Talking Heads: Paths to Approval

With global demand for protein set to soar, the road to market for alternative proteins remains complex. Here, Carlota Ellenberg & Emma Clarkson speak with eight experts about how best to navigate the regulatory hurdles, highlighting the collaboration and adaptability needed to unlock a sustainable food future

Here we find ourselves a quarter of the way through the 21^st century: a moment to reflect on the current landscape, how far we’ve come, and how much vital work still needs to be done to reduce our planetary reliance on animal products. An agile and adapted regulatory ecosystem that supports innovation in the alternative protein sector is imperative for future food security.

They say necessity is the mother of invention. Might we witness a nascent version of a dynamic and progressive regulatory global path begin to evolve in 2025? Only with collaboration and cross-sector communication, assert our experts in this piece.

Breaking down barriers

Novel food approvals, especially in the European Union (EU), have thus far represented a pain point for producers; food techs must navigate the hurdles of obfuscatory, time-consuming, and costly regulatory procedures to reach market. Encouragingly, in 2024, we saw gradual global progress as governments began recognizing plant-based, fermentation-derived, and cell-based technologies as transformative solutions for more resilient and sustainable food systems.

Sydney-based Vow was the first to launch cultivated products across multiple markets, securing approvals in Singapore and Hong Kong, alongside Aleph Farms in Israel and Meatly in the UK. Meanwhile, France’s Gourmey sought approvals in five markets, and Mosa Meat submitted dossiers for cultivated beef fat in the EU and Switzerland.

While many producers seek approval outside the EU due to market pressures, some experts argue that the EU’s rigorous framework – one of the most trusted globally – offers a significant advantage. An EU green light not only grants access to its 27-member single market but also serves as a valuable endorsement for global expansion.

In the UK, the FSA is reforming approval processes to accelerate market entry, with the government investing millions in research centers and creating a ‘sandbox’ to fast-track approvals. A new regulatory office was also established to bring the UK’s most promising new technologies to the public more quickly and safely by curbing the ‘burden of red tape’.

Globally, Thailand, India, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, and China are developing their own regulatory pathways, while other markets such as Singapore, the USA, the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Israel already have frameworks in place. What or who is next?

One thing is certain: global protein demand will double in 30 years. To address this, around 150 companies focused on cultivated meat and over 140 in fermentation are developing sustainable alternatives. Yet, beyond plant-based, few alt protein products are consumer-ready. It will be fascinating to see how this space evolves in 2025.

Forward Food Law

Mathilde Do Chi will be well known to many readers as the CEO of Forward Food Law and regulatory consultant in global alternative protein regulations. Do Chi is the first port of call, both for us in this feature and for the likes of Blue Horizon, Planted, and Formo, in terms of their legal matters. First and foremost, she says, startups should proactively address their regulatory requirements from the earliest stages of R&D.

Having advised countless producers on best practices to adopt in streamlining the approval process, Do Chi comes back to one nugget of advice that may seem obvious but is a common pitfall: “Clear the novel food status of your ingredient early. Don’t wait until the ingredient is ready to be sold on the market to check whether it is novel,” she cautions. Secondly, it is crucial to “inform yourself about the data needed to gain regulatory approval”.

For those targeting multiple markets, the process may be more favorable than it seems. “In the end, most novel food regulations are not that different,” she suggests. “The differences lie in how much time the risk assessment takes, how long a food must be consumed not to be considered novel, and how far regulatory bodies can provide concrete advice to companies before, during, and after the submission of the dossier.”

Are regulatory bodies coping with the rapid pace of developments in regulations? “No, but there is no perfect system. Regulatory bodies are bound by their mandate, and they cannot adapt quickly if they do not have room for maneuver.

“Reshaping a regulatory framework is a legislative matter, and it is difficult in regions where food law is harmonized, like the EU, because this is a collective decision, not one emanating from a single member state.”

On names and labels

Nomenclature – another area full of pitfalls – is both a marketing and legal challenge. “New names must attract consumers while avoiding misuse of legally defined terms like dairy and meat in most jurisdictions,” she explains.

“Choosing names that resonate locally – considering language, culture, religion, and politics – is key to attracting consumers. For instance, the term fungus is widely used in Asian countries, while in other places, the term mushroom is preferred.”

Speaking of labels, what does Do Chi think about common claims such as ‘high protein’, ‘clean label’, or ‘sustainable’? “So far, in the world, only the term ‘high protein’ is regulated, meaning that the final product must contain at least 20% protein,” she specifies.

