Hi Felix,

Great question, thanks for asking!

One of the strengths of alternative proteins is that they have a broad impact on everything from climate and animal welfare to food security and global health. Because of this, GFI naturally attracts supporters who are motivated by very different cause areas.

To your question, no, receiving money from animal-welfare inspired donors does not mean we’ll pass up on opportunities from climate philanthropists. The funding gap for alternative proteins is so large that support from any donor, no matter their motivation for giving, increases our ability to pursue additional opportunities across the ecosystem. 

You may have seen in my previous comments on this post that the ClimateWorks Foundation estimates that the world needs about $10.1 billion per year in public funding just for alternative protein R&D and scale-up. In comparison, GFI’s total annual budget is about $40 million across seven organisations, with Europe receiving just under $5 million. So there’s no risk that animal welfare donors will remove the need for climate donors.

You mentioned that there is more funding available in the climate space than in animal welfare. This is true; globally, climate philanthropy is estimated at around $9.3 billion to $15.8 billion per year, compared with around $290 million per year for farmed animal welfare. But, according to the ClimateWorks Foundation, only around 2% of climate philanthropy goes to the food system. And within that, as you can imagine, only a small portion supports alternative proteins.

GFI has been recommended by Giving Green as one of their top climate nonprofits for several years now, and we’re seeing a growing proportion of donors who come to us because of our climate impact. That said, it takes time to build awareness, relationships, and trust in a new philanthropic space; so a significant amount of GFI’s core funding still comes from donors who are more motivated by animal welfare. This support is vital for enabling us to continue and expand our work.

Every year, GFI’s global team identifies the most impactful work needed to improve the taste and reduce the price of alternative proteins, so that we’re able to reach mass adoption as quickly as possible. Meeting our fundraising goals directly affects how fast we get there. 

So we’re really grateful for any and all support. And by having a diverse donor base, GFI is more financially stable and resilient as an organisation, which in turn makes us better equipped to carry out our mission.

Thanks again for your question. I hope this response is helpful.

Alex

Hi Jacco,

Appreciate you flagging the AIM piece.

We think it’s great news that AIM is working to bring more talent and capacity into the alternative protein space. Unlocking scale-up funding is a highly neglected but critical challenge, and it’s great to see other organisations considering how best to attract funding for this.

To ensure the maximum impact and coordinate resources, GFI would be really excited to collaborate closely with any new charity. We’d gladly share our expertise, data, and relationships so that the new charity can build on what already exists rather than starting from scratch.

As I mentioned in the post, GFI Europe already has two full-time staff working specifically on scale-up (one focused on policy in Brussels and one focused on the private sector), and all of our country-level leads in the UK, Spain, Germany, and the Nordics have securing scale-up funding as one of their core goals. But even with this capacity, there are far more opportunities than we can currently pursue, so a new charity could definitely add value.

One promising approach would be for the new organisation to focus on high-potential geographies where GFI does not yet have a presence. That would increase total coverage and avoid the risk of both organisations knocking on the same government doors.

There are also clear research gaps that someone needs to fill. For example, an assessment of existing infrastructure capacity and retrofitting potential across European regions. These kinds of insights can make a strong, credible case to policymakers, and GFI would love to see them developed, whether by us or by another actor in the space.

In short, we’re enthusiastic about more capacity entering this field, and we’d be keen to collaborate to ensure the new charity’s work is complementary, strategic, and maximally impactful.

All the best,

Alex

Hey Pablo,

Thanks for your comment. We’re always happy to answer questions about our impact!

It’s difficult to make a direct comparison between the impact of GFI’s work in alternative proteins and that of other animal advocacy organisations because the theory of change is so different. Advocacy campaigns can generate short-term wins for animals, but they don’t address the root causes of factory farming. GFI’s focus is on long-term, systemic change, transforming the entire food system by finding an alternative to conventional animal products that can feed the world with a fraction of the harm. This kind of change inevitably takes longer, but the potential scale of impact is much greater. GFI’s role is basically to make this transition faster and achieve this impact more quickly.

You shared an article comparing the impact of donating to The Humane League with investing in alternative proteins, but flagged that you think it’s likely that supporting GFI is more effective than investing in individual companies, and therefore, this would be a better comparison of impact. We agree. Investing in alternative proteins by directly funding a pilot plant or factory can help one company scale faster, but it doesn’t solve the barriers holding back the sector, like missing infrastructure, unclear regulations, or limited public funding.

Philanthropic support for GFI fills that gap. We help governments recognise alternative proteins as a strategic priority, direct investors toward opportunities, and support companies with the data, insights, and regulatory clarity they need to scale sustainably. Without this work, alternative proteins wouldn’t be seen as a credible or fundable opportunity by governments or investors, meaning every donated euro or dollar can have an outsized catalytic effect.

It’s also worth saying that GFI has a broad base of supporters, with 80% of our donors giving between $1 and $1,000 each year. Collectively, those gifts have a much bigger impact than they could alone, giving us the flexibility to move quickly when new opportunities arise and to direct funding where it will have the most impact. 

In terms of scale, GFI’s total annual budget is about $40 million across seven organisations, with Europe receiving just under $5 million. That European funding supports work across 44 countries in science, policy, and industry, which amounts to just over a hundred thousand dollars per country, weighted towards our priority countries.

With this budget, we have significant impact. In 2025 so far, GFI Europe has directly influenced more than $55 million in R&D funding for the alternative protein ecosystem, excluding new government commitments that haven’t yet been spent. And globally, every $1 donated to GFI catalyses roughly $25–30 in follow-on public R&D funding.

