As we prepare to unveil the final rankings of the 7th edition of the FoodTech 500 on 31 March, we asked our Ambassadors operating across every corner of the global food system to tell us what they’re actually seeing out there. What our Ambassadors help illuminate is what comes next.
Their answers span capital strategy, the upstream pivot, the slow death of moonshot science, diversity beyond access, and the technologies most likely to define 2026. What follows is their collective read on an industry in transition: more disciplined, more structural, and in many ways more interesting than it’s been in years.
1. The “Flight to Quality”: Healthy Correction or Slow Innovation Tax?
Forward Fooding: 96% of our finalists have received investments, and 80% are revenue-generating (up from 74% in 2024). Meanwhile, Series A companies have contracted to 29.4% of finalists. We see a “flight to quality”, where revenue is the new baseline for survival. What are the long-term implications of this for moonshot innovation?
The revenue numbers are good news. The Series A contraction is the more complicated story.
Dr. Balaji Vasudevan put it most directly: “The science worth betting on rarely fits a clean commercialization timeline. The startups that could genuinely change how the world eats—the real moonshots—often look unbankable at Series A by today’s standards. No meaningful revenue, long regulatory pathways, and uncertain market timing. But that’s precisely the profile of every platform technology that later became infrastructure.” His concern isn’t that revenue matters, but that an ecosystem optimising purely around capital efficiency will “slowly defund the kind of science that takes a decade to matter.”
Not everyone shares that anxiety. Antonio Iannone sees the shift differently:
“Science without structure is not innovation, it’s research. If capital today demands revenue earlier, that doesn’t kill moonshots. It forces discipline. Too often, deeply scientific startups end up translating science into more science instead of into customers, margins, and distribution. Strong science paired with early revenue signals? That’s not compromise—it’s maturity of the ecosystem.”
Melissa Ong, meanwhile, describes a bifurcation already underway in Southeast Asia: “Commercially viable, asset-light solutions are attracting private capital, while deeper tech and ‘moonshot’ innovations rely more on catalytic government funding, blended finance, and ecosystem partnerships.” That split, commercial VC for what’s ready and patient capital for what isn’t, may be the only functional model for a sector as structurally complex as food.
Mary van Hoek-Hendriks offers what may be the most actionable framing: “Incremental innovation should be profitable from day one, and those profits should intentionally fund moonshots through an integrated innovation pipeline (not isolated stage gates), with clear, milestone-based kill criteria for radical bets.” Revenue and ambition don’t have to be in tension, but they do need to be managed deliberately.
On the other hand, Dr. Elif Güngör Reis adds a more personal note: “I’m also concerned about founder fatigue. Many entrepreneurs are spending excessive time fundraising instead of building. If this continues, we may see talent shift toward safer or trend-driven spaces.”
2. The Founder’s Dilemma: How to Fund What VC Was Never Built For
Forward Fooding: Fundraising (244) and Strategic Partnerships (221) remain the most significant hurdles, far outweighing technical or regulatory challenges. That’s despite 80% of our finalists being revenue-generating. In this capital-efficient era, what’s your specific advice on funding mix and non-funding operations?
The consensus is clear and worth saying plainly: VC is the wrong default for most AgriFoodTech companies, and founders who treat it as their first option are often making a structural mistake.
Dr. Balaji Vasudevan: “Traditional venture capital was never built for deep-tech food companies with multi-year R&D cycles, heavy infrastructure demands, regulatory mazes, and slow paths to scale. Non-dilutive capital should be your first line of defense, not an afterthought.” He points specifically to USDA programmes, EU Horizon Europe, EIT Food, and Innovation Fund instruments as underutilised routes that “protect equity precisely when it’s most vulnerable — early, when you’re proving the science.”
On strategic corporate partnerships, his advice is pointed:
“Too many of the 221 finalists citing partnerships as a major hurdle approach these discussions too late, too transactionally, or without a crisp value proposition for the corporate side. The best deals I’ve facilitated were true value exchanges: the startup brings proprietary IP, novel data, or sustainability impact that aligns with the corporate’s strategic goals—not just a funding ask.”
Daniel Skavén Ruben is very direct in his advice: “I would largely avoid VC as an AgriFoodTech startup. Most VC models don’t fit AgriFoodTech.”
Mariya Hristova, who built agriventures.co specifically to systematise access to non-dilutive pathways, echoes the structural point: “Equity should scale validated growth, not subsidize infrastructure and early experimentation.”
On the CAPEX question, asset-light vs. vertical integration, Dr. Balaji Vasudevan pushes back hard against founders who want to own every step of the chain early: “Asset-light models aren’t a downgrade; when executed strategically, they’re a deliberate competitive edge. You earn the right to vertical integration through traction — not by starting there and burning cash on bricks and mortar prematurely.”
Antonio Iannone distils it to a single principle: “separate science risk from scale risk. Prove willingness to pay before building infrastructure, stay asset-light longer than feels comfortable, and own the IP, not the concrete.”
3. The Upstream Pivot: Why AgTech and Food Processing Are Winning
Forward Fooding: Our 2025 data shows a decisive shift toward ‘upstream’ solutions: an increase in AgTech and Food Processing versus a drop in Food Delivery and Plant-based Proteins. Does this pivot align with what you’re observing?
Short answer from every Ambassador: yes. The longer answer is about why and what it means.
Dr. Balaji Vasudevan frames it through margin math: “Downstream: 20–30% margins, consumer-dependent. Upstream: 60–80% margins, supply-constrained pricing power.” But he goes beyond the financials, as upstream innovation opens a different category of capital entirely: “Upstream opens climate/food security capital (patient money) that never touched oat milk brands. You’re building system resilience, not just products.”
Sascha Dutta reports the same pattern from the UAE: “We are seeing a lot more AgTech and Food Processing coming to pitch. It’s usually founders who have a background in these sectors, identifying ways to improve existing processes, and a lot are using AI.”
Mary van Hoek-Hendriks connects the shift to retail dynamics: “If access to the consumer becomes constrained, innovation logically moves upstream into AgTech, ingredient technology, and food processing where value can be created within existing supply chains rather than fighting for visibility on crowded shelves.”
Dr. Elif Güngör Reis adds a pragmatic angle: upstream segments “allow faster validation, clearer ROI, and more direct value creation. Investors are prioritising areas where validation cycles are shorter, regulatory pathways are clearer, and competitive intensity is more manageable. This pivot feels less ideological and more driven by speed, scalability, and execution feasibility.”
Melissa Ong situates it in a regional context that matters: “In Southeast Asia, upstream innovation is gaining momentum as countries focus on increasing domestic production, reducing import dependence, and strengthening value chains.” This isn’t just a Western investor thesis but a food security imperative across emerging markets.
4. Hype Died. Science Survived. Reading the Domain Divergence.
Forward Fooding: While Biotech/Synthetisation, Ag Biotech, and Upcycled Ingredients show consistent growth, once-hyped sectors like Plant-based and Vertical Farming have declined since their 2022 peak. How do you interpret this shift?
The Ambassadors are aligned on this one: not a collapse, but a correction. However, the nuance matters.
Dr. Balaji Vasudevan: “Plant-based and vertical farming didn’t fade because the problems vanished. They peaked on investor hype that outran the science and economics. When capital got tight, and consumers moved on from novelty, the spreadsheets caught up—energy costs for vertical farms doubled, plant-based margins never materialised at scale. I sat through 2021–22 pitches where it was all TAM slides and trend charts. Barely any talk of processing costs or what happens when your energy bill spikes 3x.”
Biotech, Ag Biotech, and Upcycled Ingredients, by contrast, are “capability-driven, not trend-driven” in Vasudevan’s framing. “Fermentation tools got cheaper. Gene sequencing dropped 90%. Waste stream extraction actually works now. The tech compounds, so the economics improve. That’s real momentum.”
Sascha Dutta is particularly bullish on upcycled ingredients: “There are still so many things that get discarded which could be reused for something else. The benefit of these businesses is that raw materials tend to be cheap, but it’s the technology to process them that costs the money.”
Mary van Hoek-Hendriks reframes the whole trajectory: “The hype around plant-based and vertical farming was necessary, it attracted capital, talent, and public attention, and accelerated technological learning. Without that wave, we wouldn’t have built the infrastructure, consumer awareness, and scientific capability we have today. What we’re seeing now is not collapse, but consolidation. Hype creates momentum; maturity creates impact.”
