The XPRIZE ‘Feed the Next Billion’ competition, aimed at discovering innovative alternatives to chicken breasts and fish fillets, has concluded without a grand prize winner, leaving many participants disillusioned. Launched in December 2020, this ambitious initiative was backed by ASPIRE, the technology program management arm of Abu Dhabi’s Advanced Technology Research Council, and boasted a total prize pool of $15 million. However, after an extensive evaluation process, the competition’s judges decided that no product met the rigorous criteria set forth, resulting in no grand prize being awarded.
Initially, the competition sparked significant interest, with 28 semi-finalists announced in mid-2021. However, by early 2023, several key players, including Eat Just and Wild Type, withdrew from the contest. This exodus was largely attributed to a controversial rule change that granted the title sponsor a 90-day right of first refusal on any future investments or licensing deals. Contestants argued that this clause made it nearly impossible for venture-backed companies to participate, as it effectively stifled their fundraising efforts. One contestant described the situation as having a “poisonous clause” that disproportionately favored smaller firms at the expense of more established ones.
Despite the setbacks, six teams made it to the finals in July 2024: CellX, Revo Foods, ProFillet, TFTAK, The PlantEat, and Eternal Bio. However, the outcome was not what they had hoped. In late September, finalists received an email from XPRIZE’s chief legal officer stating that a grand prize would not be awarded. This decision was officially confirmed on the XPRIZE website in mid-October, which cited extensive evaluations that concluded no team had fully met the competition’s expectations.
The criteria for success were designed to be challenging, requiring products to closely mimic the characteristics of animal-origin products without achieving a perfect match. This has led to frustration among participants, who felt that the judging criteria were not transparently communicated. One industry source expressed disbelief that the decision was based on a lack of 100% similarity, a standard that was not explicitly stated in the guidelines. Additionally, many finalists were surprised to learn that despite meeting all pass/fail criteria, no winners would be declared. A joint statement from four of the teams emphasized their confusion, as they believed they had adhered to the competition’s rules.
Caitlin Chase, senior director of communications at XPRIZE, defended the decision, stating that the organization’s model is intentionally rigorous and that not every competition results in a declared winner. She emphasized that the discretion to award prizes lies solely with the independent judging panel. Dr. Kantha Shelke, one of the judges, reiterated that none of the teams met the minimum scoring requirements, which encompassed various factors such as nutritional profile and economic viability.
The fallout from this decision raises significant implications for the alternative protein industry. Many participants invested considerable resources to develop products tailored for the competition, diverting focus from bringing market-ready innovations to consumers. The disappointment felt by these startups could deter future entrants from participating in similar competitions, especially if they perceive the rules as opaque or the judging criteria as unattainable.
Moreover, the absence of a grand prize may reflect broader market dynamics. As one industry insider noted, the alt-protein sector has cooled since the competition’s inception, leading to speculation that the title sponsor may have deemed the finalists’ products as less “investable.” This situation highlights the challenges faced by companies striving to meet high standards in a rapidly evolving industry, where the balance between innovation, market readiness, and investment viability is increasingly precarious.
As the dust settles on this high-profile competition, the lessons learned may resonate throughout the agritech landscape, prompting a reevaluation of how competitions are structured and judged. The ultimate goal of fostering innovation in sustainable food production remains crucial, but the path to achieving it may require more clarity and support for the pioneers willing to take on the challenge.