Building on Part 1's examination of Feed the Next Billion's competition structure, funding model, and responses to criticisms about its accessibility, judging, and technical feasibility, Part 2 delves deeper into the initiative's outcomes. We'll explore how Teams were supported throughout the process, assess its achievements and limitations, and consider its lasting impact on the alternative meat sector — both in terms of immediate learnings and future implications.
Views shared here are my own and are not shared on behalf of XPRIZE or the competition.
“I can for sure tell you that none of the teams benefited from this in any way,”
This striking claim from recent-past coverage stands in stark contrast to the extensive support Teams actually received. Here's what was provided to each Team:
Substantial Financial Support: Each of the 6 Finalist Teams received total funding of $433,333.33 — exceeding initial projections by $166,666.67 in Milestone 2. Correction Note: In Part 1, I incorrectly stated the distribution of Milestone 1 funds. 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. This correction has been applied throughout Part 2 and updated in Part 1.
Comprehensive Laboratory Analysis: Teams received comprehensive testing at both Semifinal and Final stages, including nutritional analysis, as well as physical and structural characteristics. Teams could utilize these results to generate an FDA-compliant Nutrition Facts Panel for their product and assess their progress in relation to the animal origin reference (chicken or species of fish). Beyond FDA requirements, Teams also received PDCAAS analysis using calculated and in-vitro methods — helping XPRIZE assess nutritional mimicry beyond simply protein content, while also supporting a Team's use of this information for future nutrient labeling claims for protein.
Environmental Impact Assessment: Teams received a screening-level, cradle-to-gate, ISO-aligned comparative life cycle assessment (LCA). This analysis measured their product's environmental impact against corresponding, conventional animal proteins across key metrics: greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, water use, and land use.
Economic Viability Analysis: A screening-level techno-economic analysis (TEA) evaluated each Team's technology readiness, production economics, market potential, business viability, and risk assessment in a hypothetical commercial setting.
Sensory Evaluation: Teams received expert experiment design and sensory analysis for both Semifinal and Final submissions, gathering valuable feedback from both consumers (Finals) and a trained Judging Panel (both Semifinals and Finals).
Beyond these concrete deliverables, and at the expense of XPRIZE (more specifically, its Sponsors), Teams received significant consulting support throughout each assessment phase — ensuring ample opportunity for questions and clarification between Teams and Testing Partners, and the collection of required data, as well as accuracy of the exercise.
The value of XPRIZE's preliminary work cannot be overstated. By thoroughly researching requirements, consulting with industry experts, drafting and reviewing Requests for Proposals, and carefully selecting qualified Testing Partners, XPRIZE saved Teams months— if not years — of groundwork typically required to establish credibility in this space. The rigorous standards maintained throughout the competition provided Teams with professional-grade analyses that would typically require significant time and capital to obtain. This comprehensive support package gave Teams the option to approach potential investors with validated data and professional assessments — a significant advantage for any startup.
“all the teams incurred significant costs above and beyond what XPRIZE provided”
This claim deserves careful examination. Beyond just my opinion, but in my lived professional experience, most Teams received more funding than necessary to yield the desired result.
A typical production campaign, including ingredients, pilot-scale production, shipping, and storage, generally ranges from a lean $10,000 to a comfortable $20,000. While this range would generally exclude the paid time for a person’s contributions (e.g., employee salary or consulting fees), the funding awarded in the Semifinal and Final Milestones provided a lot of slack to hire the appropriate expertise on at least a project basis. In my estimations, a lean $50,000 to a comfortable $80,000 budget range for R&D expenses would have been sufficient for plant-based submissions. It’s important to emphasize these ranges are true to only the plant-based space — of the reasons for FTNB’s high amount of funding was to be fair to Teams with cell-based approaches, which lack a significant amount of infrastructure by comparison to plant-based approaches.
The competition's financial structure was transparent from the start. Any prospective participant was able to determine that Semifinalist Teams would share a $500,000 prize purse (with up to 30 Teams) and Finalist Teams would share $2.5 million (with up to 10 Teams). XPRIZE also provided a public discussion period for prospective participants and industry stakeholders to seek clarity before submitting an application. Given this transparency, any costs incurred beyond the provided funding reflect more on a Team's preparation, strategic planning, and financial management than on the competition's support. In fact, Teams ultimately received more funding than initially outlined. The final disbursements exceeded projections by $166,666.67 (in Milestone 2). Each of the 6 Finalist Teams received a total of $433,333.33 — $16,666.67 from Milestone 1 and $416,666.67 from Milestone 2.
How Feed the Next Billion could have been improved
This article series aims to provide a balanced perspective on Feed the Next Billion, addressing recent criticisms while extracting valuable lessons for future initiatives in the alternative protein space. Although many of the responses published since XPRIZE's announced conclusion in October contain inaccuracies, I don't believe these stemmed from intentional deception. Rather, they likely resulted from a combination of honest mistakes, misunderstandings, and incomplete fact-checking — it’s what can be expected when a vital information source will only give a writer so much to work with. While I intend to objectively examine what transpired, it's important to acknowledge areas where the organizers and sponsors could have improved their approach. With this context in mind, let's examine specific ways Feed the Next Billion could have been executed more effectively:
Targeted Recruitment of Hands-on Innovators: Instead of a focus on established food companies, the competition should have focused on recruiting independent product developers — food scientists, chefs, and talented enthusiasts with a public presence and portfolio of their work. This approach would have better aligned with XPRIZE's "anyone, anywhere" culture of democratizing audacious, but achievable solutions. Further, it would have more directly addressed the actual hands-on solution providers. While many may view innovation through the lens of startups or small to midsize companies, the task of building a tangible, scalable food product usually requires one or two people with this background to do the actual work. The average CEO, Director of Marketing, or even Director of Innovation does not do the hands-on work of building food products.
