The most promising alternative food technologies from a commercial and regulatory perspective are those that can balance scalability, sustainability, cost, and consumer appeal. For example, insect-derived proteins are affordable, scalable, and sustainable, but Western consumers can be apprehensive to consuming them due to unfamiliarity and cultural resistance to eating insects (1). Cell-cultivated products (CCPs) similarly have great potential—they are sustainable and have gained some consumer acceptance, but cost and scalability currently prohibit mass production (2). Precision fermentation is also a rapidly emerging technology due to its array of potential applications, and its cost and scalability are improving (3). These technologies show great promise and will all undoubtedly play a role in the EU’s goal of climate-neutrality by 2050 (4). However, in 2025, the most promising alternative food technology appears be plant and fungibased proteins. While not completely novel, these technologies meet all the key criteria of sustainability, scalability, costeffectiveness, and consumer acceptance (5).

The main challenge faced by most alternative protein manufacturers is the high cost of scaling up production. Production often begins in a pilot laboratory at a small (but costefficient) scale for research and development. However, scaling up requires a much larger space suitable for food production. It also requires large and expensive equipment (such as commercial-sized bioreactors) and large quantities of raw materials, but as production costs go up, protein yield must remain efficient so that production can remain sustainable (6). Ultimately, it is a fine balance between efficiently scaling up production and keeping costs competitive, as cost is one of the key drivers in consumers switching to alternative proteins (7).

Despite unfamiliarity with some newer technologies such as CCPs, over 40% of consumers in the U.S. (8) and up to 60% in the EU (9) show acceptance of cell-cultivated meat. Across different EU countries there are varying perceptions of alternative proteins, with Northern Europeans (Denmark and Finland) reportedly showing greater acceptance of insect-based proteins than Southern Europeans (Italy and Spain), and Eastern Europeans (Poland and Czechoslovakia) tending to show less willingness to switch to alternative proteins (10). In Asia, Singapore is considered a front-runner in the alternative protein industry—‍being the first to authorise the sale of cell-cultivated meat, in 2020—‍and a recent study found Singaporean consumers to be the most aware of CCPs (compared with Asian consumers in China, Thailand, South Korea, and Japan). However, consumers from China and Thailand are apparently the most likely to buy CCPs in Asia, and Japanese consumers are the least likely (11).

Regulatory frameworks play a crucial role in ensuring food safety, maintaining food product quality, and protecting consumer rights while facilitating innovation. The CCP sector has experienced substantial growth in private investment, research funding, and consumer attention over the past decade (12). However, in the EU and UK, these products are considered “novel foods” (as they have not been consumed to a significant degree before 15 May 1997), and thus require pre-market approval under Regulation (EU) No 2283/2015 (13, 14).

Although the EU and UK both follow the same scientific guidance for novel foods (the recently updated European Food Safety Authority [EFSA] Guidance on the scientific requirements for an application for authorisation of a novel food (15)), they have adopted different approaches to assessing the safety of these alternative food products. In the EU, CCPs are treated the same as other novel foods; however, EFSA’s updated guidance provides clearer information on the requirements for identity and manufacturing, and EFSA’s Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (responsible for risk assessment of novel foods in Europe) has recently assigned a “Task force on Novel foods of animal origin to assess the safety of these ingredients (this task force is currently reviewing the only valid CCP novel food application in Europe. (16)). In contrast, the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) launched a “Regulatory Sandbox” in March 2025, which allows direct interaction between the FSA, CCP producers, academic bodies, and trade associations; its 2027 targets include a published guidance and at least 2 completed CCP risk assessments (17). The FSA also launched a CCP Business Support Service in June 2025 to guide CCP companies through the authorisation process (18). It remains to be seen whether the more generalised EU approach or the highly tailored and engaged UK approach will facilitate the most efficient market entry of these products.

Globally, approximately one-third of all food is lost or wasted, and over 59 million tonnes of food waste are generated annually in the EU alone (19, 20). The EU is committed to meeting the United Nations’ goal of halving per capita global food waste by 2030 (21), and extending food shelf-life is one way to help achieve this ambitious target. Preservatives and antioxidants have been used for many years for this purpose, but the food industry is keen to replace chemically synthesised materials with natural alternatives, in response to consumers’ increasing preference for natural ingredients that are more sustainable and affordable (22, 23, 24).

Buffered vinegar is one such natural preservative that was authorised in the EU in 2023 (25), and the development of naturally-derived antioxidants is also accelerating. For instance, hydroxytyrosol-rich olive pomace extract, produced by extraction from exhausted olive pomace (a ‘waste’ product of olive oil production) is an example of utilising a by-product of food production that would typically be discarded into the environment, to produce an antioxidant that can help to reduce food waste; an EU food additive application for hydroxytyrosol-rich olive pomace extract is currently under EFSA review (26).