California Assembly holds first informational hearing on alternative-protein innovation

The California State Assembly Select Committee on Alternative Protein Innovation convened its first informational hearing to review the state of plant-based, fermentation-derived and cultivated protein sectors and possible roles for state policy and investment. The hearing included nonprofit researchers, federal- and state-focused security analysts, company founders and university scientists.

Committee leadership opened the session by noting the state’s 2022 public investment to support research and development of alternative proteins, saying the state “invested $5,000,000 in the University of California to support and expand research and development efforts of alternative proteins.” Shana Fertig, senior adviser to the president at the Good Food Institute, told the panel that alternative proteins “are meat, dairy, and eggs made from plants, fermentation, and self cultivation to give the same sensory experience” as conventional products and argued the sector contributes to California’s climate and conservation goals.

The hearing’s nut graf: witnesses framed alternative proteins as a cross-cutting response to multiple policy challenges—greenhouse gas and methane reduction, water and land use pressure, antimicrobial resistance and supply-chain resilience—while urging the state to maintain and expand research funding, worker training and market signals to help the nascent industry scale.

Environmental and security benefits: Presenters summarized life-cycle and public-health evidence used to justify state support. Fertig cited studies showing plant-based products can emit up to 90% fewer greenhouse gases and use substantially less land and water than conventional meat; she said cultivated meat produced with renewable energy can yield similarly large reductions. Zane Swanson, deputy director and fellow with the Global Food and Water Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, framed alternative proteins as a risk-mitigation measure for global food security and national security, citing vulnerabilities caused by transboundary animal diseases and antimicrobial resistance. “Alternative proteins provide strategic advantage for The United States,” Swanson said, while adding the degree of global benefit depends on the pace and scale of adoption.

Industry scaling and market barriers: Industry witnesses described technical progress and market barriers. Ethan Brown, founder and CEO of Beyond Meat, highlighted health and climate claims from company-supported studies and urged clearer labeling and fewer market distortions from subsidies that favor conventional animal agriculture. Brown said governments could help consumers by “focus[ing] on nutrient outcomes” and urged public procurement in state institutions. Myra Pasek, general counsel for Upside Foods, described cultivated meat production as a food-industry process that can be scaled but is capital intensive; she asked for state tools such as grants, low-interest loans, or mechanisms to monetize greenhouse-gas benefits (for example, via cap-and-trade) to help companies bridge early commercial scale-up costs.

Seafood-focused innovation and conservation: Wild Type cofounder (transcript name: Bridal Elfenbein) discussed cultivated seafood, arguing domestic production can reduce imports and contamination risks in the seafood supply chain and provide alternatives where fisheries are declining. He said cultivated seafood can address traceability, contaminants and pressures on wild stocks and related coastal communities.

University research and workforce development: UCLA and UC Santa Cruz researchers described foundational laboratory advances and workforce initiatives enabled in part by state funding. Amy Rowat, faculty director of the Integrative Center for Alternative Meat and Protein at UCLA, described lab-scale discoveries to accelerate growth of fat cells used for flavor and the launch of a Future Food Fellows program that trains graduate and undergraduate students for industry roles. Galina Hale (transcript: Dr. Hale), an economist at UC Santa Cruz, recommended systemic state support—grants and subsidized loans to bridge the “valley of death,” public procurement, and UC-led open research—to keep firms in-state and to support farmer transitions to crops usable as inputs for alternative-protein production.

Requests to the state and next steps: Industry and researchers asked the Assembly for continued and expanded public investment—both direct R&D grants and incentives for commercial scale-up—and clearer, predictable regulatory frameworks. Multiple witnesses noted other jurisdictions, including Illinois, Massachusetts and foreign governments, are increasing support for the sector. The Committee chair said the select committee plans field hearings across California and will continue to evaluate budget or legislative actions, acknowledging the state faces a difficult budget year but urging continued advocacy for targeted research funding.

Quotes in this story are drawn from witnesses who spoke during the hearing and are attributed to the speakers listed in the committee record. The hearing was live-streamed and committee materials are posted on the Assembly’s select-committee web page.

Ending: The select committee will conduct additional informational hearings and site visits across the state; no formal votes or committee directives were recorded at this informational session.