Table of Contents
Summary
The UK has an opportunity to become the world leader in developing and commercialising alternative proteins.
Currently, regulatory and political barriers in the US and the EU mean that there is an opportunity to capture a growing market for plant-based, cultivated and fermentation-made proteins.
Developing this market would support the UK’s goals to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, a large part of which depends on modernising agriculture, and also support food security, biodiversity and animal welfare objectives.
Alternative proteins replicate animal-based foods by using plants, animal cells, and fermentation, to enable a simple, sustainable switch in our diets.
Demand for alternative proteins is likely to grow as more consumers switch to non-meat options. However, these are currently too expensive to produce and do not meet consumers’ expectations.
The next UK Government should modernise regulations for cultivated meat and fermentation-made proteins and ingredients. This should include operationalising the use of risk assessment opinions shared by trusted regulators internationally and creating a system for public, pre-market taste testing.
The Government should also commit £100 million of research and innovation funding to develop plant-based foods, cultivated meat and fermentation. This could be delivered through UKRI or another appropriate body. Given the importance of alternative proteins for tackling climate change, this could also be a destination for climate R&D funding.
Successfully scaling alternative proteins could create a new export market for UK food production, inward investment and jobs, in addition to enhancing food security and environmental protection.
Challenge and Opportunity
The Climate Change Committee projects that a 35% reduction in meat consumption is required by 2050 to achieve its balanced net zero pathway. The UK is also committed to protecting 30% of land for nature conservation and restoration, farming more sustainably, and producing more food domestically. All of this requires more agricultural land than we have, and the UK already relies on an area of land overseas roughly equal to its domestic farmed area to feed itself.
But eating meat is part of our national food culture, and food prices have already risen significantly in recent years. Alternative proteins provide a solution by replicating the sensory experience of animal-based foods, without the negative externalities of animal agriculture.
Box 1: Types of Alternative Proteins
Alternative proteins have a fraction of the environmental impact of farming animals. As an example, the land and carbon footprint of Quorn’s mycoprotein is one-third the size of chicken. Growing evidence also suggests they can deliver public health benefits too, since they are higher in fibre and lower in saturated fat than animal-based equivalents.
However, today’s alternative protein products are too expensive and do not meet most consumers' expectations. New technologies like precision fermentation and cultivated meat are challenging and costly to scale, and there is a fundamental lack of basic alternative protein science. Businesses also face regulatory frameworks that are outdated and under-resourced.
Meanwhile, a growing number of countries, including Canada, China, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United States, are vying to establish themselves as leaders in alternative proteins. As Henry Dimbleby, author of the National Food Strategy has written, “we are in danger of missing a prime opportunity for green growth”.
However, the UK has significant competitive advantages which make it a good home for the alternative protein industry. Through its universities and life sciences sector, the UK has considerable expertise in scientific disciplines like genetics, mycology, and food science, and there are hotspots of potential in areas such as East Anglia and the North East. Alternative protein research hubs have recently been established at the University of Bath and Imperial College London, and the UK has a disproportionate number of the world’s cultivated meat startups.
Evidence shows that UK consumers are open to cultivated meat and precision fermentation, and there is a large addressable market for alternative proteins: UK adults still eat around 850g of meat per week according to Defra. Leaving the EU also enables the UK to be more agile in its approach to regulation, since the EU must solicit the views of member states to approve a novel food.
Estimates indicate that, with regulatory reforms and sufficient public investment, the UK alternative protein industry could add £6.8 billion annually to the economy and create 25,000 jobs by 2035. Scaling alternative proteins could also release an area of land the size of Scotland, under a high-innovation scenario projected by Green Alliance, enabling an expansion of agroecological farming, domestic food production and nature restoration. The Social Market Foundation has estimated that if alternative proteins captured 30% of the meat market by 2040, 300 million fewer animals would be reared in factory farms and slaughtered in the UK annually. This would reduce water pollution and biohazards like zoonotic disease risk associated with intensive animal production systems.
