Enhancing the Flavor of Plant-based & Fermentation-derived Proteins RFA

• We encourage you to think of the “benefit to the U.S. food and agriculture system” requirement broadly. A wide variety of crops, microbes, and ingredients are grown, produced, processed, and consumed in the U.S. Generally, if the ingredient(s) is from a crop grown in the U.S., a feedstock/sidestream present in the U.S., or can be produced in the U.S., projects utilizing these components would be considered transferable to the U.S. We anticipate the “benefit to U.S. food and agriculture” requirement to primarily eliminate research involving hyper-regional crops or ingredients that utilize components banned in the U.S. Regardless of whether the research is conducted in or outside of the U.S, researchers may want to include a statement on how the research is relevant or translatable to the U.S. food and agriculture system in their proposal.
• If you have an idea but are concerned it may fail this criterion, we strongly encourage you to examine if it may be relevant or transferable to the U.S. food and agriculture system. As a crop example, one may not associate teff (Eragrostis tef) with the United States, but teff is currently grown throughout the U.S. for food, feed, and as a cover crop. As a sidestream example, while the U.S. does not grow a significant amount of cocoa, the U.S. imports a substantial amount of raw cocoa beans and even more refined cocoa products. Sidestreams generated from the processing of cocoa, as well as ingredients produced from cocoa, are therefore relevant to the U.S. food and agriculture system. As a production example, synthetic vanillin can be produced in the U.S. For a converse example, research involving sweet flag (Acorus calamus) would be disqualified based on this criterion, as the plant is banned for use in food in the U.S.

The RFA will NOT support research in the following areas:

• Research not relevant to U.S. food and agriculture (please see additional explanation above)
• Research focused on ingredients that are NOT intended for center-of-plate
• Texture-focused research
• Research that may cause harm to animal subjects or research that uses any animal-derived ingredients or animal-derived upstream inputs, including insects
• Human subject research. However, projects that involve trained sensory panels as one part of the project may be acceptable if the purpose of that analysis is to test the sensory aspects of a new ingredient, process, or product developed as part of an eligible project.
• Proposals focused on market research, consumer preference studies, life-cycle analyses, and similar topics.

Equipment is considered any durable good with a cost that exceeds $5,000. This RFA limits equipment requests to 25% of the total budget. It is important to note that during the review process, proposals will be evaluated on the reasonableness of the budget and the value of the research in comparison to the budget requested. When including equipment requests in the budget, clearly articulate how the requested equipment aligns with the project’s objectives and contributes to its overall success in the budget justification. 

These are approvals typically provided by an ethics committee within the applicant organization for research projects involving hazardous materials, etc.

Note that this RFA does not support research involving human subjects, animal use or fetal tissue.

Projects that involve trained sensory panels as one part of the project can include organizational assurances to ensure validity of their data.

Preliminary results can be useful to demonstrate feasibility of methods. This RFA will only support research done during the award period. However, so it should be clear that these preliminary results are preliminary and that the work plan in the proposal will occur during the funding period. Preliminary results are not required. 

With this RFA, we intend to be upstream in the development process. As a result, we limited the exception to the human-subjects research restriction to trained sensory panels, specifically to support the analytical evaluation of new ingredients, processes, or products before they are ready for broader consumer testing.  

In addition to the upstream focus, a practical consideration for this funding opportunity is scope and budget. Large consumer studies can be resource-intensive, and we wanted to avoid situations where a substantial portion of a project’s budget is allocated to a single consumer test, potentially at the expense of earlier-stage technical work. While we acknowledge that trained sensory panels, by definition, exclude some valuable methods for early-stage research, we felt this was the cleanest way to include sensory evaluation without allowing it to dominate the overall study design. 

We hope some of the research supported by this RFA will mature towards other methods, including consumer and hedonic studies. 

Projects can include components that are plant-based, fermentation-derived, or blends/hybrids of both.  

Projects that include animal-derived components, such as animal fat or tissue, including cultivated animal cells, are out of scope for this opportunity. Precision fermentation-derived compounds made by microbes, which have been genetically engineered based on animal genes, are eligible. However, this RFA will NOT support engineering of new strains to produce these compounds. 

Yes. Only a nonprofit institution of higher education may serve as the project grantee, but the project grantee may collaborate with other types of organizations. Applicants are encouraged to collaborate internationally and with partners outside of academia to ensure their research is informed by practical insights and real-world needs. 

Yes. GC-Olfactometry requires a trained human assessor. 

No, consultation with a regulator is not necessary for this RFA. This program supports pre-competitive research. Consultation with a regulator, or a clear path to regulatory approval, may demonstrate a pathway to adoption and potential for impact, but is not required. 

An ingredient derived from microbial biomass (a single protein or protein class “precision fermentation”) or comprised of the total microbial biomass. For the purposes of this RFA, these microbes may be heterotrophs or autotrophs, and may be bacteria, fungi, protists, or algae. 

Yes, bacteria, yeast, and microalgae-derived materials are all considered “fermentation-derived” for the purposes of this RFA. 

In the U.S., an institution of higher education is a degree-granting institution. These are typically colleges and universities, though other nonprofit institutions that can confer degrees may qualify as well. 

An individual may only serve as PI for a single proposal. An individual may serve as Co-PI on multiple proposals, as well as serving as PI on one proposal and Co-PI on one or more other proposals. 

Proposals must be centered on flavor improvement. You are welcome to describe additional outcomes your work may influence (e.g., nutrition, functionality, processing efficiency), but proposals should focus primarily on flavor. Strong applications will make a clear, direct, and well-supported case for how the proposed work advances measurable flavor outcomes. 

This RFA does not support research focused solely on traditional plant-based high-protein foods such as tofu or tempeh, nor on products used primarily as supplements, condiments, desserts, or animal feed. Proposals should instead focus on ingredients and approaches relevant to meat, seafood, dairy, or egg alternatives, consistent with the scope described in the RFA.

No. However, research proposed should be relevant to the U.S. food and agriculture landscape. Applicants are encouraged to speak to U.S. relevance in the Project Narrative.