If you’re building in protein, you should be in Chicago next week: 32 reasons why

Novel proteins are moving from pilot to purchase order, investors are recalibrating what viable looks like, and the biggest bottlenecks are shifting from biology to infrastructure – from seed train reliability and downstream separation to sensory performance and scalable manufacturing tools. Ahead of The Future of Protein Production Chicago next week (February 24-25), these 32 reasons capture what delegates will learn, taste, and take back to their own scale-up plans

What real US commercialization actually looks like

For years, next-generation proteins have been discussed in terms of potential. Pilot plants. Regulatory submissions. Future scale. Now they are moving into US consumer products.

As evidence of this, Solar Foods recently secured its first US consumer order for Solein, its air-derived protein, through a collaboration with Ambrosia Collective. The result is a ready-to-mix protein powder under the Planta brand, targeting the US health and performance nutrition market. This is not a concept launch. It is a commercial order.

Sports nutrition is a deliberate entry point. It is a category where consumers already understand protein powders, where formulation flexibility exists, and where functionality and repeat purchase matter more than ideology.

Solein, produced using carbon dioxide, hydrogen and renewable electricity rather than agricultural inputs, is entering one of the most competitive protein segments in the world. If a novel ingredient can perform here – on taste, solubility, nutrition, and price – it has cleared a meaningful commercial hurdle.

Karl Smithback, Sales Director North America at Solar Foods, will be speaking in Chicago about what US commercialization actually looks like in practice: how early customer partnerships are structured, why health and performance nutrition makes strategic sense as a launchpad, and what it takes to move from regulatory groundwork to revenue.

For founders building novel ingredient platforms, for CPG teams evaluating new proteins, and for investors looking for evidence of real market pull, this is a conversation about execution – not projection. Because the shift from pilot to purchase order is where credibility begins.

The full arc: build, launch, shut down

Brittany Chibe is not coming to Chicago to celebrate a funding round. She is coming to talk about what happens when you build, scale, launch – and still close.

AQUA Cultured Foods spent five years developing whole-cut, fish-free seafood using biomass fermentation. The company secured self-affirmed GRAS status, raised US$10 million, filed 19 patents, built a production facility, partnered with Michelin-starred chefs, and brought product to market.

“When we started AQUA in 2020, we set out to do something that had never been done: create the world’s first whole-cut, fish-free seafood using biomass fermentation,” Chibe wrote when announcing the company’s closure.

That ambition was real. So were the milestones. The company grew to a team of 12, installed capacity beyond pilot scale, worked with global ingredient partners, and built early food-service traction. By most external measures, it looked like progress. And yet, in late 2025, operations concluded.

In Chicago, Brittany will be speaking candidly about the full arc – from ideation to facility build-out, from chef partnerships to regulatory clearance, from capital raise to closure. What worked. What proved harder than expected. Where capital intensity collided with timelines. What she would approach differently.

This is not a post-mortem for spectacle. It is practical insight for founders, operators, and investors who know that the sector’s future will be shaped as much by hard-earned lessons as by breakout wins.

If you are building in fermentation, alternative seafood, or capital-intensive food innovation, hearing directly from someone who has taken a product all the way to market – and then had to make the call to stop – is invaluable. Because progress in this industry is not linear. And the people who have built, even when it didn’t end in scale, often understand the terrain better than anyone.

Where policy, agriculture and biomanufacturing converge

Chicago is not just another conference city. Illinois has formally laid out its ambition to become a national and global leader in alternative proteins and biomanufacturing. A state-backed roadmap now positions plant-based, fermentation-derived, and cultivated proteins as pillars of economic growth, agricultural resilience, and advanced manufacturing.

Illinois is not treating alternative protein as a niche startup story. It is tying it directly to corn, soy, wheat, fermentation capacity, workforce development, infrastructure, and long-term competitiveness. The state already hosts more than 30 alternative protein companies. It ranks among the top hubs in the country. It has dense research infrastructure, deep agricultural supply chains, and manufacturing muscle. And Chicago sits at the center of it.

When you walk into McCormick Place on February 24-25, you are not just attending a sector event. You are stepping into a state that has publicly declared this industry part of its economic future. That changes the tone. It means policymakers are paying attention. Universities are aligned. Agricultural stakeholders are engaged. Fermentation and biomanufacturing are being framed as infrastructure, not experimentation.

There is a difference between hosting a conference in a neutral location and hosting it in a place actively building a roadmap around the sector. Illinois is making a bid to lead.

If you are building facilities, raising capital, sourcing feedstocks, hiring technical talent, or looking for state-level alignment, being in the room in Chicago is not symbolic. It is strategic. Because sometimes it is not just about who is on stage. It is about where the stage is set.

Redesigning lipids to unlock the next phase of food

For years, protein has dominated the conversation. But if you look closely at texture, mouthfeel, stability, oxidation, shelf life, metabolic impact – fats sit underneath almost all of it. John Krzywicki, CEO of Checkerspot, argues that the food system is constrained not by lack of creativity, but by the limited vocabulary of fats available at scale. Commodity oils. Agricultural volatility. Fragile global supply chains.

“Brands struggle to source the best tasting, performing or most nutritious fats and oils cost-effectively, sustainably or in some cases at all,” he says. “We’re solving a more than US$40 billion opportunity.”

Checkerspot’s approach is not about blending better oils. It is about designing specific lipid molecules through microalgae and precision fermentation – then producing them using fermentation infrastructure that already exists.

That specificity changes the game.

Human milk fat analogs that closely replicate the molecular structure of breast milk. Structuring fats that could buffer chocolate manufacturers against cocoa volatility. Cooking oils engineered for a 535°F smoke point with high monounsaturated fat content.

These are not incremental improvements. They are new building blocks.

And this matters beyond niche nutrition categories.

If fats can be engineered for stability, metabolic performance, oxidation control, and texture – they influence everything from plant-based meats to hybrid products to infant formula to GLP-1-aligned foods.

Scale, here, is strategic. Checkerspot does not pursue broad category claims. It focuses on defensible IP, viable unit economics, and customers willing to engage early through joint development and licensing models. That discipline is increasingly relevant in 2026.

In Chicago, John will speak about what it means to treat lipids as infrastructure rather than inputs – and Checkerspot will be on the exhibition floor, which means these are not abstract concepts. You can continue the conversation directly with the team building them.

If you work in formulation, ingredient sourcing, fermentation, or product development, this session expands the lens beyond protein grams.

Because you cannot redesign the future of protein without redesigning the fats that make it function.

Aligning the supply chain for cultivated scale

There is a reason the cultivated sector is moving toward structured partnerships rather than standalone scale-up stories.

Niyati Gupta of Fork & Good will be speaking in Chicago at a moment when her company has entered a strategic collaboration with Extracellular and Nutreco – three companies tackling different parts of the same constraint: cost, media performance, and manufacturing readiness.

