You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Alternative proteins have floundered in the U.S., but investors are leaning in elsewhere.

Vegans and vegetarians rejoiced throughout the 2010s as food scientists got better and better at engineering plant and fungi-based proteins to mimic the texture, taste, and look of meat. Tests showed that even some meat enthusiasts couldn’t tell the difference. By the end of the decade, “fake meat” was booming. Burger King added it to the menu. Investment in the sector topped out at $5.6 billion in 2021.
Those heady days are now over — at least in the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. champions a “carnivore diet,” price-conscious Americans are prioritizing affordable calories, and many consumers insist the real thing still simply tastes better. Investment in alternative proteins has fallen each year since 2021, with the industry raising a comparably meager $881 million in 2025.
In China, however, the industry is just starting to pick up steam. Early-stage startups have been popping up ever since the country’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs included “future foods” such as lab-grown meat and plant-based eggs in its 2021 – 2025 five-year plan, indicating that these modern proteins will play a role in helping to secure the country’s domestic food supply chain.
“26% of the world’s meat is consumed by China, and about 50% of the world’s seafood,” Albert Tseng, co-founder of the venture firm Dao Foods, which backs Chinese companies developing climate-friendly proteins, told me. And yet the average Chinese consumer still only eats about half as much meat as the typical American, meaning that as the country gets richer, those numbers are only poised to grow. “The history of the world is essentially that as incomes rise, demand for protein also rises,” Tseng said.
But letting the protein patterns of the past dictate the future will have serious implications for the climate. Livestock production accounts for roughly 14% to 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions from things like methane releases and land-use changes. Yet it can seem unthinkable for many consumers to cut back on the foods they love, which is why some of the alternate protein sector’s most well-known companies are aiming to replicate the taste, look, and feel of meat.
That strategy isn’t going to fly in China though, Tseng told me. His goal is to slowly woo Chinese consumers away from meat and dairy with alluring plant-based, fungi-based, and lab-grown alternatives — ideally without customers even realizing what’s happening. For example, one of Dao’s portfolio companies, ZhongGu Mycelium, embeds the “superfood” mycelium — the root-like structure of fungi — into flour, boosting the protein-content and nutritional value of everyday products like dumplings and buns.
“We’re trying to actually crowd out demand for other proteins by infusing staple foods with the superfood ingredients that are more familiar, but also satiate people and provide the nutrition they need,” Tseng explained.
Tseng, a Canadian of Chinese descent, founded Dao Foods in 2018, with the idea that a regionally focused platform would allow him and his portfolio companies to develop deeper insights into the Chinese consumer. One lesson so far: In China, highlighting the health benefits and novelty of new proteins in their own right tends to resonate more than replicating the experience of eating meat or dairy. Dao Foods’ portfolio companies are making everything from coconut milk tea to rice proteins and plant-based hot pot broth — products designed to fit seamlessly into the country’s existing culinary culture without necessarily taking the place of meat.
“Direct replacement is probably not a sound commercial pathway,” Tseng said. Designer proteins command a higher price and are thus largely enjoyed by people explicitly trying to reduce their meat intake, whether for climate, health, or animal welfare reasons. But that conscious consumer segment concerned about the environment or animal rights is essentially nonexistent in China, Tseng told me. Rather, meat is viewed as a sign of status for the country’s growing upper and middle classes.
That cultural mismatch may be part of the reason Beyond Meat floundered when it entered China amidst the COVID lockdowns of 2020, a year after going public with a nearly $4 billion valuation. It finally exited the market early last year, and today its market capitalization is less than $400 million — a roughly 90% decline. Impossible Foods has long planned to launch in China too — the founder told Bloomberg in 2019 that it was “the most important country for our mission” — but that has yet to happen. Impossible CEO Peter McGuinness said last summer that the company was still years away from profitability.
China definitely hasn’t given up on the sector yet — it’s barely even gotten started. The country is now in the process of finalizing its five-year plan for 2026 – 2030, and “future foods” are expected to remain a part of the roadmap. Tseng noted that local mayors who implement the national government’s dictates are already competing to attract alternative protein companies to their regions, betting they’ll become drivers of regional GDP just as solar panel and electric vehicle manufacturers have been. “We’ve moved two or three companies now from one region of China to another because they’ve been interested in developing an area of expertise in sustainable food or future foods,” he told me.
