The Quiet Work Behind Food

We are seeing fewer insects in many places, although not in a neat, universal way. Some species are declining faster than others; some places are better studied than others; some years are naturally better or worse. But the general direction is worrying enough to take seriously. The reasons are also not mysterious: habitat loss, intensive agriculture, pesticide use, pollution, climate change, invasive species, and the simple fact that many landscapes have become cleaner, flatter and less forgiving for small living things..

The most obvious example is pollination. Pollination is simple in principle: pollen has to move from one flower to another so plants can form fruits, seeds or nuts. Sometimes wind does it. Sometimes plants manage on their own. But very often, an animal does the work. Bees are the best-known pollinators, but they are not the only ones. Butterflies, moths, hoverflies, beetles, wasps, flies and even some birds and bats do this work too. It is small work, repeated endlessly, and the food system has been built around the assumption that much of it will simply happen.

However, not all food depends on pollinators. Wheat, rice and maize, the crops that provide much of the world’s calories, are mostly wind-pollinated or self-pollinating. So the point is not “no bees, no food”. That is too easy and not quite true.

More than three-quarters of the world’s leading food crops depend at least partly on animal pollination, and pollinator-dependent crops make up around a third of global crop production volume. But the more important part is what kind of crops these are. Fruits, berries, nuts, many vegetables, oilseeds, spices, cocoa, coffee. Not all of them disappear without pollinators, but many become harder, less reliable or more expensive to produce.

This is where the issue becomes less sentimental and more practical. A food system can still produce calories while becoming less rich. It can feed people in the narrow sense while giving us fewer colours, fewer textures, fewer micronutrients, fewer small pleasures that make food more than fuel. This is not marginal to how we eat, or how we want to eat.

That is why the lack of bugs should bug us. Not because every insect is lovely, or because anyone needs to romanticise mosquitoes. But because insects are part of the quiet machinery creating our food. When they disappear, they are not only disappearing from fields, gardens and windshields. They are disappearing from the assumptions underneath food.

Why should a food VC talk about bugs? Where is the impact in that? And where is the money?

The answer is that insect decline is not a niche biodiversity topic. It is a signal of hidden fragility in the food system. And hidden fragility eventually becomes something investors should be very accustomed to - cost, risk, regulation, supply-chain pressure, yield volatility, or an innovation opportunity.

We are used to valuing infrastructure when it is visible - factories, logistics, supply chains, sensors and fermentation tanks. But some of the most important infrastructure in food is biological and unpaid. Pollination, natural pest control, soil, decomposition. All the small, continuous work.

When insect populations decline, that work does not simply disappear from the system without consequence. It shows up somewhere else - in less reliable yields, in higher spending on managed pollination, in more chemical pressure if natural pest control weakens, and in more pressure on already fragile supply chains.

That is the financial side. The impact side is just as simple. Insects are part of the conditions that make food production possible. They help support diverse crops, healthier ecosystems, better soil function and more resilient farms. In food and ag, impact is not only what happens after a product is eaten. It is also what had to stay alive for that product to exist.

This does not mean every interesting company has to be a “bug startup”. The best opportunities may be companies that reduce the cost of biological breakdown: better pollination monitoring, biological pest control, precision spraying, pesticide reduction, soil-health measurement, biodiversity data, regenerative farm tools, crop diversification, or ingredients that reduce pressure on fragile supply chains.

The bugs on the windshield, the dragonflies, the sticky yellow air of my grandfather’s honey room - none of it is, or can be, an investment thesis. But it taught me what abundance felt like before I had to write an article about it 30 years later and call it “food-system resilience.”.

If we want to invest in the future of food, we should pay attention to all the small things still making food possible.

Allergens represent a critical safety and compliance challenge across the entire food and beverage value chain, affecting everything from confectionery and dairy to meat and alternative proteins. Effective allergen management is not just a regulatory requirement but a fundamental pillar of consumer safety and brand trust. A single mislabeling incident can result in fatal consequences and irreparable damage to a company’s reputation. While standard declaration requirements exist (e.g., 9 major allergens in the USA and 14 in the UK/EU), current testing methods often represent a production bottleneck due to slow turnaround times or narrow diagnostic ranges.