This is not about marketing alignment. It is about infrastructure.

Fork & Good has been developing production systems designed to improve affordability and accessibility. Extracellular brings contract development and bioprocess scale-up capability. Nutreco contributes experience in food-grade cell nutrition and media inputs. Together, the focus is on improving media formulations, strengthening biomanufacturing capability, and laying supply-chain foundations that make commercial volumes realistic rather than theoretical.

The underlying message is clear. Cultivated meat is not a single-technology challenge. It is a systems challenge.

Cell lines, media ingredients, reactor conditions, downstream processing, regulatory approval, and supply reliability all have to move in parallel. Weakness in one slows the rest.

In Chicago, Niyati will be part of discussions that address what coordinated scale actually looks like – how companies align technical development, supplier relationships, and manufacturing strategy to bring cost down and predictability up.

If you are working in media development, bioprocess engineering, contract manufacturing, ingredient supply, or investment in first-of-a-kind facilities, this conversation speaks directly to your reality.

Because in 2026, scale is no longer about proving the concept.

It is about building the ecosystem that makes it viable.

Blending for better unit economics

Paul Shapiro is not trying to convince consumers to stop eating meat. He is asking manufacturers to rethink how efficiently they produce it.

“When you cook meat… you’re going to end up with about 70g of meat after cooking because there’s a lot of yield loss,” he says. Add Rhiza mycoprotein and that number rises closer to 85g. “That’s a 15% increase in your yield.”

That difference is not philosophical. It is arithmetic.

The Better Meat Co. is betting that transformation will not come from category replacement but from reformulation. Blend fungi into meat. Improve yield. Reduce saturated fat. Maintain protein. Lower cost.

“It’s cheaper than beef,” Shapiro says. “It performs better than plant protein isolates. And it’s not ultra-processed.”

For operators facing tight margins, that matters more than branding.

In Chicago, this conversation moves beyond ideology. It moves into throughput, fermentation timelines, continuous processing, and what it actually takes to supply companies at scale. Shapiro is candid about the constraint: “We could never even dream of supplying a company like Burger King” at demonstration scale. The thousand-ton question is the real one.

If you are a meat processor, ingredient buyer, fermentation operator, or investor looking at blended products, this session will speak directly to you.

And because the exhibition floor includes equipment providers, fermentation specialists, and ingredient innovators, the discussion does not end when the panel does.

Repeat purchase is the real battleground

For all the talk of climate targets, price parity, and protein security, Caroline Cotto brings the industry back to a simple truth:

“If it doesn’t taste good, you won’t see repeat purchases.”

As Director of NECTAR at Food System Innovations, Cotto leads the largest public sensory studies ever conducted in plant-based meat. Not focus groups. Not internal lab panels. Blind taste tests in restaurant-style settings with omnivores who regularly eat both meat and plant-based products.

“Consumers ultimately decide with their tastebuds first,” she says.

In 2025 alone, NECTAR evaluated 122 products across 14 categories. The results were direct. Conventional meat was described as juicy 2.6 times more often. Plant-based products were frequently labeled mushy, dry, or carrying chemical aftertastes.

“We’re not sugar-coating things,” she says. “We give awards where they’re due and don’t where they’re not.”

And the progress is measurable. Twenty products were rated the same or better than animal equivalents by at least half of tasters. Reformulations are paying off. Mycelium-based meats performed strongly on texture. One bacon product improved its overall liking score by 1.9 points after acting on NECTAR’s feedback.

Caroline’s session in Chicago will focus on what consumers are actually saying – and where the gaps still sit.

If you work in R&D, formulation, ingredients, extrusion, flavor, or retail, this is the data that determines whether your product earns a second purchase.

Because nothing scales if people don’t want to eat it again.

The US$5.3 billion opportunity hiding in plain sight

While parts of the alternative protein sector have chased full replacement, Food System Innovations has been tracking something more incremental – and arguably more executable. Balanced Proteins.

Products that substitute at least 30% of animal-based ingredients with plant-based foods, fermentation-derived ingredients, or cultivated inputs – without asking consumers to abandon familiar formats.

According to Food System Innovations’ latest research, the near-term Serviceable Obtainable Market for balanced red meat and poultry in the US sits at US$5.3 billion – roughly the size of the US frozen pizza category.

That is not a niche.

The total addressable US market? US$250 billion. Narrowed to immediate opportunity? US$85 billion. What manufacturers can realistically capture in the near term? US$5.3 billion.

The traction is already visible.

Universities, hospitals, and public-sector catering operations are replacing portions of ground beef with balanced blends – reducing cost per serving while maintaining taste and operational performance. In Europe, retailers are normalizing balanced meat formats within core assortments. Some balanced burgers are taking meaningful share within their category.

This is not about persuading consumers to change identity. It is about delivering affordability, fiber, emissions reduction, and supply stability inside products they already buy.

As inflation pushes beef prices to record highs and nutrition gaps persist, the logic becomes harder to ignore.

Tim Dale’s session in Chicago will dig into where the category genuinely stands: what the data says, where US retail stalled, why food service moved first, and what has to happen in 2026 for Balanced Proteins to move from proof of concept to proof of category.

If you are a processor, retailer, ingredient supplier, or investor looking for near-term commercial traction rather than long-horizon bets, this is one to pay attention to.

Because sometimes the biggest shifts are not replacements. They are reformulations.

Scale-up starts on a screen, not in steel

One of the most expensive mistakes in cellular agriculture is discovering too late that your process does not scale.

Omri Schanin, CEO of Algocell, is building a case for flipping that sequence.

Instead of relying solely on physical trial-and-error to optimize media, feeding strategies, gas regimes, and operating parameters, Algocell develops digital twins – AI-powered bioprocess models that simulate thousands of scenarios before they are ever run in a reactor.

“At Algocell, we believed that successfully navigating the valley of death required a foundation of robust and precise modeling,” Schanin says. “This infrastructure significantly reduced risk and enabled levels of process performance and scale that would be difficult to achieve through physical experimentation alone.”

In partnership with Cell4Food, Algocell integrated its modeling platform into a cellular aquaculture workflow, combining mechanistic biological models with machine learning to explore process constraints, cell densities, and productivity limits in silico.

The goal is not theoretical elegance. It is risk reduction.

Shift experimentation into computational environments. Shorten development cycles. Identify bottlenecks before capital is committed. Build validated models from limited experimental data. Improve predictability of scale-up.

For companies facing long development timelines and capital-intensive facilities, that difference is material.

Omri’s session in Chicago will speak directly to founders, CTOs, bioprocess engineers, and investors wrestling with the same question: how much uncertainty are you carrying into your first commercial plant?

