How I Learned to Love Shrimp

David Kay on the emerging cultivated meat industry

• Amy Odene & James Ozden

Share episode

David Kay shares his experience as the first employee at Upside Foods, offering a deep dive into the cultivated meat industry's challenges, successes, and political landscape. As an animal advocate who entered the alternative protein space, he provides unique insights on depolarising the conversation around cultivated meat and building bipartisan support.›

• Difference between focusing on environmental/health versus animal welfare messaging
• David's journey from animal advocacy to becoming the first employee at Upside Foods
• How cultivated meat differs from plant-based products as "real meat" grown from cells
• Where hundreds of millions in investment funding goes in cultivated meat startups
• State-level bans on cultivated meat and fighting political polarisation
• How industry is organising through trade associations like AMPS Innovation
• Importance of elite institutions in normalising animal advocacy
• Recent FDA approval for Mission Barns' cultivated pork fat

Add David on LinkedIn to follow his work and learn more about his perspectives on the alternative protein industry.

Resources:

If you enjoy the show, please leave a rating and review us - we would really appreciate it! Likewise, feel free to share it with anyone who you think might enjoy it. You can send us feedback and guest recommendations via Twitter or email us at hello@howilearnedtoloveshrimp.com. Enjoy!

David:

One of the bigger things that I'm concerned about with these bans is just the potential for the issue to polarize, and I actually think one of the things that our movement needs to do a better job and by our movement I'm talking about all protein, but I'm also talking about the broader animal advocacy space, the environmental space is we need to depolarize this conversation and we need to make sure we're building support on the conservative side of the aisle as well as the progressive side and I'd say this is somebody who is myself progressive but I think there's a real risk of polarization often leads to just the stonewalling and log jam of progress.

Amy:

Hi, my name is Amy and my name is James, and this is How I Learned to Love Shrimp. A podcast about promising ways to help animals and build the animal advocacy movement.

James:

Today we got a deep dive into the inner workings of the cultivated meat industry from David Kay, the first employee at Upside Foods, one of the key companies in cultivated meat. We spoke about the cultivated meat industry's political setbacks with cultivated meat bans, the importance of government support and where these companies are actually spending hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. Finally, Amy and I want to thank Nestle Development for sponsoring the podcast for the second year. We couldn't do this without their support Without further ado. Hope you enjoy the conversation. Hey, everyone, Today we are joined by David Kay, who was the first employee and director of communications at Upside Foods, the world's first cultivated meat company. Previously, he served on the board of directors at Animal Place and was appointed by the mayor of Berkeley to serve on the city's Animal Care Commission. He is currently an MBA student at Harvard Business School, where he co-founded the Business of Animal Protection. Welcome, David.

David:

Hey, great to be here, thanks for having me.

James:

What a bio. I love the name the business of animal protection. Is that the name of the student society at Harvard, yes or BOAP?

David:

for short B-O-A-P Nice.

James:

Trying to get that to catch on. We'll make it catch on. The first question I'd like to ask everyone is what's an animal or, in this case, an alternative protein that you've changed your mind on recently, and why?

David:

I mean, I think for me this is really more focused on the animal advocacy piece, and I love this question, I should say, because I think it's super important to keep an open mind and update in the face of new evidence.

David:

I think one of the things for me that I've really been wrestling with is the importance, in at least certain contexts, of centering the animal welfare issue of, you know, animal agriculture as opposed to other issues like environment or health, which obviously have a role to play, and this is highly context dependent depending on who you're talking to. But I think at a place like Harvard, the mission is largely focused on, you know, normalizing animal welfare as a serious environmental, society and governance issue or ESG issue, versus by. My approach to advocacy previously when I was an undergrad, for instance, was let's try and get dietary change and let's just make the argument that is the most sort of impressionable on the people we're talking to. I think now it's less about dietary change and more about a change of heart and mind and more about focusing on the animals themselves as a way to sort of drive home the point that, like this is an issue that matters and normal people should have permission to care about this, no matter what sort of setting they're in that's super interesting.

James:

Yeah, because I agree I think the movement has kind of moved a lot towards, like you said, focusing on what's persuasive, and often that can be health of people's personal motivations, or environmental for institutional policies. But you're kind of saying, actually, maybe the downside of this is we kind of actually don't talk about maybe the core issue for some of us, which is animal welfare, and then also in some cases there's these weird negative impacts. Maybe people eat less beef and more chicken and fish, which obviously is actually worse on animal grounds. Is that kind of your view and how did that kind of actually come about to to being your kind of new mindset?

David:

Yeah, that that's a big part of it. I to me, there there are a couple issues. So one is like you said, you know it could motivate these sort of strange actions in areas where these two issues diverge, and I think we can look at, you know, from a broader perspective. It's not just about individual dietary change, of eating beef instead of or sorry, of eating chicken instead of beef, but also just you know what if there are solutions that address the environmental issues but do not at all address the animal welfare issues or even make them worse on a systemic level. So that's one thing.

David:

I think a second thing is what I found being in a place like Harvard Business School, which I am now, and then I did my undergrad at Stanford.

David:

There are a lot of people that care about this issue, but they don't feel like they have the permission to vocally care about the issue, right, like they think.

David:

You know, this is an issue for a very specific type of person and it's not.

David:

You know, if you're in an elite, you know business, society, for instance, and you're going to work in a suit and tie every day, this is not something that you're allowed to really care about. One of the things I've noticed is just by having programming on campus and a club and students that are vocally sort of out as animal advocates, it allows others to sort of come out as people who care about animals as well, and I think that's not something you get if the only thing you're talking about is environmental. I think the other piece of this is that I think institutional change is going to move the needle more than individual dietary change, and I say this as somebody who personally does not eat meat. But I think that in my time at Upside Foods and beyond, I've met so many people that are really moving the needle for animals and they aren't necessarily vegan or vegetarian and I think if I had the choice between waving a magic wand and making them than, it is to get them to make the personal sacrifice of reducing or stop eating meat.

Amy:

Is there something in there where people are working on the issue even perhaps by default, as you were saying that aren't vegan or vegetarian themselves and then crafting these narratives that they are maybe more driven by these messages that relate less to that core kind of animal lover identity? Is that a challenge that we're facing, that the people just maybe aren't speaking to the right audience? Perhaps?