Market Context

The global food safety testing market was valued at USD 24.24 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach USD 44.06 billion by 2032 (7.85% CAGR). Within this, the specialized allergen testing market is expected to grow from USD 680 million to USD 1.15 billion by 2032. This segment is driven by several macro tailwinds:

• Stricter Regulatory Frameworks: Laws like “Natasha’s Law” (UK) and the “FASTER Act” (USA) increase legal liability for undeclared allergens.

• Rising Prevalence: Food allergies affect an estimated 220 million people globally, with a marked increase in life-threatening hospitalizations (e.g., a 61% increase in England over the last two decades).

• Clean Label Demand: Consumers increasingly view allergen transparency as a hallmark of premium, trustworthy brands.

The Problem: a failing infrastructure

The global food system is struggling with an allergen management infrastructure that is manual, inconsistent, and prone to failure. As supply chains become more complex and globalized, the risk of cross-contamination and mislabeling has reached a critical point.

Healthcare experts are increasingly recognizing food allergies as a global public health concern, both in developed and less developed countries. Globally roughly 220 million people are affected by food allergies. In the US, 8% of children and up to 11% of adults suffer from at least one food allergy, with 40% of affected children having multiple food related allergies. For example, food allergy related hospitalisations in England increased from 1’971 in 2003 to 5’013 in 2023 (61% increase).

The conventional allergen system is failing at multiple levels. Firstly, the supply chain volatility caused by inadequate cleaning of containers, lack of physical separation during transport, and the accidental inclusion of foreign matters (seeds, grains, cross contamination) create invisible risks. Secondly, human errors during production sequencing, misprints during label development and lack of robust change management when switching suppliers can all lead to undeclared allergens in finished goods. Lastly, for restaurants and food services, failure to receive or communicate accurate ingredient changes from suppliers, coupled with inadequate storage separation in these establishments, leaves the final consumer vulnerable.

The bottleneck: Current detection methods are either too slow (lab-based slow turnaround), too narrow (single-allergen kits), or too expensive for continuous deployment across the entire supply chain. The industry lacks a real-time, multi-allergen detection system that can be integrated seamlessly across every step of the supply chain, rather than isolated checks at single points.

Solution Pathways

There is no “one size fits all” solution, but several core technologies are competing to bridge the safety gap - these range from traditional lab-based molecular diagnostics to emerging digital and sensor-based platforms.

Visual QA

This remains the most widely used starting point: human inspection of ingredients, labels, and production line changeovers. Fast and cheap, but blind to trace-level contamination and difficult to scale without automation. A necessary baseline, not a solution.

Rapid Immunoassays

Lateral flow devices (LFDs) and ELISA kits - uses antibodies to detect allergenic proteins. LFDs deliver a yes/no result in minutes, making them popular for environmental swabs; ELISA adds quantification. The limitation: food processing degrades proteins and distorts results, and most kits target a single allergen at a time.

PCR & Molecular Diagnostics

Detects DNA from an allergenic ingredient with high specificity, even in heavily processed foods. The catch is fundamental - allergies are triggered by proteins, not DNA, so PCR cannot directly measure allergenic risk. It also requires trained lab staff and turnaround times that slow production.

Mass Spectrometry

This is the gold standard for confirmation - capable of identifying multiple allergenic proteins in a single run with high precision. But cost, complexity, and processing times of up to 72 hours make it impractical for routine in-line testing.

Consumer Portable Devices

At home devises brings testing to the dinner table, pairing compact hardware with mobile apps. Promising for consumer confidence, but results apply only to the tested sample portion and real-world accuracy remains inconsistent. E.g. AllergenAlert (FR): Developing consumer “pocket technology” for live testing and QA.

AI & Computer Vision

Analyzing images, labels, hyperspectral data, and sensor outputs to flag allergen risk - non-destructively and at scale. The key limitation: these methods identify allergen-containing ingredients, but cannot detect contamination at a molecular level. Validation against analytical methods remains essential. E.g. LiberEat (UK): Software for allergen labeling detection and compliance

Biosensors & IoT Monitoring

This represents the emerging frontier - antibody and nucleic-acid based sensors designed for continuous, on-site detection. Sensitivity is promising, but standardization and regulatory acceptance are still catching up.

Traceability Platform (ERP, supplier data systems)

These systems round the stack - not detection tools per se, but critical infrastructure for managing allergen risk across complex supply chains and accelerating recalls when incidents occur.

