Executive Summary
Recent coverage of XPRIZE's Feed the Next Billion has painted an incomplete picture of the competition's structure and outcomes. Having served as the competition's Plant-Based Expert for three years of its four-year duration, I offer an insider's perspective on both its achievements and shortcomings. Despite the competition awarding no grand prize, it distributed $3 million to participating teams, provided valuable technical assessments and expert feedback, and established comprehensive specifications for alternative chicken breast and multiple species of fish filet. This article aims to address recent criticisms while highlighting lessons learned that could benefit future initiatives in this space. Views shared here are my own and are not shared on behalf of XPRIZE or the competition.
Introduction
As a food scientist and product developer, I help bring food products from the stage of a mere concept to market in the form of commercialized consumer packaged goods. My expertise lies in leveraging plant-based ingredients to create alternatives to traditional products. While it’s not the sole scope of my work, I am especially passionate about creating alternatives to animal-derived meat, egg, and dairy products. My involvement in a project looks like original product formulation, sourcing and vetting ingredients, as well as manufacturers. Essentially, I create the foundational elements of a trade secret — a formula, identify the ingredient specifications required, and form the process to make it at scale.
I am not vegan, and that's not what drives my work. The irony of creating plant-based alternatives that mimic traditional animal products, is that it requires an intimate understanding of what you're trying to replicate. You need to know and even appreciate the original. What motivates me is proving what is possible with alternative protein sources, particularly those derived from plants. This field holds immense untapped potential to deliver exceptional taste and nutrition while addressing the ethical and environmental challenges of current animal agriculture systems. From a purely scientific standpoint, it would be a missed opportunity to ignore the possibilities that at least plant-based alternatives present.
It was this background and approach that led to my role as XPRIZE's Plant-Based Expert for their Feed the Next Billion competition, a position I held for three of the prize's four years. I'm writing this article because I believe there is more value in learning from this prize than in discrediting it. Said simply, I found the criticisms of recent coverage to be misleading (AgFunder News, Nov 2024). By offering my perspective, I hope to lend to a more constructive outcome that can be learned from and iterated upon — because a real solution to what is being asked is so very possible and shouldn’t be this painful.
Let’s talk about the money
Feed the Next Billion, launched in December 2020, offered a $15 million prize purse. The prize purse was divided into several milestones throughout the competition:
Milestone 1
At this stage, the Sponsors would unlock $500,000 (USD) in funding across 30 available seats ($500,000 / 30 seats = $16,666.67/seat). This meant if 30 Teams were selected to participate in Semifinals, each Team would then receive $16,666.67.
What actually happened: (Corrected 1/21/25) The $500,000 prize purse was distributed among 30 Teams ($16,666.67 each), not 28 as originally reported. This occurred after XPRIZE extended the registration deadline, adding three Teams to the initial 28 Semifinalists. While this brought the total to 31 Teams, one was ineligible for the Milestone Award. The milestone payment was honored and distributed despite the majority of Teams withdrawing from the competition. This correction has since been applied throughout Part 1. My apologies!
Milestone 2
At this stage, the Sponsors would unlock $2.5 million (USD) in funding across 10 available seats (2.5 million / 10 seats = $250,000/seat). This meant if 10 Teams were selected to participate in Finals, each Team would then receive $250,000 (USD).
What actually happened: A total of 6 Teams were selected to participate in Finals. With a sum of $2.5 million divided amongst 6 Teams (as opposed to the anticipated 10), each of the 6 Teams received $416,666.67 (USD).
Milestone 3 At this stage, the Sponsors would unlock the remaining $12 million (USD) in funding across 3 placings and a bonus prize: $7 million for first place, $2 million for second place, $1 million for third place, and $2 million for the bonus prize. While the bonus prize was not applicable to all Teams (contingent on their technical approach), the possibility existed for any one Team to walk away with a max prize award of $9 million ($7 million for first place + $2 million bonus prize). What actually happened: XPRIZE Feed the Next Billion concluded with no awarded winners and therefore, no disbursement of the remaining $12 million prize funds. The funds that were available for this competition existed at a level of unprecedented incentive and generosity. One very unique and favorable aspect was that money was made available throughout the solution development stages to fund the costs that accompany a Team’s participation. For example, each of the 30 Teams were awarded $16,666.67 to carry them through the work required to compete at Semifinals. The 6 Teams that then passed Semifinals were awarded $416,666.67 to carry them through the work required to compete at Finals. As a result of unforeseen challenges, Teams received $166,666.67 more funds than anticipated in Milestone 2.
