In the U.S., the phrase ‘vegan proteins’ once conjured images of simple foods like nuts, beans, or tofu. But over the past 10 years, an array of plant-based alternatives have painted a different picture—one filled with imitation milk, eggs, and meat that closely mimic their animal-derived counterparts. These products have been successful thanks to food-tech innovation, with emulsifiers, stabilizers, and flavorants making plant-based products more enjoyable for consumers. Despite these improvements, flexitarian consumers still report that plant-based products don’t taste ‘real’. To further improve taste and texture, precision fermentation has been used to convert plant-based starting materials into key proteins found in beef and dairy products. Yet innovation in plant-based alternatives is threatened by pushback. Some health advocates have especially targeted extensively formulated and processed foods, sometimes known as ultra-processed foods (UPF). Due to the extensive formulation and processing needed to coax plant-derived materials into behaving like animal proteins, most plant-based alternatives can be classified as UPF.

The challenges posed by anti-UPF sentiments are not new. Concerns about nutritional quality and processing have persistently hampered uptake of plant-based alternative meats. 

This article will focus on recently proposed changes to ingredient approval and food labeling rules, and examine emerging concerns raised by government officials, news outlets, and consumers about UPF. In this case-study analysis, the potential impacts of changing regulations and shifting consumer sentiments on established players like Impossible Foods and Perfect Day will be considered. Possible effects on newer innovations from companies like the Better Meat Co will also be investigated to understand how current sentiments may inform investment in the next generation of fermented ingredients. 

A Brief History of UPF and Plant-Based Foods.

Ultra-processed foods and plant-based foods have a surprisingly long history in the U.S. (see Figure 1). Shortly after WWII, long before plant-based hamburgers or eggs became available, highly processed shelf-stable foods containing animal ingredients began to carve out a market in American grocery stores. Starting in the 1980s and gaining greater traction in 2009 thanks to the work of Carlos Montiero, the term Ultra-Processed Food (UPF) emerged. Montiero’s team developed the NOVA system to classify foods based on their degree of processing. Though the NOVA system has been criticized for being too binary and failing to account for the nutritional composition of foods, it is still widely used by many countries and the World Health Organization. NOVA Group 4, the highest level, comprises ‘ultra-processed’ foods. Foods in this category, like fast food hamburgers or sugary yogurts, require extensive industrial formulation and/or ingredients not found in home kitchens. The other categories are: 

• Group 1 minimally processed foods like eggs or ground beef,
• Group 2 culinary ingredients like salt or butter,
• Group 3 processed foods, like cheese or beef jerky, created using a mixture of Group 1 materials and Group 2 ingredients.

The ultra-processed foods found in NOVA group 4 have been criticized by the Make America Healthy Again movement for allegedly contributing to a higher chronic illness burden among Americans, prompting government action. In 2025, the federal government began working to establish a legal definition of UPF which would inform future regulations. Additionally, the FDA has proposed changes to food labeling requirements to make consumers more cognizant of the amount of sugar, fat, and salt found in their foods. 

UPF regulations and anti-UPF consumer sentiment might be particularly impactful for emerging food technologies, including those using fermentation to enhance plant-based alternative foods. Fermentation is an ancient process that has (inadvertently) harnessed the metabolism of microbes to acidify and preserve foods, produce CO2 to proof bread, and generate ethanol to create alcoholic beverages. 

Precision fermentation is a more recent adaptation of this method requiring sophisticated genetic engineering tools to modify microbes for the production of specific proteins. This technique was first commercialized by Eli Lily in 1982 with the production of human insulin from genetically engineered E. coli. Food tech has adopted this technology to produce specific proteins that augment the flavors and textures found in plant-based analogs. Specific proteins on the market include hemoglobin (or leghemoglobin) in beef and Impossible™ burgers, ovalbumin in eggs from the EVERY company, and whey or casein for dairy analogs from Perfect Day and others. Fermentation techniques have the potential to make plant-based products more enjoyable and ‘realistic’–prompting total investment of nearly $4.8B for development of these technologies to-date. However, changing sentiments towards highly-processed foods might alter consumer and investor sentiments toward novel fermentation strategies.

Figure 1. Timeline of select milestones in plant-based foods innovation, UPF development, and food regulation. Dates are from: the FDA, FoodUnfolded, Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Stanford Medicine, and the Good Food Institute.

Changing Food Regulations at the State and Federal Level

‘The shift to ultra-processed foods’ was the focus of the first section of the May 2025 ‘MAHA Report’ which criticizes UPF for exacerbating nutrient depletion, increasing calorie consumption, and generally reducing the health of American children. ‘The MAHA Report’ and most U.S. agencies currently define UPF using the NOVA system developed by Carlos Montierro but this is not a legally-binding definition. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has suggested that “Defining ultra-processed foods with a clear, uniform standard will empower us even more to Make America Healthy Again.” Accordingly, the USDA published a ‘request for information’ in July of 2025 to solicit input for developing the government-wide definition of UPF necessary for future regulations. 

