we were fortunate (due to our connections) to know was a topic that was unexplored by companies and if successful in what it was trying to show, would indeed help push the industry forward. Ultimately, within a few weeks of this student carrying out the project, we heard from the same companies that they now think this idea doesn't have utility so they are exploring another direction. Meanwhile, we were stuck now with a project that was not as important as we once thought. This especially troubles us, when we know funding can go to other programming which would not have as much risk of being duplicative or not productive. All in all, this is what manifests into where we focus our attention now, and there are certainly others in our field who disagree with me that natural science research is indeed important. And in some cases, I agree, but just find it's more of a cost-benefit issue to me and these projects generally have quite a high cost that's just too risky IMO.
Legumes (beans, peas and lentils) are sustainable affordable sources of vegetable protein.
@Balaban, @Evan_Fraser, @Kent, @PranavSTH, you may have insight here from the policy side. Please join the discussion!
Remember, we're not just focusing on the US, but governments around the world.