Impact

Nutritional and Population Health Impact

Reliable allergen detection is a life-saving technology. With 40-50% of allergic individuals having experienced anaphylaxis, robust management significantly reduces the risk of emergency hospitalizations and long-term health complications. Furthermore, it provides “peace of mind” for a growing segment of the population that currently avoids eating out due to safety fears.

Economic and Social Impact

Effective management reduces the massive costs associated with product recalls (average direct cost of a recall hits USD 10 million) and legal lawsuits, which can bankrupt smaller CPG brands. For the restaurant and catering sectors, it enables broader market access to the “allergy-conscious” consumer, a demographic with significant and growing purchasing power.

Key Takeaways

Investment Criteria & Opportunities

From an investor perspective, backable ventures must solve the core bottleneck: current testing is too slow, too narrow, and/or too expensive.

What we look for in a fundable allergen safety company:

• Multi-allergen capability: Industry needs a “one-stop” check rather than multiple kits

• Real-time integration: Speed is critical for short shelf life products

• Processed Food Accuracy: Detecting denatured proteins in processed foods is the ultimate technical hurdle

• Regulatory Validations: Early navigation of FDA/EFSA/AOAC standards is mandatory for commercialization

Unknowns

The unknowns with each investment opportunity will depend on which technological approach they are taking. One of the biggest unknown which is consistent among all approaches, is that only a sample of the entire product is taken to be tested. Hence, some false negatives will happen as allergen contamination is heterogeneous - a small test portion can miss a hotspot.

We believe the “holy grail” of the sector; being a real-time, multi-allergen, supply-chain-integrated solution, is not yet fully realized at scale. However, we see meaningful opportunities for ventures that can deliver faster, cheaper, and more reliable detection.

Risks

Key risks include the potential for underperformance in real-world conditions versus controlled lab settings, where complex food matrices and processing effects can materially reduce sensitivity and increase false negatives. Specificity is another concern: cross-reactivity and multiplex interference may lead to false positives, undermining customer trust and creating costly operational consequences.

Operationally, sampling representativeness remains a structural challenge, as allergen contamination is often heterogeneous and can be missed by small test portions, while workflow complexity and operator error risk can degrade reliability at scale.

Finally, from a commercialization perspective, adoption may be constrained by long validation and procurement cycles, particularly where AOAC/ISO/FDA-aligned validation is required and results must be defensible for regulated decisions such as labeling, supplier acceptance, and recall actions.

Conclusion and OB positioning

With a fast growing market size and allergen prevalence in populations globally, innovations in methodologies for allergen detection at every step of the supply chain is crucial. In the current state, the “holy grail” of allergen management: a real time, multi allergen, supply chain integrated solution, is not yet fully realized at scale. While portable devices like AllergenAlert and digital checkers like LiberEat are showing promise, the market remains fragmented.

Potential

The long-term upside is meaningful if a venture can deliver faster, cheaper and more reliable allergen detection that fits seamlessly into real production workflows. As food manufacturers face rising complexity in ingredients and supply chains, and increasing scrutiny on labeling and cross contact controls, a step change in multi allergen capability, processed food accuracy, and real time integration could unlock broad adoption across QA, supplier verification, and release testing.

If executed well, ventures in this space can secure high-margin, recurring revenue through consumables or software, while expansion into adjacent traceability and compliance workflows offers substantial long-term upside.

Algae has long been considered one of the most promising but elusive ingredients in the alternative protein landscape. Its theoretical advantages are undeniable: extremely high protein concentration (50-70% dry weight), rich micronutrient profile (B12, omega-3s, carotenoids), applicability across food categories, and cultivation systems that do not require arable land or freshwater. Despite this, algae struggles to achieve economic viability as a mainstream food ingredient. This deep dive examines the underlying constraints, the commercial progress to date, and the investment opportunities we believe are rational in the current market.

Market Context

The global alternative protein market is projected to reach USD 36.37 billion by 2034 at a CAGR of 8.23%. Within this, algae remains a niche segment but benefits from macro tailwinds:

• Pressure on food manufacturers to reduce synthetic additives and allergens (“clean label”).

• Volatility in crop yields (soy, pea) due to climate shocks.

• Rising consumer demand for nutrient-dense, low-carbon ingredients.

• Growing interest in natural pigments, flavor enhancers and multifunctional ingredients.

These factors create a market pull for algae, but tending to favor specific, high-value use cases.