“The term ‘clean label’ is more a marketing term than a legal one. Hence, it can be used freely but must nonetheless not be conceived as misleading, e.g., if the product does, in fact, contain E-numbers.

There is no perfect system

“Lastly, the term ‘sustainable’ may be legally defined in the EU through the Green Claim Directive, but it has not been finalized yet. Overall, to portray a food as generally sustainable, the brand must clarify what they mean by sustainable and provide data about their claim. For instance, claiming a product is better for the planet requires an LCA or proof that it uses fewer resources than similar products.”

Regarding the labeling of vegetarian and vegan, is this set in stone internationally? “So far, only Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have written guidelines for vegan and vegetarian products, the first one resembling a list of authorized names rather than Switzerland being a list of don’ts but without providing a concrete solution. Austria is in between.”

As a respected authority in the field, Do Chi offers invaluable expertise that applicants would do well to consider. One of her key insights highlights a common mistake: assuming that if a similar product is already on the market, theirs must also be compliant. “You never know how much risk a company may have taken, for instance, ignoring the need for pre-market regulatory approval,” she suggests.

Something to take heed of. Slow and steady wins the novel food approval race.

The Protein Brewery

As Nutrition & Regulatory Affairs Director at The Protein Brewery, a fungal biomass fermentation company based in the Netherlands, Yvonne Dommels is frustrated with “the lengthy timelines” involved in obtaining novel food approval in Europe. Fermotein, the company’s flagship ingredient, has obtained approval in Singapore and self-affirmed GRAS status in the USA, but so far not in the EU or the UK.

“You now see more and more companies advertising or even making it a USP that their ingredient is not a novel food and therefore does not require a lengthy regulatory approval process before market access. This will stifle innovation in Europe and the UK, which will mean they will fall behind the USA,” she feels. “A step forward is desperately needed. When it comes to alternative proteins, Europe is often pressing the accelerator and the brake pedal at the same time, resulting in a standstill.”

What needs to change?

One bottleneck lies in the fact that scientific officers at the EFSA cannot advise on applications. They can provide clarification “but cannot further help the applicant because they and the experts need to stay independent, which we respect”.

As a solution, she proposes the creation of a regulatory sandbox for natural biomass fermentation that provides product-specific scientific advice, such as the FSA’s initiative for cell-based foods in the UK.  

“There are opportunities to improve the novel food authorization process through creating regulatory sandboxes for natural biomass fermentation, enabling collaboration with applicants, industry and university experts, a more realistic dietary intake assessment and a centralised authorization procedure,” Dommels continues.

“It is in our common interest to bring safe foods to the market, and we could gain knowledge together by facilitating discussions between industry and regulators to process applications more swiftly and support businesses better in applications.”

Ideally, the current methodology should also be more realistic and less restrictive. “Some food for thought is whether the intake assessment of alternative novel proteins can be adapted in order to not overly restrict food categories or maximum inclusion levels and thereby hamper the availability and market access of alternative novel proteins.”

Dommels adds that the EU has a centralized process for drug authorization that, if applied to novel foods, could be a gamechanger: a single application to the European Commission could result in an EU-wide marketing authorization, valid in all member states.

A step forward is desperately needed

“This is in contrast to the market authorization of novel foods where the EC along with the 27 representatives of each EU Member State decide via qualified majority voting (55% of member states; at least 15 out of 27), representing at least 65% of the EU population.

“If the authorization for novel foods will be centralized, member states would no longer be empowered to raise objections,” she points out.

Use of AI and in-silico tools  

A vital area that deserves more attention is the emerging use of alternative safety validation models to comply with safety tests. On the potential offered by alternative methods, Dommels explains that the EFSA is actively working on developing in-silico (computer simulation-based, as opposed to biology-based) strategies to predict protein toxicity. “There are AI-based risk assessments and alternative in-vitro testing that should definitely be considered.

“Although these AI tools are still under development, they may soon be suitable for regulatory assessments and hopefully replace the use of animals for food safety assessments,” Dommels explains.

This makes perfect sense for foods that are alternatives to animal proteins, since “if animal trials are conducted for alternative vegan protein products, it makes it very difficult or even impossible to comply with the vegan criteria and it often does not fit within the mission of producers who want to reduce the use of animals in the food chain”.

This is encouraging, but sadly we aren’t quite there yet. “For the current tiered EFSA approach for toxicological assessment of novel foods, subchronic (90-day) animal toxicity studies are often needed as part of Tier 1,” she reports.