While MAHA and the Trump presidency have made UPF part of the U.S. zeitgeist, politicians on the left are also acting to restrict sales and marketing of UPF. California passed bill AB1264 in October of 2025–defining UPF and restricting UPF in school lunches. Interestingly, some plant-based alternative proteins are marketed to schools, including in CA, and it’s unclear whether the interpretation of AB 1264 will limit the sale of these products. Other states like Arizona, Utah, and Louisiana haven’t defined UPF, but have already enacted legislation to ban specific food additives like titanium dioxide, Red 40, and other compounds from school lunches. 

Besides outright bans or restrictions, federal and state governments can use softer levers, like nutrition labels, to steer American food choice. The FDA submitted a Proposed Rule Change in January of 2025 to require a FOP (front of package) nutrition label classifying foods as low/medium/high in saturated fat, salt, and sugar. In some cases, this may highlight nutritional advantages of plant-based alternative proteins, such as lower saturated fat content. However, these abbreviated labels could also emphasize common drawbacks, like higher sugar levels. Currently the proposed rule change does not reference UPF in the FOP label, though future actions could add this designation.

The MAHA report also calls for ‘reform to the GRAS recognition process’. In the U.S., food ingredients must be deemed generally recognized as safe (GRAS) prior to consumer use. However, companies are currently allowed to ‘self-affirm’ as GRAS without FDA review of their product safety data. For an overview of this process, see: Burdock and Carabin, 2004 and Alston and Bird Critics, 2020. Critics, including RFK Jr., have raised concerns over this ‘GRAS loophole’ that they claim allows for unsafe and unhealthy compounds to enter the American food supply. Challenges to the GRAS status quo are also emerging at the state level. New York State Senate Bill S1239A aims to ‘increase GRAS transparency’ by requiring companies to submit GRAS information to a publicly searchable database if they lack a ‘no questions’ letter from the FDA. This would effectively pressure companies to provide additional safety data for novel ingredients that have not been reviewed by the FDS. 

These state and federal changes to the GRAS recognition and reporting process could impact growing companies by limiting sales and precluding early revenues until a ‘no questions’ letter about an ingredient is received from the FDA. For some innovators this will require funds and investor confidence to stretch further across the ‘valley of death’.

Consumer Perceptions of UPF

While regulations may attempt to shift consumer behavior, individual’s preferences ultimately drive the sales of plant-based alternative proteins. Therefore, it’s important to understand how changing consumer attitudes towards UPF will influence purchasing choices for plant-based alternatives. 

Consumers are increasingly aware of UPF and generally view it negatively–one 2022 study in Vermont reported that 91% of participants who are aware of UPF are ‘concerned’ about the amount that they consume. Google Trends indicates that the search term ‘ultra-processed foods’ was uncommon prior to 2022 and has peaked interest in early January and early August of 2025. High-profile articles about UPF have been featured by The New York Times, The Guardian, NPR, and other news outlets this year. These pieces feed into the growing interest and dialog about UPF largely spurred by recent reports from the FDA and statements by HSS Secretary RFK Jr.

UPF awareness seems to be increasing in the U.S., but it’s unclear wherever this will actually influence consumer choices. Studies on U.S. consumers are limited, but international research provides some insights into consumer attitudes. A 2023 study determined that among Swiss consumers, there is a strong correlation between consumer’s perceptions of ‘unhealthiness’ and ‘processing’––the more processed consumers perceive a product to be, the more likely they are to consider it ‘unhealthy’ and predict that it falls in NOVA Group 4. While the same general trends in UPF recognition were observed, consumers in the U.K. struggled to accurately classify individual products as NOVA group 4. In this 2024 study only 51-66% of consumers correctly classified burgers, ice cream, and breakfast cereals as NOVA group 4 (UPF). Improving consumer understanding and recognition of UPF may require more complex marketing and cultural messages than simple food labels. An online study of 1,000 Brazilian adults found that adding a UPF warning label to front of package nutrition labels did not change perceived healthfulness or purchase intentions. These labels did however increase correct identification of UPF, suggesting that the strategy may be effective in conjunction with other education and outreach efforts.

