Healthcare Costs Keep Rising. Food Could Be a Fix.

And yet we’ve kept nutrition siloed from healthcare solutions. At S2G, we believe food is one of the most powerful tools we have, not just for wellness, but for prevention, treatment, and long-term health. Our healthcare system was built to manage disease. Food has the potential to help turn it into a system that actually builds health.

That’s why we just published a new white paper, The Food as Health Opportunity. It lays out how this sector is evolving, the seven core market segments we see emerging, and what it will take to integrate food into healthcare at scale.

To expand on the paper, we kick off this episode with a conversation between S2G’s Sanjeev Krishnan and Dan Ripma to unpack why nutrition is facing an ​“identity crisis,” what happens when healthcare collides with the bond market, why food as health needs to be treated as strategic infrastructure, and where we really are on the path toward an integrated food and healthcare system.

Then I speak with Sanjeev to understand what this means for investors: how food as health fits into the five structural forces shaping today’s markets, how capital markets are viewing this space, and where real opportunities are emerging as food and healthcare finally start to converge.

This isn’t just about improving food or improving healthcare; It’s about redesigning and synthesizing two massive systems before their social and economic costs force the redesign for us.

This episode drops on Thursday wherever you get your podcasts.

Sanjeev Krishnan: Dan, welcome to the S2G podcast.

Dan Ripma: Thanks for having me.

Sanjeev: We’re here to talk about your white paper. Food as Health. The current title as we record the podcast, is the imperative for Integrating Food into Health System. I find this title incredibly underwhelming. compared to like the system impact of this current potential future.

I think it’s so broad. It is such an important topic that I think it almost underwhelms the systemic issues. National security, bond market obviously, where we’re going from a food system globally, I think the last year and a half it’s become part of our nomenclature, but I want to go back to the first principles of this and I wanna challenge the first sentence. I don’t know if that will survive it either, but currently, it says nutrition faces an identity crisis. Tell me why you started off the report with that sentence.

Dan: Before we get into that sentence, I think you’ll be happy to know that, based on your questions this morning, I actually have an idea of a new title that does include the word systems. And I think does speak more to just the merits of how broad and important the sector is on nutrition, having an identity crisis and where we started there.

I think, over the course of the last 10 years and even longer, you’ve seen different fads and waves come through nutrition. For a long time, and we’ve talked about it, food tech was plant-based protein. And that was all of it. And that you’ve started to see some advancement beyond that, into nutrition and some other areas within, ingredient technology and some of the other categories that we invest in.

And we’ve grown up in that food tech space. On the other side of it, in healthcare, I think, as we have really invested in that category, it is a very confusing word. And when we’re in certain rooms. Nutrition and hunger get used synonymously. And I think with drawing out the confusion around nutrition and then defining what we mean as food as health, it’s really defining what we believe are the investible categories in the segment and really providing some clarity and distance between what we don’t mean.

And, the other kind of hunger or nutrition that’s used in a manner that is very focused purely on calories and really not on using food and nutrition for the improvement of human health.

I can’t remember when it was, but it was when, I think it was Gorbachev that came over to the US, and it was for NASA, but he thought that stories about the grocery store were like US propaganda. And so on his trip here, he like effectively figured out how to go to a grocery store that wasn’t on schedule and was amazed at just the quantity of food, and it was like fully stocked. And I think the system, while it was created and designed for what it was designed for, it also did produce enough calories that people are not going hungry on average. I think the question that I have is, how do you turn that into something that people are still not going hungry, but now their health is getting to a point that has improved, and you have less instances or fewer instances of chronic diet-related chronic disease and X, Y, Z.

Sanjeev: Yeah. The thing I do wanna get to is to challenge perhaps our first principles. I have this notion of the Hippocratic Oath versus the bond market.