David:

Yeah, I think so. I think that is part of it. And again, you know, this is not blanket advice. I think it's very context dependent. So if you're talking to, you know, to an environmental NGO, I do think you obviously want to focus on the climate impact of animal agriculture. Yeah, I think the other nuance I will add sort of related to what you said, amy, is I do think there's instrumental value in having people change their dietary preferences and that it makes them more open to considering these broader views about animals. So there's actually research on this point, which your listeners may be familiar with.

David:

A group of respondents were asked to rate the moral value of cows and other farm animals. They were randomly selected. Half of them were given cashews to snack on while they did this and half of them were given beef jerky, were given cashews to snack on while they did this and half of them were given beef jerky. And you can probably guess what the outcome was the folks who were eating beef jerky rated cows as being morally less valuable than the folks that were doing this while snacking on cashews. And so there's this way in which our actions can actually change our thought patterns, and that is, I'd say, a big asterisk to everything. I just said that there is a lot of value in just. You know, sometimes the moral views will follow the behavior change, as opposed to vice versa.

Amy:

So you've referenced upside foods a couple of times there and, as we said in your bio, you were the first employee there a cultivated meat startup in the US and actually the first to have gotten regulatory approval One of the key players in the industry in this space. What made you want to join apply for that position, upside Foods, when it was so early stage? Were you really keen to get in on that startup environment?

David:

At the time I was coming to the end of my undergrad career and I was trying to figure out what I wanted to do. Throughout undergrad I'd sort of had this transformation of caring about animals. Like I came into undergrad eating a ton of meat, you know I thought of myself as a dog lover. But I, you know it wasn't really much broader than that Read a bunch of you know, peter Singer and saw some videos and just videos and just sort of went through the typical transformation that often happens to folks in their undergrad experience and initially thought my career path was going to run through the NGO world. So I did some work with Mercy for Animals in undergrad I did an internship at the Humane Society in the Federal Affairs Department, really enjoyed that work and found it high impact.

David:

But I remember at the time I started to learn about this new sort of not new but a revamped alternative protein industry. So this time this was before the Impossible Burger was out, before the Beyond Burger was out. Beyond had some other sort of less sophisticated products. This was around the time of Just Mayo, if you all remember that. And so I did an internship at, at the time, hampton Creek.

David:

Really enjoyed the experience and really felt like it was an opportunity to. Instead of asking billions of people at the time, 7 billion people were on the planet to change their most core, fundamental eating habits, what if, instead, we just changed the way these products were made so that they didn't require animals, and so obviously plant-based was a part of that, but the real Holy grail was cultivated meat, and so, near to the end of my college experience, I heard about Upside Foods at the time, memphis Meats, through the nonprofit grapevine that I was a part of, reached out to Uma. It seemed like a good fit, so he brought me on board as the first hire and I wound up staying there for seven and a half years.

James:

Wow, yeah, that's pretty wild to join, I think. Well, I can only imagine if I've done it, a startup like that as the first employee and then be there for seven years. So I guess obviously this could be a whole several hours of discussion itself. But I guess any kind of highlights or any kind of fond memories of your time there and what was it like to, I guess, join something so early and be there, yeah, through hundreds of millions of dollars of investment.

David:

Yeah, I mean there are a lot of amazing times, a lot of stressful times. As you said, it's a roller coaster, a few major milestones that come out. So I think obviously the first public announcement we did, which was a demo of a cultivated meatball, a beef meatball that was super exciting. No-transcript, the regulatory green light that we got in 23 and 24. And then, shortly after, we sold the first ever cultivated meat in the United States, which was just an incredible moment to sort of take the baton from this super early stage to commercialization.

David:

It felt like a good time to sort of hand the baton off to somebody else, but it was a ton of fun in terms of the overall experience. I mean, early stage startups are wild. There's so much ambiguity, things are changing on a daily basis, on a, you know, hourly basis. You're wearing a million different hats, you're doing things that you know you have no right to do from the perspective of your experience level, and so it can be stressful, but it's also an incredible opportunity to grow and to learn a lot and to get exposed to, you know, the highest level company decisions.

James:

That's very cool. One kind of side question you kind of said cultivated meat was the holy grail in your opinion compared to some of the plant based. Like why do you think that is? And like also based on your own experience tasting these products, like, do you really think there is a step change in the cultivated products versus the traditional plant based?

David:

The reason to answer your first question is because cultivated meat, at its core, is real meat. It is animal flesh. And, for those who don't know, cultivated meat is meat grown from animal cells, and so you're actually producing animal flesh. You're just doing it without raising the animal, as opposed to trying to trick your taste buds into thinking that a combination of soy or pea protein or coconut oil or whatever tastes like meat. Now I think to be clear. I think both have a ton of promise and I'm super excited about the plant-based space as well, but from a consumer perspective and a sensory perspective, I think cultivated meat is going to be more promising, presuming it can you know scale and be offered at a price level that makes sense. And yes, to your second question yeah, you can taste the difference, and again, I say this as somebody who loves the plant-based industry and really respect what those companies are doing.

David:

I actually just had Ethan Brown, the CEO of Beyond Meat, speak at Harvard yesterday, which was great, but I do think you can tell the difference Every time I ate cultivated meat. It just threw me back to my days of eating conventionally produced meat. It was like oh yeah, this is what meat tastes like. This is really really good. Now, as always, there's nuance to this question. So the cultivated meat products will exist on a spectrum where you'll have 100% cultivated meat products, which are real meat, and then you'll have products that are partially cultivated, mixed in with plant-based materials, and so obviously, you know, you could probably expect some degree of difference in terms of the sensory experience based on where they fall on that spectrum, and you'll probably start off in terms of mass market with these hybrid products first. But that caveat aside, yes, the cultivated meat products, I think, are just a different sensory experience on the plant-based Did you feel far removed from the animal topic.

Amy:

So you spoke about being with MFA for a little while straight out of undergrad and then, I think, going into something. We often talk about this because James and I feel a bit further back and a bit more removed from like the action of directly supporting animals in some of our more kind of meta roles. Did you feel like because you said you had this passion for wanting to do something for animals, went into NGO and then kind of sidestepped into cultivated meat. Did it feel kind of distant from that, from actually impacting the individual lives of the animals that you perhaps wanted to work for?

David:

Yes, that's a great question and I think it's true. You definitely do feel a step removed from it, and there are pros and cons to that. I think the con, as you suggested, is, you know, you don't feel like you're having as direct of an impact, because you're not like. Your impact is much more indirect than, let's say, if you're campaigning for cage free or even for meat reduction or something like that. Yeah, I think a pro, though, is that, from an emotional perspective, it is, for some people, perhaps more sustainable in that you're not living day in and day out with you know, and that you're not living day in and day out with you know these horrific, you know images of what it's like to be an animal on a factory farm in the way that you would be if you're in an NGO putting out. You know undercover investigations, and so I think that is one of the you know pros or cons, depending on sort of where you sit.

