A finely milled, high-protein cricket flour inspired by one of the world's most abundant natural resources. Explore the research behind its potential in everyday food and resilient food systems.
Explore the evidenceInvestment & impact
Full supplied artwork retained. Product concept: nutrition and commercial specifications require verification.
People facing hunger in 2025; 7.8% of the global population.
Moderate or severe food insecurity in 2025; 25.8%.
Unable to afford a healthy diet in 2025; 32.7%.
SOFI 2026, released 21 July 2026; these overlapping populations must not be added together. Hunger declined globally, but progress remains fragile.
“Ending hunger and making healthy diets affordable requires political commitment, sustained investment and enabling policies.”QU Dongyu, FAO Director-General, joint UN release. [S1]
Exoflour could contribute to diverse local food systems, but no single ingredient can solve hunger. Acceptance, cost, lawful production and safe distribution determine whether it is useful.
Explore the proposed business plan| Nutrient | Reported range / basis |
|---|---|
| Crude protein | 64.38-70.75% dry matter |
| Fat | 18.55-22.8% dry matter |
| Iron | 6.27-11.23 mg / 100 g dry matter |
| Zinc | 18.64-21.79 mg / 100 g dry matter |
Compiled research values, not Exoflour lab results. Dry-matter concentration is not an as-sold label value or proof of absorption.
[S4]“Nevertheless, allergenicity and consumer acceptance remain critical challenges”Xu et al. (2025), abstract excerpt.
A randomized trial enrolled 284 infants and ran for eight months. It found no significant cricket-treatment effect on total length gained; observed growth rates were similar across study arms.
“Consuming either of the intervention foods resulted in a similar growth rate irrespective of nutrition education treatment offered.”Okeyo et al. (2026). [S5]
Not proof of superiority, formal equivalence, stunting prevention or approval of ordinary cricket flour for infants.
Caregiver-reported child signalling for more; same trial as the 2026 growth paper, not independent replication.
The research flour contained 24% cricket powder. Both porridges were highly accepted; reporting bias is possible.
Research formulation, not an infant-feeding recipe.
[S6]In a double-blind randomized study, 24 healthy young men consumed 30 g of lesser-mealworm-derived or milk-derived protein. Both increased acute muscle protein synthesis, with no significant between-group difference in the measured response.
Mealworm protein, not cricket flour; 30 g protein, not 30 g flour. No proof of long-term bodybuilding superiority.
[S7]Explore baking blends, muffins, pancakes, crackers and snack bars. Cricket flour is an ingredient, not a direct wheat-flour substitute.
Proposed development applicationPotential protein bars, formulated shakes and post-training snacks. Finished-product testing is needed; no superior-muscle-growth promise.
Proposed development applicationPossible ration biscuits and compact snack ingredients. No military contract or approval claimed; nutritional, safety and storage requirements apply.
Proposed development applicationInvestigate fortified biscuits and appropriate porridges with qualified partners. No WFP adoption or endorsement claimed; not a therapeutic food or home infant-feeding recipe.
Proposed development applicationApproximate kg feed / kg live-weight gain, rounded FAO examples.
Not per kg edible protein or finished flour.
[S16]Litres / gram edible protein. Mealworm comparison, not cricket / Exoflour data.
Drinking water is not supply-chain water footprint.
Miglietta et al. (2015) · Wageningen reviewQualitative comparison. Feed, energy and processing still cause emissions. Other insect groups may produce methane.
[S16]A 2026 review of 34 LCA case studies identifies feed, energy and processing as key drivers. Insects can outperform livestock in some systems, but do not universally outperform soy or other proteins.
A 2025 cricket review identified 62 consumed species but only 14 successfully domesticated species. Natural abundance does not establish farm viability.
[S8] [S20]Managed stock and incubation.
Contained units, ventilation, shelter and density management.
Suitable formulated feed and controlled water / moisture.
One system used 40-45-day cycles; timing varies.
Validated food-safe processing and moisture control.
Fine milling, batch tests and traceable packaging.
Proposed workflow, not a documented Exoflour facility. [S17] [S18]
Grams of protein contributed
Illustrative assumption, not verified product nutrition or absorbed protein.
Arbitrary demonstration inputs, not operating data. This separate GBP tool is not the USD investment forecast.
Research updated 7 October 2026. Exoflour is farmed cricket flour, not a proposal to harvest wild populations.
