On October 26, Foodtech Innovation Network hosted an online seminar, exploring one of the most debated topics in food and nutrition: ultra-processed foods. Professor Andreas Håkansson from Lund University shared his perspective on the NOVA classification system, the scientific debate surrounding it, and what it means for companies developing the foods of the future.

Processing Is Not the Same as Formulation

A central point in Andreas Håkansson’s presentation was the distinction between food processing and food formulation. While processing refers to the physical and technological methods used to transform food, formulation is about combining ingredients to create a specific product.

According to Andreas, the NOVA classification system does not always distinguish clearly between these two concepts. He highlighted how products with very different production methods and nutritional properties can end up in the same category simply because of their ingredients or formulation.

One example was dairy products. Standardized milk and plain yoghurt are classified as minimally processed, while fruit yoghurt is classified as ultra-processed. Yet the production processes are largely similar, with the addition of fruit preparation being a key difference. This raises questions about whether NOVA reflects the actual degree of processing or primarily the formulation of a product.

One Classification, Very Different Foods

Another concern raised during the seminar was the wide range of products grouped under NOVA’s fourth category (ultra-processed). Plant-based drinks, meat alternatives, packaged wholegrain bread, ice cream, candy and energy drinks can all be classified as ultra-processed foods.

Andreas questioned whether it is meaningful to assess such different products as one group when their nutritional properties and potential health effects can vary considerably.

While epidemiological studies have found associations between high consumption of ultra-processed foods and negative health outcomes, he emphasized that these findings do not necessarily mean that every product in the category has the same effects. In his view, more detailed research into individual food products, ingredients and production methods is needed to better understand the relationship between processing and health.

Why This Matters for Food Innovation

The debate has important implications for the foodtech sector. Many companies are developing plant-based alternatives, new protein sources and innovative ingredients with the ambition of making the food system more sustainable.

If these products are automatically perceived as unhealthy because they fall into the NOVA 4 category, there is a risk that innovation could be discouraged, even when the products offer nutritional or environmental benefits.

Andreas encouraged food companies to continue developing innovative products rather than avoiding certain ingredients or technologies simply to escape a particular classification. Instead, companies should focus on nutritional quality, evaluate potential health risks through scientific research and communicate the purpose and benefits of their products.

Key Takeaways

• Processing and formulation are two different things and should be evaluated separately
• Ultra-processed does not necessarily mean intensively processed
• NOVA 4 groups together very different products with varying nutritional properties
• Food products should be assessed individually rather than judged by their classification alone
• Sustainable food innovation should not be discouraged by overly broad classifications
• Food companies should focus on nutritional quality, scientific evidence and continuous product improvement

A More Nuanced Conversation About the Future of Food

The seminar highlighted the complexity of the ultra-processed foods debate and the importance of looking beyond broad classifications. For food companies, this means continuing to innovate while remaining attentive to scientific evidence, product quality and consumer expectations.

At the heart of the discussion was a call for more detailed food science and a more nuanced understanding of how ingredients, formulations and processing methods affect the food we eat.

Looking Ahead: Food Preparedness and Resilience

Our next online seminar will explore another important topic for the future of the food system: food preparedness and resilience.

Join Hugo Malm, responsible for communications at FORCE, for an introduction to food preparedness in Sweden and the role of research in strengthening resilient food systems. FORCE is a collaborative initiative bringing together actors from across the food system, including universities, public authorities, regions, municipalities, food producers, retailers and preparedness organisations, to strengthen the resilience, sustainability and competitiveness of the Swedish food system. The online seminar is exclusive to members of Foodtech Innovation Network.

What happens when established players in the food industry pitch their needs instead of asking startups to pitch their solutions? At Foodtech Forum 2026, Foodtech Innovation Network introduced Reverse Pitch, a new matchmaking format designed to connect real market needs with innovative foodtech companies. The first edition brought together actors from across the food value chain, creating new connections, valuable insights and opportunities for future collaboration.

Instead of startups competing for the attention of potential customers and partners, Reverse Pitch turns the traditional format around. Established market actors take the stage to share their challenges, priorities and the types of solutions they are looking for.

At the first edition, ICA Växa, Reitan Convenience Sweden, Martin & Servera and Mylla presented perspectives and needs from different parts of the food value chain, from grocery retail and convenience to foodservice and distribution.

For the participating organisations, the format also offered an opportunity to discover new ideas and connect with innovative companies.

– Foodtech Forum gives us at ICA the opportunity to meet innovative companies with new perspectives and solutions to real consumer needs. At the same time, we see the reverse pitch format as an exciting way to open up our innovation work and explore new collaborations with actors within the Foodtech Network, says Susanna Regland from ICA Växa.

Creating a closer connection between innovation and the market

For many innovative foodtech companies, developing a promising product or solution is only part of the challenge. Understanding how to reach the market, navigate established purchasing processes and meet the requirements of larger organisations can be equally demanding.

Reverse Pitch aims to shorten that distance by giving smaller companies direct insight into what established market actors are looking for, while creating opportunities for those actors to discover new solutions and potential partners.

Following the presentations, selected companies from the Foodtech Innovation Network community took part in structured matchmaking sessions, with a focus on potential pilots, partnerships and commercial opportunities.

Feedback from participating companies was largely positive. The companies particularly valued the opportunity to:

• Build new relevant connections with potential partners and customers across the food value chain.
• Gain direct insight into market needs by hearing from established actors about their challenges, priorities and expectations.
• Better understand the path to market, including what it takes for smaller companies to work with larger organisations.
• Explore opportunities for collaboration and discuss how their solutions could contribute to the needs of established players.
• Connect with the wider foodtech ecosystem and gain new perspectives from other innovative companies.

Several participating companies also expressed a strong interest in following up on the connections made during the event.

Looking ahead: Reverse Pitch returns

Following the positive response to its first edition, Foodtech Innovation Network aims to bring Reverse Pitch back at the next Foodtech Forum in 2027, continuing to create opportunities for foodtech companies and established market actors to connect and explore new collaborations.

For Foodtech Innovation Network, Reverse Pitch is part of a broader ambition to strengthen the connections between innovative companies and established players in the food system.

By bringing market needs and innovative solutions into the same conversation, we can create better conditions for new collaborations, and help promising foodtech innovations take their next steps towards the market.