“However, in-silico tools are now more and more used for food safety risk assessment,” she clarifies. As an example, The Protein Brewery utilized in-silico tools for food safety risk assessment to identify potential toxins or other harmful elements. Their example showed no such elements in their fungal strain, Dommels reveals.

There is hope, then, for a future of food free of unsustainable animal inputs, and that hope increasingly lies in technology and AI, whether we like it or not.

Gourmey

Food producers face tremendous difficulties in meeting the regulatory requirements of just one jurisdiction. Yet, Gourmey, in an unprecedented move, submitted dossiers for its cultivated foie gras in the EU, the UK, the USA, Singapore, and Switzerland last July.

Brian Chun, Head of Quality & Regulatory Leader at the French startup, says achieving such an accomplishment depends on making the right call. “Ultimately, companies must decide whether to design a strategy that meets the highest standards across all target markets or focus on select markets where compliance is more achievable.

“It’s a fundamental decision that carries significant cost and development timeline implications, so you need to work collaboratively with your regulatory and development teams to set your business objectives," he emphasizes.

Whatever the path, Chun says novel food reviews take time, regardless of the jurisdiction. But in regions without established frameworks or specialized review expertise, “early and proactive dialogue” with regulators is essential.

“These meetings help address potential hurdles and align expectations and can help understand potential political challenges around a novel food dossier,” he confirms.

However, as Chun sees it, beyond well-advised and structured dossiers, “every filing presents unique challenges for both applicants and regulators because each product, material inputs, and process is different from other applicants”.

And as regulators frequently request additional information to address these unique characteristics, Chun posits that regulatory experts cannot predict the approval timeline. “A common misconception is that regulatory approval is straightforward and that your regulatory experts – whether in-house or consultants – can predict exact approval timelines,” he says.

As due diligence could expedite the approval process, Chun recommends not to overlook jurisdiction-specific pre-filing expectations and that they should be prepared for extensive requests for additional information. “For example, the European Union mandates prior notification of studies by the applicant, with co-notification by contract laboratories if used, and failure to comply can result in significant delays.”

Furthermore, he drops this invaluable piece of advice. “It is critical that the manufacturing process detailed in your submission accurately reflects the final, go-to-market process as any significant changes during the review can delay approval or jeopardize your launch.

“In other words, you need to be comfortable launching a product based on a process that may be one to three years old by the time you receive approval,” he observes.

To date, only two cultivated meat dossiers have reached EU regulators for approval. One might assume that these trailblazers have carved an easier path for other companies. “Because there are already approvals in the market, your company’s application should be approved quickly if you simply replicate the framework from successful, published dossiers,” Chun says, but cautions, “While these submissions can serve as useful benchmarks, merely copying another company’s approach does not guarantee success, as regulatory requirements vary widely.”

Walk before you run

Companies need to provide a comprehensive picture of the final product; however, safety assessments are a cornerstone of the dossiers. As Chun notes, “Risk assessments should be a transversal activity within your business. Your regulatory and quality teams should be fully integrated into the development process to ensure that what you say you do aligns with what you actually do.”

Every filing presents unique challenges

From his experience, he advises companies to “walk before running” in order to tackle all the safety assessment analyses that regulatory bodies require. “Companies should adopt a tiered, weight-of-evidence approach when preparing for toxicology and allergenicity assessments.”

Chun adds that gathering all toxicological data, the assessments of the product’s metabolism, bioavailability, nutritional profiles, and allergenicity tests, is “the core responsibility of every food company to ensure that their products are safe for consumption”.

“While the alternative protein industry must balance obligations to various stakeholders, its foremost duty is to consumers, ensuring that products are both safe and wholesome,” he states.

As a reminder to those seeking approvals, he points out, “regulatory agencies are solely focused on ensuring public safety and do not have a vested interest in your business or its specific circumstances”.

Bluu Seafood

With overfishing depleting the oceans at an alarming rate, it might seem like common sense that cultivated seafood would receive government and regulatory support similar to that of renewable energy.

But as Cana Eisenhauer, Quality & Regulatory Manager at Bluu Seafood, explains, “Cultivated seafood and meat is still seen as a ‘very niche novel product’ and therefore many jurisdictions still are lacking specific guidance to smooth the process and still debating what is to be presented in a dossier for application.”

Having developed fish fingers, fish balls, and caviar, Bluu Seafood is pursuing regulatory approval in the USA and Singapore, where the company expects to receive clearance this year. Eisenhauer says these countries “have clearer and more efficient pathways for novel foods, and they encourage direct communications with industry which can significantly reduce time to market”.

