The prestigious XPRIZE ‘Feed the Next Billion’ competition to find “structured, nutritious, affordable, and versatile” alternatives to chicken breasts and fish fillets “capable of competing with conventional products” has concluded with no winner and no grand prize.
The $15 million initiative—backed by title sponsor ASPIRE, the technology program management arm of Abu Dhabi’s Advanced Technology Research Council—was launched in December 2020 and comes with a top prize of $7 million, and second- and third-place prizes of $2 million and $1 million, respectively.
A bonus prize of $2 million was also set to go to a team developing animal-origin-free growth media at the lowest production cost, with the remaining $3 million distributed among participants.
While the competition began on an optimistic note, with 28 semi-finalists announced in mid-2021, multiple contestants pulled out in early 2023 including Eat Just, ENOUGH Foods, Wild Type, Aqua Cultured Foods, and The Better Meat Co. These departures occurred following a rule change enacted mid-way through the competition giving the title sponsor a 90-day right of first refusal over future investments and licensing deals, which contestants argued made participation “unrealistic for any venture-backed company or company seeking venture backing.”
One contestant told us: “They put a very poisonous clause in there that essentially tied down any company that was raising money for 90 days until the title sponsor gave its decision about whether it wanted to participate or not. What that meant was that only a subset of companies, typically much smaller companies that could accept those conditions, could stay in the competition.”
Ultimately, just six contestants participated in the finals in Abu Dhabi in July 2024: CellX, Revo Foods, ProFillet, TFTAK, The PlantEat, and Eternal Bio.
Judges have ‘sole and absolute discretion to declare or not declare winners of any competition’
In late September, the finalists received an email from the chief legal officer at XPRIZE explaining that a grand prize would not be awarded. This was followed by a statement on the XPRIZE website in mid-October explaining that “after extensive evaluation and rigorous testing, while the teams came close, no grand prize winner was declared.”
According to the XPRIZE website, “independent judging panels comprised of industry experts have the sole and absolute discretion to declare or not declare winners of any competition.”
While this is clearly stated in the small print, startups that dedicate a substantial amount of time and money to enter a competition reasonably expect that someone will win it, assuming the rules/criteria have been met, claimed participants contacted by AgFunderNews about the decision.
According to the technical testing and judging criteria, the finalists’ products were required to “closely mimic” certain characteristics of an animal origin product, but not 100% mimic.
One industry source told us: “They based this decision [not to award a grand prize] on no team reaching 100% similarity with an animal product, something which is not stated in their guidelines and is frankly impossible. It feels dishonest.”
Another added: “We asked if we could have a look at the judges’ comments, and in every category where there was a pass/fail, every single team passed. The confusion for us lay in the fact that in the guidelines, it says, if you meet all the pass/fail criteria, you will be judged on the scorecard, and the three highest winners on the scorecard will be the winners of the grand prize.”
The teams that remained in the competition after the rule change a couple of years ago “are not the most high-profile companies in this space, so maybe it didn’t look as attractive [to award a large prize in this category in 2024] as the whole alt protein field is not as hot as it was when the competition was first launched,” added another industry source.
“I am just speculating but I suspect the prize was pulled because the title sponsor did not feel that any of the products were ‘investable.”
“Our judges were faced with an incredibly difficult decision. The criteria for winning this prize were intentionally rigorous, reflecting the complexity of the global food system challenges we seek to solve.” Caroline Kolta, program director, XPRIZE Feed the Next Billion
“It is clearly communicated to all competitors in our documentations that awards are not guaranteed. This is not the first time a winner has not been identified by our judges.” XPRIZE
‘All pass/fail criteria were met’
The news that $10 million in prize money would not be forthcoming came as a “surprise” to the finalists, four of whom (CellX, Revo Foods, TFTAK, Eternal) issued a joint statement on LinkedIn:
“The finalist teams are surprised by this decision as the rules of the competition state that the grand prize is to be awarded to the three finalists with the highest scores, given that all pass/fail criteria were met. No additional criteria were communicated to the finalist teams.”
XPRIZE: ‘Not every competition declares a winner if teams don’t achieve the goals’
Caitlin Chase, senior director of communications at XPRIZE, told AgFunderNews that “XPRIZE’s model is intentionally rigorous to push beyond the boundaries of incremental improvement to bold and major breakthroughs… inherent in setting audacious goals, not every competition declares a winner if teams don’t achieve the goals. This is not the first time that a winner has not been identified by our judges.”
She added: “It is clearly communicated to all competitors in our documentations that awards are not guaranteed. Declaring winners is solely at the discretion of the competition’s independent judging panel based on their review of the competing team results as compared to the goals of the competition and based on the winning team guidelines published to the teams.”
Judge: ‘None of the teams met the minimum scoring requirements’
Dr. Kantha Shelke, principal at food science and research firm Corvus Blue and a senior lecturer at Johns Hopkins University, was one of the judges at the competition. She told AgFunderNews that “none of the teams met the minimum scoring requirements, which included evaluation of structural and physical characteristics, overall nutritional profile, environmental footprint, economic viability, product versatility, and sensory attributes.”
She added: “Developing a 1:1 alternative to chicken breast or fish fillet that matches its nutritional profile, economic viability, environmental impact, and sensory appeal from a consumer perspective remains a bold and ambitious challenge. There is a tension between those criteria, which was a core part of the challenge. For instance, enhancing taste might require increasing the amount of salt, which could negatively affect its nutritional profile.”
The scoring criteria were developed “in collaboration with third-party experts to ensure a fair and comprehensive framework,” she noted. “Additionally, teams were provided with ample opportunities to ask questions and address any concerns regarding the competition’s requirements.”
‘If we had known this was how it was going to be, and in retrospect, maybe we should have, we wouldn’t have entered’
Asked to respond to Dr. Shelke’s comments, one contestant told us: “The publicly available guidelines do not have a minimum scoring requirement. Every finalist had met the criteria laid out in the detailed guidance notes, so when XPRIZE said there’s no winner because nobody has met the criteria, we were very shocked.”
Asked whether net net, it was still worth taking part in the competition, the source told us: “I can for sure tell you that none of the teams benefited from this in any way, because many of the teams diverted resources to create a product suitable for the competition rather than something that is ready to market. If you match the protein level [of animal meat] to meet the criteria, for example, you can take away from the sensory characteristics of your product, so it’s not readily marketable.
“The second thing is that all the teams incurred significant costs above and beyond what XPRIZE provided and I can confidently tell you that if we had known this was how it was going to be, and in retrospect, maybe we should have, we wouldn’t have entered.”
Another contestant added: “My team felt we were cheated by XPRIZE, an organization that does not conduct its competition based on rules. The decision to participate and the level of resources dedicated was based on our perceived likelihood of winning the prize, which was based on the original rules.”
If the criteria were precise mimicry with meat, which was not communicated at the outset, added the source, they were setting themselves up to fail: “No company in the industry can 100% mimic all of the categories of criteria of conventional meat. It’s been a big waste of time and resources. If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn’t participate, and I would encourage all the other teams that I know to not be part of the competition.”