If you are working in cellular agriculture, precision fermentation, growth media optimization, or downstream processing, this is a conversation about avoiding expensive surprises.

Because modeling is cheaper than rebuilding.

The legal battle every cultivated founder should understand

It is one thing to debate taste, cost, or scale.

It is another to debate whether a state can ban a federally approved food outright.

Paul Sherman, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, is representing Wildtype and UPSIDE Foods in their legal challenge to Texas’s ban on cultivated meat. And the case is no longer hypothetical.

A federal judge has allowed the companies’ dormant Commerce Clause claim to proceed, rejecting Texas’s attempt to dismiss the lawsuit at an early stage. The ban remains in force for now – but the constitutional question is very much alive.

“Texas is trying to use government power to pick winners and losers in the marketplace, favoring in-state agriculture to the detriment of innovative, out-of-state competitors,” Sherman said. “The Constitution doesn’t allow states to wall off their markets just to protect politically powerful industries from out-of-state competition. Texans, not politicians, should decide what’s for dinner.”

This is not a food safety dispute. Wildtype and UPSIDE Foods had already completed federal safety reviews before Texas enacted its ban. The argument centers on whether a state can use its authority to block interstate commerce in a product that has cleared federal oversight.

For founders, investors, processors, and policymakers, that distinction matters.

If cultivated products can be blocked state by state, the commercial landscape changes. If constitutional limits hold, the pathway looks very different.

Paul’s appearance in Chicago brings the legal dimension directly into a conference often dominated by science and scale. It is a reminder that infrastructure is not just stainless steel and bioreactors. It is also statutory language and judicial interpretation.

And as more states consider similar legislation, this case may set a precedent that reaches far beyond Texas.

If you are building, funding, regulating, or supplying this sector, you need to understand not just how to scale – but where you are allowed to sell.

When mycelium stops being a meat substitute

Maia Farms is not building a branded burger. It is building a toolkit. Sean Lacoursiere, Chief Innovation Officer at Maia Farms, is part of a growing group treating mycelium less as a meat substitute and more as a functional ingredient platform for mainstream food manufacturing.

The company recently secured an oversubscribed US$3.75 million seed round, bringing total 2025 funding to more than US$6.5 million including non-dilutive support. That capital is now moving into fermentation and extrusion scale-up.

But the bigger shift is strategic.

Rather than positioning mycelium solely as a protein replacement, Maia Farms is developing it as a multifunctional ingredient. As CEO Gavin Schneider put it: “We regard mycelium as a platform ingredient. Yes, it can complement meat in traditional formats, but the real power is in its functional versatility.”

Natural binders. Thickeners. Emulsifiers. Clean-label protein and fiber.

“They can replace gums, stabilizers, even eggs in some cases, all while enhancing mouthfeel and boosting nutritional content,” Schneider said. “The applications extend far beyond meat: bakery, dairy alternatives, snacks, sauces, even beverages.”

That formulation angle is where the conversation gets interesting.

Maia Farms uses liquid-state fermentation with oyster mushroom mycelium rather than Fusarium, optimizing fiber structure, digestibility, and flavor neutrality. Its proprietary bioreactors feed data into what it calls a Fungal Intelligence Database to improve yield and nutrient profiles in real time.

For R&D teams, this is not about launching a single hero SKU. It is about embedding a versatile, scalable ingredient into multiple categories without lengthening ingredient lists or adding processing complexity.

Sean’s session in Chicago will speak directly to formulators, ingredient buyers, and manufacturers asking a practical question: how do you improve texture, nutrition, and functionality without adding synthetic-sounding stabilizers?

Because if mycelium becomes infrastructure inside food manufacturing rather than a standalone alternative, the addressable market expands quickly.

What investors are funding in 2026 – and what they’re not

The funding environment that carried alternative protein through its early boom years is gone.

Steve Molino has watched that shift up close. Now an investor at Synthesis Capital, he sees a sector that has moved from abundant, less-dilutive capital to what he calls a more rational market.

“It’s clear founders are becoming more resourceful in financing their companies,” he says. “Pre-2022, venture capital was abundant and less dilutive due to inflated valuations, so there was little need to look elsewhere.”

That is no longer the case.

“With today’s more rational market, founders are turning to new funding sources – non-dilutive government grants, equipment financing, and strategic partnerships to manage CapEx.”

And expectations have changed.

“The days of raising through Series A based solely on tech and R&D are gone,” Molino says. What stands out now are companies that can demonstrate commercial viability – conversations with customers, evidence of willingness to pay, LOIs, MOUs, offtakes where possible.

For revenue-generating companies, the bar is just as clear: show demand, show unit economics that lead to profitability, show meaningful growth potential.

“There are many companies with amazing tech out there,” he says. “But illustrating this tech is truly solving a problem for players in the food system today – and that customers are willing to pay for it – that’s something obvious but often overlooked.”

Molino also explains why enabling technologies in fermentation continue to attract capital. The technology is proven at scale in other industries. It is comparatively de-risked. And the “picks and shovels” approach expands the total addressable market beyond alternative protein alone.

That is why Synthesis Capital has backed companies like Pow.Bio, Culture Biosciences, and Triplebar – businesses addressing bottlenecks across biomanufacturing, not just in one niche.

His perspective in Chicago will not be abstract. It will address a practical question many founders are facing: how do you build a business that can survive within a five- to ten-year venture time horizon without relying on mass dietary shifts?

If you are raising, investing, structuring partnerships, or planning your next round, this is a conversation grounded in today’s capital reality – not yesterday’s valuations.

Because in 2026, good technology is not enough. You have to prove someone will pay for it.

Why this downturn may be the setup

Steve Simitzis sees today’s food-tech climate not as a collapse – but as a familiar phase.

“This period we’re in right now actually feels a lot like the post-dot-com boom,” he says. After the crash, there was a stretch when “people were still quietly building,” and out of that period came enabling technologies like cloud computing that lowered infrastructure costs and unlocked an entirely new generation of startups.

“What I see happening now in food tech reminds me a lot of that,” he says. “I believe we’re heading toward a similar inflection point – where enabling technologies will reduce costs, accelerate iteration, and remove huge barriers to entry.”

That is not a short-term hype cycle argument. It is an infrastructure argument.

Simitzis believes biomanufacturing is approaching a moment similar to when companies stopped building physical data centers and started renting computing power on demand. If enabling technologies can meaningfully lower cost and increase speed of iteration, the economics of food tech change.

He also brings a pragmatic view of what scales first.

“Hybrid products are going to dominate in the near term,” he says. Rather than consumers buying 100% cultivated meat at scale immediately, he expects cultivated ingredients to be blended in at 2-3% inclusion levels, increasing gradually over time. “That’s a more practical, scalable way forward – and a more realistic path to market.”

