Connect with us

Business

How Beyond Meat is trying to get its sizzle back

Published

on

How Beyond Meat is trying to get its sizzle back

When Beyond Meat went public in 2019 in an initial stock offering that saw its shares nearly triple in price, it seemed to confirm that plant-based meats had arrived.

The food technology, capable of converting beans into something approaching meat in taste and appearance, caught the imagination of the public, restaurant chefs and media alike. Deals with fast-food chains and soaring sales during the pandemic seemed to only underscore how a once-fringe idea had gone mainstream.

But those heady days are over as industry sales have fallen amid concerns about the healthfulness of plant-based meat, a sticker price that remains higher than a basic burger — and the fact that the product still only approximates the real thing.

“We thought we were just gonna go from our meteoric rise into the mainstream and not have to deal with this cycle that we’re in,” said Beyond Meat founder and Chief Executive Ethan Brown, in an interview at the company’s new El Segundo offices. “The trough has been a difficult place to be the last couple of years.”

Now the company is betting it can turn around its fortunes with a newly formulated burger that it says not only is a big leap in taste, but has won the seals of approval of leading health and nutrition organizations.

Advertisement

“I give credit where it’s due. I think they’ve made some clear improvements in the ingredients and nutritional profile, so there’s clear progress there,” said John Baumgartner, an analyst at Mizuho Securities, who has had an “underweight” rating on Beyond’s stock.

As the first plant-based meat company to go public, Beyond has been an industry bellwether, with its travails documented in the media and regulatory filings.

Though the company’s growing lineup, including breakfast patties, beef tips and chicken tenders, are sold at 130,000 retail and food service outlets worldwide, some of its heralded fast-food deals with companies such as Carl’s Jr., Dunkin Donuts and KFC have either petered out or not moved beyond test phases.

It’s also faced stiff competition from chief rival, Impossible Foods in Redwood City, Calif., which has made fast sales gains at supermarkets and is available as a Whopper at Burger King.

Beyond’s net revenue fell by more than 25% to $343 million in 2023 compared with 2021. Sales decreased another 18% in the first quarter of this year, with the company racking up $54 million in losses.

Advertisement

With numbers like that, investors have taken a beating. The stock is down more than 90% since its all-time highs topping $200 in 2019. Shares closed Thursday at $7.35.

The sales decline has taken a sharp financial toll, with the company’s cash position falling from $733 million in 2021 to $190 million last year.

That prompted TD Cowen in a May earnings note to say the company may run out of money if it can’t stem the bleeding or raise funds — an outcome Brown dismisses. In Beyond’s quarterly conference call, the chief financial officer talked about raising funds through either debt or equity.

Advertisement

“It’s challenging,” Baumgartner said. “The category is still trying to find its way.”

Sales of plant-based meats and seafood were down 12% in 2023 to $1.2 billion, with unit sales falling even more by 19%, according to the Good Food Institute.

While the novelty of plant-based meat has worn off, what has stuck are persistent cries of “fake” or “faux” meat by critics — a diverse group that includes nutritionists, the entrenched meat industry and whole food absolutists who proselytize eating foods closer to nature.

The meat industry has for years helped bankroll a campaign highlighting the highly processed nature of Beyond’s and other makers’ plant-based beef products. “Fake meat, real chemicals,” is one such campaign sponsored by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a business backed nonprofit.

“Our campaign simply informed the public about what’s in fake meat. Consumers have seen past the marketing spin and realized that these products are just ultraprocessed goop that costs more and isn’t healthier than real meat,” said James Bowers, executive director of the center, in an emailed statement to The Times.

Advertisement

Beyond has tried to stress that all its ingredients come from plant-based sources, but there are many nutritionists on the web who also have voiced concerns about the fat and sodium content of the older burgers — and an industrial process that creates a product Grandma would not have stocked in her kitchen.

Baumgartner thinks those voices have resonated more than any industry-backed campaign.

Brown maintains entrenched food lobbies are the real culprit, while also acknowledging their effectiveness.

“So if you look at 2020, 50% or more of consumers thought that plant-based meat was healthy. That dropped to 38% in 2022. And it’s probably lower today,” he told The Times.

Beyond is banking its turnaround on the fourth iteration of its burger meat, which began wide distribution in May. Beyond has switched from canola and coconut oils to avocado oil, reducing saturated fat by 60% to 2 grams per serving, while cutting sodium by 20%.

Advertisement

Brown said the new recipe, which includes peas, red lentils, faba beans and brown rice, was developed through consultation with the company’s scientific and nutritional advisors, as well as leading health groups.

The new burger has earned key endorsements by the American Diabetes Assn. and Good Housekeeping that Beyond plans to slap on its labeling. The American Heart Assn. is including the product in its heart-healthy recipe collection.

Beyond also says its major recipe change has resulted in its “meatiest, juiciest” burger ever, citing early taste tests to back up its claim. That’s an important consideration, given the competition.

Impossible Foods, founded by a Stanford University biochemist, makes soy-based burgers, using a bean that has been manipulated by the food industry for decades to make an assortment of products. The company’s burgers also contain a genetically modified plant-based version of heme, an iron-containing molecule that is a component of beef.

In online taste tests, Impossible often beat Beyond’s burgers, which are based on peas. Brown chose peas due to alleged health concerns over soy-based products, the vast majority of which are genetically modified.

Advertisement

Impossible’s burgers became the darlings of foodies and chefs at high-end restaurants prior to pandemic, and since then, like Beyond, the company has continued to improve them, with multiple versions now available.

While both companies laid off workers amid the industry’s downturn, Impossible has seen strong retail sales and claims it is “the fastest growing meat from plants brand” in the country. It’s also managed to make its Impossible Whopper stick on Burger King’s menus. As a privately held company, it does not release detailed financial information.

Overseas, Beyond, which can market its product as non-GMO, sells in far more markets, and, though McDonald’s decided against selling a Beyond-based burger in the United States, it does so in Europe.

Despite how much is riding on its newest burger, Beyond has raised the retail prices, partially to offset the higher costs of the ingredients, but also to improve its margins.

Baumgartner questioned the move, especially after Beyond had cut the price of its prior burger.

Advertisement

“I think what complicates the matter now is in 2023, when you had inflation and you were seeing food prices going up, Beyond cut their prices. Now, as prices have generally stabilized, Beyond Meat is raising prices.”

Brown dismissed the concerns, saying the company needs to raise its margins after the prior price cut destroyed them, while doing nothing to improve sales.

While Brown’s goal has been to achieve pricing parity with animal meat, he said Beyond’s customers — health conscious and concerned about the environmental issues surrounding the beef industry — have been found to be “price insensitive.”

The fundamental challenge for Beyond, he said, is turning around the wider perception that its products are not good for you.

“Once that narrative became complicated for people because of misinformation or whatever, it became harder to grow the business. We have addressed that thoroughly in this product,” he said.

Advertisement

Business

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

Published

on

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.

In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”

“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.

The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.

Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.

Advertisement

The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.

“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.

Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”

Advertisement

The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.

On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.

The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.

Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.

“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”

Advertisement

Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.

Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.

“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.

Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.

Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.

Advertisement

“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”

Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.

The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”

Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.

The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending