In addition to the other information set forth in this report, you should carefully consider the factors discussed in Part I, Item 1A, Risk Factors, in our 2025 10-K, as updated and supplemented below and in our subsequent filings. These risks could materially harm our business, operating results and financial condition. Additional factors and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently consider immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or future results. Risk Factors Risks Related to Our Business Our strategic repositioning to “Beyond The Plant Protein Company” may not be successful, and our failure to effectively execute or realize the anticipated benefits of this strategy could have a material adverse effect on our business, brand, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In April 2026, we announced a strategic repositioning of our brand to “Beyond The Plant Protein Company,” under which we are expanding beyond our plant-based meat products into a broader portfolio of plant-based protein offerings across multiple categories and adjacencies, including products like Beyond Immerse, our first functional beverage line of sparkling plant-based protein drinks. This repositioning is intended to address prolonged weakness and category contraction in the traditional plant-based meat segment by leveraging our plant-based protein expertise, technology platform and brand to pursue new growth opportunities. However, this shift involves significant strategic, operational, and financial risks and uncertainties. We may not successfully reposition our brand in the minds of consumers, retailers or distributors, or we may fail to achieve meaningful consumer acceptance or incremental demand for a broader set of plant-based protein products. The repositioning may require substantial management time and financial resources that could otherwise be allocated to optimizing our plant-based meat products, our cost structure or addressing ongoing category headwinds. These risks are heightened in light of our history of net losses and negative cash flows from operations, which may limit our ability to fund the repositioning strategy or absorb the financial impact of an 94 Table of Contents unsuccessful transition. See the risk factors related to our liquidity and capital resources discussed in our 2025 10-K. Execution of the repositioning strategy could also result in brand dilution or confusion if consumers do not associate our expanded portfolio with the same quality, taste or values as our plant-based meat products. We may encounter challenges in integrating new product lines, managing channel conflicts, forecasting demand across disparate categories, or achieving targeted margins and returns on investment in adjacencies that have different competitive dynamics, supply chains, regulatory requirements and consumer usage occasions than our plant-based meat product offerings. If the strategy does not reverse or sufficiently mitigate the multi-year decline in demand for plant-based meat, or if it diverts focus without delivering offsetting revenue growth, we could experience continued or accelerated revenue declines, higher operating losses, excess inventory charges, asset impairments or other adverse financial impacts. Any failure to successfully execute, communicate, or realize the benefits of our strategic repositioning could materially harm our competitive position, brand reputation and long-term growth prospects. Risks Related to Our Products We may not successfully innovate, introduce or commercialize new products in adjacent categories outside our plant-based meat products, including our recently launched beverage line, Beyond Immerse, and any failure could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. As part of our strategy to expand our product offering to become a leading plant-based protein company, we are pursuing opportunities in new product categories and adjacencies that leverage our plant-protein expertise, technology platform and brand. In April 2026, we entered into a distribution agreement with Big Geyser, a major non-alcoholic beverage distributor, to expand distribution of Beyond Immerse, our first functional beverage line of sparkling plant-based protein drinks, beyond direct-to-consumer channels into retail, convenience, foodservice and other outlets in the New York Metropolitan area. These efforts involve significant risks and uncertainties, many of which are heightened because beverages represent a new category with different formulation requirements, manufacturing processes, supply chains, shelf-life and storage needs, regulatory and labeling standards, and consumer usage patterns than our traditional plant-based meat products. In particular, functional beverages with protein or nutritional claims may be subject to heightened regulatory scrutiny by the FDA and FTC, including with respect to nutrient content claims, structure/function claims and advertising substantiation, and any enforcement actions, required label modifications or restrictions on our marketing practices could increase our costs, delay our product launches or limit our ability to market Beyond Immerse as intended. We may not accurately predict consumer taste preferences, demand or acceptance of Beyond Immerse or other new