Some of the most valuable conversations at Foodtech Forum 2026 happened around the table. Through six Open Table Discussions, participants met in smaller groups to dig deeper into some of the questions shaping the future of food, from AI and circularity to scaling, investment and new business models. One conversation explored where plant-based food is heading next, from meat-mimicking products and whole foods to blended solutions. Here are some of the key insights from the discussion, led by Elena Walden, Senior Policy Manager & Research Lead at The Good Food Institute Europe.

Summary

The discussion explored the future of plant-based food in the Nordics, comparing three approaches: products that mimic meat, whole-food alternatives such as beans and tofu, and blended products that combine plant-based and animal-derived ingredients.

A central question was which approach has the greatest potential to encourage more consumers to shift towards plant-based protein while creating commercially viable business opportunities.

The discussion suggested that the plant-based market is evolving beyond the initial focus on meat alternatives. While meat-mimicking products remain relevant, investor confidence appears more cautious, and whole-food products are gaining interest among consumers seeking natural and less processed options. Blended products emerged as a particularly promising approach because they can reduce the amount of meat consumed without requiring consumers to give it up entirely.

The key takeaway was that the next phase of plant-based innovation may depend less on convincing consumers to replace meat completely and more on developing products that combine taste, nutrition, affordability and sustainability in ways that fit existing eating habits.

Three pathways for the future of plant-based food

The discussion centred on three main product categories:

• Mimicry: Plant-based products designed to replicate meat in taste, texture and functionality.
• Whole foods: Less processed plant-based foods, including beans, legumes and tofu.
• Blends: Products combining plant-based and animal-derived ingredients to balance taste, nutrition, functionality and environmental impact.

The underlying question was which category can reach the largest number of consumers, particularly those who still eat significant amounts of meat.

Participants questioned whether parts of the plant-based industry have focused too heavily on consumers who are already positive towards plant-based diets, rather than developing products that appeal to mainstream meat eaters.

Mimicry: Still relevant, but no longer the obvious growth engine

Plant-based meat alternatives have faced challenges in several European markets, and the discussion reflected a more cautious investor perspective towards the category.

One concern is whether these products have successfully reached consumers who regularly eat meat or primarily appealed to people already interested in plant-based alternatives.

At the same time, meat-mimicking products offer a relatively accessible way for consumers to try plant-based alternatives because they fit familiar eating habits and meal formats.

The discussion did not suggest that mimicry is disappearing. Rather, its role may be changing: it remains one route to introducing consumers to plant-based protein, but is no longer necessarily seen as the category’s dominant growth opportunity.

Whole foods: Growing interest, but questions about mainstream appeal

Beans, legumes, tofu and other less processed plant-based foods are attracting interest as consumers place greater emphasis on naturalness, health and simpler ingredients.

These products can offer nutritional and sustainability benefits while avoiding some of the formulation and processing challenges associated with highly engineered meat alternatives.

However, participants questioned whether this growth is concentrated among consumers who already eat relatively little meat or are particularly health-conscious.

Whole foods remain an important part of the long-term transition towards more plant-based diets, but the discussion raised the question of whether they can drive rapid, broad-based dietary change on their own.

Blends: A promising route to mainstream adoption

Blended products generated particular interest during the discussion.

Rather than attempting to replace meat entirely, these products reduce the proportion of animal-derived ingredients while retaining familiar flavours, textures and eating experiences.

Examples discussed included:

• Products combining plant protein with egg protein.
• Plant-based products incorporating animal fat or other animal-derived ingredients.
• Protein-enriched products designed to improve nutritional value without necessarily mimicking meat.
• Hybrid products that balance taste, nutrition and environmental considerations.

The appeal of blends lies in meeting consumers where they are today. Instead of asking people to make a complete dietary change, blended products offer a more gradual way to reduce meat consumption.

This approach was viewed as commercially promising because it could combine consumer familiarity with increased use of plant-based ingredients.

However, its success will depend on product quality, price, clear positioning and the ability to demonstrate meaningful benefits.

Precision fermentation and the next generation of ingredients

Precision fermentation emerged as an important technology for the future of plant-based and alternative proteins.

The technology offers opportunities to produce specific proteins and develop functional ingredients that can improve the performance of food products.

Potential applications include:

• Improving taste and flavour profiles.
• Developing ingredients with specific functional properties.
• Enhancing nutritional composition.
• Addressing some of the formulation challenges that limit the appeal of plant-based products.

These capabilities could support both plant-based and blended products, helping manufacturers develop foods that better meet consumer expectations.

The discussion pointed towards a future in which innovation may increasingly focus on the ingredients and technologies behind products, rather than only on whether a product is marketed as plant-based or animal-based.

Taste remains a critical challenge

Taste, particularly umami, was identified as an important factor influencing the success of plant-based products.

Many consumers value the savoury flavour associated with meat, and products that fail to replicate this experience can struggle to gain repeat purchases.

This makes flavour development a central innovation challenge. New ingredients, fermentation technologies and improved formulations could help manufacturers create products that are more appealing to mainstream consumers.

Ultimately, sustainability and nutritional benefits alone may not be enough to drive adoption. Products must also deliver on taste, texture, convenience and price.

Key takeaways

The discussion highlighted six important considerations for the future of plant-based food in the Nordics:

1. Look beyond traditional meat alternatives: Mimicry remains relevant, but the category needs to evolve to reach a broader consumer base.
2. Make whole foods more accessible and appealing: Beans, legumes and tofu have long-term potential, particularly as interest in health and less processed foods grows.
3. Explore blended products: Combining plant-based and animal-derived ingredients may offer a practical route to reducing meat consumption among mainstream consumers.
4. Invest in ingredient innovation: Precision fermentation and improved protein functionality could help address challenges related to taste, nutrition and product performance.
5. Put taste and affordability first: Products need to meet everyday consumer expectations if they are to achieve widespread adoption.
6. Focus on actual dietary change: Success should be measured not only by sales of plant-based products, but also by the extent to which innovations help reduce reliance on animal-derived ingredients.

Overall conclusion

The discussion highlighted an evolving plant-based category in which no single product format is likely to meet every consumer need.

Meat alternatives can provide a familiar entry point, whole foods offer a less processed option, and blended products may help bridge the gap between current eating habits and lower-impact diets. Meanwhile, ingredient technologies such as precision fermentation could improve the taste, functionality and nutritional profile of products across these categories.

The central question is no longer simply how to replace meat, but how to develop attractive, scalable products that help more people consume less meat without compromising on taste, convenience or affordability.