And he is blunt about consumer narratives.

“We’re not representative of the broader market,” he says of the industry’s tendency to speak to itself. Messaging about doing good for the planet may resonate with a minority, but it will not move the average consumer at scale.

His advice to founders reflects that realism: “Focus on customers, not investors.” Even if revenue is not immediate, validation must be. “If you get customers on board, the investors will follow.”

In Chicago, Simitzis brings the long-view investor lens: where enabling technologies are quietly reshaping the cost curve, where hybrid products fit into mass adoption, and why customer pull will determine who survives this cycle.

For founders, investors, and operators wondering whether this is a contraction or a consolidation phase, this perspective is essential.

Because sometimes the most important work happens between the headlines.

The venture clock versus the biology clock

Adam Bergman is not coming to Chicago to cheerlead. He is coming to reality-check. For much of the last decade, alternative protein pitched itself like software. Scale fast. Capture share. Ring the bell. But, as Bergman puts it, biology does not run on a five-year venture clock.

“We’re typically talking it’s going to take a decade [to achieve an exit],” he said. Venture capital, meanwhile, operates on a five- to seven-year horizon. That structural mismatch bleeds into valuations, hiring, factory builds, and promises that were never going to align with fermentation timelines.

“The days of raising through Series A based solely on tech and R&D are gone.”

Bergman has watched capital narrow, not disappear. Investors did not vanish – they became selective. “A lot of these investors have just left the market,” he said. “They kind of said, ‘Okay, we were wrong’.”

In that environment, founders have to explain not just what they are building – but why earlier projections missed, what realistic timelines look like, and which risk factors could break the model even if the science works.

“We turn down working with probably 75% of the companies who approach us,” he said.

His focus now sits in areas where the capital intensity matches near-term return logic: precision biomass fermentation, B2B ingredient plays, and blending strategies that extend existing meat supply rather than attempt immediate replacement.

“I think blending is a good opportunity to take a finite amount of meat and help extend it,” he said. “I think you’re going to see a lot more blending.”

On cultivated meat, he is equally clear-eyed. It may follow biotech’s trajectory, but biotech drugs sell at thousands per dose. Meat does not. “The challenge that the cultivated sector has is it has to sell meat.”

He also questions vertical integration as default strategy. “They are trying to do everything,” he said of cultivated startups. “I don’t think that’s how the meat industry works.”

In Chicago, Bergman will sit across from founders and operators and talk about what is viable, what is not, and what capital is quietly screening for now: defensible IP, real differentiation, credible unit economics, and timelines that respect biology.

He is not bearish on the long term. “If you fast forward… I think you’re going to see the product mix of protein change dramatically over the next two decades.”

But he is blunt about the path. “Believer Meats is not the last cultivated meat company to go bankrupt,” he said. “We’re going to see a lot of other bankruptcies in this industry.”

If you are raising, restructuring, or simply trying to understand how investors are thinking in 2026, this session is not optional.

Because hope is not a capital strategy.

Turning shutdowns into shared infrastructure

When cultivated meat startups shut down, years of research can vanish with them.

Natalie Rubio and Michael Saad from Tufts University will be discussing how the Tufts University Center for Cellular Agriculture (TUCCA), in partnership with the Good Food Institute, created an open-access cell bank to preserve and redistribute food-relevant cell lines from defunct companies.

One of the first deposits came from SCiFi Foods after its closure. Eight beef cell lines and two serum-free media formulations were acquired and transferred to Tufts for validation and storage.

Andrew Stout, who leads the cell bank efforts, said: “We’ll make them available with very few restrictions on use.”

The SCiFi-derived bovine cells were engineered to grow in single-cell suspension, which allows large-scale production in bioreactors without attachment surfaces.

Natalie Rubio explained the opportunity this creates: “There’s a lot of research that can be done about figuring out how to make other cell lines grow in single-cell suspension. The cells we acquired will open the door for some more scalable research, like bioreactor optimization.”

The broader concept behind the initiative was described by TUCCA as “composting intellectual property” – transforming assets from failed startups into public goods that can accelerate the field.

In Chicago, Rubio and Saad will discuss what shared infrastructure means for sector resilience, how open-access resources can reduce duplicated effort, and why preserving technical advances may become increasingly important as funding cycles tighten.

The PROTEIN Act and what it means for operators

When Caitlin Balagula joins the keynote panel in Chicago, she does so representing US Senator Adam Schiff’s office – and legislation that could materially reshape the sector’s trajectory.

The PROTEIN Act proposes increased federal investment in protein innovation, including research centers of excellence, biomanufacturing infrastructure, workforce development, and a national protein security strategy. It treats alternative protein not as a niche, but as a strategic pillar of the US bioeconomy.

“Right now in America, it seems all anyone can talk about is protein, but the exploding demand for it is not something our current food system will be able to meet,” Schiff said when introducing the bill.

The message is clear: this is no longer just about startups. It is about domestic manufacturing, trade balance, supply chain resilience and global competitiveness.

If your business depends on scale-up capital, shared infrastructure, regulatory clarity or federal grants, this conversation is directly relevant. The PROTEIN Act speaks to workforce development, public-private coordination and reducing the commercialization bottleneck that has stalled promising technologies in the past.

Chicago will not be a policy lecture. It will be a discussion about what federal engagement actually means for operators.

Being in the room means understanding how Washington is thinking about protein – and how that thinking could affect funding, infrastructure and long-term competitiveness.

When protein claims meet metabolic reality

For a decade, 'high protein' has been the easy headline. More grams. Bigger claims. Louder packaging. But that conversation is evolving.

Consumers are starting to look beyond sheer quantity and ask harder questions about source, digestibility, metabolic impact, and overall nutritional quality. It is no longer just about hitting a macro target. It is about what that protein is doing in the body – and whether it actually delivers meaningful health outcomes.

That shift sits at the heart of the panel High Protein to Healthy Protein – Reaching a Balance?

Anita Broellochs of Myospan, Patrick McAuley of the Good Food Institute, Steve Simitzis of Replicator VC, and Chelsey Hinnenkamp of Nature’s Fynd will explore what happens when protein is judged not just by grams per serving, but by structure, bioavailability, functionality, and long-term health impact.

For alternative proteins, this matters enormously.

Blended formats look different when nutrient density becomes the metric. Fermentation-derived ingredients gain weight when digestibility and amino acid quality enter the conversation. Mycelium and novel proteins move from curiosity to serious formulation tools when performance is evaluated holistically.

It also reshapes commercial strategy. If consumers are eating less volume but demanding more value from each bite, product developers cannot rely on scale alone. They need precision. They need differentiation rooted in function.

This session will not be abstract. It will cut directly to formulation, investment logic, and what retailers and foodservice operators are likely to prioritize next.

