A panel with the participation of researchers and investors in the food tech field presented a complex picture: Innovation is advancing, but the transition from prototype to shelf requires time, capital, and political support — and only products that win in taste and price will change eating habits.
In a panel that addressed the question of whether the foodtech revolution will succeed in changing our eating habits, researchers, entrepreneurs, and industry figures gathered on one stage to tackle the gap between the great promise and the difficulties on the ground: investments that are cautious after a period of hype, a slow and complex transition from prototype to industrial production, regulation that is progressing but not the “finish line,” and most importantly, the consumer — who is only willing to be convinced when it is tasty, accessible, and at a competitive price.
The panel included Prof. Marcel Machlouf from the Technion, an expert in biotechnology and food engineering; Hadas Reichenberg, VP of The Good Food Institute; Amir Seidman, Chief Business Officer at The Kitchen Foodtech incubator; and Nadav Birger, an investor in the field. The panel was moderated by Shlomo Gerdman, CEO of ASG and Chairman of the Silicon Club Forum.
Right from the start, the host articulated the doubt that hovers over the industry: If it's so clear that change is necessary, why has the market "calmed down," why are investors diverting money, and why some products still don't provide an experience that beats what consumers know from home.
“The decline is understandable”: fast money versus slow biology
Prof. Machloff argued that the market slowdown is not evidence of failure, but rather a reminder of the nature of the field. According to her, foodtech is not cyber and not SaaS: it is biological and scientific development that takes time, and on top of that there is a heavy regulatory layer — especially when it comes to food that goes into the body. This means that those looking for a “two-year exit” may be disappointed.
Reichenberg sharpened the point from another angle: The traditional meat industry has existed for thousands of years, so “breaking” the habits and infrastructure of an old food system is an inherently slow process. She mentioned that even if several years have passed since the first companies broke through, one should not expect products to appear on a huge scale and at a price that is affordable for everyone. What is driving the field, in her opinion, is not just a technological dream but an increasing constraint: pollution loads, pressure on resources, and a growing population that requires solutions for 2040 and 2050 as well.
Seidman tried to translate the picture into the language of systems: there is no “one solution” here, but a basket of technologies, each with a different maturation trajectory. He mentioned a quote familiar to the industry about the need to significantly increase food production in the coming decades, and emphasized that we do not have “another Earth” to rely on. Therefore, financial models also need to adapt to long, capital-intensive projects, with milestones along the way rather than a quick finish line.
Why it's hard to move from prototype to factory
When the painful topic of moving to large-scale production was raised, the answers kept coming back to the same theme: Scaling up in food is a different world. Birger described how, even when the technology works in the lab, moving to large tanks, production lines, securing raw materials, and a stable supply chain is “where the big money starts,” and that’s where the risk lies. Investors want to believe that expanding production will lower costs and increase sales, but in a time of caution, they tend to wait for proof.
Reichenberg added that the consumer is not buying a “vision.” He is buying a product. In the supermarket, most people do not stand in front of the shelf and ask what is good for the planet. They first examine taste, appearance, familiarity, price, and availability. Only later — if at all — do questions of sustainability and health come into play. Therefore, without the ability to achieve “price parity” with existing products, and without a consistent upgrade of the experience, the transition to the mainstream stalls.
Khalaf explained that with cultured meat, for example, the problem is not just “growing cells,” but building a product that feels like the real thing: texture, “look” of meat, fat components, and sometimes components that simulate a cooking process. According to her, the path to producing large quantities requires very large tanks, precise conditions, and complex engineering integration. And she gave a simple analogy: Just as computers, which were once expensive and inaccessible, gradually became a household product, so too here — but only after time, standardization, and a decrease in costs.
Taste, Price, and Ingredient List: The True Test of the Shelf
The question of whether the problem is that the products “don’t taste good” sparked a direct debate. Khalaf argued that good products already exist, but not every category has reached the “ultimate version.” She emphasized that the ingredients in many biological processes are not necessarily “synthetic” as some consumers fear, but admitted that the experience is still not uniform, and there are gaps between companies.
Seidman gave an example from the consumer market: the initial success of certain products is not always maintained, because people end up comparing the taste, texture, and feel to the original they know. He argued that we need to stop settling for “almost” and create a generation of products that convince even without a backstory. At the same time, he noted that there are categories where progress is faster, and where it is possible to achieve high quality without relying on animal ingredients.
Reichenberg presented a pragmatic approach: We don’t have to switch to 100% substitutes tomorrow morning. Consumption can be “cut” through intermediate solutions such as mixing plant-based raw materials with animal products—a model she called “blending.” She also mentioned the field of mycelium (the root system of mushrooms) as a raw material that can be grown relatively quickly and that can contribute protein and texture, but emphasized that regulatory pathways are also required here.
Regulation: A stop along the way, not the finish line
When asked about regulatory hurdles, Reichenberg claimed that the Israeli Ministry of Health is considered relatively advanced in the field of “novel food,” and that Israel is actively working in this space. However, she emphasized again and again: Regulatory approval is an important achievement, but it is not “the ticket to the jackpot.” After approval, the really big battles begin — scale, price, taste, marketing, and the ability to maintain production continuity.
From Fortification to Replacement: There are no shortcuts in the food world. If there is a product that replaces a basic nutrient, the public and the regulator expect proof, documentation, and long-term safety. Therefore, anyone who wants to promote a revolution should prepare for a long race.
So will habits really change in five to seven years?
Towards the end, the moderator asked for a clear answer: not “in thirty years,” but in the near term — will we see a real change in eating habits?
Seidman said he believes we are approaching a point where many products will no longer require major compromises in price and quality, and that when the market sees products that are comparable to the original, adoption will accelerate. He also argued that the big revolutions happen when a government “push” long-term policy, citing the electric vehicle sector as an example of a change that was based on regulation and incentives rather than just consumer desire.
Reichenberg joined the cautious optimism: She predicts that in the coming years we will see more products, more accountability from big food companies, and more economic pressure to change the considerations at the supermarket. She said that if animal food prices continue to rise, “price parity” will become easier to achieve, and consumers will look at alternatives differently.
Birger added a personal dimension: According to him, we can already see a gradual reduction in red meat consumption among some of the public, and a natural increase in willingness to try substitutes — especially when they solve everyday problems such as food waste, shelf life, and kitchen management. He gave examples of technologies that bring artificial intelligence into the food value chain, not necessarily just for the substitutes themselves, but for product planning, predicting consumer preferences, and reducing waste.
Makhlouf was the most cautiously optimistic: she agreed that we would see significant change, but argued that not every category would evolve at the same pace. She said that certain alternatives would capture market share more quickly, while cultured meat with “intact” textures could take longer due to costs and complex production processes. She estimated that in the near term we would see a significant increase in the proportion of alternative products on shelves and in homes, but not a complete transformation overnight — especially in a culture where weekend dinners are still associated with meat and fish.
The bottom line is that the panel did not sell a “rosy dream,” but it did not eulogize the field either. On the contrary: the participants repeated the same conclusion from several directions. Change will happen, because the pressures on the food system will force it to happen. The question is the pace, and the ability to transform impressive technologies into products that the public chooses without a second thought: tasty, available, healthier, and at the right time — also at a price that does not require faith but only purchase.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