Amy:

Yeah, sure Makes sense.

James:

I'm going to ask what I think what sounds like a very stupid question, but it is a question I have, um, and maybe other people have it too. So upside foods today has raised just over 600 million dollars worth of investment, including 400 million in 2022 and for outsiders like myself. But that sounds like a lot of money. So I'm kind of curious, like where does this money go? In terms of, you know, scaling up production, like how far will this take upside, in terms of you know, building new facilities and bringing down the costs and ramping up the production of cultivated meat?

David:

Yeah, mostly a lot of snacks for the office employees, no, just kidding.

James:

I was saying there's lots of nice snacks in your background.

David:

Yeah, no, it's a good question. Yeah, because it is a lot of money and I think most tough tech ventures will require that sort of funding. Most of the money for a cultivated meat company is going to go ultimately towards CapEx or capital expenditures. So this is like the cost to like build a production facility, the stainless steel required to build the cultivators or bioreactors and you know, just the building construction, all that stuff, as a point of reference upside, spent roughly 50 million dollars on our pilot production facility in emeryville, which is, you know, relatively small from a scale perspective because it is, at, you know, pilot level, do you?

James:

Do you have any numbers on like how much that can produce in terms like kilograms of meats, like per year?

David:

Yeah, I would want to check to confirm. It's in the order of tens to hundreds of thousands of pounds per year at full scale. So it's not currently operating in a commercial capacity at that level because they're waiting on some additional regulatory approvals for that. But that is roughly what we're talking about. If you wanted to expand into the tens of millions of pounds, then you're looking at probably over $100 million in investment, and so these are pretty expensive propositions. So I'd say that's probably the biggest single chunk of where that spend is going.

David:

Now, on top of that, of course, you've got the R&D costs, which can be expensive. R&d, of course, meaning research and development. You've got marketing costs, which, if you look at marketing budgets of these massive food companies, it's a ton of money that they're spending towards digital advertisement etc. And so there's a lot of other things that really line up. And then you of course, need a lot of people to do this, because this is an incredibly interdisciplinary industry. You need biotech experts, you need food science experts, you need chefs, you need business people, you need regulatory experts, you need marketing people. And then forget all the stuff to actually just operate a company, like operations people, it, hr, and so all that stuff really adds up. But that's in a nutshell where the money is going.

James:

Roughly. What would hundreds of millions of pounds of meat production look like in the total US market? Is this kind of like 1%? How many hundreds of millions would it cost to build like 1% of US meat supply? Do you have any ideas for that kind of number?

David:

The short answer is that cultivated meat is not going to disrupt the market overnight. It's going to be a very gradual process, and so, yeah, initially we're talking about a fraction of a percent that the industry will actually be able to supply. I mean, right now it's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent. But as the technology becomes de-risked, as it becomes optimized, as scale increases, we should see, you know, hopefully an exponential adoption of the technology. I think the other thing that will be really important for this is working with industry incumbents, and so that could be folks in the meat industry, that could be folks in the pharmaceutical industry, who have some of this infrastructure and also have the balance sheet, meaning the money on hand to support new developments in this area. And with all of those things, I think you could see a meaningful percentage of the industry become cultivated. But it will definitely take time. This is not something that's going to happen overnight, by any means.

Amy:

We talk a lot about like things at policy level but in terms of actually from a funding perspective, do you think government funding is necessary for this industry to keep scaling, or is it sustainable just from these kind of funding rounds that you were operating?

David:

I think government funding is absolutely critical and I'd say it pushes the ball forward on two fronts.

David:

It increases the probability of success. So to your first question, amy, I don't think it's necessarily necessary, but I think it does increase your odds pretty substantially. And then, number two, it can increase the speed at which you achieve success, and that is critical just because, as you both know, the challenges we're facing are urgent, and that is true regardless of whether you're talking about animals or climate change, or public health. You know, whatever it is, these are problems that need to have been fixed yesterday, and so the sooner we can get those accomplished the better.

David:

I think there's a lot of great work being done by organizations like the Good Food Institute or Food Solutions Action to sort of push the ball forward on government funding for these programs, and when I was at Upside, one of the things that we did was we helped get the state of California to pass a $5 million budget allocation for research and development in the cultivated meat space. But I think you know, ideally we see significantly more. And if you look at other innovative industries, especially those that are serving some social good, whether that's EVs or solar energy, these are all industries that had pretty substantial government support.

Amy:

When you say increases the odds of having success, like that first point that you made. Can you talk more to that? What about the government funding would actually increase the likelihood of success of the product.

David:

Part of it is just that venture capital funding is never guaranteed, and we're certainly seeing that today, in an environment with relatively high interest rates, vc funding has really dried up across the board.

David:

This is not just for the alternative protein space.

David:

This is really for almost any industry outside of, maybe, generative AI, which is currently very hot guaranteed and VCs operate on a model where they expect, you know, a return on investment within a certain period of time, and certainly for these industries that require a lot of CapEx, that are longer leads in terms of you know, they really require patient capital, it's going to take longer for these tough tech industries to see a return on investment and where there are high amounts of technical risk, these are the areas where government can really play an important role.

David:

I mentioned some of the social goods that this could solve that I think everybody here is aware of in terms of environment, animal welfare, et cetera, but there's also a very sort of real politic interest from the US government side, which is the US is currentlya leader in the food and ag space and it needs to maintain that leadership if it wants to be competitive in the 21st century, and so this is not just in the interest of the animals and the environment. This is really something that I think cuts across, an interest that all policymakers have, regardless of whether they're left or right of center, and so hopefully, this is something that that will also be a motivating force for government funding.

James:

Yeah, I agree, I think actually recently China put out some policy documents on how they're investing in alternative proteins and, I guess, biotechnology and food, and I think this is a bit of a signal because I think, yeah, the US doesn't necessarily want to fall behind other geopolitical interests. Yeah, I think this national security angle is also very important On the government side of things. So to what extent was Upside Foods either independently or working with some other groups like GFI, in the space to actually basically release or unlock more government funding? And, yeah, how did that go in terms of your efforts?