A phased global farm-network plan for private investors and philanthropic partners. An urgent ambition, a measurable delivery pathway and a transparent five-year sponsor model.
Pre-feasibility concept, not an audited forecast or securities offering. All customer names are prospects. No payment or subscription collected.
Year-1 raise: $75m private equity and $25m philanthropic grants.
Total phased funding: $200m private capital and $70m grants over Years 1-3.
Target for an evaluated contribution through approved partners; not a promised number of lives saved.
Exofoods proposes a distributed network of food-grade cricket farms and regional processing hubs, producing Exoflour for established food manufacturers and carefully evaluated public-benefit nutrition programmes. The Year-1 funding request is $100 million: $75 million private equity and $25 million philanthropic grants. The illustrative five-year build requires $270 million in total, not just the initial raise.
The need is urgent, but it is not accurate to describe hunger as rising everywhere: SOFI 2026 reports 645 million hungry people in 2025 despite a third year of global decline; 2.69 billion people could not afford a healthy diet. Conflict, climate shocks and constrained purchasing power demand both immediate assistance and more resilient local food systems. [S1]
Within 24-36 months, Exofoods could contribute to life-saving food assistance through approved local partners, if safety, market authorisation, acceptance, affordability and contracts are secured. The model supports 20 million supplemented portions in Year 2 and 120 million in Year 3; these are ingredient-based planning equivalents, not beneficiaries or lives saved. New factories must not divert funds from proven urgent treatment and food assistance.
| Model headline | Illustrative base case |
|---|---|
| Year-1 funding | $100m; no debt assumed |
| Five-year external funding | $270m: $200m private equity + $70m grants |
| Year-5 sales / revenue | 30,000 t dry flour / $180m |
| Year-5 EBITDA / net income | $45m / $24.75m |
| Pooled equity return at Year-5 exit | 1.55x MOIC; 54.7% ROI; 11.3% IRR |
| Cash payback | Not achieved in five years; return requires an exit |
Investment status: pre-feasibility sponsor model. No land, farms, licences, customer contracts, equipment quotations, founder credentials or validated Exoflour laboratory data have been supplied. All operating costs, prices, site choices, capacity, financing and returns are assumptions, not audited forecasts. This is not a securities offering or an invitation to send money.
| Evidence KPI | Reported value | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Hunger in 2025 | 645 million; 7.8% | Undernourishment, not acute famine count |
| Moderate / severe food insecurity | ~2.1 billion; 25.8% | Different, overlapping population |
| Healthy diet unaffordable | 2.69 billion; 32.7% | Affordability is a central barrier |
| WFP food purchased in 2025 | 1.53m tonnes; $1.02bn | Volume down 22%; value down 27% vs 2024 |
The UN figures above are from SOFI 2026. WFP procurement constraints show why low cost and measurable benefits matter more than novelty. Additional demand will come from demographic change and diet shifts, but this plan does not treat the entire hungry population as a paying market. [S1] [S2]
"We now need sustained investment to match the scale of the challenge." - Carl Skau, WFP Acting Executive Director, joint UN release, 21 July 2026. This quote describes the food-system challenge, not endorsement of Exofoods. [S1]
The Year-5 humanitarian allocation could supply 600 million 15 g portions, equivalent to about 1.64 million daily recipients for one year if distribution were uniform. That is approximately 0.25% of the 645 million hunger figure: meaningful local contribution, not a claim to feed humanity. This arithmetic is not an impact evaluation.
| Research finding | What it supports | What it does not prove |
|---|---|---|
| House-cricket crude protein 64.38-70.75% dry matter; iron 6.27-11.23 mg /100 g; zinc 18.64-21.79 mg /100 g | Ingredient research and laboratory verification | Exoflour label values, absorption or deficiency treatment |
| Kenyan trial: 284 infants; eight months | Practical cricket-enriched food research | Superior total length gain; formal equivalence; stunting prevention |
| Mealworm trial: 24 young men; 30 g protein | Acute digestion / muscle synthesis research | Cricket-specific efficacy or long-term muscle gains |
Sources: [S4] [S5] [S7]. Report moisture basis, amino-acid composition, validated nitrogen conversion, digestibility and allergen risk. Crude protein can overstate nutritionally available protein when non-protein nitrogen is included. Dry powder versus fresh meat is not an equal dry-matter comparison. [S8]
Child/community programmes require independent ethical review, informed consent where applicable, medical oversight and an adverse-event protocol. Existing fortified foods remain the comparator, not "no food".