“Participation ‘unrealistic for any venture-backed company or company seeking venture backing’
Arguably, the incentive of this competition made it realistic for a company to not require or seek any venture backing. A critical component of XPRIZE’s culture and operations is its ability to embrace that any person can participate in their competitions. Capable participants are not limited by their academic level, industry experience, or absence of either. Instead, creative problem solving is democratized to be by anyone, anywhere. With participants looking like “startups, university groups, small to midsize companies, high school students, families, or even individuals,” why would any competition with this set of values cater specifically to companies, let alone companies with significantly more resources? It is thanks to the belief that “the best new ideas can come from anyone,” that such a high prize purse may have existed in the first place. This criticism highlights a mentality that created foundational failures for this prize. Some Teams incorrectly assumed they could negotiate the requirements of the competition to the convenience of their company’s current efforts. It is very difficult for me to read “Participation ‘unrealistic for any venture-backed company…” and not be reminded of the many inquiries the Operations team fielded for special consideration, or the disappointment that I felt just acknowledging the shameless, implicit requests to act in favor of either their Team or more attainable, lower standards. In one light, I was impressed by the audacity of those who asked the questions — at least they would have their answer, and know they tried their best to advocate for their views or circumstances. On the other hand, this was an endeavor of voluntary participation, for a chance to win a significant amount of money at an opportunity you simply cannot find elsewhere. I believed that made this competition worthy of respect and appreciation, but to some it was as if it was something they were entitled to.
“Judges have ‘sole and absolute discretion to declare or not declare winners of any competition”
… As it should be! It is admirable and ought to be business-as-usual for organizations to respect the insights, opinions, and recommendations of its chosen experts. There is no shortage of case studies that stem from the shared cause of listeners failing to act upon legitimate voiced concerns. I applaud XPRIZE for honoring this commitment. Further, I think there is a significant and unsaid reality of the situation had the Judges made a different decision.
Let's imagine if there was a winner awarded and the results did not exceed the market's offerings, or worse, underperformed entirely. Beyond the immediate reputational impact to both XPRIZE and participating Teams, or potential damage to relationships with industry partners and future sponsors, there's a more profound risk: It would reinforce the misconception that alternative meat products, specifically those mimicking whole muscle formats, are too challenging or impossible to achieve at commercial scale. With these stakes in mind, any responsible deciding party would choose not to award the grand prize if submissions failed to meet the objectives that justified the funding in the first place.
“… and is frankly impossible.”
I've dedicated my career to making food and beverage products from concept through commercialized stages. It is my full time job to formulate original creations, source their ingredients, their manufacturer, and to validate processes that transition a mere idea into a tangible, consumer packaged good. I know that the requirements of this competition were both difficult and possible. In my professional opinion, I have made or observed industry products and prototypes that demonstrated superior quality compared to the submissions I reviewed — this observation significantly influenced my decision not to participate in the final year of the competition.
The innovation required of this competition demanded hands-on execution rather than theoretical solutions. To XPRIZE's credit, it upheld rigorous standards that prioritized real-world application throughout its Competition Guidelines and Rules and Regulations. While many in the alternative protein space work with good intentions, I've observed a real lack of understanding for the food industry's complex operational realities over the years. XPRIZE's approach really stands out for at least acknowledging that complexity and stress-testing what they think they know with the diversity of experts in their network. All this to say, XPRIZE developed comprehensive evaluation metrics that went beyond the subjective nature of a typical competition — mimicry assessments included structural and physical characteristics, overall nutritional profile, environmental footprint, economic viability, product versatility, and sensory attributes. Every metric was met with rigorous ideation, feedback, and iteration from credible experts — establishing the first robust framework for evaluating meat alternatives in this way.
In addition to this framework, I strongly believe XPRIZE has developed the most comprehensive and well-researched specifications for alternative chicken breast and multiple species of fish filet. Unlike typical company approaches, which base their product development on market research, current sales data, consumer trends, and social media performance, XPRIZE took a fundamentally different approach. It's common for these market-driven metrics to drive product innovation rather than scientific integrity, but XPRIZE built its specifications by closely following scientific research advancements and industry progress, while also having its experts assess potential approaches in practical settings. This is why the competition allowed for a solution-agnostic approach, where submissions could use cell-based, plant-based, or a combination of these ingredients. It's also why this competition could justify offering such a substantial monetary incentive.
So far, we've examined the competition's structure in relation to its funding model, and addressed criticisms about its accessibility, judging process, and technical feasibility. We've also highlighted ways in which XPRIZE’s efforts of the past 4 years could positively contribute to the alternative protein space — the creation of a framework for evaluating meat alternatives, as well as comprehensive specifications for alternative chicken breast and multiple species of fish filet. In Part 2, we'll address other forms of support provided to Teams, evaluate the competition's successes and shortcomings, and explore how future initiatives could build upon this foundation to advance innovation in either alternative proteins, or more specifically, alternative meat products. You can now read Part 2 here.
Have thoughts on Feed the Next Billion or future food innovation initiatives? I welcome your perspective! Connect with me on LinkedIn.
About the Author MJ Kinney is the Founder and Principal Consultant at FareScience, specializing in plant-based product development with a focus on commercial scalability. Her years of experience span the b2b, b2c, and nonprofit sectors throughout the food industry, and her work continuously seeks synergies between ingredient innovations and applications in scalable, novel products.