So far, these regional enticements have largely come in the form of non-cash incentives. For example, ZhongGu Mycelium, is moving from Mongolia to the Western China municipality of Chengdu, where it will establish a new mycelium research and development facility and production hub. The move was a no-brainer given that “they were being offered a new factory space predominantly rent free for the first three years,” Tseng told me. Not only that, but the local government is “connecting them with the local business environment and food companies in that area. They’re providing some tax incentives, and they’re providing connections to the local university for research support.”
The U.S. can’t offer this level of state support even in the best of times. And with the current meat-loving administration in office, the likelihood of the alternative proteins market receiving any degree of federal backing is essentially nil. We simply aren’t hearing much these days from some names that were making waves just five years ago.
“A lot of these companies were ahead of consumer demand,” Kim Odhner, the co-founder of the sustainable food venture firm Unovis Asset Management, told me. When he started Unovis in 2018, companies such as Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat — an early Unovis investment — were gaining serious momentum. The firm has thus far weathered the downturn with its broad portfolio of meat and dairy alternatives — which includes an investment in Dao Foods, where it serves as a founding partner and shareholder. But as Odhner told me, “One of the most important lessons is that the whole build it and they will come mentality is very dangerous.” Many of the sector’s anticipated customers — in the U.S. and Europe at least — have yet to show up.
As Odhner prepares to raise a third fund with Unovis, he’s focusing on supporting growth-stage startups with proven technologies and minimal regulatory risk. That mainly includes businesses producing protein-rich ingredients for established food companies to incorporate into their existing product lines. It would be “very difficult,” he told me, for Unovis to raise money for an early-stage alternative protein fund today.
Like Tseng, Odhner thinks the best approach for the industry is to make inroads at the margins. “I don’t see any time in the near future — even in the distant future — where we’re going to be replacing center-of-the-plate steak with a cultivated meat equivalent,” Odhner told me.
Either way, Tseng and Odhner agree that there’s still real potential — and real money — in the sector. In China at least, Tseng thinks alternative proteins could follow in the footsteps of other clean energy industries such as solar panel and EVs that have taken root in the country despite many of their breakthrough innovations originating elsewhere. Drawing a parallel to the rise of Chinese EVs, he said that while outsiders perceived the industry as taking off overnight, its growth was actually a decades-long journey marked by plenty of missteps.
“But then at some point, it hit a tipping point,” Tseng told me. “And then the Chinese government signaled, investors poured in and supported these companies, and then you get BYD.”
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A conversation with the Guardrails Alliance’s Shaunna Thomas.
This week’s Q&A is with Shaunna Thomas of the Democrat-allied super PAC Guardrails Alliance, which describes itself as “not anti-technology” but supportive of AI “rules, accountability, and a government that actually represents the public.” Part of that AI accountability they’re calling for is on data centers.
After the midterms, Guardrails Alliance sent a memorandum to all House and Senate Democratic offices arguing for AI and data center accountability to be a key part of their message and plans heading into the new Congress. Described as a “playbook for how to understand and channel anxieties about AI and data centers,” the document laid out “key narratives” that they said voters who care about these issues want to see reflected and echoed by their politics. They said the push against data centers could help Democrats build more lasting political power.
I reached out and asked if Thomas could explain further what all of this means to my readers. She kindly obliged.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Let’s start with the elections. What were your takeaways when it came to what voters want to see on data centers?
I think the elections were a rebuke of the status quo on a number of fronts. We saw across the board that people are frustrated with what amounts to legalized corruption and the forcing without consent of new technology, and new infrastructure to support a technology that they didn’t ask for in ways that are harmful to their lives and the country.
What we saw in polling is that the data center backlash is one of the most bipartisan political issues of our time, driven by everything from noise pollution to rate hikes to Big Tech trying to steamroll state and local governments. Americans are sick and tired of the AI industry trying to control our lives by building data centers in our communities, which goes along with trying to control our data and who represents us in government. The AI industry was also trying to spend a lot on elections trying to control the outcome.
When we dig deeper on all that, it’s not just about elections. They’re seeing this unholy alliance between Big Tech and the Trump administration.
In the post-election analysis laid out in that memo, you explain these key narratives that you think Democrats should pick up against the tech sector. Can you explain how you developed these?
What we dug into during the primaries and the lead-up to the general election was questions in focus groups and polling with Republicans and Democrats about what was behind the frustration. Is this just about buildings they don’t want in their backyard or is this connected to AI and bigger picture concerns over who makes choices? About control? The data centers people were most opposed to were data centers specifically for AI, which was a really important indicator it was both/and.