David:

Yeah, I mean, when I was there, our main focus at Upside was really on the regulatory piece because that was higher priority At the time. We had a lot of venture capital interest, but the big obviously you can't sell in the US if you don't have regulatory approval, and so we were really focused on that. We did, as I say, do some work on the funding side. So I mentioned we worked with some folks in the California state legislature to encourage them to pass a $5 million funding allocation, which ultimately did pass. That was in partnership with GFI and FSA, the two groups I mentioned earlier. But we also used our sort of megaphone that we had to advocate for this sort of thing. But our biggest priority from a government relations perspective really was focused on regulatory approval.

James:

And how does that work? In terms of like, now that you have it, it seems like whenever you develop new products, new iterations, do you have to reapply for regulatory approval. So like this, almost this task is never really done, so you can't necessarily just like shift your focus onto helping the industry at large. Is that broadly right?

David:

It'll depend on how different the new production methodologies are. So you know, in the case of upside foods, we got regulatory approval for a small scale production methodology that produces 100% essentially 100% meat, so there's not like a bunch of plant based filler or anything in there. The next step that Upside I think is working on now is getting regulatory approval for a larger scale production methodology that will enable faster scale. Probably these will be hybrid products that are partially made of plants and that's the sort of thing that will really unlock scale and that does require a new regulatory submission. But if you're just making minor tweaks to the production method, it should be covered by what already the regulatory authorities have deemed is okay.

Amy:

When we were looking through the press release for the Series C funding round, it was interesting to see the educating consumers piece listed as a way that funds would be spent and I think, given your focus on comms while you were there, can you share more about what that looked like and why that was important in that?

David:

Obviously, you can have the most advanced technology in the world that is super safe and gets government regulatory approval, but if consumers don't want to eat it, it doesn't really matter. And so this is a very interesting communications challenge, both because you know you need to do sort of the traditional marketing that you'd expect for any food product, but also you just need to educate consumers about this new category, this new production methodology, and that is a challenge. I mean there's a tremendous amount of confusion over the difference between plant based meat and cultivated meat. Clearing up that confusion is not an inexpensive task. That requires ad spend and dollars, and you can think of it in four major buckets. So there's paid media, earned media, shared media and owned media. So paid media is like if you're paying for a digital ad, spend right, you're targeting a subset of consumers who you think are going to be buying the product and you're focusing on that. Or you're paying for, let's say, an ad in the Super Bowl or a billboard on the highway or something like that.

David:

Earned media is an area that I was very focused in at Upside. That is like PR. So it's called earned media, because you're not paying a reporter to write about you, but you are giving them information and they are writing about you and sort of the trade-offs you're making. There is, you know, you can access the platform that, let's say, the New York Times has without having to pay for that that much reach. The downside, though, is that you have limited control over the narrative, because all you can do is talk to the reporter and then the reporter is ultimately going to write the story that they want to write, subject to, you know, oversight from their editors, et cetera.

David:

And then shared media, that like social media, where it's sort of a give and take with with the brands and, you know, the folks in the public. And then own media. That would be something like a website or something like that. So I'd say paid media and earned media were probably the biggest sources of spend at upside and at many of these companies, but it, you know, it will depend a lot on the individual marketing strategy of any of these companies. But it will depend a lot on the individual marketing strategy of any of these given companies.

James:

And, in terms of paid media, what kind of outlets or what kind of consumer groups are you trying to reach and with what message? Because for me, a long time before it was approved, people couldn't actually buy anything. There was no course action, no one could actually do anything. So maybe there's a piece about education and then, even after it's approved, right, they only be able to have a very small subset of people geographically. So I guess, like, what are the main audiences you guys focus on? And like, too, what were the kind of key takeaway messages you were trying to drive home to?

David:

people.

David:

It very much depends on the stage of the company.

David:

In the early days of a company, the key audiences would would be investors, regulators, potential employees and a lot of that paid media is not the way to go about that.

David:

So the paid piece really only comes in when you're talking about maximizing a larger consumer base, so maybe less relevant today and certainly in the early stages of the company.

David:

And then, as you sort of develop the company, you go through this phase shift where you go from focusing more on these stakeholders who are sort of enabling or could be enabling the companies, to stakeholders that will actually be purchasing the product. Probably you would expect a shift from, let's say, earned media, which is really focused on these other stakeholders, to more of the sort of paid or shared media, which I think is probably more suited towards targeting future consumers. But typically the way this would work is you would do some sort of consumer segmentation of you know this is the target audience. These are the people that we think could be early adopters, who we want to be eating the product, and then really focusing in on on those folks initially and then gradually expanding the pie to cover, you know, more of the general public and do you feel like you scratched the surface, like comparatively to the meat industry as you were referencing before, their marketing budgets and ability to you know, share their narrative is obviously huge.

Amy:

Did you feel, like you, there was progress being made or it's kind of like a losing battle, as you're? You're putting out one story. There's like 10 on their behalf.

David:

There was definitely progress to be made, but it's also, I'd say, not even scratching the surface. So I'd say both are true. We made a lot of progress in terms of, you know, communicating the product, the process, the why behind it, even the who behind it like who are the people trying to make this happen? And also, importantly, we made some important partnerships with folks in the meat industry. So one good example of this is Upside partnered in this was 2017 or 18, with the North American Meat Institute, which is the largest trade association representing the conventional meat industry in the US. Now, this was on a specific regulatory policy question, so it was less of a sort of marketing thing. Then I also mentioned, you know, we had investment from Tyson Foods, from Cargill, from Whole Foods. So I think there are partnership opportunities that can unlock some of that scale.

David:

When it comes to marketing budget, although it really is, I'd say, too early for the cultivated meat industry to be focusing on that sort of massive spend the flip side of that, or the second piece of that, is there is a lot of work to be done. Yeah, I mean, our marketing budgets are way like not even a rounding error compared to the marketing budgets of the meat industry and so I think as the category matures, we will and we need to see more of that. Probably inevitable is the sort of pushback that we've seen, really effectively aimed towards mostly the plant-based meat industry, where there's this whole campaign about plant-based meat being quote, unquote, unnatural, ultra-processed, these sorts of things. The cultivated meat industry has seen a little bit of that, but I think we're not their main target right now because we're just not existing in the marketplace in a in as significant a way as a plant-based industry is.

Amy:

They'll come for you one day.

