Welcome to the 90th edition of Deep Tech Catalyst, the channel from The Scenarionist where science meets venture!
If you’ve been tracking the rise of alternative proteins, regulatory hurdles in food innovation, or the challenge of building B2B platforms in a consumer-driven industry, this episode is your roadmap.
Today, we’re joined by Amira Khatib, Vice President at Bluestein Ventures, to unpack what it really takes to build fundable companies at the frontier of food tech.
Together, we explore the strategic balancing act that defines this space—from early-stage regulatory navigation to capital-efficient prototyping, brand clarity, and corporate engagement.
In this edition, we explore:
Why market vs. technology is a false dichotomy in food tech
How to test products meaningfully—before FDA approval
When and how to fund the regulatory path at pre-seed
What makes a go-to-market strategy clear—and investable
How to partner with corporates without losing speed or leverage
Whether you’re a scientist spinning out lab innovation, an investor looking to de-risk food tech, or a founder navigating the early stages of commercialization—this conversation offers a grounded look at how to build real traction in a complex, capital-intensive sector.
Let’s dig in! 🥬
✨ For more, see Membership | Deep Tech Briefing | Insights | VC Guides
BEYOND THE CONVERSATION — STRATEGIC INSIGHTS FROM THE EPISODE
Navigating the Dual Origins of Food Tech Innovation
In the world of Food Tech, companies rarely emerge from a clean “market-pull” or “technology-push” starting point. Founders often attempt to frame their journey in one of these two ways, but the reality is more nuanced. Innovation doesn’t move linearly from lab bench to grocery shelf—it evolves in response to the friction between what’s technically possible and what the market is ready to adopt.
Some companies begin with a scientific breakthrough: a new membrane, a bioengineered ingredient, a fermentation process. Others start from a clearly defined market problem—whether it’s the rising demand for alternative proteins or a need for cleaner-label products—and search for the right technical solution to meet it. But neither path alone is sufficient.
Innovation as a Strategic Convergence
What sets successful startups apart is their ability to work at the intersection of these forces. They treat both science and market as co-evolving systems, not isolated variables. Rather than falling in love with the technology or chasing abstract demand signals, they focus on the interaction between the two—where early customer feedback shapes the direction of the technical roadmap, and where the capabilities of the underlying science inform how the product is positioned and applied.
This is not an accidental process. It requires deliberate iteration, early engagement with potential buyers, and a willingness to refine assumptions quickly. The founders who thrive are those who remain responsive without becoming reactive—staying grounded in a core innovation, while flexible enough to evolve the product around real-world use cases.
Avoiding the "Hammer in Search of a Nail"
One of the most common pitfalls is building a technology without a clear application. In the absence of market validation, teams risk becoming what some investors call “a hammer in search of a nail.” The science may be impressive, the prototype functional—but without a defined customer need, the business cannot sustain itself.
This is particularly common in academic spinouts or lab-born ventures where the innovation is compelling but under-tested in commercial settings. The market doesn’t reward technical elegance alone. What matters is whether the solution creates measurable value—economic, operational, or experiential—for someone willing to pay for it.
Founders must resist the urge to seek validation solely from scientific peers or technical milestones. The feedback that matters most is from the buyer. And that feedback should inform—not follow—the next iteration of the product.
Beyond the AI Bubble. Go Vertical. Go Industrial.
Capital Intensity Defines the Platform Race; Defensibility Defines the Vertical One.
Testing, Feedback, and Regulatory Reality
Early-stage food tech doesn’t need to be perfect. It needs to be relevant. One of the most important early steps is getting as close as possible to the actual buyer—whether that’s a corporate innovation team, a co-manufacturer, or an end customer in a B2B setting. Too often, technical founders delay customer contact until the product is “ready.” In reality, what’s needed is a version that’s directionally correct and good enough to prompt feedback.
Build Proximity, Not Perfection
Even rudimentary prototypes—those that aren’t fully scalable or consumer-ready—can generate insight. The point isn’t to launch. It’s to learn. And that learning accelerates dramatically when the product is in the hands of someone who can evaluate its value in the intended context.