Mariya Hristova flags the risk in the correction for science-heavy players: “Biotech cycles are longer. CAPEX is higher. Regulatory pathways are stricter. In a capital-efficient environment, this creates pressure, which is precisely why non-dilutive funding, blended finance, and structured partnerships become critical. Science-heavy startups cannot be evaluated purely through short-term revenue lenses.”
Daniel Skavén Ruben is equally direct: the lesson of the downturn in both sectors is simply that they “over-promised and under-delivered.” No further elaboration needed. The market already priced it in.
5. Diversity at Record Highs, But Mentorship Isn’t Enough
Forward Fooding: 38% of finalists are female-founded. 26% are BAME-founded. Both are record highs. Beyond access to capital, what specific support structures are missing for diverse-led, revenue-positive companies to scale into global leaders?
The numbers are genuinely worth celebrating. What the Ambassadors are less willing to celebrate is the gap between representation at an early stage and representation at scale.
Dr. Balaji Vasudevan names the gap directly: “Diverse founders get over-mentored (five advisors, zero doors opened) and under-sponsored. Industry leaders need to get uncomfortable and actually put skin in the game. What scaling diverse companies actually need: preferential supplier agreements, co-development with IP protection, and long-term offtake contracts they can bank against. If governments, hospitals, and public sector canteens allocated 10% of food spend to diverse-led suppliers, you’d see balance sheets transform overnight. These aren’t unproven startups. 80% are revenue-generating. They just need volume.”
He also makes the capital allocator argument with data behind it: “Diverse fund managers back diverse founders at 3x rates. If decision-makers don’t reflect the talent pool, we’ll have this same conversation in 2030 with marginally better stats and identical ceilings.”
Sascha Dutta points to visibility: “I still notice at many large events that panels are still mainly men. When we create panels for our events, we try to get 50% women and diversity in ethnic backgrounds.” Role models matter both in funding decisions and at the front of rooms.
Melissa Ong frames the Southeast Asia picture around market access: “Many female and minority-led startups are revenue-driven from early stages, but scaling them into global leaders requires structured corporate partnerships that provide pilot opportunities, manufacturing access, and regional distribution channels. The next phase is about moving from inclusion to scale.”
6. Companies to Watch: The Ambassadors’ Picks
Forward Fooding: If you were to highlight three companies or technologies that embody the future of FoodTech, which would you choose and why?
The answers we got here are diverse, which highlights how wide the opportunity set actually is right now.
Dr. Balaji Vasudevan’s picks lean infrastructure and platform:
Enough (precision fermentation infrastructure) for building the “picks-and-shovels” that every alt-protein company needs. GreenLight Biosciences for RNA crop protection that delivers pest control with zero pollinator impact — what he calls “Ag Biotech’s killer app.” And Kokomodo for cell-based cocoa, which he sees as climate-proofing chocolate at a moment when cocoa prices are at record highs: “precision fermentation meets commodity ag — a trillion-dollar unlock.”
Antonio Iannone highlights Coccola (sugar reduction, riding a major macro-trend with strong marketing), Kokomodo again (corporate support already in place), and Lembas for GLP-1-friendly ingredients: “GLP-1-compatible products will probably be among the next real game-changers.”
Daniel Skavén Ruben highlights two: California Cultured, for its cell-based cacao approach at a moment when climate pressure on cocoa supply is real and growing, and Omni Pet, bringing alternative protein innovation into the pet food category, a market that is large, loyal, and largely overlooked by the broader FoodTech conversation.
Melissa Ong’s picks are all Southeast Asian: Mui Robotics (AI sensory tech for food quality and freshness detection), UniFAHS (phage-based innovations for animal health and antibiotic reduction), and Pacton Technologies’ FishSpeak platform (AI for aquaculture yield and fish health). “These companies reflect the future of FoodTech in Southeast Asia: AI-enabled, biotech-driven, and focused on strengthening productivity, safety, and sustainability across core food production systems.”
Mariya Hristova’s choices maps the three layers she sees defining the sector: Ondo Solutions (data and intelligence), Ancestral Superfoods (nutrient density and regenerative sourcing), and Smart Farm Robotics (automation at farm level). “Labour shortages, rising input costs, and precision requirements make robotics a necessity rather than a novelty,” she said.