Some of the most valuable conversations at Foodtech Forum 2026 happened around the table. Through six Open Table Discussions, participants met in smaller groups to dig deeper into some of the questions shaping the future of food, from AI and circularity to scaling, investment and new business models. One conversation explored what it actually takes to move food innovation from promising prototype to commercial scale. Here are some of the key insights from the discussion, led by Marilyn Rayner, PhD, Technical Innovation Director at The Green Dairy.

Summary

The discussion focused on the practical challenges of scaling innovative food products and processes, from promising prototypes to commercially viable, market-ready solutions. Three major themes emerged: limited access to pilot and demonstration infrastructure, regulatory and financial barriers to scaling, and the need for stronger collaboration across the food value chain.

While foodtech companies are developing promising innovations, many struggle to access the facilities, funding and industrial partnerships needed to validate their technologies and prepare for commercial production. The discussion also highlighted how market structures, low margins and complex procurement processes can make it difficult for innovative products to reach customers.

A central takeaway was that scaling foodtech requires more than technological innovation. It depends on accessible infrastructure, viable routes to market and better coordination between startups, primary producers, industry, retailers and the public sector.

Access to pilot and demonstration infrastructure

A key challenge for foodtech startups is the lack of accessible, flexible infrastructure for testing and scaling innovative products and processes.

Companies often need pilot-scale production facilities to validate their technology, demonstrate commercial potential and attract investment. However, these facilities can be difficult to find, expensive to use or unsuitable for the specific requirements of different products.

The same raw material may require very different processing methods depending on the intended application and market. This creates a need for specialised equipment and flexible facilities that can accommodate different technologies and production requirements.

The discussion also highlighted the challenges of operating pilot facilities within universities, where practical activities may depend on students and where staffing, time and resources are limited.

Existing initiatives and infrastructure, including Biotech Heights, BioCommons, EU pilot initiatives and DTI, were mentioned as potential contributors to bridging the gap between laboratory research and industrial production.

The discussion raised an important question: is the main barrier the lack of available facilities, or the cost of accessing them?

Both availability and affordability appear to be important factors.

Financing and regulatory barriers to scaling

Foodtech companies face particular difficulties when trying to secure the investment needed for industrial scale-up.

Food production often operates with relatively low margins, limiting the capital available for experimentation, infrastructure and commercial expansion. At the same time, foodtech is not always perceived as a high-technology sector, which can make it harder to attract investment in specialised test and demonstration facilities.

Regulatory requirements add another layer of complexity. Requirements differ across product categories, meaning that a technology or ingredient intended for food applications may face different hurdles from one intended for other industries, such as cosmetics.

The discussion illustrated how regulatory complexity and production costs can influence which markets a company chooses to enter and how quickly it can scale.

There is therefore a need for financing mechanisms, regulatory guidance and shared infrastructure that reflect the specific characteristics of food innovation.

Building more resilient raw material supply chains

The discussion explored how innovation can help create more resilient supply chains, particularly when raw material availability, costs and demand are difficult to predict.

Participants identified weaknesses in existing data systems and highlighted the difficulties companies face when trying to forecast future raw material requirements and coordinate investments across the value chain.

For example, a beverage producer may struggle to determine future demand for a particular ingredient, making it difficult to ensure that suppliers have the capacity and resources to meet future needs.

One proposed approach was to direct investment towards the relevant parts of the value chain, including primary producers. Fairtrade was mentioned as a potential framework for supporting more structured relationships and responsible sourcing.

The discussion emphasised that producers and primary producers need to engage more closely to identify real challenges, define the questions that innovation should address and develop solutions that respond to actual industry needs.

Finding the right route to market

Access to retail remains a significant challenge for innovative food companies.

Participants described a highly concentrated retail market in which established structures do not always make it easy for new products and smaller companies to gain visibility or secure distribution.

One startup from Denmark recommended that early-stage food companies consider foodservice as an initial route to market rather than focusing exclusively on retail and direct-to-consumer sales.

Foodservice can offer an alternative way to test products, build customer relationships and demonstrate demand before pursuing wider retail distribution.

Public procurement was also discussed as a potential route to market. Public-sector organisations can provide a more clearly defined customer need through their procurement requirements. However, these same requirements can also create barriers or delay the introduction of innovative solutions.

The discussion raised the question of whether startups need clearer guidance on alternative routes to market and how to navigate different customer segments.

Examples of opportunities

• 7-Eleven in Denmark: A dedicated area for promoting new products from smaller companies was mentioned as an example of how retailers can create visibility for emerging brands.
• Pressbyrån in Sweden: A similar concept could provide a potential channel for testing and showcasing innovative food products.
• Foodservice: Restaurants, catering businesses and other foodservice operators may offer startups a more accessible entry point than large retail chains.
• Public procurement: Public-sector buyers could help create early demand for innovative products when procurement processes and requirements are designed to accommodate new solutions.

Stronger collaboration across the food value chain

A recurring theme was the need for better coordination between the different actors involved in food innovation.

Startups cannot solve every scale-up challenge independently. They need access to primary producers, ingredient suppliers, manufacturers, processing facilities, retailers, investors and public-sector organisations.

Closer collaboration can help companies identify relevant problems earlier, validate their technologies in realistic production environments and ensure that innovations address genuine market needs.

The discussion also highlighted the role of intermediaries and collaborative initiatives in connecting companies with the right infrastructure and expertise.

BioCommons was identified as one initiative that could help connect businesses with relevant test and demonstration facilities and make the pathway from pilot production to market clearer.

Key takeaways

The discussion highlighted six priorities for scaling innovative food products and processes:

1. Improve access to pilot infrastructure: Develop flexible, affordable facilities that allow startups to test and validate technologies before committing to industrial production.
2. Adapt financing to foodtech: Recognise the capital requirements, long development timelines and relatively low margins that can characterise food innovation.
3. Clarify regulatory pathways: Help companies understand the requirements associated with different product categories and target markets.
4. Build resilient supply chains: Strengthen data, forecasting and collaboration between companies and primary producers.
5. Develop alternative routes to market: Help startups explore foodservice, public procurement and dedicated retail initiatives alongside conventional retail channels.
6. Connect the ecosystem: Strengthen collaboration between startups, researchers, infrastructure providers, established companies, retailers and public-sector actors.