Plan of action
1) Modernise the UK’s novel foods regulatory framework
Alternative protein startups find that the UK’s current regulatory system is a critical hurdle on the path to market. There are three main reasons:
Lack of regulatory clarity.
Inefficiencies in the structure of existing regulations.
Under-resourcing of the Food Standards Agency (FSA).
Collectively, these factors have led to long authorisation timelines. This encourages UK-based companies to move production offshore and prioritise other markets. University of Oxford spinout Ivy Farm said: “If the UK is dragging its feet on regulation…we are prepared to build our first production plant in another country.”
The FSA has already outlined a set of initial low-hanging fruit reforms for regulated products. These include removing the requirement for reauthorisation, removing the need for a statutory instrument, creating a publicly available official register for authorisations, reviewing the approach to public consultation and engagement, firm deadlines for consultations, and other efficiencies.
The new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, should prioritise the implementation of these FSA recommendations via Retained EU Law (REUL) powers.
Additionally, the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should ask the FSA to produce and implement ambitious proposals to modernise the UK’s novel foods regulatory framework.
These proposals should include:
Formalising the use of risk assessment opinions shared by trusted international regulators, for example by striking bilateral agreements (akin to Canada and Australia/New Zealand) and spearheading multilateral discussions to align regulatory standards globally.
Formalising a pathway for companies to enter into substantive pre-submission consultations with FSA staff.
Using REUL powers to reduce the maximum statutory timeline for risk management from seven months to three.
Producing specific, accessible guidance for alternative protein companies regarding safety dossier requirements; the FSA should not wait for the commencement of its (unconfirmed) cultivated meat regulatory sandbox to begin this work.
Designing a new system for pre-market tastings for novel alternative proteins, allowing companies to conduct marketing and publicity efforts to attract investment (which is currently prohibited).
2) Introduce a full cost-recovery fee for regulatory applications
The FSA’s budget has been frozen over the last spending review period; the Financial Times estimates this amounts to a £35 million real-terms cut. FSA headcount is little more than it was in 2011, despite a vast expansion of its workload post-Brexit. The department has repeatedly stated that under-resourcing is a key factor in the lengthy timelines for risk assessment of new products. Currently, the FSA estimates applications to its regulated product service take 2.5 years on average.
Given the tight fiscal environment, the FSA should follow the MHRA’s approach of charging full cost-recovery fees to fund its regulated product service going forward. It should propose this as part of its wider regulated product reform package, to be implemented by DHSC ministers. A cost recovery fee must be conditional on the FSA hitting a tighter timeline of one year for product authorisations. Food Standards Australia New Zealand operate a similar model, and this has not dissuaded companies from submitting novel alternative protein products for authorisation.
3) Invest £100 million in alternative protein research, development and infrastructure
Since 2012, the Good Food Institute Europe estimates that UKRI has invested approximately £60 million in R&D and commercialisation support to develop alternative proteins. This is a promising start, but major scientific white spaces remain and analysis shows we need to significantly increase R&D and commercialisation funding to unlock the climate and economic benefits of alternative proteins. Given that much of this R&D is pre-competitive and high-risk in nature, the public sector is well-placed to step in. At the same time, some alternative protein businesses are now crossing the ‘valley of death’, exiting bench-scale and trying to transition to capital-intensive demonstration and manufacturing facilities.
The next UK government should initially target £100 million in research, development and commercialisation funding. This could be funded through UKRI, DSIT and/or DEFRA, as appropriate. This would build on existing investments like the Cellular Agriculture Manufacturing Hub (CARMA) at the University of Bath. Enabling this will require ministers to send consistent and strong signals to UKRI that it supports the development of alternative proteins. They could do so through inclusion in a revised Net Zero Innovation Strategy, Food Strategy or Carbon Budget Delivery Plan. We recommend that UKRI funds:
A £30 million alternative protein SME innovation fund, distributed by Innovate UK. It should build on a successful programme from 2023, with a maximum grant size of £2 million, split evenly between cultivated meat, fermentation and plant-based foods.