“Singapore and USA are incredibly helpful with their one-to-one meeting structures and being always available for questions; they are really showing that they want this to work,” she reports.

Still, the whole process is long and complicated and involves a lot of back-and-forth communication and clarification. It’s not as simple as just following the written guidelines.  

“It is expected by regulatory authorities to take their time to decide what is needed to make those products safely on the market,” Eisenhauer says. “However, in a fast-paced startup industry those timelines are a great hurdle as well.”

So, how can companies expedite the regulatory process? Eisenhauer emphasizes that early engagement with regulators is “absolutely crucial” and that proactively understanding region-specific expectations could help save money and time.

“There are a lot of crucial details to think about along the way and if you get them pointed out by the authorities – warning you of future consequences (and the analytics you will need for that specific process in the R&D stage) – you will already be in a very good place when you come to submit your application. Any assumption you may have can cost you months,” she advises.

Eisenhauer also points out that despite all the perceived differences among regulators, “the fundamental safety data requirements are often more aligned than many assume”.

“While full harmonization of global frameworks may not be achievable, it is clear that many commonalities exist and will continue to evolve. This growing alignment helps reduce the regulatory burden for companies looking to expand into multiple markets.”

Any assumption you may have can cost you months

The process of proving safety can be daunting for small companies. Regulatory bodies require extensive scientific evidence and assessments to ensure compliance. Eisenhauer, though, believes an efficient plan can avoid test overburdening. “We meticulously plan our process – in every step of the way we take precautionary measures, we have listed our risks and monitor all critical points, as you do in every food production.”

A healthy balance

Ultimately, Eisenhauer believes the industry is genuinely committed to ensuring products are safe. “At the end, the core objective of every regulatory dossier remains the same: demonstrating that our production process is well-established and replicable, and that our final product is safe for consumption,” she observes.

Cultivated seafood offers the same flavor as its counterparts along with the avoidance of animal suffering, and is quite clearly infinitely better for the oceans. It’s the perfect solution to our critically endangered underwater ecosystems. As Bluu Seafood may soon gain approval for its products, we asked if labeling regulations ought to be flexible to encourage market adoption, or whether stricter rules are important for consumer trust and acceptance.

“I think a healthy balance is exactly what we need,” Eisenhauer says. “Both as a regulatory professional and as a consumer, I create and expect my labels to represent the product as genuinely as possible. The legal description should be strict and should never be misleading; however, a certain flexibility is needed so companies should be able to highlight key benefits like sustainability or ethical advantages without overly rigid constraints.”

Vireo Advisors

“One of the biggest hurdles is regulatory uncertainty,” believes Kimberly Ong, Safety & Regulatory Consulting at Vireo Advisors, commenting on today’s novel foods landscape.

“Although we don’t need to reinvent the wheel – many of the scientific methods for evaluating food safety already exist – there is still uncertainty in how they apply to cultivated meat and seafood products,” Ong puts forward.

In general, experts know what makes food safe or unsafe, but as Ong notes, “The challenge is not reinventing evaluation criteria but validating how they apply to new production methods. This is why collaboration – both among companies, researchers, and regulators – is so important to ensure scientifically sound, efficient approvals.”

That said, Ong calls for collaboration to create common safety assessment frameworks to save time and resources and reduce costs. From her perspective, data sharing and a harmonized global framework is the ideal scenario for streamlining the process and avoid redundancies.  

While she acknowledges that global harmonization is challenging, she argues that alignment on fundamental safety and testing standards is not only feasible but beneficial. “Collaboration is essential. Right now, companies often conduct similar safety studies in isolation, leading to duplicated costs and inefficiencies,” she proffers.

Amid the present overburdened testing scenario, could AI-based risk assessments and alternative safety validation methods replace costly traditional animal testing? Ong says she’s seen increased interest in these methods as they can predict food safety risks more efficiently and reduce reliance on long-term animal testing.

“This is where industry collaboration is crucial – if companies and researchers work together to generate robust scientific evidence, these alternative models could become part of standard regulatory assessments in the future,” she says, pointing again to the importance of collaboration.

For example, Vireo, New Harvest, and the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute (Amii) are generating a growth factor thermostability dataset for AI applications to understand the stability of growth factors after cultivated meat products are harvested, cooked, and eaten.  This data, critical for a safety assessment, will be released in an open-sourced format, “facilitating field-wide data-sharing and providing a foundation for AI/Machine Learning tool development”, Ong explains.