If you are building protein platforms, investing in ingredient innovation, or trying to understand how demand is evolving beneath the surface, this is a discussion worth being in the room for.

Turning food system reform into factory-floor reality

Food system reform is easy to agree with in theory. Harder in execution.

Reducing emissions. Improving public health. Strengthening food security. Supporting farmers. Lowering volatility. Increasing resilience.

The real test is whether alternative proteins can contribute to those goals without waiting for mass dietary conversion.

That is where this conversation becomes practical. Blended formats reduce livestock inputs while keeping products familiar. Fermentation-derived ingredients improve yield and nutrient density without expanding land use. Designed fats and functional lipids buffer supply chains exposed to climate volatility. Mycelium and biomass fermentation convert agricultural sidestreams into protein infrastructure.

These are not abstract ideas. They are operational decisions inside factories, procurement teams, and formulation labs.

In Chicago, that is the thread running across multiple sessions – from Balanced Proteins to fermentation scale-up, from enabling technologies to hybrid product strategies. How do you lower emissions per serving without losing customers? How do you reduce input volatility in a beef or cocoa supply chain? How do you improve nutrient density while keeping margins intact? How do you reformulate products to make protein supply more resilient to shocks?

Food system reform does not happen because consumers read a report. It happens because manufacturers change recipes. Because processors adopt new inputs. Because investors fund infrastructure that lowers cost curves. Because policymakers align incentives with deployment.

If you want to understand how alternative proteins fit into food system reform in practice – not as rhetoric – this is the room to be in.

Because climate goals and food security targets only move when production changes.

And production only changes when people show up and make decisions.

How to get more from the steel you already own

For decades, fermentation has followed a familiar rhythm. Fill. Run. Stop. Clean. Start again.

That rhythm has defined how steel is used, how CapEx is modeled, and how productivity is calculated. It has also quietly limited how much output you get from the infrastructure you already built.

Thierry Duvanel of Bühler and Shannon Hall of Pow.Bio are coming to Chicago to talk about what happens when that rhythm changes.

Their partnership brings together Bühler’s industrial engineering footprint with Pow.Bio’s AI-enabled continuous fermentation platform. The premise is straightforward: instead of running tanks intermittently, keep them productive for far longer. Increase utilization. Reduce downtime. Improve predictability. Lower unit costs without necessarily rebuilding entire facilities from scratch.

The shift is not just technical. It is economic.

In traditional batch systems, expensive stainless steel assets are productive only a fraction of the time. Continuous operation changes the math. If equipment can run for extended periods with model-driven control and tighter process steering, the same CapEx base can generate more output.

That is particularly relevant for precision-fermented enzymes, functional proteins, specialty lipids, organic acids, and bioactives – categories where cost curves still determine whether products stay niche or go mainstream.

Pow.Bio validated its approach at 3,000-liter scale with Bühler’s support. The focus now is not proving it works in theory, but onboarding customers who need commercial volumes without building from zero.

A key part of the conversation will be digital control. The platform uses a digital twin layer to model site-specific variables and adjust feeding strategies and operating conditions in real time. That means less trial-and-error, fewer failed runs, and greater reproducibility across scales.

For operators, the questions are practical. Can you retrofit instead of rebuild? Can you improve throughput without doubling footprint? Can you reduce scale-up risk while protecting IP? Can you shorten the path from pilot to commercial deployment?

Continuous fermentation has been discussed for years. What Thierry and Shannon will explore in Chicago is what it looks like when it becomes a commercially supported pathway rather than an R&D concept.

If you are working in fermentation, downstream processing, CDMO partnerships, facility design, or CapEx planning, this session connects directly to your balance sheet.

Because sometimes the breakthrough is not a new molecule.

It is a new way of running the tank.

Commercial discipline in cultivated protein

Lou Cooperhouse will not be talking about vision. He will be talking about fundamentals.

“The product has to deliver,” he says. “We can talk about sustainability, consistency and health, but first and foremost, it has to taste great.”

After nearly eight years building BlueNalu, his view is grounded in execution. Regulatory approval is close. Scale is underway. But he is clear: “Regulatory approval without scalability gets you nowhere. And scalability without a product that delivers gets you nowhere.”

This is the tone of 2026.

If you are building in cultivated protein, fermentation or next-generation ingredients, the question is no longer whether the science works. It is whether the business works.

Lou’s session — and the keynote panel he joins with policymakers and industry leaders — will not revisit early enthusiasm. It will examine what stands up commercially.

Being in the room means hearing that discipline applied in real time.

‍

Adoption happens one bite at a time

Not every breakthrough in protein starts in a bioreactor. Some of them start on a pizza. Garden Truck Foods will be exhibiting in Chicago – and they are bringing samples of their Red Bean Pepperoni for delegates to try.

This is not a prototype built for a pitch deck. It is a product that has been refined for more than a decade in real kitchens, through catering, community events, and a fully vegan café in Jacksonville, Florida.

The premise is simple. Pinto beans. Nine whole-food ingredients. 11g of plant protein per serving. Cured for 48 hours to deepen flavor the way traditional charcuterie relies on time. No isolates. No powders. No long ingredient list.

Chef and co-founder Gail Patak has spent years adjusting the formulation based on direct feedback from customers. The result is a smoky, spicy pepperoni designed not to signal “alternative” – but to perform in the formats people already love.

Now the company is using Kickstarter to fund equipment upgrades, packaging development, and broader retail and foodservice expansion. Chicago marks one of the first major opportunities for national buyers, distributors, and partners to taste it in person.

And that is vital.

In a sector that often debates macro trends – fermentation capacity, blended inclusion rates, regulatory pathways – it is easy to forget that adoption still happens one bite at a time.

For retailers, food-service operators, distributors, and ingredient buyers walking the exhibition floor, this is not a theoretical conversation about plant protein performance. It is a chance to evaluate flavor, texture, and functionality directly. Does it crisp? Does it hold on a slice? Does it deliver the familiar spice profile consumers expect? Those are commercial questions.

If you are sourcing next-generation plant-based ingredients, exploring blended formats, or simply trying to understand where consumer-ready products actually stand in 2026, the exhibition hall is where that assessment happens.

Because ultimately, scale follows satisfaction. And you can’t assess satisfaction from a slide deck.

Find the growth pockets others are missing

Market opportunity does not sit in a press release. It sits in purchasing data.

The Good Food Institute will be exhibiting in Chicago. Bruce Friedrich will be speaking. Patrick McAuley will be speaking. And if you want to understand where plant-based and alternative proteins are actually gaining ground – not where people hoped they would – this is the room.

GFI’s latest US foodservice analysis tells a more nuanced story than the headline “sales dip” suggests.