Overall conclusion

The discussion highlighted that the journey from foodtech innovation to commercial scale is constrained by interconnected challenges involving infrastructure, financing, regulation, supply chains and market access.

Addressing these challenges requires a more coordinated innovation ecosystem in which companies can access appropriate facilities, validate their solutions, connect with industrial partners and identify viable routes to market.

The central message was that scaling food innovation requires the right infrastructure and investment, but equally strong connections across the value chain. Initiatives such as BioCommons can help bridge existing gaps by connecting companies with test and demonstration facilities and making the path from prototype to commercial production more accessible.

Some of the most valuable conversations at Foodtech Forum 2026 happened around the table. Through six Open Table Discussions, participants met in smaller groups to dig deeper into some of the questions shaping the future of food, from AI and circularity to scaling, investment and new business models. One of these conversations asked a big question: Can Europe build the next food giants? Here are some of the key insights from the discussion, led by Louise Rørbæk Heiberg, Partner at Nordic Foodtech VC.

Summary

The discussion explored Europe’s ability to turn its strong research and innovation ecosystem into globally competitive foodtech companies. A central theme was that Europe has many of the essential ingredients to lead the transformation of the global food system, but struggles to translate innovation into commercial success, industrial scale and international growth.

At the same time, participants questioned whether the next generation of food giants should resemble today’s global food corporations or whether Europe has an opportunity to build a new kind of company, with sustainability, circularity and strategic technology ownership at its core.

Europe needs to become better at scaling innovation

Europe has a strong position in food science, fermentation, biotechnology and other emerging technologies. It also benefits from highly skilled talent, strong research institutions and the ability to develop specialised technologies and innovative solutions.

However, Europe often struggles to turn these innovations into globally competitive businesses. Fragmented markets, slow decision-making, regulatory barriers and difficulties securing growth capital can make it harder for companies to move from research to commercial success.

The key challenge is therefore how Europe can create better conditions for companies to scale internationally and compete in global markets.

Geopolitical developments create a strategic window of opportunity

Changing geopolitical conditions are making food security, technology and intellectual property (IP) increasingly important from a strategic perspective.

Europe has an opportunity to strengthen its position in food security and strategic autonomy by retaining and developing technologies that are critical to future food production.

This raises an important question: how can European companies grow while maintaining long-term ownership of their technologies, rather than selling their innovations too early to external actors?

Building successful companies requires more than a great idea

A promising technology or unique innovation is not enough to build a resilient, long-term business.

Companies need a strong initial IP platform and must continuously build on it. Developing multiple layers of intellectual property, technological capabilities and competitive advantages can help businesses avoid relying on a single product or innovation.

The goal is to build scalable companies with the potential to evolve over time, rather than businesses dependent on a single product or niche market.

Scaling requires capital and industrial infrastructure

One of Europe’s biggest challenges is bridging the gap between innovation and industrial-scale production. Building global food companies requires more than entrepreneurship and technical expertise.

The discussion highlighted the need for:

• Better access to capital across different stages of company growth.
• More industrial players able to support production, commercialisation and scaling.
• More strategic acquirers that can help smaller innovative companies grow.
• Stronger connections between research, startups, established companies and investors.
• Better conditions for international expansion and faster market entry.

To strengthen Europe’s competitiveness, the innovation ecosystem must not only create new companies but also help them develop into larger, more resilient businesses.

The next food giants do not have to follow the old playbook

An important question was what a successful food giant of the future should actually look like. The ambition does not necessarily have to be to replicate today’s established food corporations.

Instead, future leaders could integrate sustainability and circularity into their core business models, retain ownership of strategically important technologies and combine several technological fields, such as AI, precision agriculture, fermentation and biotechnology.

This creates opportunities for a new generation of food companies that combine technological competitiveness with resource efficiency and long-term resilience.

Key takeaways

The discussion pointed to five priorities for Europe’s future foodtech ecosystem:

1. From research to global markets: Strengthen the ability to commercialise and scale European innovations.
2. Long-term technology ownership: Build companies around strong IP platforms and multiple competitive advantages.
3. Capital and industrial capacity: Improve access to financing, production capabilities and strategic partners.
4. Faster execution and collaboration: Reduce fragmentation and strengthen cooperation between research, industry, investors and policymakers.
5. A new model for food companies: Build global businesses with sustainability, circularity and technological leadership embedded from the outset.

Overall conclusion

Europe has the talent, scientific expertise and innovative capacity to build the next generation of global food companies. The decisive question is whether it can create the financial, industrial and regulatory conditions needed for these companies to scale and remain competitive over the long term.

The challenge is not simply to generate more innovation, but to turn that innovation into businesses capable of transforming the global food system.

One conversation explored what regenerative thinking means when translated into actual business models, relationships and investments. Here are some of the key insights from the discussion, led by Sara Maxence, Regenerator.

Summary

The discussion explored what it means to build regenerative businesses and how regenerative principles can be translated from individual actions and farming practices into business models, relationships and responsibility across the food system.

A central theme was the tension between regenerative values and the structures of today’s economy. While sharing, reciprocity and community-building can feel natural in everyday life, applying the same principles in business is often more difficult. Entrepreneurs must navigate investor expectations, financial pressures and established business models that do not always reward long-term value creation.

The discussion highlighted the importance of rethinking relationships, starting with the communities closest to us and developing new tools and business models that enable companies to create value for people, the environment and the local economy – rather than simply extracting value.

From transactions to relationships and reciprocity

One of the key messages was to focus on relationships, not just price.

Participants shared examples of regenerative thinking in everyday life, including sharing surplus apples with neighbours, inviting people to pick fruit and bringing apples to events. Over time, this created a cycle of reciprocity, with people returning homemade apple sauce, jam and other products.

Other examples included exchanging services, sharing knowledge and creating opportunities for people to learn about one another’s interests.

These examples illustrated how trust, generosity and mutual benefit can strengthen relationships and create value beyond individual transactions.

The challenge is translating these principles into professional settings, where relationships are often shaped by competition, time constraints and financial incentives.

The challenge of building regenerative businesses

Several participants were trying to build businesses that contribute positively to their communities and the wider food system. However, they described difficulties in reconciling regenerative ambitions with conventional business expectations.

Key challenges included:

• Finding investors who understand and support regenerative business models.
• Building financially viable companies that give back rather than simply extract value.
• Finding the courage to pursue alternative approaches when the outcome is uncertain.
• Aligning commercial success with environmental and social responsibility.
• Moving beyond short-term financial considerations towards long-term value creation.

