The global food system is at a breaking point.
Climate change, population growth and supply chain vulnerabilities are exposing the limitations of traditional agriculture. Alternative proteins, whether plant-based, cultivated or derived from precision fermentation, offer a direct path to a more secure and sustainable future. The industry is projected to reach $290 billion by 2035, according to the Boston Consulting Group, fuelled by growing demand for these sustainable and ethical food choices.
Yet despite the sector’s potential, global regulatory frameworks are struggling to keep pace. The result is a patchwork of approvals, delays and inefficiencies that slow entry to market, restrict investment and limit global consumer access.
What was once a niche industry is now a mainstream solution. Plant-based burgers are lining supermarket shelves, cultivated meat is already commercialised, cultivated seafood is nearing commercialisation, and precision fermentation technology is producing proteins that are making their way into everyday products. If you have tried oat milk in your coffee, or a protein bar made from alternative ingredients, you have already experienced this shift.
Alternative proteins require anywhere from 45 to 97 per cent less land than conventionally farmed proteins, according to the Good Food Institute, offering a more stable and sustainable supply chain. These products also produce outsized environmental benefits. If the alternative protein remains on track to capture just over 10 per cent share of the global protein market by 2035, the industry will contribute to a reduction of 0.85 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent worldwide by 2030, equal to decarbonising 95 per cent of the aviation industry.
These products are also healthier alternatives, often formulated with less saturated fat, fewer additives and more sustainable ingredients. In several studies, including by the US-based National Library of Medicine, replacing animal meat with alternative proteins – like plant-based meats – led to significant decreases in unhealthy cholesterol.
However, bringing an alternative protein product to the market requires navigating a maze of regulatory systems, each with different safety and risk assessments, approval timelines and labelling requirements. Some countries have established clear, science-based regulatory pathways, allowing companies to move efficiently from development to market. Others require years of safety evaluations and millions of dollars in compliance costs, leaving businesses uncertain about when, or if, their products will gain market access.
This uncertainty is compounded in the event that an alternative protein enterprise seeks international expansion, a process that requires adherence to each jurisdiction’s unique certification and testing processes, resulting in added costs, delayed entry to market, and ultimately, dampened investor confidence in a promising product.
The lack of a unified approach creates inconsistencies that pose as barriers to global expansion, slowing the adoption of innovative solutions that promise vast benefits in public health, food security and sustainability.
Global regulatory harmonisation is urgently needed for a faster, more efficient regulatory path to reach its full potential. Clear, consistent standards would enable alternative proteins to scale quickly, increasing their availability and meeting consumer demand.
Just as the pharmaceutical industry benefits from international regulatory alignment through frameworks like the International Council for Harmonisation, a similar global consensus on harmonised food safety assessments and safety dossiers, common and portable (across country) safety tests, labelling would reduce redundancies and accelerate the sector’s growth.
Some governments are likewise stepping up to address these challenges, and encouraging progress is being made.
In 2023, regulatory agencies in Singapore and the US signed an agreement to share safety assessments for cultivated meat, reducing approval timelines and demonstrating that international co-operation is possible. However, such bilateral agreements must expand into broader international protocols that establish standardised safety assessments, clear labelling requirements and mutual recognition agreements if the industry is to scale swiftly enough to tackle the challenges it aims to solve.
The issue was a recurring theme at the Future Food Tech event in San Francisco I participated in earlier this year. Throughout panel discussions, breakout sessions and conversations with top industry leaders, the consensus was clear: regulatory fragmentation presents the greatest obstacle to progress, and global collaboration presents the surest way forward.
Earlier this month, the US Congressional National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnologies released its final report, outlining 50 recommendations, including several on streamlining regulations for biotechnology products. In a major one-day conference discussing the report, representatives of both the UK and Swedish governments voiced support for regulatory harmonisation in order to maximise the potential of biotechnology products, such as alternative proteins.
As key global markets around the world reach the same conclusion – that streamlined, harmonised regulation is the path forward – it is clear that early adopters like Abu Dhabi will provide a global model of responsible, sustainable growth within these future-oriented industries.
The question is no longer whether alternative proteins will shape the future of food – they will. The real question is which governments will take the lead in enabling the kind of regulatory consensus needed to support the industry’s growth, and which will fall behind in a sector set to redefine global food production.