This approach doesn’t just reduce capital waste. It creates early alignment with the customer’s priorities. It also sends a signal to investors that the company is focused on outcomes, not just inputs.
Build a Product That Matches Its Final Context
Early iterations don’t need to scale. But they should resemble, as closely as possible, the final application. A sample that doesn’t match the real-world format, functionality, or delivery method of the future product may lead to false signals. Worse, it may send teams down the wrong development path—burning time and capital in the process.
That’s why the best early tests focus not only on performance, but also on context. If the long-term model is B2B, then early feedback should come from buyers who will eventually make the decision to adopt—or reject—the product at scale. Engaging them early does more than shape the roadmap. It helps founders avoid expensive detours.
The Weight of Regulation on a Startup’s Journey
For Food Tech startups, the path to regulatory approval isn’t optional—it’s part of the business model. And while the actual filing process with the FDA may come later, the strategic thinking around it must begin early.
By the time a company reaches the pre-seed or seed stage, the regulatory roadmap should already be mapped out. This doesn’t mean having full approval in hand, but it does mean having advisors, a budget, and a realistic timeline in place. Founders who postpone this planning risk surprises that can derail both fundraising and product development.
The most investable teams are those who treat regulation as a core part of their go-to-market strategy—not a legal afterthought. They know what path they’re taking, what milestones they need to hit, and where the risks lie.
Pre-Seed Capital: When Strategy Becomes Execution
Most founders begin serious regulatory planning around the pre-seed stage. Earlier rounds—often backed by friends, family, or academic sources—typically lack the capital needed to engage regulatory consultants or legal counsel. But once institutional investors come on board, expectations change.
From that point forward, the team is expected to demonstrate regulatory literacy: knowing whether the product includes novel compounds, understanding labeling and allergen disclosure, and identifying whether any health-related claims require validation. For functional food and supplement companies, clinical testing may even be necessary to support efficacy claims. These are not small tasks—and they require resources, time, and coordination.
Pre-seed capital becomes the inflection point where regulatory preparation shifts from theoretical to operational.
Approval is a Risk, Not a Dealbreaker
Every investor in food tech understands the regulatory burden. It’s baked into the space. What matters isn’t whether the product needs FDA approval—it’s whether the team acknowledges that need and shows they can manage it.
From an investment standpoint, regulatory risk is just one of many. There’s also technical risk, market risk, and execution risk. What matters is how these risks are prioritized and mitigated.
A company that’s clear-eyed about regulation, that has a plausible and budgeted path forward, will always be more compelling than one that avoids the conversation altogether.
💸 $44M Logistics Agents; $34M Quantum Algorithms; $22M Farm Vision AI; $15M Zinc-Bromine Storage; $14M Plant-Protein Polymers & more | Capital Movements Vol. 34
Our Weekly Observer of Deep Tech Capital: where the money moves, who drives it, and why it matters.
Go-to-Market Strategy: Clarity Over Complexity
In food tech, go-to-market is not just about timing—it’s about identity. One of the most common early-stage challenges is the lack of clarity between B2B and B2C strategies.
Founders may start with a consumer-facing product to test interest or gain early revenue, while intending to pivot into a B2B model later. But unless this shift is deliberate and well-structured, it can create confusion both internally and externally.
These two models operate on completely different playbooks. Selling to consumers requires brand building, digital marketing, packaging, and distribution. Selling to businesses involves supply chain integration, regulatory alignment, and long procurement cycles. The skills, capital requirements, and time horizons are distinct—and trying to run both strategies simultaneously without the right team or focus can dilute progress on both fronts.
What matters most is not the choice between B2B or B2C, but the commitment to one—or a disciplined plan to manage both without compromising execution.
Don’t Default to B2C Just to Show Traction
Many technical founders assume they need to launch a consumer product to “prove demand.” While short-term feedback from consumers can be useful, it often comes at the expense of long-term focus. For a startup aiming to serve large CPGs or become a platform ingredient, launching a brand may create more noise than signal.
Early-stage B2C efforts can be expensive and misleading.