A recurring question was how businesses can be designed to regenerate the systems they depend on, rather than merely reducing their negative impact.

Participants also noted that regenerative practices can be easier to implement in personal life than in a business environment, where existing incentives and structures can make change difficult.

Community as a starting point for change

The discussion highlighted the importance of acting within one’s immediate community and recognising the influence individuals and organisations already have.

Examples included building local business networks, connecting people who can support one another, sourcing and selling locally, and using professional roles to influence others’ choices.

A locally rooted business can potentially create value beyond its own operations by strengthening relationships, supporting other businesses and keeping economic activity within the community.

Participants also discussed the importance of reciprocity in professional networks. Supporting other people’s events, sharing knowledge and contributing to collective initiatives can help create an environment where others are more willing to contribute in return.

The underlying principle was that regeneration begins with the relationships and systems we can directly influence.

Rethinking the tools and assumptions behind business

Another important theme was that many of the tools used to develop businesses are not necessarily designed to support regenerative outcomes.

Traditional business models often focus on customer needs, revenue, growth and competitive advantage. Participants questioned whether these frameworks adequately capture relationships, ecological health, shared value and long-term resilience.

The discussion suggested a need to rethink not only how businesses operate, but also how entrepreneurs understand the world and the opportunities available to them.

One idea was to shift the starting point from need towards possibility: rather than focusing exclusively on problems and unmet needs, entrepreneurs could explore what becomes possible when relationships, resources and capabilities are connected in new ways.

Participants also raised the possibility of developing a regenerative alternative to the Business Model Canvas. The discussion suggested that knowledge and ideas already exist, but need to be translated into accessible tools that entrepreneurs and organisations can apply in practice.

Bridging the gap between regenerative innovation and investment

Participants pointed to a disconnect between entrepreneurial ideas and existing investment structures.

Some regenerative business concepts struggle to gain support because they do not fit familiar investment models or conventional expectations of growth and returns. Investors may find it difficult to assess opportunities that require new ways of thinking about value creation.

This creates a challenge for entrepreneurs who want to build businesses that are both financially viable and regenerative.

The discussion raised an important question: how can investment models evolve to recognise the long-term value of businesses that strengthen ecosystems, communities and local economies?

It also highlighted the need to make regenerative business models easier to understand, communicate and evaluate, without losing the complexity of the systems they aim to improve.

Balancing environmental ambitions with commercial reality

Participants broadly shared the ambition of creating a healthier environment and a more regenerative food system. However, they also acknowledged that businesses need paying customers and viable revenue models to survive.

This tension highlights the importance of designing business models where environmental and social benefits are integrated into the core value proposition rather than treated as additional costs or optional activities.

Regenerative businesses need to demonstrate how their approach can create tangible value for customers, suppliers, communities and the environment while remaining commercially sustainable.

Uncertainty is part of this process. Participants recognised that building a different kind of business can be uncomfortable, particularly when the path forward is unclear. At the same time, this uncertainty can create space for experimentation and new possibilities.

Key takeaways

The discussion highlighted six priorities for advancing regenerative business models in the food system:

1. Prioritise relationships and reciprocity: Build trust, collaboration and mutual value rather than focusing exclusively on price and individual transactions.
2. Start with your immediate community: Use existing relationships and local networks to create tangible social, environmental and economic benefits.
3. Rethink business success: Explore models that create value for people, the environment and the economy over the long term.
4. Develop new tools and frameworks: Adapt conventional business development tools to better support regenerative principles.
5. Connect regenerative ambition with financial viability: Develop business models that can attract customers and investment while contributing positively to the systems they depend on.
6. Create the future rather than reproduce the present: Challenge established assumptions and develop the courage, tools and partnerships needed to make alternative business models possible.

Overall conclusion

The discussion highlighted that regenerative business is not only about changing production methods or reducing environmental harm. It also involves rethinking how businesses relate to people, communities, resources and the wider food system.

Moving towards a regenerative economy requires new business models, supportive investment structures and practical tools that help entrepreneurs translate their ambitions into viable businesses.

The central message was to begin with the relationships and opportunities within reach, build mutual value and develop the tools needed to turn regenerative thinking into everyday business practice.

Some of the most valuable conversations at Foodtech Forum 2026 happened around the table. Through six Open Table Discussions, participants met in smaller groups to dig deeper into some of the questions shaping the future of food, from AI and circularity to scaling, investment and new business models. One conversation focused on a question becoming increasingly important for food businesses: how can we secure access to resources in uncertain times? Here are some of the key insights from the discussion, led by Emma Dalväg, CEO, Co-founder & Advisor at Unwasted.

Summary

The discussion explored how growing uncertainty around access to raw materials, water, energy and other essential resources is changing the way food businesses approach sustainability and circularity.

Geopolitical tensions, rising commodity prices, supply chain disruptions and resource scarcity are making previously overlooked sustainability issues into strategic business concerns. Circularity is increasingly moving from the sustainability department to the management agenda, as companies recognise that resource efficiency and resilience are closely connected.

A central takeaway was that circularity is no longer only about sustainability – it is becoming a question of business resilience, competitiveness and resource security. While some companies are proactively developing circular business models, many are still reacting to rising costs and immediate pressures. Stronger collaboration across industry, SMEs, academia and the public sector will be essential to accelerate the transition.

Resource uncertainty is changing business priorities

Emma Dalväg shared insights from discussions with experts and industry representatives about the changing business landscape. Access to affordable resources, including coffee, water, energy and raw materials, is becoming increasingly unpredictable.

Companies are facing a situation in which previous assumptions about stable supply chains and resource availability can no longer be taken for granted. Issues that were once considered secondary sustainability concerns are now becoming strategic questions for company management.

However, many businesses still lack a holistic understanding of how resource dependencies affect their entire value chain. The discussion highlighted two broad responses: companies can either become more agile in reacting to change or proactively redesign their operations and business models to become more resilient.

Circularity creates opportunities to strengthen resilience

Examples from Swedish industry illustrated how circular approaches can help businesses reduce resource dependency and create additional value.

Sotenäs: The discussion highlighted the potential of geographically connected circular systems. By bringing different actors and resource flows together locally, businesses can create more integrated systems in which the outputs of one activity become inputs for another.