So it is one of the earliest professional ethics, the Hippocratic Oath. In simple terms, according to ChatGPT, this was not a critical thinking thing I did, I’ll read it to you. It is the promise by doctors to practice medicine ethically, do no harm, respect patient confidentiality, and act in the best interest of patients.

I don’t wanna restrict the Hippocratic Oath to physicians, even, but one of the things I found important in your white paper on this is that we have a disease-centric healthcare system.

I don’t know if there are a lot of people that would challenge that. Is the disease-centric healthcare system congruent with the Hippocratic Oath? In some ways it is, but it stops short, doesn’t it?

Dan: I think the real challenge is that what’s happened in medicine and healthcare is specialization, and I think when you think about the Hippocratic Oath, it’s more encompassing of a person’s full health.

Sanjeev: Yeah.

Dan: I think most doctors think doctors and physicians are very focused on their patients and very focused on doing right by their patients.

But it’s within the specialty and niche in which they are practicing medicine. And I think from a physician’s perspective, I think the Hippocratic Oath still stands. I think from a systems perspective, it likely doesn’t. And I think that’s because the two systems have grown up separately.

You’re starting to see glimmers of the inclusion of food and healthcare and other social determinants of health and non-medical barriers of health, and really looking at those variables that very much influence a person’s health, but aren’t necessarily X disease state or Y disease state.

And so from a systems perspective, I think the Hippocratic Oath is not congruent with the systems itself, even though the physicians and doctors practicing within, I think, likely are.

Sanjeev: Yeah. One of the things that I’ve always been fascinated by is since we started S2G, at some point the Hippocratic Oath versus the bond market is gonna be a struggle. And if you look at a thousand year history of the bond market, they tend to win in some way, shape, or form.

It could sometimes lead to revolution. Go ahead.

Dan: I think this is really the change that investors need to make is thinking about human health and food as health, as strategic infrastructure, and not as a separate play. Because when you really think about it as strategic infrastructure across some of the things that you brought up earlier, national security and the bond market, focusing in on the bond market, you’re seeing a massive growth in the US healthcare spending.

It was $5.3 trillion in 2024, and it’s gonna add effectively another $3.3 trillion by 2033. So you’re seeing a massive growth there. You’re not seeing the population fundamentally become healthier. In fact, you’re seeing declines in longevity and still significant growing rates of disease and cancer.

And when you really think about it against the bond market, you know that increase in expenditure is gonna force government to raise more or to raise more capital in some form or fashion. And when you think about it on the consumer level, the number one leading cost for personal bankruptcy in the US is loss of a job and loss of income. The second is being unable to actually pay your healthcare expenses. But you see it both on a very large federal macro level, but you also see it on a consumer level.

And I think, food is health in the form and fashion that we’re talking about, it starts to build the ability for cost avoidance and increase the health of the population and start to chip away at some of those fundamental structural issues. But I think the underpinning is that you have to think about it as strategic infrastructure.

The biggest driver of healthcare costs in the United States is diet-related chronic disease. It’s a massive portion of US healthcare spend. And then, like when you think about, when you really bring it down to the community level, and a large part of that healthcare spend is government-sponsored programs, Medicaid, Medicare, the exchange business. You take a look at those populations that have a disproportionate amount of diet-related chronic disease, and you’re looking at populations that also have food and nutrition insecurity in their population. Their environment is largely sugar, wheat, all of the kind of subsidized crops and foodstuffs that you talk about. And so I think you can very quickly understand that it is an incredibly important variable or input into this equation.

Sanjeev: So I think everyone realizes healthcare liabilities are a problem. I believe they’ll affect the fundamental cost of capital for businesses that are unrelated. It’ll affect America’s risk-free rate and portfolios across the board. And we haven’t even started the compounding nature of the liability we’re clearly experiencing it, and then I think you hear folks say, okay, you could either curtail the subsidy to it, curtail the safety net. Do you have a view of that? I mean that as a theory of change to appease the bond market or our budget deficits.