We then started to talk to voters in Ohio and Iowa and Michigan about what they’d want to see in terms of changes, in terms of new leadership, how they would want to see this framed. What was appealing? We tested a number of frames and these key narratives are a compilation of that data. So for example, a key narrative says, The AI oligarchs and their political allies are wildly out of step with a supermajority of the public. There’s also sample messaging under it in the memo. And it’s a reflection of the sentiment and the tone and the language a lot of people used when they got into robust conversations about what they’re really concerned about or what they want to see their leaders doing differently.
Can you say more about these focus groups? And can you say more about what you saw in terms of bipartisan shared concern around not just data centers but these messages you’re bringing up?
I can tell you about some of the key findings of the focus groups we did in Michigan and Ohio and Iowa in August and September. People are generally open to the idea AI can have some benefit to their lives, and they’re open to using it personally. But everyone we talked to expressed some concern about the pace it was being developed. You can see technology having value but also see there’s no regulation in place or guardrails around the technology itself.
Most people we spoke to expressed concerns about how the technology has been affecting society and the environment — that came up a lot in data center conversations. People are also concerned about the role chatbots could have in their children’s lives, and that AI could replace teachers.
It’s also a lot of concern about and a lack of confidence in either government regulators or AI companies to properly regulate the technology. You saw more support for regulators at the state level and people deeply opposed to federal pre-emption, because they see more evidence of democracy working at the state level as opposed to the federal level.
People express mixed reviews about the specific policy solutions. What we’re seeing is people see AI as a vehicle for a small handful to amass more wealth and power. I don’t think we have had enough of a robust debate about how you deal with that problem.
So, on that point in particular, I want to drill down. What do we know about what voters want to see? What does accountability or guardrails look like to them?
First of all, there’s blanket support for federal regulations in general to deal with the way the technology is developed and deployed. We see a lot of clarity from voters about the fact they may not have a lot of confidence the federal government will step in. They want to see it.
When it comes to the economy, where there’s still broad public support is taxing billionaires and CEOs of these companies and raising the minimum wage and raising the social safety net. People’s interest in seeing that move forward has been growing in intensity.
On AI specifically, people don’t want to have a conversation about distribution of wealth without a conversation about distribution of power. They don’t want to be bribed to accept the acceleration of AI in their lives. They want to know that the power of those companies to do what they’re doing is going to be significantly limited and safety guardrails are put in place to keep us all safe from what the new technology is capable of.
I think once the safety conversation is step one. Step two is the conversation about how you distribute wealth from a technology built on other people’s labor and intellectual property.
On the concern about bribes, we’ve been reporting on Trump’s call for cash payments to communities to accept data centers. Are you telling me proposals like that might not be a good political strategy?
It was precisely because Trump was talking about it that we heard it brought up in focus groups, and how it was described was that voters may get some short term incentive to accept a technology they don’t trust is designed to help them fundamentally. They believe it is being deployed to more deeply consolidate power and wealth. And they don’t want that. When the president or a big AI company says they agree with it, it’ll have an impact on how the idea is perceived.
It has to also be coupled with a set of policies that are putting democratic governance over the technology itself before its deployment. People want to see technology isn’t going to continue to advance without guardrails.
Distinct from Trump’s data center dividend, some policymakers have suggested a “data dividend” — a distribution of wealth from the usage of AI products because they’re using people’s data. That’s more of what we’re talking about.
What do we know about what the public wants to see regarding data centers?
It’s important we recognize local leaders have had demands driven by their local communities. But as a structural matter, the public sees slowing down data centers as a mechanism for slowing down the project of AI generally. It remains an open question about how you do that.
There are federal policymakers working on a set of solutions that could create more space for people at the local level to be in the driver’s seat on when, how, or if data centers get built. I think we’ll see more proposals on that front.
So where do you think this conversation goes next?
I would expect the public to continue to make demands from policymakers and I would expect the Big Tech sector to continue down the path they’re going, which is, we were always Democrats and pro-regulation all the time. This will look like policies resembling always being okay with regulation but actually avoid putting checks on their power. And that’ll mean the public has even more at stake and the government has an even bigger obligation to make sure AI is deployed for public benefit as opposed to for the profits of a few companies and CEOs.
Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.
