My bet is that as usual the large established firms will buy up the most successful upstarts, often before or right after they go public. So even if you're right (i'd give it maybe 10-15% chance, always assume humans will do the most selfish, sort-term thing) the chances of benefitting financially seem slim.
Underrated comment. Food is an incredibly challenging space to operate profitably, especially in new and different growth areas where supply chains aren't readily scalable. It takes a long time to cultivate the sort of raw inputs needed to take a small upstart all the way to national and even international-level production. Many of the inputs into most of the food supply chains are also used by other companies in the space, as well as other industries. Most of the large & established private and public food companies have been around enough to know when they need to work on their own versions of alternative/sustainable/better-for-you products.
I would expect, as Scandium points out, that it's far more likely that a large legacy company would be interested in buying the IP that a small upstart has, folding them in, and leveraging their existing (and often massive) supply chains to use that brand to their advantage. And when those companies can't or won't buy up the little guys, there's a very good chance they'll work to create their own products if they see an opportunity to be profitable in that space. Many large food companies have been able to create subsidiaries distanced enough from the parent company that you would never even see 'Coca Cola' or 'Kraft Heinz' or 'Mondelez' or 'Nestle' anywhere on the label. There are already plenty of organic, vegan, sustainable, non-GMO, etc. brands in the BFY sections of pretty much every major and specialty grocer which are wholly owned by one of the big guys, and there's no way for you to tell on the packaging that it's the case unless you're already aware of the sub-brands and subsidiaries that each company owns.
Moreover, most of the major companies also operate or fund VC firms, propping up some to all of the R&D at a lot of these small upstart technologies. Like the previous example, the names of the VC firms are not typically easily traced back to the parent company, and most of the R&D, etc. is kept private.
If the company in question is somehow able to avoid being bought out, as well as to be able to establish their own supply chains that are rugged and flexible enough to account for the unpredictability that is inherent to global food production, they also have to deal with a regulatory environment that's incredibly challenging to work within, given that it's stacked pretty heavily in favor of the larger, established brands.
Not to mention, many food trends tend to veer more toward flash-in-the-pan, for combinations of some of the reasons I've already mentioned. Usually it's a combination of lower than expected consumer demand (often driven by QC issues and/or $ per serving) as well as an inability to deal with the complexity and unpredictability of food supply chains.
For these, and other reasons, I don't really see many great options for investing in these technologies without having spent a long time in the food industry - and even then, with a keen eye, sometimes there's just no good way to know what consumers will and will not like.