| Comparator | Where Exoflour may offer value | Constraint / decision test |
|---|---|---|
| Beef and other livestock | Short biological cycles; compact rearing; dry distribution after processing | Feed and processing impacts still count; nutritional and product functions differ |
| Fresh chicken / fish | Ingredient storage may avoid downstream refrigeration | Food-grade drying and packaging add cost; shelf life must be validated |
| Soy / pea ingredients | Distinctive nutrient profile; local ingredient diversification | Plant proteins can be cheaper and have lower footprints; no universal superiority |
| Whey / established sports protein | Product differentiation and nutrition formulation | Digestibility, sensory acceptance and price must justify substitution |
| Conventional fortified foods | Potential regional production and additional supplier resilience | Must match safety, nutrient suitability, acceptance and delivered cost |
A 2026 LCA review of 34 case studies finds environmental performance varies with feed, energy, processing and methodology. Some insect systems outperform livestock; some perform worse than soy or fishmeal. It would be misleading to promise superior ESG before site-specific measurement. [S8]
Commercial proposition: measured quality, traceability and locally appropriate resilience. Target advantage is against a defined alternative in a defined delivery corridor, not "all conventional food". A carbon-heavy farm or uncompetitive formula is a no-go, even if biologically productive.
| Priority / segment | Illustrative customer shortlist | Y5 sales mix / revenue |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Sports & specialist nutrition | Glanbia Nutritionals; THG Nutrition; independent bar and supplement manufacturers | 35% / $63m |
| 2. Mainstream food manufacturers | Nestle; Unilever; PepsiCo; regional bakers / ingredient processors | 30% / $54m |
| 3. Humanitarian fortified-food programmes | WFP; IFRC / national societies; ICRC; approved NGO and food-manufacturing partners | 20% / $36m |
| 4. Public / school food programmes | Education ministries in Kenya and Ghana; eligible local caterers; Compass / Sodexo for discovery | 10% / $18m |
| 5. Defence & expedition rations | UK MOD; US DLA Troop Support; qualified ration contractors | 5% / $9m |
All names are potential discovery targets chosen for relevant activity, not evidence of interest, approval, product fit or relationships. Volumes are assumed market allocations, not pipeline. Large manufacturers may reject insects for consumer, dietary, allergen or strategic reasons; no customer is assumed to buy merely because it is named.
FAO: potential technical, capacity-building and project partner; its procurement focus includes agriculture, equipment and studies, not automatically bulk daily meals. WHO: proposed evidence / public-health dialogue, not assumed bulk food buyer. "The UN" is not a single customer; WFP is the principal proposed food-procurement prospect. [S13] [S3]
IFRC, national Red Cross / Red Crescent societies and ICRC are distinct procurement entities. Engage their supplier processes separately. Defence and school customers are later-stage opportunities, after regulatory and acceptance gates. [S14] [S15]
WFP says new foods are assessed for evidence, acceptability, nutritional value, quality, safety, procurement and logistics. A start-up cannot assume instant direct qualification. Its supplier guidance describes experience and financial-capacity requirements; confirm current rules for the actual commodity and pursue an established processor partner where necessary. [S3]
"The consideration of using new foods by WFP will depend on its suitability for use in WFP's operations" - WFP supplier guidance, excerpt. This is a procurement condition, not product endorsement. [S3]
| Phase | Candidate geography | Selection rationale / gate |
|---|---|---|
| Y1 | Thailand demonstration anchor; Kenya pilot / hub | Warm-climate candidates; secure legality, feed, water, power, partner and offtake before final choice |
| Y2-3 | Thailand / Kenya replication; Ghana and Brazil feasibility | Diversify regional supply; no assumed food approvals or land rights |
| Y4-5 | Up to 12 production units in 4-6 countries | Capacity expansions only after verified economics and buyer demand |
These are feasibility candidates, not approved deployment decisions. Export permission, destination authorisation, biodiversity constraints, community consent, political / currency risk and sanitation capacity must be scored country by country.
| Site-score factor | Weight |
|---|---|
| Human-food legality / export pathway | 25 |
| Food-grade feed quality, availability and price | 20 |
| Power / low-carbon heat / water reliability | 15 |
| Customer proximity / transport corridor | 15 |
| Biosecurity / climate / containment suitability | 10 |
| Workforce / community / land security | 10 |
| Governance / FX / security | 5 |
Warm conditions can reduce heating needs, but humidity, extreme heat and drying still need engineering. Maintain two independent breeder sources and backup production regions. Global scale is an option created by repeatable modules, not an entitlement to approvals.