Lantmännen: A key example was the development of multiple value streams from the same raw material. By processing raw materials into several products, including ethanol and gluten, the company can extract more value from available resources. The same principle is being applied in the development of a new yellow pea factory.

These examples demonstrate that circularity can be more than waste management. It can become a strategic approach to resource utilisation, new revenue streams and industrial competitiveness.

Water and nutrients are critical areas for circular innovation

Water emerged as an important area where resource scarcity is already driving innovation. While Sweden has historically benefited from relatively favourable water availability, regions such as Gotland and Kalmar are experiencing greater pressure.

Examples involving farmers and food companies, including Kronfågel, illustrated opportunities to improve water recirculation and resource efficiency.

The discussion also highlighted Sweden’s dependence on external inputs such as fertilisers, seeds and animal feed. Improving the circulation of nutrients and making better use of available resources is therefore not simply an environmental ambition; it is also a matter of long-term food system security.

Participants emphasised the importance of looking beyond finished products to the entire system, including soil health, nutrients, water and other resource flows.

The business case for circularity is evolving – but unevenly

Participants questioned whether circularity is becoming more economically viable than it has been in the past.

The answer was nuanced. The business case depends on the resource in question, geographical location, sourcing arrangements and prevailing market conditions. For some businesses, circular solutions are becoming increasingly attractive, while others still struggle to make them financially viable.

Three approaches were evident:

• Proactive companies integrate resource efficiency and circularity into their long-term business strategy.
• Reactive companies respond when resource prices rise or supply becomes uncertain.
• Undecided companies move back and forth without committing to a clear direction.

The discussion suggested that the companies most likely to benefit are those that anticipate future resource constraints rather than waiting for a crisis to force change.

Participants also noted that some side streams may be available at little or no cost, creating opportunities for businesses that can identify and utilise them effectively.

SMEs need collaboration and practical support

A major challenge is that smaller companies often lack the time, capital and expertise to develop circular solutions independently.

Emma emphasised the importance of connecting SMEs with public-sector actors and other organisations that can help identify opportunities, share knowledge and support implementation.

Public procurement was highlighted as one potential lever. By prioritising robust, local and resource-efficient systems, public buyers can help create demand for circular solutions and encourage businesses to invest in new approaches.

Participants also discussed examples of untapped opportunities, such as municipalities purchasing surplus bread for freezing or selling remaining school meals to staff at the end of the day.

These examples illustrate how better coordination between organisations can reduce waste, improve resource utilisation and create value from existing resources.

The discussion also highlighted the role of larger companies. ICA shared how it works to identify opportunities for improvement throughout its supply chain and how collaboration can create value for both academia and industry.

Making side streams visible and connecting existing solutions

One recurring challenge was the lack of knowledge about available side streams and their potential uses.

Businesses may generate materials that could become valuable inputs for other companies, but these opportunities remain hidden when information is fragmented and organisations operate in isolation.

Participants suggested that a platform or another structured way of sharing information could help make side streams more visible and connect potential suppliers with users.

Coffee fruit was mentioned as an example of a resource that can generate substantial residual material but may offer opportunities for further utilisation.

More broadly, participants observed that many of the building blocks for a circular food system already exist. The challenge is to connect them, make them accessible and develop the partnerships needed to turn individual initiatives into a functioning system.

7. Consumer demand and the role of public actors

The discussion also addressed the challenge of consumer willingness to pay for sustainable products. If consumers become less willing or able to pay a premium, businesses may find it harder to finance sustainability initiatives through product sales alone.

This reinforces the need to develop circular business models that are commercially viable and competitive, rather than relying exclusively on consumers paying more.

Participants also highlighted the importance of public actors as relatively neutral conveners who can connect businesses, researchers and other stakeholders. Their role can be particularly valuable when collaboration requires organisations to look beyond their own immediate commercial interests.

Despite the challenges, the discussion ended on a cautiously optimistic note. Resource scarcity is creating stronger incentives for change, and promising examples already demonstrate what is possible.

Key takeaways

The discussion highlighted seven priorities for advancing circularity in the food system:

1. Treat resource security as a strategic business issue: Integrate circularity into business planning rather than leaving it solely to sustainability teams.
2. Extract more value from existing resources: Develop business models that turn side streams and residual materials into valuable inputs and new revenue streams.
3. Prioritise water, nutrients and soil health: Address fundamental resource dependencies across the entire food system.
4. Move from reactive to proactive action: Anticipate resource constraints and build resilience before disruptions occur.
5. Strengthen collaboration: Connect SMEs, large companies, academia and public-sector organisations to share knowledge and develop practical solutions.
6. Make side streams visible: Improve access to information about available resources and potential uses, potentially through shared platforms or networks.
7. Use procurement and local partnerships as drivers of change: Create demand for circular solutions and strengthen resource-efficient regional systems.

Overall conclusion

The discussion highlighted that circularity can help food businesses navigate uncertainty by reducing resource dependency, creating new revenue streams and strengthening resilience across supply chains.

However, the transition requires more than individual company initiatives. It depends on connecting existing solutions, sharing knowledge about underutilised resources and creating the commercial and institutional conditions that make circular business models viable.

The central message was that crises can create opportunities for change. As resources become more uncertain, the ability to use them more efficiently, circulate them locally and extract greater value from every resource becomes an increasingly important competitive advantage.

Some of the most valuable conversations at Foodtech Forum 2026 happened around the table. Through six Open Table Discussions, participants met in smaller groups to dig deeper into some of the questions shaping the future of food, from AI and circularity to scaling, investment and new business models.

One of these conversations, Harvesting Intelligence, explored how AI can improve performance across the agrifood sector, and what companies need to consider as the technology becomes increasingly integrated into their businesses. Here are some of the key insights from the discussion, led by Måns Ullerstam, CEO & General Partner at Kale United and Chair of the Board at Grönare Sverige.

Summary

The discussion explored how artificial intelligence can improve performance across the agrifood value chain, from product development and business operations to production and decision-making. Participants discussed both the opportunities AI creates for foodtech companies and the challenges related to data ownership, workforce transformation, inequality and environmental impact.

A central takeaway was that many companies are experimenting with AI but have yet to develop a clear strategy for integrating it into their business. Rather than attempting a large-scale transformation from the outset, companies should start with smaller, practical applications, learn from the results and gradually build AI capabilities that create long-term value.