David:

No, absolutely, and I will say, like it already has started coming Like again. It's not probably as much of their mind share as the plant-based side, but, like we have seen, some states ban cultivated meat or propose these insane labeling laws about what you are and aren't allowed to call it, and things that are just blatantly in violation of the supposed principles that these folks that are proposing the bills have. But we have started to see some of that, you know I I think there will be more to come as the industry matures yeah, we definitely want to come back to the, the cultivated meat bands in the us.

James:

So that's super interesting. But I guess one question I wanted to ask on this. It's almost this conflict of interest, right, like that you said. Big meat companies, whether it's thais or cargo, are investors in cultivated meat companies but at the same time, other bits of the meat industry are trying to discredit you or, you know, pass laws against you. So about, like, how does this work? Like is it just because the industry is so large and factional, different groups are doing different things? Or like is it some groups are actually directly going against their own financial interests? Like what's kind of happening with these investments?

David:

this is a really interesting question that I think any disruptive industry faces. When faced with the question of you know, do we partner? Do we try and antagonize? You know how do we approach the incumbents? Most of what you're seeing from the conventional industry is more of a result of factionalization. So that is, either people within the industry disagree on how to approach these new technologies or there are just different incentive structures. So, for instance, I think, generally speaking, the processors tend to be more open to new ways of producing the actual raw material, because from their end, it doesn't really matter that much where they get the raw material and in fact they would prefer something that is, you know, potentially more resilient against things like bird flu or, you know, e coli contamination that you know maybe one day will be cheaper on their end than conventionally produced meat. That has this sort of PR halo around it, because they can talk about how it's better for the environment and animals and it will get some of these activists off their back. So I actually think, from their perspective, there's a great deal of incentive for this to work out. I think if you are in the part of the industry that is actually producing the raw material, maybe you have a different perspective, and I think it is interesting.

David:

The sub-industries within the meat category that have been the most vocally opposed tend to be one where there's less vertical integration, and so these various factions have more of sort of an independent voice and can advocate for something that you know benefits them, even if it means their partners on the processing side are, you know, are not necessarily as thrilled about that, and you see this like the. You know, and I know we'll talk about this later. But, like going back to the cultivated meat bans, the North American Meat Institute is against these because I think it rightly recognizes them as being anti-competitive, as being anti-innovation, as being a flagrant violation of the values of, you know, allowing free markets to prevail. But also they have a business incentive because I think they could, you know, potentially see themselves as customers and as folks who will take the raw material that a cultivated meat company makes and and turn it into products that people love.

Amy:

So let's talk about those setbacks then. So the laws in Florida and Alabama and actually some other states attempting to ban the sale of cultivated meat, how important was it to try and fight against that and how integral or important do you think these laws are for kind of long term progress of the product?

David:

The laws are obviously bad, you know, let's not sugarcoat it.

David:

You'll probably not be super surprised to hear me say that I don't think they're existential for the industry, but they're definitely bad, and I think they are absolutely a such a contradiction. To stifle competition just makes zero sense. According to the sort of more conservative or libertarian views that these states proclaim to hold, this is just blatant protectionism. This is protecting an incumbent industry, this is stifling innovation and, ultimately, this is making America less competitive in the food and ag space. So there are real risks to their constituents. From a long-term perspective, I think these are very short-sighted bans that are focused on, you know, placating some stakeholders or lobbyists. In the short term, you know there's a chance that these bills would be preempted by federal law, and so I think it'll be interesting to see what happens when the companies challenge these, and I think some of them, including Upside, already have filed lawsuits to challenge some of these laws, so I don't know if they will stick. Even if they do, right now there's still a huge market to go after.

David:

Right now, the issue that these companies are facing is 100% on the supply constraint side as opposed to the demand constraint side, and so I don't think it's an immediate threat to the space, one of the bigger things that I'm concerned about with these bans is just the potential for the issue to polarize, and I actually think one of the things that our movement needs to do a better job and by our movement I'm talking about all protein, but I'm also talking about the broader animal advocacy space, the environmental space is we need to depolarize this conversation and we need to make sure we're building support on the conservative side of the aisle as well as the progressive side and I'd say this is somebody who is, you know myself, progressive but I think, you know there's a real risk of polarization often leads to just like the stone walling and like log jam of progress, and we see this in the climate space, where you can only do something if one party is elected, and even if that party is elected, the other party will often try and do everything they can to stop them.

David:

So even then, success is not guaranteed. You know the US political system is very good at stopping things from happening. All you need is a sizable faction. It doesn't even need to be a majority, but a sizable faction to, you know, sort of stick sand in the gears, and I think that's a real risk that we see on the cultivated meat side, and something that our space needs to do much better at, which, and something that our space needs to do much better at which is another reason why I'm really grateful for the work that Food Solutions Action is doing. They are building political muscle on, you know, really in a bipartisan fashion, which I think is something the industry desperately needs.

James:

Yeah, I think this has been an increasing area of interest.

James:

I think for definitely myself and my team and actually for the podcast as well, because next week we're going to have on someone called kelby from the wilderforce institute to talk exactly about this topic, on why that all movement should essentially, you know, be more welcoming and focus more on essentially building support from right of center because, yeah, for all the reasons you said is, you know, it's no fun being successful half the time and then, when another party's in power, in fact it might even roll back your successes, so you're back at ground zero. So it's actually, I think, pretty existential for progress, whether you care about animal welfare or alternative protein. So I agree, yeah, and of interest, like, how have you was upside involved directly in maybe trying to stop the bans before they happen? I know you mentioned they're involved in one of the lawsuits against one of the bans, but, yeah, to what extent were you guys involved in the legislative process before it happened and how did that turn out for you guys and how was that process?

David:

It's a good question. So I will say I left right before those bans became a thing. I'm sure they were involved in some capacity. I do know when I was there we would monitor these sort of the precursor to these bans, which were labeling requirements that certain states would pass. And one of the things with these is that, generally speaking although obviously there are a lot of nuances with the law and I'm not a lawyer labeling laws for products that are regulated by USDA, the US Department of Agriculture, if you pass a labeling law in a state that contradicts what the federal government says, those will be preempted by the USDA regulations. There's a possibility that we'll see something similar for these cultivated meat bans. I think time will tell. We'll have to see how the courts rule on it.

Amy:

What's the main kind of messaging structure for the opposition? So you said that it's like counterintuitive, it doesn't make sense. If they were, you know, to look into it more kind of long term, what is their messaging strategy? To go against cultivated meat?

David:

I think the biggest one is they weaponize the naturalistic fallacy, which your listeners may know the naturalistic fallacy, but in essence what it's saying is that people assume that things that are natural are good and things that are unnatural are bad.