Pilot acceptance test: 12 successive cohorts with reconciled mass balance, pathogen specifications, survival, saleable yield, energy / water readings and all-in cash cost. Expansion stops if data fail. Final plant engineering requires vendor designs and a quantity-surveyor estimate.
Restricted substrates: use permitted, traceable food-grade feed. Human-food production must not assume that manure, mixed municipal waste or catering waste is legal or safe. A feed-cost improvement in one Thai study is not proof that a given feed recipe is approved globally. [S18] [S9]
Build an independent scientific advisory panel with nutrition, allergy, food microbiology, entomology and public-health expertise. Stop distribution and recall on safety breach; do not re-route failed human-food batches into other markets without legal assessment.
WFP already uses regional purchasing: in 2025 more than 80% of its food procurement volume came from countries where it provides assistance. Its Global Commodity Management Facility achieved a 33-day average lead time, 69% shorter than direct procurement. Exofoods must beat or complement this existing system, not compare itself with a fictional entirely air-freighted supply chain. [S2]
| KPI | Proposed target / measurement | Decision relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Climate footprint | Cradle-to-delivered-food LCA; per kg digestible protein and per nutritionally matched serving | Independent audit before superiority claims |
| Energy | Meter electricity / heat per kg finished flour; target >=70% low-carbon energy by Y5 | Target, not established performance |
| Water | Meter intake / loss; account for feed water and local scarcity | No unsupported litres-per-cricket claim |
| Local sourcing | Target >=70% permitted feed spend local / regional | Verify quality; do not compete with crisis staple demand |
| Service | Target >=95% on-time-in-full; corridor stock 30-60 days | Compare same corridor with incumbent lead time |
| Labour / community | Living-wage assessment; zero child / forced labour; grievance channel | Independent social audit |
| Loss / safety | Target <2% finished-stock write-off; 100% batch traceability | Shelf-life and recall validation |
| Governance | Independent audit / risk committee; restricted-grant ledger; anti-bribery | Quarterly board and donor reporting |
ESG advantage is conditional on measured results. Insect welfare, land rights, feed competition, energy intensity, water scarcity and animal / consumer allergies belong in the assessment. No guaranteed carbon credits or ecosystem benefits. [S8]
| Jurisdiction / channel | Pre-launch requirement |
|---|---|
| Great Britain | Confirm actual eligibility under current FSA rules and any transitional conditions; Exofoods cannot assume an inherited authorisation |
| EU / Northern Ireland | Verify Union List species, form, uses, limits, labels and any protected-data conditions; permission for one preparation is not universal |
| Thailand / Kenya / Ghana / Brazil | Obtain local legal opinions for farm licensing, feed, processing, sale and export; no approvals assumed here |
| Humanitarian procurement | New-food evaluation, finished-product specifications, audit, suitability and tender eligibility |
| Research involving children | Ethics approval, qualified clinical supervision, suitable comparator and adverse-event protocol |
The FSA states most edible insects require mandatory pre-market safety assessment and authorisation, with narrowly conditioned transitional arrangements. EU approvals cover particular species / preparations under defined conditions. Check the current instruments rather than relying on a generic "crickets are approved" statement. [S9] [S10]
No actual founding-team CVs or management appointments have been supplied. Investment requires demonstrable food manufacturing, entomology, multi-country operations and institutional-procurement experience, not only an appealing brand.
| Function | Accountable role / scope |
|---|---|
| Group leadership | CEO; CFO; COO; chief food-safety / science officer; commercial director |
| Country delivery | Country GM, farm manager, production lead, QA manager, maintenance and community liaison |
| Oversight | Independent chair; audit / risk and impact committees; donor observer where appropriate |
| Y1 staffing target | ~60 core / regional staff and ~120 site personnel; design assumption |
| Y5 staffing target | ~180 core / regional staff and ~1,600 site personnel; validate labour automation and cost |
| Year-1 application | USDm |
|---|---|
| Demonstration / farm infrastructure | 30 |
| Processing, drying and packaging | 15 |
| Breeding, utilities, engineering and laboratory assets | 10 |
| Operating cash losses: COGS less sales + central opex | 15 |
| Working capital increase | 0.45 |
| Closing cash reserve / unspent contingency | 29.55 |
| Total | 100 |
The $55m asset spend includes farm and hub scope, not separately additive line items. The $15m operating cash deficit is $6m COGS + $12m opex - $3m revenue. Diligence, clinical work and launch costs sit within opex; do not add them twice.
