Protein for a crowded planet: An interview with the Good Food Institute’s Nigel Sizer

For more than three decades Nigel Sizer has orbited the front lines of environmental policy. His résumé spans forest conservation in Amazonia, the launch of Global Forest Watch at the World Resources Institute, and campaigns on human rights, climate change, and even pandemic preparedness. The arc of that career has led him to an unglamorous but decisive arena: what the world eats. “While our food system is a major driver of many crises, it also has huge potential to be part of the solution,” he says. The way meat is produced touches national security, biodiversity, public health, and the climate all at once.

Sizer has just taken the helm at the Good Food Institute (GFI), a nonprofit dedicated to speeding the shift from conventional animal protein to plant-based, fermentation-enabled, and cultivated meat. He sees the role as “a chance to work at the root-cause level of the exact challenges I’ve spent my life tackling.” If alternative proteins become mainstream, he argues, they can relieve pressure on forests, protect wildlife, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and improve resilience to global health shocks.

His past posts have prepared him for a job built on coalition building. Whether designing satellite-driven tools to monitor forests or mobilizing resources for restoration, Sizer has specialized in convening disparate actors around common goals. GFI’s work, he notes, will require the same skills: international collaboration, new partnerships, and a diversity of approaches across regions to transform how the world produces protein. “Scaling impact and unlocking critical resources,” he says, are directly complementary to the institute’s mission of building “a sustainable, secure, and just food future.”

Sizer’s first 100 days are focused on learning the machinery he now leads. GFI is a network of organizations operating in multiple countries with a shared mission. He is meeting every team and discipline to understand how the institute spurs progress across regions. Outwardly, he wants to help GFI’s scientists, policy specialists, and fundraisers “spur far greater public investments” in alternative proteins—investments he sees as essential for scaling up research, manufacturing, and infrastructure.

The metrics he plans to watch are as much planetary as financial: the pace of public funding into alternative proteins alongside deforestation rates, the health of fisheries, and the spread of zoonotic diseases such as bird flu. These indicators, he says, show both the stakes and the solutions. His hope is that public investments will do for new protein technologies what early subsidies did for renewable energy.

The regulatory climate, in his view, is beginning to catch up. He points to recent FDA and USDA approvals of cultivated salmon and pork fat, the first seafood dishes made without further depleting oceans, and the imminent retail launch of cultivated meat in America. Alternative proteins, he argues, can advance U.S. policy priorities well beyond the dinner table: strengthening food security, reducing supply-chain vulnerability, creating new markets for farmers, and even making protein production possible for space travel.

Opposition is mounting in some states, which have sought to restrict cultivated meat. Sizer’s response is to double down on education and transparency. GFI wants policymakers to understand that cultivated meat is safe and aligned with national interests, and that consumers should decide what foods to eat. He makes the same case on labeling: governments should not use labels to tip the scales in favor of incumbents. Clear, accurate names such as “plant-based burger” or “cultivated chicken” let shoppers make informed choices, just as they do with peanut butter or coconut milk.

Sizer also looks beyond rich countries. The fastest growth in protein demand will come from the Global South, he notes, and GFI’s regional teams are already working to adapt the “price and taste parity” goal to local realities. That may mean using regionally relevant ingredients, processing methods, or cultural references. At the same time, he wants to bring farmers, ranchers, and fishers into the transition, offering them diversification opportunities that improve soil health, water quality, and long-term resilience.

His single biggest wish for the coming year is that big development banks and climate finance agencies start backing alternative protein projects, signaling to investors and entrepreneurs that the sector is viable. The global food system drives more than a third of greenhouse gas emissions yet receives only a sliver of climate investment. Unlocking public and private finance, he argues, would create jobs, improve nutrition, and prevent deforestation and biodiversity loss before they happen. In short, Sizer believes the future of meat is not only about taste and price but about reshaping an entire system.

An interview with Nigel Sizer

Rhett Ayers Butler for Mongabay: What moment convinced you that food-system transformation needed to be central to your work?