Individuals will have different responses to education and regulations surrounding UPF based on their varied motivations for purchasing plant-based alternatives. In their consumer segmentation report, the Good Food Institute has identified 6 broad categories of plant-based product consumers. Ethical concerns over climate or animal welfare are the primary motivation for only 10% of addressable consumers, whereas consumers interested in ‘health’, ‘nutrition’, and ‘protein’ represent nearly 50% of the addressable market. These individuals are drawn to plant-based alternatives due to health concerns about traditional meats and/or a desire to increase protein intake without relying on animal products. Dialog around UPF and food processing could have different effects on consumers’ perceptions of plant-based alternatives depending on their motivations.

While consumers are awash in negativity towards UPF, plant-based innovators are pushing back with their own education and messaging. Brands like Impossible Foods acknowledge on their websites that their products are ‘processed’, but argue that processing is not an inherently bad thing—pasteurization and fortification with essential vitamins and minerals are technically processing, but make foods healthier and safer. Instead, they emphasize the nutritional benefits of their products relative to animal products. Organizations like the Good Food Institute make similar arguments that plant-based alternatives might require more formulation, but ultimately achieve a more desirable nutritional profile than many animal products.

UPF Challenges for Established Companies

As federal and state legislation is introduced and media coverage increases consumer awareness of UPF, plant-based food companies may experience declining sales or increasing consumer concerns. Most plant-based alternative meats will land in NOVA Group 4 because plant-based foods alternatives typically require emulsifiers, binders, and stabilizers to mimic the textures and flavors of animal meat (See Figure 2). This means that even if individual fermentation products are viewed as ‘healthy’, the whole food would still be considered UPF by consumers and regulators alike. Legislative and cultural changes will influence these companies differently depending on their degree of commercialization and their specific product lines. Impacted companies range from small start-ups wholly focused on plant-based alternatives to multi-national food companies that have more recently invested in the plant-based market. To better understand the many variables influencing consumer uptake of different plant-based alternatives, effects on select players in the plant-based meat and dairy industries will be considered.

Effect on alternative meat market

Potential effects of anti-UPF sentiments are apparent in the alternative beef market. Impossible Foods is one major player in this space that uses precision fermentation to enhance their plant-based beef products. Specifically, Impossible Foods relies on genetically engineered yeast to produce soy leghemoglobin, mimicking the color, flavor, and cooking properties of the heme found in animal tissues. Beyond Meat also produces plant-based beef but does not use ingredients produced through precision fermentation. Instead Beyond relies on specialized formulations of plant proteins and starches to create their final product. Despite their different ingredients, both Impossible™ and Beyond products are likely to fall under NOVA Group 4 due to the extent of formulation and industrial processing required. In contrast, conventional animal-derived beef—comprising a single minimally processed ingredient—falls under NOVA Group 1. Consequently, plant-based beef alternatives are likely to be perceived as more processed and less healthy than animal-based plain beef and more comparable in ‘processing’ to jerky or fast-food burgers (see Figure 2). Sales of plant-based meats in a UPF-conscious era may depend on whether consumers continue to perceive these products as ‘health foods’ or shift to viewing plant-based meats as a protein on-par with a fast-food hamburger.

Effect on plant-based dairy market

A similar pattern emerges within the plant-based dairy alternative market. For instance Perfect Day employs precision fermentation to produce whey proteins that can be incorporated into ice cream, cream cheese, protein bars, and other products traditionally made with dairy. BabyBel, a well-established dairy product company has invested in plant-based alternatives and partnered with Perfect Day and Standing Ovation, another fermentation innovator, to generate whey and casein for use in their products. In contrast, Oatly and other manufacturers of non-fermented dairy analogs rely on emulsifiers and texturizers to mimic the mouthfeel of milk. These products are generally classified as NOVA Group 4. Animal-based dairy is found in myriad products that span the entire NOVA spectrum, ranging from milk in Group 1, to cheese and yogurt in group 3, to ice cream in group 4 (See Figure 2). Plant-based alternatives are emerging in all these categories. As a result, such products may be perceived more favorably when compared to highly processed animal-based dairy foods like flavored yogurts or cheese spreads, but less so when compared to minimally processed foods such as plain milk.

Figure 2. NOVA Group comparisons between representative animal-based, plant-based, and fermented plant-based products. Classifications were determined using the OpenFoodFacts app in October of 2025. * indicates that some soy milk is in NOVA Group 1. N/A indicates that a qualifying commercially available product could not be identified at this time.

If anti-UPF sentiments persist companies could choose to prioritize alternatives for animal-based products with higher NOVA levels (like ice cream or processed meats) to minimize differences in NOVA levels and perceived processing between plant- and animal-based options. Alternatively, they could pursue an opposite strategy by investing in less processed plant-based alternatives that might sacrifice taste and ‘authenticity’ to meet consumer demands for ‘healthy’ and ‘clean label’ products.

