Signals from the bioeconomy in February

From Brussels to Davos to rural Nebraska, protein diversification is on the agenda

Credit: Кирилл Горшков

At GFI, we believe food belongs at the center of the bioeconomy conversation.

Not adjacent to it.

Not implied within it.

Not an afterthought.

February drove that point home. Across Brussels, Washington, Davos, rural America, and the World Bank, a clear pattern emerged: protein diversification is being treated as a structural component of the bioeconomy.

This shift matters. Because strategy is one thing. Scale is another.

Here’s what moved us closer to scale this month.

Europe formally elevates advanced fermentation with help from GFI

The European Commission recently adopted its updated Bioeconomy Strategy—aimed at scaling bio-based industries, creating new markets for farmers, promoting circularity across biomass and waste streams, and improving regulatory clarity. One detail deserves particular attention:

“Advanced fermentation” is now defined as one of three technological lead markets—sectors where bio-based solutions have predictable demand, can unlock private investment, and enable industrial scale-up. That is not symbolic language. Lead markets are where industrial policy meets capital deployment.

The GFI Europe team engaged with the European Commission to help ensure that food and fermentation were embedded prominently in this strategy. Their efforts helped guarantee that food biotech wasn’t treated as peripheral to Europe’s bioeconomic ambitions.

“It’s great to see the Commission recognise the crucial role that fermentation can play in driving green growth, reducing our reliance on imports and boosting Europe’s international competitiveness. For Europe to establish itself as a global leader in this technology, these proposals now need to be followed up with concrete actions. The upcoming Biotech Acts must build on this growing momentum with clear policies enabling startups to commercialise Europe’s scientific expertise and bring innovative food products to the market.”

— Lea Seyfarth, Policy Officer at GFI Europe

The message from Brussels is unmistakable: Food biomanufacturing belongs in the same category as materials, health, and energy when we talk about economic competitiveness.

76% of rural Nebraskans support developing their state’s bioeconomy

Industrial strategy requires public support. Researchers at the University of Nebraska recently conducted polling among rural Nebraskans on biosecurity and biotechnology issues. The results are striking:

• 76% believe it would be somewhat or definitely good to develop the state’s bioeconomy.

• Only 5% believe it would be bad.

Food and water security were the top motivators driving concern about biosecurity. When alternative proteins are framed as tools to strengthen food security, protect water resources, and bolster rural economic development, they resonate—even in conservative agricultural communities. Too often, our field is framed through cultural lenses. This data suggests a different approach: emphasize resilience, biosecurity, environmental stewardship, and economic opportunity.

Food was featured prominently in bioeconomy conversations at Davos

Each year, the World Economic Forum in Davos serves as a bellwether for where global leaders believe capital and policy should flow. This year, the bioeconomy featured heavily, including explicit conversations around food and protein diversification.

As one bioeconomy lead described the discussion, the focus is on integrating bioeconomy approaches across food systems, materials, health, energy, and resilient value chains—and on moving from ambition to durable scale.

Two observations stand out:

1. The bioeconomy is increasingly framed as an international economic opportunity.

2. Food and proteins are squarely within that frame.

When global decision-makers discuss food biomanufacturing alongside energy and advanced materials, it signals seriousness.

Infrastructure and data are becoming central to competitiveness

February also underscored a second theme: scale requires both physical and digital infrastructure

The World Bank: place-based infrastructure matters

The World Bank recently highlighted the Amazon region to illustrate a broader principle: regional bioeconomies depend on place-based infrastructure.

Storage. Processing. Transportation. Local facilities.

This is especially relevant for alternative proteins and food biomanufacturing. Local crops and fermentation inputs require specialized infrastructure. Without it, costs remain high, supply chains remain fragile, and markets remain underdeveloped.

Investments in regional infrastructure would:

• Reduce operational costs

• Improve efficiency

• Lower carbon emissions

• Unlock new markets for local farmers and producers

In other words, infrastructure is an industrial strategy.

The White House: data infrastructure matters too

Meanwhile, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a request for information focused on AI, data, and global competitiveness.

In response, GFI submitted a formal recommendation to establish a National Food Biotechnology Data Repository—an open-access, public resource developed in partnership with industry, academia, and philanthropy.

Data infrastructure accelerates R&D, reduces duplication, lowers barriers to entry, and strengthens national competitiveness. Physical infrastructure builds factories. Digital infrastructure accelerates discovery. Both are prerequisites for durable scale.

Circularity in practice: from apples to oats

Sometimes the bioeconomy story is easiest to tell through tangible examples. Two recent research developments illustrate circularity in action:

Apple pomace in plant-based meat

A Korean research team demonstrated that apple pomace, the fiber-rich byproduct of juice production, can be upcycled into plant-based meat formulations.

Moderate inclusion levels (roughly 10–15 percent) balance antioxidant benefits with acceptable texture and processability.

This is an elegant example of sidestream valorization: transforming agricultural waste into a value-added ingredient.

It’s easy for policymakers to grasp.
It’s easy for consumers to understand.
And who doesn’t love a good apple?

Oat milk residues into nutrient-dense snacks

Researchers at National Chiayi University in Taiwan explored upcycling high-moisture oat milk residues into new snack products.

As dairy alternatives continue to grow globally, ensuring their byproducts re-enter the food system enhances economic value while reducing environmental footprint.

These examples reinforce a central principle of the circular bioeconomy: waste becomes value.

Bipartisan momentum continues

Despite deep partisan divides across much of U.S. policymaking, biotechnology remains a rare area of bipartisan cooperation.

The Congressional BIOtech Caucus recently surpassed 50 members, with equal representation from Democrats and Republicans. The caucus continues coordinating with biotech stakeholders to consider policy proposals.

As my colleague aptly summarized, it’s becoming the “I like chocolate and puppies” caucus. It’s humorous, but also telling. Biotechnology and biomanufacturing are broadly seen as national security and economic growth opportunities.

For alternative proteins, that bipartisan framing is invaluable.

What this means in 2026

Taken together, these developments demonstrate how food, fermentation, and biotechnology are now embedded in real policy and economic landscapes, shaping investment, research, infrastructure, and public funding pathways.

That’s not just my interpretation. USDA and the Department of War have announced a new partnership under the National Farm Security Action Plan, which explicitly links agriculture, food systems, and novel technologies to national security priorities in the U.S. That plan’s focus on safeguarding supply chains, enhancing research security, and prioritizing domestic innovation—including biotechnology and biomanufacturing—reflects the very forces shaping our work within the bioeconomy ecosystem.

This is important because it shows that biotechnology and food innovation are now embedded in national-level frameworks for resilience, competitiveness, and security rather than treated as peripheral or purely commercial opportunities.

For anyone focused on food innovation, biotech, and advanced manufacturing, these are the structural forces that will shape the next phase of scale—not only what gets talked about, but what gets funded and built.