The Problem: a growing population

The global food system faces a looming protein gap as the world population is expected to peak at around 10.3 billion people by 2080. Conventional livestock and crop-based supply chains are under pressure from climate volatility, land and water constraints, and rising input costs. Livestock alone accounts for almost 60% of food-related greenhouse gas emissions.

In livestock; higher feed, energy, water, fertilizer and labour costs are squeezing farmer margins, often forcing compromises on feed quality (feed alone can account for up to 70% of costs). This cascades into reduced fat and protein content in milk, inherently reducing the quality of downstream products like butter and cheese. This also creates inconsistent meat quality, i.e. inconsistent fat marbling, off flavors, texture issues, all harming consumer satisfaction.

Adding to this pressure, consumers also increasingly prefer “ethically raised”, “grass-fed”, “low carbon” meats, attributes that all cost more to produce and limit scale.

Simultaneously, the dominant plant-based protein supply is vulnerable, relying heavily on monoculture crops such as soy, pea and corn that are acutely susceptible to environmental risks like drought, pests, and long-term soil degradation.

Formulators have struggled to supply nutrient-dense, appealing products that are economically viable to produce, while staying competitive with meat-product protein prices.

Why Algae Hasn’t Broken Through (yet)

Although algae is nutritionally superior to most plant proteins, its production economics remain the bottleneck. Current cost structures across production methods are substantially above commodity protein benchmarks:

Commodity proteins like soy (1-2 EUR/kg) and pea (2-4 EUR/kg) demonstrate the gap algae must close.

Additional barriers include sensory issues (“fishy” flavor), regulatory delays (EU Novel Foods), and consumer unfamiliarity. Competing alternative protein technologies, especially precision fermentation for dairy proteins, are further ahead in both adoption and cost trajectory.

What Algae Can Do Well Today

Despite its challenges, algae excels in several high-margin segments:

• Natural pigments such as phycocyanin (blue spirulina), which already enjoy premium pricing.

• Seafood alternatives, where aroma and pigmentation align better with the category.

• Dairy alternatives, leveraging algae’s emulsification and texture properties.

• Hybrid ingredients, combining protein, color, antioxidants and emulsifying capacity in one input, in turn reducing additive load for formulators.

Crucially, these markets value functionality, clean label status and nutrient density, allowing algae to capture premium pricing without competing directly on cost with soy or pea.

Solutions & Product

Algae offers (in theory): high protein content, complete amino acid profiles and co-benefits such as pigments, emulsification and omega-3 enrichment.

Four core technologies dominate today: open raceway ponds, photobioreactors, heterotrophic fermentation and co-culturing with mycelium.

Open Raceway Ponds:

Open Raceway ponds are shallow, oval-shaped outdoor basins where a single algal strain is grown and circulated by a motorized paddle wheel (see image below). They rely on natural sunlight and ambient temperatures around 20-30^oC.

The paddle wheel ensures homogeneous distribution of biomass and nutrients, while low-cost infrastructure makes this the most common cultivation method globally.

Photobioreactors (PBRs):

Photobioreactors are closed cultivation systems where algae are grown in tubes, flat panels or enclosed geometries, with controlled delivery of lights, CO₂ and nutrients. These allow the algae to photosynthesize for the consistent production of high-purity biomass, pigments and specialized metabolites.

The closed environment drastically reduces contamination risk and allows precise manipulation of process parameters such as temperature, pH and mixing intensity

Heterotrophic Fermentation:

Heterotrophic fermentation grows microalgae in stainless steel fermenters without light, feeding them sugars or other organic carbon sources. This process runs in closed, sterile conditions, enabling 24/7 operation and tight process control similar to conventional microbial fermentation (e.g. yeast or bacteria).

These are highly compatible with existing biomanufacturing infrastructure.

Co-culturing with Mycelium:

Co-culturing combines microalgae with fungal mycelium in a shared bioprocess, where each organism benefits from the other’s metabolites. Algae can act as a nutrient source for mycelium, while the fungal biomass contributes fibrous texture and umami taste.

This is the newest and most experimental technology, where inputs and by-products are recycled in a more closed-loop system, aiming to maximize resource efficiency and functional synergy.

Environmental & Nutritional Impact

Algae cultivation can be decoupled from fertile land and freshwater, using brackish water, wastewater and non-arable sites while capturing CO₂ in the process. Relative to conventional livestock and many crop systems, this allows for lower land intensity.