Plant-based protein sales through broadline distributors reached US$289 million in 2024. Down 5% year over year, yes – but still showing a 4% compound annual growth rate since 2020. Plant-based milk rose 9% in distributor dollar sales. Plant-based creamer climbed 5%, capturing 31% of the total creamer market. Plant-based eggs grew 28% in dollar sales and 30% in pounds.

More importantly, the growth is shifting.

Restaurants remain the largest buyers, but healthcare, corporate dining, and government operators expanded purchases in 2024. Analog meats still account for more than half of plant-based protein pound sales, yet tofu and tempeh are gaining. Certain sub-categories – plant-based pork, chicken tenders, chorizo – are moving even in a flat environment.

That is not theory. That is procurement behavior.

Foodservice matters because it is where trial happens at scale. It is where consumers encounter products without having to cook them. It is where chefs refine formats. It is where institutional buyers look for consistency and cost stability. It is where repeat demand can be measured.

And the underlying signal is still there.

Seventy-one percent of US consumers aged 18 to 59 say they are at least somewhat likely to eat plant-based meat or dairy in the future. Half say they would likely order plant-based meat in restaurants or cafeterias. Availability remains a lever. Taste and price remain constraints. Both are solvable – but only if operators understand where momentum is already forming.

In Chicago, this conversation moves beyond “Is there a market?” to “Where exactly is it, and how do you capture it?”

If you are an ingredient supplier, foodservice operator, distributor, brand, or investor trying to allocate resources intelligently in 2026, you need this level of clarity.

Because growth is not evenly distributed.

And the companies that win next will be the ones who understand precisely where demand is already showing up – and where it is waiting to be activated.

The protein platforms built for real volume

Not every breakthrough in protein shows up as a consumer brand.

Sometimes it shows up as a neutral-flavored base that quietly enters thousands of SKUs.

Mike Shantz, Senior Global Category Manager – Alternative Proteins at Griffith Foods, will be speaking in Chicago. And if you want to understand how plant-based protein actually gets embedded into mainstream food systems, this is the kind of perspective that matters.

Griffith Foods recently introduced Versaterra – a plant-based protein platform designed less as a hero product and more as infrastructure. Built for flavor compatibility, functional performance, and clean-label simplicity, it is intended to slot into existing development pipelines across retail, foodservice, and manufacturing.

The emphasis is deliberate. Short ingredient list. Non-GMO compliant. Free from the Big 9 allergens. No saturated fat. Shelf-stable. Easy to hydrate.

But beyond the claims, the strategic move is clearer: create a protein that does not fight the rest of the formulation.

Versaterra was designed with a neutral flavor profile so it can work seamlessly with Griffith’s broader portfolio of seasonings, sauces, and coatings. That means developers are not building from scratch. They are integrating into an existing ecosystem.

For processors and QSR operators, that reduces friction. For R&D teams, it shortens development cycles. For procurement, it offers stability.

The applications already tested – tacos, bowls, wraps, stir-fries, crab cakes, pot pies – signal something else: this is not a niche alt-protein SKU. It is a format-flexible base designed to perform across cuisines and dayparts.

And the sustainability angle is not abstract. The formulation relies on pulses and vegetables associated with lower input requirements and improved soil health. That matters as retailers and foodservice operators increasingly audit supply chains for resilience and environmental impact.

In Chicago, Mike will be discussing what large ingredient suppliers are seeing from their customers right now – where demand is real, where reformulation is happening, and how plant-based proteins have to perform if they are going to stay on menus.

Because the next phase of alternative protein growth may not come from standalone brands.

It may come from ingredients that quietly become default options inside the products consumers already buy.

If you work in formulation, procurement, manufacturing, or category strategy, this is not theoretical.

It is about how protein platforms move from innovation decks into actual volume.

Master melt and stretch – the technical fix for plant-based cheese

Everyone talks about protein content. But when it comes to cheese, nobody is counting grams. They are watching what happens under heat. Does it melt? Does it stretch? Does it shred without clumping? Does it brown like dairy?

Kip Underwood will be speaking in Chicago, and Burcon’s latest work goes straight at the technical barrier that has limited plant-based cheese adoption for years: texture under real-world conditions.

Burcon’s Peazazz C pea protein has been shown to deliver improved hardness, shred efficacy, and melt performance compared to other pea isolates. Its oil-binding capacity supports applications like grilled cheese, where structure and fat management determine whether a product performs or fails.

Alongside it, Solatein – a sunflower-based protein – offers neutral taste and color, expanding formulation flexibility across cheese, beverages, bakery, and meal replacement formats.

The detail that matters is not marketing language. It is purity and functionality.

Burcon’s proprietary extraction process produces proteins at over 90% purity while retaining native structure. That structural integrity is what enables melt and stretch behavior that more closely resembles dairy. Without that, formulators are left compensating with gums, starches, and heavy processing.

And that is where plant-based cheese has historically struggled.

In Chicago, this conversation will move beyond 'plant-based growth' headlines and into the mechanics of texture replication. Hardness curves. Oil distribution. Protein network formation. How purity affects flavor masking. Where neutral taste actually reduces formulation cost.

If you work in dairy alternatives, ingredient sourcing, extrusion, or retail private label development, this is not abstract.

Cheese is one of the largest and most emotionally embedded categories in food. If plant-based cannot perform here, adoption plateaus.

If it can? That changes category credibility overnight. Because consumers do not compromise on pizza.

Learn how diversification becomes a competitive advantage

Over the past two years, we have seen what happens when companies misread the protein transition. Some overbuilt on hype. Others underinvested in innovation. Many assumed supply chains would stay predictable. They did not.

Protein portfolios that rely too heavily on a single system – whether animal, plant, or novel – carry concentration risk. Climate shocks, disease outbreaks, feed volatility, price spikes, and shifting consumer expectations all compound quickly. The lesson is not ideological. It is operational.

In Chicago, this is not discussed as theory. It is examined as strategy. How do you extend meat supply through blending without sacrificing margin? How do you improve taste so products are reordered, not just trialed? How do you structure capital so scale does not outrun demand? How do you build fermentation or ingredient platforms that slot into existing manufacturing rather than require reinvention?

Across investors, operators, policymakers, and ingredient suppliers, the through-line is resilience. Diversification as risk management. Innovation as supply chain insurance. Commercial discipline as survival skill.

The companies that thrive over the next decade will not be the loudest. They will be the most adaptable.

Chicago is where you learn how not to be left behind.

‍

Understand how Asia is turning cultivated ingredients into infrastructure

If you want to understand where cultivated ingredients move from pilot to product, look at Japan.

ImpacFat’s expansion into Tokyo is a case study in how Asia is approaching alternative proteins: not as a curiosity, but as infrastructure. The Singapore-based company, which developed cell-cultivated omega-3 fish fat, did not simply announce distribution plans. It established an R&D hub in Tokyo, secured strategic investment from Toyo Seikan Group and Leave a Nest, and embedded itself inside one of Japan’s newest innovation clusters.