From experimenting with AI to integrating it into the business

Many companies are currently exploring AI tools, testing different models and allowing employees to experiment in their daily work. While this is a useful first step, the discussion highlighted the need to move beyond general experimentation towards more strategic applications.

Three stages of AI adoption emerged:

1. Learning and exploration: Becoming familiar with AI tools and understanding their capabilities.
2. Improving existing processes: Using AI as a practical assistant to save time, reduce costs and improve activities such as R&D, marketing and administration.
3. Integrating AI into the business: Embedding AI into workflows, software and core processes to generate lasting improvements and build company-specific data capabilities.

The third stage offers the potential for a more sustainable competitive advantage. Companies should consider how they can accumulate and use their own data over time, developing capabilities that are difficult for competitors to replicate.

Data ownership and open versus closed systems

Data ownership emerged as an important strategic question. Companies need to consider how they use AI tools without losing control over valuable business information or becoming overly dependent on external technology providers.

Participants discussed the balance between open-source solutions, open systems and closed systems built around proprietary data. Open approaches can support collaboration and benefit entire communities, while closed systems can help companies protect sensitive information and develop unique capabilities.

There is no single solution for every business. The appropriate approach depends on the company’s needs, data sensitivity and strategic ambitions. A combination of open and closed solutions is likely to be relevant for many companies.

Key takeaway: Companies should develop an intentional approach to data ownership and understand how their information is stored, used and shared when adopting AI.

AI is transforming productivity, company growth and employment

Participants shared examples of AI enabling smaller teams to achieve significantly more than before. One company described how two people could now perform work previously requiring five. Another participant reflected that AI could substantially shorten product development timelines and reduce the number of employees needed to build a business.

These developments could make it faster and easier to start companies, accelerate innovation and free up resources for higher-value activities.

However, the discussion also raised concerns about the impact on employment, particularly junior roles. If experienced employees can use AI to perform tasks previously assigned to junior colleagues, companies may hire fewer entry-level employees. This creates a longer-term challenge: how will tomorrow’s senior experts gain the experience they need if fewer junior positions are available today?

Participants also emphasised that people and industries adapt at different speeds. While AI adoption may accelerate productivity in some sectors, others need more time to develop the necessary skills and capabilities.

The discussion therefore pointed to the importance of developing new skills, supporting adaptation and rethinking how companies train and develop future talent.

Start small: focus on practical, low-risk applications

A practical recommendation was to begin with simple applications rather than immediately introducing AI into the most critical or strategic parts of a business.

Potential starting points include:

• Administrative and repetitive tasks.
• HR processes.
• Marketing and communication.
• Internal knowledge management.
• Selected R&D and product development activities.

Starting with relatively low-risk tasks allows companies to experiment, learn and identify where AI creates measurable value without putting critical operations at risk.

Once an application works well, the company can build on that experience and expand into other areas.

Participants also highlighted the value of companies learning from one another and sharing experiences, helping the wider agrifood ecosystem identify useful applications and avoid repeating the same mistakes.

AI’s environmental footprint and its role in sustainable food systems

The environmental impact of AI was another important theme. AI can help food companies improve efficiency, optimise resource use and develop more sustainable products and production processes. Given the environmental footprint of food production, these applications could offer significant benefits.

At the same time, AI infrastructure consumes energy and other resources. Participants questioned whether the environmental costs of expanding data centres could undermine some of the sustainability gains AI is intended to deliver.

The discussion highlighted the need to consider AI’s overall environmental impact, including energy consumption, land use and water use, rather than focusing solely on the benefits of individual applications.

The key question is how AI can be directed towards reducing the environmental footprint of the food system while ensuring that the technology itself is developed and used responsibly.

Who benefits from AI – and what are the wider societal implications?

Beyond business performance, participants discussed the broader implications of AI for society. While the technology can increase productivity and create new opportunities, there were concerns that its benefits may accrue disproportionately to a relatively small number of companies and individuals.

The discussion also acknowledged that powerful technologies can be used for both beneficial and harmful purposes. This raises questions about responsibility, governance and how society can ensure that AI contributes to broader social and environmental progress.

Although AI offers considerable potential, its outcomes will depend on how companies, policymakers and society choose to develop and apply it.

Key takeaways

The discussion highlighted six priorities for agrifood companies exploring AI:

1. Start small and practical: Begin with simple, low-risk tasks where AI can save time and resources.
2. Move from experimentation to strategy: Progress from individual tools towards integrating AI into business processes.
3. Build on your own data: Develop company-specific data capabilities while maintaining appropriate control over sensitive information.
4. Learn and scale gradually: Share experiences with other companies, measure results and expand successful applications.
5. Prepare for workforce transformation: Invest in new skills and consider how to develop future talent as AI changes traditional entry-level roles.
6. Evaluate the full impact: Use AI to improve food system sustainability while remaining aware of its energy consumption and wider societal consequences.

Overall conclusion

AI offers significant opportunities to improve productivity, accelerate foodtech innovation and support a more sustainable and resilient food system. However, value does not come from adopting AI tools alone. Companies need to understand where the technology can solve real problems, protect and develop their data capabilities, and build the skills needed to integrate AI effectively.

The practical recommendation from the discussion was to start with something small or routine, learn from the experience and scale up gradually – while maintaining ownership and control of your data.

Tempty Foods has been named Foodtech Company of the Year 2026, recognised for combining innovation, sustainability and real market potential in its approach to alternative proteins.

The award was presented on 15 September at Foodtech Forum in Malmö, where foodtech companies, investors, industry representatives and public actors gathered to explore innovation and opportunities shaping the future of food.

For this year’s jury, Tempty Foods stood out for bringing together three qualities they believe are essential for the future of food: innovation, sustainability and real market potential.

Turning innovation into a real business

Tempty Foods has taken an innovative approach to alternative proteins, developing nutritious food with a significantly lower environmental footprint without compromising on taste.

But for the jury, what particularly distinguished the company was its ability to take the step from innovation to market.

Tempty Foods has demonstrated consumer demand, entered the market and shown clear potential to scale. For the jury, this combination of an innovative solution, sustainability ambitions and demonstrated market potential made Tempty Foods a strong example of the kind of company that can help shape the future food system.

– We believe this is a company with an exciting journey ahead, and one where this award can help make a real difference, says Sanna von Gertten, Agency Director at KIND and Chair of the Foodtech Company of the Year jury.

More than a trophy

Winning Foodtech Company of the Year comes with more than recognition on stage. The award is designed to provide the winning company with practical support that can contribute to its continued development.