Dan: I think curtailing the subsidy just doesn’t solve the structural problem and I think without really focusing on that structural problem, you’ll continue to have that compounding. I also don’t think that these issues are necessarily only relegated to subsidized populations.

You mentioned the cost of business, and I don’t know a single business, ourselves included in our portfolio, where healthcare costs are starting to push up. And that affects directly the consumer dollar. So I think you’re seeing it in non-subsidized populations. I think you’re seeing it on subsidized populations, and I think the federal or national conversation is really around cost and cutting costs and working to solve kind of fundamental issues that are structural.

And, I think it always goes back to short-term versus long-term. I think we need to start thinking much more on the long-term side of healthcare. To really have a handle on that cost of capital and to really build a population that, you know, is producing significant economic value is healthy.

Sanjeev: The one other thing that’s confounded me, particularly in political spectrums, and I loved where you went with in the white paper, but it was like one sentence that has really profound implications in terms of policy making, is this notion of pitting solutions for hunger and nutrition against each other. I’ve had a lived experience of this by some of the policy work we do in the sector, and to talk about that a little bit, ​’cause I think, this notion of cheap calories versus expensive nutrition, it was a system design. And then if you try to fix it, there are like odd political pairings that, you know, it is not a left-right thing. It’s a weird political coalition that kind of defends this notion of hunger vs. nutrition. 

Dan: Yeah. Going back years, I think when we were initially in DC, we’d be in a room, and we’d be talking about nutrition for diet-related disease, and they’d be like, Oh, like we do this. It’s hunger, like it’s calories. And be like, no, we’re talking about something different.

And they’re like, no, we’re hunger. And then you’d be in another room, and they’d be like, oh yeah, you’re talking about nutrition. We’re talking about nutrition. And when you start to unpack it, they’re really talking about hunger, and I think it’s a very odd thing to have really two words that have so many different meanings within these different policy groups and nonprofit groups and portfolio companies, and investment groups. I think it’s not intentionally pitting hunger versus nutrition, how can you utilize food for nutrition and to mitigate some of these liabilities, both for individual people and on a systems perspective?

And I think when you start to try to lay the foundation and build companies that are going to address that problem. You run into a very strong community that really is focused on cheap calories and does not want to have a conversation about nutrition. And we’ve run into a lot of social challenging of kind of the nutrition thesis in certain rooms.

I think that these two things are gonna be more and more pitted against each other. I think you’re seeing that in DC today with MAHA against more of the legacy hunger organizations and policy. And I think that is very well poised to be a major topic of discussion over the next two to four years, and I think you’re gonna see a lot of changes there.

Sanjeev: Yeah. So I wanna pivot us. We’ve talked a lot about the problems. And so I think, maybe just talk about, I think you and I spent a lot of time on this. I think you alluded to this earlier, when sort of food tech became protein tech and protein tech got completely over hyped in many ways.

We started focusing a lot more on sort of the thesis being food tech as health tech. If you look at the profit pools of the food system versus the profit pools of the healthcare system, they dwarf. It’s dramatic, the numbers. And so as a result, like this is actually a really interesting thesis, and in 2019, 2020, just talk about what S2G with a lot of your leadership Dan has done in this sort of food and health thesis, how have we done it and we’ve built over 20 portfolio companies in this space, so, there’s been a lot of there’s learnings, there’s been a lot of successes.

There’s been continued momentum for some of these companies. But just curious if you could lay that out.

Dan: So I think setting the foundation when we were looking at opportunities, you talk about like some people are like, the private sector could just go fix this. And I don’t know that I really have a perspective there other than it would be extraordinarily expensive and take a ridiculous amount of capital to be able to go and do that.

And I think you’re also in a very challenging, highly regulated, federated market where. You need billions or maybe trillions of investment capital to really take that on from a full private sector. And so our view was to really look at it under two lenses. One is the investments we were making that were focused on the consumer side, and the other was focused on the healthcare side.