Consumer feedback may not reflect the priorities of corporate buyers. Margins may look attractive in theory but disappear under the weight of marketing and distribution costs. And the company may ultimately be valued—not as a food tech innovator—but as a CPG brand.
That distinction matters. If the product is being built as a tool to empower other brands, then the company must act accordingly: engage those partners early, build for scale, and demonstrate industrial relevance—not retail packaging appeal.
A Brand Without Strategy Is Just a Label
Founders from STEM backgrounds often underestimate the complexity of building a brand. In the food sector, this can be a critical oversight. A product may be grounded in deep tech, but if it enters the market as a consumer good, it will be judged—and valued—as one.
This doesn't mean every food tech company needs to launch a brand. But for those that do, the absence of brand-building expertise is a red flag. No matter how strong the technology, teams must understand positioning, storytelling, and the retail landscape. These elements are not secondary—they’re central to how the product will perform in the eyes of both customers and acquirers.
Investors take notice. A company that leads with technical strength but ignores commercial presentation may struggle to attract the right partners—or be misaligned in its fundraising and exit strategies.
In this sector, clarity is currency. The earlier a startup can articulate what it’s building—and for whom—the stronger its trajectory becomes.
Working with Corporates Without Losing Momentum
For early-stage food tech companies, large corporate partners can seem like ideal customers: they offer distribution, scale, credibility, and resources. But while the opportunity may be attractive, the path is rarely fast.
Even when a corporate partner is enthusiastic, the internal process—from initial interest to pilot, and from pilot to commercial rollout—can take years. Decision-making is layered. Legal, procurement, and regulatory teams must be engaged. Internal champions can leave, and priorities can shift. Startups, by design, are built for speed. Corporations are not.
This mismatch in velocity creates tension. Founders may find themselves waiting for an answer, stretching timelines, or adapting to feedback loops that were never designed for startup agility. And yet, avoiding corporates altogether isn’t the answer either. The solution lies in how those relationships are structured and sequenced.
Start Small—But Make It Count
A corporate partnership doesn’t need to begin with a large rollout. In fact, the most strategic entry point is often a focused, limited-scale pilot—ideally one that is paid. Even if the revenue is modest, a paid pilot changes the dynamic. It positions the startup as a solution provider, not a vendor seeking favors.
More importantly, it sets the tone for future engagements. When a corporate pays—even a small amount—they are more likely to allocate internal resources, provide meaningful feedback, and advocate internally. It also signals to investors that the product has real commercial potential and that the buyer sees enough value to invest, however incrementally.
Many startups make the mistake of offering free pilots in hopes of accelerating adoption. But unpaid engagements often lead to ambiguous outcomes and low commitment. Charging—even modestly—forces clarity on both sides.
Diversification as a Hedge Against Delay
While an “anchor” corporate partner can offer strong validation, over-reliance introduces fragility. If one pilot becomes the sole focus, any delay, restructuring, or loss of internal support can create significant setbacks.
Founders should aim to build multiple corporate conversations in parallel. These don’t need to be at the same stage—but having a pipeline of engagements, at different levels of maturity and with different types of partners, reduces risk. It also demonstrates the broader applicability of the technology, increasing confidence for both investors and future customers.
The strongest early-stage companies show not only that they can engage with corporates—but that they can manage those relationships strategically, without becoming dependent or distracted.
Structuring Strategic Relationships for Growth
Early-stage traction often comes from building a deep relationship with a single corporate partner. This initial engagement is essential—it offers real-world validation, creates an internal advocate, and can serve as the first proof point for product-market fit. But depth without breadth is a short-term win.
To scale, the company must transition from a one-to-one relationship model to a system that supports repeatable sales. That means designing not just the product, but also the business model, pricing, and delivery mechanisms for replication.
The ability to engage multiple customers across multiple markets, without starting from scratch each time, is what transforms a promising pilot into a scalable company.
This shift is not automatic. It requires planning, intentional product design, and often, a new wave of organizational maturity.
Fusion’s “industrial turn” is real & Beyond | Deep Tech Briefing Vol. 77
Our weekly Intelligence on Deep Tech Startups and Venture Capital.