| Round / timing | Private equity | Grants | Total USDm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Y1 / start | 75 | 25 | 100 |
| Y2 / start | 60 | 20 | 80 |
| Y3 / start | 65 | 25 | 90 |
| Total | 200 | 70 | 270 |
Proposed grant envelope over five years: $25m research, safety and regulatory access; $20m qualifying local training / public-benefit infrastructure; $15m acceptance and approved pilot access; $10m monitoring and evaluation. These allocations are within modelled capex / opex, not extra expenses. Final donor agreements must specify eligibility and prevent private-value leakage.
Financing is assumed fully committed at the start of the indicated years, then released against gates. Private equity is a simplified pooled capital structure; no debt, interest or liquidation preferences in the base case. Fundraising shortfall is a stop-build event, not a reason to spend restricted grants on commercial losses.
| Line item | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Y4 | Y5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry flour sold, tonnes | 500 | 3,000 | 9,000 | 18,000 | 30,000 |
| Installed dry capacity, tonnes | 1,500 | 6,000 | 15,000 | 27,000 | 40,000 |
| Revenue | 3.00 | 18.00 | 54.00 | 108.00 | 180.00 |
| Cash production costs | 6.00 | 14.40 | 36.00 | 63.00 | 99.00 |
| Gross profit before depreciation | -3.00 | 3.60 | 18.00 | 45.00 | 81.00 |
| Operating expenses | 12.00 | 16.00 | 21.00 | 28.00 | 36.00 |
| EBITDA | -15.00 | -12.40 | -3.00 | 17.00 | 45.00 |
| Depreciation | 3.00 | 5.00 | 8.00 | 10.00 | 12.00 |
| EBIT | -18.00 | -17.40 | -11.00 | 7.00 | 33.00 |
| Cash tax | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.75 | 8.25 |
| Net income | -18.00 | -17.40 | -11.00 | 5.25 | 24.75 |
| Capital expenditure | 55.00 | 35.00 | 45.00 | 50.00 | 45.00 |
| Working capital increase | 0.45 | 2.25 | 5.40 | 8.10 | 10.80 |
| Free cash flow before financing | -70.45 | -49.65 | -53.40 | -42.85 | -19.05 |
| Private equity raised | 75.00 | 60.00 | 65.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Grants raised | 25.00 | 20.00 | 25.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Closing cash | 29.55 | 59.90 | 96.50 | 53.65 | 34.60 |
Revenue = sold tonnes x 1,000 x net price / 1m. EBITDA = revenue - cash COGS - opex. EBIT = EBITDA - depreciation. Tax = 25% of positive EBIT; no tax-loss carryforwards assumed. Net income = EBIT - tax. Free cash flow = EBITDA - cash tax - capex - increase in working capital. Closing cash includes committed equity and grants.
Cash COGS excludes depreciation, which is shown separately. Capital expenditure is investment, not an EBITDA expense. Grants are treated as financing here, not revenue; actual statutory grant accounting and restrictions may differ. Working capital equals 15% of revenue. No dividends within the five-year build.
Cumulative free cash flow is negative $235.4m. Cash remains positive only because $270m external funding is assumed. Y4 EBITDA profitability is not cash payback; continued expansion means Y5 free cash flow remains negative.
| Driver | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Y4 | Y5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net ingredient price, $/kg | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Cash production cost, $/kg | 12 | 4.8 | 4 | 3.5 | 3.3 |
| Capacity utilisation | 33% | 50% | 60% | 67% | 75% |
| Production units, indicative | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 12 |
| Humanitarian / public allocation | Pilot | 10% | 20% | 25% | 30% |
Five-year capex is $230m for 40,000 tonnes annual installed dry capacity: about $5,750 per annual tonne. Expansion includes new modules and hub / utility capacity. Vendor estimates, land / lease details, local taxes and power requirements remain unpriced; they may materially change the requirement.
