IFT FIRST 2026 preview: SternMaid Ingredients president on alt-protein’s shift from promise to proof

The F&B alternative protein industry is moving into a more demanding phase, as market demands converge with evolving consumer expectations and a tightening regulatory environment. Consumers increasingly prefer products with shorter and simpler ingredient lists, pushing manufacturers to balance clean label demands with challenges around scale-up and cost control.

Industry experts are set to discuss how these challenges are influencing commercialization across alternative proteins — including microbial fermentation-derived proteins, plant-based formulations, and cell-cultured meat systems — at the IFT FIRST 2026 show in Chicago, US (Jul 12–15).

Ahead of the event, Brian Walker, president of SternMaid Ingredients, speaks to Food Ingredients First about the alternative protein sector’s shift from early-stage enthusiasm to a more complex phase of proof, as consumers demand products that feel “less engineered and more food-like.”

Walker will participate in a panel discussion on navigating policy, consumer expectations, and scale-up challenges in alternative proteins at the show.

What makes the global alternative protein’s current phase more challenging than earlier waves of category growth?

Walker: In earlier waves, growth was fuelled by novelty, investment, media attention, and a strong sustainability narrative. Today, the category is being judged by the same standards as any other food category — taste, texture, affordability, nutrition, convenience, and trust. Consumers are no longer buying products simply because they are new or environmentally positioned; they want products that deliver clear everyday value.

The investment environment has also changed. Capital is more disciplined, and companies are being asked to demonstrate unit economics, scalable manufacturing, and credible paths to profitability. The next phase is not about proving alternative proteins can exist; it is about proving they can compete consistently in real-world food systems.

Brian Walker: Texture is a key technical challenge in alt-proteins, as consumers quickly notice bite, juiciness, chew, melt, and structure.

How are regulatory expectations changing for microbial fermentation-derived proteins, plant-based formulations, and cell-cultured meat systems?

Walker: Regulatory expectations are becoming more specific, evidence-based, and more closely tied to how each technology is produced. For microbial fermentation-derived proteins, regulators are looking carefully at production organisms, genetic constructs where relevant, fermentation controls, downstream purification, allergenicity, compositional equivalence, and food safety documentation. 

For plant-based products, the emphasis is increasingly on clear naming, transparent ingredient communication, nutritional accuracy, and avoiding consumer confusion. Cell-cultured meat systems face the highest level of scrutiny because regulators must evaluate cell sourcing, culture media, bioreactor conditions, contamination controls, product composition, and labeling.

The strongest businesses will build regulatory strategy into product development from the beginning, because approval timelines, label claims, and consumer trust are now central to commercial readiness.

How are clean label demands changing formulation strategies in alternative protein products?

Walker: Clean label pressure is changing formulation strategy because consumers increasingly want alternative protein products to feel less engineered and more food-like. In the first generation of plant-based meats, many brands focused heavily on replicating the sensory experience of animal meat, even if that required long ingredient lists, unfamiliar stabilizers, binders, colors, or flavor systems. That approach helped establish the category, but it also created a perception problem around processing and nutrition. 

Formulators are now being pushed to do more with fewer, more recognizable ingredients. That means selecting protein sources with better inherent functionality, using fermentation or enzymatic approaches to improve taste and texture, and reducing reliance on additives that consumers may not understand. A short label is only valuable if the product still tastes good, cooks well, delivers nutrition, and can be manufactured reliably.

Where is the biggest challenge for alt-protein formulators today?

Walker: The biggest tension is not one isolated issue; it is the need to solve several conflicting requirements at once. Texture is often the most visible technical challenge, because consumers immediately notice whether a product has the right bite, juiciness, chew, melt, or structure. However, texture cannot be solved in isolation. The ingredients that create better texture may add cost, lengthen the label, or complicate production. Clean label expectations may limit the use of certain binders or stabilizers.

Cost pressures may force formulators to choose commodity proteins that do not perform as well. Scaling production then introduces another layer of complexity, because a formulation that works beautifully at benchtop or pilot scale may behave differently in extrusion, fermentation, blending, freezing, or high-throughput packaging. Formulators must build products that deliver sensory quality, nutritional value, label simplicity, affordable pricing, and manufacturability at the same time. 

Consumers want alt-protein products to feel less engineered and more food-like, reshaping manufacturers’ formulation strategies.

With rising interest in high-protein and nutrient-dense foods linked to GLP-1 users, how could alternative proteins better position themselves around nutrition rather than only sustainability?

Walker: Alternative proteins can better position themselves by leading with nutrition that is specific, credible, and easy to understand. For a long time, the category’s strongest public message was sustainability and animal welfare. Those remain important, but many shoppers make purchase decisions around taste, price, health, and convenience before they think about system-level benefits. 

GLP-1 users highlight this shift because they often need smaller portions that deliver higher nutritional density. Smaller, high-protein snacks, soups, ready meals, breakfast formats, and fortified beverages may be especially relevant. Instead of asking consumers to choose them only because they are better for the planet, brands should show how they can help support satiety, muscle maintenance, and balanced eating in everyday life.

What will separate the alternative protein companies that successfully scale from those that remain at pilot or niche-market level?

Walker: Looking ahead, the companies that scale successfully will be those that turn scientific promise into reliable, affordable, and desirable food. The strongest companies will have a clear route to cost reduction, proven manufacturing partners or infrastructure, strong quality systems, regulatory readiness, and a deep understanding of consumer behavior. They will know which markets to enter first, which product formats can carry a premium, and where hybrid approaches may deliver better taste or economics than purity of technology.

Overpromising has hurt the category in the past; the next generation must communicate benefits in ways that are accurate, specific, and believable. Companies stuck at pilot scale often underestimate the complexity of supply chains, equipment, food safety, working capital, and customer adoption. Companies that break through will be commercially pragmatic.

What practical takeaways should ingredient suppliers and manufacturers expect from the panel discussion at IFT FIRST 2026?

Walker: The practical takeaway for ingredient suppliers, manufacturers, and brands is that the category is entering a more disciplined phase. Ingredient suppliers should expect customers to ask not only whether an ingredient is novel, but whether it improves cost, functionality, nutrition, label simplicity, or manufacturing efficiency. Manufacturers should look for solutions that reduce process risk and support scale-up, because production economics now matter as much as technical novelty.

The most useful conversations at IFT will be those that translate broad category ambition into practical decisions about ingredients, claims, product formats, processing choices, and commercialization timelines.