For context, the ClimateWorks Foundation estimates that the world needs about $10.1 billion per year in public funding just for alternative protein R&D and scale-up. While GFI isn’t the recipient of that funding, our role is to help make those investments happen, so our budget and fundraising goals correspond with the size of the opportunity and need. 

Finally, you asked why GFI is not recommended by ACE. GFI was reviewed and recommended by ACE for several years, and we remain appreciative of their important work in the space, but in recent years, we’ve chosen not to participate in the formal evaluation process. The main reason is capacity; it’s an intensive process that requires significant input from staff across all seven of our independent organisations. Because of our size and structure, the process is substantially more involved for GFI than for many other charities ACE evaluates. We’ve instead prioritised dedicating that time to programmatic work and strategy development. GFI is still closely aligned with ACE’s mission, and it has continued to reference GFI’s work positively in broader landscape analyses.

We’ve also been recommended by Giving Green, which evaluates climate impact,  as one of their top climate nonprofits for 2025-2026, for the fourth year running. They conduct a thorough analysis of an organisation’s theory of change, assumptions, capacity to create systems change, and room for funding so that climate funders can make informed decisions about the most high-impact philanthropic opportunities in the sector. In addition, FarmKind uses Giving Green’s figures to estimate our animal welfare impact, and GFI performs strongly there as well. 

We completely agree that the movement could benefit from more cost–benefit analyses across different intervention types. It’s something we’re very open to and would be happy to contribute to.

Thanks again for your comment. I’ll keep an eye out for your post.

Alex

Hi Denis,

Thank you so much for this insightful comment. I really appreciate how much time and effort you put into sharing these reflections, and it’s encouraging to hear from someone with significant scale-up experience who’s thinking about these challenges so thoroughly. 

I’ve shared your comment with our scale-up team in Europe, and they found your perspective incredibly valuable. A lot of what you mentioned really resonates with how we’re approaching things at the moment. For example, we’re already working with the School for Moral Ambition as part of their fellowship program, and in other capacities too.

If you have the time, our team would love to chat with you directly to discuss your insights above. You can reach us at europe-philanthropy@gfi.org, and we’ll make sure the right person gets in touch.

Thanks again for engaging so thoughtfully. It’s fantastic to see people from adjacent fields taking an interest in helping alternative proteins scale successfully.

All the best,
Alex

Thanks so much for your comment, and for your support of GFI! We really appreciate you taking the time to engage so thoughtfully with our post.

Regarding your first question about whether alternative protein products are ready for large-scale production, we believe the answer is yes. There are at least 370 European companies known to have reached a stage where they’ve successfully produced at pilot scale, with a proven technology, industrial validation, and a product ready for commercialisation. Most plant-based and biomass-fermented protein products are technically ready for large-scale production, but companies lack access to sufficient food-grade commercial facilities. While precision fermentation-made and cultivated proteins show strong progress at pilot scale, but still face technical, infrastructure and cost barriers to scaling.

And it’s not just about the companies that are ready now; we also need to prepare for those that will reach this stage soon. If we don’t start building the infrastructure today, we risk creating a bottleneck down the line. We see this as a major systemic risk for alternative proteins, and one that affects the whole ecosystem as well as the future of our climate, animal welfare, and food security.

There are definitely other challenges facing alternative proteins. Misinformation about “ultra-processed” plant-based foods has influenced public opinion, which is why GFI Europe recently partnered with the Physicians Association for Nutrition to publish one of the most comprehensive, evidence-based guides on plant-based foods and health. It helps dispel myths about processing and highlights the real nutritional and environmental benefits of plant-based meat, providing decision-makers with reliable evidence to work from rather than relying on misinformation.

Misconceptions around ultra-processed foods are particularly strong in the UK (and to some extent the US), but in countries like Germany, the debate is already more nuanced and plant-based sales there are continuing to grow. That’s promising, and it reinforces how important it is to bring facts and context into the conversation.

Regarding consumer demand, we’re actually seeing promising signs that slightly contradict those mentioned in Jacob Peacock’s analysis. Our recent survey in the UK and Germany found that 54% of adults want to reduce their meat and dairy consumption or eat more plant-based foods. Health was the top motivation, despite the negative narratives around processing. We’ve shared these insights with retailers, and we’re already seeing positive impact: Tesco and Sainsbury’s (major retailers in the UK) are using this data to improve pricing, placement, and messaging to better reach flexitarian shoppers and expand the market for alternative proteins.

And beyond plant-based, we’re working to make sure cultivated meat and fermentation can succeed too. You mentioned that you are feeling less optimistic about the future of cultivated meat, and I agree that there are real challenges. But the positive news is that we aren’t just passive observers of the industry; at GFI, we’re actively trying to shape the trajectory of the field. We’re helping secure billions in public funding for open-access R&D, pushing back against overregulation, and keeping alternative proteins in key policy conversations about climate, food security, and economic resilience. And while it’s still early days, even a small shift towards cultivated meat and other alternatives could spare huge numbers of animals and cut climate emissions significantly.

So in short, you’re absolutely right, scale-up isn’t the only bottleneck, and GFI isn’t treating it as such. Advances in the science of alternative proteins and addressing the cultural and societal elements you mention are critical too, and GFI continues to direct a lot of resource to these areas. It is testament to the progress made in these areas that we’re now at the exciting point where the sector and GFI are ready to dive into addressing the challenge of scaling up. But it is one of the most funding-intensive and underfunded challenges, and without solving it, even the best-tasting, most affordable products can’t reach the market at scale. 

Thanks again for engaging in some healthy discussion. I hope this helps!