That model tells you something.

Japan is one of the world’s most mature seafood and supplement markets. Omega-3 is not a fringe ingredient there; it sits inside mainstream health, aging, and functional nutrition categories. When a company like ImpacFat enters that ecosystem, it is stepping into a market that already understands marine lipids, premium nutrition, and functional claims.

The investment structure is equally instructive. Toyo Seikan brings packaging, sterilization, and barrier technology expertise. Leave a Nest connects into Japan’s biotech venture ecosystem. Esco Aster contributes biomanufacturing know-how. This is not speculative capital. It is industrial alignment around commercialization.

Mandy Hon will bring this perspective to Chicago.

Her experience reflects a broader shift: Asia is building cross-border value chains in cultivated and fermentation-derived ingredients. The playbook is collaborative. “Refine in Japan, test in Singapore, launch into Asia” is not a slogan; it is a practical commercialization pathway that leverages regulatory agility in one market and scale potential in another.

For founders and investors in the room, this changes the question. The opportunity is not only whether your product works. It is whether you are positioned inside ecosystems that can accelerate scale, validate applications, and open regional markets.

Chicago will focus heavily on scale, infrastructure, and capital. Mandy’s session adds a geographic dimension to that conversation.

Because protein innovation is global. And in parts of Asia, the bridge between lab and market is already under construction.

‍

Understand the hidden infrastructure that determines margins

By the time something goes wrong in a novel protein facility, it is usually too late to fix it cheaply.

David Ziskind has seen this play out dozens of times. As Managing Partner of Mach Global Advisors, he has helped companies move from lab bench to pilot plant to commercial facility, and his message is consistent: scaling is not about bigger tanks. It is about better decisions.

He calls one of the most common mistakes the “bigger beaker” fallacy – the assumption that a process that works at bench scale will behave the same way at 10,000 or 100,000 liters. Biology does not scale linearly. Utilities behave differently. Oxygen transfer changes. Viscosity shifts. Cleaning becomes a bottleneck. Layout decisions made early can lock in years of inefficiency.

In Chicago, David will focus on the practical side of scale-up that rarely makes it into pitch decks: front-end engineering, facility layout, sanitary design, and capital allocation. He argues that skipping detailed design work to “save money” often results in spending multiples later correcting preventable errors.

There is also the capital question. For many startups, the building, utilities, and sanitary infrastructure cost more than the bioreactors themselves. Yet founders often obsess over the tanks and underestimate the backbone that keeps them running. Electrical capacity, water systems, compressed air, drainage – these are not glamorous, but they determine uptime, cleaning cycles, and ultimately margins.

Another lesson he will explore is what he calls intelligent oversizing. If a process variable might fluctuate, designing for the upper range early is often far cheaper than retrofitting later. The same logic applies to utilities and layout flexibility. Adaptive capacity, not perfection, is the goal.

For companies deciding whether to build, retrofit, lease, or outsource, this is where the conversation becomes decisive. Hybrid models, minimum viable facilities, modular approaches, and shared infrastructure all have trade-offs. The right answer depends on risk tolerance, capital structure, and time to market.

If you are planning a pilot plant, negotiating with a CDMO, modeling CapEx for investors, or simply trying to avoid becoming another case study in cost overruns, this session is not theoretical.

It is about how not to fail before you even switch the system on.

Bring industrial discipline to your bioprocess before scale exposes it

There is a point in every fermentation story where the focus shifts from yield curves and strain optimization to something far less glamorous: separation, heat transfer, cleaning, uptime.

That is where companies either move toward commercial reality – or stall.

Alfa Laval is exhibiting in Chicago precisely because this is the part of the conversation that often gets underestimated. Bioprocessing does not end at the reactor. It runs through centrifuges, membrane filtration, evaporation, heat exchangers, hygienic pumping systems, and sanitary design that can withstand continuous operation without compromising product integrity.

The company’s recent involvement in a Denmark–USA biotech partnership, linking the Danish Technological Institute and NC State, reflects a broader point: innovation ecosystems only matter if they can translate science into industrial throughput. Precision fermentation and biomass fermentation are not short of ideas. They are short of robust, cost-effective downstream execution.

At The Future of Protein Production Chicago, Alfa Laval’s presence brings that industrial lens into the room. For companies working on alternative proteins, lipids, enzymes, or functional ingredients, downstream often accounts for the majority of operating cost. Inefficient separation can erase upstream gains. Poor thermal management can compromise product quality. Inadequate hygienic design can slow cleaning cycles and eat into margins.

These are not theoretical risks. They are daily operational realities once you cross into multi-thousand-liter production.

For founders and technical teams, the question is not simply whether your organism performs. It is whether your process can run 24/7 with predictable energy use, minimal product loss, and food-grade reliability. For investors, it is whether the CapEx model includes the full separation and processing backbone required to deliver consistent product at scale.

The Denmark-North Carolina partnership underscores a larger theme that will run through Chicago: fermentation is becoming infrastructure. But infrastructure requires industrial discipline.

If you are moving from pilot to first commercial facility, or evaluating how to bring down cost per kilo, this is where the practical learning happens – on the exhibition floor, in conversations about centrifugation efficiency, membrane fouling, heat recovery, and plant layout.

Because the future of protein production will not be decided in the lab alone. It will be decided in how efficiently we separate, concentrate, and deliver what the biology creates.

‍

Control what goes into the tank before you scale it

When companies talk about scale-up, they usually focus on the production bioreactor. Bigger vessel. Better agitation. Improved oxygen transfer.

But many failures happen earlier – in the seed train.

Swan Neck Bio is exhibiting in Chicago alongside Tetra Pak, and their collaboration tackles one of the least glamorous but most critical bottlenecks in fermentation: inoculum preparation.

Traditional seed trains are complex. Multiple propagation steps. Tight contamination controls. Time, labor, and infrastructure that add cost before a single kilogram of product is made. Every additional transfer step introduces variability. Every inconsistency at this stage amplifies downstream.

Swan Neck Bio’s DIRINOC technology offers a different approach: a concentrated, storable, quality-certified inoculum that can be added directly to production-scale reactors. Instead of building and managing a full seed train, companies can simplify the front end of the process and focus on optimization where it matters most.

For early-stage startups, that can mean fewer contamination events and faster iteration cycles. For scaling companies, it can mean more predictable runs and less downtime between batches. For established manufacturers exploring biomass or precision fermentation, it offers flexibility – the ability to trial configurations before committing capital to permanent infrastructure.

Tetra Pak’s involvement adds another layer. With its New Food Technology Development Centre in Sweden and deep experience in industrial food processing, the collaboration is not about theory. It is about testing real process flows, validating configurations, and reducing the risk that comes with first commercial deployment.

