The Good Food Institute (GFI), which is headquartered in the U.S., works to transform the animal agriculture industry by promoting the development of competitive alternatives to animal-based meat, dairy, and eggs. GFI seeks out entrepreneurs and scientists to join or form start-ups in the plant-based and cell-cultured meat (i.e., meat grown in a culture without animal slaughter, also called cell-based meat, clean meat, and cultivated meat1) market sectors. They provide business, legal, scientific, and strategic guidance for plant-based and cellular product companies. They also engage in regulatory and statutory policy work to level the playing field for plant-based and cell-cultured products in the consumer market. GFI builds relationships with food processing companies (e.g., Tyson, ADM), chain restaurants, grocery stores, and foodservice companies to improve and promote cell-cultured and plant-based alternatives to animal products. Finally, GFI works with grant-making institutions, universities, corporations, and governments to mobilize resources for research in plant-based and cell-cultured meat.
We believe that developing competitive alternatives to animal products could have an enormous impact for farmed animals in the long term. It could cause consumers to purchase fewer animal products and it might do so much more quickly than using moral arguments to persuade consumers to stop eating meat, dairy, and eggs. We feel confident in GFI’s leadership and strategic vision. They are focused on effectiveness and seem determined to maximize the efficiency of their operations and the impact of their work. GFI has established five international subsidiaries, and we expect this kind of international advocacy to be important to ensure the adoption of plant-based, and especially cell-cultured, meat worldwide. We suspect that GFI’s approach to fundraising has a relatively high expected effectiveness, especially considering their efforts may effectively increase the capacity of the movement by building connections with and sourcing funding from other movements. Our impression, from a variety of sources, is that GFI has been involved in one way or another in a large portion of the major developments in the plant-based and cell-cultured meat sectors since their founding.
GFI’s track record does not yet include some of the outcomes they most hope to accomplish, e.g., the successful development of cell-cultured meat, dairy, and eggs. In addition, while they have provided background information for policy makers in India, the U.K, and Singapore, no legal regulatory frameworks for cell-cultured meat have been adopted thus far. We are uncertain about the long-term impacts of these programs, since we expect that it will take some time—perhaps decades—to develop cell-cultured meat that can compete commercially with conventional meat. GFI has had more short-term success in helping companies develop and market plant-based alternatives to meat. They have also had success in working with grocery stores to increase the availability and improve the marketing of plant-based options, but we are still somewhat uncertain what would have happened in these cases had GFI not been involved.
Internally, GFI has been expanding quite quickly. Since the organization is hiring and building their infrastructure concurrently with their primary programs, we are somewhat concerned about the workload of some of their staff members. We also have some concerns regarding GFI’s Board of Directors, which may lack sufficient independence from GFI’s team, potentially lacks a diversity of viewpoints, and does not have term limits.
Animal advocates have been working for decades to weaken the animal agriculture industry by encouraging individuals and institutions to reduce the demand for animal products and implement humane reforms. We are happy to support the effective implementation of those interventions, but we also believe that engaging in a wider range of promising tactics may increase the animal advocacy movement’s chance of success. Developing and promoting attractive alternatives to animal products seems like a promising way to transform the animal agriculture industry. There are few charities working in this area, and GFI has shown strong leadership and efficiency.
We estimate that GFI’s plans for expansion would cost $1.4 million to $4.7 million. This number does not take into account potential increases or decreases in revenue. We estimate that GFI could use an additional $1.0 to $5.0 million for research grants. We expect they would use additional funding to hire new U.S. and non-U.S. staff; expand their programs in science and technology, policy, and corporate engagement; continue their research grant program; replenish their operating reserves; and to scale their organizational infrastructure (executive, operations, communications, and development).
Your donation supports GFI’s programs to make progress on the development of plant-based and cell-cultured meat technologies. From an average $1,000 donation, GFI would spend about $278 on international expansion, $257 on research grants, $192 on legal advocacy, $138 on research, and $134 on corporate outreach.
The impact that donations to GFI have for farmed animals is more speculative and long term than the impact of donations to one of our other Top Charities. Given the speculative nature of GFI’s impact on farmed animals, we currently have not completed a cost-effectiveness estimate for donations to them. Still, we think donations to GFI have quite high expected value.
If GFI raises additional funds beyond what they’ve budgeted for this year, they plan to hire more staff to grow their international teams from 20 to roughly 40 staff in 2020. They would hire more science, policy, and support staff in Israel, Asia Pacrific, Europe, India, and Brazil.