offerings that we may announce in the future, including whether our plant-based meat consumers will adopt functional beverages or whether the new line will attract new consumers. The timing, scale and success of distribution expansion, including our partnership with Big Geyser, may fall short of expectations due to performance issues, channel conflicts, termination risks or slower-than-anticipated rollout. We could also encounter delays or failures in scaling production, securing adequate ingredient supply, obtaining necessary permits, or achieving targeted pricing, margins or scale in the highly competitive beverage category. We may also encounter aggressive responses from well-established and better capitalized competitors in the broader beverage category. In addition, any quality, safety or performance issues with the new beverage products could harm our overall brand reputation. These initiatives also require the allocation of management attention and financial resources that could otherwise be directed toward our existing business or other priorities, and we may not realize the anticipated benefits or return on investment from these efforts in the time frame expected or at all. Any of the foregoing could result in lower-than-expected revenues from Beyond Immerse or our plant-based meat product portfolio, higher-than-anticipated costs, excess inventory or obsolescence charges, impairment of 95 Table of Contents related assets or diversion of resources, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. These risks are in addition to the broader risks associated with the persistent decline in demand for plant-based meat products, intense competition and our history of operating losses. Failure to continually innovate and successfully introduce and commercialize new products or successfully improve existing products may adversely affect our ability to grow. A key element of our long-term growth strategy depends on our ability to develop and market new products and improvements to our existing products that meet our standards for quality and appeal to consumer preferences. For example, in 2025, we introduced our Beyond Ground, Beyond Steak Filet and Beyond Chicken Pieces lines and announced an expanded line of Beyond Steak. In January 2026, we introduced Beyond Immerse, a plant-based protein drink, in direct-to-consumer sales. In April 2026, we expanded our line of Beyond Chicken Pieces to Beyond Chicken Pieces Spicy Buffalo and announced a distribution agreement with Big Geyser, a major non-alcoholic beverage distributor, for the launch of Beyond Immerse beyond the direct-to-consumer channel, expanding our first functional beverage line into the New York market with three distinct flavors. The success of our innovation and product development efforts, including the improvement of our existing plant-based meat product lines and the expansion to adjacent products outside of the plant-based meat category, is affected by our ability to anticipate changes in consumer preferences, accurately predict taste preferences and purchasing habits of consumers in new geographic markets, the technical capability of our innovation staff in developing and testing product prototypes, including complying with applicable governmental regulations, commercialization and scale-up of new products, the success of our management and sales and marketing teams in introducing and marketing new products, our ability to adapt to changes in technology, including the successful utilization of data analytics, artificial intelligence and machine learning, managing the distribution of new products and managing our partnerships with distributors in a product category that we have limited experience with. Our innovation staff members are continuously testing alternative plant-based proteins to the proteins we currently use in our products, as they seek to find additional protein options to our current ingredients that are more easily sourced, and which retain and build upon the quality and appeal of our current product offerings. Failure to develop, commercialize and market new products that appeal to consumers may lead to a decrease in our sales and profitability. Additionally, the development and introduction of new products, such as Beyond Immerse, requires substantial research, development, branding and marketing expenditures, which we may be unable to recoup if the new products do not gain widespread market acceptance or their contributions to our revenue and margins are less than we expect. Certain of our recently introduced new products, such as Beyond Immerse, are in highly competitive product categories and others that are introduced into select foodservice locations or currently sold exclusively through our Beyond Test Kitchen DTC channel, may not gain broader acceptance from our customers or consumers. If we are unsuccessful in meeting our objectives with respect to new or improved products, our business could be harmed. Risks Related to Regulatory and Legal Compliance Matters, Litigation and Legal Proceedings Any changes in, or changes in the interpretation of, applicable laws, regulations or policies of the FDA or U.S. Department of Agriculture (the “USDA”), state regulators or similar foreign regulatory authorities that relate to the use of the word “meat” or