A new analysis from the Good Food Institute examines the UK's 2021 National Food Strategy (NFS) and vision for the future of food in the country, including a strong push toward protein diversification. Recognizing the role of alternative proteins—plant-based, fermentation-derived, and cultivated meats—the strategy recommended significant public investment and regulatory reform to position the UK at the forefront of this rapidly evolving sector. A year later, the Government Food Strategy (GFS) took up many of these recommendations, making commitments to support research, innovation, and policy adjustments in alternative proteins.
Now, as the Labour government embarks on developing a new food strategy, an assessment of progress on these commitments reveals both achievements and gaps. While strides have been made in public investment and research, regulatory reforms have moved slowly, and industry-wide data transparency measures remain largely unimplemented. The next phase of policy development will determine whether the UK solidifies its leadership in this sector or risks falling behind more proactive nations.
Investment in Research and Innovation
One of the core recommendations of the NFS was a significant expansion of public funding for alternative proteins, proposing £125 million in investment over five years. This included the establishment of an “innovation cluster” to support scientific and commercial development, alongside direct grants for startups working on new protein sources. The GFS, in turn, committed to supporting innovation through UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), although without specifying dedicated funding amounts.
Since then, tangible progress has been made. Two UKRI councils, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and Innovate UK, have directed at least £20 million toward alternative protein research and innovation. More significantly, four major research centres have been established since 2023, backed by over £60 million in combined public and philanthropic funding. These include:
• The Cellular Agriculture Manufacturing Hub at the University of Bath
• The National Alternative Protein Innovation Centre, led by multiple institutions including the University of Leeds and Imperial College London
• The Microbial Food Hub at Imperial College London
• The Bezos Centre for Sustainable Proteins, also at Imperial College London
These centres represent a substantial boost to the UK’s research capacity in alternative proteins, making the country the second-largest public funder of such research in Europe, behind Denmark. However, the ambition of establishing a true “cluster,” where researchers and businesses operate in close geographic proximity with shared infrastructure, remains unfulfilled. While facilities like the Bezos Centre plan to develop lab-scale pilot spaces, broader investment is needed to create the kind of open-access, large-scale infrastructure that can drive commercialization.
In terms of direct support for startups, the UK has made moderate progress. Since 2020, approximately £26 million in public funds has been allocated to alternative protein businesses, particularly in the form of research and innovation grants. While this is a significant step, it remains well below the NFS’s proposed £75 million target. The government has also provided £8 million for collaborative research between private companies and institutions and £43 million for academic-led projects that contribute to foundational knowledge in the field.
Regulatory Progress and Bottlenecks
Beyond funding, the GFS also promised reforms to the regulatory environment governing alternative proteins. The most pressing issue is the UK’s novel food regulations, which determine how new food products—such as cultivated meat or fermentation-derived ingredients—gain market authorization. Reforming these rules was highlighted as a post-Brexit opportunity to streamline approvals while maintaining high safety standards.
So far, progress has been slow. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) launched a review of its novel foods framework, with some modest reforms set to take effect in early 2025. These changes include removing reauthorization requirements for certain non-novel food products and replacing the statutory instrument process with a digital register, which should reduce approval timelines. However, deeper reforms—such as establishing clearer guidelines for alternative protein companies seeking approval—remain largely unaddressed.
One promising development is the creation of a regulatory sandbox for cultivated meat, funded with £1.6 million from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. This initiative aims to improve collaboration between regulators and businesses, helping to clarify requirements and avoid common pitfalls in market applications. However, comprehensive guidance for alternative protein products beyond cultivated meat—such as precision fermentation and fungi-based proteins—has yet to be developed.
Another key gap is the lack of a public taste-testing framework for novel foods. Countries like the Netherlands have already implemented controlled public tastings for cultivated meat, allowing companies to gather consumer feedback and attract investors. The UK has yet to introduce similar measures, placing startups at a disadvantage compared to their European counterparts.
Transparency and Industry Accountability
One of the more ambitious NFS recommendations was the introduction of mandatory reporting on protein sales for large food businesses. This measure was designed to provide transparency on how much of the UK’s protein supply comes from plant-based and alternative sources versus conventional meat and dairy. The goal was to encourage businesses to diversify their offerings and give policymakers better data on dietary trends.
However, the GFS did not fully adopt this proposal. Instead, the government established the Food Data Transparency Partnership (FDTP), which aimed to develop voluntary reporting frameworks for health and sustainability metrics in the food industry. While the FDTP briefly considered tracking protein sales as a percentage of total sales, the idea was ultimately dropped.
As a result, industry participation in voluntary reporting remains low. A 2024 analysis by the Food Foundation found that only 17% of major food companies report on the proportion of their protein sales that come from plants versus animals. Among major retailers, only Lidl GB provides a detailed breakdown and sets targets for shifting toward plant-based proteins. Without broader adoption, the impact of transparency measures remains limited.
Looking Ahead: A New Phase for Alternative Proteins in the UK
Since the launch of the National Food Strategy in 2020, the landscape of alternative proteins has evolved significantly. The UK is now reviewing its first market applications for cultivated meat and fermentation-derived proteins, while the plant-based sector continues to mature.
Public investment in research and innovation has positioned the UK as a leader in this field, particularly within Europe. However, regulatory inefficiencies, lack of clear guidance, and the slow implementation of transparency measures are holding back further progress.
As the Labour government develops a new national food strategy, it has the opportunity to take bolder steps. Key areas for action include:
• Expanding public infrastructure for alternative protein R&D, creating shared facilities to accelerate commercialization
• Reforming novel food regulations to provide clear, efficient pathways for product approval
• Introducing a framework for controlled public tastings of novel foods to support market entry
• Revisiting mandatory protein sales reporting to drive industry accountability and promote dietary shifts
The UK has made substantial progress, but the next stage of policy development will determine whether it fully capitalizes on the economic, environmental, and health benefits of protein diversification. With strategic action, the UK can cement its status as a global leader in the alternative protein sector—ensuring that innovation translates into real-world impact for consumers, businesses, and the planet.
Comments