1. New York City — We have a new must-watch offshore wind lawsuit with potential implications for the entire sector — and this time, it’s from lobstermen seeking damages.
2. Hinds County, Mississippi — The largest proposed solar farm in Mississippi is moving forward after an appeals court rejected arguments from aggrieved local residents that it had been improperly approved.
3. Dakota County, Minnesota — I’m scrutinizing a lawsuit against a data center developer centering on allegedly improper permitting of its cooling technology.
4. Polk County, Florida — Will the Sunshine State remain a challenging place for data centers after Ron DeSantis? A test case could reveal the future quite quickly.
Trump’s “data center dividend” appears to have backfired. Our latest poll results help explain why.
This year’s midterm elections called into question the efficacy of a push to pay local residents directly in exchange for building data centers.
Before the elections, I profiled the campaign for politicians to embrace the data center “dividend,” a policy idea modeled off Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which doles out checks to residents from profits off state oil, gas and mineral royalties. The Bitcoin Policy Institute, a tech policy think tank, was one of the first to trumpet the concept, but it was quickly taken up by President Donald Trump, who started raising it in speeches and on social media. “If companies want to make their Data Centers popular, pay the community, and/or individuals within the community, a ‘dividend,’” Trump posted to Truth Social on October 21.
Clearly the idea didn’t stop the bleeding. Democrats trounced Trump’s party in the midterms on a message that was heavy on attacks against data centers. But that still doesn’t explain why direct payments did so little to move the American public.
A Heatmap Pro poll conducted in early-to-mid October, right before the midterm elections, gives us an answer. As part of a broader survey of 2,500 registered voters, we asked about the idea — what we believe to be the first independent poll on direct payments for data centers by a news organization. We asked respondents whether there was a specific dollar amount they’d accept as a one-time cash payment in exchange for a data center being built near them. We also gave them the option to say no amount of money was sufficient.
Shockingly, a majority of people surveyed said they’d reject the data center cash payment in any amount. Among those who said they’d actually take the money, the median figure was around $10,000. The average was a whopping $146,000, skewed by the number of people who wrote $999,999, the maximum allowed by the survey.
This tracks what we’re seeing play out in communities where developers have tried this idea. In Hazle Township, Pennsylvania, NorthPoint — developer of an Amazon-linked data center project — proposed $10,000 cash payments to residents, no catch. Residents compared it to a bribe. In De Soto, Kansas, data center developer Digital Realty is offering annual $1,000 tax credits for a decade to neighbors of its proposed data center project. That proposal has been reportedly met with mixed reviews, too.
Clearly one of the problems here is that data centers not only face public perception issues around their local impacts, but are also more broadly associated with systemic inequality in the U.S. economy. The same Heatmap Pro survey found that a majority of voters believed AI companies have more control over the government than the oil and gas industry, pharmaceutical companies, banks, or other large industries.
Shaunna Thomas, executive director of Democratic-allied super PAC Guardrails Alliance, told me that during the campaign season they found that residents often associated the dividends with bribes, and that the president’s support for direct payments ultimately fed into voter sentiments about the tech sector controlling the government and society.
“People don’t want to have a conversation about distribution of wealth disconnected from a conversation about distribution of power,” Thomas said. “Specifically because Trump was saying that, we started hearing from voters in focus groups that it didn’t work for them. They’re hearing it as a bribe. They’re hearing they may get some sort of short-term economic or financial incentive to accept a technology they don’t trust is designed to help them.”
The Heatmap Pro survey results about cash payments ultimately reveal how emotionally driven the data center debate has become, said Sam Lyman of the Bitcoin Policy Institute. I asked Lyman to respond to the results because I thought they called into question the political effectiveness of the proposal we’d discussed months earlier. Lyman stipulated that he thinks the one-time payment nature of the question may have undermined the results, saying he prefers the dividends be paid out “in perpetuity.” But he acknowledged they also show “there’s still a lot of education to be done on data centers, what they do, and the impacts they have on the places where they’re built.”
“I think there’s a lot of Americans out there who have legitimate concerns that the future economy doesn’t include them. That’s something that needs to be addressed,” said Lyman, who said he laid part of the blame on what he called “irresponsible rhetoric” from AI industry executives about their technology’s impacts on society. “With data center dividends, the idea behind this policy is to help Americans understand the AI economy includes them. To give them a very material stake in that economy as it gets built out, especially in the rural communities that make data centers possible in the first place.”