Progress is taking place

Despite these yet unresolved problems in novel food frameworks, Ong believes there is progress ongoing. “Regulatory agencies are gaining experience with alternative proteins, engaging with industry, and bringing in the right scientific experts to assess submissions.”

Something that companies in the sector get wrong about regulatory approval is to think that the regulatory process is purely bureaucratic, believes Ong, when asked about common misconceptions. “Agencies are not just gatekeepers – they are partners in ensuring food safety. Many regulators are open to scientific discussions and are working with industry to refine and clarify approval pathways.”

We don't need to reinvent the wheel

Yet, she points out that more effort is needed on the industry side, too. “The responsibility doesn't rest solely with regulators – it’s up to industry and researchers to generate and publish high-quality scientific data,” she observes. “More funding for collaborative research, standardized testing methods, and regulatory science initiatives will benefit the industry.”

Regarding due diligence, she suggests proactively engaging with regulators early in development, providing well-structured and complete dossiers, and being ready and responsive after the submission. Emphasizing that early engagement is crucial, she says, “Companies that are transparent and proactively seek feedback and align their testing strategies with regulatory expectations tend to move through approvals more smoothly.

“While regulatory processes can be slow, this is not due to lack of interest – agencies want to ensure safety while also supporting innovation. Open engagement and structured dialogue between companies and regulators is making a difference, and I believe we will see even more efficiency as the field matures.”

UK Novel Food Expert Network

Who better to ask for a fresh perspective than Daniele Leonarduzzi, Regulatory Consultant and member of NFX UK, a recently launched network of experts that aims to accelerate new food technologies and products? One of NFX UK’s focus areas is supporting the UK government in establishing a streamlined regulatory process for novel foods. So, what would be the first thing Leonarduzzi would change to make the current procedure efficient?

“More resources provided to regulatory bodies as well as global alignment on the requirements and the process would help shorten the duration of this whole process, while still maintaining the safety of ingredients and products being introduced to the market,” he offers.

NFX UK helps companies navigate regulation more quickly by providing guidance. Based on his experience, Leonarduzzi says a common pitfall that startups should avoid is failing to “consider the regulatory aspects from the get-go”.

“Regulatory considerations should accompany the R&D process, otherwise it would cost more and take longer to adapt the formulation and/or process at a later stage,” he emphasizes.

He points out that some companies assume they can adapt a previous submission for a similar product. However, even minor changes to formulation or process necessitate a new, separate submission. He also notes the importance of having “suitable analytical methods” before conducting stability or compositional studies, suggesting that these mistakes would certainly “delay the approval”.

Leonarduzzi says that to improve the current system there should be a fostering of teamwork between all the players in the sector, from analytical labs, tech providers, manufacturers, consultants, and researchers. “Collaboration and communication are the keys to success in regulatory approval. If one company has experience that could accelerate the speed to market of a new ingredient type, it should be easy to share the information without compromising any IP concerns.”

This year, 2025, marks the rise of AI in the workplace. It appears that AI, automation, and digital tools could also help to smooth the process. But, from Leonarduzzi’s perspective, there is a particular concern about the reliability of data generated by AI. “How would it be possible to ascertain in the future that the data obtained for compositional, stability and of course tox, among others, is not produced by AI but valid results of actual trials and analyses representing the actual ingredient/product?”

Nonetheless, he balances this unease with a positive view, “AI, automation and digital tools could be extremely useful for example for quicker method development and troubleshooting, searching through submission information available online and could potentially be used by the regulatory bodies as well to simplify the dossier reviewing process.”

Where to launch first?

What about the complicated decisions around where to launch an alternative protein product first? “A company may decide to launch first in a jurisdiction where the regulatory approval process is shorter, and the testing requirements are less extensive,” says Leonarduzzi. “Some companies would opt to submit their dossier in a certain geography that could ‘open the door’ for other geographies, for example EFSA (EU) and FSA (UK).

“Although each regulatory agency might have their own expertise and specific demands, overall, there are many commonalities on the data to be generated. EFSA’s process is very thorough, so if a company can get EFSA approval, it will be very well equipped to apply in other markets.”

Collaboration and communication are the keys to success in regulatory approval

Like any food product, alternative proteins must meet standard safety and quality requirements, including compositional data and stability. Regulators also want to see data on protein quality and antinutrient content. And if it’s cultivated meat or a fermentation-derived ingredient, they’ll likely ask for toxicology and allergenicity assessments, too, Leonarduzzi explains.