David:

One of the quickest ways to sort of get over that is like think about disease, which is very natural, cancer, which is very natural, and then think about modern medicine, which is very unnatural, which is very unnatural. Nobody would ever say that, you know, I guess some people would, but most people would say, like we should use modern medicine to combat these natural diseases because it leads to, you know, an increase in happiness and a reduction in suffering and and all these things, for whatever reason. This is something that's sort of built into the psyche of of all humans that natural is good and unnatural is bad. And I think the meat industry, in the case of plant-based, has done a very good job of weaponizing that fallacy and using it against consumers in ways that are ultimately harmful for them as much as for the industry. The consumers who are avoiding a plant-based meat product because they think it's less healthy when it's arguably more healthy than conventionally produced meat, those are the folks that are ultimately going to suffer, and so it really is a very cynical effort, unfortunately, in my opinion.

Amy:

Yeah, definitely, I think there's, as you were saying. They need to be careful when they talk about things that are natural and then we expose or an investigation comes out about the industry. That's so often, you know, not seen the day to day, is not seen by the consumers, and that's what they're labeling natural like. They have to recognize that their own product is equally as it is more unnatural, if you like, in terms of the processes we've now had to adopt to raise and keep factory farms in such high quantities.

David:

Yeah, so true, and that's a great point. It's like one you could say it doesn't actually matter per se if these things are natural or unnatural, but two, you could make the argument that cultivated meat is more natural and that you know when it comes to antibiotic use, or you know the need to put animals in tiny cages where they can't express any of their natural tendencies. The current system is not a natural process at all.

Amy:

Yeah.

James:

One question on the cultivating meat bans and labeling laws. It seems like you were saying obviously they're not existential but it's pretty bad. There's no denying that. I think there's other reasons, maybe not on the demand demand side, but more things like maybe it deters investors if they see like this industry is heading in a negative direction. Do you think the cultivated meat industry has put enough effort into fighting kind of these kind of bans or kind of mobilizing and kind of advocating politically? Because I was, like you pointed out before, there's lots of different incentives right, you need to get regulatory approval, actually develop a good product, but also trying to fight these bans. Do you think that balance has been right in terms of trying to develop new things and also fight against the bad pushbacks from the industry?

David:

I think it is, to your point, really hard to know how to juggle everything, because in these sorts of tough tech ventures there's a million areas of uncertainty and you need to sort of simultaneously de-risk all of them. The industry has increasingly focused on that sort of thing, and so some of this is direct work that the industry is doing. So, for instance, when I was at Upside Foods, one of the projects I led was helping co-found the Industry Trade Association, or AMPS, innovation. It stands for the Association for Meat, poultry and Seafood Innovation, and so this was the first cultivated meat trade coalition that ever existed on the planet, and it's incredibly unusual for these pre-revenue, early stage industries to be organizing in this way. But we knew that this was a topic of conversation and we needed to be in that conversation and we needed a group that could credibly speak on behalf of the industry in order to do that. So some of it has been work that individual companies have been doing or that we've been pooling our resources to form this trade association.

David:

I mentioned upside fighting this crazy ban in Florida, and I believe they're working with an NGO as well on that. And that brings me to the next point, which is that there are some outside groups that have really rallied to help on these collective issues. So this group that Upside is working with on the lawsuit, but also groups I mentioned before like GFI, food Solutions, action, new Harvest. I think these outside groups can play an important role on the sort of collective piece where you've got individual companies that really need to be focusing their dollars in a very shrewd way, especially in this venture capital economic environment, on these sort of core product milestones. But you can't leave the other stuff unattended to, and so I think it's really helpful to have these external groups getting involved as well. To straightforwardly answer your question, I'd love to see more attention focused on these political issues. It's just also a tough environment to be spending a lot of money because of the high interest rates and just the general dry up in VC funding that we've seen over the last couple of years.

Amy:

What are some common misconceptions that outsiders, who maybe don't work in this industry, might have about cultivated meat or companies working in this space? Is there anything that comes to mind?

David:

A couple of things come to mind. One is, I mentioned earlier, there's just a tremendous amount of confusion between plant based and cultivated. I mentioned earlier, there's just a tremendous amount of confusion between plant-based and cultivated, and it's shocking to me how smart and educated and involved and engaged people can be and still hold that confusion. And so I think the industry and I mean we tried a lot, but we need to continue trying and making sure that we are making that distinction very clear, Because ultimately, it doesn't serve anybody if there's confusion in the marketplace over what these products are or not.

Amy:

Why do you think such a distinction is integral between cultivated and plant based, like, say? It was just kind of merged into like alternatives, which is sometimes how it's referred to. Why does it need to be such a distinction, do you think?

David:

I think, a few reasons. The biggest one, in my view, is that the jury is still out on what percent of the population will regularly adopt plant-based meat into their diets, and I think you could imagine that there's a fairly low ceiling on that. You could also imagine there's a high ceiling. Like I said, the jury's out. That's an empirical question that we don't quite know the answer to, but I think there is. My intuition tells me that there is probably some segment of the population that, no matter how close to taste parity and cost parity you get with conventionally produced meat, there's just a group of people that are going to say you know what, eating meat is part of my self-identity and I'm going to, you know, I need to continue doing that For those folks. I think you really need to be offering them a product that is real meat. So that's one reason.

David:

I think another is more tactical. Like there is, I think, a greater chance of taste parity when you're talking about cultivated as opposed to plant based, because, again, you're not mimicking meat with plants, you're actually producing meat. It's just, you know, produced in a different way. And then the third piece is, I think, from a just like public safety perspective, like if somebody is at a grocery store and they see cultivated meat on the shelf and let's say it's like a cultivated shrimp product and they're allergic to shellfish, like I want to make sure that they know not to buy that because they're allergic to it and those allergies will hold through, most likely versus you know, if it's a plant-based product, they would feel comfortable eating that and it wouldn't trigger their allergies. So I think there's a lot of reasons, but those are sort of the big three.

David:

Yeah, yeah sure any other misconceptions that come to mind and maybe you hear from, like you or your animal, uh oriented friends I think you know one thing that I would just say about the industry is the work that the folks in the space are doing is incredibly difficult and it's hard to predict timelines on it. And so I think you know, sometimes you will see media coverage to the effect of like hey, these companies said they do XYZ by a Y date and they missed it. Like clearly they were, you know, just full of it and they're trying to mislead, you know, investors or the public or whatever. And the truth is like no, like, first off, there's a pandemic for a few years that completely disrupted supply chains, completely disrupted, disrupted working environments and caused a lot of delays. But also, just in general, like these are things that are very challenging to predict.