other similar words in connection with plant-based meat products could adversely affect our business, prospects, results of operations or financial condition. The FDA and the USDA, state regulators or similar foreign regulatory authorities, such as Health Canada or the CFIA, or authorities of the U.K., the EU or the EU member states, or China, including the State Administration for Market Regulation and its local counterpart agencies, could take action to impact our ability to use the term “meat” or similar words (such as “beef,” “burger” or “sausage,” including the Beyond Meat logo of the Caped Longhorn superhero) to describe or advertise our products. In addition, a food may be deemed misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular way, and the FDA, CFIA, EU member state authorities or other regulators could interpret the use of the term “meat” or any similar phrase(s) to describe our 96 Table of Contents plant-based meat products as false or misleading or likely to create an erroneous impression regarding their composition. For example, the state of Missouri prohibits any person engaged in advertising, offering for sale, or sale of food products from misrepresenting a product as meat that is not derived from harvested production livestock or poultry. The state of Missouri Department of Agriculture has clarified its interpretation that products which include prominent disclosure that the product is “made from plants,” or comparable disclosure such as through the use of the phrase “plant-based,” are not misrepresented under the Missouri law. Additional states, including Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming, have subsequently passed similar laws, and legislation that would impose specific requirements on the naming of plant-based meat products has been introduced, but not enacted, in other states. The United States Congress considered (but did not pass) federal legislation, called the Real MEAT Act, that could require changes to our product labeling and marketing, including identifying products as “imitation” meat products, and that would give USDA certain oversight over the labeling of plant-based meat products. If similar bills gain traction and ultimately become law, we could be required to identify our products as “imitation” on our product labels. Further, the FDA recently issued draft guidance on naming plant-based meat alternatives that could impact our naming conventions on various products; while not binding, the guidance, when finalized, will reflect the FDA’s current thinking and expectations. Canadian Food and Drug Regulations also provide requirements for “simulated meat” products, including requirements around composition and naming. In Europe, the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament proposed in May 2019 to reserve the use of “meat” and meat-related terms and names for products that are manufactured from the edible parts of animals. In October 2020, the European Parliament rejected the adoption of this provision. In the absence of European Union legislation, it was unclear whether member states remained free to establish national restrictions on meat-related names. In June 2020, France adopted a law prohibiting names to indicate foodstuffs of animal origin to describe, market or promote foodstuffs containing vegetable proteins. In October 2021, France published a draft implementing decree (the “Contested Decree”) to define, for example, the sanctions in case of non-compliance with the new law, and the Contested Decree went into effect in 2022. At the time, we took the view that the Contested Decree did not comply with the laws of the EU, in particular the principle of free movement of goods. In July 2022, at the request of a trade association, the French High Administrative Court partially suspended the execution of the Contested Decree. We filed an application for annulment against the Contested Decree and intervened in favor of the trade association in their pending case against the Contested Decree. Several plant-based companies filed voluntary intervention in support of our case on April 20, 2023. On July 12, 2023, the French High Administrative Court decided to refer the case to the CJEU. The CJEU was asked to decide on the lawfulness of the Contested Decree banning “meaty” names for plant-based protein under EU law. The procedure before the CJEU started on August 22, 2023, and we filed its submission on October 31, 2023. On January 15, 2024, the CJEU closed the written procedure. The period to request an oral hearing closed on February 5, 2024. In parallel to the litigation before the CJEU against the Contested Decree, on August 23, 2023, France published a proposal for a new decree replacing the Contested Decree (the “New Decree”). The New Decree removed some of the Contested Decree’s most open-ended language, but essentially maintained the prohibition on meaty names for plant-based proteins. The New Decree was subject to administrative review procedure by the European Commission (the EU’s executive body) and the EU member states other than France. The six-months standstill period under that procedure ended on February 23, 2024. We supported plant-based protein trade associations against the New Decree. On February 26, 2024, the New Decree was adopted. However, on