And there’s some gradation between those. But when we were taking a more acute focus, I think we’ve been a food tech investor for a very long time, and every industry has its own challenges, but one of the things that we did was really focus on healthcare entrepreneurs that wanted to bring food into healthcare and find some of those solutions.

So that was one of our kind of guiding principles. The second was we were paying very close attention to policy to see if there were green shoots that we could at least go and explore and see if there were real opportunities. And around 2019, 2020, we started to see some of those green shoots emerge.

And then three, because of our legacy, food tech investments, we had a really good understanding of, really biology and outcomes, and how sophisticated that was becoming, which I think is a component we haven’t talked about in this conversation, but I think is really critical in the conversation about human health.

And so when we were looking at those kinds of three variables, those were our three investment parameters. We were really focused on that when we started to build our portfolio. And I think where that materialized is investing in companies that were taking food or food derivative products through a consumer healthcare channel, but mainly a healthcare channel to do some sort of prevention, management, treatment of disease. And we invested in companies that were focused on things like high-risk pregnancy and congestive heart failure, all the way to cancer metabolism and oncology and how do you utilize food or food stuff in this manner.

And that really became our main area of investment within the portfolio.

Sanjeev: Where are we in this journey? ​‘Cause I think fundamentally it’s okay, can you provide clinical evidence that this stuff works? Then that leads to economic value creation, savings for taxpayers or payers, and, better patient lives, et cetera.

And then third, there are companies that can extract P&L value, enterprise value that we back, like maybe if you wanna break it up, like where are we in the journey of clinical evidence that, food is a pillar of healthcare fundamentally, and then economic evidence, and then the value capture for our portfolio companies or other companies?

Dan: First on clinical evidence, I think we’re much further along than people think that we are. Even in very specific areas, I think our companies and other companies in the market have really done high-quality clinical research, randomized clinical trials, that are blinded and placebo-controlled.

And so you start to have a good understanding. You can always increase the end and have higher statistical data. But we have a lot of very high-quality information that we understand the impact that X will have on Y. But I think that’s decoupled both in some of our portfolio, but more broadly, the market from the economic or P&L impact.

And I think that’s really where a lot of this needs to be focused over the next two to five years. We have a good understanding of a number of our portfolio companies that are taking these solutions into healthcare and understanding cost avoidance. What is the savings for a payer or health plan for a specific program?

And what does that ROI look like? We’ve done a lot of that work, and we have a good sense, for me in our portfolio, I think that’s the foundation building before you scale a really sizable P&L business that becomes highly valuable. So I think there’s work that needs to be done on the economic value.

And one of the things that I think we focus on and others should focus on is that payers view all of their populations as unique and it’s honestly similar to a farmer where they’re like, this worked on this field, but it’s not gonna work on that field.  For payers, it worked on this population, but it’s not gonna work on this population.

And you get into that very similar adoption cycle of these solutions. In part, I think that’s due to limited work done on really understanding the economics and value creation of these programs for populations.

Sanjeev: Yeah. I think it’s also if you look at 25% of our GDP, which is, call it 20% healthcare, 5% food. Both those things are biological systems, obviously, food typically is produced with soil.

Soil is a huge system. And then, so you have these layers of complex adaptive systems, which makes sort of correlation versus causation. Like very difficult on ​‘hey, this intervention helps with this, this intervention helps with that.’ Forget adherence. Not everyone’s gonna eat kale, but you have the largest singular proportion of GDP in the US being a biological system. Healthcare and food, have we seen that this stuff works? That there’s clinical evidence, economic evidence in P&L? I know it’s early, but like maybe just for the audience, just bring it to life a little bit of what’s working that gives us…

Dan: When you look at how we qualify these sectors, I think it’s also that quality is also in terms of clinical data and evidence. And left to right, and I’ll skip some of ​‘em. But if you’re looking at healthy food. That’s a little bit of a better for you focused on population, and if people are self-selecting to eat better, you have a healthier population.