David:

You can't really predict with accuracy how long a regulatory process is going to take, even the science piece, like ultimately, we are at the mercy of what the cells want to do and we can't predict with 100% accuracy what that will look like. And so there are, just like unexpected twists and turns on the timeline front, and I would just want people to know that, like these are never intentions to mislead the public or investors, these are just honest. You know miscalibrations and projections. It's good that you have these companies being so open to sharing. You know, this is our progress. This is where we think we'll be in five years, because you want that amount of transparency. But the consequence of that is like sometimes the companies will get it wrong and they'll say a timeline that turns out to not be accurate in hindsight. You know, we should just have some understanding and grace for that.

Amy:

Yeah.

James:

Over your time working at Upside Foods over the last seven years or so, have you become generally more kind of optimistic or pessimistic, Like what are the key factors that have really stuck out to you? And be like, oh, this particular challenge was really difficult, or actually this we thought would be a big hurdle, but we actually managed to overcome it. Does anything stick out on that front?

David:

I think, broadly speaking, my confidence is pretty unchanged in the fundamental viability of the technology. I do think we'll get there and if anything, it's. My optimism has increased just because I've been working with some of the world's best scientists in tissue engineering and stem cell biology and bioreactor design and just hearing day to day, one, what their thoughts and projections are and two, like what the actual work they're doing is in the company and what sort of breakthroughs they've seen. And it's just incredibly inspiring to see their optimism and then to hear just the base facts of what they're doing. I do think it is all contingent on an economic environment that allows for funding sources and sort of the right places being in place from a business perspective, the right incentives. So it's not an inevitability Certainly it never was, but I do feel confident that, given the right amount of funding, these companies will be able to make this happen.

Amy:

Nice Love that, thank you. These companies will be able to make this happen. Nice Love that, thank you.

James:

How well calibrated do you think is the outside world, so to speak, whether it's, you know, people who work in the animal movement or protein kind of like nonprofit world difference to the reality of companies, in terms of how close are the companies to scaling up production in a meaningful way that will displace animals from the food system? Because I personally know a bunch of advocates who you know are not like banking on it but are really hoping it comes true because they see this as one of the quickest ways to displace, you know, huge amounts of animal suffering. To me they seem relatively optimistic. But I guess, having been in both sides, what do you think in terms of this calibration question, like, is the outside world getting it right or part of the challenge in answering that is that there's a.

David:

Obviously, the outside world is not a monolith, and so you've got different opinions and perspectives throughout. And then I think the other thing is even internally, within the industry, you've got different factions. So, right, you do have some companies that are really struggling and, you know, have gone out of business or will go out of business. You also have companies that I think are in a much stronger place from a funding perspective and can sort of last through this economic storm a little bit better, and so I think probably what you're going to see is consolidation, and what you're going to see is like it's a sort of a less even spread. So there will be some companies that feel more confident, some companies that feel less.

David:

If you ask somebody who's in the animal advocacy space and banking on this, I would say, yes, fair to keep this in your expectations and hopes. But also as a movement and this is just good advice for any movement that's trying to enact broad change you've got to diversify your approaches, and so I think we need it all. We need the out-protein folks to keep pushing the ball forward. We also need the animal welfare folks to keep making the existing processes better and less intensive in terms of suffering. We sort of need an all of the above strategy.

James:

Okay, we will push on from, I guess, the cultured meat industry to ask you about, I guess, your past few years. So you left Upside to do an MBA at Harvard. What was the thinking behind that move?

David:

There was a few things, so one I had spent seven and a half years at Upside. I really enjoyed it, learned a lot, but I wanted to see what else was out there and, in particular, I was really interested in this question of what is it like to be in a big company perspective, because just working at a startup that is essentially pre-revenue for the time you're there we sold our product right before I left. What is that like, and how are the incentives and the decision-making processes different? So part of it was just a learning piece. Another part, honestly, though and I think this is something that is underrated in the movement and I would encourage others to do is when you go to these elite institutions, you are surrounded by people that are going to go on to hold disproportionate amounts of power and influence in society, and that's true whether you're thinking about financial power, or political power, or corporate power, or cultural influence. They're also in a stage where they're, I think, open to new ideas and sort of probably more open-minded than they will be for much of the rest of their life more open-minded than they will be for much of the rest of their life and so, if you can insert this issue into the agenda in a serious and legitimizing way, I think you can have incredible impact.

David:

When I was an undergrad at Stanford and I started an animal welfare group there, there were those folks I was talking about at the beginning who cared about animals but didn't really feel comfortable vocalizing that and sort of felt like they.

David:

It was sort of like a hobby issue, a niche issue that wasn't actually like an important one quote unquote. And I think by virtue of just seeing folks that you know they could identify with because they were fellow students on campus publicly caring about this issue, they went on to incorporate this into their sort of model of what is a just world supposed to look like. And they have gone on to do pretty impressive things in the world of policy in Washington DC, in one example for animals. And so I think there are these sort of ripple effects. And so I think there are these sort of ripple effects and if you are at an institution, especially one of the more elite ones, you really have an incredible opportunity to change hearts and minds and really start that ripple. That was another reason I wanted to go. It felt like another opportunity to sort of try and get these elite business institutions to care more about animals as an ESG issue.

Amy:

Is there anything else you feel like students can do, setting up groups like this or participating in those groups and then taking that into their industry? Is there anything else students can do to try and advance this topic?

David:

There's a ton of stuff that can be done and a lot of it is low-hanging fruit. A lot of it is, you know, doesn't take a lot of effort. You know, sending notes to your dining hall and encouraging them to offer more plant based options is one. Just being vocal about the things you care about with your friends is another. I'm not trying to hide it or, you know, sort of excuse it. As you know, this is just some little weird quirk about mine, but try and forget about it when you're interacting with me. I think bringing speakers in is maybe a medium effort, but it can be quite low effort if there's an infrastructure around there. I mentioned we brought in the CEO of Beyond Meat yesterday to Harvard Business School. Last year, for the same conference, we had the CEO of Impossible Foods speak. We're going to have Rachel Atchison speak soon, who's founding a nonprofit in the food policy space, and so just a chance to sort of get people exposed to this sort of thing.