April 10, 2024, the French High Administrative Court decided once again to postpone the applicability of the New Decree. The interim relief judge noted that there were serious doubts as to whether such national measures could be adopted based on EU law, which had already prompted the CJEU litigation. In this context, on March 1, 2024, the CJEU requested the French High Administrative Court to provide its view on the impact of the adoption of the New Decree on the litigation against the Contested Decree, and whether it should be declared moot or it should be allowed to proceed. On March 14, 2024, the French High Administrative Court responded to the CJEU's request for information asking it to rule in the proceedings. On 97 Table of Contents April 15, 2024, the CJEU decided that the litigation against the Contested Decree would proceed, and that an oral hearing was not necessary. On October 4, 2024, the CJEU rendered its judgment. The judgment of the CJEU determined that the manner in which the Contested Decree seeks to ban meat names for plant-based foods is unlawful under EU law. It sets a precedent on the extent to which EU member states may regulate the naming of plant-based foods at the national level in the absence of harmonization at the EU level. In its judgment, the CJEU also ruled that “meat” is defined under EU law as “edible parts of certain animals.” We are taking the view that the CJEU’s interpretation only affects the use of the term in the sales denomination on the label and not the use of the term in marketing and advertising materials. Following the CJEU’s judgment, the case was referred to the French High Administrative Court, which, on January 28, 2025, annulled the Contested Decree and the New Decree. Beyond Meat has been reimbursed by the French State for legal costs incurred in challenging the Contested Decree, for a total of 3,000 euros. France was the first EU member state to adopt such a law, but others followed. On December 16, 2023, an Italian law prohibiting names to indicate foodstuffs of animal origin to describe, market or promote foodstuffs containing vegetable proteins (“Italian Law”) entered into force. The Italian Law requires the Ministry of Agriculture to adopt a decree with the names that may not be used to describe plant-based products by February 16, 2024. However, on January 29, 2024, the European Commission issued a formal letter informing the Italian government that the Italian Law was adopted in violation of EU law, and is thus not applicable or enforceable. On February 28, 2024, the Italian Minister for Agriculture confirmed that the adoption of an implementing decree is currently suspended. We are not aware of any steps taken by the Italian government to adopt the implementing decree, nor have the authorities attempted to enforce the Italian Law. The judgment of the CJEU concerning the French ban will likely affect the approach taken by Italy in the future. Separately, on December 5, 2023, Poland published a draft decree banning the use of meaty names to designate plant-based products. In June 2024, a Polish association of breeders requested that the Ministry of Agriculture advance the decree and regulate the use of meaty names. However, no further legislative steps have been taken with respect to the draft decree since March 2024. The judgment of the CJEU concerning the French ban will likely affect the approach taken by Poland in the future. The CJEU judgment has provided clarification on the ability of EU member states to adopt national legislation with respect to sales denominations for plant-based products in the absence of harmonization at the EU level. EU member states may reflect on the CJEU judgment and take a position on whether to adopt national measures. Such measures could affect our ability to use certain terms for our plant-based products in the future. Moreover, in light of the CJEU judgment, EU member state regulatory authorities may take action with respect to the use of the term “meat” or similar terms in advertising materials and other labeling (beyond the sales denomination), such that we are unable to use those terms with respect to our plant-based products, we could be subject to enforcement action or recall of our products marketed with these terms, we may be required to modify our marketing strategy, or required to identify our products as “imitation” in our product labels, and our business, prospects, results of operations or financial condition could be adversely affected. For instance, the Belgian Inspectorate of the Ministry of Economy has taken the view that the Belgian Royal Decree of March 8, 1985 on the manufacture and trade of fresh minced meat restricts certain denominations to meat-based products. Belgian authorities have initiated proceedings against a retailer in Belgium selling Beyond Meat products, challenging the use of terms such as “gehakt” (“mince”) and “burger” for plant-based alternatives. In March 2025, the case was under review by the Belgian Food Safety Agency. To date, no further procedural steps or decisions have been communicated by the competent authorities. While we believe we have a defendable position, as the Royal Decree does not specifically reserve these terms for meat-based products, we are monitoring the situation closely to assess any potential impact on product labeling and marketing. Moreover, the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority sent the New Plant a warning letter indicating that the use of the term “gehakt” (“mince”) contravened the Dutch Commodities Act on Meat, Minced Meat and Meat Products. While we believe we have a defendable position, we have chosen to amend our labelling voluntarily going forward. 