Year-5 assumed mass balance: 30,000 t saleable dry flour / 35% yield = ~85,714 t harvested live biomass; at a 2:1 feed ratio, ~171,429 t dry feed. At $0.20/kg permitted feed, feed cost is ~$34.3m. The low feed price, dry yield and $6/kg selling price are critical unvalidated assumptions.
All revenue is ingredient revenue. Manufacturing partner revenue for a finished meal, donor programme spending and any benefits in local communities are not added to Exofoods revenue. No speculative by-product, carbon-credit or franchise income.
| Y5 cash production input | $/kg dry flour |
|---|---|
| Feed: 5.71 kg at $0.20/kg | 1.143 |
| Energy / drying / water | 0.550 |
| Direct labour | 0.600 |
| Maintenance / consumables | 0.450 |
| Packaging / batch testing | 0.257 |
| Other direct overhead | 0.300 |
| Cash COGS | 3.300 |
| Depreciation allocated: $12m / 30m kg | 0.400 |
| Corporate opex allocated: $36m / 30m kg | 1.200 |
| Full accounting cost before tax | 4.900 |
| Illustrative alternative | Assumed $/kg | Assumed protein | Cost / 20 g crude protein |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exoflour at selling price | 6.00 | 65% | $0.185 |
| Soy flour | 1.50 | 45% | $0.067 |
| Pea protein ingredient | 3.00 | 80% | $0.075 |
| Whey ingredient | 6.00 | 80% | $0.150 |
| Fresh chicken | 3.00 | 23% | $0.261 |
| Fresh beef | 6.00 | 20% | $0.600 |
All comparison prices and non-Exoflour protein percentages in this table are scenario inputs, not verified current quotations. Cost = price x 0.020 / protein fraction. It does not adjust digestibility, amino-acid quality, edible yield, cooking, energy or micronutrients. Obtain contemporaneous destination-specific quotes before claiming savings.
This scenario shows Exoflour costing less per crude-protein portion than fresh meat, but more than soy, pea or whey. Do not turn it into a universal superiority claim. A commercial premium must be justified by tested quality, acceptance or resilience.
Illustrative cooked cereal-based meal: 100 g cereal flour, 15 g oil, 10 g sugar and 15 g Exoflour, plus a professionally specified premix and water. This is a costing concept, not an approved recipe. The Exoflour component contributes 9.75 g crude protein at the assumed 65%; finished energy / protein and suitability must be tested. One meal is not a complete daily diet.
| Cost component | USD / portion |
|---|---|
| Cereal flour, 100 g | 0.060 |
| Vegetable oil, 15 g | 0.025 |
| Sugar, 10 g | 0.010 |
| Exoflour, 15 g at $6/kg | 0.090 |
| Micronutrient premix | 0.020 |
| Manufacture / quality control | 0.070 |
| Packaging | 0.050 |
| Regional delivery | 0.075 |
| Preparation / fuel / water | 0.090 |
| Programme administration | 0.060 |
| Delivered and prepared programme cost | 0.550 |
At three such portions per day, arithmetic cost is $1.65, but this is not a nutritionally complete daily basket, therapeutic ration or an appropriate infant-feeding plan. The sale price of the Exoflour ingredient already includes its assumed company margin; the other components are external programme costs.
| Published comparator | Derived benchmark | Boundary / warning |
|---|---|---|
| WFP 2025 overall purchases | $0.669/kg; $0.167 for 250 g | Weighted mixed commodities; procurement only, not a meal |
| WFP 2025 specialised nutritious foods | ~$2.107/kg; ~$0.211 per 100 g | Different foods and uses; not energy / nutrition matched |
| World Bank 2024 school-meal review | $173/child/year median; $0.865 at assumed 200 days | Historical cross-country programme median; 200 days is our assumption |
Sources: [S2] [S11]. These are not interchangeable comparisons and do not demonstrate that Exofoods is cheaper. There is no verified common delivered-meal price for WHO, FAO, Red Cross and military programmes in this research. Obtain live tenders, matched formulas and delivery corridor costs.