Overall, if properly executed, algae cultivation offers:

• Minimal land and freshwater use

• Potential for CO₂ capture

• High nutritional density without fortification

• Fewer allergens versus soy/pea

However, the environmental benefit varies strongly by production method. Energy-intensive PBRs or fermenters running on fossil electricity can negate sustainability advantages. Breakthroughs in strain engineering, renewable-powered operations, and process optimization will be essential.

Oyster Bay’s Positioning and Investment Criteria

We do not expect algae to replace commodity plant proteins in the medium term. The economics are too challenging, and consumer adoption is too early.

However, we see real opportunities in the following areas:

Where algae can win:

• Premium functional ingredients rather than bulk protein

• Natural pigments and flavor systems

• Seafood & dairy alternatives where algae’s properties offer a natural fit

• Co-cultured or hybrid systems with defensible IP

What we look for in a fundable algae company:

• A credible cost trajectory toward <5 EUR/kg for the target application

• IP-differentiated cultivation or processing technology; not commodity fermentation

• Strong evidence of clean-label pull from customers

• Realistic regulatory pathway and sensory improvement plan

• Clear go-to-market strategy focusing on premium customers, not retail mass adoption

In short: algae is not a volume replacement for soy or pea. But in the right niches, with the right founders and technology, it could deliver defensible, high-margin ingredients that could play an important role in the future of sustainable protein production.

Yet today, that system is dominated by two problematic incumbents.

Palm oil, priced at $900-1,050 per ton is estimated to be in more than 50% of packaged food products. It is produced on land cleared from carbon-rich Southeast Asian peatlands and concentrated in two countries (Indonesia and Malaysia) that together control more than 80% of global supply. The EU’s 2021 trans-fat regulation drove mass reformulation into palm oil, which addressed the health angle but increased supply chain risks and biodiversity challenges.

Animal fats face methane regulation headwinds in some regions, margin pressure, and price volatility driven by energy and feed cost. Together, these incumbents represent a $484 billion ingredient market growing at 4.2% CAGR.

Between 2023 and early 2025, cocoa prices surged 321% to an intraday high of $11,722 per tonne dragging cocoa butter, a key specialty fat, into unprecedented price territory and exposing the structural fragility of any lipid ingredient dependent on geographically concentrated agriculture.

Price volatility of Cacao ($ per ton)

Impact

Traditional fat production is carbon-intensive (butter at 12.1kg CO2e/kg, palm at 7.3kg CO2e/litre), drives nearly a fifth of global deforestation, and concentrates 80% of tropical oil supply in Indonesia and Malaysia. Price volatility is worsening across the board, and dairy markets are increasingly erratic as cheese demand diverts milk fat from butter. These converging pressures create the structural case for decoupling high-volume fat production from resource-intensive agriculture.

Technology Landscape

Over the last few years, we’ve seen an increasing number of new technologies and startups emerge to meet the need for alternatives to tackle the many issues traditional fat solutions face. The 33 ventures we’ve identified in the sector have raised more than $497 million in funding historically based on publicly available information. This includes startups which have been acquired and no-longer in operation. We’ve categorised them below into five categories for simplicity and discussed how we view the potential for each technology.

Capital Deployed: Bubble Landscape by Sector & Funding

Source: Oyster Bay (not exhaustive)

Precision Fermentation

Microorganisms (yeast, fungi) are metabolically engineered to convert sugars into specific and sometimes even designer lipid profiles. The targeted nature enables highly functional products at low inclusion rates - for eg replacing additives with a single clean-label ingredient. Pilot-scale unit economics have been validated by several companies.

Key challenges: High capex, complex downstream processing (DSP accounts for 40–60% of COGS), and EU Novel Food regulatory hurdles. Best suited for premium specialty fats ($5,000–11,000/MT) where bio-manufacturing economics are viable today.

Companies (not exhaustive): Nourish Ingredients, C16 Biosciences, Äio, Melt & Marble, Zero Acre Farms, Sun Bear Bioworks.

Oleaginous Microbial Fermentation

Fat-storing microbes (oleaginous yeast, microalgae) naturally accumulate lipids within their cells when fed sugars or agricultural sidestreams. Simpler extraction than precision fermentation, and CMO production partnerships are often feasible. Lower capex profile than precision fermentation.