David:

The other thing I will say, just as a sort of a pitch to students who might be considering this, is animal welfare is a niche issue and this is actually a really good way to differentiate yourself. You know, when I was applying to business school, all of my essays were about, I care about, you know, ending the suffering of animals on factory farming. You know, obviously I don't know why I was accepted to the schools that I was, but I think probably this was a differentiating factor that allowed my essays to really stand out. And so, like there's, there's a benefit as well. I don't think I would have gotten the job at Upside if I hadn't been so involved in the animal welfare community, and so I think a lot of times people think about this as, like you know, I need to sacrifice some amount of, like professional respect in order to vocally care about this issue.

David:

It is probably true in some industries. It is often especially in an educational setting where the sort of free flow of ideas is so highly prized. It is often exactly the opposite, where there will be opportunities that present themselves to you just because you are the one person on campus who is really vocally making an effort on this, and there's a way to do that without alienating people and without seeming super extreme or radical or, you know, being the quote unquote angry vegan on campus. Like I don't feel like that is my, you know, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't feel like that is my reputation at HBS. I have, you know, very good relationships, even with the people that are inveterate carnivores here, and I think most of them understand. You know where I'm coming from.

Amy:

Yeah, I think that's super key just the approach and especially in those educational institutions, like coming at it from a really smart standpoint, I think, and having those conversations in the language and the environment that you would expect from being in those institutions, with the respect on both sides to like have that debate and conversation in a really healthy way it's very cool how I just like the the idea of it's almost like getting back to your first answer is, you know, not being worried or shy about your beliefs and welfare, and this in of itself is kind of normalizing for other people and letting people to speak.

James:

For I think it's actually super valuable and I've been had this very personal experience anecdotally with my friends where you know I'm relatively vocal about my beliefs, trying to be too pushy either, and then you know they bring it up kind of like more and more and then they kind of look to me like James, what do kind of normalizing these beliefs and hopefully encouraging it, I guess, for more broad discussion.

David:

So I think it's very inspiring how you do that and I think it is also I mean, to what you both have said and also to an earlier answer like it is about prioritizing your asks.

David:

So, like I don't think I've ever asked a friend at HBS to stop eating meat, what I've asked them to do is to recognize that animal welfare is a serious issue and that if you are in a chance to, you know, influence it, you should think very seriously about that, Because a lot of these people you know almost none of them are going to totally pivot their career trajectories to focus on animals.

David:

Almost none of them are going to become, you know, protesters, that you know circuses or you know whatever, but a lot of them will, you know, bring in a lot of money. A lot of them will be CEOs of big companies. Some of them might run for political office and they will have, like you know, a handful of moments in their life where they could make these massive decisions on. You know, are we going to go cage free in our supply chain? Are we going to invest in this alternative protein company? Are we going to vote for or against this law? You know banning gestation crates. You know, these are the sort of one off opportunities that I think you can really have an impact on as a student, even though you won't necessarily know that you're having that impact, because it will be, you know, decades in advance, and maybe it will happen behind closed doors.

Amy:

And speaking about career trajectories, what are your plans for after you finish your MBA?

David:

Yeah, so I've got a few months left here. I mentioned that one of the purposes for me of going to business school was to see what it's like at a big company, because prior to this I really only had the experience at Upside, because prior to this I really only had the experience at Upside. That's the plan post-business school and really excited to make that happen and just to see what it's like in one of these massive legacy companies Exciting.

James:

And moving on to our closing questions, this has been an amazing hour or so of Color-Flavored Meat. So yeah, thank you for your time, david, but before we close, what's one bit of news you're grateful to hear or excited about recently?

David:

The FDA announced that it had granted a regulatory green light to another cultivated meat company in the US. This company is called Mission Barns. They're producing cultivated pork fat. They're based in the Bay Area and this is huge news One. It's great for Mission Barnes and hopefully this will move the needle forward on all the progress that they're hoping to capture. But also, we had just seen a real stagnation in FDA regulatory green lights over the last few years. So there was Upside got ours in 2022, eat Just got theirs in 2023. And then there had basically been silence and it was actually, I think, quite frustrating that here we are. The FDA had already ruled on two companies favorably. No-transcript has some USDA stuff that they need to do before they start selling, but hopefully that will be relatively short compared to how long of a slog it was to get this FDA piece.

Amy:

Nice. Do you know what caused the delay in approving others?

David:

You'd have to ask FDA. My understanding is there was like a restructuring that happened and things just got slowed down. I don't think it was any particular substantive issue with the submissions, as much as just sort of things got caught up in the bureaucracy, which is unfortunate, as somebody who, you know, thinks government can be a tremendous force for good and, you know, wants government to be able to show that. It was frustrating to just see this as an instance where they were really clearly being a blocker to progress in the food space.

Amy:

Yeah, for sure, any recommendations to listeners, maybe books, blog posts, podcasts, anything that's kind of inspired your journey so far.

David:

On the ethical side.

David:

If folks haven't read Animal Liberation or Eating Animals, I think those are the two books that I would recommend.

David:

I actually haven't read Eating Animals, but what I've heard is that it's a sort of more accessible, less academic argument as opposed to Animal Liberation, which is probably my favorite book of all time. If you're interested in keeping up to speed on the alternative protein industry, definitely go to the Good Food Institute's website. They have a lot of resources there, including most years. They publish state of the industry reports for not only cultivated meat but also plant-based meat and precision fermentation, which we didn't talk that much about today, but that's another third category of alt-protein. That, I think, is the potential to be really high impact, and those two of the industry reports are really invaluable. And then the last thing I would say there's some reporting work happening. Agfunder is, I think, the trade publication that is covering this in the most detail, so check out the articles that Elaine Watson has written in this space. She is really up to speed on all the latest twists and turns in this industry, so that would be another one I'd recommend.

James:

Nice, we will link all those below and maybe finally, how can people either follow your work, hear more about what you're up to in the future and get more involved?

David:

I'd say add me on LinkedIn is probably the best way to do it. Just type David Kay, K-A-Y and if you don't see me, add in Upside Foods and you'll probably find me. I'm also on like Twitter, slash X and Instagram and Facebook, but those feel increasingly less relevant today. So I'd say add me on LinkedIn and I'll be sharing some updates on that front.

James:

Well, thanks for coming on, David. This has been a real pleasure to chat and, yeah, looking forward to your next steps and thanks for all your amazing work in the space.

David:

Thank you guys, really have enjoyed this, so best of luck going forward.