7. The Tech of 2026: What to Actually Watch
Forward Fooding: On which technology or sector do you expect the biggest FoodTech breakthrough or advancement in 2026? And why?
The answers cluster around a few themes, but the most interesting ones are those not in the headlines.
Dr. Balaji Vasudevan offers two very specific predictions:
On agentic AI: “Forget chatbots. By mid-2026, agentic AI (systems that autonomously reason, plan, and execute) hits manufacturing floors. Plants cutting 15–20% downtime without human intervention.” And on GLP-1 foods: “23% of US households on weight loss meds by 2026. These drive 35% of food and beverage unit sales by 2030. Not diet shakes—high-volume, high-protein, fibre-packed everyday foods. Brands reformulating for GLP-1 compatibility are getting distribution priority.”
Juan Pablo Orlov focuses on AI but with an important qualifier: “The real breakthrough comes from pairing high-quality data and scientific judgment with AI to make better predictions in areas that still rely heavily on guesswork today.” The AI without the domain expertise is noise. The combination is a signal.
Mariya Hristova sees three converging areas: soil health moving from “sustainability narrative to measurable performance driver,” carbon farming gaining credibility through better MRV technology, and longevity-focused food moving from niche to mainstream — “products that combine scientifically validated bioactives with clean formulation.”
Melissa Ong argues the biggest breakthrough won’t be a single invention: “The breakthrough in 2026 will be the convergence of AI and biotech into practical, scalable solutions that strengthen productivity, resilience, and nutritional outcomes across upstream food systems. In Southeast Asia, where food security, climate volatility, and cost pressures are immediate realities, this convergence will see rapid adoption.”
Dr. Elif Güngör Reis is most direct: “2026 will be less about consumer-facing hype and more about transforming the production backbone of the food system. Precision fermentation and Ag Biotech address structural challenges rather than consumer trends, and as production infrastructure matures, we are likely to see meaningful commercial breakthroughs.”
8. What Didn’t Make the Headlines But Should
Three observations kept surfacing across the additional comments, each one worth sitting with.
First, the fragmentation problem. Mariya Hristova: “Founders struggle less with technology and more with access. Access to the right funding instrument. Access to the right industrial partner. Access to regulatory guidance. Access to cross-border networks. This fragmentation slows scale more than science does.”
Second, the growing role of corporates as the effective replacement for VC in some parts of the innovation stack. Dr. Elif Güngör Reis: “As venture capital becomes more selective, large food and agriculture players will increasingly shape innovation through strategic partnerships, minority investments, and structured procurement programs.” That’s not necessarily bad news, but it does change who sets the innovation agenda.
Third, and most concisely, also from Dr. Elif Güngör Reis: “The future of FoodTech will not be built by trends — it will be built by execution.”
Melissa Ong adds a regional dimension that the Western-centric FoodTech conversation often underweights: “Southeast Asia will play a larger role as a real-world deployment hub for scalable FoodTech solutions. With diverse agricultural systems, strong consumer markets, and urgent climate and food security needs, the region offers a powerful testbed for technologies that are practical, cost-efficient, and impact-driven.”
What emerges from this year’s Ambassador insights is a sector that has grown up without losing its nerve. The hype is gone, the easy money is gone, and a generation of companies that were never really built to last have quietly exited. What remains is leaner, more honest about what the science can actually deliver, and—if the data is anything to go by—more diverse than it has ever been. The path forward is less about the next big announcement and more about the unglamorous work of turning good science into real infrastructure, patient capital into scalable businesses, and record representation numbers into record exits.
The Ambassadors’ collective message is clear; the fundamentals of this industry to feed a growing planet, within planetary limits, more equitably than before haven’t changed. The ecosystem building toward them just got a lot more serious.
Get to know all the FoodTech 500 Ambassadors here. Want to become a FoodTech 500 Ambassador? Learn more about the initiative and submit your application here.
Be on the lookout for the full list rankings, dropping HERE.
Forward Fooding is the world’s first collaborative platform for the Food & Beverage industry via FoodTech Data Intelligence and Corporate-Startup Collaboration – Learn more about our Consultancy and Scouting Services and our Startup Network.