Nigel Sizer: My career has taken me all over the world, from my early work on forest conservation in Amazonia to, work with WRI helping conceive and launch Global Forest Watch and other major partnerships, to tackling the interconnected issues of social development, human rights, the climate emergency, and most recently pandemics and health inequities. The more time I spent in these spaces, the more I realized that while our food system is a major driver of many of these crises, it also has huge potential to be part of the solution.

How we produce food—especially meat—has massive impacts on national security, biodiversity, climate, and public health. Mainstream adoption of alternative proteins—meat made from plants, cultivated from animal cells or produced via fermentation—relieves pressure on forests, protects wildlife, cuts greenhouse gas emissions, and improves food system resilience in the face of global health and climate shocks. The work GFI is doing around the world as a nonprofit, to advance the science, engage policymakers, and catalyze the field is absolutely essential and urgent—joining this team feels like a natural culmination for me, and a chance to work at the root-cause level of the exact challenges I’ve spent my life tackling.

Mongabay: What experiences from your previous roles do you feel will be most complementary in your new position at GFI?

Nigel Sizer: In many ways, my past work has been preparing me for this new role at GFI. Whether it was building coalitions for forest conservation using the latest technology, scaling climate initiatives, or mobilizing resources for restoration, the common thread has always been about bringing people together to try and solve some of the world’s most pressing challenges. That kind of global perspective and coalition-building is also at the heart of GFI’s work, since transforming how the world produces protein will take international collaboration, new partnerships, and a diversity of approaches across the world. I see my background in scaling impact and unlocking critical resources as directly complementary to GFI’s mission of building a sustainable, secure, and just food future.

Mongabay: What are your top next-term (say 100 days) priorities at GFI?

Nigel Sizer: I’m thinking about this in both internal and external terms. Internally, first on the list is what I’ve been doing since even before Day 1, and that’s meeting with my new colleagues who are pulling off this critical work—every department, every discipline, and every international team—and immersing myself in what they do and how they do it. GFI is a global network of organizations, each operating with a shared mission and set of priorities—so really taking the time I need to fully understand how GFI spurs progress and impacts across each region and as a whole is important to me. Externally, I’m keen to roll up my sleeves and work alongside GFI’s expert teams who are engaging scientific, policy, and industry stakeholders, as well as our vital philanthropic supporters, to innovate and scale solutions. As we’ve seen with so many other transformative technologies, public investments early on is key. So working alongside our policy teams to spur far greater public investments in plant-based, cultivated, and fermentation-enabled meat and seafood is a major priority.

Mongabay: What metric will you watch most closely over the next 12–18 months?

Nigel Sizer: I’ll be watching and working for measures of success specific to advancing alternative proteins—namely the amount of public investments we can channel into R&D, manufacturing, and scale-up, but also staying alert to planetary health metrics that alt proteins aims to address: how much of our world’s forests are being lost to agricultural expansion, the impacts of overfished fisheries on ocean health, and the increase and spread of bird flu and other viruses and diseases that have pandemic-level potential, to name a few.

We can’t afford to lose the plot when it comes to the health and wellbeing of all life on Earth. When advocating for increased investments in science and scaling of alternative proteins, it’s important to make clear the stakes as well as the solutions.

Mongabay: How do you read the current U.S. regulatory climate for alternative proteins, and where do you see the toughest headwinds—or the clearest openings?

Nigel Sizer: In just the last few months, we’ve seen real momentum in the U.S. regulatory landscape for alternative proteins—a sign that regulators recognize that new ways of making meat are safe and ready for the marketplace. Following rigorous review by FDA and, for some types of meat, the USDA, we’ve seen the world’s first approvals for cultivated salmon and cultivated pork fat. Today, Americans in several cities can order a seafood dish made without putting additional pressure on our ocean. And very soon, we expect the first-ever launch of a cultivated meat product at retail in the U.S.—a milestone that points to what the future of food could look like.