As you go right into supplements, medically tailored meals, medical foods, therapeutics, you start to really increase the quality of clinical data across that. The one call that I’ll make is that in the supplement category, while many supplements do not have clinical trials. Our strategy there has been to really focus on supplements that do have high-quality clinical trials, or that we can launch high-quality clinical trials, and in certain cases, upgrade them to medical foods and have use cases very specific to healthcare.

Then on the left-hand side, and you said this word before adherence, and I think that, that word has really influenced the type of company that we’re investing in because I think when you just take food to healthcare, healthcare is there just saying, what do I do with this? They have avenues for their members to go and purchase food or get food, and they’re supportive of that.

But when we looked at how we were gonna allocate our capital into companies, it was bringing joint solutions. So taking digital health with food to really prove out both the clinical outcomes and the economic value, while, very importantly, working to really encourage these members to adhere to the program.

And I think that’s been a critical difference in our portfolio where we have been able to drive incredibly high adherence rates and even within specific portfolio companies, when you look at a population that we worked with last year, sometimes they’re still improving in the following year, and those habits and changes, they’ve really continued.

We’ve seen that in uncontrolled diabetes populations, congestive heart failure populations, orthopedic patients. We’ve really seen our companies be able to do that. And I think it really comes down to the joint solution. And not just bringing, ​‘Hey, payer X, here’s healthy food that you can figure out how to get to your ??

Sanjeev: Yeah, so the clinical evidence is there. The economic evidence is there, and our companies are growing revenue in gross profit, in some cases EBITDA. Alright, let’s get into this. So I think in the white paper, you do a great job of taking our thesis and then doing portfolio construction around seven specific genres. I’m gonna say the seven genres, and just maybe go through it at some level of detail, but one is healthy meals, the second being sort of functional ingredients.

Third is supplements and nutraceuticals. Four medical foods and maybe defining that for a bit for the audience that may not think what that is. Food-driven care engagement, integrated clinical nutrition. Then finally, nutrition-enabled therapeutics. So those are the seven sort of sub-sectors, if you will, within Food as Health as the white paper defines it.

And I think how we’ve defined it, and then maybe just talk about those at some high level.

Dan: Perfect. So from left to right on that list, I think it’s really two main gradients. One, as I mentioned earlier, is really around clinical evidence and the investment in clinical evidence and the requirement for our investment. And the second is where those are in the market from a channel perspective. So on the left-hand side, it’s more consumer-driven.

On the right-hand side it’s more healthcare-driven. And one of the things we haven’t talked about is that when we think about our overall approach, we do bifurcate between population health and individual health. On a population health, it’s really focused on access, affordability, and really trying to find ways that you can provide higher-quality protein and produce meals to any given population.

On individual health, it’s very much focused on how do you improve a very specific disease or cancer using diet and nutrition in one of those manners, whether it’s medically selling meals, integrated clinical nutrition therapeutics, et cetera. And so on the healthy meal side, this is very much a consumer-driven strategy focused on how do we have it’s consumer and healthcare, but more on the consumer side, how do you produce high-quality, lower cost meals and how do you think about the channels and selling that to consumers. And I think we’ve done a lot of that over the years and it is very much in line with our kind of long-term investment strategy. As you go towards supplements. We’ve focused on unique areas within supplements, and so supplements from a regulatory perspective, you’re not able to make strong claims on supplements, and so we’re still restricted by that, but we are investing in clinical studies, so that one, we actually do have a good understanding of if this product works and to what efficacy does this product work? And we can relay that to the consumer. And I think on the consumer spectrum, you’re starting to see consumers really care more and more about the science and clinical evidence. I think you see it in, in a lot of different segments, but where it’s like 10 years ago, consumers didn’t think much about the clinical evidence and didn’t care about it, and didn’t listen to podcasts about it. They really do anchor their purchasing behavior based on that in many cases. As you go forward to medically tailored  meals, this is probably like the oldest pathway of food, maybe the oldest pathway of food into healthcare.