The Good Food Institute (GFI), which is headquartered in the U.S., works to transform the animal agriculture industry by promoting the development of competitive alternatives to animal-based meat, dairy, and eggs. GFI seeks out entrepreneurs and scientists to join or form start-ups in the plant-based and cell-cultured meat (i.e., meat grown in a culture without animal slaughter, also called cell-based meat, clean meat, and cultivated meat1) market sectors. They provide business, legal, scientific, and strategic guidance for plant-based and cellular product companies. They also engage in regulatory and statutory policy work to level the playing field for plant-based and cell-cultured products in the consumer market. GFI builds relationships with food processing companies (e.g., Tyson, ADM), chain restaurants, grocery stores, and foodservice companies to improve and promote cell-cultured and plant-based alternatives to animal products. Finally, GFI works with grant-making institutions, universities, corporations, and governments to mobilize resources for research in plant-based and cell-cultured meat.
We believe that developing competitive alternatives to animal products could have an enormous impact for farmed animals in the long term. It could cause consumers to purchase fewer animal products and it might do so much more quickly than using moral arguments to persuade consumers to stop eating meat, dairy, and eggs. We feel confident in GFI’s leadership and strategic vision. They are focused on effectiveness and seem determined to maximize the efficiency of their operations and the impact of their work. GFI has established five international subsidiaries, and we expect this kind of international advocacy to be important to ensure the adoption of plant-based, and especially cell-cultured, meat worldwide. We suspect that GFI’s approach to fundraising has a relatively high expected effectiveness, especially considering their efforts may effectively increase the capacity of the movement by building connections with and sourcing funding from other movements. Our impression, from a variety of sources, is that GFI has been involved in one way or another in a large portion of the major developments in the plant-based and cell-cultured meat sectors since their founding.
GFI’s track record does not yet include some of the outcomes they most hope to accomplish, e.g., the successful development of cell-cultured meat, dairy, and eggs. In addition, while they have provided background information for policy makers in India, the U.K, and Singapore, no legal regulatory frameworks for cell-cultured meat have been adopted thus far. We are uncertain about the long-term impacts of these programs, since we expect that it will take some time—perhaps decades—to develop cell-cultured meat that can compete commercially with conventional meat. GFI has had more short-term success in helping companies develop and market plant-based alternatives to meat. They have also had success in working with grocery stores to increase the availability and improve the marketing of plant-based options, but we are still somewhat uncertain what would have happened in these cases had GFI not been involved.
Internally, GFI has been expanding quite quickly. Since the organization is hiring and building their infrastructure concurrently with their primary programs, we are somewhat concerned about the workload of some of their staff members. We also have some concerns regarding GFI’s Board of Directors, which may lack sufficient independence from GFI’s team, potentially lacks a diversity of viewpoints, and does not have term limits.
Animal advocates have been working for decades to weaken the animal agriculture industry by encouraging individuals and institutions to reduce the demand for animal products and implement humane reforms. We are happy to support the effective implementation of those interventions, but we also believe that engaging in a wider range of promising tactics may increase the animal advocacy movement’s chance of success. Developing and promoting attractive alternatives to animal products seems like a promising way to transform the animal agriculture industry. There are few charities working in this area, and GFI has shown strong leadership and efficiency.
We estimate that GFI’s plans for expansion would cost $1.4 million to $4.7 million. This number does not take into account potential increases or decreases in revenue. We estimate that GFI could use an additional $1.0 to $5.0 million for research grants. We expect they would use additional funding to hire new U.S. and non-U.S. staff; expand their programs in science and technology, policy, and corporate engagement; continue their research grant program; replenish their operating reserves; and to scale their organizational infrastructure (executive, operations, communications, and development).
Your donation supports GFI’s programs to make progress on the development of plant-based and cell-cultured meat technologies. From an average $1,000 donation, GFI would spend about $278 on international expansion, $257 on research grants, $192 on legal advocacy, $138 on research, and $134 on corporate outreach.
The impact that donations to GFI have for farmed animals is more speculative and long term than the impact of donations to one of our other Top Charities. Given the speculative nature of GFI’s impact on farmed animals, we currently have not completed a cost-effectiveness estimate for donations to them. Still, we think donations to GFI have quite high expected value.
If GFI raises additional funds beyond what they’ve budgeted for this year, they plan to hire more staff to grow their international teams from 20 to roughly 40 staff in 2020. They would hire more science, policy, and support staff in Israel, Asia Pacrific, Europe, India, and Brazil.
