Hybrid alternative proteins: policy frontiers for sustainable food systems
Dr Helena Wright
Director of Policy
FAIRR Initiative (UK)
Scaling hybrid proteins requires supportive policy and financing frameworks to reduce the hidden costs of the global food system while strengthening sustainability, resilience, and food security, says Dr Helena Wright (FAIRR Initiative, London, UK).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.25453/plabs.30244642
Published on September 30th, 2025
Hybrid alternative proteins face policy, regulatory, and health-related challenges, and Dr. Helena Wright of the FAIRR Initiative argues that supportive policy frameworks are essential to scaling them for sustainable and resilient food systems.
In recent years, the global food system has increasingly been described as “broken” with hidden costs amounting to around US$12 trillion a year, and this is expected to rise to US$16 trillion by 2050 (1). These hidden costs arise from externalities such as water scarcity, the impact of pesticides on human health, biodiversity loss, the contribution of agriculture to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the health risks accompanying antimicrobial resistance. Meat, dairy, and aquaculture products account for a disproportionate part of the negative externalities of the global food system; animal protein makes up almost a third of the world’s water footprint, around 14.5% of the global GHG emissions, over 30% of methane emissions, and around 70% of antibiotic usage and is a major driver of global biodiversity loss (2). Alternative proteins derived from various non-animal sources such as plants, mycelium, cultured cells, microbes, and insects are gaining increasing attention to address these food system challenges. Kaplan and McClements explain in their Frontiers in Science article that there is a range of alternative protein solutions, each with certain advantages and disadvantages, that highlights the potential for “hybrid” solutions to overcome the drawbacks of any single solution (3). Transformative policy and financing will be needed to overcome continued challenges to the scalability of alternative and hybrid protein technologies, such as consumer acceptance, regulatory approvals, and economic production.
No silver bullets
Over the last few years, protein diversification has been increasingly recognized by investors, food manufacturers, and retailers as an innovative solution to reduce the environmental and health risks associated with food production (4). However, there is no single silver bullet to address the range of risks in the food system. Interventions across the food supply chain, such as technological, nature-based, demand-side, and supply-side solutions, including regenerative agricultural practices, have all been highlighted as important, as demonstrated in the independent “National Food Strategy” document produced by the United Kingdom (5).
On the demand side, in terms of “alternative proteins,” Kaplan and McClements (3) examine a suite of protein-rich food sources as alternatives to traditional animal protein, including plants, insects, mycelia, cultured animal cells, and microbial fermentation products. They note that each of these alternative protein sources has certain advantages and disadvantages in terms of organoleptic properties, nutritional profile, consumer acceptance, affordability, and scalability. Hybrid solutions, including meat-plant hybrids, cultivated-meat plant hybrids, mycelium-plant hybrids, and insect-plant hybrids, have all been found to offer promise in overcoming different challenges. While hybrid products can offer promise in terms of flavor, texture, and consumer acceptance, they face many similar continued policy and financing barriers as individual alternative protein products.
The state of policy and regulation: risks and opportunities
The policy landscape on alternative protein is rapidly evolving. While regulatory approvals have been granted in some countries, such as for cultivated meat products in the United States and Singapore, others are still pending. Some products have also received approvals in Israel and the United Kingdom. However, cultivated meat has been banned in Italy; this push to ban cultivated meat has been driven by Coldiretti, an Italian farming association that argued it presents a threat to farmers and food heritage. This may emphasize the need for companies involved in these new technologies to engage with farmers and farming communities to overcome perceived threats to livelihoods and ensure farmers can benefit from protein diversification.
Moreover, despite the challenging environment the sector has faced in recent years, certain governments have taken proactive steps beyond public funding to develop national strategies to support the development and adoption of alternative protein sources, such as Denmark’s world-first Action Plan for Plant-based Foods (6). Several countries, as well as multilateral and national development agencies in Canada, EU, Denmark, US and Israel have made strategic public investments into this sector.