Tonya: Sanjeev’s conversation with Dan helps lay the foundation: why food belongs inside the healthcare system and what’s at stake if we don’t change course. But once you accept that premise, the next question becomes: what does this actually mean for investors?

So now we want to zoom out. If food is a critical part of healthcare, and both of those systems are huge economic drivers, how does that reshape the way we think about risk and opportunity? That’s what I explored in the following conversation with Sanjeev.

Tonya: Sanjeev, welcome back to the podcast. Thanks for joining again. In the last conversation, you had a chance to talk to Dan and went pretty deep into the why behind food is health, really including the current state of our healthcare system, the bond market implications, tensions between this disease-centric healthcare model that we have now and really the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath and the idea that food and health should be treated as a strategic infrastructure investment.

It was a really powerful way to frame up how big and interconnected this issue really is. And today I wanna build on that and shift us into more of the investment opportunity and how you see that taking shape. So would love to start by talking a little bit more about how you see food as health fitting into your point of view on the age of adaptation and those five forces that are driving the current market, can you tell us more about how this fits in?

Sanjeev: Yeah, so as you know very well, I think we’re anchored, S2G, around sort of five structural forces, which we think are shaping the future of demand and supply. Cap allocation of both beta and alpha. And although this is relegated to a corner of the food system and a corner of the healthcare system, I actually think it has prominence across those five forces.

And as a reminder, the five forces are sort of CPU to GPU, shorthand for AI. Two, a declining price of money to an unknown price of money. Three, sort of unipolarity to multipolarity. Four, 1.5 to two degrees or higher. And then five aging and a demographic headwind to a demographic tailwind. Obviously, aging is a clear structural secular issue that drives, I think, how do you do healthy aging? Given both the contingent liabilities that aging has on the balance sheets of most sovereigns in most companies, most pension funds, insurance companies, et cetera. But I also think it goes to this unknown price of money just given, particularly in the US is 20% of GDP.

It’s a significant driver of debt and deficits, and so we have to figure out how to lower the price of healthcare. And I think food is health is a clear pillar, in my opinion, to driving that. 1.5, 2, degrees, there’s gonna be pockets of the world where, particularly, public health and heating are gonna be a greater prominence.

For sure. I think the unipolarity to multipolarity, I think what we have done particularly Brazil, perhaps China, is effectively, many of them have colonized the US food system. And so you’re seeing greater rates of cancer, greater rates of metabolic disease states. So it’s no longer just a US phenomenon.

And I think people talk about food security a lot, but I think I would say, life expectancy as a key pillar is gonna be an important one. And so I think there is a geopolitical dimension to this, I would argue.

And then most fundamentally, if you think about the thesis on AI that I hear most about is global  GDPs a hundred trillion, Software is, call it anywhere from 2.5 to 3 trillion, services is anywhere from $20 to 30 trillion. And the whole notion of why we’re raising so much money for power, infrastructure, compute models, and applications is to automate a lot of these.

And medical services is clearly one of them, but R&D and the notion of how to do this. So I think, although this seems like a niche issue, I think it’s so central to these five forces. And really ​‚at the end of the day, how do you get patients better quality? And less disease and more preventative?

And then two, how do you get payers more value for their money, whether taxpayers or the bond market? So I think it’s really a really important thing that needs to be mainstreamed a lot more.

Tonya: How do you think food and agriculture investors view this? How does this fit in the landscape of the food and ag investment and maybe across investment, types? 

Sanjeev: Yeah, so when we started S2G the first sector we focused on was food and agriculture. And the thesis was really in 2013, 2014, that the consumer was changing the food system, pretty much for the first time since World War II millennials were coming into the labor force.