One of the clearest openings I see is the chance for alternative proteins to advance U.S. policy priorities well beyond the dinner table. These breakthroughs can help strengthen food security, reduce reliance on vulnerable supply chains, create new markets for farmers, and even make protein production possible for space travel. They also have real potential to bolster national security and build up the American bioeconomy by launching new regional biotech hubs. If regulators continue to provide a clear and science-based pathway to market for alternative proteins, then these broader benefits could accelerate progress.

Mongabay: With some states moving to restrict cultivated meat, what is GFI’s strategy to protect market access?

Nigel Sizer: As a nonprofit think tank, GFI’s strategy is rooted in education and transparency. Our goal is to help policymakers understand what cultivated meat is, why it’s safe, and how it can support U.S. priorities like national security, building the bioeconomy, and ensuring that America remains a leader in protein diversification. At the end of the day, we believe consumers should be the ones to decide what foods they want to eat, and the best way to ensure safety and choice is through clear, science-based regulation—not political and protectionist bans that limit consumer freedom. By focusing on facts, fairness, and the broader benefits for people and the planet, we aim to protect free market access for cultivated meat and all other types of alternative proteins.

Mongabay: Do you expect more conflicts over product labeling, and what does a fair, science-based label look like to you?

Nigel Sizer: I don’t think consumers win when governments try to tip the scales on labeling as a way to protect incumbent industries from healthy competition. At the end of the day, people just want clear, accurate information so they can make informed choices about what to eat. We’ve been buying things like peanut butter and coconut milk for decades without confusion over whether these products contain conventional dairy ingredients, and terms like ‘plant-based burger’ or ‘cultivated chicken’ work the same way. Alternative proteins should have the same opportunity to compete fairly in the marketplace as any other food. That means labels that are simple, accurate, and not designed to confuse or disadvantage new products. If labels are clear and familiar, consumers can make their own choices—and that opens the door for more options that not only taste good but also help ease pressure on forests, cut emissions, and protect biodiversity.

Mongabay: What one public policy would most accelerate progress in the next year?

Nigel Sizer: If I had to pick one policy change that could really move the needle in the next year, it would be for big development banks and climate financing agencies—like the World Bank, IFC, or the Asian Development Bank—to start backing alternative protein projects. When those institutions step in, together with the national governments they partner with, they send a strong signal to investors and entrepreneurs that this is a viable space. Right now, our food system drives more than a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, but it gets only a tiny sliver of climate investment.

If these agencies backed alternative proteins, especially in developing economies, it could unlock major public and private funding, create jobs, and improve nutrition while helping to prevent deforestation, biodiversity loss, and pollution before they happen. And because the Global South is where protein demand is set to grow fastest, proving the business case there could open massive new markets while also building food systems that are more resilient to extreme weather and other climate shocks.

Mongabay: What will it take to reach price parity for plant-based products?

Nigel Sizer: Price, along with taste, is the biggest factor in how people decide what to eat. Right now, plant-based meat still costs about 80% more per pound than conventional meat, which is a real barrier for most consumers. Nearly a quarter of shoppers who don’t buy plant-based products say it’s because the products are too expensive, and even loyal buyers have been cutting back when sales and promotions disappear. If these products don’t fit into family budgets, they won’t end up in the cart.

Reaching price parity will take companies scaling up production, improving supply chains, and driving efficiencies across everything from ingredients to packaging. We’ve already seen that when prices come down, demand follows—like when German grocery store chain LIDL  dropped plant-based prices to match animal meat, it led to a 30% sales jump in just six months. As costs fall and conventional meat remains vulnerable to supply chain shocks, plant-based products will be better positioned to compete directly and reach far more consumers.

Mongabay: For cultivated meat, what is the hardest scaling barrier right now, and how are you tackling it?

Nigel Sizer: It’s still early days for the cultivated meat industry. But even in this short time, we’ve seen real, tangible progress, whether it’s reports showing growth media costs that have dropped by more than 99% from pharmaceutical baselines, or the fact that today, consumers across Australia and Singapore can buy a cultivated meat product across over 60 points of sale. Just this month, cultivated pork was sold at a restaurant for the first time ever.