98 Table of Contents On July 16, 2025, the European Commission published a Proposal for a Regulation to amend Annex VII of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, which governs the common organization of the markets in agricultural products. The Proposal aims to introduce a new Part Ia to Annex VII, titled “Meat and Meat Product Designations”, defining “meat” as the “edible parts of an animal” and restricting the use of “meat products” along with several related terms exclusively to products derived from meat of animal origin. Under the current draft, these restrictions would apply not only to the name of the product but also at “all stages of marketing”. On June 10, 2026, the rapporteur for the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development published a draft report recommending the deletion of the proposed Part Ia, following the adoption of meat-designation rules through the separate legislative process described below. However, the legislative debate remains ongoing, and amendments have reportedly been proposed seeking to reinstate the meat designation provisions and extend the restrictions to additional terms, including “burger” and “sausage”, which are not reserved under Regulation (EU) 2026/1739. In October 2025, the European Parliament adopted a more restrictive amendment that introduces similar restrictions on the use of “meaty” names, but through a separate legislative proposal that is further along in the legislative process than the Commission’s Proposal of July 2025. Following the Parliament’s vote, the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council of the European Union entered informal trilogue negotiations to agree on a common text. Reportedly, during the last trilogue meeting held on March 5, 2026, the EU Institutions reached a provisional political agreement on a draft text that would reserve a list of approximately 31 terms, including “meat,” “chicken,” “steak,” and “bacon” for products of animal origin. Conversely, certain terms such as “burger” and “sausage” were not included among the reserved terms. On March 19, 2026, the Council of the European Union published the text of the provisional agreement. On June 16, 2026, the European Parliament adopted the text as its first reading position, and the Council formally adopted it on June 29, 2026. On July 29, 2026, the Regulation was published in the Official Journal of the European Union as Regulation (EU) 2026/1739 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 July 2026 amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013, (EU) 2021/2115 and (EU) 2021/2116 as regards the strengthening of the position of farmers in the food supply chain. The provisions concerning meat designations will apply after a three-year transition period following the Regulation's entry into force. Developments have also occurred outside the EU. On May 2, 2025, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal brought by the Federal Department of Home Affairs concerning the use of certain meaty names for plant-based alternatives. According to the publicly available outcome and core reasoning, the court ruled that the use of the term “chicken” (“poulet”) for a plant-based product that does not contain any meat is misleading and, therefore, prohibited under Swiss law. In doing so, the court seems to confirm the position of the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office, as previously outlined in Information Letter 2020/3.1, which also prohibited the use of certain animal species names for plant-based products. Further, South Africa recently adopted Regulations relating to Meat Analogues, which also impose restrictions on the use of certain terms for plant-based products. Any changes in, or changes in the interpretation of, applicable laws, regulations or policies of the FDA, state regulators or similar foreign regulatory authorities that relate to the marketing or sale of “ultraprocessed” foods or ingredients could adversely affect our business, prospects, results of operations or financial condition. The FDA, state regulators or similar foreign regulatory authorities, could take action regarding “ultraprocessed” foods or ingredients that could impact our ability to sell or market our products. For example, FDA has indicated that it intends to define the term “ultraprocessed food” and is considering imposing certain labeling requirements or restrictions for such foods. If our products fell within FDA’s definition, the products could be impacted by any such requirements or restrictions, which could affect our labeling and/or marketing. Certain states, such as California, have also considered defining “ultraprocessed food” through state legislation and requiring certain labeling information for such foods. If such legislation was enacted, it could further affect our labeling and/or marketing. 99 Table of Contents