They were voting with their dollar very differently around how they were buying food. And it impacted brands, supply chains, et cetera. To me, we invested across that system based on that consumer was driving change. I think this not only puts the consumer at, but you potentially have a new ally, which is the payer class of the healthcare system. So if you combine 20% of GDP around food as a one pillar, It’s not a silver bullet by any means. It provides an additional tailwind to getting the food system to be anchored around the price of healthcare and lowering the price of healthcare. And I think that is a powerful pillar to be aligned with.

If we can align incentives that way. And I see it’s a matter of when and not if it’s gonna be aligned. The other thing you’re seeing, I think is going into COVID, in the majority of the grocery aisles, the incumbent was losing market share. And then COVID occurred, and then we focused more on the surety of supply and it big gave a big bump to the incumbents in the food system since 2021. That is starting to reverse in terms of volume. Growth is either flat or declining in many of those categories, and emergent players are suddenly taking share, and incumbents are losing share.

And you’re seeing some corporate activity among large players that testify to that notion of this. I don’t think many of those incumbent players are even ready for the opportunity and the risk that if you have clinical data equal economic data, then that improves patient efficacy and payer efficacy, if you will, whether it’s the taxpayer or the bond market or the employer-based system.

The opportunity that sits now, I think, for the most part, a lot of food and ag investors are in show me territory. Prove to me that the Venn diagram hits here. But the companies, whether it’s in our portfolio, others that show this is good for the consumer, good for the payer, and good for the standard of care, those are the companies I think can scale and actually build more durable moats than just a brand story.

Tonya: Are these private market investment opportunities still at the venture stage, or how do you see the opportunity spectrum across the asset allocation stack?

Sanjeev: I think it’s very compelling for venture stage companies, growth stage companies, and even, middle market buyout. I think there’s a lot of opportunity to back healthy aging, back food is health companies, that may not show up like a, the definition of food is health is gonna be more, I think, broader than what we’re saying.

And there’s also the opportunity to take healthcare companies, get them involved in food as health. And we’re doing some of that work. I think others are doing so across the spectrum of a company.

Tonya: How are the capital markets going to view this opportunity in your mind?

Sanjeev: I think that if you think about allocating to food, it was seen as a durable dividend stock. That had a lot of defensiveness, and as the consumer and potentially now other players, whether it’s payers or providers, look at that and say there’s externalities that are more, getting priced in from the healthcare side.

I think you’ve gotta look and say, Hey, are these durable defensive stocks the same or should I look at emerging players? Particularly in the brand side, but I think some of these companies can obviously show interesting moats beyond a brand, whether you’re in medical food, functional ingredients, nutrition-enabled therapeutics, or integrated clinical engagement by nutrition, a lot of the categories we outline in the report. As those companies grow, they can take profit pools from healthcare, and they take profit pools from traditional big food, and get allocated to it.

So I think whether you’re a public market investor trying to find a long thesis allocating to the food sector, or you’re a private market investor and you want more exposure to this theme of that convergence of 20% GDP and call it 5% GDP. I think there are compelling opportunities on both sides.

Tonya: For all of our investors that might be listening, if they are looking to allocate more capital to this space, what should they be looking for?

Sanjeev: I think we’ve thought a lot both in the report and in this podcast about the why from a macro perspective, I think the next step is really, show me the data. Show me the economic savings and show me the P&L. And I think this needs to be brought to life with specific case studies of opportunities that really go from the micro to the macro.

Tonya: Luckily, we’ve covered a lot of those throughout our portfolio, and you can find them in our report. So hopefully our listeners will dig in to find some more of those examples. But thank you so much, Sanjeev, for taking the additional time and framing this up from an investor perspective.

Appreciate it.

Sanjeev: Super excited about the report and hopefully, people get to read it in detail and give us feedback.

Tonya: Thank you for tuning in to the S2G podcast. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe, leave us a review, or share it with a friend. For more information or to connect with us, check out s2gin​vest​ments​.com.