The latest news, trends, analysis, interviews and podcasts from the global food and beverage industry

As food-tech enters a more disciplined phase, investors are shifting away from hype-led disruption and towards businesses with clear commercial traction, stronger unit economics and scalable solutions.

In this exclusive interview, Martin Davalos, partner and head of food-tech at McWin, shares his view on the 2026 investment landscape, where capital is flowing and the technologies he believes could shape the next phase of growth across the food system.

How would you describe the current food tech investment landscape in 2026?

The market has gone through a necessary correction. Capital is selective, but that is a feature, not a bug. We are backing fewer companies, with greater emphasis on commercial traction, capital efficiency and credible paths to scale.

What I find encouraging is that the clean-up has happened faster than many expected. The ecosystem today is more disciplined and more interesting for growth-stage investors like McWin. Valuations are rational, terms are structured and the companies still standing have earned their place. The froth is gone. What remains is real.

What are you looking for most when deciding whether to back a food tech start-up today?

Three things, non-negotiable. First, a genuine pain point inside the food system, not a trend, not a narrative. Second, commercial evidence: real customers, repeat demand, gross margins that hold at scale and a founder who understands their unit economics as well as their technology.

Third, defensibility, whether that comes from IP, data ownership, deep workflow integration, or embedded customer relationships that are not easily replicated.

The companies we back at McWin typically sit at the intersection of all three. If one is missing, we pass.

Are there any areas of food-tech that are getting a lot of attention from investors at the moment?

Attention has moved upstream, away from consumer-facing disruption and toward enabling infrastructure, which is where many FoodBev readers are already operating.

The strongest interest is in functional ingredients, food-as-medicine platforms, AI-driven ingredient discovery and precision fermentation with clear commercial applications.

We are also seeing capital flowing into foodservice digitalisation: software and transaction infrastructure that modernises how food is ordered, distributed and paid for. And there is growing focus on supply-chain resilience: technologies that reduce labour dependence, lower input volatility, or give food manufacturers credible alternatives to structurally pressured commodities like coffee, cocoa and eggs.

With agri-food, are there particular challenges that make agri-focused start-ups harder to fund?

AgTech is structurally harder to fund, and for good reasons. Adoption cycles are longer, field validation takes time and the end customer, whether a farmer or a food manufacturer, operates to an unforgiving ROI threshold.

They will adopt when a solution demonstrably saves money, improves yield or reduces regulatory burden. Not before. Add hardware or operational components and the capital intensity climbs quickly.

That said, when the value proposition is well-grounded, AgTech can build durable businesses. We are constructive on precision application and input efficiency, solutions tied directly to farmer economics and regulatory pressure rather than discretionary demand. Ecorobotix is a useful example: precision spraying that materially reduces chemical use without asking the farmer to take a commercial leap of faith.

How important is it for start-ups to show a clear path to profitability early on?

It is the single most important shift in how we evaluate companies today. Growth at any cost is no longer a credible investment case. Founders do not need to be profitable on day one, but they need to show that profitability is structurally achievable: what the gross margins look like at scale, what the payback period on customer acquisition is, how capital-intensive the growth actually is.

The companies winning deals today are the ones that can separate ambition from wishful thinking. That is one of the reasons we focus on growth-stage businesses. The technology risk is lower, the unit economics are visible, and the conversation about profitability is grounded in real data rather than assumptions.

Alternative proteins were a big focus a few years ago. How do you see that space now?

It went through a necessary reset, and the sector is better for it. Too much capital chased broad disruption narratives before cost parity, manufacturing scalability and genuine consumer demand were established.

Today the space is more realistic and, in my view, more investable. The stronger opportunities are no longer in generic meat replacement, but in targeted applications where the technology addresses a real formulation or supply-chain challenge: functional fermented proteins, precision-fermented ingredients with specific industrial use cases and cultivated meat companies focused on process economics rather than category positioning.

The category is not over. It is maturing from storytelling to engineering, and for manufacturers already working in this space, that shift should feel familiar.

Are there any emerging ideas or technologies you think deserve more attention?

Three areas worth highlighting. First, the convergence of AI and biology, particularly in ingredient discovery, bioactive identification and biomanufacturing optimisation, where the computational leverage is beginning to have real industry impact.

Second, GLP-1-linked nutrition: as these therapies reach a broader market, there is a growing need for companion products built around protein quality, satiety, gut health and metabolic wellness, a category that barely existed two years ago, and one that food manufacturers are well-placed to address.

Third, commodity inflation hedging through ingredient or platform innovation, solutions that give food companies structural alternatives to coffee, cocoa, sugar and eggs, which face extended supply pressures. These are not hype themes. They are structural problems the food industry needs to solve.

Anything else you think our readers should know more about?

One thing I would push back on is the instinct to frame food-tech primarily as a consumer story. The most consequential innovation right now is deeper in the stack, in ingredients, agricultural efficiency, supply-chain infrastructure and food system software.

The companies building durable value are the ones making the food system more resilient, healthier and more economically efficient. For the manufacturers, suppliers, and operators who make up FoodBev’s readership, that is not an abstract investment thesis, it is the competitive terrain they are already navigating.