As part of the 2026 award package, Tempty Foods will receive strategic support from AFRY and KIND, with expertise in business development, branding and communication.

The support will be shaped in dialogue with Tempty Foods, allowing the partners to focus on the areas where the company sees the greatest need and potential at this stage of its journey.

AFRY continued its engagement as sponsor and jury partner of the award, bringing expertise in business development and strategic development. KIND joined the award as a new partner and chair of the jury, contributing expertise within branding and communication.

Together, the two partners provide support corresponding to a combined value of SEK 100,000, making this the most extensive award package in the history of the Foodtech Company of the Year Award.

The support gives Tempty Foods access to expertise and perspectives that can help the company take its next steps, with the focus shaped around the company’s needs and development.

Recognising the companies shaping the future of food

Foodtech Company of the Year is presented annually at Foodtech Forum and is open to exhibiting member companies within Foodtech Innovation Network. The award recognises companies that demonstrate innovation, entrepreneurial drive and the potential to contribute to a more sustainable and resilient food system.

Previous winners include Diapure, awarded in 2024, and Dapibuset, which received the award in 2025.

This year, the jury evaluated the exhibiting companies based on criteria including innovation, sustainability impact, scalability, consumer value and transformational potential.

The 2026 jury consisted of:

• Sanna von Gertten, Agency Director at KIND and Chair of the jury
• Katrin Hedvall, Vice President and Head of Food Sweden at AFRY
• Bodil Sidén, General Partner at Kost Capital
• Daniel Skavén Ruben, Project Manager Invest Promotion AgriFood at Business Sweden
• Fanny Sturén, Strategic Project Manager at Berget Studios

Together, the jury brought perspectives from foodtech, investment, branding, business development and sustainable food systems to the evaluation.

Congratulations to Tempty Foods on being named Foodtech Company of the Year 2026, and on the exciting journey ahead.

The final group of exhibiting companies for Foodtech Forum 2026 is now being introduced, completing a lineup of 42 companies showcasing innovations from across the foodtech ecosystem.

From circular nutrient recovery and food safety technology to local food systems, functional beverages, next-generation convenience food and new approaches to baking, the final exhibitors reflect the range of ideas and solutions shaping the future of food.

Together, all 42 exhibiting companies demonstrate how innovation is happening across the entire food system – connecting technology, production, sustainability, health and new consumer experiences.

Thirteen exhibitors announced for Foodtech Forum 2026

Steribake

Steribake is transforming the future of baking with a patented flour sterilization technology that enables the production of safe, ready-to-use, ambient shelf-stable baking batters. By turning existing dairy co-packing lines into producers of innovative liquid batters, the company offers a scalable solution without the need for new factories.

Höganäs Chocolate

Höganäs Chocolate is rethinking chocolate production through a Farm to Bar approach, connecting cocoa cultivation in Ecuador with chocolate manufacturing in Höganäs, Sweden. By bringing more of the value chain together, the company aims to increase traceability, reduce unnecessary transportation and waste, and create more value locally.

DiaPure AB

DiaPure is turning phosphorus from a waste problem into a valuable resource for the future of food production. Its regenerable filter technology captures phosphorus from wastewater and agricultural and industrial water streams, allowing nutrients to be recovered and returned to the cycle.

Närvaror AB

Närvaror is making local and small-scale food easier to discover, choose and buy. Through its digital mapping platform, the company connects food producers, farm shops, retailers, wholesalers and consumers, helping strengthen local food systems and create new market opportunities for small-scale producers.

Leftovers

Leftovers is rethinking local food production by turning underutilised home kitchens into part of the food system. Its platform enables people to cook surplus portions and share or sell them directly to neighbours, creating a hyperlocal model that can reduce food waste and packaging.

Casca

Casca is giving new life to cascara, the coffee fruit that is usually discarded during coffee production. By transforming this underutilised side stream into a refreshing beverage, the company aims to reduce waste while creating additional value for coffee farmers.

Skånska Matfabriken / TEZA

TEZA is bringing traditional Middle Eastern comfort food into modern food production. Classic dishes such as sambosek, kubbe and falafel are produced in a newly established, fully automated factory in Malmö, combining traditional flavours with modern production and convenience.

LayerLogic

LayerLogic is transforming food safety testing by moving bacterial detection from centralized laboratories directly into food production environments. Its portable biosensor platform enables producers to detect bacteria such as Listeria within minutes, supporting faster decisions and more proactive food safety.

SUND Hydration

SUND Hydration is introducing Sweden’s first Electrolyte Soda – an all-natural, better-for-you alternative to traditional soft drinks. Combining refreshment with function, the company is developing a new approach to functional beverages for both B2C and B2B markets.

Fuli ApS

Fuli is reimagining Asian frozen food to make it fun, convenient and healthy. Starting with Chinese dumplings, the Copenhagen-based company is bringing bold flavours and quality ingredients to the freezer aisle and is now preparing to expand into Sweden.

Holisip AB

Holisip is creating a new generation of functional drinks for children. With no added sugar, added vitamins and fibre, and a child-friendly bottle designed to minimise spills, the company combines better beverage choices with a product designed specifically for kids.

Good Sodas

Good Sodas is rethinking soda through clean-label ingredients and LAB fermentation, using a natural biological process to create flavour, acidity and complexity while reducing sugar and reliance on conventional additives. Already present in eight export markets, the company has built an asset-light model designed for international growth.

Chogo

Chogo develops tasty, fully vegan chocolate bars that provide protein and practical nutrition for elderly people, patients and anyone who needs a simple nutritional boost. With production capacity of more than 20,000 packs per day and experience delivering over 60,000 vegan bars to Lidl Denmark in four months, Chogo is built to scale across healthcare, retail and everyday consumers.

42 companies. One shared vision for the future of food.

Foodtech Forum brings together startups, scaleups, industry leaders, buyers, investors, researchers and public-sector actors to explore the technologies, ideas and collaborations shaping the future food system.

With 42 exhibiting companies now confirmed, this year’s exhibition brings together innovations spanning everything from food production and circularity to health, convenience, safety and resilience.

Meet the exhibitors and experience their innovations live at Foodtech Forum in Malmö on September 15.

📅 September 15, 13:00–17:00
📍 Slagthuset, Malmö

➡️ Register for Foodtech Forum 2026: https://foodtech-forum-2026.confetti.events/