On labeling regulations, he has strong views. “We live in a time of high distrust in the food industry and food tech. Transparency is positive, but without consumer education, labels can create irrational concerns, hindering market penetration and impacting the industry.”

“In my opinion, the consumer should be able to clearly identify what is in a product through labeling, but at the same there is need for a collective effort to ensure consumers are well informed and reassured that what they are eating is safe, nutritious (and delicious).”

Unibio

With climate pressures rising and populations growing, sustainable proteins are an urgent necessity. While scientific breakthroughs make headlines, regulation remains a major challenge. Success in novel proteins isn’t just about lab innovation—it hinges on navigating policies, agencies, and courts, determining whether products reach markets or stall in development.

Eleni Ntokou, Director of New Product Development, Sustainability & Regulatory Affairs at Unibio, understands this landscape well. With expertise in regulations and alternative proteins, she offers insight into how science, policy, and market readiness intersect. “Innovation means nothing if it never reaches the plate,” she says. “Regulation is the bridge – one that often feels impossible to cross.”

Ntokou highlights that alternative protein companies face fragmented and slow approval processes. While innovation advances quickly, regulation lags behind, entangled in safety protocols and market-specific requirements. In the USA, the GRAS pathway allows faster approval – if backed by strong scientific data. However, hurdles remain; if the FDA requests more data, companies must respond within two weeks or risk withdrawal and delays.

Europe, however, presents an even greater challenge. The EU’s Novel Food regulation process is notoriously slow and data-intensive. The stop clock mechanism, which pauses reviews for additional information, often extends approval timelines to three to five years. “The EU isn’t a first mover in approving new food products,” says Ntokou. “They prefer the safe road, leading to long timelines and significant resource investments for companies aiming to enter the market.” This caution forces innovators to weigh speed to market against regulatory hurdles in a highly complex region.

Asia’s regulatory landscape is mixed. Singapore leads in fast-tracking alternative proteins but faces growing application backlogs. Meanwhile, China and Japan’s rigid approval frameworks create significant entry barriers.

Beyond approvals, Ntokou highlights the challenge of labeling. “There’s no universal framework for alternative proteins,“ she states. “Some regions require clear differentiation, while others debate classifications for novel ingredients.” So, without harmonized standards, companies face costly, separate approvals, which has the potential to delay global adoption.

A common pitfall for companies is underestimating regulation. “Many think it’s just paperwork – submit and wait. The reality is far more complex,” says Ntokou. Regulators require extensive scientific evidence, from toxicology to long-term health studies. Microbial protein products may also need whole-genome sequencing, adding time and cost. “It’s not just about meeting requirements; each regulator assesses risk differently, and what works in one market may not in another.”

Navigating the regulatory maze

Despite these challenges, Ntokou sees clear pathways to streamline approvals. Early engagement with regulators is crucial. “For the FDA GRAS process, pre-submission meetings help avoid surprises later. You need to know exactly what regulators expect so you can tailor your strategy accordingly.” However, she notes that EFSA does not offer these meetings, making preparation even more critical for EU approvals. A well-structured scientific dossier, backed by independent research, is key. Companies that fail to account for long timelines – sometimes up to five years – risk running out of funding before commercialization.

Prioritizing markets with faster approvals, like Singapore or the USA, can offer a more pragmatic entry point. “If you can establish a foothold in these regions, it provides a foundation for tackling more complex markets later,” Ntokou suggests. Aligning business strategy with regulatory timelines is essential, especially for startups reliant on investor confidence.

Innovation means nothing if it never reaches the plate

Industry collaboration also holds untapped potential. Ntokou advocates for greater data sharing on non-competitive elements such as toxicology and allergenicity studies. “If companies pooled resources for pre-competitive data, it would reduce redundancy and speed up approvals for everyone,” she feels. “Organizations such as The Good Food Institute and Cellular Agriculture Europe are already pushing for this kind of standardization, but there’s more work to be done.”

While full global harmonization may be an ambitious goal, Ntokou feels partial alignment could have transformative effects. “Mutual recognition of safety studies or streamlined data requirements would go a long way in accelerating market entry,” she says. “The fragmented system today benefits no one – not companies, consumers, or the planet.”

Ntokou’s final words carry both a warning and a call to action. “The science is there, the market demand is growing, but unless we rethink how we approach regulation, the future of food could remain just out of reach. We need smarter collaboration, clearer frameworks, and above all, the willingness to bridge the gap between innovation and policy.”

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