£40 million in support for open-access university-led research. This should be split between fellowships, studentships, and collaborations with industry, and include the incorporation of an alternative protein research hub as part of the new AgriTech catapult, focused on critical R&D challenges related to plant-based meat.
Investment could also come from other parts of the public sector, particularly to support scale-up and first-of-a-kind manufacturing facilities. Part-financing a food-grade fermentation and cultivated meat pilot facility is a strong first option, having been highlighted as a key infrastructure bottleneck in the National Vision for Engineering Biology. Such a facility would allow domestic and overseas companies to demo and scale their processes, conduct safety testing and manufacture at small volumes to help secure an initial route to market.
Following a detailed scoping exercise, the state should invest a minimum of £30 million in an alternative protein scale-up facility, as part of a wave of investments in engineering biology infrastructure, via a capital investment from DSIT. This funding should be conditional on an industry consortium securing substantial investment from private investors and the facility being located in an area with clustering potential.
FAQs
What has the UK Government done so far to support alternative proteins?
There was no substantive public investment, policy or regulatory development in alternative proteins until they were included in the Benefits of Brexit report and Government Food Strategy in 2022. Since then:
The FSA commissioned an independent review of regulations for novel foods and has begun developing reforms, but these are yet to be implemented.
DSIT included alternative proteins in its National Vision for Engineering Biology, and the FSA has bid to DSIT to create a cultivated meat regulatory sandbox, which could launch in late 2024 if funding is granted.
UKRI invested an estimated £60 million (the vast majority in 2022 and 2023) in alternative protein research, development and commercialisation. Key recent investments include:
£12 million for a cellular agriculture manufacturing hub at the University of Bath.
£12 million for an engineering biology hub for microbial food at Imperial College London.
An estimated £8 million of funding for 16 collaborative research projects and business grants in plant-based foods, cultivated meat and fermentation as part of a BBSRC/Innovate UK competition.
£15 million for an alternative protein innovation and knowledge centre (spending announced but not yet committed).
Why are regulatory reforms important for alternative protein companies?
Cultivated meat and products made through some fermentation technologies will need to be regulated, most commonly as ‘novel foods’, since they do not have a history of consumption before 1997. This process involves a rigorous food safety assessment to protect consumers, and a risk management phase, whereby officials and then ministers ultimately sign off on new products. Currently, there are significant inefficiencies in this process:
The FSA is yet to publish any substantive advice on compiling the requisite testing data for alternative protein novel food applications. This frequently results in dossiers taking many months to validate and risk assessments facing a ‘stop clock’ if more data are required.
There is no formal system of sharing risk assessments between regulators internationally, meaning that companies choosing to apply in multiple jurisdictions face a duplication of the same process.
Once a risk assessment decision has been made, seven months are given for risk management—plus time for ministers to sign off. This phase is elongated because it was designed to allow EU member states time to deliberate, but could now be changed under REUL.
Prior to and during the application process, companies are forbidden from holding pre-market tastings for publicity purposes, for example to attract new investment.
What are other countries doing?
Internationally, governments have focused on different alternative protein technologies, informed by their national priorities (e.g. for food sovereignty or bioeconomy), their scientific strengths and domestic agriculture. Prominent examples include:
Canada has invested more than £200 million in its plant-protein supercluster.
Denmark has a £150 million plant-based fund.
The Netherlands has committed £47 million to create a cellular agriculture (fermentation and cultivated meat) ecosystem and developed a system of safe, limited pre-market authorisation taste tastings.
The Biden Administration has included investment in alternative protein R&D as part of its bioeconomy initiative, with a £20 million government-backed loan guarantee handed to Liberation Labs to build a commercial-scale precision fermentation manufacturing facility.
China has invested in alternative proteins, although the specifics are unclear. However, they are included in recent five-year plans for agriculture and biotechnology.
Overall, the UK Government is globally competitive in its support for cultivated meat—the standout investment being a £12 million research hub at the University of Bath—but lagging somewhat behind on plant-based and fermentation innovation. For more, see GFI’s annual State of Global Policy report.