Strategic Retail Partnerships: Establishing partnerships with select brick-and-mortar and online grocery retailers could have provided multiple benefits: expert advisement, guaranteed product placement opportunities, and favorable terms typically unavailable to startups. Beyond incentivizing Teams, this would have helped ensure XPRIZE's rigorous specifications translated into real-world implementation. Without such structured support, market forces typically drive innovation only to meet immediate consumer demands rather than pushing scientific boundaries.
Balanced Milestone Funding: The funding structure could have better supported early-stage development by reallocating some Milestone 2 funds to Milestone 1. A more balanced distribution (e.g., $1.5 million for each milestone, split among up to 30 and 10 teams, respectively) would have better supported Semifinalist Teams during the initial prototype development phase, while maintaining the same $3 million total distribution.
Sponsor Alignment: While the title Sponsor's financial commitment was substantial and crucial to the competition's existence, the ultimate outcome might have been different had there been greater responsiveness to XPRIZE's recommendations regarding the amendment. Just as XPRIZE demonstrated the value of heeding expert input by listening to its Judging Panel throughout the competition, the Sponsor could have benefited from similar receptiveness to XPRIZE's guidance — which was informed by the collective input and advocacy of participating Teams. This isn't to suggest that experts are always right — they aren't. Rather, it's about recognizing and giving appropriate weight to credible voices closest to the matter at hand.
XPRIZE's notable strengths
Valued Expertise Through Compensation: XPRIZE budgeted appropriately for its operations team and subject-matter experts. This stands in contrast to the common practice of requesting expert participation on a volunteer basis — an approach that often prioritizes theoretical knowledge over practical, real-world experience and application.
Embraced Technical Diversity: The competition maintained a solution-agnostic approach to developing alternative chicken breast and fish filet products. This was supported by diversified expertise spanning plant-based, cell-based, and fungi-based technologies, with advisors bringing both academic and industry experience.
Established Objective Standards: XPRIZE developed a neutral framework for nutritional requirements that avoided subjective debates about the inherent nutritional value or perceived healthfulness of animal products and alternative proteins. The framework intelligently balanced strict benchmarks with reasonable flexibility — allowing Teams to deviate from exact nutritional mimicry when they could provide solid scientific justification or demonstrate intentional, well-supported variations from the animal origin reference. This approach maintained high standards while acknowledging technical realities.
Prioritized Feedback Mechanisms: Through their 12-member Advisory Board and 10-member Judging Panel, XPRIZE created structured channels for gathering and incorporating constructive feedback throughout the competition's lifecycle.
Maintained Judging Integrity: While the volunteer status of the Judging Panel initially gave me pause — given the substantial commitment required — this structure ultimately proved valuable in ensuring unbiased decision-making. The Panel's dedication was evident in their:
Rigorous sensory training to objectively assess product mimicry across multiple animal origin references
Thorough analysis of Technical Submissions, including extensive fact-checking and cross-referencing
Commitment to lengthy, consecutive multi-day sessions for thoughtful deliberation on Team advancement decisions
In summary
Feed the Next Billion represented an unprecedented opportunity in alternative meat development, combining substantial funding with comprehensive technical support and expert guidance. Teams received clear specifications, extensive resources, and more funding than initially promised — $166,666.67 more, $433,333.33 total per Finalist Team. The competition established robust and objective evaluation frameworks to assess mimicry, spanning nutritional profile, physical and structural characteristics, environmental impact, economic viability, and sensory attributes. The decision by the Judging Panel — comprised of 10 highly credible professionals — to not award the Final Prize demonstrates an unwavering commitment to maintaining high standards that could truly advance the field. This outcome should be viewed not as a failure of the competition, but as an opportunity to learn and improve. In the landscape of food innovation funding, Feed the Next Billion stood apart through its comprehensive support structure. Teams received not only substantial funding with significant autonomy, but also professional analyses that would typically require considerable time and capital to obtain. Most grants for individuals and small businesses rarely exceed tens of thousands of dollars and require comprehensive budgeting upfront, yet this competition invested in Teams at the concept stage — without requiring an already revenue-generating business or existing prototype.
The outcome has drawn criticism, but it merits examination through a broader lens: When a pre-revenue venture receives nearly half a million dollars in investment and fails to meet defined objectives, is it reasonable to fault the investor for maintaining their standards? A mindset focused on lowering expectations rather than examining one’s own execution reveals a concerning lack of accountability. This mindset undermines not only innovation, but also raises legitimate questions about one's capacity to lead successful ventures. The reality of investment — whether through traditional channels or competitions like Feed the Next Billion — is that funding comes with expectations, and meeting those expectations lies squarely with those who accept the challenge. 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.