Other Opportunities for Animal-Free Fermentation Innovation

Some producers aren’t satisfied with mining microbes for specific flavorants or colorants—instead they want microbes to BE the food we eat. Quorn, an alternative meats producer, commercialized one of the first modern products produced via bulk fermentation. In this process, a microbe is grown by providing sources of usable carbon, energy, and trace elements, and the tissues of the microbe itself are processed for human consumption – hence the ’bulk’ biomass is desired instead of a ‘precise’ component like leghemoglobin. Quorn grows a Fusarium species initially identified in the 1960’s by providing the fungus with wheat-derived glucose and other key nutrients. The fungal mycelia is then harvested and processed into a variety of meat alternatives. UK consumers have been purchasing and consuming Quorn for 40 years, and the products occupy 32% of the UK market, though Quorn is noticeably less popular in the US. As of August 2025, Quorn has modified many of their products to adopt a ‘no artificial ingredients, high in protein’ product line in response to consumer pressures. 

Newer food tech companies are trying to build on the success of Quorn while reducing costs and processing requirements. The Better Meat Co is a California-based innovator using potatoes as a feedstock for Neurospora crassa to produce their ‘Rhiza’ fungal protein product that mimics the texture of meat without intensive and costly extrusion processes. ‘Rhiza’ availability is still limited, but the ingredient has been recognized as one of the best inventions of 2025 by TIME magazine due to the potential for price parity with ground beef, as well as a dry and shelf-stable format that facilitates low-cost distribution. Others, like Solar Foods, are working to grow food-safe bacteria using only ‘thin air’, trace elements, and electricity. This process marks a major leap forward in food technologies because no plants (or plant-derived compounds like glucose) are necessary to produce the carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins that humans need.

 Given the novelty of products from The Better Meat Co and Solar Foods, it’s challenging to predict how consumers and regulators will react. The NOVA system is not all-encompassing and these foods don’t fit neatly into a single category. Intensive industrial processes are necessary to cultivate the microbes, but the food consumers enjoy can be as simple as dried or powdered bacteria and fungi. 

Amid the excitement over genetically-engineered microbes and entirely new types of fermented products, it’s easy to forget that bacteria and fungi have provided foods central to human health and safety for millennia. Cheese, yogurt, injera, chica, miso, and countless other NOVA Group 3 foods from around the world owe their flavors and textures to fermentation. Using traditional fermentation techniques, new plant-based foods that aren’t UPF are emerging. Plant-based foods that call to mind ‘the old days’ of vegetarian diets, like nuts or soymilk, are in NOVA group 1 (minimally processed foods). With the assistance of microbes, these minimally processed ingredient can be transformed into vegan yogurts and cheeses without gums, emulsifiers, and other UPF-type ingredients. When optimized, these products can have similar protein content and gustatory properties to animal products. 

Pursuing traditional fermentation techniques with diverse microbes and starting materials may present a new opportunity to address consumer concerns about ‘health,’ ‘processing,’ and ‘authenticity’ in plant-based products by leaving the literal and metaphorical mold of animal-based proteins behind. While promising, these minimally processed technologies can be more difficult to patent and protect intellectually, creating additional barriers to competitiveness for smaller or emerging firms seeking market differentiation. Weighing the benefits and risks of pursuing animal-free fermentation under emerging regulations will be key to understanding the market potential of this technology. 

Conclusion

The MAHA movement and concerns about UPF are not a new challenge for the plant-based alternatives industry. Some consumers are interested in decreasing their consumption of animal products for reasons of health or sustainability, but most aren’t enticed by animal products and have long been skeptical about how processed these foods are. The ‘Make America Healthy Again’ reports and the MAHA movement, have generated significant buzz about the GRAS recognition process and ultra-processed foods with the potential to inhibit uptake of plate-based alternatives (see Figure 3). In response to these concerns, changes to ingredient approval, nutrition labeling, and dietary guidelines may be coming at the federal level. At the state level, legislation has already been passed to restrict UPF sales in school lunches in CA, and NY has proposed legislation to require companies to submit safety data for all ingredients not already GRAS to a public database. These varied public, state, and federal pressures are unlikely to abate in 2028. However, these challenges may make space for innovators pursuing improved technologies, like The Better Meat Co, Solar Foods, and others. Given the struggles of plant-based alternatives prior to the MAHA movement, and recent heightened concerns about food ‘ultra-processing’, the best strategies to continue engaging consumers and commercializing sustainable plant-based alternatives to animal products remain to be determined.

Figure 3. Financial and societal variables influencing the success of plant-based alternatives.  Dashed lines indicate new or escalated concerns due to the recent increase in news and concern over UPF. Some factors, like marketing and social norms, are known to have both success promoting effects and inhibitory effects depending on the content.

Written by: Charlie Mineo (PhD student at the University of California, Berkeley)