Replacing the 15 g Exoflour component with soy flour at assumed $1.50/kg reduces the same cost basket from $0.5500 to $0.4825, a $0.0675 difference per portion. This price-only substitution is not nutritionally equivalent. Exoflour would need a demonstrated advantage worth that premium or an explicit subsidy.
| Programme allocation | Ingredient tonnes | 15 g portion equivalents |
|---|---|---|
| Y2: 10% of 3,000 t | 300 | 20 million |
| Y3: 20% of 9,000 t | 1800 | 120 million |
| Y5: 30% of 30,000 t | 9000 | 600 million |
At Y5 scale, the indicative $0.55 programme would require $330m annually from buyers / donors for 600m portions. Only $54m is ingredient revenue to Exofoods; the remaining $276m is external formulation, delivery and programme spend. This programme funding is not included in the $270m company build financing.
At a $0.0675 price-only premium over the soy basket, 600m portions would imply $40.5m annual incremental programme cost. One-off startup grants do not cover permanent operating subsidy at this scale. Secure funded demand and compare with improving existing foods before investing.
The assumed public-benefit allocation is contingent. If approved programmes cannot fund it, reduce capacity or sell acceptable product commercially; do not assume donors will absorb excess inventory. Clinical suitability, delivered nutrient value and affordability decide use, not ingredient novelty.
Illustrative pooled private equity: $75m at t=0, $60m at t=1 and $65m at t=2; $200m total. Assume this combined pool owns 80% fully diluted at exit, with founders / management owning 20%; grants confer no financial ownership. This is a simplifying term-sheet assumption, not negotiated round pricing or a cap table.
| Base exit bridge | USDm / result |
|---|---|
| Y5 EBITDA | 45 |
| Enterprise value at assumed 8x | 360 |
| Add closing cash; no debt | 34.6 |
| Gross equity value | 394.6 |
| Less assumed 2% transaction cost | 7.892 |
| Investor pool share, 80% after cost | 309.3664 |
| Investor capital | 200 |
| Money-on-invested-capital | 1.5468x |
| Five-year total investor ROI | 54.68% |
| Annualised pooled IRR | 11.26% |
MOIC = proceeds / invested capital. ROI = (proceeds - capital) / capital. IRR uses the dated pooled cash flows above and exit at t=5; an individual investor or funding round may have a different return. No dividends assumed. An EBITDA multiple is not a verified valuation, buyer commitment or liquid market.
| Exit multiple | EV $m | Investor proceeds $m | MOIC | ROI | IRR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6x | 270.0 | 238.8 | 1.19x | 19.4% | 4.5% |
| 8x | 360.0 | 309.4 | 1.55x | 54.7% | 11.3% |
| 10x | 450.0 | 379.9 | 1.90x | 90.0% | 16.9% |
The base case does not satisfy every private investor hurdle. Approximate 11.3% illustrative IRR may suit some impact capital but can be inadequate for venture or frontier-risk investors. Losses, delays, dilution, debt, grant clawback, preferences or a failed exit can reduce returns to zero. No five-year cash payback is shown.
| Y5 operating sensitivity | Changed input | EBITDA USDm |
|---|---|---|
| Base | 30,000 t; $6 price; $3.30 cash cost | 45 |
| Price -20% | $4.80/kg | 9 |
| Volume -30% | 21,000 t; variable cost scales with volume | 20.7 |
| Unit cash cost +25% | $4.125/kg | 20.25 |
| Combined downside | 21,000 t; $4.80 price; $4.125 cost | -21.825 |
| Price +$0.50 | $6.50/kg; same volumes and costs | 60 |
These are isolated Year-5 operating sensitivities, not fully reforecast five-year cash flows. Fixed / semi-fixed manufacturing costs would make lower-volume outcomes worse than the variable-cost simplification. A negative EBITDA business should not be valued at a positive EBITDA multiple.
Fallback: halt new modules, continue proven lawful production through partners, seek alternative approved customers, and conserve cash. Salvage value and liquidation recoveries are unknown; investors may lose their whole investment.
The financial model assumes all $70m grants are spent on eligible costs by exit, non-repayable and without unmodelled sale clawbacks; closing cash is assumed unrestricted. Any different legal restriction changes the return calculation. Donors should not underwrite private upside without clear additional public benefit.