Key challenges: Feedstock reliability at commercial scale is unproven beyond certain volumes; narrower functional profiles with non-GMO strains while better functionality with novel strain adds regulatory (EU) timeline risk.

Companies (not exhaustive): Colipi, No Palm Ingredients, Cosaic, GSTransform.

Structuring Technologies (Oleogels & Emulsions)

Liquid seed oils are structured using plant proteins, fibers, and waxes to achieve solid-fat functionality without hydrogenation (i.e.saturated fats). Approaches include oleogels, oleosomes, microgels, encapsulation etc. Better near-term unit economics of all five pathways; regulatory approval is simpler (typically known GRAS ingredients) and better health outcomes for consumers due to low saturated fat.

Key challenges: Label complexity may increase (1 palm ingredient becomes 2–5 components), conflicting with clean-label trends. IP moat is inherently weaker in some cases as it’s replicable by large ingredient companies.

Ventures (not exhaustive): Lypid, Perfat Solutions, Paragon Pure, Fattastic, Gavan.

Cultivated Fat

Animal adipocytes (fat cells) grown in bioreactors from stem cells, replicating animal fat without slaughter. Highest organoleptic precision which makes it uniquely positioned to solve the taste gap in alt-protein through hybrid products. End-products compete with premium animal fats, not commodity palm.

Key challenges: Production costs are typically higher than precision fermentation, capex is quite high, and multiple simultaneous technology breakthroughs are required to achieve scale and feasible unit economics. Regulatory pathway (EU) remains highly complex though quite a few ventures have .

Ventures (not exhaustive): Hoxton Farms, Mission Barns, Culminate Foods, CellVa.

Thermochemical synthesis

This technology utilizes thermochemical synthesis to assemble nature-identical fats directly from carbon dioxide, water, and hydrogen, bypassing agriculture entirely. Zero land use; near-zero carbon footprint with renewable energy.

Key challenges: Highly energy intensive. From a health standpoint, the product will still contain a high level of saturated fat. Trading in the environment upside with a health downside. Consumer perception for such products could also be challenging.

Ventures (not exhaustive): Green-on, Savor

Key takeaways

Based on our research, here’s some of our top criteria while assessing ventures in the space:

1. Price parity at scale: For specialty fats with low inclusion rates, the economics can work at smaller volumes but producers must backfill missing volume with other ingredients, so net cost-in-use matters more than per-kilogram price. For commodity replacements, the bar is to match palm at $0.90–1.05/kg without subsidising customers.

2. Drop-in functionality: The most viable alternatives require minimal reformulation, compressing the 18–36 month customer acquisition cycle that keeps producers locked into incumbents.

3. Processing resilience: Ingredients must survive standard commercial processing requirements like high heat, shear, shelf life stability etc. without functional degradation.

4. Supply chain decoupling: Traditional fat supply chains are concentrated across a few geographies. Platform technologies that accept broader inputs hold a structural advantage.

5. Health and label advantage: A fat that decouples taste from health, reducing saturated fat while maintaining full functionality occupies the highest-value position and could build a strong case for premium pricing with food producers.

Strategic Risks

1. Regulation wildcard: While it can catalyse market-wide reformulation (as with trans fats), Novel Food approval timelines remain a huge barrier. This makes it difficult to back a venture whose thesis relies heavily on regulation easing. Many novel-tech ventures are already pivoting to cosmetics as a bridging strategy, while regulations like the EUDR may independently push producers away from deforestation-linked ingredients in the long-run.

2. Scale-up economics present a structural challenge: Fermentation-based pathways face high capex for bioreactor capacity and production costs, while some technologies like cultivated fat require multiple simultaneous technical breakthroughs.

3. Energy and water intensity: While land use is reduced, the energy demand for bioreactors and the water used in processing must be carefully managed to ensure the environmental promise of these technologies is actually realized.

4. Consumer acceptance: While the technology is maturing, consumer acceptance of some of these technologies is still evolving - especially cultivated fats and chemically engineered fat. We believe consumer adoption will be gradual for some of these technologies.

At Oyster Bay, we believe the venture that wins this market will not necessarily be the one with the most novel science. It will be the one that solves the complete equation: functionality for commercial production, economics that work without subsidy, and a supply chain that solves for today’s vulnerabilities. If it also delivers a step-change in health outcomes for consumers, the investment case is hard to ignore.