If you are working in fermentation, the question is simple: how much hidden complexity sits upstream of your main tank?

In Chicago, this is a chance to talk directly with the people building tools to simplify that complexity. To understand where contamination risk creeps in. To evaluate whether outsourcing part of your seed strategy improves reliability. To look at your process flow diagram and ask where variability really begins.

Because scaling fermentation is not just about running bigger tanks.

It is about making sure what goes into them is consistent, controllable, and ready to perform.

‍

Move beyond burgers into the real revenue pool

If you want to understand where the next real growth opportunity sits in alternative proteins, it is not in another burger or nugget.

It is in whole cuts.

The Good Food Institute will be exhibiting, with both Bruce Friedrich and Patrick McAuley speaking, and one of the most commercially interesting conversations right now is happening around steaks, chicken breasts, and pork chops.

The data tells a simple story. Most American meat consumption is built around whole cuts. Steaks alone account for tens of billions in annual sales. Chicken breasts dominate retail meat cases. Yet in plant-based formats, whole cuts represent only a tiny fraction of total category revenue.

That gap is not theoretical. It is commercial white space.

While ground products and patties have become familiar, consumers still build most of their meat-centered meals around intact cuts. That means the alternative protein sector has largely been competing in the smaller part of the plate while leaving the biggest revenue pools relatively untouched.

And yet, the early signals are promising. Sales of plant-based filets, steaks, and cutlets have been growing at double-digit rates, albeit from a small base. Companies are investing in shear cell technology, 3D printing, fiber spinning, mycelium structuring, and fermentation-enabled approaches to replicate muscle alignment and bite. Major brands and startups alike are moving into the segment.

The bottleneck, as always, is performance. Taste and texture still lag conventional steak in many blind tests. But categories that close that sensory gap tend to capture dramatically more share. The opportunity is not marginal gains. It is step-change growth if product experience improves.

This is where events like Chicago become valuable.

GFI’s presence is not just about advocacy. It is about market insight. Where are consumers genuinely open? Which segments are underdeveloped? How big is the addressable market if sensory hurdles are solved? What does the data say about foodservice versus retail entry points?

For founders, it is a chance to pressure-test product roadmaps. For ingredient suppliers and equipment manufacturers, it is a way to see where demand may accelerate next. For investors, it is about identifying which technical bets could unlock access to multi-billion-dollar categories rather than incremental share in already crowded ones.

Whole cuts are not just another SKU extension.

They represent the part of the meat market that consumers actually build meals around.

And right now, that is still largely up for grabs.

From hollow fibers to high-protein noodles

If alternative proteins are going to compete with conventional meat, it will not just be about better formulations. It will be about better manufacturing tools.

That is why EdiMembre is one to watch in Chicago.

Timothy Olsen and Ryan Sylvia will both be speaking, and the company will be exhibiting – with a high-protein noodle tasting on Day 1 that puts its technology into something tangible you can actually eat.

EdiMembre spun out of MilliporeSigma to commercialize edible membrane technology originally developed inside its Cultivated Meat Program. At its core, the platform is about structure and scalability. The team holds an exclusive license to the edible membrane system and has already demonstrated edible hollow fiber bioreactor concepts capable of supporting structured whole-cut cultivated meat as well as novel high-protein foods.

That matters because structure is still one of the hardest problems in alternative protein.

Ground formats are comparatively simple. Whole cuts are not. They require architecture, nutrient transport, and scalable production methods that do not explode capital costs. EdiMembre’s edible membrane approach is designed to integrate structure and bioprocessing in a single enabling platform rather than treating them as separate challenges.

But this is not just about cultivated meat.

The company has already validated countertop prototypes with partners across different applications, including legume-protein pasta. The high-protein noodles they will be serving in Chicago are a visible example of how a structural technology can translate into plant-based formats that are more accessible in the near term.

That dual-use pathway – cultivated meat long term, plant-based and hybrid products nearer term – is strategically important. It gives the platform commercial relevance today while longer-horizon categories mature.

For delegates, this is a chance to ask practical questions. What does edible membrane integration mean for CapEx? How does it alter media perfusion or nutrient delivery? Where does it sit in a broader production line? Is this a retrofit solution or a ground-up redesign? And perhaps most importantly: does it meaningfully reduce the complexity that has slowed structured alternative protein to date?

Chicago is where those conversations happen in person, not just in press releases.

EdiMembre is not launching a consumer brand. It is building enabling infrastructure. If you believe the next phase of alternative proteins will be won or lost on manufacturing discipline, not just formulation creativity, this is the kind of booth – and tasting – you will want to stop by on Day 1.

What it really takes to open a protein plant

It is easy to talk about scale. It is much harder to build it. Tony Martens, Co-Founder of Plantible Foods, will be in Chicago to share what it actually took to open a first US commercial facility and move from promise to production.

Plantible has just brought its Eldorado, Texas site online – complete with greenhouses, upgraded protein filtration systems, and a higher-yield lemna strain producing its flagship Rubi Protein. This is not pilot output. The facility is designed to produce thousands of metric tons of biomass annually and hundreds of metric tons of protein per year, with a clear pathway to tripling capacity again.

That shift from demonstration to commercial throughput changes the conversation.

Lemna – water lentils – grows in non-arable environments, uses a fraction of the water required for soy, and doubles in biomass every two to three days. But biology is only half the story. The filtration systems, strain selection, yield optimization, and cost discipline behind the Ranchito facility are what determine whether the model works economically.

Chicago is where you can hear directly from Tony about what that transition required. What did it take to make the numbers work? How did they reduce production costs while increasing throughput? What were the design decisions that mattered most? And what does 'cash flow positive' look like in practice for a next-generation protein ingredient?

Rubi Protein itself is part of the equation. A neutral-tasting, allergen-free, complete protein with a PDCAAS of 1.0, it delivers emulsifying, gelling, and binding functionality that allows formulators to replace animal proteins and synthetic binders. But functionality only matters if supply is reliable and scalable.

Plantible has also tied production to rural economic development, adding skilled roles locally and building workforce partnerships. That integration of technology, agriculture, and regional manufacturing is something many alternative protein companies aspire to – far fewer have executed at commercial scale.

If you are building an ingredient platform, investing in infrastructure, or trying to understand what it really takes to move from greenhouse to global supply chain, this is a session worth attending.

Scale is not theoretical anymore. It is being built – and Tony Martens will walk through how.

More than 100 speakers are taking to the stage at The Future of Protein Production/Cultured Meat Symposium on 24/25 February 2026. To join them and more than 500 other attendees, book your conference ticket today and use the code, 'PPTI10', for an extra 10% discount on the current rate. Click here