| Impact measure | Reporting approach |
|---|---|
| Reach | Count accepted, safely consumed portions and unique recipients separately |
| Nutrition | Pre-specified dietary / nutrient outcomes; clinical outcomes only with appropriate design |
| Affordability | Delivered cost per nutritionally matched serving versus incumbent |
| Livelihoods | Verified wages, job quality and local procurement, not only headcount |
| Environment | Audited site LCA and energy / water data |
| Lives saved | Do not estimate from tonnes, protein or portions; independent outcome evidence required |
| Risk | Severity | Mitigation / owner |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory delay / rejection | Critical | Country legal work; stop-build gate / legal and science lead |
| Foodborne illness / allergy | Critical | Validated processes, clear warnings, insurance, recall / QA lead |
| Unfunded demand / low acceptance | Critical | Conditional offtake, paid trials, conservative capacity / sales lead |
| Disease / mortality / escape | High | Cohort separation, breeders redundancy, containment / COO |
| Feed / energy inflation | High | Two suppliers, price indexation, low-carbon heat / procurement |
| Cost overruns / low yield | High | Vendor quotes, staged EPC, mass-balance validation / CFO-COO |
| ESG underperformance | High | Matched LCA, feed competition and welfare review / impact lead |
| FX / conflict / local governance | High | Country limits, insurance review, no exposed-site dependence / board |
| Grant restrictions / reputational harm | High | Separate ledgers, donor covenants, independent evaluation / trustees |
| Capital shortfall / no exit | Critical | No-build without funds; disclose possible total loss / board |
Severity rankings are sponsor assessments. Controls reduce risk; they do not establish viability. Formal environmental and social due diligence, anti-corruption checks, sanctions screening and insurance underwriting remain outstanding.
| Window | Deliverable | Release / stop condition |
|---|---|---|
| 0-3 months | Legal / technical feasibility; country scorecards; founder diligence | Release diligence tranche only; no unconditional megafarm build |
| 4-9 months | Test food, cohorts, cost, feed and energy; negotiate anchor trials | Independent safety and lawful-market pathway; credible paid demand |
| 10-18 months | Commission modules and regional QA; customer qualification | Validated operating data and offtake; fundraising secured |
| 19-24 months | Approved shipments and evaluated partner distribution | No public-benefit programme without funded formula approval |
| 25-36 months | Replicate proven modules; audit cost and impact; refine model | Expansion only where measured benefits and demand justify |
| Y4-5 | Scale to 12 indicative units; diversify contracts; exit readiness | Quarterly finance / ESG covenant compliance and adequate cash |
Budget envelopes are staged: the $100m Year-1 commitment can be escrowed / conditional rather than entirely spent immediately. Independent technical and commercial milestones govern drawdowns. Life-saving contribution is an ambition tied to qualified assistance channels, not a clinical claim for the flour.
Investment decision: conditional approval for feasibility and proof, not unconditional approval for 12 sites. If the core cost and acceptance tests fail, pivot to lower-capital partner production or stop. The thesis should remain falsifiable.
Contact for discussion: Contact@exofoods.co.uk. No payment, share subscription or donor commitment is processed through this prototype.
S1. UN agencies / SOFI 2026: hunger, food insecurity and healthy-diet costs
S2. WFP (21 May 2026): Update on food procurement; 2025 volumes, spending and lead times
S3. WFP: Do business with WFP; new-food evaluation and supplier registration
S4. Xu et al. (2025): Edible Insects as Future Proteins, Nutrients 17, 3165
S5. Okeyo et al. (2026): Cricket-enriched porridge and child growth, randomized trial
S6. Okeyo et al. (2025): Acceptability of cricket-enriched complementary porridge
S7. Hermans et al. (2021): Insect protein digestion and muscle synthesis, human trial
S8. Life cycle assessment of insect farming: a review (2026), 34 case studies
S9. FSA: Edible insects guidance; Great Britain and Northern Ireland conditions
S10. European Commission: Approval of insect novel foods
S11. World Bank (March 2024): School Meals, Social Protection and Human Development
S12. WFP: High Energy Biscuits technical specification (historical; check live tender version)
S13. FAO: Procurement mandate and vendor processes
S14. IFRC: Supplier information
S15. ICRC: Supplier requirements and procurement ethics
S16. FAO (2013): Edible insects, Forestry Paper 171
S17. FAO: Guidance on sustainable cricket farming
S18. Enhancing Food Production by Sustainable Cricket Farming (2025)
S19. Abbasi (2026): Nutrition, economics and environmental implications
S20. Global progress in domesticating edible crickets: a review (2025)
Sources checked 7 October 2026. Published evidence is distinguished from Exofoods modelling assumptions throughout. Legal guidance and procurement specifications must be rechecked before launch or tender. No institution listed endorses Exofoods.