Why is state support needed?
The UK Government’s Carbon Budget Delivery Plan recognises that alternative proteins
can produce emissions savings in the next 10 years, but that this potential is conditional on
research and development. The positive spillovers from alternative proteins, particularly for the environment and animal welfare, make them a ‘public good’. This means that they are currently undersupplied by the market.
Globally, an estimated £3.5 billion in R&D spending is required on average annually to scale alternative proteins and unlock their benefits. Given the foundational, pre-competitive nature of many R&D whitespaces, the public sector is best-placed to invest in and coordinate this R&D activity. Doing so mitigates the risk of duplicative activity in the private sector and minimises the chances that only a few large companies will dominate. This logic is not novel but at the core of the UK’s Net Zero Research and Innovation Framework: “Publicly funded R&I will be needed where market failures or barriers are holding back private sector investment and to create and shape markets which may not otherwise form fast enough to meet net zero targets.”
Lastly, the sector faces regulatory barriers which only the state can solve.
What are some of the key technical bottlenecks that public funding could address?
Plant-based meat: crop breeding or engineering for higher protein yields and improved innate functionality; protein fractionation and functionalisation; improving plant-based fat profiles; novel methods for texturising and structuring plant-based proteins.
Fermentation: increasing titer and yields; identifying and engineering new strains; genetic characterisation and safety analysis of microbial hosts; lipid (fat) production.
Cultivated meat: developing affordable, scalable bioreactors that support sufficient cell density and large volumes; creating affordable food-grade cell-culture media and growth factors; valorising waste sidestreams.
Are alternative proteins really better for the environment?
Yes, there is increasingly strong evidence to support this.
A recent systematic review by researchers at the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine evaluated 34 studies comparing 135 plant-based meat and mycoprotein products with 53 animal-based equivalents. Overall, they found that a significant majority of plant-based products had a carbon, water and land use footprint at least 70% smaller than the animal-based equivalent.
A recent peer-reviewed study – based on data from cultivated meat companies – found that, when produced with renewable electricity, cultivating meat could cut the climate impact by up to 92%, reduce air pollution by up to 94%, and use up to 90% less land compared with farming animals.
A peer-reviewed life-cycle assessment of Onego Bio’s precision fermentation albumin (the major protein in egg whites), compared to conventional eggs, causes 35-55% lower emissions and 87-89% less land use.
How will alternative proteins impact farmers in the UK?
Alternative proteins allow farmers to diversify their crops, bringing new opportunities in plant-based produce. Crops suited to some of our growing conditions include peas, oats, fava beans, sunflower and oilseed rape, all of which are widely used in plant-based products. Companies like Glebe Farm (oat milk) and Novo Farina (plant-based meat) show how using home-grown crops can shorten supply chains, thereby reducing emissions, boosting domestic food security and creating business opportunities for British farmers. However, more crop processing infrastructure will be needed to provide certainty for farmers and plant-based companies.
Producing meat from plants and cells could be complementary to animal farming. Globally, demand for meat is projected to increase by 60% by 2050, but research suggests we simply do not have enough land to satisfy this demand. Alternative proteins could ease this challenge by releasing substantial amounts of land - potentially as much as 57% of all UK-farmed land by 2050. This is critical, as we need more land if the UK is to farm more extensively with fewer inputs, restore nature, and ensure that the land system becomes a large enough carbon sink to net out residual emissions by 2050, without relying heavily on BECCS or DACCS. Payments for sustainable farming practices and nature restoration must be generous enough to support farmers in transitioning their business models; research has shown that environmental payments can be more economical than the status quo if well-designed.
Linus Pardoe is the UK Policy Manager for the Good Food Institute Europe - a non-profit think-tank accelerating the science, policy, regulation and commercialisation of alternative proteins. Linus previously worked as a researcher for a cross-party think-tank in Westminster and has written widely about the policy and regulatory landscape around alternative proteins. He holds an MSc in Social Research and Social Policy from University College London.