Looking ahead, the hardest barriers to scale are bringing growth media costs down even further and building enough manufacturing capacity to produce at volume. At GFI, we’re helping address those challenges by advancing open-access science and making the case for more public and private investment in R&D and infrastructure. Just as we’ve seen with renewable energy, once the right support is in place, costs can fall quickly—unlocking cultivated meat’s potential to strengthen food security, cut climate impacts, and create space for more sustainable farming.

Mongabay: With private capital tightening, how will GFI keep critical research and shared infrastructure moving?

Nigel Sizer: Here again the importance of public investments in R&D and manufacturing incentives can’t be overstated. We’ve seen time and time again how such investments are critical for transformative technologies in their early days, and lay the necessary groundwork for follow-on investments from the private sector. In addition to continuing to advocate for public investments at the federal and state levels, we’re also leveraging the power of research partnerships to bring more dollars and talent into the field. Just last year, GFI was instrumental in the launch of three Bezos Centers for Sustainable Protein—dedicated hubs for alt protein innovation at world-renowned research universities (NCSU, NUS, Imperial). At the federal level, we’ve joined forces with the Foundation for Food & Agriculture to prioritize R&D for plant-based and fermentation-enabled proteins. At the state-level, we’ve helped Illinois secure funding for its iFAB program (Illinois Fermentation and Agricultural Biomanufacturing Hub), which leverages a “lab to line” approach with companies who have existing infrastructure, like ADM.  So public investments and partnerships are both key right now.

Mongabay: How will you engage farmers and food workers so they benefit from—rather than feel sidelined by—this transition?

Nigel Sizer: Farmers, ranchers, and fishers are essential partners in creating a food system that can meet rising protein demand while protecting people, animals, and the planet. Greater public investments in agricultural research and innovation—including in the areas of protein diversification, crop diversification, and utilization of crop sidestreams—can help farmers and others on the frontlines of food production meet growing global demand for meat in increasingly sustainable, safe, and economically viable ways.

Today, a variety of row crops grown by U.S. farmers (e.g., soy, wheat, peas, beans) serve as essential ingredients for countless alternative protein products, feeding families all over the world. Further diversification of protein production can also unlock new opportunities for farmers in the U.S. and around the world seeking alternative sources of income—for risk-reduction (a hedge for weathering year-to-year cycles in various markets) as well as for longer-term legacy/succession planning of their operations, which can help set up future generations of farmer-leaders for success. Diversification into an expanded suite of row crops for human consumption can also address many of the sustainable agriculture goals farmers and ranchers have pursued for generations—namely, improved soil health, water quantity and quality, air quality, and biodiversity.

So we’re building constructive relationships with farmers and farming stakeholders where we can. These opportunities may include partnering with producers on ingredient supply, supporting diversification into crops or inputs used in alternative protein products, or leveraging infrastructure investments to strengthen local economies. In such cases, engagement can create shared value and position alt proteins as a contributor to rural economic, environmental, and social resilience.

Mongabay: How will you ensure the Global South participates in, and captures value from, the alt-protein economy?

Nigel Sizer: One of the many strengths of GFI is that it’s a global network of organizations, each working with shared purpose but in regionally relevant ways. To be sure, the Global South is strategically important to many of GFI’s global priorities and goals, and our teams on the ground in countries like Brazil and India are elevating alt proteins (or smart proteins as they’re referred to in India) at the highest levels of government, industry, and academia.

Our theory of change—grounded in the goal of achieving price and taste parity between alternative and conventional meat, as a way to enable substitution at scale—applies in all the regions we work, including the Global South.  What changes is the regional reference points for what price and taste parity mean. The flavor expectations and price anchors in lower- and middle-income countries are not the same as those in high-income markets, and our work must reflect that reality.

Adapting to a regional context may include working with ingredients that are locally relevant, applying processing methods that reflect regional constraints, or supporting innovation that is culturally resonant and affordable. These adaptations make the theory actionable across diverse markets and ensure that we are working toward the same substitution goals in ways that match local conditions and benefit local communities.

Credits

Rhett Butler Editor

This story first appeared on Mongabay

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and Mongabay, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.