In addition, there is increasing strategic recognition by policymakers of the potential benefits of protein diversification for food security: these include benefits such as more efficient use of water, energy, and grain inputs compared to animal protein products as well as the potential for alternative protein technologies to bolster supply chain resilience, as they can be less vulnerable to supply disruptions due to their simplified and localized production processes (7, 8). This is particularly important in a scenario where conventional agricultural production systems are under threat from climate extremes and water scarcity. Even though vested interests, costs, and regulatory approval hurdles continue to be barriers to the scalability and uptake of new alternative protein products, the policy context is rapidly changing, and the food security benefits of alternative protein technologies are gaining increasing recognition in the policy space.
What’s missing? Human health and global nutrition go hand in hand
In recent years, there has been a growing concern about the health-related impacts of “ultra-processed foods” in particular. The large number of ingredients required to formulate plant-based meats has been under scrutiny and means that they are considered to be “ultra-processed,” which can be perceived as unhealthy by consumers (3). Increasingly, therefore, companies in this sector are making efforts to improve the health benefits associated with alternative protein products. However, studies have also shown that the health implications associated with alternative protein products depend on which products they are replacing, as red meat consumption is associated with particular health and cardiovascular risks.
Moreover, a holistic approach to global health risks also highlights the need to consider global health risks such as antimicrobial resistance and zoonotic disease risk, which are linked to over-consumption of animal-sourced proteins. Increasingly, policymakers are considering a more holistic approach to policymaking on food systems that considers the implications of multiple risks in a “one health” approach (9). Health risks of the current food system include both overnutrition and obesity as well as undernutrition and food insecurity due to rising food prices and the implications of global conflict. Consequently, this has also led to more focus and attention on the “food security” benefits of alternative proteins in recent years. This may lead to a greater focus on enabling a policy environment for alternative hybrid proteins to improve resource efficiency and reduce environmental risks. With rising food costs becoming a political issue in a contested geopolitical environment, the importance of science-based decision-making and continued academic research on food technologies and food policy becomes even more important.
Copyright statement
Copyright: © 2025 [author(s)]. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in Frontiers Policy Labs is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Generative AI statement
The author declares that no generative AI was used in the creation of this article.
References
Nature. Counting the hidden $12-trillion cost of a broken food system. Nature (2019) 574:296. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03117-y
Wright H. Biodiversity risk and agricultural production: implications for investors [online] (2022). Available at: https://www.fairr.org/news-events/insights/biodiversity-risk-and-agricultural-production
Kaplan DL,McClements DJ. Hybrid alternative protein-based foods: designing a healthier and more sustainable food supply. Front Sci (2025) 3:1599300. doi: 10.3389/fsci.2025
Figaredo C and Chatsuwan M. Protein diversification: a tool to address climate, nature, and public health risks [online] (2024). Available at: https://www.fairr.org/news-events/insights/protein-diversification-a-tool-to-address-climate-nature-and-public-health
Henry Dimbleby, National Food Strategy. The national food strategy: independent review. The plan. National Food Strategy (2021). Available at: https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org/the-report/
Figaredo C, Wilson D, Chatsuwan M, Whote O. Shifting diets: a market opportunity to abate climate, nature and public health risks – Phase 1 engagement progress report and novel food policy update. FAIRR (2022). Available at: https://www.fairr.org/resources/reports/protein-diversification-phase1-progress-report
Good Food Institute. Alternative protein innovation bolsters national security. Good Food Institute (2024). Available at: https://gfi.org/resource/alternative-protein-innovation-bolsters-national-security/
Swanson Z, Welsh C, Majkut J. Mitigating risk and capturing opportunity. Centre for Strategies and International Studies (2023). Available at: https://www.csis.org/analysis/mitigating-risk-and-capturing-opportunity-future-alternative-proteins
Larsson DGJ, Gaze WH, Laxminarayan R, Topp E. AMR, One Health and the environment. Nat Microbiol (2023) 8:754–755. doi: 10.1038/s41564-023-01351-9
